Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Clause 39: Illegal entry and similar offences

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, if Amendment 120 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 121 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 120

Moved by

Taking Control of Goods (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support this Motion to Regret in the name of my noble friend Lady Meacher. The last thing needed by those trying to deal with a problem debt is an extra 20% charge on top of the collection costs in tax that should clearly have been levied on the creditors, not the debtors. It is surely a great injustice for debtors to have been charged VAT when they should not have been and to have to go to considerable lengths to recover money they have been falsely charged. It is certainly a matter of deep regret and the remedies proposed by my noble friend seem entirely justified.

Perhaps I could take this opportunity, on the subject of bailiffs, to note that there is considerable political and practitioner interest in bailiff reform. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s support for the enforcement conduct authority as organised by the Centre for Social Justice in partnership with both the bailiff sector and the debt advice sector? Impressive work has been done by the CSJ in securing agreement between those representing bailiffs and those providing debt advice, such as the charity StepChange. This now needs government to take matters forward and grant statutory powers to this new body to give it real teeth. Perhaps the Minister could comment.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. A close family member was supported by StepChange, and to say that its engagement and support were life-changing is an understatement.

This is an issue which has united parliamentarians from across both Houses and both sides of the House, as well as the advice sector. It is right that the matter is before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving us the opportunity to consider it today. I also join her in thanking Just for its briefing and, probably more importantly, for its campaigning on this issue. As she rightly said, I am not sure we would be here today if Just had not taken it as far as it had.

As we have heard, enforcement officers have been incorrectly charging VAT to debtors since 2014. The Government, I think, agree that debtors should not be paying the VAT and Ministers have confirmed this at the Dispatch Box previously. When the matter was raised in Parliament by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara in 2019, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said on behalf of the Treasury that

“any VAT due is payable by the creditor who receives the service. The debtor is not required to pay the VAT.”

As Parliamentary Answers go, that is quite unequivocal. That should have instigated an immediate reset of VAT charging at that point. It would have been nice if the MoJ had listened to the Treasury then.

The SI deals with the charging of VAT and ensures that, going forward, High Court enforcement officers—HCEOs—do not charge debtors. That is to be welcomed. The move should be to the creditors. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we are concerned that the Government are not tackling the historic overcharging that has been taking place for at least the last seven years. The Government accept that debtors have been unfairly taxed, so can the Minister please explain why the Government are not committing to providing—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has outlined—tax refunds or other systems to resolve this mischarge to debtors? There is an established principle when someone has been financially wronged: we saw it regarding PPI and heard it in the news this morning in a recommendation from the ombudsman about incorrect benefits payments. Why are the Government taking this position?

There may well be another simple solution. I look for a response from the Minister to this. It could possibly be dealt with as an administration task. The MoJ could order debt enforcement companies to return the VAT to the debtors who had overpaid it. The debt enforcement companies which are VAT registered would then reinvoice the creditors to return this money to them. The creditors could submit this VAT as a cost to HMRC. This means it would not cost the debt enforcement companies or the creditors any money. It would be a return through the VAT system directly from HMRC. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

18:13

Division 4

Ayes: 149

---

Labour: 75
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 11
Independent: 4
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 149

---

Conservative: 135
Crossbench: 7
Independent: 5
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Amendment 78B disagreed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I am going to make a slightly unusual request. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cannot unfortunately be in her place. She was unable to be in the House at very short notice. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, needs to chair a Select Committee at 3 pm, so I wonder if I could formally move Amendment 224 and then allow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to make her speech. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.

Crown Dependencies: Contributions

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I would never make an absurd point, either to the noble Lord or anybody else. I am certainly aware that there is no current or perceived future requirement to use the Alderney breakwater for operational military purposes, but it still needs to be maintained to preserve the facilities in Alderney’s only serviceable harbour. The Government previously retained responsibility for maintaining the breakwater because it was built by the UK for naval purposes and the Bailiwick of Guernsey could not be expected to subsidise the cost at the time.

When we requested that the Crown dependencies start making contributions towards the cost of defence in 1987, Guernsey assumed responsibility for maintaining the breakwater alongside remitting passport fees for British passports issued in the bailiwick. Irrespective of whether the breakwater serves any defensive purpose, by meeting the maintenance cost that would otherwise fall on the Government, Guernsey contributes to the cost of its defence and international relations.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK is formally responsible for representing the Crown dependencies in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including during the COP negotiations. Given that small islands are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, can the Minister confirm how Her Majesty’s Government are engaging with the Crown dependencies in the lead up to the COP 26 summit?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. My role in the Ministry of Justice is essentially to be the point Minister for the Crown dependencies regarding the Government. Just as I make sure that the Crown dependencies’ relations with, for example, the Department for International Trade, are secure when we talk about international treaties, I also make sure that discussions on environmental and climate issues are close between the Crown dependencies and the relevant government departments.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 43. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 43

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Amendment 44 was previously debated on Monday. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, wish to move Amendment 44?

Amendment 44

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to move Amendment 44.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now put the question. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, taking part remotely, that she wishes to divide the House in support of this amendment and I will take that into account. The question is that Amendment 44 be agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 45. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 45

Moved by

Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which I will refer to as the FPJPS regulations, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017, which I will refer to as the FPJPS. This statutory instrument broadly has three purposes: the first is to add eligible fee-paid judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations; the second is to make amendments consequential to adding these offices to the FPJPS regulations; and the third is to make various further amendments to those regulations.

Dealing with those in turn, the main purpose of this statutory instrument is to add further eligible judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations. To give the House an example, Part 2 of the statutory instrument adds the office of legal chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal to the schedule of offices in the FPJPS. Until that is done, individuals holding these offices cannot be members of the FPJPS and cannot, therefore, accrue pension benefits under it, even though they would otherwise meet the eligibility criteria. Similarly, member pension contributions could not be deducted from their judicial fees. Currently, when the Ministry of Justice is notified that an individual in this situation retires, an interim payment in lieu of pension is made, but once these judicial offices are added to the FPJPS regulations the payments in lieu will become formalised pension payments.

The second element is the consequential amendments, contained in Part 3, which flow from the addition of these judicial offices to the pension scheme. These amendments ensure two things: first, that eligible service before this SI comes into force on 1 April 2021, and potentially as far back as 7 April 2000, can also count as pensionable service and pension contributions can be deducted in respect of it; and, secondly, these new members can complete certain actions in the scheme, such as the purchase of additional benefits, from their date of admission to the scheme.

Thirdly and finally, we are taking the opportunity of this SI to make some further necessary amendments to the FPJPS regulations. I will highlight three kinds of amendment. First, we explicitly set out the service limitation dates that apply for relevant judicial offices. This is the date from which reckonable service is taken into account for the accrual of pension benefits under the scheme. Service limitation dates represent the point in time when the appropriate salaried judicial officeholders had access to a pension under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 scheme, known as the JUPRA scheme. Following the 2013 judgment in a case called O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, we need to replicate that in the FPJPS. To give the House an example, service in the office of deputy adjudicator of Her Majesty’s Land Registry is eligible for an FPJPS pension, but only in relation to service in this office after 1 January 2009. Although these offices already fall under the entry in the FPJPS regulations of

“First-tier Tribunal Judge (where a legal qualification is a requirement of appointment)”

and the service limitation dates could be inferred, if one had the time and interest to do so, from various sources, such as the purpose of the existing regulations and litigation decisions, we consider it preferable for these dates to be clearly specified in these regulations, so that is what we have done.

Secondly, we have taken the opportunity to correct the service limitation dates, which are already listed for three judicial offices in these regulations, as they wrongly limit, by one day, the period of eligible service for these judicial officeholders. To give an example, the entry for

“Legal Chair Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel”

is currently limited to service in this office after 3 November 2008, whereas the correct date that the amendment records is 2 November 2008.

Thirdly, we have added the new names of two judicial offices already listed in the regulations. These are the Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge, a position formerly known as the Deputy Bankruptcy Registrar; and the Deputy Master of the Senior Courts, formerly known as the Deputy Supreme Court Master.

Turning briefly to the consultations we have undertaken on these and related matters, I shall highlight three. In 2016, we issued a public consultation on the draft regulations establishing FPJPS and the responses were reflected in the final version of the regulations. The scheme commenced on 1 April 2017, with backdated effect to 7 April 2000. We have since undertaken further consultation exercises relating to the addition of eligible judicial offices to FPJPS. In the first of those two additional consultation exercises, in 2018 we consulted directly with judges of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Agricultural Land and Drainage, as this office was not expressly mentioned in the 2016 consultation. We received four responses, which we considered carefully.

Secondly, from June to October last year, we consulted on adding these judicial offices to FPJPS as part of a wider consultation on amendments to the regulations on the inclusion of service in the scheme prior to April 2000. We received a number of responses, and the Government response to the consultation was published on 10 December last year. In addition, of course, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of developments and have liaised specifically with officials from Wales and Northern Ireland regarding the offices whose jurisdictions are in those countries, reflecting their views accordingly.

I can reassure the House that this statutory instrument, which I accept is somewhat technical, is essentially a tidying-up exercise. We are not implementing any major changes through the statutory instrument, nor are we making any amendments to FPJPS with negative implications for judges. In fact, we are doing the opposite: we are enabling additional officeholders to become members of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, something I know that both the judges concerned and my department are very keen to see happen. The key reason, therefore, for this statutory instrument is to add eligible judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations to enable those officeholders to become members of the scheme and to enable pension contributions to be deducted from their fees. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 160 while offering my sympathy and support for the other two amendments in this group. I reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that this is a landmark Bill and needs to be as near perfection as we can possibly make it. I speak also as a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Istanbul convention is one of the key cornerstones of the achievements of that council over the last several years. It grieves me that I regularly see on the material put out by the council that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the convention, although of course it added its signature in 2012.

The idea is that our legislation is not yet in line with all the requirements of the convention, and that we are working on that. Earlier today, I heard extraterritoriality mentioned in debates and that a parallel effort is being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly which, mercifully, will deal with a major part of what prevents us at this minute ratifying the convention. That leaves us with Article 4(3) and Article 59. The whole question of discrimination has been properly alluded to as a very important thing for us to accord. I believe that the Government wish to do that, but they have taken the extraordinary step, having seen the recommendation in what is the fourth report since we have had these annual reports, to refer the matter into a pilot that will sit from December last to the end of March. That pilot’s findings will help us to quantify and find sustainable responses to this particular need.

I say that it is ironic and it is because, in a sense, the two other amendments in this group, were they on the statute book, would provide exactly the guarantees being sought and would allow us to ratify the convention at once. Is the fact that we have the pilot, which goes on to the end of March, going to make it necessary or impossible for us to include any measures to deal with discrimination for migrant women within the timescale of the passage of this Bill? I cannot see that we can possibly do the Bill and include any outcome from this process, which means that we will have missed the opportunity in this landmark Bill to deal with the two outstanding obstacles to our signing the Istanbul convention.

I missed a lot of these riveting debates because I was in Strasbourg, virtually—but we were talking about the same things. It pains me that we have not ratified the convention. At this minute Turkey and Poland are on the point of withdrawing from the Istanbul convention, and our moral stance in urging them not to is greatly diminished by the fact that we ourselves have not ratified it. With all that in mind—and this point has not yet been made, although it has been alluded to many times—I wish that these amendments could be made. Some 58 people and organisations wrote to me, as I am sure they wrote to the Minister, to say that all the evidence we could possibly need has been gathered. What is to stop us going forward? Why cannot we find a way between now and Report to leapfrog any obstacle, if necessary? Is this really impossible?

At the end of the day, it will all come down to money—£1.5 million will not do what needs to be done in the next five months and certainly, it will take a lot of money to deal with this in a sustainable way in the fullness of time. The domestic abuse commissioner designate—what a welcome appointment and what a clear-sounding person she seems to be—says that, unless migrant women with no recourse to public funds are included,

“their options are brutal.”

So, there it is from the person who will be overseeing this whole area of our national life.

I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that, even though we are out of sync with the passage of the Bill, we can hope in the not too distant future to incorporate retrospectively all that we are seeking to do through these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who will be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as I and many others said at Second Reading, the biggest hole in the Bill is its failure to make any provision for migrant women—a group of domestic abuse survivors who are let down badly by current provisions. I therefore strongly support these amendments, which, in different ways, would fill that hole and ensure that abused migrant women receive the same support as other domestic abuse survivors.

It is to the Government’s credit that they listened to the criticisms from domestic abuse organisations and, in particular, those working with abused migrant women such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service—to which I pay tribute—and revised the prospectus for the Support for Migrants Victims pilot scheme. However, they refused to face up to the most fundamental criticism, as cited by the right reverend Prelate in her powerful speech, that a pilot scheme of this kind is simply not necessary in order to provide the evidence that Ministers claim they need before taking longer-term action to protect abused migrant women. Southall Black Sisters, for instance, has already provided the necessary evidence and the domestic abuse commissioner designate supports its belief that the Government do not need further evidence to act.

Although much improved from its original specification, the pilot is still inadequate to meet the needs of abused women. According to SBS, and as we have heard, the £1.4 million allocated is nowhere near enough to meet the needs of all the women requiring crisis support. It calculates that this will enable it to support only 50 women for three months each over a year, which would leave many women still excluded from protection and crisis support. At the same time, the £1.09 million grant it was awarded from the tampon tax fund to support women subject to the no recourse to public funds rule is due to end in March. As the right honourable Theresa May pointed out on Report in the Commons, we have to take account of the fact that the removal of financial support from a woman in a relationship might be

“part of the abuse they are suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 July 2020; col. 712.]

The Government must surely do all they can not to compound that abuse through public policy. At the very least, will the Minister consider suspending the application of the NRPF rule to domestic abuse survivors during the lifetime of the pilot to minimise the hardship that is likely to result?

Whatever the merits of the pilot project there is, as we have already heard, no guarantee that it will lead to lasting change. Such an important part of the domestic abuse strategy should not be dependent on the presence of sympathetic Ministers. Domestic abuse legislation does not come along that often; indeed, how many years have we had to wait for this Bill, welcome as it is? It is therefore vital that provision be made within it to ensure equal protection for migrant domestic abuse survivors. Indeed, the EHRC warns that failure to do so might put us in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, as we have heard, it would almost certainly breach our obligations under the Istanbul convention. Given that the Minister said in her letter to Peers following Second Reading that the Government will ratify the convention only when they are satisfied that we meet all our obligations, it is surely imperative that equal protection for migrant women be enshrined in this Bill, as argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 156 and 157 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 158

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 159

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 160 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to Amendment 161. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 161

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 140 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 141. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 141

Moved by

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 26th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Clause 2 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Schedule 2: Serious Terrorism Offences: England and Wales

Amendment 1

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Schedule 3: Offences for the purposes of this Act: Northern Ireland

Amendment 2

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 4. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Clause 4: Serious terrorism sentence for adults aged under 21: England and Wales

Amendment 4

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 12. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 12

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it was an honour to put my name to this amendment, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, with her experience as a former executive chair of the Parole Board for England and Wales. As she said, Clause 27, which this amendment would replace, aims to remove the role of the Parole Board in the case of certain dangerous terrorist offenders who have been given a determinate sentence. Clause 27 would do this by amending Section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, itself dating from only last year, which currently requires the Secretary of State to refer terrorist offenders serving any determinate sentence to the Parole Board at the two-thirds point of the custodial term.

There are instinctive attractions—including, no doubt, electoral attractions—in providing for all dangerous terrorist offenders to serve their entire sentences in prison. But the notion that such offenders are uniquely incorrigible is not supported by the facts. I remind the Minister of a Written Answer that I received from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, last February, revealing that, of the 196 terrorist offenders released from prison in England and Wales in the seven years from January 2013, only six—barely 3%—had committed another terrorist offence by the end of that period. This illustrates a pattern of surprisingly low terrorist recidivism rates around the world, expertly analysed by Andrew Silke and John Morrison in an ICCT policy brief of September 2020 aptly entitled Re-offending by Released Terrorist Prisoners: Separating Hype from Reality.

This is not an argument for complacency. It most certainly does not mean that all is well in our prisons, but it is something to consider before we dispense with the Parole Board in the circumstances that Clause 27 would effect.

My successor but one as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has been referred to today with wholly justified approval by at least two Ministers and numerous other noble Lords, so we should listen to the three reservations that he has voiced on Clause 27. First, it would remove the possibility of early release

“as a spur to good behaviour and reform for offenders who are going to spend the longest time in custody”.

At the same time, it would deprive the prison authorities of an important tool for prisoner management. Secondly, it would remove the opportunity to explore current and future risk at Parole Board hearings. Thirdly, it would remove the opportunity for early release of

“child terrorist offenders, whose risk may be considered most susceptible to change as they mature into adults”.

I endorse what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said about that and the public safety implications in the last group.

Those reservations are addressed by this amendment and by the following group. I look forward to hearing what the Minister, whom I welcome warmly to his place, has to say about them.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We have been unable to reach the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so we now move to the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, the Bill has been broadly welcomed, in light of the Fishmongers’ Hall and Streatham attacks, by noble Lords across the House. One could add to that sad litany of attacks the murder of three men in Forbury Gardens, Reading. Noble Lords accepted the need for legislation such as this with something of a heavy heart. There have been anxieties expressed in Committee today and at Second Reading about some aspects of the Bill. I particularly noted the comments at Second Reading of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who described himself as “horrified” by the reduced role of the Parole Board.

I share, I am sure, with all noble Lords very considerable respect for what the Parole Board does. Decisions about serious offenders are particularly challenging. The boards, which have enormous experience, are given a great deal of material to make their decision, which they do with scrupulous care. I do not see that the purpose of the Bill in any way excludes or marginalises the board. The purpose, surely, is to ensure that serious terrorist offenders spend longer in prison and longer on licence, and it is that fact that removes the Parole Board from the picture, not any lack of respect for what it does.

I listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about the statistics on reoffending by terrorist offenders who are released, and I am sure that he is absolutely right to make that point. I would add just one gentle caveat, in the sense that a terrorist who commits another offence, maybe of the most extraordinary gravity, is not comparable to, say, a burglar who breaks into a house repeatedly, serious though that can be.

The offenders who will no longer be susceptible to review by the Parole Board will have their licence condition, when they are released, set by prison governors on behalf of the Secretary of State. As I understand their position, prison governors will be informed by the probation service, the multi-agency public protection panels, and presumably by information gathered about the prisoners in the prison or prisons where they have served their sentence, which will be something of an incentive for them to behave well. Prison governors have much experience of this process.

The Bill is certainly concerned with the protection of the public. Keeping the most serious offenders in prison for longer and removing their opportunity for early release is what causes the reduced role of the Parole Board. The removal of its involvement for what I understand is likely to be a very small cohort of 50 or so—perhaps the Minister can help—seems to be justified in the public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 27 should stand part of the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Noble Lords should be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have withdrawn from this debate, so the speaker after the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will be the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks.

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

My Lords, as was said on the previous group, Clause 27 as it stands would mean that offenders serving serious terrorism offences sentences and those serving extended determinate sentences for an offence carrying a possible sentence of life imprisonment would be excluded from the operation of subsections (3) to (5) of Section 247A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Those subsections presently govern the involvement of the Parole Board in the release of offenders at the two-thirds point of their custodial term.

In answer to some who spoke about early release in the debate we have just had, the description of release at the two-thirds point, which is what is largely envisaged, is not, on our traditional understanding, early release. We have long recognised that there is a benefit in a remission system whereby release generally takes place at the two-thirds point of a custodial term before the offender’s sentence has been concluded.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out, subsections (3) to (5)—the present arrangements—were themselves the result of the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act, the so-called TORER Act, which we passed last year, ending release on licence after the halfway point in an offender’s sentence. However, in the section concerned, we preserved the role of the Parole Board in cases where generally an offender had served two-thirds of his custodial term. That was emergency legislation. I invite the Minister to explain what has changed to justify removing the Parole Board’s involvement since that emergency legislation, which retained it. I venture to suggest that no further justification has arisen since we passed that Act.

Subsections (3) to (5) presently require referral by the Secretary of State to the board for consideration after the completion of two-thirds of the required custodial period, then consideration by the board as to whether it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner be detained. Only if it is so satisfied does the board direct release on licence. The effect of Clause 27 on the offences to which it applies is that release before the conclusion of the custodial term is excluded altogether and the Parole Board is not to be involved in relevant offenders’ release. Clause 28 and Schedule 10 apply similar provisions to Scotland, and Clause 31 to Northern Ireland.

One effect of removing the prospect of early release is that the Bill removes an incentive to behave acceptably in prison, which makes offender management in prisons far more difficult. It also makes it less likely that prisoners will engage with deradicalisation programmes within prisons—partly because there will be less incentive for them to do so, but also because deradicalisation, like rehabilitation more generally, is advanced by hope and inhibited by hopelessness. It would increase, in those subject to these sentences, the sense of hopelessness, powerlessness and hostility in prison from all around; I urge those who argue that hope and some sense of power in a prisoner’s own destiny are important to the welfare of society at large to accept the weakness of that position.

One reason why I make these points is that all those subject to these sentences will be released one day, unless their sentences outlast their lives; for that reason, their rehabilitation is important. Nor should we forget that the reoffending rates for terrorist offences are in fact low, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out when he referred to the response to the Question he raised last February, in which the Ministry of Justice calculated a recidivism rate of 3.06% for terrorist offences, as opposed to a rate of 28% for other offences. Of course I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that any reoffending by a terrorist offender is or may be disastrous, but I venture to suggest that excluding any involvement of the Parole Board, with its wealth of experience in weighing up risks to public safety, would be an unhelpful way of improving public safety; indeed, it would not improve public safety at all.

The central question that the Parole Board is directed to consider is whether continued detention is required by a continuing risk to the safety of the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, repeatedly described this as risk assessment; that was the correct description. She rightly highlighted the importance in this process of the Parole Board and its hearings. Of course I accept in all this the point made in response to her amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that a replacement for Clause 27 would be required if that clause were to go. Whether or not that would have been the replacement proposed in Amendment 12 by the noble Baroness and others matters not. What does matter is that the present proposal does not help public safety, and has very serious adverse ramifications.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. No? We will come back to her. Let us try the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I have once again signed up to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I do not want to repeat what I said on the last grouping, so I will raise just two additional points. The first is the risk of inconsistency that Clause 27 and its companions could bring into the law. They of course apply only to determinate sentences, so does this not raise what the independent reviewer has described in a recent series of tweets as the

“uncomfortable possibility that offenders may be ‘better off’ if sentenced to life imprisonment than extended sentences”?

He illustrated that observation with the case of the Anzac Day plotter—recently released on the recommendation of the Parole Board, having been convicted at the age of 15—and the decision last week of the Court of Appeal in the case of the St Paul’s suicide bomb plotter. The Minister and others might want to reflect on those cases, and on the observations of the independent reviewer before Report, when I suspect that we may need to come back to this.

Secondly, since the Minister accepts that the prisoners who would be affected by Clause 27 are not always incorrigibly violent, and since he does not take issue with what I said about the very low terrorist recidivism rates, is he not tempted to accept that there might be cases—perhaps rare—in which the Parole Board would feel able to recommend their release?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We still cannot reach the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

[Lord Naseby (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the Bill makes a welcome change to the sentencing, release and monitoring of terrorism offenders by toughening up the law. This is a time of higher risk—something that has not been referred to by our noble friends the lawyers. I am no lawyer, but I study the Middle East and south Asia in some depth, and I have lived abroad for a number of years. I have very good contacts in those parts of the world and, in my judgment, the risk of terrorism at this time is higher than we have ever experienced.

I might say as a side issue that I get concerned when organisations such as Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and others call vociferously for the deletion of Clauses 37, 38 and 40. I am, frankly, not impressed by their objectivity. I wish I could be, but they and others I could mention, such as Freedom from Torture, do not in my experience bring objectivity to these types of cases. I contrast that with the work of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the ICRC—although it is not involved in these cases on the whole—and Médecins Sans Frontières, both of which are involved in issues relating to torture, and they are very objective in their assessments.

It is objectivity that one wants. The British public has to understand and be convinced that any change that is made will help to deal with terrorism. I think, on having looked at the Bill, that Clause 27 is right. It is all very well for noble Lords to say that the numbers who abscond or the cases where people are released early are small, but the number of people who were killed in Manchester was not small. In most places where there is terrorist activity, the numbers are not small. I see my role in the upper House as being one where I look after the British public. It is not a risk assessment. The only risk is that someone will reoffend. When facing the challenge of that situation, I do not think that we can suggest to the British public that some of these men and women who have carried out heinous crimes should be released early on an objective risk assessment.

I make one other point. As it happens, I am doing a bit of work on national service, something which older Members of your Lordships’ House may well have done in the Army, the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. In my case, I was a pilot in the air force. I think of myself at the age of 21. We were all 18 years old when we did our national service. We were young men who were risking our lives and we were ready to fight; many lost their lives. I wonder whether 21 is too high an age; I personally would drop it to 18, which was the age at which you had to do your national service. However, that goes rather wider than what we are considering here.

As far as I am concerned, the Government are taking absolutely the right road. We have to toughen up on sentencing and we have to toughen up on early release and the monitoring of offenders because the risks at this point in time are very real.