Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, in a debate. I can only say that if the initial speech she made was 19 years ago, she must have started very young. I am sorry that circumstances prevent the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, being with us but, as I have said before in this House, the Government—and I personally—have tried to continue the road map that she set out for the treatment of women prisoners.
I am not sure that I am going to be entirely helpful to the Committee this evening, partly because, although I was certainly very happy that the YJB survived, I sometimes get a little worried that this House becomes obsessed with the solution to a problem being a commission, a committee, a tsar or some structure outside the problem. I am old fashioned enough to believe that the report to Parliament should come from the Minister and that the Minister should have responsibility. I also profoundly disagree with the disdain that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, frequently shows for the capacity of public servants to carry out responsible roles.
Lord Ramsbotham
I do not in any way disparage civil servants in what they are required to do. I simply point out that it is wrong to use civil servants for things that they are neither trained nor competent to do. That has been my concern all along. They have their place and I absolutely support them and welcome what they do in their own job.
Lord McNally
I am delighted to have that on the record. Their own job includes some of the issues that we are discussing tonight.
I go back to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould. I understand that my colleague—my noble friend Lady Northover—has visited the Brighton project to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, referred and that she firmly endorses the opinion that was expressed about its success. This point also goes back to the position and role of public servants—the people doing this tough job—and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, gave some graphic illustrations. I was also pleased that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, mentioned that the people working in our Prison Service do an amazing job in difficult circumstances. Good care and support from staff saves many lives, and many such instances go unreported. In any given month, prisons successfully keep safe approximately 1,500 prisoners who are assessed to be at particular risk of suicide or self-harm.
When people say, “You don’t have a women’s strategy”, I dispute that. I think that we do and perhaps we should shout louder about it. As has been mentioned, my honourable friend Crispin Blunt in the other place is the Minister with responsibility in this area. On 24 January he made a speech to the Corston funders, setting out a report on progress in this area. He set out the Government’s strategy for women offenders, which ensures that women will benefit in key areas such as mental health, drug recovery, tackling violence against women, troubled families, employment and women’s community services, reflecting the good work by the National Offender Management Service to implement many of the recommendations in the Corston report.
In that context, I am afraid that we do not believe that the amendment seeking a published women’s strategy is necessary. We also believe that, as I said, accountability for a women’s strategy should remain with Ministers. Perhaps they are better placed to influence policy across Government and we will ensure that other departments play their part too in supporting vulnerable women in the criminal justice system.
Lord McNally
“CHAPTER 7ARehabilitation of offendersEstablishment or alteration of rehabilitation periods
(1) The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 5(1)(b) and (d) (sentences excluded from rehabilitation) for “thirty months” substitute “forty eight months”.
(3) In the opening words of section 5(1A) (references to provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006) for “subsection (1)(d)” substitute “this section”.
(4) For section 5(2) to (11) (rehabilitation periods) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of this Act and subject to subsections (3) and (4), the rehabilitation period for a sentence is the period—
(a) beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed, and(b) ending at the time listed in the following Table in relation to that sentence:
Sentence | End of rehabilitation period for adult offenders | End of rehabilitation period for offenders under 18 at date of conviction |
|---|---|---|
A custodial sentence of more than 30 months and up to, or consisting of, 48 months | The end of the period of 7 years beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 42 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
A custodial sentence of more than 6 months and up to, or consisting of, 30 months | The end of the period of 48 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
A custodial sentence of 6 months or less | The end of the period of 24 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed | The end of the period of 18 months beginning with the day on which the sentence (including any licence period) is completed |
Removal from Her Majesty’s service | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed |
A sentence of service detention | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which the sentence is completed |
A fine | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the date of the conviction in respect of which the sentence is imposed |
A compensation order | The date on which the payment is made in full | The date on which the payment is made in full |
A community or youth rehabilitation order | The end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect | The end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect |
A relevant order | The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect | The day provided for by or under the order as the last day on which the order is to have effect |
(4) There is no rehabilitation period for—
(a) an order discharging a person absolutely for an offence, or(b) any other sentence in respect of a conviction where the sentence is not dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),and, in such cases, references in this Act to any rehabilitation period are to be read as if the period of time were nil.(5) See also—
(a) section 8AA (protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution), and(b) Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions).(6) The Secretary of State may by order amend column 2 or 3 of the Table or the number of months for the time being specified in subsection (3).
(7) For the purposes of this section—
(a) consecutive terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences are to be treated as a single term,(b) terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences which are wholly or partly concurrent (that is terms of imprisonment or other custodial sentences imposed in respect of offences of which a person was convicted in the same proceedings) are to be treated as a single term,(c) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation, made by a court dealing with a person in respect of a suspended sentence of imprisonment, of the term originally imposed,(d) no account is to be taken of any subsequent variation of the day originally provided for by or under an order as the last day on which the order is to have effect,(e) no account is to be taken of any detention or supervision ordered by a court under section 104(3) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,(f) a sentence imposed by a court outside England and Wales is to be treated as the sentence mentioned in this section to which it most closely corresponds.(8) In this section—
“community or youth rehabilitation order” means—
(a) a community order under section 177 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,(b) a service community order or overseas community order under the Armed Forces Act 2006,(c) a youth rehabilitation order under Part 1 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, or(d) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c),“custodial sentence” means—
(a) a sentence of imprisonment,(b) a sentence of detention in a young offender institution,(c) a sentence of Borstal training,(d) a sentence of youth custody,(e) a sentence of corrective training, (f) a sentence of detention under section 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or section 209 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(g) a detention and training order under section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 or an order under section 211 of the Armed Forces Act 2006,(h) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (f) or (g),“earlier statutory order” means—
(a) an order under section 54 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 committing the person convicted to custody in a remand home,(b) an approved school order under section 57 of that Act, or(c) any order of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by an order mentioned in any of paragraphs (c) to (e) of the definition of “relevant order” or in paragraph (a) or (b) above,“relevant order” means—
(a) an order discharging a person conditionally for an offence,(b) an order binding a person over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour,(c) an order under section 1(2A) of the Street Offences Act 1959,(d) a hospital order under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (with or without a restriction order),(e) a referral order under section 16 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,(f) an earlier statutory order, or(g) any order which imposes a disqualification, disability, prohibition or other penalty and is not otherwise dealt with in the Table or under subsection (3),but does not include a reparation order under section 73 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000,“removal from Her Majesty’s service” means a sentence of dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty’s service, a sentence of dismissal from Her Majesty’s service or a sentence of cashiering or discharge with ignominy,
“sentence of imprisonment” includes a sentence of penal servitude (and “term of imprisonment” is to be read accordingly),
“sentence of service detention” means—
(a) a sentence of service detention (within the meaning given by section 374 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or a sentence of detention corresponding to such a sentence, in respect of a conviction in service disciplinary proceedings, or(b) any sentence of a kind superseded (whether directly or indirectly) by a sentence mentioned in paragraph (a).”(5) In section 6 (subsequent convictions to extend the rehabilitation period applicable to a conviction)—
(a) in subsection (5) (exception to rule for certain orders imposing disqualifications etc.) for “in accordance with section 5(8) above” substitute “by virtue of paragraph (g) of the definition of “relevant order” in section 5(8) above”, and(b) omit subsection (6) (other exceptions to the rule).(6) After section 8A (protection afforded to spent cautions) insert—
“8AA Protection afforded to spent alternatives to prosecution
(1) The following provisions of this Act apply, with the modifications specified in subsection (3), to a spent alternative to prosecution as they apply to a spent caution—
(a) section 9A (unauthorised disclosure of spent cautions), and(b) paragraphs 2 to 6 of Schedule 2 (protection relating to spent cautions and ancillary circumstances). (2) An alternative to prosecution becomes spent for the purposes of this Act when it becomes spent under the law of Scotland.
(3) The modifications mentioned in subsection (1) are—
(a) references to cautions are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution (and references to cautioned are to be read accordingly),(b) references to the offence which was the subject of the caution are to be read as references to the offence in respect of which the alternative to prosecution was given,(c) paragraphs (e) and (f) of paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 2 are to be read as if they were—“(e) anything done or undergone in pursuance of the terms of the alternative to prosecution,”,(d) references to cautions for an offence are to be read as references to alternatives to prosecution in respect of an offence, and(e) the reference in paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the rehabilitation period applicable to the caution is to be read as a reference to the time at which the alternative to prosecution becomes spent.(4) In this section “alternative to prosecution” has the same meaning as in section 8B as that section has effect in the law of Scotland but disregarding subsection (1)(f) of that section.”
(7) In paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 (protection for spent cautions)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1)(a) (when conditional cautions to be regarded as spent cautions) for “, at the end of the relevant period for the caution;” substitute “—(i) at the end of the period of three months from the date on which the caution is given, or(ii) if earlier, when the caution ceases to have effect; and”, and(b) omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) (meaning of “the relevant period for the caution”).”
Lord McNally
My Lords, we now turn to a group of amendments which include the reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. The primary purpose of the Act is to support the effective rehabilitation of ex-offenders. It seeks to support routes into employment while maintaining an appropriate balance towards public protection. It does this by allowing ex-offenders who have stayed on the right side of the law for a certain period not to have to reveal their previous convictions. At the same time, the exceptions order to the Act entitles employers in certain areas of work such as work with children and vulnerable adults, or in certain sensitive financial or legal positions, to see information about spent convictions.
I have received today a letter from Mr Nick Starling, the director of general insurance at the Association of British Insurers, raising some concerns that it had about our proposals. He says in the letter that he would like to meet me to discuss the issues that he raises. I am certainly very happy to do that before Report.
The Act, therefore, is intended to balance public protection with efforts to rehabilitate offenders. However, it has not been reformed since it was introduced 38 years ago. Sentencing practice has become more punitive, but the scope of the Act and the rehabilitation periods have stayed the same. We also aware that studies have shown a positive association between employment and a reduced risk of reoffending. In considering reform, we have considered the responses to the government Green Paper Breaking the Cycle: Effective Punishment, Rehabilitation and Sentencing of Offenders, and wider support for change from organisations that work with ex-offenders. In that respect, I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Dholakia, who has worked tirelessly over the years to reform the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
Amendment 185F extends the scope of the Act to include custodial sentences of up to and including four years in length. Sentences more than four years in length will never become spent. We believe that this approach is a sensible and balanced one that extends the scope of the Act but recognises the seriousness of offences attracting custodial sentences of more than four years. Many more reformed offenders will have improved employment prospects, while public protection is maintained.
We are also shortening the rehabilitation periods that apply. Evidence shows that offenders are most at risk of reoffending during the first 24 months after they are released from custody. These new periods take greater account of this evidence so that they are more proportionate to the period of risk of reoffending. However, offenders will still be required to show over an extended period in the community that they can remain free of convictions before being considered rehabilitated. The rehabilitation period for community orders will also be directly linked to the length of the order itself. An offender will first have to complete the order and then remain conviction-free for an additional year.
The table contained in Amendment 185F lists the end date of the rehabilitation period for each sentence. For individuals who are under 18 when they are convicted, rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will continue to be halved in relation to adults, with the exception of one. It is necessary to have an additional period of 18 months to apply at the end of custodial sentences of less than six months for juveniles, otherwise, for example, a six-month custodial sentence would become spent before an 18-month community order. It is important that we maintain the requisite balance in dealing with the hierarchy of sentences.
There is significant confusion around what happens when an offender commits a further offence when they are still subject to a rehabilitation period for another. Different rules apply to different types of offences—whether summary only, either way or indictable only—resulting in individuals either not revealing what they should, or revealing too much.
Subsection (5) of the new clause proposed by Amendment 185F, therefore, will introduce a single rule when an offender commits a further offence. All rehabilitation periods applicable at any given time will remain for the duration of the longest rehabilitation period. This reflects the fact that a prolific offender should be required to prove that he has truly put his life of crime behind him before he benefits from the protections of the ROA.
Amendment 185G inserts a new clause into the Bill that exempts immigration decisions from the effect of the ROA. Information about an individual’s character and conduct are essential to establishing if an individual should be given permission to enter or remain in the UK, including being granted British citizenship. This amendment means that both spent and unspent convictions can be considered when making these assessments. This will allow the UK Border Agency the appropriate level of discretion in its decision-making.
Amendment 187ZA introduces a schedule that preserves the position in Scotland as the ROA is a devolved matter. These amendments, other than the immigration and nationality exemption, apply to England and Wales only. The Scottish Government are aware of these reforms and are keeping their legislation under review.
I turn now to Amendments 185FA, 185FB, 185FC and 185FD, in the name of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. Amendment 185FA would extend the scope of the Act so that custodial sentences of up to and including 10 years could become spent. This amendment would, we believe, tip the balance too far away from public protection.
When the Act was first introduced, some 10 per cent of offenders sentenced at the Crown Court were excluded from it. Now that figure is more like 20 per cent. The government amendments increase the scope of the Act to four years, which would mean that around 93 per cent of adult offenders sentenced to custody in 2010 would fall broadly under the Act—a return to the position established in 1974. We do not believe that going beyond that is appropriate given the seriousness of offences that would attract sentences of over four years.
Amendments 185FB to 185FD would see sentences of between 30 months and four years attract a rehabilitation period of four years from the end of sentence, in line with sentences of between six and 30 months. The government amendment proposes a period of seven years from the end of sentence. This recognises that, as offending behaviour gets more serious, it should be treated more seriously. Serious offenders should have to prove for a longer period of time that they are no longer at risk of reoffending before they can benefit from having their conviction spent. If we are to get the balance right towards properly protecting the public, then I believe that this is the right approach.
The final amendment, supported also by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Carlile, would mean that any offender convicted under the age of 18 would, upon turning 18, have their conviction spent provided they had completed their sentence. The Government recognise that younger people have a greater capacity to reform and change. For that reason, we propose that, for young offenders, the rehabilitation periods that run beyond the end of sentence will in most cases be half that of adults. We believe that is the right approach. We must remember that many disposals for young offenders are spent immediately or on completion of the relevant order. It is the more serious penalties that carry rehabilitation periods beyond the end of sentence. These reflect the period when the risk of reoffending is at its highest.
The Government consider that it is important that offenders of any age should be able to show that they have put their offending behaviour behind them before their convictions meriting serious disposals can become spent. However, under the proposed amendment, the older the young offender, the sooner the conviction would become spent. That does not seem to us to be right, nor does it reflect reoffending evidence.
I have no objections to my noble friends pressing me to go further on these matters, but politics is the art of the possible. I hope I can persuade my noble friends not only not to press their amendments but to go further and recognise and support our amendments as a significant step in supporting the rehabilitation of offenders. Together with the wider reforms aimed at tackling reoffending in this Bill, they will help deliver the right balance between public protection and the freedom for a person to put their past behind them. This will in turn contribute to a reduced level of reoffending through getting offenders into work. I beg to move.
Amendment 185FA (as an amendment to Amendment 185F)
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, briefly, I support the government amendments that have been tabled and echo the many warm things that have been said about the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his persistence in pursuing this matter.
I merely mention that in 2001 I was invited to inspect the young offender institutions in the Caribbean. In Barbados, I found a system in which, at the age of 18, every child automatically had their convictions looked at and the slate wiped clean of all except those that it was deemed in a schedule should be carried forward. I brought that information back and fed it into the team studying Breaking the Circle at that time. Given all the points that have been made by the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Thomas, it seemed particularly important that this should apply to young offenders so that they were not hampered, particularly in their further education, by crimes that they had committed as children.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in introducing this series of amendments, I covered our responses to the questions. Perhaps I should repeat that politics is the art of the possible. My noble friend Lord Dholakia prayed in aid the 2002 report Breaking the Circle. The difference between that and this Government’s consultation, Breaking the Cycle, is that Breaking the Circle did nothing, while we brought in Breaking the Cycle through an amendment. I have tried to find out from my researchers whether it was the Labour Government of 1974 or Ted Heath’s Government, who went out of office that year, who brought in the original Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Perhaps that shows what has happened to the attitude towards penal reform in that it has taken 37 years to reform that Act. Successive Governments have ducked this issue. I am proud that this Government have taken the decision to amend that Act. We will monitor the effectiveness of the Act and the impact these changes have on offenders and their ability to secure employment.
As I said in my opening remarks, I have no objections to campaigners continuing to campaign but when a Government tackle an issue that has been ducked for 37 years, they are entitled to a little of the credit.
Lord McNally
“No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
Before section 57 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (and after the italic cross-heading before that section) insert—“56A No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes
(1) Section 4(1), (2) and (3) of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (effect of rehabilitation) do not apply—
(a) in relation to any proceedings in respect of a relevant immigration decision or a relevant nationality decision, or(b) otherwise for the purposes of, or in connection with, any such decision.(2) In this section—
“immigration officer” means a person appointed by the Secretary of State as an immigration officer under paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971,
“relevant immigration decision” means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State or an immigration officer under or by virtue of the Immigration Acts, or rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 (immigration rules), in relation to the entitlement of a person to enter or remain in the United Kingdom (including, in particular, the removal of a person from the United Kingdom, whether by deportation or otherwise),
“relevant nationality decision” means any decision, or proposed decision, of the Secretary of State under or by virtue of—
(a) the British Nationality Act 1981,(b) the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1990, or(c) the Hong Kong (War Wives and Widows) Act 1996,in relation to the good character of a person.(3) The references in subsection (2) to the Immigration Acts and to the Acts listed in the definition of “relevant nationality decision” include references to any provision made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, or of EU law, which relates to the subject matter of the Act concerned.””
Lord Bach
My Lords, knife crime has been a scourge on communities throughout Britain. I think my party, when in government, did quite a lot to tackle this appalling problem and yet it persists. Of course, some would say that the answer is to deal with the causes of such crime, particularly where young people are concerned. Yet the Government say that the answer is to create a new crime that is entirely covered, as the noble and learned Lord has just made abundantly clear, by existing crimes. For my part, I cannot see any logic behind it at all. Frankly, someone who uses a bladed weapon to threaten another person is guilty of a very serious criminal act, but that act is covered by existing statute law. More than that, there is guidance on sentencing and, of course, there is case law.
For our part, we will not be drawn tonight into the game that we fear the Government are playing with this legislation. It is legislative public relations, no more and no less. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made so well by the two previous speakers. I wonder whether he is as proud of this piece of legislation as he was of the last piece of legislation concerning rehabilitation of offenders. I rather feel that he is not.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we believe that currently there is no offence that specifically targets the behaviour covered by this clause; namely, the most serious of threatening behaviour where people carrying a knife or an offensive weapon use it to threaten and cause,
“immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”.
We believe that we are sending a clear message to those who behave in that way that they cannot expect leniency.
I understand, and very much respect, where my noble friend Lady Linklater is coming from. I want to make two points, one of which I have made before to the noble Lord—I am always tempted to say “my noble friend”—Lord Judd, who I am glad to see in his place. I make them to the noble Baroness as well. I understand that these under 18 year-olds, these children, may have various and complex difficulties in their personal lives. I did not. I was brought up on an ICI estate, where there were children who had difficult and complex lives but they did not adopt crime or violence. My simple point is that even children have choices and many do not adopt a path of violence.
I speak as the parent of three young children who have just come through their late teens. I know the fear in the hearts of parents of teenagers who go out on a Friday or Saturday night. The fear is always there that one piece of bad luck, one act of disrespect, will end up in their child being severely injured or perhaps even killed by someone carrying a knife. We are addressing that fear. All speakers have acknowledged that knife crime is a serious problem. I am as pleased as anyone that there has been some decrease in knife crime, but I do not think that it does any harm, particularly in the 16 to 17 year-old age group, to do a little bit of public relations and to send out a message that it is not fashionable—it might even be plain stupid—to carry a knife, to brandish it and to threaten people with it. I do not belittle any of the examples that have been given of people who deal with the problems of violence in our society but, in putting forward this law, we are addressing a real issue and making it clear that knife crime is unacceptable. It is not the first example of a minimum sentence. Nor is it the first example of a minimum sentence for 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a minimum sentence of three years for certain firearms offences committed by 16 and 17 year-olds. That measure was brought in by the previous Labour Government in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
The Government believe that it is right to have minimum sentences specified in law where a certain offence warrants a strong and clear message that a certain type of behaviour will not be tolerated in a decent and law-abiding society. That is why we are legislating for the courts to be able to apply a minimum custodial sentence of four months' detention and training for 16 and 17 year-olds. However, as was pointed out, the legislation builds in discretion concerning the welfare of the offender, which is sensible. The amendments tabled by my noble friends would remove the minimum sentence not only for 16 and 17 year-olds but for adults. The Government cannot accept them. They would undermine our firm intention to stamp out these crimes. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone
My Lords, I listened with interest and not a great deal of surprise to what my noble friend said. We talked about fear and fashion, and I will reiterate that anybody who works with young people knows that the predominant cause is fear. We need to address why these things happen. It is not at all likely that having such a new sentence on the statute book will do anything to deter young people. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said, what we do and say in this House will not percolate down, or mean very much, to a 16 or 17 year- old. However, taking account of the hour—I am about to catch my sleeper to Scotland—I will certainly not pursue the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential provisionPart 1Rehabilitation of Offenders: generalRehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: England and Wales1 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
2 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
3 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
4 Omit section 3 (special provision with respect to certain disposals by children’s hearings under the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968).
5 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
6 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
(3) In subsection (3) for “Great Britain” substitute “England and Wales”.
7 Omit section 8(8) (defamation actions: application of section to Scotland).
8 In section 8A(2)(d) (definition of “caution”) after “Wales” insert “and which is not an alternative to prosecution (within the meaning of section 8AA)”.
9 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) omit “(or, in Scotland, the accused person)”.
(3) In subsection (8) omit “, in England and Wales,”.
10 After section 10(1) (orders) insert—
“(1A) Any power of the Secretary of State to make an order under any provision of this Act includes power—
(a) to make different provision for different purposes, and(b) to make incidental, consequential, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(1B) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under section 5(6) includes power to make consequential provision which amends or repeals any provision of this Act or any other enactment.”
11 Omit Schedule 1 (service disciplinary convictions referred to in section 6(6)(bb) of that Act).
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974: Scotland12 The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 is amended as follows.
13 In section 1(4)(a) (references in Act to a conviction) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
14 In section 2(5) (rehabilitation of persons dealt with in service disciplinary proceedings) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
15 In section 4(1)(a) (effect of rehabilitation) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
16 (1) Section 7 (limitations on rehabilitation under the Act) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (2)(a) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
(3) In subsection (3) for “Great Britain” substitute “Scotland”.
17 (1) Section 9 (unauthorised disclosure of spent convictions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) for “defendant (or, in Scotland, the accused person)” substitute “accused person”.
(3) Omit subsection (8).
Part 2Rehabilitation of Offenders: consequential repeals
Short title | Extent of repeal |
|---|---|
Armed Forces Act 1976 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 21. |
Criminal Law Act 1977 | In section 63(2), the words “Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974;”. |
In Schedule 12, the entry relating to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974. | |
Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980 | In Schedule 7, paragraph 134. |
Armed Forces Act 1981 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 2(2). |
Criminal Justice Act 1982 | In Schedule 14, paragraph 37. |
Mental Health (Amendment) Act 1982 | In Schedule 3, paragraph 49. |
Mental Health Act 1983 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 39. |
Criminal Justice Act 1988 | In Schedule 8, paragraph 9(b). |
Children Act 1989 | In Schedule 14, paragraph 36(7). |
Criminal Justice Act 1991 | In section 68, paragraph (c) (but not the word “and” at the end of the paragraph). |
In Schedule 8, paragraph 5. | |
In Schedule 12, paragraph 22(2). | |
Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 11. |
In Schedule 10, paragraph 30. | |
Armed Forces Act 1996 | Section 13(3) and (4). |
Schedule 4. | |
Crime and Disorder Act 1998 | In Schedule 8, paragraph 35. |
Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 | In Schedule 4, paragraph 6. |
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 | In Schedule 9, paragraph 48(3) to (10). |
In Schedule 11, paragraph 13. | |
Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 | In Schedule 7, paragraph 49. |
Criminal Justice Act 2003 | In Part 1 of Schedule 32, paragraph 18(3). |
Armed Forces Act 2006 | In Schedule 16, paragraphs 65(4) to (8) and 66. |
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 | In Part 1 of Schedule 4, paragraph 21. |
In Schedule 10, paragraphs 2 and 5. | |
Policing and Crime Act 2009 | Section 18(2).” |
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, the point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying somebody else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish them.
Lord McNally
Oh! I have jumped a group. Sorry. I hope I did not shock my noble friend Lady Miller.
Amendments 187B, 187C and 187D are being made consequential to the application of a minimum custodial sentence of a four-month detention and training order to 16 and 17 year-olds convicted of offences of threatening another person with a bladed article or weapon causing risk of serious physical harm. Amendments 187B and 187C amend references in the insertion to Section 100 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. These amendments are consequential to the debate we have just had and form part of the new offences in Clause 128. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
Lord Bach
My Lords, the Committee owes a debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having brought this difficult subject to our attention. It is not her fault that we are discussing it in the watches of the night and she has no need to apologise for taking the time of the Committee in explaining her point of view. As she said, the provision on squatting was introduced in another place with very little opportunity for scrutiny even on Report. The debate was pretty short. So this represents the first chance, and I hope not the last, for Parliament to get its teeth into these proposals.
Prima facie, the new criminal offence will demonise the absolute poorest, those with mental health issues and those who, frankly, have no other option than to shelter in properties that are, for the most part, unfit for habitation. Of course, we take the view, as does everyone else of sensible mind, that lifestyle squatting is quite beyond the pale and absolutely unacceptable—we oppose it as a principle as much as anyone else.
However, there is a big difference, as the noble Baroness demonstrated, between those few who jump carelessly into properties owned by others with the intent of abusing—severely abusing in some cases—the rights of ownership and those who have no other option unless they want to live on the streets. Anyone who lives in central London, for example, knows that the number of people living on the streets is going up as we speak. A large number of those people have no doubt, from time to time, “squatted” in the terms of what will become this legislation.
Our media, of course, are quite happy to remind us of the instances of outrageous behaviour by lifestyle squatters, but they are curiously quiet when it comes to telling us about, for example, a veteran with severe post-traumatic stress disorder who is addicted to drugs and alcohol and shelters in a property riddled with asbestos. Is he the sort of squatter whom the Government are out to get?
Squatting for the main part is already illegal and, in most instances, criminal, too. The Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it a criminal offence for any person to leave premises when required to do so by “a displaced residential occupier” or “protected intended occupier” of the premises. Parts 55.1 and 55.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules allow for owners to evict someone in a residence they do not occupy. Moreover, an interim possession order, backed up by powers in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, means that a criminal offence is committed if an individual does not leave within 24 hours of such an expedited order being granted. So given that all homeowners are protected by the criminal law, unless their property has lain empty for a substantial period and no one is imminently moving in, where does this need for reform of the law lie?
Perhaps a hint came in the signature leaks to the media. A series of reports leading up to the unveiling of this government policy focused on the very sad case of Dr Oliver Cockerell and his pregnant wife who, the ministry briefed, were thrown out of their house by squatters. However, in that case, it emerged that the police, for once, had wrongly stated that the case of the doctor and his wife was a civil issue and not one for them. In fact, as Mr Cockerell and his wife were protected intended occupiers, it is more than arguable that the police should have intervened under the current law. Their failure to do so was not atypical and the position does not require the kind of legislative, heavy-boots intervention that the Government intend.
The Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill that we are debating tonight both deal in parts with impecunious and very vulnerable people. The two Bills together will increase the number of people who have to resort to living in condemned housing out of desperation. We know, thanks to social welfare researchers, that there is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction among those who are homeless. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment, referred to in passing by the noble Baroness, tells us who is forced to squat. It said:
“Local authorities and homelessness … charities may face increased pressure on their services if more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred from squatting. Local authorities may be required to provide alternative accommodation for these individuals and could also face costs related to increases in rough sleeping in their areas. An increase in demand for charities’ services”—
food or shelter—
“may negatively impact current charity service users”.
It goes on:
“There may also be a cost to society if this option is perceived to be unfair and/or leads to increases in rough sleeping”.
When the costs are identified, as the noble Baroness said, they are reasonably substantial.
We do not believe that the Government have a clue how many people actually squat. The reason for bringing in this new piece of criminal legislation is pure populism. It is demonisation of the poor by another method. We had concerns and said so on Report in another place. Those have been reinforced, frankly, by the way in which the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill have been carried through by the Government. We have heard much more about opposition to the plans as they now stand.
I am not saying that we agree precisely with the amendment of the noble Baroness. It may be that six months is too little. I hope that when she withdraws her amendment tonight and there is time between now and Report there will be some discussion as to what the right amount of time should be and whether the wording is appropriate.
However, if the noble Baroness were to bring back her amendment in a different form, perhaps with a longer period of time, we would be sorely tempted to support it on Report. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in her brief intervention. We were criticised incredibly strongly and sometimes with justification for bringing in too many new criminal offences by just those people who are bringing them in now. This debate and the previous one introduced two new criminal offences that are frankly not needed. What is the explanation for that?
It is very telling that the Metropolitan Police, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are natural friends of the squatting community, all think that bringing this particular legislation is completely unnecessary. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's justification for it.
Lord McNally
My Lords, beware the caveat about being sorely tempted to support the amendment. We will wait until Report to see how sorely tempted the noble Lord is. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that this is a knotty and difficult problem, and so it is, but let me put it simply; the Government believe that the criminal law can and should go further to protect homeowners and occupiers. There should be a specific criminal offence that protects people from those who squat in their residential buildings.
Many residential property owners have described the anguish that they experience when discovering that squatters have occupied their properties. I say to my noble friend that local authorities too have expressed concern about this problem. The huge expense and incredible hassle of getting squatters evicted has been described.
The Government believe the harm that can be caused by squatters is unacceptable and must be stopped. The new offence would be committed where a person is in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as such, knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser and is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.
The whole point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying someone else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish, sell or let the property.
Lord McNally
“( ) In section 17 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (entry for purpose of arrest etc)—
(a) in subsection (1)(c), after sub-paragraph (v) insert—“(vi) section 130 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (squatting in a residential building);”;(b) in subsection (3), for “or (iv)” substitute “, (iv) or (vi)”.( ) In Schedule 10 to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (consequential amendments), omit paragraph 53(b).”
Lord McNally
My Lords, these are consequential amendments to debates that we have already had. Clause 130 creates a new offence of squatting in residential buildings, and I will explain the consequential amendment needed there. Rather oddly in the same grouping, Amendment 188B contains the transitional provisions for Clause 131, which deals with reasonable force for the purpose of self-defence. Amendment 188A amends the provision in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to ensure that the police have the necessary powers to enter and search a residential building for the purpose of arresting someone for the new squatting offence.
Such an amendment is necessary because the offence that we are creating is summary only, which means that it can be tried only in the magistrates’ court. PACE does not normally provide the police with the powers to enter and search premises for a summary-only offence, unless a specific provision is included in Section 17(1)(c) of PACE. This amendment adds this specific provision to PACE.
The amendment to Clause 131 regarding self-defence makes transitional provision in relation to the amendments made to Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The amendment will ensure that the amendments that we are making to that section can be applied retrospectively where appropriate, making matters simpler for the courts. The amendment to Clause 135 is minor and technical. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
“( ) Paragraph 27 of Schedule 27 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (which provides for section 76 of that Act to apply whenever the alleged offence took place, but not in relation to certain proceedings if they began, or the arraignment took place, before that section comes into force) applies to any amendment made by this section to section 76 of that Act as it applies to that section, but as if references to the date on which that section comes into force were references to the date on which the amendment comes into force.”
Lord McNally
“( ) sections (No rehabilitation for certain immigration or nationality purposes) and (Transitional and consequential provision: Chapter 7A),”
Lord McNally
It was decided that this was more descriptive of what the Bill was intended to do. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, late yesterday, I tabled Amendment 198, which added to the Long Title,
“to make provision about the rehabilitation of offenders”.
It is probably the only criticism that I would make of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but I sometimes think that—rather like his desire for committees in the structures we were talking about yesterday—he gets obsessed with form rather than substance. The rehabilitation of offenders is in the Bill. What is more important, it is in the daily action of the Ministry of Justice. Ever since I became the Minister, every day I have emphasised the importance of rehabilitation, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave. It is a win-win. If you can rehabilitate, you save the public purse from having to put someone in prison again at a cost of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. You save future victims from the crimes that that person would have committed. Actually, it is a triple whammy, because if you can really rehabilitate, you get a taxpaying, constructive member of society. Everything that we have been doing, especially in Part 3 and the piloting programmes, is aimed to get effective rehabilitation.
I am very much impressed at the attention paid to my speeches at Liberal Democrat conferences. I shall take even more care over them in future. As for the rest, you will have to wait for my memoirs. I do not think that changing the Short Title at this stage of the process is helpful or will have an effect.
On what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said right at the end, this is an extra half day in Committee for the Bill. Perhaps if we all made a resolution to make shorter speeches, we would not find ourselves debating these issues at 23.33. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, has already outraged the protocol of this House by recognising people present beyond the Bar, but I do not think that he will be taken away to the Tower for that breach because it is good that Members of the House are aware that Jane’s parents are present to see us in action. I am afraid that the other night they had the experience of seeing the Lords in action that delayed this debate, but it is such an important matter for them, their family and the wider public that we have this debate today. I sincerely hope that within a few minutes they will see Jane’s law passed by this House.
Amendment 178ZZA creates a right of appeal for the prosecution against a Crown Court decision to grant bail. It does so by extending the existing powers in the Bail (Amendment) Act 1993, which currently provides for a right of appeal against bail granted by a magistrates’ court. That appeal is to the Crown Court. Under Amendment 178ZZA, the avenue of appeal against a Crown Court decision would be to the High Court.
As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, this is a matter that has been the subject of a campaign by Jane’s parents following the release on bail of Jonathan Vass by the Crown Court, despite representations from the Crown Prosecution Service. We considered this matter very carefully. We took account, on the one hand, of the fact that a right of appeal would necessarily impose an additional burden on the High Court. On the other hand, there was strong support for change in the other place, as we have heard, and the Director of Public Prosecutions has made it clear that he too is in favour of such a change in our law.
Our conclusion was that without calling into question the correctness of decisions made by Crown Court judges in the vast majority of cases, it is not right that such decisions should be beyond challenge. We are persuaded of the case for changing the law in order to ensure that victims and their families, and the public at large, are protected.
The effect of the provision will be that the decision to appeal must be made immediately, before the defendant has been released, and as the defendant would be held in custody pending the appeal, the appeal must be heard very quickly. Listing cases at such short notice before a High Court judge clearly has resource implications, and it is important that the right of appeal should be used sparingly. This will be recognised in the guidance that the Director of Public Prosecutions will issue to his staff, which will require a decision to appeal to be approved at a senior level.
The most notable difference between our Amendment 178ZZA and Amendment 178 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham—I am grateful that he intends to withdraw it—is that ours is shorter and does not permit an appeal against a decision by the Crown Court to grant bail where it was itself made on appeal from the grant of bail by a magistrates’ court. So if a defendant was granted bail by the magistrates, the prosecution appealed and the Crown Court granted bail, the prosecution would not be able to appeal further. This is to stop a continuing series of appeals on a matter that by then would have been considered by two courts. I therefore commend Amendments 178ZZA and 178ZZB to your Lordships' House.
It is my responsibility as the Minister to put on the record the technicalities; hence, some of my remarks may seem gobbledegook to those not in the Chamber. However, I can assure the House that what the Government are doing, supported by Her Majesty's Opposition and, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, made clear, supported firmly by the other place, is approving Jane’s law.
Lord McNally
““imprisonable offence” means an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment,”;
““sexual offence” means an offence specified in Part 2 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003,”;
““violent offence” means murder or an offence specified in Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003,””
Lord McNally
“(1) Section 3 (general provisions) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6ZAA), for “person),” substitute “person granted bail in criminal proceedings of the kind mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or (b)), section 3AAA (in the case of a child or young person granted bail in connection with extradition proceedings),”.
(3) In subsection (7)—”
Lord McNally
Lord Beecham
It would appear that I am in some danger of becoming a repeat offender when it comes to breaching protocol. I apologise to the House.
My only concern about the technical amendments in this group is the insertion in Amendment 178ZAZB of the word “accused” before the word “charged”. I appreciate that it is intended to correct what was described as an accidental gap in replicating earlier provisions, but it concerns me that we may apply electronic monitoring to people who have not been charged but merely accused of an offence in another jurisdiction. I wonder whether it is the right approach. Perhaps the noble Lord will want to think further on that. It strikes me as a little odd, in the same way as the previous matter we discussed struck me as odd. I may be entirely wrong but it seems to jar with the notion that a simple accusation would suffice to allow somebody to undergo electronic monitoring.
Lord McNally
My Lords, one of the uses of Committee is to allow noble Lords to scrutinise and to seek clarification. The noble Lord’s point is not covered in my notes. The amendments in this group are intended to be minor and technical. They set out a requirement for electronic monitoring in extradition cases that is consistent with its use under the Extradition Act 2003. Clause 88 is intended to create a test that is equivalent to that in Clause 87 which applies to young people who are charged with or convicted of an offence. “Accused” is the word used in the Extradition Act. If we did not change the wording of the Bill to match, we would create a lacuna whereby the courts would have only limited remand powers over an individual who was being extradited before being charged. I will clarify the noble Lord's point about the use of electronic tagging and write to him.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“(8A) A function of the Secretary of State under this section (other than the function of making regulations) is exercisable by the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales concurrently with the Secretary of State.
(8B) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (8A) is not to apply, either generally or in relation to a particular description of case.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“Regulations under this Chapter
(1) Regulations under this Chapter are to be made by statutory instrument.
(2) Regulations under this Chapter may—
(a) make different provision for different cases;(b) include supplementary, incidental, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this Chapter is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, subject to subsection (4).
(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 95(8B) or 96(10) (whether alone or with any other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
Lord McNally
“(5) In subsection (7), in the definition of “serious offence”, after “means” insert “(subject to subsection (8))”.
(6) After subsection (7) insert—
“(8) For the purposes of the application of this section to a person remanded on bail in connection with proceedings under the Extradition Act 2003—
(a) an offence is a “serious offence” if the conduct constituting the offence would, if committed in the United Kingdom, constitute an offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of two years or more, and(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) to a person being charged with a serious offence includes a reference to the person having been accused of such an offence.””
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“( ) In section 305(1A) (modification of reference to want of sufficient distress), inserted by paragraph 155 of Schedule 13 to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, for “In the definition of “sentence of imprisonment” in subsection (1) the reference” substitute “In this Part any reference”.”
Lord McNally
“Part 2Other amendmentsCriminal Appeal Act 1968 (c. 19)6 In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial), in paragraph 2(4), for “Sections 240” substitute “Sections 240ZA”.
Immigration Act 1971 (c. 77)7 In section 7 of the Immigration Act 1971 (exemption from deportation for certain existing residents), in subsection (4), after “section 240” insert “, 240ZA or 240A”.
Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)8 In section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed), in subsection (6)—
(a) omit “a direction under”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”;(c) in paragraph (b), before “section 240A” insert “a direction under”.Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)9 The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
10 In section 82A (determination of tariffs), in subsection (3)(b), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”.
11 In section 101 (term of detention and training order), in subsection (12A), for “the reference in subsection (2) of that section to section 240” substitute “the reference in subsection (2A) of that section to section 240ZA”.
12 In section 147A (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed), in subsection (6)—
(a) omit “a direction under”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “section 240” substitute “section 240ZA”;(c) in paragraph (b), before “section 240A” insert “a direction under”. International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17) 13 In Schedule 7 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (domestic provisions not applicable to ICC prisoners), in paragraph 2(1)(d), for “sections 240” substitute “sections 240ZA”.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53)1 In section 35A of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed)—
(a) in subsection (8), after “section” insert “243A(3)(a),”;(b) in subsection (9)(a), after “in respect of section” insert “243A(3)(a) or”.Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)2 In Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands), in paragraphs 8(2)(a) and 9(2)(a), after “sections 241,” insert “243A,”.
Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (c. 6)3 In section 147A of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (extension of disqualification where custodial sentence also imposed)—
(a) in subsection (8), after “section” insert “243A(3)(a),”;(b) in subsection (9)(a), after “in respect of section” insert “243A(3)(a) or”.International Criminal Court Act 2001 (c. 17)4 In Schedule 7 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (domestic provisions not applicable to ICC prisoners), in paragraph 3(1), for “sections 244” substitute “sections 243A”.”
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
“Replacement of transitory provisions
(1) Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (release on licence) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 237(1)(b) (“fixed-term prisoner” includes those serving sentence of detention)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(3) At the end of that section insert—
“(3) In this Chapter, references to a sentence of detention under section 96 of the Sentencing Act or section 227 of this Act are references to a sentence of detention in a young offender institution.”
(4) In section 244(3)(a) (duty to release prisoners: requisite custodial period), after “91” insert “or 96”.
(5) In section 250(4) (licence conditions)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(6) In section 258 (early release of fine defaulters and contemnors), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) The reference in subsection (3) to sentences of imprisonment includes sentences of detention under section 91 or 96 of the Sentencing Act or under section 227 or 228 of this Act.”
(7) In section 263(4) (concurrent terms)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(8) In section 264(7) (consecutive terms)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(9) In section 265(2) (restriction on consecutive sentences)—
(a) after “91” insert “or 96”;(b) before “228” insert “227 or”.(10) In Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (life sentences: release on licence)—
(a) in section 31A(5) (termination of licences), in the definition of “preventive sentence”, after “a sentence of imprisonment” insert “or detention in a young offender institution”;(b) in section 34(2)(d) (interpretation), after “a sentence of imprisonment” insert “or detention in a young offender institution”.(11) In the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Sentencing) (Transitory Provisions) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/643), article 3(7), (10), (11), (12), (13), (14), (15) and (17)(a) and (b) (transitory provision replaced by this section) are revoked.”
Lord McNally
“( ) Section (Replacement of transitory provisions) applies in relation to any person who falls to be released under Chapter 6, or (as the case may be) under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997, on or after the commencement date.”
Lord McNally
“Simplification of existing transitional provisions
(1) Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (“the 2003 Act”) is to apply to any person serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005 (whenever that sentence was or is imposed).
(2) Section 258 of the 2003 Act (release of fine defaulters and contemnors) is to apply to any person who was, before 4 April 2005, committed to prison or to be detained under section 108 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000—
(a) in default of payment of a sum adjudged to be paid by a conviction, or(b) for contempt of court or any kindred offence.(3) In accordance with subsections (1) and (2)—
(a) the repeal of Part 2 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which is made by section 303(a) of the 2003 Act has effect in relation to any person mentioned in those subsections;(b) paragraphs 15 to 18, 19(a), (c) and (d), 20, 22 to 28 and 30 to 34 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Commencement No. 8 and Transitional and Saving Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2005/950) (which relate to the coming into force of provisions of Chapter 6 of Part 12 of the 2003 Act) are revoked.(4) Section 86 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 (extension of periods in custody and on licence in the case of certain sexual offences) is repealed.
(5) Schedule (Amendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisions) (transitional and other provisions consequential on this section) has effect.
(6) Schedule (Criminal Justice Act 2003: restatement of transitional provisions) (amendments to the 2003 Act restating the effect of certain transitional and other provisions relating to the release and recall of prisoners) has effect.”
Lord Beecham
That is precisely my point. The amendment rightly envisages a duty to refer to the Parole Board, but on the face of it it looks as though there is a duty of release ab initio. That is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention—and I say this with great respect, because of course he is a very eminent and learned judge—but it might have assisted his case if it had been put in that way. That point in a sense echoes the point made by my noble friend Lord Borrie.
It is sensible to restore a situation in which a release after 30 years can be contemplated and, after due process, properly agreed. If the Parole Board adjudges that it is safe to release someone, that should be the Secretary of State’s duty at that point. In fact, relatively few people are serving these sentences—I think there are 40 prisoners, and that 20 have been sentenced in that way in the last 10 or 12 years as a result of their trial and the conditional decision at the time—so I think there is a way forward on this, with a slight modification of the way in which the amendment is phrased, and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it while clearly bearing in mind that there will be some prisoners for whom, in the end, there will be no hope of release. One hopes that there will not be many in that category, but there will be some, and that ought to be recognised from the outset.
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to the unanimity of view in the House during this debate. I sometimes think that perhaps a joint meeting of both Houses would be interesting when we discuss these issues. Nevertheless, this House has a long and proud history of providing a platform for penal reform, and it has certainly lived up to that reputation today.
I make one or two preliminary comments. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, referred to the campaign to abolish the death penalty. Like many in this House I am old enough to remember that campaign, and I remember that part of it, which swung many MPs, was the proposal that life would mean life. It has always been a problem area, particularly for those who have committed the most horrific crimes.
The story that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, told was very encouraging in that it told of someone’s capability do good, even after the most horrific crimes. However, that capacity to do some good would not convince me to release a dangerous person into the community—and it is that test that has to be passed. I would hope that even those who spent the rest of their lives in jail would find within their confinement a capability to do good.
I think that we will return to this theme on a number of occasions in the next hour or two, as various amendments come up. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, asked what sort of penal system and what sort of values we should have, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, called for courage. Courage is certainly needed, but so is a practical use of the art of the possible. Penal reform is always a balance between humane treatment of those who are in prison, concern for the victims of crime and the retention of public confidence in our system of justice. Unless we can convince the public of the elements of punishment and public protection within the system, we will not get their buy-in to rehabilitation, which as I have often said from these Benches is very much part of what I and the Lord Chancellor see as built into the system. However, unless we can carry colleagues and the public with us and retain public confidence, we will not get the kind of reform that we want. I freely acknowledge that carrying through some of these reforms is an exercise in the art of the possible in what will win the confidence of the other place and the public.
As the noble and learned Lord said in introducing his amendment, things were different some time ago. One good thing to my mind about recent reforms was that all tariffs are now judicially determined. I am one of those—and I share it in other cases as well—who thinks that we should rely on judicial judgment in these matters. The imposition of minimum terms and whole life orders is now a matter that is exclusively for the judicially. I was very interested in his views on the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. I tend to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that when the Court gets it right it does not get much coverage. I am sure that if it reverses its decision, it will be page 1 again. Nevertheless I was a little worried that both the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord seem to think that a majority verdict was somehow of less value. A verdict is a verdict, and a win is a win. I am sure that he has been on the winning side a few times in those circumstances—I knew I was tempting fate.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Yes, the Minister was tempting fate, but I am very grateful to him. We said that it was by the very slenderest of majorities because three judges decided one way, three judges decided the other way and the seventh judge decided with the majority on a reason that, at any rate, I simply cannot understand. It seemed to have nothing to do with the case. Anyway, we will know when it goes to the Grand Chamber.
Lord McNally
When I read the football results on a Saturday night and Blackpool have won four-three, I am not interested in whether the final goal was thought to be offside as long as it counted, but I am sure that is not a legal opinion.
As has been explained, the amendment provides for the possibility of a conditional release of a prisoner serving a life sentence with a whole life tariff once he or she has served 30 years. It would produce the odd effect that an offender who had committed the most exceptionally serious crimes could be considered for release earlier than a life sentence prisoner with a determinate minimum term of more than 30 years. The minimum term or tariff under a life sentence is the period which the court determines the offender has to spend in custody for the purpose of punishment and deterrence. In other words, it reflects the seriousness of the offence. Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 provides guidance to the courts on the determination of a minimum term for a life sentence imposed for murder. It provides for a whole life tariff to be the starting point for the most exceptionally serious cases, where the offender was aged 21 or over at the time the murder was committed.
The types of case that might attract the whole life tariff are: the murder of two or more persons where each murder involves a substantial degree of premeditated planning; the abduction of the victim or sexual or sadistic conduct; the murder of a child involving the abduction of the child or sexual or sadistic motivation; a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause; or a murder by an offender previously convicted of murder. Few would argue against these types of case representing crimes so heinous that the court may well consider the appropriate punishment to be that the offenders must be incarcerated for the rest of their lives. Those punishments are, as we would expect, rarely used. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to a figure; the actual figure is that 47 prisoners are now serving a whole life tariff.
We have already referred to the fact that the Government's position on this was upheld in the European Court of Human Rights. We will await the outcome of the appeal, but our position stands. Nevertheless, if a stage is reached where the continuing incarceration of a whole life tariff prisoner is found to be inhuman and degrading, for example where the person is terminally ill or severely incapacitated and poses no further risk, the Secretary of State has the power to release the prisoner on compassionate grounds.
The Government do not therefore consider that it is necessary or desirable to accept this amendment. The court will have taken full account of the circumstances of the offence and the offender in determining that the whole life term is appropriate. Such appalling cases are mercifully rare, but judges can legitimately find that lifelong incarceration is necessary as a punishment. If the detention of a whole life tariff prisoner could no longer be justified and became inhuman and degrading, there is already the mechanism allowing for his or her release. On those terms, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McNally
Some future Government may well bring forward a proposal along those lines. The judgment of the Government at the moment is that on a law that is safely in judges’ hands for determination, and that applies to a specific number of the most serious crimes, the position as it is now is best in retaining public confidence. It is a matter of political judgment, and the political judgment is that to move on this point, at this point, would not retain public confidence in a package in which we are trying to make moves in certain directions and carry colleagues who are not as enthusiastic as this House on some of these matters.
Lord Judd
In the last few minutes the Minister has encouraged me, because he has said that at some point it may be appropriate to introduce legislation that meets the arguments that are being put. It is not the first time that I have heard the noble Lord refer to the importance of holding public confidence, and we all understand that point, but it is not a matter of accepting as inevitable the existing state of public opinion. We have to be very careful that we are not, in effect, running scared of the sensationalist media. We really should be not only respecting public opinion and public confidence but helping to shape public confidence by putting forward the positive argument for change. That is essential to successful democracy. If we have become convinced that this is the right thing to do, we have to speak up for it.
Lord McNally
I entirely agree. That is why I said in my opening remarks that I am proud that this House has been the platform for penal reformers to argue their case over centuries, but I also say to this House that we have to carry another place and public opinion with us in these matters. One of the things I am most proud of is that this Government, and the Ministry of Justice under this Lord Chancellor, have been willing to try to educate public opinion. Some of the measures in this Bill will, I hope, move that forward, but no matter how much courage is used in expounding these views, if the result is for the public to lose confidence in the criminal justice system, those are Pyrrhic victories indeed.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Does the right honourable and learned gentleman—sorry, whatever you are.
Lord McNally
From William Wilberforce to Sydney Silverman campaigns have been fought, and fought successfully. I am sure that this debate will be repeated in debates on other amendments, but I can only make the point so many times that politics is the art of the possible. We believe that the package of reforms here carry forward some of the interests of some of the Members of this House. However, they must also recognise that wider public opinion—and wider political opinion—does not share all their ambitions at this moment. We are all involved in debate and political education, and I welcome this debate as a contribution to that, but I have to deal with political reality as well.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. The views of the House today could not really be more unanimous. It is clear that every single person who has spoken is in favour of this idea. I would like to mention them all but I shall mention particularly the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chichester, as he happens to be—
Lord McNally
I hate to intervene, especially in the middle of a tribute being paid to a Bishop, but I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would ponder my suggestion that a joint meeting of both Houses would produce such unanimity. The Members at the other end actually have to face the public in a way that this House does not.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
Indeed. In a sense, that is the only point that the Minister has made, to which the answer surely is that it is occasionally possible for the House of Lords to lead the way, to influence the other place and even to influence the public. If that were possible, this would be an opportunity to do it. I would like to mention particularly the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, with all her experience and knowledge of this subject, and the right reverend Prelate because he is my diocesan bishop and I feel therefore that I owe him that duty. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the Front Benches are occupied by somebody from the lowest levels of the legal profession and somebody who is even lower because, as we were told the other day, he has done only a short period of legal education. I do not know about the Minister, but I find myself oscillating between the very eloquent, articulate and lucid explanations of the various positions. I was totally persuaded by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd—until I heard the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. Then—with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blair—I was made to think more by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. On balance, I am grateful that I was not a member of a jury to be addressed by any of these three eminent lawyers because I am not sure we would have reached a verdict even now—at least I would not.
On balance, I am persuaded by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although I am concerned—as everyone in this House should be—at the very disturbing statistic that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, adduced about the number of people held on life sentences in this country being greater than that for the whole of the rest of Europe. That is not something about which the English system should feel at all complacent. Nevertheless, for what it is worth—which is clearly not much—I am persuaded by the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, advanced. It remains to be seen whether it endorses the position that the Minister will give us in a moment.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for those comments. I approach any discussions on Schedule 21 with great trepidation because very early in my ministerial career, I was lured by the eloquence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, into agreeing with him about some of the flaws in Schedule 21, only to be hauled over the coals when I got back to the department and told that this was not departmental policy and I was not to listen to such siren voices.
I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, knows that both the Lord Chancellor and I—importantly, and less so—come instinctively to the view that judging is best left to the judges. This debate has taken place within this context. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Carlile for his intervention because he pointed out that what we are debating is where the responsibility of Parliament is in setting a framework, while leaving, properly, to the judges the flexibility to handle that framework.
I am also grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Blair, for two reasons. First, he made the unique point—certainly in this Bill—that he was going to shorten his speech because somebody else had made the speech earlier. All I say to the rest of the House is: “Go thou and do likewise”. Secondly, he made the important point that I think will come back again and again in our debates—I wrote it down—that murder is “the crime by which the public judge the criminal justice system” above all others. Therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said, it is right that Parliament has a duty to set a framework in these matters.
I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, that it may seem an artificial framework, but in putting forward the 2003 Act Parliament allowed judges the necessary discretion to arrive at any minimum term from any starting point, which allows exceptional cases for minimum terms to depart from the norm. It is not as inflexible as is suggested. The 2003 Act puts in place arrangements for all minimum terms to be imposed judicially—something which I think has general approval. However, Parliament took the view at the time that it was right to have statutory guidance on sentencing for murder. The guidance provides for consistency of approach but still gives the court the necessary discretion to deal with each case appropriately.
I note what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, said about the Sentencing Council and I pay tribute to its work, but the Government still believe, as Parliament believed in 2003, that it is right that Parliament should remain responsible for sentencing guidance for murder. It is for Parliament to reflect what circumstances should be considered as particularly or exceptionally grave for this, the most serious of crimes. With that explanation, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. If it is right for Parliament to give such guidance, how did judges get on before 2003? The answer is that they managed perfectly well. The only effect of the rigid 2003 framework has been to increase the average sentence—I repeat the figure—from just over 13 years to 17.5 years. I do not suppose that anyone did an impact assessment before the 2003 Act was passed, but in my submission it cannot be right that we should suddenly increase the average by so large an amount without considering whether the framework is responsible for it and considering again whether that increase is actually justified.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who made the main objection to this suggestion, has said that the tariff provides valuable help to counsel in advising what the likely sentence will be, but how did counsel manage before the 2003 Act? The answer is that they managed perfectly well and could manage perfectly well even today without Schedule 21. I can see that I have not persuaded enough of your Lordships, and in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Beecham
Indeed, but the Government have, as I understand it, no real plans to deal with the 3,000 people who are still held on indeterminate sentences. My whole point is that just as the previous Government did not invest in this sufficiently, this Government are in danger of doing the same. Across your Lordships’ House there would be a view that this investment would repay itself in financial terms as well as in social terms.
Lord McNally
My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, mentioned, IPP was identified long time ago as a train crash in waiting. I take pride that this Government have taken forward this reform. I note that, as always, there are those who say it does not go far enough—and that is the nature of reform. I was also pleased that there was a certain cross-examination of the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, because he is such a reasonable and likeable person that one would think he was going to slip past the responsibility that the previous Administration have to carry for bringing in these reforms.
We are trying to disarm a time bomb and it has to be done in a careful and measured way. This afternoon, we have heard unanimity of views on prison reform. I have to say, in trying to argue the case for prison reform to both Houses and the public at large, it would be easier if the Labour Party, for which I retain a residual affection, had resumed some of its old and traditional campaigning for penal reform, instead of indulging in a kind of “We’re tougher than you” arms race with those who need to be convinced of the case.
That is a fact of modern political life. The Labour Party of Sydney Silverman and Roy Jenkins is perhaps not here any more. Successive Labour Home Secretaries were very keen not have the term “liberal” attached to their term of office. Thus we face a problem such as IPP. We are trying to deal with the issue. The National Offender Management Service prisoner co-ordination group is chaired at director level. It certainly does not meet the catchiness of the request by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for a named person, but that group is trying to manage the specific problem of IPP prisoners. The new specification for offender management, which will provide for the prioritisation of resources based on risk, will be phased in from April 2012. It means that the higher the level of identified risk or the likelihood of reoffending, the higher the level of service that will be provided. In particular, that will result in improved targeting of rehabilitative intervention for IPP prisoners.
To take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, the key rehabilitation stage for those prisoners is being able to demonstrate in open conditions or temporary release that they have learnt new behaviour. NOMS has identified special issues surrounding waiting lists for IPP prisoners who have been assessed as suitable to be held in open conditions. Work is under way to improve the speed of allocation to open prisons, and a temporary release policy is being reviewed to consider whether suitable prisoners might be given access to temporary release from closed prisons.
The Government took the view from an early stage that IPPs must be replaced, and we have brought forward proposals in the Bill to do so. Once those provisions are commenced, no further IPPs can be imposed, even for previous offending. That is a major step forward. We are now concerned with those who have or will receive an IPP sentence prior to abolition. A range of amendments have been tabled on the subject, which we are now debating. The noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Thomas of Gresford, have tabled amendments proposing that the Parole Board release tests be changed. Their amendments also propose the conversion of current IPP sentences to automatic release sentences; that cases are referred back to the Parole Board every six months; and that the Secretary of State should be required to demonstrate that he has made programmes available to prisoners who are refused parole.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, proposes that those offenders should either have access to a relevant rehabilitation programme or that their sentence be rescinded. By that, I presume he means that they should be given automatic release if programmes are not available. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and other noble Lords have asked through another amendment for the Government to plan release for those prisoners. I should make it clear that, as the statute stands, the Government could not implement any such plans, because the power to direct release would remain with the Parole Board. Again, a conversion to automatic release would be required.
Let me start with the question of the conversion of IPP sentences. We do not think that it is right or appropriate retrospectively to alter sentences that were lawfully imposed by the court simply because a policy decision has now been taken to repeal that sentence. That is what would be required to make release automatic for those prisoners. Generally, sentences already imposed are not substantively altered by subsequent legislation. In this case, it would be particularly difficult, as the court would have to impose the sentence with risk management issues in mind.
Several of the amendments relate to the availability of programmes for IPP prisoners. There is rightly concern that those currently serving IPP sentences should be supported in progressing their sentence and achieving release on licence. The National Offender Management Service is using a range of measures to improve the progression of those prisoners through sentence, including improvements in assessment, sentence planning, delivery and the parole review process. We continue to monitor outcomes to ensure that further improvements are identified and implemented.
Lord Wigley
Before the noble Lord comes to a conclusion, perhaps I may press him on one matter. He has given a list of steps that are currently being taken. When does he assess that all those who are currently being held back on IPP because of the non-availability of courses and rehabilitation will have been cleared? Have the department or the Government set themselves a target for getting this done?
Lord McNally
I do not think so, my Lords. I do not think that it would be sensible to go into such targetry. We are talking about individuals of whom individual assessments will be made. As I said, we are disarming a time bomb; we are looking at a backlog of, in many cases, extremely dangerous prisoners. Therefore, it is not just, as someone pointed out, a matter of throwing the gates open; this has to be a managed process. However, I hope that I have made it clear that that process is being managed—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—and that we are trying to target resources to make sure that this is carried forward with due urgency.
Lord Ramsbotham
Is the group that the noble Lord mentioned making plans for every IPP prisoner or is it drawing up general plans for others to follow?
Lord McNally
I do not know the detail of how the group is managing its work, but I do know that we are bringing forward a coherent programme to deal with what I readily acknowledge is one of the problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and others referred. In some of these cases, there was a definite and horrible Catch-22 situation for prisoners. They were being asked to prove their fitness for release by carrying through certain programmes but were then told, “By the way, those programmes are not available”. That Catch-22 was not fair to those prisoners. We are trying to address that problem and focus resources on it. I will write to the noble Lord about whether the group to which I referred is an umbrella strategy group or an action group, but I know that all IPP prisoners will be assessed carefully and, where progress can be made with due concern for public safety, that will happen. I think that we can manage this safely and constructively out of the prison system very rapidly once the legislation is in place.
I should also say that parole hearing processes have become more streamlined, with reviews made through a combination of written evidence and oral hearing, and significant resources have been deployed to increase the ability of the Parole Board to increase its throughput. That has significantly reduced backlogs and significantly increased the number of parole dossiers produced on time. I note the suggestion that prisoners should be referred back to the Parole Board every six months. The maximum period that can elapse between the post-tariff review hearing is two years. All decisions on the timing of the next review are based on the individual circumstances of the particular case. Review dates are determined taking into account the extent and nature of the outstanding work that the prisoner needs to do to address his or her risk factors, and where necessary the testing and monitoring needed to demonstrate the impact and efficacy of the work done to address those risk factors.
A fixed period of six months between review periods would not take into account the prisoner’s individual circumstances, so could be counterproductive as it would require prisoner cases to be reviewed without consideration for the time needed to address the risk factors presented. Currently, review periods of between 12 months and two years are usual, but review periods of less than 12 months have been set.
On the Parole Board’s release test, to which several amendments relate—we are also debating whether Clause 117 should stand part of the Bill—I should say that I do not think it appropriate at this stage to change the release test in this legislation. Clause 117 gives the Secretary of State a power to change the release test, which is set in statute for IPP prisoners and prisoners serving the new extended sentence. We will continue to monitor the progress of current IPP prisoners and will consider the use of the power to change the release test, alongside careful consultation.
The Secretary of State is committed to such prior consultation. It is absolutely not the Government’s intention to use the power to make it harder for prisoners to demonstrate reduced risk. However, by way of safeguards, the use of this power is subject to an affirmative procedure in both Houses. I fully understand colleagues who say that we have not gone far enough and some of the detailed criticisms in this debate. I go back to the point I made in the earlier debate. Often these interventions are crafted compromises and, as such, they will have weaknesses and will not go as far as some would want. However, in getting rid of IPPs we are removing what is, to put it politely, an error of judgment in our penal policy, and we are doing it in a way that disarms the time bomb without raising public concern. I hope, in those circumstances, that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister but his opening remarks remain in the back of my mind—that IPP was something akin to a train crash. The victims of that train crash have been left in the wreckage for an indeterminate time before these issues will be sorted out. Of course, there has to be reference to the Parole Board and it may not be appropriate for some to come out. Surely, when the Government themselves have recognised that the system is not fit for purpose for the future, to continue it for those who are incarcerated without any indication of a timescale is doing them and the whole system a grave disservice.
I accept entirely that my amendment has faults and that there may be a version that meets the theme, which I suspect is accepted on all sides of the Committee, that further work needs to be done by the Government on this.
I very much hope that between now and Report the Minister will seriously consider how the Government can respond to the pressure that has come from so many sides, with many different suggestions for relieving the problem. I hope that they will consider this, and that an amendment will be tabled on Report so that their mind is focused on the issue and we do not allow the people who listened to the debate in this House to have all their hopes snuffed out by the response of the Front Bench. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is very difficult debating against the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. He is such a reasonable man who puts forward such reasonable arguments. I sometimes think that surely he must be on the Lib Dem Benches. But no, there he is.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps the Minister should seek treatment for this condition of confusion.
Lord McNally
I asked for the House of Commons Hansard for 1 November. I could have picked quite a few but I shall pick one for the House to catch the flavour. As I have said, I have been faced with such unanimity today. Mr Sadiq Khan said:
“No amount of smoke and mirrors can disguise the fact that, by abolishing indeterminate sentences, he”—
the Lord Chancellor—
“is risking the safety of communities in each and every constituency”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/11/11; col. 793.]
You can imagine him banging the Dispatch Box and a growl of “Hear, hear” coming from behind him. That is the difficulty we have in this. Quite frankly, if the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, or perhaps my noble friend, was dishing out awards for political posturing, it would not be to only one side of the House or to this end of the corridor. I am also a little—
Lord Carlile of Berriew
I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend who I know will say that in the spirit of what he said earlier he regards all his Liberal Democrat colleagues in this House as entirely reasonable. But this is a bicameral Parliament. What are we to read into the fact that, as it happens in this House as we debate this important matter, there are seven Liberal Democrats on the Government side of the House and one Conservative Peer, who deserves credit for being here. If the Conservative Party is really committed in the way in which he has explained from that quotation, should its Peers not be here to say so?
Lord McNally
That perhaps is why my noble friend is on the Back Benches rather than enjoying the pleasures of coalition government. He will also know that—
Lord McNally
I am sure that my noble friend’s comments will be noted in the proper places, particularly at reshuffle time.
There will always be debates about whether or not sentences are deterrent. I am not usually in favour of mandatory sentencing and deterrent sentencing, but it is hard to deny that deterrent sentencing could have an effect. It is not just a matter of some barrack-room lawyer; a hardened criminal would know the consequences of reoffending. I share a lot of the concerns about putting declaratory sections into Bills, but sometimes they have their place.
This clause introduces a new mandatory life sentence for an offender who has committed a second very serious sexual or violent offence. Both offences must be so serious as to merit a determinate sentence of 10 years or more. The offence must also be contained in Schedule 15B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is inserted by Schedule 16 to this Bill. Schedule 15B contains the particularly serious offences that were in Schedule 15A to that Act. Previous Schedule 15A convictions make offenders eligible for IPPs and EPPs even if they have not reached the two-year tariff threshold. Schedule 15B also includes further child sex and specific terrorism offences, and the offences of causing or allowing the death of a child or vulnerable adult.
The new mandatory life sentence will affect only those who have committed, on separate occasions, two very serious sexual or violent crimes deserving a custodial sentence of 10 years or more. That is a small number of offenders, but this provision is intended to provide reassurance to the public that very serious repeat offenders of this type can expect to be held indefinitely in prison.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Perhaps the Box can have the chance to deal with this question. Has any analysis been carried out as to how many people would be liable to a life sentence for committing an offence that is not subject to a life sentence at the moment? It seems that they would be liable to a life sentence if the maximum was only 10 years. Has an analysis been carried out of how many offences in the schedule do not carry a life sentence?
Lord McNally
My Lords, an impact assessment was made and I think they were talking about 20 cases a year.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
That is not quite the point that I am making. It may be that only 20 people would be sentenced to life imprisonment, but would they be sentenced to life imprisonment under this clause, when for the actual offence that they had committed, they could not receive a life sentence? In other words, many serious offences carry life sentences; some do not. I would be grateful for an analysis as to how many would not have a life sentence were it not for this clause.
Lord McNally
As far as I understand it, the second serious offence would carry a life sentence.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
That is not what it says, as I understand it—perhaps the Box can help him.
Lord McNally
That is as I understand it, but I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong. The other point that has been made—but of course if you try to be reasonable, you are derided—is that the courts are exempted from imposing the mandatory life sentences where they believe it is unjust to do so in all circumstances. It is the policy intention that offenders who have committed two serious offences not carrying life sentences will be liable to the mandatory sentence. However, we cannot at this moment assess the likely numbers that would be affected by that.
As I said before, we have a sense of schizophrenia about this. Perhaps I may finish with a quote from Sadiq Khan:
“Through their “two strikes” policy, the Government absolve themselves totally of any responsibility to identify the serious, violent offenders who are most likely to reoffend. That should be done at the time when the first sentence is handed down for the commission of a heinous crime”.—[Official Report, 1/11/11; col. 796.]
There is not much sense of rehabilitation or reform there. We have to deal with a serious set of reforms and what we get is headline-grabbing attacks on the basis that we are going to let out violent criminals and the rest of it. That is why I hope that some of the unity that was shown earlier about penal reform will resolve itself around support for the Government as we try to manage these proposals through the House.
Lord Clinton-Davis
I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I am totally unconvinced by the arguments put forward here, and not for the first time. When is the Minister going to address the issue that has been raised around the Committee?
Lord McNally
When is the noble Lord going to go down the corridor and talk to Sadiq Khan and the other spokesmen from the Labour Party and engage in a serious debate about penal reform?
Lord Lloyd of Berwick
My Lords, I am grateful for the support of those who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with her reference to political posturing, which to me seems to be what this clause really is; on this occasion for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for which I am always grateful, and for that of the Official Opposition. But once again it was my noble friend Lady Stern who put her finger on it with those extraordinary statistics that she gave us of the comparison between those serving life sentences in England and Wales and all other countries. We seem to have a thirst for life sentences, and that bears out the only statistic that I gave earlier. I shall say it again: we have more people serving life sentences and indeterminate sentences than the whole of the rest of Europe put together.
Lord McNally
“SCHEDULEAmendments of the Criminal Justice Act 2003: transitional and consequential provisionsPart 1Transitional provisions1 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
2 After section 267 insert—
“267A Application of Chapter 6 to pre-4 April 2005 cases
Schedule 20A (which modifies certain provisions of this Chapter as they apply to persons serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005) has effect.”
3 After Schedule 20 insert—
“SCHEDULE 20A Section 267AApplication of Chapter 6 of Part 12 to pre-4 April 2005 cases1 In this Schedule—
“the 1991 Act” means the Criminal Justice Act 1991;
“the commencement date” means the date on which section (Simplification of existing transitional provisions) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011 comes into force.
2 Paragraphs 3 to 9 apply in relation to any person serving a sentence for an offence committed before 4 April 2005, whenever that sentence was imposed (see section (Simplification of existing transitional provisions)(1) of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2011).
3 (1) Any relevant period is to be treated, for the purposes of section 240ZA, as if it were a period for which the offender was remanded in custody in connection with the offence.
(2) “Relevant period” means any period which would (but for the repeal of section 67 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967) be a relevant period within the meaning of that section (reduction of sentences by period spent in custody etc).
4 Section 246 applies as if, in subsection (4)—
(a) the reference in paragraph (a) to section 227 or 228 were a reference to section 85 of the Sentencing Act;(b) the reference in paragraph (d) to paragraph 9(1)(b) or (c) or 10(1)(b) or (c) of Schedule 8 were a reference to paragraph 4(1)(d) or 5(1)(d) of Schedule 3 to the Sentencing Act;(c) in paragraph (g)—(i) the reference to section 246 included a reference to section 34A of the 1991 Act,(ii) the reference to section 255(1)(a) included a reference to section 38A(1)(a) or 39(1) or (2) of the 1991 Act, and(iii) the reference to section 255(3) included a reference to section 38A(3) of the 1991 Act;(d) the references in paragraph (h) to sections 248 and 254 included references to, respectively, sections 36 and 39(1) or (2) of the 1991 Act; and(e) in paragraph (i), the words from “in the case of” to “relates” were omitted.5 (1) Where the person has been released on licence under Part 2 of the 1991 Act or under section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 before the commencement date, the person is to be treated as if the release had been under this Chapter.
(2) In particular, the following provisions apply.
(3) A licence under section 34A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under section 246.
(4) A licence under section 36 of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under section 248.
(5) Any condition of a licence specified under section 37 of the 1991 Act is to have effect as if it were included under section 250 (whether or not the condition is of a kind which could otherwise be included under that section).
(6) Where the licence is, on the commencement date, subject to a suspension under section 38(2) of the 1991 Act, the suspension continues to have effect for the period specified by the court despite the repeal of that section.
(7) A licence under section 40A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as if it were a licence under this Chapter, except that in respect of any failure (before or after the commencement date) to comply with the conditions of the licence, the person is liable to be dealt with in accordance with section 40A(4) to (6) (despite the repeal of that section) and is not liable to be dealt with in any other way.
(8) Sub-paragraph (1) does not affect the duration of the licence.
6 (1) Where a person has been recalled under Part 2 of the 1991 Act before the commencement date, the person is to be treated as if the recall had been under section 254.
(2) In particular, the following provisions apply.
(3) If the Secretary of State has not referred the person’s case to the Board under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act, the Secretary of State must refer the case under section 255C(4).
(4) If the Secretary of State has referred the person’s case to the Board under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act, that reference is to be treated as if it had been made under section 255C(4).
(5) A determination of a reference under section 39(4) or 44A of the 1991 Act is to be treated as a determination under section 256(1).
(6) If the person is released on licence, the duration of that licence is determined in accordance with section 249 (subject to paragraphs 17, 19 and 26 of Schedule 20B).
7 Rules made by virtue of section 42 of the 1991 Act have effect as if made by virtue of section 257.
8 (1) A person removed from prison under section 46A of the 1991 Act before the commencement date is to be treated as having been removed from prison under section 260.
(2) Section 260 applies as if, in subsection (7)—
(a) the reference to an extended sentence imposed under section 227 or 228 were a reference to an extended sentence imposed under section 85 of the Sentencing Act, and(b) the reference to the appropriate custodial term determined under section 227 or 228 were a reference to the custodial term determined under section 85.9 An order made under section 47 of the 1991 Act is to have effect as if it were an order made under section 243.
10 Section 264 applies as if the definition of “custodial period” in subsection (6) included, in relation to an extended sentence imposed under section 85 of the Sentencing Act, one-half of the custodial term determined under that section.”
Part 2Consequential amendmentsRepatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c. 47)4 In section 2(4)(b)(i) of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (power to provide for prisoner to be treated as having been released) for “section 244 or 246” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.
Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c. 53)5 In Schedule 12 to the Criminal Justice Act 1991, omit paragraphs 8 to 13 (transitional provisions relating to the coming into force of Part 2 of that Act).
Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (c. 43)6 Schedule 1 to the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (transfer of prisoners within the British Islands) is amended as follows.
7 In paragraph 8 (transfers to Scotland)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), after “246 to 264A” insert “, 267A and 267B”;(b) in sub-paragraph (4)(a), for “and 249 to 264A” substitute “, 249 to 264A, 267A and 267B”.8 In paragraph 9(2)(a) and (4)(a) (transfers to Northern Ireland), for “and 254 to 264A” substitute “, 254 to 264A, 267A and 267B”.
Extradition Act 2003 (c. 41)9 The Extradition Act 2003 is amended as follows.
10 In section 59 (return of person to serve remainder of sentence), in subsection (11)—
(a) omit paragraph (a);(b) in paragraph (b), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.11 In section 132 (return of person to serve remainder of sentence), in subsection (11)—
(a) omit paragraph (a);(b) in paragraph (b), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”. 12 In section 153B (return of person in pursuance of undertaking), in subsection (10)(a)—
(a) omit sub-paragraph (i);(b) in sub-paragraph (ii), for “section 244” substitute “Chapter 6 of Part 12”.Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c. 44)13 The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
14 In section 240A(1)(a) (crediting of periods of remand on bail), omit the words “committed on or after 4th April 2005”.
15 (1) The repeal by section 25 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 of provisions in section 247 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes fully into force.
(2) Accordingly, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.2 and Transitional and Savings Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1586), omit “and 25”.
16 Omit section 262 and Schedule 20 (prisoners liable to removal from United Kingdom).
17 Omit section 265(1A) (restriction on consecutive sentences for released prisoners).
Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 (c. 28)18 Omit paragraph 46 of Schedule 10 to the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
Police and Justice Act 2006 (c. 48)19 Omit paragraph 33 of Schedule 13 to the Police and Justice Act 2006.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (c. 4)20 In the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, omit—
(a) sections 20(4)(b), 26 to 28, 32 and 33(1), (3), (5) and (6);(b) paragraph 29(2) to (5) of Schedule 26;(c) paragraphs 8 and 9 of Schedule 27.Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c. 25)21 In the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, omit—
(a) section 145;(b) paragraph 43 of Schedule 22.Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1466)22 Article 3 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (Commencement No.1 and Transitional Provisions) Order 2008 (S.I. 2008/1466) is revoked.”
Lord Beecham
Perhaps the Minister could indicate what assessment has been made of the effect of the new extended sentence provision on prisoner numbers and the time that prisoners will spend in custody, as well as the cost. In so far as the indeterminate sentence will, one hopes, reduce numbers when various changes have been made, this measure is likely, like the mandatory provision, to drive up both numbers and costs. Has an assessment been made of that? If it leads to extra costs, how will the Government manage the process? The noble Lord is to be congratulated on the amendment. The current provisions simply do not make sense in the context of what purport to be the Government’s objectives.
Lord McNally
My Lords, perhaps I may clarify the point raised by my noble friend Lord Dholakia. The two-thirds release point applies only to the new extended sentence. The court must specify both the custodial term and an extended licence period when it imposes an extended sentence. The offender is released or can apply for release at the two-thirds point of the custodial term. The extended licence will start when the custodial term is concluded, so offenders will receive an appropriate licence period regardless of the point during the custodial term at which they are released. I listened to my noble friend’s idea about discretion. This is not something that courts would have discretion on. They will decide on the appropriate custodial term plus an appropriate extended licence. Yet, as always with suggestions from my noble friend, I will ponder this one between now and Report.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, on a point of clarification, the Minister referred to the impact assessment disclosing that 2,500 fewer people would be in prison. Does that relate to the overall package or to this particular amendment? That was the point that I was raising.
Lord McNally
It relates to the overall package and, in that wonderful save-all term, the long term. As we are already seeing, predicting prison numbers is not an exact science.
Lord Beecham
Perhaps not now, but could the Minister advise me on the implications of this amendment in terms of numbers, as opposed to the generality to which he has referred?
Lord McNally
I do not have a specific number, but I will write to the noble Lord and make it available to the House.
Lord Dholakia
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the explanation that he offered. The purpose of my amendment is not to dwell too much on whether it is half or two-thirds of the sentence; all I care about is the need to look carefully at whether the supervision period is affected by the decision. I would be very grateful if the Minister could write to me before Report. It may be that his explanation will suffice in this matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
Lord McNally
My Lords, if Clause 117 is to stand part of the Bill, Amendments 179C to 179F will ensure that the Secretary of State’s power to amend by order the release test that the Parole Board must follow when considering the release of prisoners applies consistently to all categories of determinate sentence prisoner whose release is determined by the board. Currently, the clause applies to the release test for IPP and extended sentence prisoners but there are some other types of determinate sentence which also include a period of parole eligibility and are subject to the same release test. We think the order-making power to change the test should apply equally in those cases. These amendments therefore propose to extend the order-making power to the other categories of determinate sentence to which it does not currently apply. These are: first, the 1991 Act prisoners serving four years or more who are parole eligible between the half and two-thirds points of sentence; and, secondly, the 2003 Act extended sentences imposed before 14 July 2008, when release between the half and end points of the custodial period is at the discretion of the Parole Board. This is simply about ensuring the order-making power in this clause is applied consistently to all determinate sentences when the same release test is used. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Your Lordships will recall that in connection with an earlier amendment I referred to the existing test—which will continue to apply under this Bill—for the Parole Board to apply in considering whether a person should be released. The existing test is that the board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. Your Lordships will recall the criticisms that I made of that. In his reply, the Minister said that Clause 117 gives power to the Lord Chancellor to change that test. I am a little bit puzzled, and I ask my noble friend to explain why that power to change the test is in there. Furthermore, I am very pleased that it is, because I think that the present test is neither fair nor just. The power to change the test is in subsection (1), where,
“the Parole Board … must direct the prisoner’s release if it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met, or … must do so unless it is satisfied that conditions specified in the order are met”.
I know that my noble friend, as he earlier confessed, is a follower of Blackpool football club, but at the weekend he may have had the opportunity of watching the Wales versus Ireland rugby match at Lansdowne Road. An incident there perfectly illustrates the situation. There was a pile-up over the line and the referee, instead of making the decision and awarding the try which Wales had so clearly scored, called in the TMO and said, “Has the try been scored—yes or no?”. Immediately, that illustrious and brilliant commentator Jonathan Davies, a brilliant player in his own day, said, “He’s asking the wrong question. The question he should ask is: ‘Is there any reason why this try should not be awarded?’”. By asking it as, “Has he scored it—yes or no?”, the referee was pushing the decision over to the TMO; but if he were to ask the second question, he would be taking responsibility by saying, “I am going to award the try unless you tell me that there is a reason why I should not”.
Applying the same approach to the release of a prisoner, the Parole Board should not be asking whether the prisoner has complied with this or that test; it should be asking: “Is there any reason why we should not release this prisoner? Is evidence being produced for us to look at in reaching a conclusion on whether this prisoner can be safely returned to the community?”.
That is the reason why I support Clause 117—in the hope that the second alternative, in subsection (1)(b), is adopted, and that the Lord Chancellor will then very quickly see the necessity of changing the Parole Board’s test to one that is far fairer: “Is there any reason why, after serving the period of the tariff that the judge has imposed”—which is supposed to be what the judge would have awarded by way of a sentence had he taken that course—“this person should not be released?”. I commend this clause and suggest that the power should be exercised very quickly.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this amendment is perfectly sensible. Before we get to Third Reading it would perhaps be helpful, if it is at all possible, to have a clear indication of how the Government propose to proceed. Presumably it will not be long before the affirmative resolution procedure is put into place once the Bill is enacted, and that might just allay some doubts around the House and outside it about what is likely to happen. Subject to that, we certainly take the view that it is sensible to proceed on the lines set out in the amendment.
Lord McNally
I am grateful for that. As to what I was watching on Saturday afternoon, being a gentle soul, I take the view that rugby is a gentleman's game played by hooligans. I am not as keen on watching it—the violence is too much. I am glad, however, that everybody has noticed the point of Clause 117. It goes back to what I said before in that analogy about disarming the time-bomb. We need a little flexibility and a chance to see how the present probation rules apply, but this gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to adjust what we are doing in the light of the experience of the overall reform of IPP. I am therefore grateful for the support from all sides of the House and I hope that Clause 117 will stand part of the Bill.
Lord McNally
“(1A) “Discretionary release prisoner” means—
(a) an IPP prisoner,(b) an extended sentence prisoner, or (c) a person to whom paragraph 4, 15, 24 or 27 of Schedule 20B to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determinate sentence prisoners subject to transitional provisions) applies.”
Baroness Gale
My Lords, this amendment and Amendment 180B are tabled in the names of my noble friends Lady Royall of Blaisdon, Lord Bach and Lord Beecham.
I begin by paying tribute to Michael and Adam Brown. It is as a result of their campaign that we are here today and are debating this important issue in order that we can protect vulnerable women and men from the very small percentage of people who think that they have a right to hurt the partners they claim to love. In 2007 Michael’s daughter and Adam’s sister, Clare Wood, a resident of Salford, began a relationship with George Appleton, a man she had met through the social networking website Facebook. A year later she ended the relationship but became the target of a sustained campaign of violence and harassment from Appleton. Over the next six months Appleton stalked Clare, sexually assaulted her and threatened to kill her. Then in February 2009 he strangled her, killing her before setting her body on fire. After a six-day manhunt he fled to an abandoned pub in Salford and hanged himself.
Appleton had a long background of violence against women, including repeated allegations and convictions of harassment, threats to kill, and kidnapping one of his ex-girlfriends at knifepoint. Clare had no way of knowing this. Had she had that information, it could have saved her life. I think we would all agree that this is a horrifying story.
My right honourable friend Hazel Blears, MP for Salford, has advocated for this change of law and worked on this amendment, as Michael Brown is a constituent of hers. We need to change the law urgently to save lives.
At the inquest into Clare’s death, the coroner made the following recommendation:
“Subject to appropriate risk assessment and safeguard, I recommend that consideration should be given to the disclosure of such convictions and their circumstances to potential victims in order that they can make informed choices about matters affecting their safety and that of their children”.
Since Clare’s death, her father Michael Brown and brother Adam have campaigned for a change in the law to enact precisely the coroner’s recommendations to give women and men at risk of domestic violence the right to know of any threat that they face. The Respect & Protect: Clare’s Law campaign calls for women and men to be given the right to know. It has received cross-party support and has been backed by Fabulous magazine and Key 103 radio.
In 2009 a report commissioned by ACPO and compiled by Chief Constable Brian Moore of Wiltshire Police advocated the creation of a right to know, but by the creation of a positive duty on the police proactively to disclose information. This is not just a compassionate issue but one with serious public order, health and economic implications. Domestic violence represents 18 per cent of all violent incidents. The cost of domestic violence was calculated to be £15.7 billion in 2008 in public services, loss to the economy and victims. In 2009-10 in England and Wales, 21 men and 94 women were killed by a partner or ex-partner. Over the past 10 years, an average of between 111 and 146 people a year have been murdered by their partner or ex-partner. ACPO estimates that there are 25,000 serial perpetrators of domestic violence in the country. It has the highest rate of repeat victimisation of any crime, with 44 per cent of victims victimised more than once in the past 12 months. Therefore, if we act today we know that we will stop a significant number of repeat abusers and help a huge number of men and women to take control of their personal safety.
The public support this initiative. Polling conducted by Fabulous magazine in the summer of 2011 found that 91 per cent of women agree that they should be given the right to know whether their partner has a history of domestic violence; 84 per cent think that such a change in the law could save lives; and 77 per cent would consider leaving their partner if they found that he had history of abuse.
On 25 October 2011, the Home Office launched a consultation on the introduction of a domestic violence disclosure scheme. This followed a meeting between the Home Secretary, Theresa May, Michael Brown and my right honourable friend Hazel Blears. The consultation paper established the three following options: to continue current arrangements under the existing law; to create a “right to ask” national disclosure scheme; and to create a “right to know” national disclosure scheme. On 27 October 2011, Hazel Blears MP tabled a new clause to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that would have introduced Clare’s law. The new clause was based on the legal framework established by Sarah’s law, which created a disclosure law for paedophiles living within a locality. Therefore, while the Home Secretary’s consultation on Clare’s law, which has just ended, is welcome, for the law to be changed, legislation surrounding crime and justice needs to be passed. The passage of the Bill through Parliament provides a legislative vehicle to which the change can be attached. At the moment, while there is some common law provision for disclosure, it is unclear and needs clarification. The Clare’s law proposal aims to empower men and women by giving them the right to request this information. A codification of the law will make it easier for men and women to make a request, and provide clearer guidance to the agencies on their roles and responsibilities.
The Hazel Blears clause represents the second option in the consultation. The first option does not offer a change to the current situation and the third creates obligations for the police that might be difficult for them to meet. The second option—a right to ask—gives men and women the opportunity to make a request without putting the police in the position of having to make a disclosure or risk negligence claims. Any change in the law needs a legislative vehicle. The passage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill offers an opportunity to change the law. As this matter relates to crime and security, any change must be appended to a Bill that deals with either justice or crime prevention. With no other Bill to address these issues on the horizon, this offers the Government an easy way to change the law quickly, before more people are killed at the hands of serial domestic abusers.
Under the consultation put forward by the Government—the second option—a four-step process will take place. After an initial enquiry by A to the police, the police undertake an initial check on the police national database to identify whether any information is held on B. The police then meet A face-to-face to confirm their identity and that of B, to confirm the relationship between them, and to enable A to complete a formal application for disclosure. The police will then conduct full checks on the police database systems to inform a risk assessment for A. The police refer information about B to an appropriate multi-agency setting, probably a multi-agency risk assessment conference, which would then make a decision on whether to disclose the information to A. Such a decision would be informed by the risk assessment and whether appropriate safety measures could be put in place for the applicant. If disclosure was approved, it would be made by the police with an independent domestic violence adviser present to provide support to A, if required.
The introduction of the police national database in 2011 offers the opportunity easily to identify serial perpetrators of domestic violence. The PND gives police the ability to create national markers, such as a domestic abuse serial perpetrator marker, which could flag up prolific and dangerous subjects operating across England, Wales and Northern Ireland. This is a very important subject. I, Hazel Blears and, of course, Michael and Adam Brown, are thankful that we are able to debate this matter today. Debate was prevented in another place as, due to the timetabling on Report, this amendment was not reached.
When can the Government’s response to the consultation be expected? What was the weight of opinion in the replies? I trust the Minister can give an assurance that the Government will support this amendment to bring about Clare’s law. I can assure him that we would welcome further discussions with him, if required, to ensure a positive outcome which would do so much to provide a safety net for these people. I look forward to hearing a positive response from him on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord McNally
My Lords, earlier today we gave support to Jane’s law. The noble Baroness referred to Sarah’s law. Now we are discussing Clare’s law. Those all stem from tragedies that have befallen families. The measure may be viewed as a case of slamming the stable door but we are trying to learn lessons from those tragedies and to give the families concerned at least the comfort of knowing that the lessons we have learnt will save others in the future. Therefore, I assure the noble Baroness that we have great sympathy with this proposal. We pay tribute to the campaign that Hazel Blears, the Member for Salford and Eccles, has pursued in co-operation with Clare’s family, and her work in tabling this amendment in the other place.
As the noble Baroness explained, the amendment would place a duty on responsible authorities such as the police, probation and Prison Service to consider disclosing information held in their possession about the relevant previous convictions of any violent abuser to any person deemed by the responsible authority to be at risk. The amendment is born of the circumstances referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, of the tragic murder of Clare Wood by her ex-boyfriend. Noble Lords will know that the Government have been considering this issue very carefully. The Government are committed to ending violence against women and girls. The fact that approximately two people are killed by their current or former partner each week underlines how serious this issue is, and we are committed to looking at new ways of protecting victims.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I support the amendment so eloquently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. From what he said, I got the sense that it is really a probing amendment and that he did not expect to receive much support for it. However, he made such a powerful case that I hope the Minister might be swayed to think again about some of these points. As we have already heard in this Committee, it is obvious that many people enter prison without the capacity to read and write, let alone to hold down a job when they come out on release. Therefore, examples such as the Toe by Toe programme should be mandatory. Indeed, it is a pity that the amendment has not specified that it should be a requirement on the Secretary of State.
We have no objection at all to what is being proposed. Indeed, we would regard its prescriptive nature as being of benefit in the sense of tying down, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, what is required of prisoners—that they should have a full, purposeful and active day, and that every prisoner should undertake something instead of staying in their cells so as to at least become engaged and appreciate what is necessary in order to succeed outside prison. It would therefore also reduce the level of reoffending.
There are some good examples of work with prisoners having been done by private employers. National Grid had a project at Reading in which I was involved in an earlier life, and I thought it was absolutely exemplary. It provided what seemed to be the critical path forward for those due to leave custodial sentences in the sense that it provided them with housing, jobs and training. It started before the prisoners left in order to bring their reading and writing up to speed, and it allowed them to learn a skill—in this case, fitting—which meant that they were able to operate as soon as they left. As I understand it, that programme is still going. The recidivism rate was very small indeed, so the programme was certainly worthy in that regard. It also had the advantage of satisfying a need on the part of employers—they had realised that they were not getting an adequate supply of people to do the necessary jobs, and they found that this programme provided a ready supply.
Therefore, there can be a win-win in what the Government and private enterprise are looking for. Indeed, one might say that it could apply to charities and public bodies and not just to private companies. However, the essential point of the amendment is that, if it is decided that there will be employment from such activities in prisons, it should be done properly so that those who benefit from it have skills and qualifications that are nationally recognised, and it should be done in all cases so that we have a better outcome from the prison element.
Lord McNally
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, I have had the opportunity to look at some organisations that have become involved in providing work for prisoners and, like him, I am impressed. It is encouraging that those who have taken the risk, as some may see it, of employing ex-prisoners, helping to train them, and doing work in prisons, find it a very fruitful experience.
Sometimes I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is a little hard on NOMS. I fully accept that it is obvious that the vast majority of the prison estate was not designed for operating work regimes. Many very competent prison governors and prison officers are not equipped to run businesses. That is a given, which makes the idea of work in prisons difficult but not impossible. One of the things that we have tried to do in the past 18 months is to tackle in a practical way the realities to which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, referred. Several hundred organisations already provide work and training opportunities inside prisons, but many are small and want to do more to attract business.
We aim to provide a competitive package for business. We will make involvement as straightforward as possible and get the commercial model right for both prisons and the private sector, subject to our paramount interest in ensuring security, in line with our legal obligations. NOMS is developing new structures and putting in place the right people to operate in a businesslike way. That includes the recruitment of a new chief executive for the prison industries team within NOMS and a business development manager who will have responsibility for finding new businesses and managing relations with customers.
We are trying to address some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and as of now around 9,000 prisoners are employed in prison industries, which my rough arithmetic makes it to be around 10 per cent, or perhaps just a little over of the prison population. It is clear that there is much to do, but there are great prizes if we can get this right. Clause 118 is central to our plan to achieve our aim to make prisons places of meaningful and productive work where prisoners make reparation. Ensuring that prisoners and those detained in young offender institutions or secure training centres have access to training and can obtain qualifications is important. The Government certainly recognise the importance of this area and agree with the intent behind the amendment.
Let me assure noble Lords that we are already doing much of what we aim to do. Through our desire to increase the amount of meaningful and productive work done in prisons, the Government will give many more offenders the chance to learn the discipline and skills of working. As study after study has shown, offending patterns diminish once employment has been found. However, it is not just through prison working that we aim to reduce reoffending. Experience of a proper working week will be augmented by ensuring that their work links them to the right opportunities to develop the skills necessary to their finding employment when they are released.
We plan to deliver learning bases on clusters of institutions that regularly transfer offenders between them. The learning and skills offer will focus on the needs of employers in the areas into which prisoners will be released, as well as on key issues, such as numerous, literacy and communication skills. Here again, I pay tribute to Toe by Toe, which is a marvellous way of tackling illiteracy—one of the problems that comes through time and again in offending. Decisions on the most appropriate learning and skills offer will be taken locally with the key aim of giving offenders the skills that they need to find and keep jobs and apprenticeships on release. There will be no one size fits all approach, nor should there be. Within this new framework we are retendering the offender learning and skills services—a process that gives the chance to look afresh at how to work with the best range of providers. As well as learning the necessary skills and having the right qualifications, many offenders have barriers to entering the labour market that must first be tackled.
As the Deputy Prime Minister announced in August 2011, from the summer of this year offenders leaving custody and claiming jobseeker’s allowance will have to engage with a work programme provider on release, who will be paid for getting them into work. As well as creating this “day one” service, we are bringing together the claiming of jobseeker’s allowance and the processing of benefits before release rather than after it, so prisoners should have a shorter wait for their first benefit payment, which will help their resettlement. In addition, any prison leaver who claims jobseeker’s allowance within 13 weeks of release will be mandated to the work programme from the point of claim. We will also test, in two work programme areas, the addition of a reducing reoffending payment as part of our payment by results approach, in which we will use a variety of methods in the pilot phase.
We recognise that equipping children under the school leaving age with the skills they will need to succeed in life is vital. There is already an expectation that they will be in education rather than paid work. The raising of the participation age will mean that from 2013 all young people, including those in custody, must continue in education or training until the age of 17, and until 18 from 2015. Young people in secure training centres and under-18 young offender institutions will have access to a full day of education and constructive activity. In secure training centres, young people participate in education or training for at least 25 hours per week. In the under-18 young offender institutions, each young person will receive at least 25 hours per week of education and other constructive activity.
We believe that the amendment is constructive but unnecessary. Section 47(1) of the Prison Act 1952 allows the Secretary of State to make rules concerning the regulation and management of prisons, young offender institutions and secure treatment centres, and the treatment of those required to be detained therein. Subsection (3) states:
“Rules … may provide for the training of particular classes of persons”.
Clause 118 will not change those aspects of the 1952 Act, which cover the same ground as Amendment 181A.
For adults detained in custody, the rule-making powers contained in the Prison Act are augmented by provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, including a duty on the chief executive of Skills Funding to,
“secure the provision of reasonable facilities for education suitable to the requirements of persons who are subject to adult detention”,
and, in doing so, to take account of a range of factors such as facilities and equipment. In carrying out this duty, the chief executive must have regard to various matters, including the desirability of prisoners continuing the education or training that they have begun, and making the best use of resources.
I have listened often to—and have always welcomed—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, championing the concept of making work, training and education a priority. They are the key to rehabilitation. I hope that what I have said has convinced him that, although we may not have achieved all that he desired, we are listening and trying as best we can to move in the direction that he advocates. For that reason, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the care that he put into his response, and in particular for his closing remarks. I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his words. As I said, the purpose of the amendment is to encourage something that I very strongly support. I hope that the Minister will be able to assure me that the business manager whom he said would be appointed will be a businessman and not a civil servant from NOMS. I do not decry civil servants who do civil servants' jobs, but we need a businessman in there, and I hope that one will be appointed.
I also hope that one of the first things that the business manager will do is carry out an inquiry with the people who currently provide work in prisons and allow them to tell him frankly of the frustrations and problems that they currently experience when trying to take work into prisons. The person concerned would find that very illuminating. If they take action on those frustrations, many of which I am very happy to pass on to the Minister because I have some censuses here, they would find it much more possible to deliver precisely what the Minister says he wants. If that happens—and, knowing the Minister, I am sure that it will—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, as has been set out very clearly, the amendment seeks to ensure that anyone leaving custody gains swift access to the benefits to which they are entitled. We often think that coming out of prison is very positive, but it can be traumatic for people, particularly those with multiple needs. With no financial contingencies, these people usually rely on a benefits system that they experience as complicated, slow and unhelpful. In extremis, some return to crime, as the noble Lord said, because before they went into prison that was their proven source of income. Delays in accessing benefits can lead to financial hardship, stress and an increased risk of reoffending.
The Prison Reform Trust in its Time is Money report found that eight of 10 former prisoners claim benefits, so it is essential that we make sure the process of claiming is as simple and as hurdle-free as possible to give these post-custody people the best chance of staying away from crime.
One report on adults with multiple needs documented the problems that they faced on coming out of prison, including delays of up to four weeks before the first payment, with no explanation; problems with claims made before they went to prison that had to be resolved before any new claim could be made; claims delayed because of no fixed address, as has already been referred to, or other unstable living arrangements; disputes over prison admission and release dates; and problems caused by not closing down a claim on entry to prison, which results in a fraud investigation and the new claim being suspended.
We also know that a third of people in prison do not have a bank account. This makes the payment of a deposit for housing or early expenses even harder to organise on release. Help beforehand and immediate access to benefits are key if the person is not to feel the need to return to using other people's money just to survive.
The report also emphasises the need for help and advice while still in prison—even more so over the coming years as the benefit system will, for most prisoners, have changed phenomenally by the time they come out from what they saw and knew about when they went into prison. For all the advantages in the Welfare Reform Bill—and, despite the arguments that we will have on Tuesday about its disadvantages, there are undoubtedly some advantages in it—the system of social security facing prisoners on release will be very different from the one they knew before. That will affect their re-emergence into a household. The payment of the universal credit to only one partner in the couple and other complications will need to be sorted out in advance.
In addition, half of prisoners have debts awaiting clearing on release, according to one survey, and one in three owes money for housing, which also makes access to a new home even more difficult.
The Centre for Social Justice has also highlighted similar problems faced by people leaving custody. Its report, Locked Up Potential, recognised that delays in processing benefits mean that many people who are discharged have no source of income when they most urgently need it. The report concluded:
“To bridge the finance gap, with the objective of reducing the resulting crime which it can fuel, we recommend that all prison employment and benefit advisers be required by the … DWP and the MOJ to initiate core benefit applications at least three weeks prior to a prisoner’s nominated release date”.
Along with the noble Lord, we consider three weeks to be rather too short. Nevertheless, will the Minister let us know what discussions his department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions about responding to the recommendations in that report, thus ensuring that those leaving prison are not left with gaps and delays in accessing the financial support that may be essential to them for starting a new life?
I welcome the comments that the Minister made in response to the earlier amendment about access to the work programme. Undoubtedly, that is of great advantage to people coming out of prison. Access to advice on the whole new system of universal credit well before a prisoner’s release date, and preferably when they first go into prison, would be of great advantage to them and to the rest of us. We hope very much that the Minister will accept this amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, it is very nice to see the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, at the other side of the Dispatch Box. I presume that she is on the night shift. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is correct. We recognise a certain familiarity about the amendment from another Bill but it is none the worse for that. The reality is that the MoJ and the Department for Work and Pensions are in close contact on these issues and are trying to work through them.
I am reminded of a visit I made to a Turning Point project in Birmingham when I talked to a young man who was being helped and trained. He said, “You can’t imagine the cold feeling in the pit of your stomach on your day of release”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that there is a broad consensus that one of the trigger points for reoffending is problems in resettling in the community on release. It is also true that some face problems in accessing benefits. In addition, we should do more to equip offenders to work, enabling more of them to be productive members of society on release and not a burden on the state, which was the subject of our earlier debate.
The National Offender Management Service is working to develop financial capability in custody by increasing access to money advice services. A number of prisons also commission financial advice from local CABs and through contracted housing advice services. We also encourage rent arrear repayment schemes. NOMS has also granted funds to Unlock, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is president, to increase offender access to financial services. I was very pleased to attend and to speak at the launch of a handbook produced by Unlock to help prisoners with financial issues. We recognise that more work needs to be done to encourage prisoners to save towards their discharge across the estate and to make use of the IT available, which would support them in preparing for release.
More than half of those sentenced to custody are claiming benefits at the start of their prison sentence, and two years after release nearly half are still claiming out-of-work benefits. That is why we are working so closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to overcome the gap in access to benefits, which the noble Lord has outlined, and to ensure that our plans to get Britain working will get more offenders into jobs. However, I do not believe that the noble Lord’s amendment will assist in achieving these aims. It would require us to conduct unnecessary assessments for all prisoners. This is because the work done on entering prison is highly likely to need updating as the sentence continues. At this time of fiscal constraint, it is vital that we look extremely carefully at how resources are targeted.
Staff working in prisons already take relevant steps when someone comes into custody to help sort out their benefits. New prisoners are specifically asked about this at induction and are referred to one of the 140 Jobcentre Plus employment and benefit advisers currently working in prisons. However, support does not end there, as we also recognise that release from prison into the community is a key transition point in the journey from crime to rehabilitation. Prison staff and employment and benefit advisers also take steps to help individuals make an application for a community care grant, usually about six weeks prior to discharge, so that payment can be forwarded to the prison and made available on release. They will also help in explaining how an individual can apply for a crisis loan on release.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am not so much the night shift as the Welfare Reform Bill shift. Of course, the grants that the noble Lord has just referred to are to be abolished. I trust that prisoners will be aware that they will no longer be available because the Welfare Reform Bill abolishes them.
Lord McNally
Yes, but not instantly, and there will be a transition to the new scheme that I will explain shortly. It is unfair, if the noble Baroness sat through the Welfare Reform Bill, to start brandishing her knowledge at this time of night!
All this activity is aimed at ensuring that ex-prisoners can access advice on employment and benefits. It is backed by the new NOMS specification for rehabilitation services which requires, as a minimum standard, that prisoners are supported to sort out their financial problems.
As I mentioned earlier, during the debate on the noble Lord’s amendment on employment and training in prisons, we are working to overcome the remaining barriers as part of the Government’s welfare reforms. This includes our plans to use the work programme as the primary vehicle for help and support, whereby all prison leavers who claim jobseeker’s allowance will enter the work programme from day one of release from prison. This means some 30,000 prisoners a year will claim jobseeker’s allowance and start the work programme on release from prison or within the following 13 weeks.
These changes will also mean that instead of arranging an appointment for the prison leaver to attend and claim jobseeker’s allowance on release, the claim for jobseeker’s allowance will be taken in prison, to start entitlement immediately on release, allowing mandatory referral to the work programme. We will also continue to work with the DWP, Jobcentre Plus and other agencies, including in the voluntary sector, to ensure that prisoners have all necessary information about claiming benefits on release, and in pursuing programmes that prevent reoffending.
The noble Lord has specifically raised concerns about what will happen in the case of ex-prisoners who are not seeking work. As the noble Lord, Lord Freud, also explained in the debate that touched on this issue, we are aiming to address the finance gap through our plans for universal credit payments, which are paid monthly in arrears. Under the proposals, an applicant, on leaving prison and with a valid claim, can be paid their claim immediately through payment on account. I think this will strike the right balance, in ensuring that ex-prisoners can access their benefits quickly through payment on account, and that our resources are primarily focused on getting more offenders into work.
I hope with those explanations that the noble Lord will be reassured to the point that he will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, knows that I cede to no one in my admiration for him. He demonstrates that he understands the problem, and I am sure that he understands it much better than I do—I am a complete amateur in these matters. I found his argument very telling, particularly the £46 Catch-22. I also found the statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, very telling.
I have the impression that the Minister recognises there is a problem. He is describing various means which are already in hand of perhaps reducing the scale of the problem, and that is good. However, what is wrong with accepting the amendment? If the means of amelioration which the Minister has described reduce the need to impose a deadline—I take it that the nub of my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham’s amendment is in subsection (5), with the one-week deadline—and mean that it would bite in fewer cases, that would be excellent. But would it not be good to have this provision anyway? I hope that the noble Lord will think further about the amendment because the arguments he has made are not arguments against it. He has made the argument that the scale of the problem which the amendment seeks to deal with may turn out, because of what the Government are doing or are planning to do, to be smaller than it was in the past. I accept that because it could well be true. However, that would still leave the core of a problem which the amendment would deal with. I hope that this matter will not be put away for ever.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if the noble Lord was the head of a department of state he would not be advising me to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, with such alacrity. However, I take the point. At the beginning of my remarks I made the point that we are now in close discussions with the Department for Work and Pensions in what we hope will be a genuine exercise in joined-up government. I remember one of the first experiences I had when I took over this office—and I should say that I am not the prisons Minister; my honourable friend Crispin Blunt is the Minister, and he has addressed these problems with great energy and commitment, but because of my responsibilities in this House I take an interest in this area. At any rate, I was reading in what was the strangest of all places, the Daily Telegraph, an article about a young man being released from prison with £46 in his pocket, but with a cold feeling in the pit of his stomach. The article went through the 48 hours after his release, by which time he was using that money to buy drugs and was back with the gang he had been associated with and which had sent him to prison in the first place. So we are not unaware of the problem.
I have said before that there is a revolving door of crime which sometimes our treatment of prisoners only exacerbates. What we are doing, in what I hope is a non-ideological way—I know about the fierce debates on the welfare Bill, but the noble Baroness was kind enough to comment that there are aspects of the reforms that are genuinely useful—is to see if we can stitch those reforms into our prisons. That will go a long way towards addressing the problems raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. As I have already indicated, I do listen to what he says and I will take back his ideas to see where they can mesh in with what we are trying to do with the DWP and the various initiatives that NOMS has taken.
Lord Judd
I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He has been talking with a great deal of sensitivity and imagination in response to this amendment and I am encouraged and reassured by that. He seems to have a real grasp of the realities. I hope that he will be able to deal with a couple of points. He talked about a young man with a cold feeling in the pit of his stomach. I have encountered too many conversations of exactly that character. I remember something that I think I may have mentioned in the House before. A former chief constable was doing great work as a volunteer in a young offender institution, but he was bowled over when a youngster who was about to be released started to weep in his presence. He asked him, “Why are you weeping? You are about to be released”. The youngster said, “Because I am absolutely scared of what I am going to encounter outside”.
There are two things that we must bear in mind: first, that for some people—not, of course, the majority, but some—perhaps the very last thing they need is to go straight into a job. They need a great deal of support and counselling to prepare them. Front-line staff in prisons working with these youngsters often make that point. Secondly, agencies, advice and everything else are tremendous—what the Minister has been saying is terrific; the more of it that is available, the better—but it is not just that. What so often is needed in the context of the cold hole in the stomach is stable relationships and friendship. I hope that the Minister can give us reassurance that, in all the work that the Government are doing with the voluntary sector, they will give every encouragement to those voluntary organisations that are moving into this sphere and trying to provide a stable relationship—as it were, walking with the individual back into full rehabilitation into society.
Lord McNally
Part of the problem with this debate is that we cover two areas, which we were discussing earlier. First, there are dangerous people from whom society needs protection, and we have to deal with them within our criminal justice system. Secondly, you do not need to be in this job very long, or to visit very many prisons, to realise that there are people in our prisons who have no place there and who, with a proper policy of rehabilitation in its broadest sense, can be stopped from reoffending. We are really fighting on those two fronts.
On whether there should be a glide path into work, perhaps that is where we can get the work-in-prison regimes working properly. That in itself can help in that direction. The other thing that I am also very enthusiastic about and would like to see developed, and where the voluntary sector is superbly equipped to help, is mentoring schemes, and finding people who are willing to act as mentors. That could have a powerful effect. I do not think that there is division in the Committee on that. We are trying the perhaps revolutionary idea of joined-up government in making sure that the move from prison to a proper, productive, law-abiding life is not aborted at those first steps through the prison gates because of lack of basic support.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
Perhaps the Minister would use joined-up government to do one other thing. I mentioned when I intervened just now that the Social Fund was going to be abolished and that both grants and loans would become the responsibility of local authorities. The DWP has undertaken to issue a “settlement letter” about it to local authorities. One of the areas that we were worried about with regard to the Welfare Reform Bill was that a person would have to have a local connection to be able to claim either their replacement for social care grants or crisis loans. It is exactly ex-offenders who are least likely to be able to qualify because they may not have ties with the place that they go back to. It would be extremely helpful if the Minister could in discussions with the DWP stress the importance of that settlement letter making it clear that ex-offenders should be eligible for those payments even if they go to a local authority area where they have not just moved from because they are coming out of prison. His help on that would be greatly appreciated.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, I was very glad that the night shift had started so that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, with her great experience of these issues, was here to contribute to the debate. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kerr and to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for their contributions. They added value to the debate.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, who demonstrated, as has been mentioned, that he understands the problem. Yet, in 1996 I first received an official pat on the head from an official in the Home Office who said, “Do not worry, we are talking to the Department of Employment about this”. Absolutely nothing has happened about it and that was more than 15 years ago. In the run up to putting my amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill, I questioned officials in the Department for Work and Pensions who were not aware of any people in the Ministry of Justice involved in such discussions. I am glad that that is happening. It would be sensible to bring this amendment back on Report so that the Minister can tell us precisely what has happened since that time. I know that the Department for Work and Pensions is poised and waiting. The suggestions that I made to the Minister were requests from that department that would help it to help the Ministry of Justice. Hoping that that will happen, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
“(2A) The relevant Minister may issue a transit order where—
(a) international arrangements apply to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man which provide for the transfer between that island and a country or territory outside the British Islands of persons to whom subsection (2B) applies; and(b) the relevant Minister has received a request from the appropriate authority of that island for the transit of a person to whom subsection (2B) applies through a part of Great Britain.(2B) A person falls within this subsection if—
(a) that person is for the time being required to be detained in a prison, a hospital or any other institution either—(i) by virtue of an order made in the course of the exercise of its criminal jurisdiction by a court or tribunal in the island from which the transit request is made; or(ii) by virtue of any provisions of the law of that island which are similar to any of the provisions of this Act; and(b) except in a case where a transit request is made in the circumstances described in section 6D(1), that person is present in that island.”
Lord McNally
My Lords, I cannot resist commenting on the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. He is such an old Whitehall warrior that he is always between one department and another, asking, “What are the difficult questions that I can ask them?”.
Clause 120 provides that prisoners who are being transferred under escort from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment may transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. The clause is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. Following discussions with the authorities of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, it has become clear that further powers are necessary to enable escorts from these territories to transit through Great Britain when transferring a prisoner to another state. This group of amendments address that particular issue with the Crown dependencies. They have no other, wider or ulterior motives, despite talking about transiting through territories et cetera. They are to enable the Crown dependencies—the Channel Islands and the Island of Man—to participate in what are already international obligations. I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, I am deeply sad that my appearance before the witching hour did not receive the approbation of the Minister, who did not welcome me to the Front Bench with my comments. I make no further comment on that. I also make it absolutely clear that the comments which follow have not been solicited by me creeping around Whitehall. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has gone, but I will obviously take lessons from him about how to do that in future. He concealed his briefing very well to the end. Perhaps he should have done so until after the Minister responded.
The Minister is right. The wording of these amendments looks pretty innocuous on the surface but we wonder why they are there. I have five questions to leave with the Minister. He said that these were necessary to fulfil international obligations. That of course raises in one’s mind the words “extraordinary rendition”. Could he reassure the Committee that, as he said at the end, there is nothing that one should be worried about in that? Clearly, we are worried about extraordinary rendition. Is this a part of that overall process and, if not, could he explain precisely why the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man need to have this legislation at this time? I am sure that there is an innocuous explanation, but we would be grateful to have that. Perhaps in answering that he could also say what he estimates the effect will be of the provision. I cannot imagine that many international flights carrying prisoners and escorts, or without escorts, land in the Channel Islands and require this sort of arrangement; so it would be interesting to have the figures and, if he does not have them to hand, perhaps he could write to me.
Since we are on extraordinary rendition, which has been a sensitive issue for some time, perhaps the Minister could use the opportunity to refresh our memories about where we are on this. Is it still the case that the UK will not undertake extraordinary rendition of detainees in a manner that may be illegal? Confirmation of that would be gratefully received.
Lord McNally
On the last point, of course I can give that guarantee. I very much welcome the noble Lord as part of the nightshift. I apologise for the omission during his earlier contributions.
The Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey are not part of the United Kingdom; they are Crown dependencies. Whether it was an oversight or not, I do not know, but this just clears things up so that they can operate through UK airports if that was needed. I understand that there have been two or three cases in the past three or four years, so this is not some mass movement of people. They are applications on a voluntary basis, with people wanting to be repatriated back to their own country, and for prisoner exchange purposes.
It may help if I speak to Clause 120. The clause would enable prisoners who are being transferred from one state to another for the purpose of serving a sentence of imprisonment to transit through the territory of Great Britain. Transit will normally involve a prisoner and escort changing aircraft at an appropriate UK international airport. It is required to enable the UK to fulfil its international obligations under existing and future prisoner transfer arrangements. The United Kingdom is party to a number of international prisoner transfer arrangements which require the United Kingdom to facilitate transit wherever possible. In the absence of a specific power to authorise transit, and where necessary to detain a prisoner during transit, applications have been routinely refused.
Clause 120 will enable the relevant Minister to authorise transit through the territory of Great Britain where a request is made in accordance with a relevant international prisoner transfer agreement to which the UK is party—in particular the Council of Europe’s framework decision which requires a member state to facilitate transit between member states when requested. It also provides a power for the police to detain a prisoner in transit only for a period necessary to complete the transit.
The Government fully support the principle that foreign national prisoners should be able to serve their sentences in their own country and we need to support partner jurisdictions in achieving this end. For this system to work effectively, Governments must to co-operate with each other in facilitating transfer. Indeed, the UK regularly seeks and obtains permission to transit through other countries when returning British nationals here.
I recognise that concerns have been raised about the rights and protection of individuals subject to transit, but I remind the House that only when a person has been convicted and sentenced by a court of law and when that person is being transferred for the sole purpose of the enforcement of that sentence in another country would transit through the UK take place. The prisoner concerned is unlikely to have any connection with the United Kingdom and any challenge to the prisoner’s transfer and detention should be made either to the sentencing or receiving state, not the United Kingdom.
This is a technical amendment and has none of the sinister implications that might have arisen at first blush. I hope that the assurances that I gave at the beginning to the noble Lord’s questions will satisfy him.
Lord McNally
Magna Carta
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lea of Crondall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, plans to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta in June 2015 are being co-ordinated by the Magna Carta Trust, an independent organisation chaired by Sir Robert Worcester. I am keeping in close contact with the trust and I hope that as many people as possible will join in the commemorative activities and events that are being planned for the run-up to 2015 and on the anniversary itself.
Lord Lea of Crondall
I thank the Minister for that reply. There are of course very special reasons to commemorate in this House what happened at Runnymede in June 1215 and, indeed, the evolution of our constitutional arrangements between the Lords and the Commons over many centuries since. Does the noble Lord agree that in addition to weighty documents being published and speeches being made, there could be something of a more popular nature? For example, the pageant that preceded the tournament in 1215 was itself preceded by a ceremonial exchange of hostages between England and Scotland. What does the noble Lord think about a replay of that? Other events might also intrude, such as an inconclusive outcome of the general election. In those circumstances, would one way forward be a series of ceremonial jousts between the parties in which the noble Lord himself might be called upon to participate?
Lord McNally
What excellent ideas. It is strange how the same thoughts go through our minds. Just as the noble Lord was speaking, I was looking at the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and thinking what a perfect hostage he would make in the circumstances. Not long ago, I went to a ceremony at Runnymede and pointed out something that may surprise some Members of this House in view of my views about reform—that at Runnymede, the Barons did very well.
Lord Cormack
My Lords, does my noble friend think that the Barons who look down upon us daily from their plinths above this Chamber would be best pleased if, a month after the next general election, they looked down upon a hybrid Assembly with a group of senators in it?
Lord McNally
Indeed. I am sure that the Barons would be as revolutionary in 2015 as they were in 1215, but I defer to my noble friend because, sometimes when listening to him, I think he must have been at Runnymede for the signing.
The Lord Bishop of Chichester
My Lords, the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton, played a decisive and formative role in the formulation of Magna Carta, and that was not the first or the last occasion in our history when the Church has, so to speak, helped to keep the feet of the powers-that-be to the fire in matters of constitutional freedoms. Will the Minister take the opportunity to acknowledge the continuing contribution that people of faith are still making today in defending human dignity that transcends temporary political arrangements, and will he further let us know whether he is prepared to advise the independent commission to which he referred to invite the Church of England to play a particular role in the 2015 celebrations?
Lord McNally
I would certainly hope so. As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, Archbishop Langton played an important part at that time. I shall draw the idea to Sir Bob Worcester’s attention. I believe that this is an opportunity for us to celebrate a significant part of our history. I know that historical purists will cavil at the importance of the Magna Carta, but I always remember Eleanor Roosevelt, when she published the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, saying that it was a Magna Carta for all mankind. Nobody needed to translate what she meant by that. Magna Carta carries a resonance that has come down to us through the ages.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
My Lords, may I invite the Minister graciously to disabuse himself and all others who fall prey to the misconception that Magna Carta was ever signed? It never was. As a charter, and as the name implies, it was sealed by the royal seal of King John, as the facsimile mounted in the Contents Lobby makes very clear. May I apologise for making such a pettifogging legal point?
Lord McNally
Not at all. I have long considered the noble Lord a master of the pettifogging legal point, but his question gives me the opportunity to put on the record, for noble Lords who want to get involved in the build-up to the Magna Carta celebrations, that my honourable friend Eleanor Laing in the other place is chairing an All-Party Magna Carta Group. I am sure that it would benefit from membership from this House.
Baroness Benjamin
Thank you, my Lords. A favourite expression often used by British citizens is, “It’s a free country”. Thankfully, so it is, but many are not aware that our freedoms are the greatest legacy of the Magna Carta. What are the Government doing to ensure that children and young people use and appreciate this precious gift of freedom with respect and responsibility? Perhaps they could do so by establishing an annual Magna Carta day to raise awareness and celebrating on the underused Parliament Square, as suggested by the Hansard Society.
Lord McNally
Again, I am delighted by the enthusiasm with which the House is approaching this and I shall feed that idea back to Sir Robert.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Will the Minister confirm that Clause 29 of Magna Carta, which enshrines the right to due process, remains part of the law of England and Wales, but that it is under attack by the Government? Would it not be seemly if the Government were to celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta by withdrawing Part 1 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, which removes legal aid from people on low incomes who are in dispute about their benefits entitlement or with their employer or with their landlord? If the Government should be less than gracious about this, will it not still be for the Barons to insist on the ancient constitutional principle that:
“To no man will we sell, or deny, or delay right or justice”?
Lord McNally
The noble Lord once again confirms that one should never take that final question.
Prisoners: Transport
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking regarding the safety and reliability of the arrangements for transporting prisoners following the two recent ambushes and escapes.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the National Offender Management Service has taken immediate action to reinforce security procedures and staff have been instructed to ensure that these procedures are fully complied with.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
I am grateful to the noble Lord; that is a helpful Answer. There is a very good record on prison security, which is why these two armed ambushes and escapes are so shocking. The week before last the Minister confirmed to your Lordships’ House that,
“escape must be made impossible”—[Official Report, 24/1/12; col. WA 220]—
for Category A prisoners. The second prisoner who escaped had previously absconded from court, was sentenced for GBH in his absence, and was given an indeterminate sentence for public protection because of the seriousness of his crimes. I find it incredible that, despite all that, he was given a Category C prisoner status and deemed to be unlikely to escape. Will the Minister look into this, and can he make arrangements to assure himself that when prisoners are transported, the security category is double-checked or reassessed to minimise any risk to the public or to staff?
Lord McNally
My Lords, I appreciate the constructive nature of that question. I hope the noble Baroness will appreciate that a formal investigation is under way into the circumstances of both escapes, and the reports and recommendations will determine what further action may be required. A wider review is also under way into the procedures governing the escorting of prisoners outside of prisons, including the arrangements for transporting them. Her point about the categorisation of prisoners should, and I assume will be, part of that inquiry.
Baroness Sharples
Are the guards armed when they transport Category A prisoners?
Lord McNally
I cannot confirm that they are armed on all occasions, but there is an assessment of risk for Category A prisoners. The use of guns in one of these escapes is extremely worrying, but it does not happen every time. That is another thing that the inquiry will look into and report back on.
Lord Ramsbotham
My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the National Offender Management Service was conducting what I presume is an internal, in-house inquiry into this. Can he tell us whether the Inspectorate of Prisons and the inspectorate of the security industry are also looking into it? Presumably there are wider impacts other than those on the purely internal workings of the National Offender Management Service.
Lord McNally
Yes, the inquiry will go far wider. As I said, the wider review which is under way will look at both the public and the private sectors. The review’s aim is not just to hold an inquest into what happened but to learn lessons that will be helpful in the future.
Lord Bach
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for his answers to this Question. Are the Government satisfied that all those with the responsibility—and it is a difficult responsibility—for transferring prisoners are trained to a high enough standard in all cases to perform their difficult task? Prison officers certainly are. Are the Government content that everyone else who has this responsibility is trained to a high enough standard, too?
Lord McNally
Yes, I think that I can give the noble Lord that assurance. Again, standards of training is one of the things that the inquiry will be looking at. This will of course vary because we are talking about a large number of movements throughout a year and many of them are a very low category indeed. Under successive Governments over the last 15 years, the actual number of successful break-outs or escapes in transit has made this very much an exception rather than the rule. That is a sign of the improvements in transportation facilities and the training of staff. The wider review will look at this. As I said, if lessons are to be learnt, we will learn them. There is also the prospect that, with a greater use of television to allow distance interviewing of prisoners, there will be less need to transport them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway
Is this really a question of training? Is it not a question of making appropriate provision in these special circumstances?
Lord McNally
Yes, my Lords, but the fleet for transporting prisoners has recently been updated, so there should be greater security in those circumstances. There is training of staff—prisoners are accompanied by staff—and an assessment is made in advance, particularly of the transportation of Category A prisoners. The investigation under way will look at what is in place and whether those procedures were followed and, if all the procedures that were in place were followed and yet a successful break was made, what lessons are to be learnt from that.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
My Lords, we on the opposition Benches support both amendments and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and his cosignatories on bringing them forward. I have not the slightest doubt that any court presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, would not only know what to do but actually do it. However, that is not necessarily universally the case, and the Justice Select Committee in July 2008 raised concerns about the fact that pre-sentence reports were not requested frequently enough. It also raised doubts about the adequacy of those reports when they were presented; so there is clearly a problem in some courts some of the time, and it is sensible to make provision along the lines of both amendments.
An amendment precisely along the lines of the second amendment was moved in the Commons by Helen Goodman MP. It is surely essential for the courts to give due consideration to the effect of sentencing on dependants, not only from the point of view of those dependants but—given that we are necessarily talking about costs all the time—to avoid the costs that may arise from, for example, having to take children into care or the long-term damage that may be done to families, particularly but not exclusively in the context of mothers being sentenced to imprisonment.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, rightly referred to the fact that there is a high suicide rate among women prisoners. There is also an alarmingly high rate of self-harm. After all, one-third of women prisoners are single mothers; only 9 per cent of children with mothers who are serving custodial sentences are looked after by their father. That is not to say that there may not be other family members who take care of some children in those circumstances, but it is clearly a material factor.
It is of great concern that more than half of women prisoners suffer from severe mental illness, and half have suffered from domestic violence. They are clearly very damaged women. One might feel that children in that family are already vulnerable and exposed to risk. Notwithstanding the experience of my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, it is clear that women are not treated in exactly the same way in sentencing, as a higher proportion of first-time offenders among women are sent to prison than men and a higher proportion of women are sentenced for non-violent offences—both significant differences. There is a problem about sentencing of women, and we will be considering that under later amendments. Bearing in mind the higher proportion of those women who have dependent children, the amendment is extremely timely.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, raised an issue about the practicality of the situation and cited the experience of last summer, with courts sentencing people to custodial sentences in the middle of the night. It may be that custodial sentences were required. The question arises whether it was necessary for those sentences to take immediate effect without proper inquiry into the background circumstances. I would argue that that was not necessary, whatever the ultimate sentence may have been.
My noble friend Lady Corston has reported extensively on the position of women prisoners. Her report will no doubt be touched on in conjunction with later amendments. The spirit of that report should surely inform the Government’s attitude to these two amendments, which we heartily commend.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this has been an extremely useful debate and one that has not necessarily followed previous structures where the Minister sits there under fire from all parts of the House. It has been interesting to hear the various experiences, particularly of noble and learned Lords and their opinions on whether the amendments are necessary or add to present practice.
The Criminal Justice Act 2003 sets out when a court must or should request a report. Amendment 175 does not address those provisions, which relate to the duty to explain a sentence after it has been decided. A pre-sentence report is designed to inform the judge or magistrate before they decide on a sentence, while the clause relates to duties to explain the sentence that is being imposed.
Nevertheless, under the system now in place, a pre-sentence report to the court by the probation service sets out a recommendation for sentence based on the background and the risk posed by the offender. The report will set out any factors relevant to the offending. That will include a history of alcohol or drug dependency or any home life factors that might be relevant. That report is, in effect, what one would understand by the term “social history”. Of course, the court would also have in front of it a print-out of previous convictions and it would decide which of these were relevant to the case.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton
My Lords, looking at public expenditure, sending a woman to prison and putting her children into care is an extremely expensive option, but in many cases the resources are not available for the alternative treatment that I know speakers in this debate and other noble Lords regard as a preferable option. The problem is that those who have to deal with a particular incident or the result of a series of incidents often cannot use that judgment. It demands lateral thinking to transfer resources from one course of action to another.
Lord McNally
I could not agree more with the noble Baroness. That was very much the thrust of the Corston report and of what the Government are trying to do in carrying through their justice reforms, particularly in the treatment of women offenders.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am concerned about the instructions given to probation officers who carry out pre-sentence reports. Will my noble friend look into the matter before Report and find out in what circumstances it is acceptable for a probation officer to fashion a pre-sentence report based simply on a videolink and ticking boxes on a form on the other side? When is that permitted and what particular guidance is given to probation officers in those circumstances?
Lord McNally
One of the reasons why I am always at a disadvantage when dealing with my noble friend is because he usually has some recent case in which he has personally participated that proves the case he is making. I have noted what he said and will check whether that is regular practice. As I said, the Appeal Court has made it very clear that if reports are not asked for or are deficient, that in itself could be grounds for an appeal.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, is it not the case—I will be grateful if I am wrong—that under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, there is a requirement on the court in all cases to have a probation report in writing, save when the court sees it entirely proper to relax that rule, but not when a person is under 18? There is one other exception that I cannot remember, but it is quite substantial. In other words, will the Minister look not just at the amendment but at the parent provision, as it were, in the 2003 Act?
Lord McNally
Certainly, but the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, makes my point. There are responsibilities already in previous legislation that make these amendments unnecessary. As always, I will check. I am sure that his memory is accurate, but if not I will write a correcting letter. In the mean time, with the offer of some talks on the amendment, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, will withdraw it.
Lord Dholakia
Will the Minister consider the possibility of a code of practice on how such reports are produced and give some guidance to the probation service so that this matter can be resolved without necessarily any recourse to legislation?
Lord McNally
That is an interesting and helpful intervention from my noble friend, which I will take away and consider.
Lord Wigley
My Lords, the Minister said in his opening remarks that he was in an unusual situation in that he was responding to a debate that had not overtly attacked the Government or him. I am in a novel situation as well, having had the Minister’s response. I thank everyone who has taken part in this short debate. It has been very worth while. I pay tribute to the work undertaken by my noble friend Lady Howe in this whole area, but particularly in the context of today’s report on stalking. I am very grateful for her comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, has doubts about whether the amendments add very much to the law. The pressure that we have had as the tablers of these amendments has come from professional probation workers, who are at the sharp end and feel that a change is necessary. Whether that change is correctly encapsulated in these amendments may be another question. It may be that further guidance can be given to meet some of these points, but an issue certainly arises, otherwise there would not have been the wealth of examples. I could have quoted a dozen or more most moving examples that need the attention of Parliament.
Today’s report on the reform of the law on stalking by the independent parliamentary inquiry contains five recommendations that are directly relevant to the points covered by these amendments. I was grateful to the Minister for saying that he will give further thought to the amendments in the context of the debate we had last night as well as in that of the report, which add up to a need to give attention to this.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, gave a very graphic example from direct personal experience. Quite clearly there needs to be some guidance to avoid some of the dangers he outlined in the context of videolinking. Whether that can be done by law or needs to be done in other ways, it is not a satisfactory situation and I can well understand how he feels about it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to the severity of events not always being properly taken into full account. I can well understand that. The severity, the incidence and the whole background need to be taken into account before proper judgments can be made.
My noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan spoke from his immense experience as a judge and a barrister. He emphasised the need for previous history to be available in determining appropriate sentences. Quite clearly, the history is a guiding factor in determining what is or is not appropriate. On dependants, he emphasised the need for courts to consider the totality of the case and the implications that the sentence would have in that totality of circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, questioned whether the courts are neglecting their duties. I imagine that most courts strive in every way they can to undertake their duties and to meet the requirements but, as always, safety nets in law are necessary when there could be courts that fail to do so. I refer to the evidence that has been sent to us by those who are involved in detail on these questions. I am sure that the Minister will take these points on board.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, asked me whether the intention is that the amendment should apply to magistrates’ courts. It was the intention that it should apply to both Crown Courts and magistrates' courts, but if there are problems here, by all means let us have a look at them. There might be problems with the workload on the courts and the nature of the courts. That might raise the question of which court is most appropriate for some of these matters. These are questions that no doubt the Minister will be willing to consider.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for being a supporter of these amendments. He referred to the need for rehabilitation and therefore for maximum information to be available to facilitate that purpose and minimise future crime. That must always be our objective.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, for his support for these amendments from the Front Bench. He emphasised the degree of self-harm among women in prison. This must be very high in our minds as we address these questions.
I thank the Minister for his offer of discussions and further meetings to consider the implications of these amendments in the context of other developments. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, will be delighted to accept that offer, and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for his usual thorough presentation of these amendments and for sending me this opinion of learned counsel, which, as he rightly said, was delivered only 24 hours ago. Even though, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will know, the Ministry of Justice is one of the most efficient and speedy departments in Whitehall, the matter is still in the hands of my advisers, and I am sure that we will take it on board. In passing, I should say that I had to clear another piece of paper the other day about asking the advice of learned counsel, and I saw just how much it costs to ask for such advice, so I thank the noble Lord for such an expensive gift.
I was also interested in the confession of my noble friend Lord Lester about accepting success fees. As the debate has unfolded, it has occurred to me that this is indeed a money Bill, but perhaps not in House of Commons terms. Let me also deal with another canard or slur that has been put across the Chamber from the noble Lord, Lord Beecham: that the Aarhus convention is something new to the Government or to government Ministers. Perhaps I can draw his attention to the fact that on 19 October, we in the Ministry of Justice sent out a consultation paper, entitled Cost Protection for Litigants in Environmental Judicial Review Claims, with the specific aim of enabling the UK to implement its obligations under the Aarhus convention. Yet again, when the facts are known, it is clear that the Government are on the case, on the ball and moving forward, despite the attempts of the Opposition to say otherwise.
Lord Beecham
It is said that they are in breach of their obligations under the convention.
Lord McNally
As I said, we are consulting. I shall return to the question of getting it right. The problem is that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, is impetuous in so many ways, whereas this Government are determined to get things right—you can see the advice that I get on getting things right.
On Monday, we spent some time discussing QOCS and we heard the concerns of my noble friends and others that the matter should appear in the Bill. This afternoon, I do not want to repeat the more general arguments on these matters, but we need to get the details and the rules right to ensure that they are tailored properly in respect of the category of proceedings to which they apply. For example, in personal injury cases, it may well be that there should not be an initial financial test. However, the position is likely to be different for defamation, and perhaps for environmental cases too, which typically involve more than one claimant—sometimes many claimants. In such cases the costs involved can impact considerably on the ability of the public bodies that are under challenge to perform their general functions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained in moving his amendment on Monday, he was looking for specific words rather than words like “unreasonable”, which he said had such a broad meaning. Indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, added that the word “unreasonable” was liable to cause serious difficulties of interpretation and yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has confessed, the word “unreasonably” is in Amendment 157.
It is precisely for those reasons that we are not yet ready to crystallise in statute, and ring-fence away from development in rules, words which are more properly left to the rules, where they can follow detailed discussions with stakeholders. They can be tailored and nuanced for the particular category of proceedings and, of course, the Lord Chancellor will remain accountable for the policy on these issues which is reflected through the Civil Procedure Rules.
Amendments 141, 147, 148, 149 and 150 deal with the recovery of ATE insurance premiums in respect of environmental claims under the Aarhus convention. Amendment 157 would introduce a new clause to provide for costs protection in the form of qualified one-way costs shifting—QOCS—for claimants in environmental claims and, it would appear, for all judicial review claims, whether concerning environmental issues or not.
The Government are, of course, conscious of their obligations under the Aarhus convention. Put simply, the convention requires us to ensure that parties have access to a procedure to challenge relevant environmental decisions that is, among other things, not prohibitively expensive. How we discharge those obligations has been a matter of debate for some time. It was addressed by Lord Justice Jackson in his report and was considered in a number of cases in the High Court and above. Amendments 141, 147, 148 and 149 seek to allow ATE insurance premiums to be recoverable from the other party in these cases. As I indicated in our debate on Monday, the Government's policy is that ATE insurance premiums should no longer be recoverable except in the particular instance of clinical negligence expert reports. Therefore, we do not favour this or any other extension of ATE premium recoverability.
Amendment 157 seeks to apply QOCS to environmental claims, subject to qualification in respect of unreasonable behaviour. The proposed clause would displace any rules of court in this area and provide for the Lord Chancellor instead to have the power to make regulations to extend QOCS to other areas in future. That seems to be something of a departure from the general principle that in civil proceedings, matters relating to costs are regulated in detail by rules of court. It is not clear why the departure would be beneficial.
As noble Lords are aware, the Government are introducing a regime of QOCS in personal injury cases to help balance the impact of the changes to no-win no-fee conditional fee agreements, and in particular as an alternative to “after the event” insurance. Claimants will continue to be able to take out ATE insurance if they wish, but they will pay the premium, which will be lower than the rolled-up premiums presently never paid by anyone other than a losing defendant. Although Lord Justice Jackson suggested that QOCS might be considered for use in some non-personal injury claims, the Government are not persuaded that the case for this has yet been made.
I noted the dispute between the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and my noble friend Lord Lester about protective costs orders, which are also part of this consultation. As a matter of principle, the Government’s view is that protective costs orders can provide appropriate costs protection in environmental cases. Environmental organisations and the working group chaired by the then Mr Justice Sullivan, to whom noble Lords referred, expressed a preference for QOCS, having argued, including in a submission before the Aarhus Convention Compliance Committee, that an appropriate PCO regime could provide full compliance with the requirements of the convention. With a PCO, it will be clear from the outset what costs the claimant will have to pay if their claim is unsuccessful, while ensuring that some contribution is made toward the costs of public bodies that have successfully defended the claim. As I said, we have consulted on the issue.
The Ministry of Justice consultation Cost Protection for Litigants in Environmental Judicial Review Claims outlines proposals for a cost-capping scheme for cases that fall within the Aarhus convention. The consultation closed on 18 January and we will announce the way forward in due course.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill
I had not realised that there was a consultation, and I am delighted to hear that that has now been done. The issue seems to go beyond environmental litigation. Perhaps further thought might be given within the costs rules to a user-friendly procedure in all public interest cases whereby the individual can obtain an order quickly and at the beginning, as recommended by Lord Evershed’s committee in 1950. Lord Evershed recommended that the Attorney-General should be able to certify an issue of public interest where the costs rules would be displaced. I realise that this matter would be for the rules committee, but could consideration be given to that sensible procedure that would be not generalised but case based, on a user-friendly procedural basis, with the judge giving a decision so that people will know where they are from the beginning?
Lord McNally
I am not sure that I am able to commit to anything as rash as following up a recommendation that is a mere 62 years old. As always with interventions by my noble friend, I will take that away, but I should also make the point, given that this is the last of a series of amendments chipping away at—to use the term that I used the other night—the central architecture of the reforms that we are trying to introduce, that we have consulted on these matters. We have indicated the idea that PCOs may be a way forward in our commitment under the Aarhus convention. I will certainly make sure that the learned counsel’s opinion is fully studied. As I have explained, the Government’s view is that the best way forward is within the rules rather than within legislation, but this has given a good airing to the issue. The whole House is now more familiar with the Aarhus convention—I understand it is a Danish town—and we are the better for that debate. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, it is a relief to know that the Ministry of Justice, like New York, never sleeps. No doubt the opinion will be pored over and there will be further discussions before we get to Report.
I invite my noble friend to do this now. He says that the proper way to proceed is for one-way cost-shifting to be introduced by tailored Civil Procedure Rules. Your Lordships will recall that on Monday the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and I made the point that there should be guidance from Parliament, not simply a discussion between the Executive and the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, about the parameters of those rules and what the boundaries and structure are to be. I would be grateful to know from the Minister the position on this particular point. He is shifting the burden of the success fee and the ATE premium over to the successful claimant. Is that going to be co-ordinated and timed to come into effect at the same time as one-way cost-shifting? That is the key issue. If you do not have one-way cost-shifting, you are shifting to the claimant the liability for the defendant’s entire costs, if he should lose, and consequently an enormous premium. We heard of premiums of £900,000. I am familiar with a premium of £80,000. I think that the standard is in thousands for any sort of claim. If, on the other hand, one-way cost-shifting comes in and the defendants’ costs are paid by the defendants win or lose, we will be concerned with a premium for a much smaller thing, which is the disbursements of the claimant, should he lose. The risk is that much smaller.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord is absolutely right. I have given my reply. That was the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, to my reply. But I am very happy to take the point. We are considering a consultation. We have said that our judgment is that it is better in rules rather than in the Bill.
Lord Bach
Should all that not have been done before the legislation comes before one House, let alone a second House of Parliament? The result of the consultation, or the Minister’s consideration of it, will probably not be known until this Bill has become law. Is that not much too late and entirely the wrong way round?
Lord McNally
The pained look with which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, comes to the Dispatch Box and implies that the Government is the first Government in the world to bring forward legislation with further consultations needed about specific regulation is a bit rich. The implications of this Bill will come into force in April 2013. We have a period of time for such consultations. As I said before, I take the point that there has to be a synchronisation in these matters. I do not think we are doing anything unusual by legislating in this way, but we take on board the points made in this debate.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am grateful to my noble friend for saying there will be synchronisation. The scales of justice have been tipped against defendants by this fourfold cost that they have been calling for over a period of time. The purpose of this Bill is to even the scales of justice up. If there is any period between shifting from that side to this side the success fee and the ATE insurance without providing one-way costs as the balance, the scales will go completely in the opposite direction, and it is the suffering claimants who will come out the worst in a situation like that.
I cannot resist coming back to the question of protective costs orders, having heard my noble friend Lord Lester. Protective costs orders are applied for in public interest cases. I am not concerned simply with public interest cases. These could be the private individual, the householder whose house is flooded, in the example that I gave—
Lord Beecham
My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I shall not detain the House long. I very much welcome the contributions by my noble friend Lord Davies, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I have some sympathy with my noble friend’s approach; he sees in third-party funding arrangements an alternative source of funding for cases that might not otherwise be advanced because of other changes that are in hand. My problem with that is that in effect he is throwing a lifeline to the Government to pursue that very restriction, and that does not serve the cause of access to justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, rightly drew attention to the concerns about this matter, and the remarks by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, clearly constitute a significant degree of support for the case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. It is clear that we are potentially seeing a sea change in the way that some litigation will be funded in a way that runs contrary to the traditions of justice in this country. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to hedge funds, and I think he is right; there is a danger here of legal hedge funds, as it were, being created and a secondary market developing, and who knows whence the funding of those organisations will derive? Experience in the United States is not encouraging, as the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, reminded us. I understand that in America, particularly in divorce cases, huge sums are in play.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has done the House a great service in identifying the issues here and in coming up with a viable framework that could be put in place in order to deal with the potential difficulties. I think that the view of the House, from those noble Lords who have spoken, is that a voluntary code simply will not suffice, however well intended the motivations of those who sought to produce one—and they clearly were well intended. There needs to be a more rigorous structure, and the reference by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, to the Lord Chancellor making regulations, coupled with the ideas set out in the noble Lord’s amendment, offer a way forward.
If at this stage the Minister cannot give a clear nod to the amendment, and I can understand if he cannot, then I hope at least that further discussions can be held on the matter and an agreed position put forward on Report. We do not want this genie getting out of the bottle, to which it could not be returned, by default. There are issues here of great significance and we hope the amendment will provide the basis for taking matters forward in a way that can be agreed across the House—I think there is a general interest across the House in this—to the advantage of litigants and the cause of justice itself.
Lord McNally
My Lords, in 1962—which is now, sadly, 50 years ago—part one of my degree course contained a subsidiary paper on English legal institutions. About the only thing I can remember from that course is the concept of champerty and maintenance. It therefore came as something of a shock to be told that it no longer applied, and indeed had not applied for some time.
Lord McNally
I have been trying to keep that quiet. The paper I mentioned was one of nine papers that I took in 1962 for my economics degree. The other day I found the statistics paper, which evidently I had passed. However, not only did I not know the answers to the questions, I could not understand the questions.
Lord Beecham
Could the noble Lord offer his services to the Office for Budget Responsibility?
Lord McNally
My Lords, this has been an interesting and useful debate and I am grateful to my noble friend for outlining the matter with his usual thoroughness. Third-party litigation funding has developed and—to use the phrase deployed by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell—there is a welling up of disquiet about it. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, takes what I would describe as the Robin Hood approach to this matter and views it rather optimistically as a way for the rich to help the poor. The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, was a little more sceptical about that scenario and drew on his American experience of how the process works. I think that people are a little worried when investors and investment opportunities are mentioned—the noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that matter—when we are talking about the law.
I was delighted to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, mention Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who I remember speaking from the Cross Benches. You used to see the colour draining from a Minister’s face as he realised that Lord Simon of Glaisdale had thoroughly read and filleted the relevant Bill and knew exactly the contradiction in the government amendment that he was about to dissect. I experience that same feeling of foreboding whenever the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rises to speak. The noble and learned Lord said that Lord Justice Jackson could not be criticised for his brevity. All I can say to him is that Lord Justice Jackson is not alone among lawyers in that failing. I look at no one in this House in saying that.
Like other noble Lords, however, I take on board the noble and learned Lord’s point about the need to exercise caution in this matter. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, caught the mood of the House when he referred to the concept of legal hedge funds being established and cases being bundled up as investment opportunities as something that gives rise to rightful concern.
The code of conduct was drawn up with the specific requirement that the matter would be revisited if and when third-party funding expanded. It is a question of whether it has now expanded to a point where the matter should be revisited. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, explained, the Civil Justice Council published a voluntary code of conduct for litigation funders on 23 November. It was drawn up with the co-operation of the Association of Litigation Funders.
What I can say is that some serious points have been made during this debate, to which I have listened extremely carefully. My right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect on these matters. They are serious, and some serious and worthwhile advice has been given. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, is about to leap to his feet, and perhaps I may say that there was good and useful advice on both sides of the argument. I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment so that the Lord Chancellor can reflect on this issue. I shall not sit down if the noble Lord, Lord Davies, wishes to intervene.
Lord Davies of Stamford
The noble Lord is extremely kind. Does he agree that the best way of looking at this situation is to try to find the least undesirable possibility, or a less undesirable possibility, of a whole lot of very undesirable possibilities? Those are the only possibilities that exist. It would be lovely if legal aid was universally available for civil justice, and there were people in the 1940s who thought that that might happen. Sir Hartley Shawcross was saying at the time that he thought that legal aid could be turned into a kind of National Health Service equivalent for civil justice. We know that that is not financially conceivable.
The Government are engaged in further cutting back access to legal aid. I disapprove of that because it is an undesirable objective. We introduced conditional fees. I remember having a conversation with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, after I introduced an access to civil justice Bill in the House of Commons. He asked me not to take it any further because he was thinking of introducing conditional fees as a government initiative. I agreed with that at the time. He said that the Bill had certain inadequacies and did not cover all cases. However, when we introduced contingency fees, a lot of perversities were attached. I concede that, at first sight, investment in a tort case just as a commercial transaction seems unedifying and unattractive. However, I put it to the noble Lord that all these solutions are undesirable. The most undesirable solution of all might be further to restrict access to civil justice for whole categories of potentially meritorious cases.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I am sure that that postscript will be studied by the Lord Chancellor, and he will carefully study this debate. As I was saying in my concluding remarks, I thank my noble friend Lord Thomas for introducing this subject and noble Lords for expressing a variety of views on it. The Lord Chancellor would like further time to reflect and I ask my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I accept that the opposing view, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, was certainly an arguable one. I have not suggested that third-party funding should be banned but that it should be subject to statutory regulation, as opposed to the voluntary code.
I could not help reflecting on my rugby days and the occasional game in which the leader of the forwards, an extremely formidable person, would observe the scrum-half dropping the ball and say to us in the pack, “Boys, they’ve had their chance. We’re not going to give it to them again”. Consequently, everything changed and we adopted a different tactic.
Here, a voluntary code has been brought in. They have had their chance. In formulating the voluntary code, they did not include what Lord Justice Jackson rightly set out as the essential needs of such a code. They decided not to do that. When approached by the industry to say that they should limit themselves to commercial litigation, they decided not to do that. A two-page code has been produced of nine clauses which gives the broadest possibilities to the funders for the way in which they operate. I am not satisfied with that. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for their support. There is a perception of a genuine problem arising.
I look forward to further discussion with my noble friend and, perhaps, the Lord Chancellor, and we will see whether we can take forward this matter for Report but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for introducing the matter. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Neill and Lord Bach, for their contributions. Part of the latter's contribution was a warm-up for the further debate that we will have on referral fees, and I will make two points about his comments. First, he said that the insurance industry was trapped in practices that drive up premiums. That would be fine if the insurance industry paid the penalty for that merry-go-round, but the reason that there is so much indignation is that the cost falls on the poor consumer. That is why there seems not to be much incentive in the industry to deal with this; companies casually pass on increased costs to the consumer, as we have seen with the escalation of insurance premiums in this area. Secondly, I join my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in praising the road traffic accident portal, which is working extremely well and we are actively looking at where else it could be applied.
As my noble friend Lord Thomas and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, Amendments 164 and 164ZA would prohibit an insurer making an unsolicited approach to potential claimants in a personal injury case if the insurer was aware that the claimant had legal representation. The amendments also specify the requirements that must be met before an insurer may make an offer to settle such a claim where a claimant does not have, or is thought not to have, legal representation. This includes a requirement to obtain adequate medical evidence of the injury and to advise the claimant of their right to obtain full legal advice before accepting the offer, and to make it clear to the claimant that the offer to settle is full and final. In either of these cases, a failure on the part of the insurer to observe the provisions would render any settlement void.
Third-party contact is the practice by insurers of making an early settlement offer to a claimant or third party where the insurer's policyholder is at fault in a car accident. The Financial Services Authority regulates the insurance industry and requires that insurers treat their customers fairly at all times. This would cover third-party claimants. I should explain that apparently the industry prefers the term “third-party contact” to “third-party capture”. I will leave it to noble Lords to make their choice on that.
Lord Clinton-Davis
Speaking from years of experience in this field, I know that the term “full and final settlement” is often used by insurers at the very beginning of proceedings and negotiations, but I do not think that it is adhered to. It is often possible to obtain a better settlement, so the term is ignored.
Lord McNally
The noble Lord says he speaks from very long experience. As this Bill progresses, I have found that quite often noble Lords on all sides of the House who have more experience than me of the legal profession tell me that there is often a gap between what is written down and the reality of the day-to-day practice.
Third-party contact does not, in itself, cause detriment to consumers and may be to their advantage as a claim can often be resolved quickly. In addition, this practice can allow insurers to reduce the legal costs associated with handling a claim, and this in turn reduces costs for all policyholders. However, I am aware of concerns around the potential risk of conflict of interest and the need for the claimant to have independent legal advice before any settlement is agreed. The FSA undertook a review of third-party contact during 2009-10 and did not find conclusive evidence that unrepresented third parties could have achieved higher compensation had they obtained independent legal representation.
Following the FSA’s review, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, the Association of British Insurers published a code of practice, to which he referred, in June 2010. The code contains specific guidance for insurers on contacting claimants. This limits unsolicited contact. For example:
“Insurers will not make unsolicited visits to an unrepresented claimant at their current address, including hospitals”.
I know we will be returning to some of this later. The code also requires that claimants are informed of their right to seek independent legal advice and of other options available to them to resolve their claim. As I have indicated, the practice was reviewed in 2009-10 but was not found, overall, to be disadvantageous to claimants.
In summary, most of the issues that these amendments seek to address in respect of the handling of third-party contact claims are already covered by existing regulation. The FSA rules require that insurers fully inform third-party claimants of their legal rights, including to independent legal advice, and of alternatives to settling directly with the insurer. In the light of this, we do not believe it is necessary to go along the lines of the noble Lord’s amendment, and I ask him to withdraw it.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
I am disappointed with that response. I do think it adequately addresses reality as it exists today in the approaches by insurers to accident victims.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, subsection (1) of my amendment prohibits the third party’s insurance company soliciting a claimant,
“where to the knowledge of the insurance company, the claimant is legally represented”.
Subsection (2) refers to a situation where that is not the case: the claimant is not legally represented or the insurance company does not know that he is legally represented. It sets out three terms: that the offer to settle can be made only when the insurance company,
“has obtained adequate medical evidence … and has disclosed it to the claimant; and … the claimant is advised when the offer is made of his right to obtain legal advice; and … the offer is in full and final settlement of the cause of action”.
The sanction that I have quite deliberately put into this amendment is not that it is an offence or anything of that sort but that a settlement made in breach of those subsections shall be void, which means, in effect, that if a person has been bought off for a small sum, he can reopen the matter without any problems. He can go to a solicitor, get proper advice, get a proper medical report and come back. To my mind, that appears to be the right way forward.
Lord McNally
My Lords, we have heard some powerful speeches about the good work of trade unions and charities, but that is not what this debate is about; it is about the ban on referral fees. In their reports, both Lord Justice Jackson and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, supported the ban on referral fees. The Government believe that the current arrangements under which lawyers and others are able to pay and receive fees for referring personal injury claims have led to higher costs and the growth of an industry that pursues claims for profit.
Lord Justice Jackson recommended that referral fees should be banned as part of his comprehensive package of recommendations to make the costs of civil litigation more proportionate. The prohibition will be enforced by the appropriate regulators, for example the Solicitors Regulation Authority for the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Financial Services Authority or the claims management regulator. The regulators will also be responsible for taking appropriate action against “regulated persons” for any breaches. The Government believe that requiring regulators to enforce the ban is the most effective and proportionate response.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made a powerful case, as he did the other night, for help for those suffering from exposure to asbestos, but I do not believe that he should then link that deep concern to one form of fundraising for charity. Indeed, it is debatable whether it is any healthier for a charity than any other body to have such a dependency relationship with lawyers who are supposed to be providing a professional service, so we are not convinced that any exemption should be made for charities.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
My Lords, if there is a depletion of funds of charities such as the one that I described today, are the Government saying that if those charities cannot raise that through voluntary endeavour and voluntary giving, the Government themselves will fill their coffers?
Lord McNally
No, of course the Government cannot do that. There was one thing that I was interested in. I do not know this because it is always dangerous to think aloud at the Dispatch Box, but on the powerful case for aid for charity I do not see why wealthy solicitors’ firms or wealthy solicitors could not make donations to that charity as long as there was no link with the search for work. It is worrying to have a charity that is dependent on making referral fees to certain solicitors. I am more comfortable with our banning referral fees.
In a way, the same applies to what has been said about trade unions. I fully accept the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Martin, about the services that trade unions offer working people in this country. My father worked for 47 years for ICI and was a lifetime member of the National Union of General and Municipal Workers. When I hear attacks on health and safety, I know the importance of health and safety in industry, but that should not be linked to a relationship with a professional service organisation.
Lord Martin of Springburn
I may have failed to declare an interest in that I am a member of Unite. It used to be the metalworkers’ union and then it became another union. When I looked today, it was still called Unite, but it might change its name tomorrow.
Lord McNally
It might. Some of them sound like coffee bars rather than trade unions these days, but perhaps that is part of the marketing. Certainly, the case of the trade unions was made very strongly by those who intervened. The service that trade unions provide their members no one gainsays—it is important—but we do not believe that that link between referrals and certain legal firms should be exempted from a general ban on referral fees. There must be those who have worked for trade unions who do not pay referral fees. I do not know. As a layman, I see referral fees as a distortion of the market, but there is nothing to stop trade unions having a good close working relationship with particular law firms. Some have had long-standing relationships. However, I cannot tell the House that we are willing to make an exception.
The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Clinton-Davis, referred to the payments by solicitors to other solicitors for the transfer of prescribed legal business, and we believe that that argument is rational and sensible. If for any reason a solicitor decides that a piece of business needs to be transferred, perhaps for the geographical reason that the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, gave or because the solicitor realises that it is beyond the competence of his or her firm, it would be perfectly reasonable to see a transfer. When the transfer is made, the solicitor concerned is able to claim an appropriate amount of money for the work dispersed before the transfer was made. We accept that logic. However the Government’s view is that reasonable payments of this type are not captured by the ban as long as they only cover the work undertaken by a firm in respect of the claim prior to it being transferred to a new firm. If there is a referral fee element to the payment, this would be subject to the referral fee prohibition and is a matter best dealt with by the regulator rather than by legislation.
Although I know that parts of this reply will disappoint noble Lords, we appreciate the widespread support for our ban on referral fees. We believe that this is the best way to lead our proposal to provide the most effective and proportionate way of preventing payment for personal injury claims and squeezing a bad practice out of the industry. We therefore invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has signified his support for the Government, but he is the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has done so in respect of these amendments. We have had some powerful speeches from a variety of people with an interest in and experience of litigation of this kind: distinguished lawyers such as the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Elystan-Morgan; people with direct experience of the shop floor, such as the noble Lord, Lord Martin; people with a lifetime in the trade union movement, assisting members and no doubt helping them to make their legitimate claims for compensation and advice, such as the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Monks; and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, with his extensive experience of the voluntary sector. They have all made a very clear case for exempting trade unions and charities from the restrictions of this Bill.
We agree that there is a problem with the referral of claims and the industry that has grown up around them. That is commercial exploitation, which may well lead to expectations being aroused and cases perhaps being brought that should not be brought. That is why we support the thrust of the Government’s proposals. However, the Government and the noble Lord appear to be comfortable with third-party funding of litigation—subject, as we have heard and discussed in a previous debate, to possible regulation—but not at all comfortable with an arrangement by trade unions or charities for a referral fee for passing instructions, and no doubt assistance as well, to solicitors that they are recommending on behalf of their members. There is an element of quality assurance in that too. I do not understand, in this context, what the evil is that the Government’s proposals on referral fees are supposed to be curing. Who loses by the process that is being advocated in these amendments by those who support them? Where is the loss? There is no loss to the public purse, the insurance industry or defendants. There is no loser. It is not at all analogous to the commercial exploitation about which we spoke.
This curious matter, to which I referred in moving the amendments in the first place and which I will take a little further now, arises under Clause 54(8) , which provides that:
“Payment includes any form of consideration (but does not include the provision of hospitality that is reasonable in the circumstances)”.
You can take somebody for a drink but you cannot provide any other service. Page 47 of the Explanatory Notes says:
“Subsection (8) provides that a referral fee can be any form of consideration (which would include, for example, an offer by a solicitor to take on other work at a reduced rate or for no payment at all), other than normal hospitality”.
As part of my firm’s relationships with trade union clients, I used to offer a free will to a client for whom we acted after being referred to us by a trade union. We would offer free initial advice about other matters not connected with their personal injury claim, such as a matrimonial, employment or even a criminal matter. All of that would be caught by the Bill as it stands and as set out in these Explanatory Notes.
Lord Beecham
Not all firms are large firms, and it will not surprise Members to know that my firm was not—and is not—a large one. However, we have had that kind of relationship. The profitability of firms conducting litigation of this kind is not high in any event, even without the question of referrals. I do not think that there are the kind of consequences that the noble Lord assumes to be the case. Equally, organisations with members seeking to derive the best service that they can for their members ought to be free to do that. I repeat that I do not think this Bill is at all on the right lines in what it is seeking to do. I again respectfully direct the Minister’s attention to the peculiar circumstances that subsection (8) proposes.
I was going to finish by commending again the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about solicitor-to-solicitor arrangements. He made a very strong case there, and I regret that the Minister seems to have just dismissed it out of hand. Certainly—
Lord McNally
I ask the noble Lord to read Hansard tomorrow. We have made it extremely clear that we do not think that the kind of relationship outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will be caught by this ban. It will be regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and I hope my statement from the Dispatch Box will give it some help in carrying out that duty. The Government do not believe that that kind of relationship, where a solicitor transfers business and takes a reasonable charge for the work already done, is covered by this ban.
Lord Beecham
I do not think it is necessary to confine the payment to precisely the basis that the noble Lord identifies.
Lord McNally
My Lords, if I am wrong I will write to the noble Lord, but I do not think it is our intention to move that Bill on Report.
On the noble Lord’s final remarks about whiplash, my advisers’ hearts will sink but they knew this was coming at some point in this debate. I had personal experience of a minor bump, which at the time was settled by my saying, “Send me the bill and I’ll pay for it”. This somehow escalated over the next few weeks into a case handled by a solicitor’s firm 200 miles from where the accident happened, with a doctor’s verification of whiplash made in Manchester, 180 miles from where the accident happened. Worst of all, when I wrote to the insurance company and said, “This is a scam and a fraud, and we’re willing to give all kinds of evidence that it is”, I got a letter back saying that they would settle for £5,000. Presumably the doctor, the solicitor and the injured party with his whiplash all got a cut, but who paid for it? Not the insurance company but the payers of insurance—the customers.
A number of similar stories have been told around the House; there have been two or three today. To my mind this is rampant corruption, not just an abuse. Whether or not there actually is a compensation culture, the behaviour of these companies feeds the perception that there is because so many of our citizens have experience of this. That is reinforced by these companies’ adverts, which I asked Questions about over 10 years ago when I first came into the House. I had been off with a dose of flu and that was the first time I had been exposed to daytime television and advert after advert that looked almost like a lottery win, showing someone with a big cheque that they had won for some minor injury. That is where the idea of the compensation culture came from.
This has been a good debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones that the Government have sympathy with the intention behind Amendment 165. Unsolicited calls about personal injury are a nuisance at best, and at worst create precisely the impression of a compensation culture to which he referred. However, there is existing legislation on unsolicited calls. We will need to consider whether further legislation is needed and, if so, whether this is the right way forward, but the Government will consider the amendment further.
The intention behind Amendments 166A and 166B seems to be to make the ban more effective and harder to evade. The Government believe that the referral fee clauses as drafted should cover the concerns that the amendments seek to address, although of course we wish to ensure that the ban is as effective as possible. I therefore thank my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for raising these two issues. We are sympathetic to the intention behind them and would like to consider them further. I am afraid that I cannot give him a more specific timeline about those considerations, but we take due note of the points that he made.
In response to Amendments 167 and 168 to Clause 55, I assure noble Lords that Clause 55 requires regulators to have arrangements in place to monitor and enforce the prohibition on the payment or receipt of referral fees. Under this clause, any payment can be treated as a referral fee unless the solicitor or other party can show that the payment was for the provision of a particular service. However, I noted my noble friend’s points on that. It will be up to the regulators to define that issue in a way that does not prohibit legitimate activity. However, the amendments tabled by my noble friends would alter the way in which legitimate payments for services are defined. Amendment 167 to Clause 55 would ensure that pooled marketing would be a service exempted from the ban. Amendment 168 would remove the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make regulations specifying the maximum amount that can be paid for those services.
Under our provisions, it will be for the relevant regulators to enforce the ban on referral fees and impose appropriate sanctions. The regulator will also have the power to require the regulated persons to show that payments for “marketing” do not include a referral fee—that is, that any marketing costs are reasonable and appropriate. The pooling of marketing resources—my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones referred to this—in our view does not in itself breach the prohibition on referral fees. However, it is important to understand that any potential breach will depend on how the information provided by the claimant is passed on by the organisation that holds it to the solicitor who takes on the claimant’s case.
The Government believe that the appropriate regulators are best placed to monitor and assess payments made in these circumstances, particularly in taking a view as to whether a breach has occurred. That said, the Lord Chancellor’s powers to make regulations are essential if the prohibition on referral fees is to be effective. The Government need to be able to respond to situations as they arise. I believe that these amendments are unnecessary and would serve only to hinder the Government and the appropriate regulators in enforcing the referral fee ban. In addition, the likely effect would be to encourage inflated marketing costs in order to get around the ban on referral fees. I therefore invite my noble friends not to press their amendments.
I am sorry to have delayed noble Lords who are due to speak in the pensions debate, which is the next business. If they can get the Chamber warmed up while we are away, we will be eternally grateful.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his intervention, and to the two noble Lords who contributed to the debate. The role of the Ministry of Justice in pro bono work is undertaken in partnership with the Attorney-General to endorse, support and facilitate pro bono initiatives. The Attorney-General carries policy responsibility for pro bono work within the Government, presumably following the initiative of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. I certainly pay tribute to the work that he has done for the Access to Justice Foundation. I understand that the foundation runs an awareness-raising campaign, Unlock Funds for Justice, while on the other side the MoJ is providing funds for LawWorks over the next 18 months to fund two specific projects. LawWorks is the primary referral agency for legal help provided pro bono by solicitors. Although he is not in his place at the moment, I know that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has played a big part in promoting the agency.
Let me say first that the Government recognise the valuable contribution made by the legal profession in providing advice through pro bono work. The pro bono contribution made by the legal profession is made alongside publicly funded legal assistance. It is an adjunct to, not a substitute for, such assistance. I think that these speaking notes must have been left over from one of the briefs of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
Lord McNally
My Lords, Section 194 of the Legal Services Act 2007 allows courts to make an order for costs against a losing party in pro bono represented cases, with the moneys recovered going to a prescribed charity, the Access to Justice Foundation. The Ministry of Justice works with the Attorney-General who, as I have said, has policy responsibility for this work. The legislation reduces the disadvantage to parties represented pro bono by levelling the financial risks of litigation for both sides. It has also provided a new source of funding for the strategic support and promotion of pro bono work.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for highlighting this issue. The amendment, though, is one that the Lord Chancellor would like to consider further. Perhaps I may say that considering it further does not mean kicking it into the long grass or even making it a no-brainer, but it is one that needs proper consideration, and he has asked that, in that respect, he be given time to give it that consideration. I hope that the indications of support given in the Chamber tonight, the general direction of travel of this reply and my desire to make this a full house in terms of saying nice things about amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has introduced today will give him confidence that what I have said is not a way of putting this matter into the long grass but of asking, as my briefing note does, that the Lord Chancellor be given time to give full consideration to this important matter. I see both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord coming for me.
Lord Goldsmith
One issue that we have looked at is whether it would be necessary to have any orders or consequential provisions made as a result of this change. I understand that, because of the existing Supreme Court rules, which can follow the rules in the other courts, it would not be a burden on officials. That might help the consideration to which the Minister has referred.
Lord McNally
The wonderful thing about this House is that you get free legal advice. I will certainly take that back to the Lord Chancellor with the weight of the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, behind it. With that further steer, I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, withdrew the amendment.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the Minister. I will of course withdraw the amendment. I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his support, as I am to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for his. It would indeed be churlish of me not to understand and accept the indications given by the Minister in respect of the amendment, which is plainly receiving far warmer consideration than some of the other amendments that we have discussed. I have to say that I cannot understand what further consideration is necessary in relation to an amendment of this sort in the light of the factors to which this debate has drawn attention, but on the understanding that this matter is receiving proper attention, in the hope that the Government will be able to bring forward an amendment in appropriate terms on Report and in thanking the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, this is the first debate of many, I suspect, on Part 3. Part 3 is entitled “Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders”, and Chapter 1 is entitled “Sentencing”. Luckily, there does not seem to be a part entitled “Punishment of Offenders”, but we know that that was a late introduction to the Title of the Bill many months ago.
I shall be very brief indeed. The Committee has been lucky enough to hear speeches from many noble Lords, all of whom have great experience of the criminal justice system in the best possible way—by being either magistrates or experts for many years in the work of the system. We are very lucky in the Committee and the House to have them to give us the benefit of their wisdom on it.
Part 3 is very important. The Opposition certainly do not intend to be difficult in any way about this part. If we think the reforms are wrong, we will say so; if we think they are right, we will happily agree with the Government. We know from our experience of government that this is not an easy area to deal with. Sometimes Governments have to be tough in the face of what seem overwhelming arguments from Parliament; and sometimes Governments can be too tough and not take note of sensible recommendations made.
From listening to what has been said on the various amendments tonight, some sensible suggestions have been made—none of them revolutionary or radical—to change the system. Clause 61 is liked; the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said that he approved of it, and I suspect that that is true of others around the Committee.
The only point that I will make concerns victims. I think that the Statement made by the right honourable gentleman the Lord Chancellor in another place on Monday regarding the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority, as it is now known, and the change of policy on some of the tariffs may have been quite disappointing for some victims and victim groups. I am sure that does not mean that this Government are in any way less committed to looking after victims’ interests than were the Government of whom I was a member. I know that all those who talk about fair play for offenders—making sure that the system includes rehabilitation for them and a chance to do better—have exactly the same feeling about victims as the rest of us.
I do not want to go into any of these amendments tonight, and I am quite sure that the Committee is with me on that. However, I do want to hear the Minister’s response to the points that have been made. I hope that he is sympathetic to these amendments. I am sure that none of them will be pushed tonight but some important points have been made and we look forward to his reply.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for the constructive way in which he has responded. I hope that Part 3 of the Bill can draw on the experience and expertise around this House. I see a number of old friends and familiar faces in this area of policy. I am also grateful to a number of noble Lords for having the chance to discuss these issues in advance of them reaching the Committee. That has been of great help in understanding where they are coming from with their amendments.
Before I turn to the amendments, it may assist the Committee if I explain what Clause 61 intends to do. It replaces the current Section 174 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 with a revised section that simplifies the existing duty to give reasons for, and explain, the sentence.
In response to the consultation paper Breaking the Cycle, the judiciary, among others, said that the current statutory requirements are overly prescriptive and have become increasingly complex as additional requirements have been added. As a result, the current legislation is difficult to find and difficult to understand, and in the day-to-day operation of the court can simply become impractical. The Government wanted to address these problems, which is why we created in Clause 61 a replacement Section 174. It has been simplified and shortened and consolidates the various changes made to the section since 2003. In doing so, however, we have retained the important statutory requirement placed on courts to explain the effectiveness of the sentence and, crucially, the duty to state in open court and in ordinary language, in general terms, the court’s reasons for deciding on the sentence. This means that not only the offender but victims, witnesses and the public can see that justice is being done.
A balancing act is required here. On the one hand, we need to ensure that courts make very clear why a sentence is being imposed and what the effect of the sentence is. On the other hand, we need to avoid burdening courts with unnecessary and prescriptive provisions that are very often irrelevant in particular cases and which, rather than clarifying the position, simply confuse victims, witnesses and offenders.
I turn to the details of the amendments and begin with Amendment 172A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I start by saying that I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, about greater transparency. He will remember that when he was Attorney-General there was an obligation on victim care units jointly run by the CPS and the police to explain sentences, regardless of whether the case was brought by the CPS or was a private prosecution. The Ministry of Justice has also embarked on a transparency programme, publishing data about the outcomes of court cases. We hope that being able to see the progress and outcome of cases will give people confidence.
Legal Aid
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, the equality impact assessments lay out the best estimates of the likely costs and benefits of the reforms. The equality impact assessment considers the financial implications for not-for-profit providers, of which law centres are an example.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Everyone agrees what a vital and civilising role law centres perform around our country. Everyone agrees that early legal advice solves problems, helps people, changes lives and often saves costly and unnecessary cases going to court. The effect of taking social welfare law out of scope will be to reduce the funding for legal help by law centres by 85.8 per cent. Law centres will inevitably close and many thousands of people, often the poor and marginalised, will be left without access to justice. Even the TaxPayers’ Alliance chairman wrote:
“Almost everyone who has looked at these particular cuts thinks that too many of them will end up costing taxpayers more than they save”.
Does the Minister agree with that analysis, and would it not be an absurd and wrong result if we should end up spending more public money in order to make our country less just and less civilised?
Lord McNally
My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me to agree with that analysis, which has been his constant theme during the passage of the LASPO Bill, and I suspect will continue to be, based on a worst-case scenario. We are restructuring legal aid and that will have an impact on the not-for-profit sector. We have never resiled from that. However, we also appreciate the benefits of the not-for-profit sector, which is why we provided £107 million in transitional funds and an additional £20 million to help the sector restructure for the new framework of legal aid and legal services that the reforms are intended to bring about. I do not accept the worst-case scenario that has been the basis of the noble Lord's arguments throughout the passage of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the law centres are probably the most efficient and economical way of providing advice for those who are not particularly well off but who really need advice?
Lord McNally
I thank my noble and learned friend for that helpful question—he is making a habit of helpful interventions. Of course we do, and nobody doubts that. That is why, as I said before, we have provided funds for this transitional period and why my honourable friend Nick Hurd is at this moment making attempts to identify funding that will give the not-for-profit sector a better long-term future. Nobody denies, underestimates or fails to appreciate the benefits of the not-for-profit sector. The key is how it will adjust to the new structure of legal services that we are bringing about by these reforms.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, is equality before the law not a basic liberal principle? Why has the coalition abrogated it?
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Law Centres Federation expects several urban law centres to close? Where are the distressed people who have hitherto got essential advice from those law centres going to go? Secondly, if the Minister is inclined to say that they can use the telephone helpline that we propose to set up, would he not accept that many of the people in most need of basic welfare law advice, which is often hugely complicated, are inarticulate and unable to access the advice they need on a telephone helpline?
Lord McNally
Again, my noble friend quite often intervenes to ask a question and then provides part of the answer. Yes, part of the answer is the electronic means of advice through telephone gateways et cetera. I do not accept his definition of the capabilities of people to get advice this way. I think he is out of date in that respect—
Lord McNally
People now use local library facilities, go online and use all kinds of ways. I repeat that we are looking at the not-for-profit sector to see how it will be able to help. We do not always preach the worst-case solutions and scenarios which, again, have been the common theme from my noble friend. We are reforming the legal aid scheme, as the previous Administration said they would. It will cause differences in structure for the not-for-profit sector. We are trying to help it to adjust in that transition and are urgently looking for a long-term solution as far as its funding is concerned.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, what impact does the Minister expect the cuts to have, in particular, on disabled people who rely very heavily on law centres for advice on housing and welfare issues? Might this not be a further blow to those who are already disadvantaged in making their case to tribunals?
Lord McNally
We are having this debate more widely in the Bills going through the House. Some of the worst-case scenarios will not be borne out by experience. I think that the not-for-profit sector will adjust to these new circumstances. We have argued the case in the Bills for the changes we are making, which we think will not be borne out with some of the—I put it at its most gentle—worst-case scenarios that are put forward by those opposing us.
Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill
Lord McNally Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)
My Lords, this has been a very useful debate, with a good deal of passion. During parts of it, I was reminded of a saying that my old mentor, the late Lord Callaghan, used to be fond of, that a lie is halfway round the world before truth has got its boots on. He used to say that 30 years ago; what would he say today, with the internet, tweeting, blogging and the rest? Perish the thought.
We are in a very difficult area. Many of the issues that have been raised today are currently before various inquiries and committees of the other place, and, indeed, in litigation, so I shall tread carefully on this. I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Prescott, that even under the present regulations, legal aid for judicial review is means-tested, and so I doubt whether he would get legal aid even in the present circumstances.
A number of very emotive cases have been raised. I saw the publicity around the Dowler case letter. I thought at the time, and I still think, that it is almost inconceivable that the Dowlers would not have been able to pursue their case under conditional fee agreements. The idea that they would have been powerless in the case that they had is perhaps countered by the fact that the matter was settled out of court—and if reports are to be believed, at a cost of £3 million to the offending company. I am not so sure that the argument that they would have been left powerless stands up in those circumstances.
I shall deal with the various issues raised. First, it is true that the Government are looking for an opportunity to legislate on defamation. We will have to await the Queen’s Speech to see whether it can be taken in the next Session, but we have made a lot of progress on it. We have had my noble friend Lord Lester’s Private Member’s Bill, which I then took to a government draft Bill. It has now had a very good and thorough examination by a Joint Committee of both Houses for pre-legislative scrutiny, under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney. In turn, that committee has produced a very good report.
We are certainly ready to look at reform of defamation, but I would say—and again, this touches on much of what has been discussed today—that we are looking to try to remove some of what has been described as the “chilling effect” of our present defamation laws on the rights to free speech, as against the rights of the individual which the noble Lords, Lord Prescott and Lord Martin, have outlined today. It is important that we get the balance right.
I say with no sense of bitterness that 10 years ago, when I tried to introduce a modest amendment to strengthen and put some backbone into the Press Complaints Commission, I was told from this Dispatch Box by the Labour Minister of the day that my proposals were the,
“slippery slope to state control”—[Official Report, 6/5/03; col. 1067]—
of the press. That is where the Labour Government were 10 years ago.
We have to get the balance right between freedom of the press, which is so important to a functioning democracy, and proper responsibility on the part of that press. I hope that one of the things to come out of the recent discussions, debates and inquiries will be a much better form of accountability and regulation that addresses the very point made by the noble Lord, Lord Martin, about the speedy and cheap resolution of damage to reputation. We have come a long way from the time when people went into libel or defamation cases expecting to come away with football pools-sized awards. That is not the case. As has been said on a number of occasions, these days the likely costs of litigation always outstrip the likely awards.
I think that there is a good and useful account on this. We have to await the outcome of the Leveson inquiry, although I strongly believe that the opportunity to reform defamation is a separate matter. I would be very worried if Leveson produced a kind of tsunami of debate that swept away the real opportunity to go ahead with defamation reform.
Let me go back to the point with which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, opened the debate, after which I will comment further on the media issue. He mentioned professional negligence claims. Under our reforms people will still be able to bring cases on CFAs in areas in which they are currently used. After all, we are returning the CFA arrangements to their original form. I am aware of concerns about professional evidence claims that can involve, for example, claims against negligent building surveyors, accountants or solicitors. We have carefully considered the consultation responses on these types of case but remain unconvinced that there is anything fundamentally different about them to justify an exemption from the general principle of no recoverability of success fees and “after the event” premiums.
The noble Lord also mentioned financial services. A number of bodies could deal with those kinds of cases, including the Financial Ombudsman. As to how these reforms would affect small businesses, the Federation of Small Businesses, which is not always ready to support the Government’s approach, supports the proposals in this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, frankly said that this is one of a number of probing amendments to see whether the broad architecture, which provoked the original debate today, would be changed in any way. This and a number of debates to come will test whether we are likely to change our mind and make any exceptions from that broad architecture. The Government do not see that any exception to this is justified except in relation to ATE insurance premiums in respect of clinical negligence expert reports that we have previously discussed.
I therefore resist all these amendments, as they seek to undermine the Government’s reform of civil litigation funding and costs. The current arrangements with a recoverable success fee and ATE insurance allow for risk-free litigation where claimants have no real interest in the legal costing incurred on their behalf. This has led to an increase in the costs of civil litigation and must be addressed. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the January 2011 case of Mirror Group Newspapers against the UK, usually called the Naomi Campbell case, found that the existing CFA arrangement with recoverability in that case to be contrary to Article 10, on freedom of expression, of the convention. Changes are therefore necessary and the current regime cannot continue.
The Government are aware of concerns about access to justice and the ability of those with modest means to pursue claims against often powerful media organisations. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to make any special provision in relation to the costs of privacy or defamation proceedings. We will continue to monitor the position following the introduction of the CFA reforms and other reforms to the law and procedure for defamation claims on which the Government have recently consulted.
As the coalition agreement made clear, we are firmly committed to reform of the law on defamation. The right to speak freely and debate issues without fear of censure is a vital cornerstone of a democratic society. We want to ensure that a fair balance is struck between the right to freedom of expression and the protection of reputation. There are real concerns that the threat of libel proceedings is being used to frustrate robust scientific and academic debate, and to impede responsible investigative journalism and the valuable work undertaken by non-governmental organisations. The draft Bill, which we published last year, aims to bring the law up to date and ensure that the right balance is achieved. We are also looking at ways of speeding up court cases so as to cut the costs involved in defamation proceedings, and encouraging the use of the alternative dispute resolution in order to facilitate early settlements.
The Government are also aware of concerns about professional negligence claims, which can involve, as I have said, claims against surveyors, accountants or solicitors. We carefully considered the consultation responses in respect of the impact of professional negligence cases, but remain unconvinced that there is anything fundamentally different about them that would justify an exemption from the general principle of abolishing the recoverability of success fees and “after the event” premiums. I can assure noble Lords that the Government have considered all these amendments individually and in the round. If accepted, the amendments to which I have referred would undermine the overriding objectives of the package of reforms, which are to make the costs of civil litigation more proportionate. The Government believe that lawyers will take on meritorious cases without recoverable success fees, including in cases to which these amendments relate. It is not unreasonable for any success fee to be paid by the party entering the CFA.
In respect of the risk of an adverse costs order, different considerations apply in respect of different proceedings. The Government have said that qualified one-way cost shifting should apply in personal injury cases. Lord Justice Jackson suggested that QOCS might be considered for introduction in some non-personal injury claims as an alternative to recoverable ATE insurance. The Government are not persuaded that the case for this has been made at this stage.
Personal injury cases, as a class, are different form other types of litigation. There are hundreds of thousands of personal injury cases each year. They are typically run on CFAs with ATE insurance and involve claims by individuals against generally well resourced or insured bodies. These claims have a high overall success rate and the primary remedy sought is damages. The position is different and less clear-cut in non-personal injury claims. CFAs are very much a minority form of funding in these claims, and rolling out QOCS to these would distort the market by imposing substantial changes on all cases in a particular category of proceedings for the benefit of a small number of claimants.
The Government will examine the experience of QOCS in personal injury claims before considering whether it should be extended further. Different considerations apply in different types of case. Environmental claims, for example, typically involve more than one claimant who can contribute towards the costs. “Before the event” legal expenses insurance may be available in relation to the provision of goods and services.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in respect of exceptions in individual areas covered in this group of amendments. However, I am concerned that making these exceptions could undermine the benefits of these reforms. I therefore urge noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord McNally
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, when speaking to the first series of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, continues to jab away at the broad architecture of these reforms. In these reforms we do not accept every last jot and tittle of Lord Justice Jackson’s report but, in the main, we accept its major thrust. It is a package of reforms and we are concerned not to dismantle it by accepting this series of amendments. The reasons for that are clear. The Jackson report was motivated not by government initiative but by judicial demand. Both the Master of the Rolls and the Lord Chief Justice wanted to look at a dangerous inflation in civil costs which in their view—a view that we share—was having an impact on access to justice. Whether there was or is a compensation culture, we can debate for a very long time, but we know that in many parts of the law there has been a quite worrying inflation in costs. A number of examples given by noble Lords on all sides suggest that action is needed. The Official Opposition’s view on the Jackson report was not clear from the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Bach—he said that he did not agree with this bit of it. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, looks like a greyhound in the traps, but perhaps at the end of the debate he can tell us his party’s general approach to Jackson.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, before my noble friend answers, perhaps the Minister can say which bits of the Jackson report he is in favour of, because there is quite a lot of it that he has not adopted.
Lord McNally
The bits that we are in favour of are in the Bill.
As someone who firmly supported the Hunting Act, I am not sure that I am allowed to use the term “shot my fox”, but the arguments that I was intending to deploy were very accurately read out by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. They remain the same as those which my honourable friend Jonathan Djanogly deployed in the Commons—that is, under our reforms people will still be able to bring cases on CFAs in areas where they are currently used in judicial review. After all, we are returning the arrangements to their original form. Legal aid is being retained for the vast majority of judicial review cases that are currently funded. Legal aid recipients will continue to benefit from costs protection. Although I understand what the Opposition are doing in testing various parts of the architecture of the reforms, I can only say again that we will resist the amendments, as they seek to undermine the Government’s reform of civil litigation funding and costs.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced in respect of exceptions in individual areas. However, we should not revisit arguments that have already been fully and properly aired in these debates. I am concerned that making the exceptions that the amendments advocate would undermine the benefits of our reforms. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Pannick
Does the Minister accept that claimants in judicial review cases will not be able to pay success fees, because victory in a judicial review almost never results in the payment of damages to the claimant?
Lord McNally
Yes, I would think that that was true. I understand that such cases are extremely rare. A success fee would not be the enticement to take the case.
Lord Bach
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. When I first accused the Government of not having accepted the Jackson package, I was very careful to say that whatever Government were in power would probably not have accepted every word of such a major report. However, it is interesting what this Government have accepted and what they have left out. In short, they have left out any defence of legal aid, whereas Lord Justice Jackson was very concerned that there should be no more cutting in civil legal aid. That is also very much the view around the Committee on Part 1 of the Bill as well as, in relation to Part 2, in the case of clinical negligence if nothing else. We think that the Government have picked the wrong bits of Jackson to support, and they have left the best bits out, which is rather careless of them.
Three senior costs judges, who deal with some of these issues daily, said in their submission on the Jackson report:
“we do not agree with the proposals set out in the Report ... The CFA regime has undergone many changes and improvements since implementation. Having taken a decade for these to have been achieved, now is not the time to made radical changes which give no guarantee that access to justice at reduced costs will be delivered under Jackson”—
they go on, perhaps rather unfairly, to say—
“where it failed under Woolf”.
That was their view. So there is a difference—a justifiable difference—of opinion, both in this Committee and outside this Committee among those who have to decide these cases.
The Government should be warned that they should not just stick so rigidly to their formula for changing without looking at individual areas of the law. Flexibility is important, as well as having rules. If the Government are just going to say no to every exception to Jackson, I fear that, certainly in some areas, the reforms that will then go through, if the Government get their way, will be disastrous for civil justice in this country because they will mean that so many people will not be able to get justice who are currently able to do so.
This is a probing amendment, but it also has some real feeling behind it. However, of course I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bach
My Lords, we on this side very much support the amendment, in very much the same terms as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has moved it. As he said, insolvency practitioners are appointed to help insolvent companies sue directors in order to recover money for creditors of the insolvent company. The companies are insolvent; they cannot pay for a lawyer—they have no assets. The practitioners’ job, which is sometimes a difficult one, is to recover as much money as possible. It is always in the public interest that they are able to do so, and I am sure that the Government would agree with that proposition. As both practitioners and regulators have warned, alongside HMRC and the Insolvency Service, these sorts of actions will be severely compromised in future. As the noble Lord has just told the Committee, HMRC is a major creditor, if not the major creditor, to many insolvent companies, so the public purse will itself be hit to the tune of £200 million. I remind the Minister that that is more than half of the total legal aid cuts and enough to pay for social welfare law at least twice over.
The Institute of Chartered Accountants for England and Wales, a very respected body, said:
“we are deeply concerned that the legislation in its current form could have a harmful impact on the insolvency process. Unless claims brought by insolvency practitioners are exempted, this legislation would prevent potential recovery from incompetent or fraudulent directors or bankrupts, which will result in greater losses being borne by innocent creditors when a business is made insolvent … Those creditors are usually small businesses or HMRC, who would lose potential tax receipts, a cost ultimately to the taxpayer. Furthermore, fraudulent directors and bankrupt sole traders would keep the gains they made from irresponsible management of their business”.
That is why Revenue and Customs and the Insolvency Service have lobbied the Ministry of Justice for an exemption, but to no avail.
Let me take noble Lords to the Guardian newspaper on 6 June last year, when it reported:
“A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘We are considering the impact of abolishing CFA [conditional fee arrangements] recoverability in insolvency and related proceedings. These proceedings can bring substantial returns to creditors, including Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs. We are therefore discussing the specific implications with a view to reaching a satisfactory conclusion.’ … A spokesman for Revenue & Customs said: ‘HMRC is in discussion with the Ministry of Justice about the implications of the Jackson Report but is unable at present to comment further on this matter’”.
The Minister can comment further on this matter in a few minutes’ time. What was the outcome of the negotiations between the Ministry and HMRC? We have heard why these cases need protection, but nothing on how this will be achieved. If the Minister is to support what is contained in the Bill, he should tell the Committee how he intends to protect against the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and myself in moving and speaking to the amendment. This is a good—if not the best—example of how wrongdoers will benefit at the expense of victims. In this case, it is even more serious, because the victims are us, potentially—the taxpayers and people of this country. That is why this particular amendment supports the proposition that a one-size-fits-all package is not right for the civil justice system and that a degree of flexibility needs to be built in. If the Government maintain their position on insolvency, the wrongdoers will gain and the creditors will lose. I look forward very much to hearing how the Minister defends this particular proposition.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I feel as any Minister would, who sees an amendment signed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Bach—the names sound like one of those formidable halfback lines from a 1950s soccer team. I know that it would be the wrong game for the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.
The amendments refer to both success fees and ATE insurance in insolvency. Just for information, Lord Justice Jackson recommended the abolition of recoverability of success fees and ATE insurance premiums in insolvency proceedings. However, we have already established that we do not simply use Lord Jackson as a defence in all matters. As the Government indicated in the other place, we are aware of the specific concerns around the impact of the CFA changes in insolvency cases. The use of CFAs in these cases, under the Insolvency Act 1986, can bring substantial revenue to creditors, including Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs.
I cannot go a great deal further. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has now introduced a new system whereby he makes my speech and his own speech and leaves not a lot for me to say. I am nevertheless grateful that on the record we had speeches from the noble Lord and from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, setting out the problem in probing amendments, as they have acknowledged. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, revealed in his speech, there are ongoing discussions between HMRC and MoJ, and the Government are considering the position in respect of insolvency proceedings. Until we have come to a conclusion—
Lord McNally
They are ongoing. I admit that sounds like that song “Reviewing the Situation” from “Oliver!” but I have no doubt that the good relations between the MoJ and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs will produce a satisfactory result, which I will report to the House at the earliest possible moment. In the mean time, I request the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
While I am most grateful to my noble friend for that reply, it would be helpful for these negotiations to complete before we have to vote on this matter on Report—as we undoubtedly will, along with the people who have signed it. Can I suggest to my noble friend that he talks to whoever he has to in order to get a move on? It seems a no-brainer to me that this amendment should be accepted and the quicker it is resolved, certainly before Report, the better.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate that has been well supported all round the House. I hope the fact that so many noble Lords have spoken in support of these amendments will weigh on the Minister when he responds.
I would like to spend a few minutes talking about the dichotomy between the rhetoric that we have heard from the Government about the importance of human rights, which we support, and the impact of the measures before us. Under the existing regime, it is already extremely difficult for the cases that we have talked about to be brought in the UK. In the past 15 years, only nine or 10 such cases have been brought. However, these cases have had a significant impact not only on the lives of thousands of people directly affected but—this is important—on corporate practices and international norms in business and human rights.
When the Prime Minister met the Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos in London on 21 November, we were delighted to hear him say:
“Governments of the United Kingdom and Colombia reaffirm their shared commitment to respect, protect, and promote human rights. We reaffirm our commitment to uphold the human rights treaties and agreements we are signatories to, in particular the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights”.
I am sure the Minister and his Government want to match reality to that rhetoric. The problem is that, possibly as a result of an unintended consequence or possibly of trying to get one cap to fit all cases, the considered view from all those involved in this area is that the practical result of the proposed changes will be that it will be almost impossible for poor individuals and communities from the developing world to pursue justice in UK courts. We think that this is wrong in principle but also because of the message that it sends to multinational companies based in the UK. Our amendments would create an exemption so that vulnerable victims of human rights abuses in the developing world would still be able to bring cases to the UK. There is no evidence of any need to address the possibility of a spate of spurious claims here; the truth is that it is already very difficult to bring these kinds of cases against UK-based companies in our courts.
Amending the Bill will be essential if the UK is to meet its commitments on business and human rights and to avoid giving the impression that somehow the Government have gone soft on the way they wish to treat business that causes abuse overseas. The rhetoric is good. We know that the Government have consistently supported the UN “protect, respect and remedy” framework for business and human rights and the guiding principles developed by Professor John Ruggie and adopted by the UN in June 2011. In those framework and guiding principles, Principle 26 explicitly states:
“States should take appropriate steps to ensure the effectiveness of domestic judicial mechanisms when addressing human rights-related claims against business, including considering ways to reduce legal, practical and other relevant barriers that could lead to a denial of access to remedy”.
As recently as December 2011, the UK submission to the UN Working Group on Business and Human Rights stated:
“The United Kingdom has placed human rights as central to and indivisible from the core values of British foreign policy. We believe the potential of business to impact on the human rights of individuals worldwide has only been fully recognised in recent years. The endorsement by the Human Rights Council of the UN Guiding Principles on business and human rights in June 2011 marks a high point of international consensus on the issue”.
In light of the praise for Professor John Ruggie’s achievements, it is vital that we keep open the chance of mounting human rights actions in the United Kingdom. The reality of today’s world is that global companies play an increasingly important role and can impact on almost all aspects of our lives. While many UK transnational companies act responsibly, it is important that in situations where human rights abuses occur abroad, poor and vulnerable victims can still seek justice in our courts.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, the Government have already made an exception in the Bill for ATE in clinical negligence cases. Is it not possible to do the same for this limited set of cases? As has been mentioned, the mover and supporters of the amendment met last week the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, who I thank for their time and courtesy in listening to us. I came away from the meeting feeling that there was a willingness to find an accommodation on this issue. If the Minister is happy to signal his willingness to continue those discussions, I am sure that there will be a way of resolving the differences, and I look forward to having a chance to do that.
Lord McNally
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and her record in this area. Looking down the list of noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I see the names of many with whom I have been shoulder to shoulder in many debates. I do not think that there is any division between us on that.
To address the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, about the Government’s rhetoric on human rights, I shall, to quote Tony Blair, “leave it to history” to make judgments about the coalition Government. However, one thing that I am absolutely proud of is that in a time of great austerity the sustaining of our aid programme and the follow-on impact on human rights around the world will always be to our Government’s credit—as, too, will their decision to implement the Bribery Act, to take the lead in international anti-corruption campaigns and to be strong advocates for human rights around the world. There is more than rhetoric in this Government’s record on this issue.
I talked with the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on these issues and, as they know, I am not convinced that the amendments are necessary or appropriate. Let me try to explain why. The Government believe that it is still possible to bring claims against multinational companies once our changes to CFAs are implemented, but the costs involved will be more proportionate to the sums at issue. The proposers seek to address not the validity of the claims but the iniquity of a system that can allow legal costs to escalate to significantly more than the damages at issue.
It is worth emphasising at this stage that the current system of recoverable success fees and recoverable ATE insurance premiums, with the consequence of high civil costs, is not seen in any other jurisdiction in the world. However, I should emphasise that while we should do all we can to ensure that UK business continues to flourish abroad, this will never be done at the expense of violating any of the rights and laws of the host country. The Government are committed to ensuring that UK companies continue to conduct themselves to the highest standards, especially when carrying out trade and transactions in other countries.
CFAs will continue to be available, but the Bill also extends another funding option, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, referred: the Government are making available alternative methods of funding—such as the use under Clause 44 of damage-based agreements, DBAs, which could be used to fund group actions against multinational companies. Some say that our proposals will decrease the number of these claims, while others, including the Confederation of British Industry and some American companies, are concerned that DBAs will in fact increase the number of such claims. The Government believe that they have the balance right between protecting access to justice and making costs more proportionate. Our aim has been to ensure that litigation is available to stop corporate harm.
It has been mentioned that we were among the champions of the Ruggie guidelines, and it is true that the Government strongly support the UN guiding principles on business and human rights that were developed by Professor Ruggie. We co-operated closely with him on his mandate and fully support the international working group that has been established to take his work forward. I was pleased that I was able to announce that support immediately after that report was published.
Lord Judd
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I would not question at all his personal sensitivity to the issues that have been raised. Over a lifetime, I have known that he cares deeply about these things. However, can he assure the House that in their considerations the Government have taken fully into account one of the complexities that have arisen since 2009, when the Rome II regulations were introduced? They mean that the damages are related to what normally prevails in the country in which the harm occurred, whereas the costs may well be related to what applies within the United Kingdom. This means that there is a huge obstacle to taking on a case of this kind because of the risks involved and what the bill might be if the costs had to be met by those endeavouring to make the claim.
Lord McNally
I am aware of that. As the noble Lord said, that issue was to a certain extent present in the Trafigura case, where 30,000 people each received £1,000 and the lawyer got—or tried to get— £100 million.
Lord Elystan-Morgan
I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Without detracting in any way from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is not the difference between the damages counted and the costs incurred in many cases indicative of the inequality of arms between the situation of the claimants and that of the defendants, many of which are multinational companies with a gross turnover per annum greater than that of 50 of the least privileged countries in the United Nations?
Lord McNally
Part of the problem of answering a debate such as this is the horror stories, abuses and problems raised about the capability of multinational companies to misbehave. No one denies that. I have spent most of my life in politics being greatly suspicious of many such operations. We cannot funnel that down to a change in an area that, it has been admitted, has covered 10 cases in the past decade. I understand noble Lords’ commitment to take on those abuses, but to suggest that the English legal system is in any way able to meet the point is to put too much of a burden on it.
As I told the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, I do not believe that such cases will not be brought because often the motive is not profit; it is many of the motives that have been explained tonight. What is at stake for the companies concerned is often not money but reputation. I do not believe that we are creating an insurmountable barrier to take cases where English or Welsh companies are at fault, but I will draw the debate to the attention of my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, because the speakers list should be respected. My right honourable and learned friend and I believe that the fear of the effect of what we are doing is exaggerated. The opportunity that the Bill offers for other forms of financing of litigation is underestimated, but I will ask him to read the debate, look at the arguments deployed and consider the amendments. For the moment, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Coussins
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and the Minister for his reply. I remain convinced that it would be much better to avoid an undesirable, unintended consequence than to worry about adding something to the Bill that might not be 100 per cent technically, strictly necessary. If the lawyers behind CAFOD, Oxfam and Amnesty are convinced that the amendment is necessary, the Government should take them seriously. I look forward to the Minister's response after he has spoken to his colleagues. This issue will not go away, but, for now, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.