Legal Aid: Social Welfare and Family Law

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I refer the House to my declared interest.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, legal aid is a vital part of the justice system. It underpins our plans to build a justice system that works for victims, supports access to justice and ultimately upholds the rule of law. The previous Government left the legal system facing significant challenges. This Government are committed to ensuring an effective, efficient and sustainable legal aid system, and we have already begun to stabilise the sector and explore ways in which we can rebuild our justice system.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. I know that he, like me, believes that the virtual decimation of early legal advice as a direct consequence of the LASPO Act remains an affront to access to justice. Is he aware that every report published on this issue strongly agrees that early legal advice saves the state money by avoiding court and time spent? Of course, we know how sparse resources are, but does he not agree that common sense dictates that restoring early legal advice urgently by an increase in legal aid is a necessary, humane and financially sensible thing to do?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question, and I agree with the sentiment behind it. The Government are committed to ensuring there is an effective, efficient and sustainable legal aid system and are working toward that end. Our response to the Crime Lower consultation was published on 14 November and confirmed that we will be uplifting the lowest police station fees, introducing a new youth court fee scheme and paying for travel time in certain circumstances. Together, these changes will provide a £24 million boost for criminal aid providers.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, on a related matter, may I suggest that, to reduce the backlog in criminal cases, the Government increase the number of judicial sitting hours? I also suggest that the Government give earnest consideration to the recent proposal by the former Justice Minister Mr Chalk that criminal cases of intermediate gravity should be dealt with by a Crown Court judge and two justices, rather than by a jury.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Viscount for that question. As he will be aware, the department is going through an allocation process as a result of the recent Budget. The question of sitting hours and days will be looked at as part of that allocation review. He raised the question of an intermediate court, which I think was in the Auld report. That is being looked at, but a number of questions arise from that suggestion, which was made more than 20 years ago. I can say to the noble Viscount that it is something that is being considered.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, as the Minister will know from his past life, many unrepresented litigants appear before family judges and magistrates without any legal advice. Very often, there have to be adjournments because the facts are not available because the parties are so in dispute they cannot give an accurate account. Does the Minister agree that this is not only a waste of court time but a waste of money? Early legal advice in family cases would save a great deal of money.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Of course, I am sympathetic to the point the noble and learned Baroness makes. As she said, I have substantial experience of dealing with litigants in person in family courts. The debate about early legal advice is also being considered as part of the allocation arrangements as a result of the Budget, but I am sympathetic to the point she makes.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister concerned about the combined effect of the restrictions on scope for legal aid, the enormous complexity of trying to get an exceptional circumstances funding application through, and the creation of advice deserts in many parts of the country? These are severe barriers. The Minister has been strongly in support of legal aid over many years, as I know well, but does he have any hope of making progress on this matter?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question, specifically on the point of advice deserts. There is no doubt we are facing substantial challenges in that respect. The previous Government allowed the number of duty solicitors available to drop by 26% between 2017 and 2023. The MoJ and the Legal Aid Agency are working with providers where there are specific issues; for example, setting up a list of providers available to provide immigration advice to clients in the south-west.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bach’s Question is rightly focused on social welfare law and family law, which all too often get forgotten. One of the real pressures on the system is dealing with domestic abuse cases. The courts have introduced a system recently in certain courts, called the pathfinder courts, where there is an early assessment of domestic abuse allegations and the effect trying them will have on children. Could the Minister tell us whether the Government support those pathfinder schemes and how they are getting on?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. When I was in opposition, he made a point of encouraging me to visit a pathfinder court in Dorset. I was very impressed by what I saw, and the Government are pleased to carry on that initiative. Again, I am afraid the further rollout of pathfinder is also subject to those allocation discussions, which are ongoing, but I absolutely endorse the point my noble friend makes about the importance of pathfinder, not least because it is a way of highlighting and cracking down on domestic abuse in the court system.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, until 2012, there was funding for the excellent support scheme for specialist providers of social welfare and housing law. What consideration are the Government giving to its revival? If the Minister is not aware of plans, will he undertake to look at this?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I will undertake to look at that. I am not aware of it in detail; I know that various pilots have been undertaken. I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, have referred to the cost that falls on the courts as a result of the removal of legal aid for parents in dispute over their children. That is robbing Peter to pay Paul. I wonder whether the Government could take account also of the wider costs of the removal of legal aid in family cases which flow because parents at war are not as economically effective as they would otherwise be. People at war become ill, and there is untold damage done to the children as they are caught up in protracted disputes that need not happen. When the Minister is undertaking the review he referred to, would he take those matters into account?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think the noble and learned Lord has hit the nail on the head. Private family law hearings are a destructive process. It is not unusual for situations to get worse for the people engaging in them, in my experience. Having the legal representation helps the court, and it is something I hope we can work towards over time. However, there are other initiatives, such as the pathfinder project, such as early legal advice, such as mediation vouchers, which we would like to use to divert couples away from the court system where it is appropriate and there is not risk to the children.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister, in response to my noble friend Lord Bach, referred primarily to criminal legal aid. What does he think are the implications for the principle of equality before the law, which underpins the rule of law, of the disastrous impact of LASPO—introduced by the coalition Government—on the provision of legal aid and advice for social welfare law, as referred to by my noble friend?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the sentiments behind my noble friend’s question, but the reality of the situation is that building back better and more comprehensive support will take time. It is a step-by-step process. I understand the frustration which she expresses; nevertheless, I agree with her sentiments and we are working towards that end.

Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 11 November.

Motion agreed.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 13th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

Considered in Second Reading Committee on 6 November.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 11th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today amends a number of the judicial pensions regulations, specifically: the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, referred to as the FPJPS regulations; the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, referred to as the 2023 FPJPS amendments; the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2022, referred to as the JPS 2022 regulations; the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, referred to as the JPS 2015 regulations; and the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 (Judicial Offices) Order 2015, referred to as the judicial offices order.

The judicial pension scheme is made up of a number of historical pension schemes. Since April 2022, the only scheme open for pension benefit accruals is the judicial pension scheme 2022. All preceding judicial pension schemes closed to further accruals on 31 March 2022, but these older schemes are still relevant as the majority of judges have service extending across multiple schemes.

The FPJPS regulations established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme. The JPS 2015 and JPS 2022 regulations established, respectively, the judicial pension scheme 2015 and the judicial pension scheme 2022. These schemes regulate the pensions of the fee-paid and salaried judiciary. These amendments will make a range of changes to improve and, where necessary, correct the running of these schemes in line with statutory requirements and actuarial advice. The last time we debated the judicial pension scheme, which was when I was in opposition, I said that I suspected it would not be the last time we would have such amendments; it appears I was right. There may be more amendments to come.

By their nature, these regulations are highly technical. In essence, these amendments to the existing schemes do the following. First, they provide for an employer cost cap in the judicial pension scheme 2022, following the completion of the scheme valuation in February 2024. Secondly, they add further eligible judicial offices to their appropriate pension scheme, where that eligibility has now been determined. Thirdly, they extend a number of deadlines for member elections under the fee-paid judicial scheme. Fourthly, they extend powers to reconcile amounts that were paid to judges whose pre-2000 service must now be taken into account as a result of the O’Brien 2 litigation, in respect of those new, pre-2000 entitlements, with their formal entitlements for that period.

A number of technical changes are required to facilitate the smooth running of the pension schemes, which I shall take in turn. The first is the employer cost cap. The inclusion of a cost control mechanism, or CCM, in the JPS 2022 regulations is a statutory requirement under the Public Sector Pensions Act 2013 for all public sector pension schemes. These amendments add the CCM to the JPS 2022 regulations. This must be included by 6 February 2025, one year on from the first actuarial valuation of the scheme by the Government Actuary’s Department.

The CCM is designed to ensure a fair balance of risk with regard to the cost of providing public service defined benefit schemes between members of those schemes and the Exchequer. This is partly achieved through the setting of an employer cost cap. If, when the overall CCM is tested, costs have increased or decreased by more than a specified percentage of the pensionable pay compared with the employer cost cap, members’ benefits and/or contributions in the relevant scheme are adjusted to bring costs back to target. This could mean, for example, that a member’s contribution rate could go up or down. However, the mechanism is designed with the intention that benefit rectification would be triggered only by “extraordinary, unpredictable events”.

Moving on to additional offices, JPS 2015 came into effect on 1 April 2015 and was open to eligible fee-paid and salaried judges with service between 1 April 2015 and 31 March 2022. JPS 2022 came into effect on 1 April 2022, when all eligible judges moved into this scheme in respect of accruals for future service. JPS 2022 covers eligible service in fee-paid and salaried offices from 1 April 2022. These amendments add a number of judicial offices into FPJPS, JPS 2015 and JPS 2022 where their eligibility for a judicial pension has been determined. This will allow these members to accrue pensions in the correct scheme for their office and, where applicable, to have access to retrospective entitlements in JPS 2015 and JPS 2022. This will allow members with service in these offices to access the benefits they are entitled to and make the correct contributions to the scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I am not sure whether I need to declare a formal interest, as my wife sits as a fee-paid tribunal judge but, for the avoidance of any doubt, I do. I suspect that the impact of this regulation on her will be de minimis and no doubt happen in many years’ time.

That said, I can be brief because the Minister has been so comprehensive. As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, these regulations emanate from the previous Government; this is not an area where, historically, there has been political controversy. Indeed, as the Minister said, we debated similar regulations when our roles were reversed. I echo his comment to me that this is probably not the last time we will come back to debate and discuss these pension regulations, because they are complex. Part of the reason for that is the history and the litigation that has arisen, but the one thing we share around the Committee is the importance of having an attractive pension scheme so that we attract the finest candidates to our judiciary—and retain them. Indeed, one of the things we did in the previous Government was to increase the retirement age to 75. The Minister referred to our outstanding and independent judiciary, and we absolutely endorse those two adjectives; it is outstanding, and it is totally independent.

I also endorse the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames: the fact that we are widening some of these pension schemes to include more tribunal judges is testament to the fact that so much of the important work of our judiciary is done by tribunal judges, both full-time and part-time—I think fee-paid is the proper term. Day in, day out, tribunals up and down the country deal with really important issues for people on the ground, so to speak. They are often unsung, and far from the legal journals and law reports, but they deal with important legal issues on a daily basis.

I have only one question for the Minister, which I ask as a matter of interest rather than in any controversial way. I note that, by these regulations, we are extending the time to enable judges to make choices between the pre-1995 and post-1995 schemes. I am interested in why we are extending time for that and why this particular period of extension has been chosen.

Other than that, I am tempted—as I think they are still debating the Budget in the Chamber—to point out that, although it is important to have attractive and gold-plated pensions in the public sector, that does not mean that we should raid private pensions in the private sector. If I say any more on that I will take this debate to places where it ought not to go, so I will stop there and make it unequivocally clear that we on these Benches are also firmly in favour of these regulations. I thank the Minister for introducing and explaining them so clearly.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their support for these regulations. I will first address the question that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, asked about why the deadlines for member elections are being extended. The answer is that, for members to be able to make an informed decision on their member elections, we need to provide detailed, illustrative information to affected members, which requires significant data inputs from our suppliers. The extension to 31 March 2027 will ensure that we can get this information to members with enough time for them to make a decision. I think that answers the noble Lord’s question.

I wish to say how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the wider judicial family, and the importance of tribunal chairs and judges feeling part of that family and of their pensions recognising that fact. Of course, the part-timers—or fee-paid judges—fall into that category as well. That point was well worth reinforcing.

I also reinforce the point that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, made in his conclusion, about how our judiciary is a huge asset and resource for our country. It is indeed outstanding and independent—those are appropriate adjectives. There is never any question about its independence or ability. I have never, in either my business life or my political life, heard anyone seriously question judges’ independence or capability, if I may put it like that. We need to value that fact, and do so by making good but fair pension schemes. I hope these regulations are a small step in the road to maintaining that.

Motion agreed.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, given the focus of the Arbitration Bill on modifying the arbitral framework, which is devolved to Northern Ireland, we are seeking the legislative consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. We will continue to work closely with the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that a legislative consent Motion is put to the Assembly in good time. I beg to move that the Bill is read a third time.

Bill read a third time.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill has now benefited from the scrutiny of two parliamentary Sessions, following its introduction in the last Parliament and examination by a Special Public Bill Committee. It has undergone further scrutiny since its reintroduction by this Government.

I take this opportunity to thank some of the noble Lords who have engaged with and supported the Bill over the past year. I begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in chairing the former Special Public Bill Committee. He marshalled and managed truly expert feedback on these reforms from across the arbitration sector and the judiciary. The committee process resulted in several technical improvements to the Bill, introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also extend my thanks to the noble and learned Lord for his commitment to driving forward these reforms, while always recognising the importance of getting the details right.

The Bill has been improved during this Session’s Committee stage too, thanks in no small part to the considered and well-informed input from the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson and Lord Verdirame, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, who advised that the previous Clause 13 did not adequately reflect the case law on arbitral appeals that it sought to codify. We remedied this issue through my amendments in Committee, fixing a long-standing error in what is otherwise considered a supremely well-drafted framework. Based on sector feedback, the Government also made an improvement to Clause 1 ahead of introducing the Bill a second time, ensuring that its default rule on governing law did not apply inappropriately to certain investor-state arbitrations.

I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Hacking for his contributions, both as a member of the former Special Public Bill Committee and as an active participant throughout the Bill’s passage. I appreciate his continued interest in full and proper arbitration law reform, after witnessing at first hand so much of its development over many years.

The legislative scrutiny provided by this House has served only to give optimal effect to the Law Commission’s recommendations, made after two extensive consultations. I record my thanks to Professor Sarah Green and her colleagues at the commission, Nathan Tamblyn and Laura Burgoyne, for their brilliant work. I also thank the Bill managers, Iona Bonaventura and Harry McNeill Adams, along with the government lawyer, Wan Fan, the parliamentary counsel, Helen Hall and Neil Shah, and my policy lead, Lee Pedder. I also thank my private secretary, Paul Young.

The measures within the Bill have been much sought after by our arbitral community. I am hugely grateful for its support and engagement with these reforms since the Law Commission’s first consultation.

I conclude by reminding noble Lords of the Bill’s benefits. By reforming and modernising our arbitral framework, it will make dispute resolution more efficient, attract international legal business and promote UK economic growth. We pass the Bill to the Commons in excellent condition, and I hope its passage can be completed swiftly. I beg to move.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I share the distinction of being the only people participating in the proceedings on the Bill who have neither presided over arbitration nor appeared before arbitrators. We have had a panoply of very expert noble Lords taking part in proceedings, none more so than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the Public Bill Committee.

This is an important—although small—Bill, because it will effectively underpin an important export earner and an important opportunity for this country to assist in many issues across the world, because of the popularity of London as a centre for resolving disputes. It has had two Law Commission consultations, a very well-argued Law Commission report, excellent drafting and two processes through the full proceedings of this House. Not much legislation gets all that. As a consequence, we can be pleased about what has been achieved and wish it well in the Commons.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I simply associate myself, on behalf of these Benches and as the previous sponsor of this Bill in the previous Government, with the thanks that have been given to the entire team, not only to the special committee and its chair but to the civil servants who have supported the work. I thank the Government and the Minister himself, who worked very hard in the special committee, collaborated very closely with the previous Government and myself and has, as has been said, managed to bring the Bill forward again with remarkable speed. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, of course there is always unfinished business and we must look to the future, but we now have an extremely good base on which to do so.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I continue to be glad that this Bill has the support of so many noble, and noble and learned, Lords. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has now enjoyed robust review and precise revision and I hope it will have swift passage through the House of Commons.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for noting that we are the only two noble Lords without direct experience who took part in both this Bill and the previous Bill; he was right in saying that. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I was remiss in not thanking Joey Topping for clerking the previous Committee stage. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for his best wishes for the Bill.

I will address the substance of what my noble friend Lord Hacking said on arbitral corruption. Of course, we take this very seriously. We believe that it would not be appropriate to use the Bill to address these matters. However, the arbitral sector is reviewing how corruption can be better identified and dealt with. The Government will continue to support this work and push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Second reading committee
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Committee do consider the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, as we begin, I would like to set out some of the history of property law and how this Bill came into being. It is worth noting at the outset that these proposals are concerned with the law of personal property in England and Wales; that is, anything that is not land or real estate. Specifically, the Bill is designed to respond to the challenge the common law faces in recognising certain digital assets, such as crypto tokens, as property; and to position the UK as the pre-eminent jurisdiction for the transaction of digital assets and the resolution of disputes arising from them.

As your Lordships will be aware, certainty around personal property rights is important for a number of reasons, including: in cases where objects of property rights are interfered with or unlawfully taken; in cases of bankruptcy or insolvency; and for the legal rules concerning succession on death. These rights are also important for the proper characterisation of numerous modern and complex legal relationships, including custody relationships, collateral arrangements and structures involving trusts.

Traditionally, personal property has been categorised into two types: tangible property that you can hold or otherwise physically possess, known as “things in possession”; and intangible property that can be claimed or enforced only through a court action, such as a debt or contractual right, known as “things in action”. These categories have been recognised in English and Welsh law for centuries, long before digital assets existed. It is not surprising that they do not fit neatly into either category, yet some digital assets have characteristics that mean they should be recognised as property by the common law and treated as such.

For example, it has long been held that pure information cannot be the object of property rights because it can be copied exactly without affecting the original version. If one party sends another party a Word document, for example, the original party still has their copy. By contrast, the technology used to create crypto tokens means that they cannot be duplicated or “double spent”. This has been recognised in some recent case law, which found that certain digital assets, specifically crypto assets, can still attract personal property rights even though their unique nature means that they are neither things in action nor things in possession.

It is worth noting, however, that these cases are not definitive in that the decisions were not made by a precedent-setting court. This has left some ambiguity, as there is old case law suggesting that something cannot be personal property if it does not fall within either of the two traditional categories. Under the previous Government, in 2020, the Ministry of Justice asked the Law Commission to review the law on crypto tokens and other digital assets, and to consider whether reform was required. In its 2023 report, the Law Commission concluded that certain types of digital assets can attract property rights and recommended legislation to reflect this. This Government agree wholeheartedly with that approach, which is why we have brought forward this Bill.

I turn to the details of the Bill, which has only one limited and technical operative clause. It recognises that:

“A thing … including a thing that is digital or electronic … is not prevented from”


attracting

“personal property rights merely because it is neither … a thing in possession, nor … a thing in action”.

The Bill simply signals a further category of personal property. What it does not do is state which assets fall within this further category. It also does not provide for the legal consequences of falling into this category. These are matters purposefully left to the common law, which is best placed to respond in a nuanced and flexible way.

The Bill does not mean that all digital assets will be recognised as property. There are many kinds of digital assets with different features, including crypto tokens, non-fungible tokens, virtual carbon credits, digital files, and domain names. The well-established common-law tests for personal property will be applied by the courts to each specific digital asset. This means that only things with the necessary characteristics of property will be recognised as attracting property rights.

We believe that the Bill has clear benefits for England and Wales as a legal jurisdiction, and the UK as a whole, enabling more efficient dispute resolution, attracting international businesses to use our law, and promoting economic growth. The Bill will: first, encourage the use of English and Welsh law by international businesses by increasing confidence in how our law will treat certain digital assets; secondly, ensure protections for owners of crypto tokens and other assets in the event of unauthorised use or misappropriation; thirdly, decrease litigation costs and court time by giving certainty as to the existence of a further category of personal property; and, lastly, empower the courts with the tools to develop our world-leading common law.

Ultimately, the Bill will ensure that our jurisdiction continues to be an attractive place to do business with, and litigate in respect of, crypto tokens and other emerging assets that have the characteristics of property under the common law. The Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill represents a step forward in modernising the law of personal property in England and Wales. By recognising a further category of personal property, it recognises the unique features of digital assets, ensuring that they can be protected and managed effectively under the law.

The Bill underscores our commitment to fostering innovation. It supports our efforts to ensure that our jurisdiction remains at the forefront globally, providing a flexible legal framework that can react to the dynamic nature of digital assets and other emerging technologies. I hope the Bill receives strong support and I look forward to noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who contributed to today’s debate. All of them will, I hope, acknowledge the expertise in the Room. Committee stage is likely to be very expert as well; I look forward to it.

I am keen to emphasise, as the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Sandhurst, did, the great deal of work that has gone into the Bill: from the Law Commission, which produced an excellent report and followed that up with a consultation on the proposed Bill, and from the practitioners, businesses, academics and organisations that engaged with the process throughout. I give my thanks to all who were involved in that work.

The result of those efforts is a simple but elegant Bill. As has been said, most notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, it will support our efforts to remain a pre-eminent jurisdiction, with English and Welsh law the global law of choice, and it will signal that the UK is a leader in innovation and technology. As our society evolves, so too must our laws. The Bill is just one of the ways in which we are modernising our legal framework. I will endeavour to address some of the points made by noble Lords. If I miss any points in particular, I will of course write to noble Lords.

First, the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked a number of questions, and I will have a go at answering them— I recognise his expertise in this matter. The first question was on whether the Government are sure that the current categorisation is not exhaustive and unable to accommodate existing digital assets. The Law Commission considered this option as part of its extensive and detailed report. It acknowledged that it would be possible to recognise crypto tokens as falling within an expanded category of things in action—that is, to treat “things in action” as a catch-all category for all personal property that is not capable of possession. However, crypto tokens and similar assets are fundamentally different from other things in action, which can only be claimed or enforced through a court action. For example, unlike debt they can be stolen, which in some ways makes them more like things in possession despite them not being physical objects.

Digital assets could not have been conceived when the original categories of personal property were developed and so it is no wonder that these do not fit neatly into either category. The commission, and most of its consultees, concluded that it would be better for the law to recognise that this unique combination of features means that they belong to a different category. That is why we chose the third category option, which is promoted in the Bill.

The second point the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made, was on the implications for our courts. One of the great strengths of the common law is its ability to evolve. We are, however, dependent on the right cases being brought to the precedent-setting courts. While we could have left the law to develop, there is no guarantee of if or when this would happen, and in the meantime the uncertainty would remain about whether digital assets could be treated as personal property. The underlying point of the Bill is to put into statute the way that the common law was developing in any case, and to allow the common law to continue to develop once this particular bit of legislation is in place. To that end, the Government took the decision to legislate to give the market confidence and clarity in English and Welsh law. It also provides a strong indication to the courts that Parliament then intends to develop common law and that there is a further category of personal property that some digital assets can fall within.

The third question the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked, was on what this means for the common-law community. The Bill does not put the law of England and Wales at odds with other common-law countries. Courts in New Zealand and Singapore have considered that crypto assets are capable of attracting property rights and question the appropriateness of there being only two categories of personal property. The Bill is consistent with further international legal developments —for example, the US, New Zealand, Singapore and the Dubai International Finance Centre have recognised crypto tokens as property, and the latter has recognised them as specifically belonging to a new category of personal property.

The noble Lord, Lord Holmes, asked about Scotland. Scotland’s law of personal property is distinct and does not share concepts of things in action or things in possession, so any legislative intervention in this area would have to be slightly different. I understand that the Scottish Government recently appointed an expert reference group to consider how Scots private law may best accommodate digital assets. It will be interesting to see how its work develops in this area. No noble Lord raised Northern Ireland, but the Bill could be extended to include Northern Ireland, subject to a legislative consent Motion at the Northern Ireland Assembly’s request.

The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, spoke about the importance of the financial regulation of crypto assets. The Bill supports and complements the work of the Treasury and the Financial Conduct Authority, which are currently working on appropriate financial regulation of crypto assets.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked what impact the Bill will have on things such as illegal transactions, fraud and tax avoidance. I recognise her points, and the answer is that the Bill deals only with a specific issue of personal property law. Illegal transactions, fraud and tax avoidance are properly dealt with by other statutes and initiatives.

The noble Baroness spoke about the environmental impact of crypto in a wider sense, and my noble friend Lord Stansgate also made that point. Of course, the Bill does not have a direct environmental impact, as it does not mandate for an increase in the use of crypto tokens or other digital assets—digital assets will continue to be used and created regardless of the Bill. Rather, the Bill is about clarifying the legal status of digital assets that already exist when a dispute has arisen. The Bill will help keep the courts of England and Wales as a leading place to mitigate these disputes.

However, I agree that environmental issues are important. This falls to a much wider discussion on things such as improving energy efficiency and adoptable sustainable power sources, and that is best addressed by other statutes and initiatives. Conversely, it is possible that the Bill could bring positive environmental benefits by enabling innovative green finance for particular projects and things. Nevertheless, I take the noble Baroness’s point.

My noble friend Lord Stansgate asked a number of questions. The first was: is the panel on the legal concept of control proceeding? I am happy to confirm that the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce, an expert group chaired by the Master of the Rolls, is taking forward this work, as a body that already has an internationally credible voice in the intersection of law and technology. In fact, I met Sir Geoffrey Vos last week, and we spoke about that very point.

Secondly, my noble friend asked whether the Bill would help in the division of matrimonial property on divorce—the noble Lord, Lord Meston, made this point as well. I am pleased to say that the Bill will help courts to say with confidence, in divorce cases, that crypto assets are matrimonial property. This is also a case for crypto assets on death.

The third question my noble friend raised was: will the Bill help people access the iPhone photos, for example, of deceased relatives? The situation for other digital assets, such as digital photos, is not addressed by the Bill, as the assets are not personal property. So it will not address that point as such, but it will be for the common law to develop the answers to those sorts of questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, in a thoughtful speech of which he gave me good notice—I thank him for that—raised the impact of NFTs on the traditional art market. As he rightly said, there are many different aspects to this, and many uses for digital assets, giving rise to different legal, practical and other issues. This Bill does not purport to deal with all the issues that arise; that would be a very different and hugely extensive Bill. This Bill deals with a discrete issue of personal property law; it does not relate to the existing statutory framework of copyright law, artists’ resale rights or consumer protection law. Those areas of law raise different policy issues and need to be considered separately. I recognise the important work done by the CMS Select Committee on issues such as copyright infringement, and other bodies such as the Financial Conduct Authority on issues of consumer misinformation about crypto. These issues are too varied and complex to be brought within the present Bill, which is deliberately limited in scope.

On the noble Lord’s comments relating to AI, the Government believe in both human-centred creativity and the potential of AI to open up new creative frontiers. The AI and creative sectors are both essential to our mission to grow the UK economy. However, this is an area which requires thoughtful engagement. I understand that the Intellectual Property Office, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport are working closely with a range of stakeholders, including artists, on issues related to AI, copyright and IP. This includes holding round tables with AI developers and representatives from the creative industries.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for his broad support for the Bill, although he asked whether this should be left to the common law. The idea is that this Bill will enable the common law to continue developing in this field. There will be new technologies, including things that perhaps we have not even thought about in this debate. The law of personal property is an area which has traditionally been developed through common law. If the noble Lord wishes to pursue the issue, we could develop it in Committee.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

Will the Minister write to me about the issue I raised from COP 16 about digital sequence information on genetic resources, and the broader point about digital commons?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I will be happy to write to the noble Baroness.

Motion agreed.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Bill be referred to a Second Reading Committee.

Motion agreed.

UK-US Co-operation on Using Atomic Energy for Mutual Defence

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Deputy Chairman for allowing me to speak in the gap. I had applied in proper form, but alas, there was a misunderstanding in the Government Whips’ Office. So here I am, and I am grateful.

I begin by congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. He follows in the proud tradition of my noble friend Lady Hayter and my very good and late friend Lord Morris of Aberavon.

The report on the MDA gives some indication of the importance of the scrutiny role of the committee and, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, and others mentioned, of the deficiencies in the current CRaG process—a point also made very well by my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith.

The agreement is absolutely fundamental to the excellent defence relationships between our two countries. The MDA provides for the exchange of nuclear material, technology and information, and the debate is also very timely, in that the UK is in the process of modernising its nuclear-powered submarine and the warheads.

This has been a unique defence and security relationship between us and the US. We have heard quite a lot of history during this debate. The McMahon Act 1946 banned the US from sharing its nuclear knowledge. That was modified in 1958, and co-operation then between the UK and the US was a precursor to the Polaris agreement of 1963.

I noted that in the presidential determination of 16 July recommending approval of the amendment, President Biden stated that it was in the interests of the US to continue to assist the UK in maintaining a credible nuclear deterrent,

“which will further improve our mutual defense posture and support our”

collective interests under NATO. It appears clear, from what we have heard as a committee, that the US will indeed shortly ratify these amendments.

As an aside, many years ago, in 1960, I joined the Foreign Office, and what struck me very forcefully at the time was the excellent personal relationships between members of the US Administration and senior members of the Foreign Office, many of whom had served in the US during the war—people such as Sir Frank Lee and Sir Arnold France—and had built up excellent personal relationships. Alas, I do not believe that those personal relationships, which inspire confidence and trust, exist in quite the same way today.

Pace the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, it may well be that, in the current context, the US might be looking not just at the UK for that special relationship but at France and possibly other countries. France was, of course, upended by the AUKUS agreement and may well be brought in now, in some subsidiary way.

Power relationships and the context of today are very different from 1958 and 1959. I hope that the Government will indicate whether they foresee a possible change if there were to be a change of government in the US following the presidential election.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

I point out to my noble friend that there is a four-minute time limit to interventions in the gap.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

In that case I end simply by stating—although there is plenty of time left—that there is clearly concern about parliamentary oversight. When the committee met Mr Pitt-Rashid of the MoD, he conceded that the removal of this amendment was “not a great disadvantage”. Surely we would not expect the US to be concerned about our parliamentary procedure, nor should we be concerned about the US. Its removal can be done without difficulty.

I make one point in relation to the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame. The question of relying on a Minister to give an assurance is fundamentally different from having an obligation set in statute.

Criminal Justice System: Capacity

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave us some interesting historical context, but I had expected an apology—or at least a guilty plea, with the plea in mitigation that he chose to leave the previous Government before the ceiling really started to fall in. They left an appalling situation: overflowing prisons, a huge backlog of untried cases, record numbers of remand prisoners, and victims seeing no outcome or closure to what they had suffered. This Government now have to deal with that, and they are running out of their few options to do so. I welcome their decision to have a fundamental review of sentencing policy and to invite David Gauke to carry it out. I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord on that; he is a good choice and I wish him well in the task.

Why are we filling prisons with more offenders than any other western European country? Why are we failing to recognise that we are putting resources into a prison system that is institutionally ill equipped to do the kind of rehabilitative work that is clearly necessary? Unless we see a significant reduction in prisoner numbers, what hope is there that rehabilitation programmes can work in prisons?

With so few options available to them, it seems logical and sensible for the Government to make use of the available time of magistrates who are willing to sit on more serious cases, freeing up time in Crown Courts. However, last time, this was not found to be very effective; it led to an increase in the demand for prison places. The Lord Chancellor conceded in the Commons:

“That is what happened and what I expect to happen again”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/10/24; col. 1011.]


It is not even a temporary solution. Do these plans overlook the possibility that some defendants will opt for a jury trial when they no longer have the incentive that magistrates can sentence them only to six months? That means longer sentences and larger prisoner numbers. Will special training be provided to magistrates to try to ensure that good use is made of them in cases dealing with more serious offences that require a longer sentence, but that the new powers do not simply inflate sentences that would otherwise have been given to potentially shorter-sentence prisoners?

The Lord Chancellor has said, and I agree with her, that

“people have to know and believe there are consequences to breaking our laws”.

This is not achieved when prisoners are released without completing their sentences or any serious regard to why they were imprisoned for a long period. Neither is it achieved by using a significant part of our resources in a prison system which is ill equipped, ill resourced and ill prepared to rehabilitate offenders. If this announcement buys the Government some time, can we have some reassurance that it will be used for fundamental change?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I will first address some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and then turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen.

On the noble Lord’s final point about buying time, that is the Government’s objective with SDS40; the standard determinate sentencing going from 50% down to 40% is indeed to buy time. As he will know, there was a Statement in the House of Commons today on a sentencing review, which we are very grateful that David Gauke has agreed to chair. That Statement will be repeated in this House in due course, so we can debate the issues raised in it.

The noble Lord, Lord Beith, asked some specific questions, including whether increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers from six to 12 months will incentivise defendants to opt for jury trial. In the brief interlude when that happened before, there was no statistical data to say that might be the case, so on that particular example we are confident that there will not be any appreciable increase in the number of defendants opting for a jury trial.

As far as training goes, there will be refresher training available to magistrates. When I was in opposition, I personally did the training for the increase in sentences. It was not that long ago, but if some magistrates feel they want the refresher training then it will be available to them.

The central point that the noble Lord made was about filling up prisons. As my noble friend Lord Timpson often reminds me, if you do nothing then the prison population will go up by 80 a week. That is the reason we are initiating this review of sentencing, which will get under way very quickly.

The closing remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, were much more acceptable than his opening remarks. In his closing remarks, he acknowledged the complexity of the situation, that there are many interacting factors in the situation we have arrived at today, and that there needs to be a multifaceted approach to try to turn the tide on the ever-increasing number of people we find in our prisons. I agree with the point he made in his closing remarks.

I think the noble and learned Lord might have been tweaking my nose with his other point. He said that magistrates cannot resist a vacuum, but he knows that that is absolutely not true. Magistrates sentence within the sentencing guidelines, as do district judges. The problem with magistrates and district judges is that they sentence quicker than Crown Courts, not that they sentence more harshly. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, is nodding her head, because she knows that what I have said is correct.

The overall objective of this announcement is to increase magistrates’ sentencing powers back from six to 12 months. I look forward to answering more questions from other noble Lords on that matter.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

Could the Minister perhaps respond to my inquiry as to why no impact assessment was carried out, given that there is potentially data available from the previous period when magistrates’ sentencing powers were increased from six to 12 months? If this is going to be an interim measure of some relief, we ought to know whether it is going to provide that relief or exacerbate an otherwise very difficult situation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

This measure was unavailable to the previous Government, who had to reverse it because they ran the system so close to collapse. They left the backlog unaddressed and victims had to wait far too long for justice. The prediction is that we will see a slight increase in the overall prison population, but by bearing down on the remand population in our reception prisons we will create capacity where we need it most. However, I am confident that there is currently enough capacity in prisons to absorb the initial inflationary impact, and there is no evidence that magistrates send people to prison more or for longer. Because of how precarious the situation is, we believe that now is the right time to take this measure.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we move on to Back-Bench questions, let me be absolutely clear that this is 20 minutes of questions—short, succinct and sharp questions—not speeches.

[Baroness Sater (Con)]

My Lords, last month, 37 prisoners were mistakenly released from prison under the early release scheme. One was charged with sexually assaulting a woman on the same day that he was released. Can the Minister please explain what evaluation is given and criteria used when deciding whether a prisoner is eligible to be released under the early release scheme?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. All prisoners who were released in error under the first tranche of releases are now back behind bars. I will write to her on her question but, broadly speaking, the criteria includes whether offences were sexual and violent or related to domestic abuse. I will write to her with the specific list; it is in my notes, but I am not sure that I can find it in proper time today.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I can see why increasing magistrates’ courts’ sentencing powers may be necessary as a short-term measure to deal with the backlog of about 17,000 remand prisoners. However, will it not result in a great increase in the number of short sentences? We know that the reoffending rate for short sentences is around 50%, or even a bit more. Although it may be necessary as a short-term measure, how long will this last? If it lasts for too long, surely it will have a reverse effect and we will end up with the revolving-door syndrome that we have seen for short sentences over many years.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I do not agree with the premise of the noble Lord’s question. It is not right that we will see an increase in the number of short sentences. Certainly, in my experience as a sentencing magistrate who gave short sentences, I gave them only to those who were already on community orders or suspended sentences. I cannot remember giving a short sentence to somebody who had a previous good character.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister say a little more about training? I understood him to say that it would be available to magistrates who feel that they need it. Is it not better that there should be some supervision to identify which magistrates really need training? When will the training be available?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

All magistrates were trained the first time these sentencing powers were put in place. Of course, there will be some new magistrates aboard and some who feel that they would like to retrain, so there will be online courses available either for refreshing or for magistrates who are relatively recently in post. The magistrates are regularly appraised—winger magistrates every four years and presiding magistrates every two years—so we can be confident that the standards are being kept up.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, before his death, the late Lord Ramsbotham regularly asked the same question of the Government: when will there be a royal commission on criminal justice? The mess in the prison system is highlighted by the Statement made the other day, but, as we know, there are nearly 70,000 cases awaiting trial in the Crown Court. Is it not time to stop applying sticking plasters and short-term measures, and instead have a proper look at how the whole system should work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Mallalieu for her question. I very much remember the noble Lord regularly asking for a royal commission. The reality is that we feel that we have a big job of work to do on reviewing sentencing and then managing the whole prison population and estate, so that it stops increasing. That is where our focus is right now. I will take back the question of a royal commission to my right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor, but, to be frank, I have not heard it spoken about in the time I have been in government.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support a smaller prison population, not just because there are not enough places for the people who have been sentenced but because there are too many people in prison. However, one of the consequences of releasing people early, at a quicker pace than one might have planned for, is that it will put more pressure on the police service. This Government made a manifesto pledge to increase the size of the police by around 4,000 officers, but we have not heard an awful lot about that since the Government took office.

Secondly, as has been mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and by the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, in passing, one of the measures for mitigating the recidivism of those who are released is tagging—normal tagging to determine where the person is and sobriety tagging, where alcohol is an aggravating factor, and now there is also drug tagging. Finally, the response to those tags when they are breached should go straight to the police, not to a private company to be emailed to the police to be dealt with some time later. Is the Minister able to respond to those points about resourcing?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have just consulted with my noble friend Lord Timpson and I can reassure the noble Lord that we do have enough tags for the process which we are embarking on. I should also mention that both my noble friend Lord Timpson and I were fitted with a sobriety tag for a while to see whether it worked, and I can assure the noble Lord that it does work.

The noble Lord’s opening point was about more pressure on the police. That is right; there will be some more pressure on the police and also on the Probation Service and some social services such as housing. The philosophy underlying the Government’s SDS40 approach rather than the previous approach is planning down the whole pipeline, including people who will regrettably reoffend and how to deal with them. By managing this with a more planned approach, we hope and expect that we will reduce the chances of reoffending.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, can I refer the Minister to the recent quite appalling race riots that took place during the summer? I think everyone agrees that those involved in violence and incitement to violence, including online incitement to violence, deserved extremely harsh punishment. But the Minister will be aware that many of these people had no previous convictions and posed no immediate threat to the public and yet nearly all were remanded in custody, thus putting greater pressure on the Prison Service. Can the Minister comment on this point?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Of course, the matter of sentencing is for judges. My personal view is that the sentences I read about seemed entirely appropriate, but this is a matter for them. This was a particular situation where maybe the judges felt that even people who were of previous good character needed to be made an example of—but that was a matter for them.

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

Speaking as a former magistrate who worked in a young offender institution, I can say that short sentences clearly do not work. To go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it is preferable to have fewer people in prison, have the Government looked at the prison system in Holland? The Netherlands has managed to reduce its prison population significantly, such that it can even outsource prison spaces to other countries, but this depends on a lot of resources being put into the Probation Service and community sentences. Can the Minister respond?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with every word the noble Baroness has said. My noble friend Lord Timpson has just whispered in my ear that he has been to Holland, so we are looking at that very closely. The other point he made is that they use a lot of tagging in Holland, so that is another factor when we are looking at reviewing sentencing as a whole, although of course the sentencing review will look at adult sentencing and not at youth matters.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am worried about a public loss of confidence in the contradictions around sentencing. I think there was public disquiet about the high-profile case of a woman given a two-and-a-half-year sentence for a social media post, which the noble Lord has pointed out was possibly somebody being made an example of. Yet letting people out before their sentence is up for more serious crimes seems to contradict that. Also—dare I mention?—many IPP prisoners have served their tariff in prison. Will the Minister comment on whether some of those could be looked at to see whether, having done their time, they could be released earlier than their indefinite sentence? They have done their time for the crime they committed and yet they still languish in prison. It just does not seem to make any sense to the public.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. In a sense, she exemplifies the difficulty of the various matters we are grappling with when trying to address the overall problem of having this large number of people in prison at the same time as the riots were happening over the summer period. I acknowledge that that is a difficult situation. Regarding the IPP sentences, the Government have set up an IPP action plan which they are working at full speed on, and proposals will be coming forward in due course.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister described very well the process which he undertook when sentencing somebody, giving them a sentence of imprisonment only when other avenues had been properly explored. I was a recorder for some considerable time and that very much echoes my approach and, I suspect, the approach of most judges: a real reluctance to send people to prison unless there is no other alternative. However, during the last Labour Government, there was an enormous amount of legislation changing the sentencing powers of judges and magistrates—particularly judges—and not trusting the judges to make their own assessment of what the appropriate sentence was. When there is this review of the appropriate response to the prison crisis, can the Minister convey to his colleagues that it is not a good idea to fetter the discretion of a judge and prevent them coming to the right conclusion in the right case?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I think I can reassure the noble Lord. It is intended that we will have very senior former judges on the sentencing review, who I am sure will take to heart the noble Lord’s point.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, this measure is intended, in part at least, to take pressure off the Crown Courts, but can the Minister say something about the pressure on magistrates? Is it the case that the number of magistrates fell by 50% over the decade to 2021 and has not yet got anywhere near that number? Can he say something about the backlog of cases at magistrates’ courts, too, please?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I became a magistrate just under 20 years ago and at that point there were 30,000 magistrates in England and Wales. There are now about 14,000 and we are trying to get the number back up to 18,000. So, I accept the point the noble Baroness made on that. The other point is that in the youth court, magistrates have powers to sentence up to two years—I was a youth magistrate as well. The change is important and significant, but it is not such a big step change that magistrates will not be able to handle it in any way. I am confident that they will be able to handle it, and the backlogs in the magistrates’ courts are nowhere near as bad as those in the Crown Court.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, may I seek some further clarification from the Minister? I asked him about remanding in custody and, having worked in the criminal justice system as a barrister, I am well aware that obviously the sentencing is up to the judges or magistrates. However, remanding in custody is not meant as a punishment; it is meant to protect the public.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Of course, I accept the point. The objective is not to change the number of people who are remanded in custody, because obviously that is a judicial decision, but to reduce the time those who are remanded in custody spend in custody. If we can do that through reducing the backlog, that will be a desirable effect. We think that some 2,000 days of Crown Court sittings could be saved by this change to the rules of magistrates’ sentencing powers.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

Can the Minister assure us that the training of magistrates covers the circumstances in which it is right for somebody to be remanded in custody? Following the riots, suspicions were raised that some people were being remanded without true consideration of whether they justified that treatment. It is rather an important issue, and I hope that the training does cover it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely assure the noble and learned Lord that remanding in custody is covered in magistrate training. When I used to oversee new magistrates, I said to them on their first day in court that remanding in custody is the most difficult decision they will make, both on the first day and on the last day. It is consistently a difficult decision to make and one that magistrates and the judiciary, I am sure, are fully aware of and trained in.

[Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)]

Can my noble friend the Minister give some reassurance that with the increased number of cases before magistrates, they will have increased resources to receive pre-sentencing reports from the Probation Service? That is so important, particularly for women with family responsibilities, before magistrates consider the sentence.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a good point. There has certainly been increased resource in probation, and we are recruiting additional probation officers. That is going very well, but it takes time to train those probation officers. The other factor is an increased number of legal advisers, who are often the unsung heroes of our court system. Again, recruitment is going okay but they need time to gain the experience so that the system can be in equilibrium with these new sentencing powers.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

In due course will the Government bring forward proposals to improve the way in which prisoners are rehabilitated?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

It is certainly our intention to do so. That underpins so much of what we are going to do. We are increasing the number of people in the Probation Service. Obviously, we want to increase the rehabilitation figures and reduce the reoffending figures. The spotlight will be on the Probation Service to try to deliver that objective.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, given the importance of employment in stopping reoffending, are there plans to increase the number of employers that will consider taking on ex-offenders? Will the Government provide any incentives for them to do so?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend Lord Timpson has just whispered in my ear “Employment advisory boards”, of which he was a leading light and which we intend to increase. I accept the noble Baroness’s point that if people can get gainful employment when they leave prison, they are far less likely to reoffend.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has already had a question about the rehabilitation of prisoners. A number of organisations are having quite good results in the rehabilitation of prisoners. Are the Government working with these organisations, and are they concerned with the lack of funding that many of these small organisations have? Could the Government outsource some of this work?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I acknowledge the noble Baroness’s point, and of course we value the contribution that they make. We all know these organisations. I remember working very closely with them when we were in opposition, and we continue to work with them in government. Many of them bring real expertise to the table. We want to work collaboratively to achieve our overall goal of turning around the ever-increasing prison population we have seen over the last decades.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 23 August be approved.

Relevant document: 2nd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by reminding the House why we are here. The infected blood scandal is a mark of shame on the British state. The infected blood inquiry’s final report, published on 20 May, shed light on the trauma inflicted on thousands of people across the country, through no fault of their own. People were given contaminated blood or blood products, contracted HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, and then for years had their voices ignored. People who loved, knew and cared for someone who was infected—those who were affected—similarly had their voices ignored. This did nothing but compound the trauma of all involved.

The infected blood inquiry’s second interim report set out 18 recommendations on compensation, informed by Sir Robert Francis’s 2022 compensation scheme study. The inquiry was unequivocal that a compensation scheme must be set up immediately. The regulations we are debating are essential for delivering that compensation scheme and getting money to people as quickly as we can.

The scheme is based on the recommendations and principles put forward by the inquiry. In line with these, and supported by the advice from the inquiry response expert group and the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis undertook in June, the Government have sought to design a fair and comprehensive compensation scheme that will be quick and simple for eligible applicants to access. We support the shared determination across the House to deliver compensation as swiftly as possible and with the minimum possible delay. These regulations are a significant step towards that.

I turn first to eligibility. The scheme and the regulations define people who are eligible as infected people, in line with recommendation 2 of the inquiry’s second interim report. This covers people infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, including people directly infected by treatment with blood, as well as people indirectly infected via transmission from a directly infected person.

Secondly, the regulations establish a core route for claiming compensation as an infected person. The core route provides compensation under five awards, or categories of loss, as set out in recommendation 6 of the inquiry’s report. These awards include an injury impact award, a social impact award, a care award, a financial loss award and an autonomy award, which together will comprise the total compensation award to be given to infected individuals, or to the estates of any deceased individuals, to recognise the wide-ranging harm resulting from their infection.

Earlier this year, the Victims and Prisoners Act established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in law to deliver the scheme, and with these regulations we are providing the authority with the legal powers needed to begin making payments. The regulations also provide further detail on how the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will accept applications and pay awards.

Since the authority was established in law, it has been working hard to design and implement effective, simple and secure processes for members of the community, with their input, to claim the compensation that they so clearly deserve. Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the infected blood compensation scheme. The authority is taking a “test and learn” approach, which will ensure it can take on board feedback and improve the service before it opens its full compensation service. This is a significant step towards our shared intention to begin payments by the end of this year and ultimately will ensure that the service is as fast and as simple as possible when it opens for everyone. I hope this step provides confidence that we, and the authority, are absolutely committed to driving forward progress with the scheme in a way that puts the infected blood community at the heart of our work. The Government expect the authority to begin making payments by the end of this year.

I will speak now to the concerns raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I believe noble Lords may wish to raise in today’s debate. As the committee noted, the infected blood scandal stretches back over many decades and access to records, such as medical records, may not be possible or may be very challenging. Where this is the case, the authority will need to make objective decisions relying on the evidence that is available to determine, on the balance of probabilities, that treatment with infected blood occurred. The authority will provide assistance to those who believe their medical records have been lost or destroyed, and evidencing eligibility will be easier, faster and more compassionate than, for example, through any court proceedings.

The committee also raised concerns around the complexity of the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum not being clear enough to explain the practical operation of the scheme. Given the complexity of the regulations, we were aware that they would not enable individuals to understand the scheme. That is why, alongside the publication of the regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government published a detailed policy paper in August on how the compensation scheme will operate, setting out what individuals can expect to receive, including case study examples. Additionally, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority will aim to ensure that appropriate advice and support are available to assist people with managing their compensation awards, accessing financial services and accessing benefits advice where relevant.

Thirdly, the committee raised a concern regarding how claimants will receive payments. As set out in recommendation 10 of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, the regulations include an option for members of the community to choose between receiving payments as periodic compensation or as a lump sum. Providing people who are due compensation with a choice in how they receive their money is something the infected blood community has highlighted as important to claimants. The regulations include a mechanism for electing for periodic compensation payments or a lump sum, responding to the wishes of those who have told us they want this option.

We have also provided an alternative for those currently receiving support scheme payments through the infected blood support schemes. The IBSS route was developed following the recommendations of Sir Robert Francis, who undertook engagement with representatives of the infected blood community in June.

The biggest concern raised in this engagement was around the continuation of the existing support scheme payments. Following Sir Robert’s recommendations, the Government have agreed that support scheme payments will continue for life for those who elect the IBSS route. This route will be available for those who applied to be registered on a support scheme on or before 31 March 2025 and delivered as part of the compensation package.

In a tariff-based scheme designed to be fast, fair, consistent and secure, we hope that people will be satisfied that they have been provided with full and fair compensation, as the scheme sets out. However, should this not be the case, the regulations make provision concerning review of decisions made by the authority and for appeals to the First-tier Tribunal.

I know that this House is in complete agreement when it comes to paying long-overdue compensation to those impacted by this harrowing scandal. Following the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, these regulations are the next substantial step towards getting money into the hands of those who deserve it. However, the work is far from finished and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for providing the opportunity for the House, through the regret amendment that she has laid, to recognise that there is more work to be done to establish the scheme for parents, children, siblings and carers. I reassure the House that a second set of regulations will provide for other elements of the compensation scheme, including compensation payments to people who are affected and for claims outside the core route. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March 2025 to support our intention that people who are affected can start receiving payments in 2025.

I hope that colleagues will join me in supporting these regulations and I beg to move.

Amendment to the Motion

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have said they will bring forward the necessary regulations for this large cohort of people when parliamentary time permits. However, as the Minister knows, those people see time moving relentlessly on and some are very worried they may not live long enough to receive the compensation promised to them. I am the first to recognise how much work is involved in collecting and collating the names and other information necessary to determine eligibility under the heading of “an affected person” and how complicated the regulations will inevitably have to be. However, without stealing the thunder of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I press the Minister on this issue: is it possible for him to go further than the words “when parliamentary time permits” and give us a sense of a more precise timescale for laying the second set of regulations? Can he also shed a clearer light on when payments are likely to be made to the qualifying individuals?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank both the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for their very thoughtful discussion of the regulations. I recognise they have both had long experience of these issues. As the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said, the three of us were involved in the passing of the Victims and Prisoners Act, which was a precursor to these regulations.

In response to the very last question of the noble Earl, the Government are aiming for a second set of regulations to be in place—regarding affected people—by 31 March 2025. It is our intention that people who are affected can start receiving payments in 2025. That was in my original speech and that is the Government’s commitment.

I will make a general point before I start trying to answer some of the individual questions. It is in the best interests of everybody that the House continues to work collaboratively on this issue—both for infected and affected people. All sides of the House acknowledge the British state has failed the victims, and these regulations are a step on the road to addressing the infected victims.

Of course I will agree to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, if he so wishes. I will write with detailed answers if I fail to answer any of the questions—no doubt I will fail to answer some.

As the noble Earl quite rightly said as he introduced his comments, these regulations are fulfilling one element of Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. A lot of the questions have been about the second element: the affected people. As he rightly said, 69 of the 74 recommendations were accepted.

On the bulk of the speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which was about the affected people, the timetable available to develop these regulations was necessarily limited. The regulations prioritise people who are infected as a result of the infected blood scandal. Where people have sadly died, the recommendations make provisions for claims under their estate. This ensures the Infected Blood Compensation Authority can start delivering the compensation scheme for the infected, as per its statutory function.

The Government’s decision to split, and therefore sequence, infected and affected regulations was taken with the reassurance that it would allow orderly implementation of the legal framework without impacting or delaying the delivery timetable for payments to infected and affected victims. Subject to parliamentary approval, the Government are aiming for the second set of regulations to be in place by 31 March next year, as I mentioned, with an expectation of beginning payments by the end of the year.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked about the eligibility of affected siblings and children. The scheme’s definition of siblings is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The definition recognises the likely heightened impacts on a sibling living with an infected person during childhood. This is not to dismiss or deny the suffering of those who were adults when their siblings were infected. Individuals who were adults when their sibling was infected may be eligible for compensation through the scheme as a carer. Siblings will be eligible where under the age of 18 they lived in the same household as an infected person for the period of at least two years after the onset of the infection. Similarly, the scheme’s definition of children of the infected person is based on the recommendations made in Sir Robert Francis’s compensation framework study. The scheme recognises the likely heightened impact on a child who was under 18 while living with a parent who was infected.

I hope that provides some clarity to the noble Baroness. However, I will also acknowledge the examples she gave of the terrible effects on affected people and the terrible experiences, some of which she spoke about. It is absolutely not right to suggest that affected people are somehow second-class citizens. That is not right; it is just a practical decision which the Government have made to try and progress these matters as soon as possible. These regulations are for the infected group, but I have set out as clearly as I can what the Government’s intentions are for the affected group.

The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the complexity of regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum. Work is under way on a second set of regulations. We will take on board the committee’s helpful feedback when drafting the Explanatory Memorandum for those regulations. We recognise the point made by the SLSC on the complexity of these regulations, but it is absolutely the Government’s intention to carefully consider the committee’s report and findings.

The noble Earl asked about the two channels of funding: the core route and the IBCS route. This is an additional level of complexity, but it was recommended by Sir Robert Francis because it was the wish of the infected group that the existing method of funding should continue. Because we accepted that recommendation, that inevitably adds to the complexity.

The noble Earl also asked about psychological illness, and in particular whether recommendations were accepted by the report. I am afraid I do not know the answer to that, but I will write to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness about it.

The noble Earl also raised Treloar’s school and unethical experimental research on certain young children. It is absolutely not the intention that this particular scandal should lead to any delay in the rollout of infected or affected compensation, but we recognise the particular, scandalous nature of what happened to those victims.

In conclusion, we regard the timetable as realistic. In opposition, we worked constructively with the then Government, and we have continued working as practically as possible to try to move the timetable forward. All of us across this House must continue to work collaboratively. These regulations ensure that we can finally deliver compensation to those who fought so hard; they deserve nothing less. I beg to move.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I thank both the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the Minister for their contributions to this debate. We are all broadly on the same page. I do not think there is a difference on the principles of moving ahead, and certainly absolutely no intention on my part to try to slow down or block the approval of the regulations today.

I will not go through the arguments we have all made, but the key thing the Minister did not cover was the issue of communication, which seems to me to be the most important thing moving forward. If there is confusion and distress on the one hand, and complexity and a large number of recommendations being modified on the other, it is absolutely understandable that the affected and the infected may have concerns about what is going on. I really hope that when we meet, the Minister will talk to us about what he plans to do.

I pay personal tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way he worked with the communities over the years. That baton has clearly been handed over to the other side of the House. We need to rebuild trust; there are a lot of very distressed people out there at the moment. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.