Prison Officer Pension Age

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I take the point the noble Lord is making. When I had the honour to join this House, I was told that life begins at 70, which has a certain amount of truth in it these days. What the noble Lord suggests is very close to what is currently happening. A typical position is for an older officer to step back from front-line duties, be re-employed by the Prison Service and continue to earn a pensionable salary, as well as having his earlier pension. I am not completely convinced that that is not a perfectly sensible solution to the problem.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Does the noble and learned Lord not agree that our job is not like the job of prison officer? We do not face the same danger as they do on a daily basis. He described prison officers as the finest public servants, and of course, we agree, but does he not think that the Government’s policy is short-sighted? One of the criticisms that the Prison Officers’ Association continually expresses to us is the lack of retention of experienced prison officers. Retention is the key to maintaining prison officer morale. Will the Government look at this policy again?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will certainly continue to look at this policy. As the noble Lord says, the job of a prison officer is absolutely not like our job. On retention and short-sightedness, the Government currently have no evidence that the pension arrangements as such are affecting initial recruitment or are a factor in retention. There are many factors that affect retention, but pensions do not seem to be very significant in that package. The fact that lower contributions are paid is very attractive to a young man, who does not necessarily worry about what will happen when he is 68.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rightly said, the Opposition do not support resentencing. I reflected on the reason for that during this debate and the debates that we had earlier. I think the reason is actually simple: the IPP prisoners will have been assessed, many of them on multiple occasions, by the Parole Board, which is made up of lawyers, lay people, experts, psychologists and psychiatrists. They will have made this assessment and they will have decided that, on that occasion, that particular prisoner would not be released. If one went down the resentencing route, it would put any judge who made that resentencing assessment in an invidious and difficult situation where they would have effectively, or potentially, to go against these multiple assessments made by the Parole Board. So it is for quite a simple reason that the Opposition do not support this approach.

We have had a number of calls to be bold. I support being bold. I think the boldness is in group 2, to which we spoke earlier. There are a number of ideas that we have backed and which we may well want to pursue at a later stage of this Bill. So we support boldness, but the single solution of resentencing that has been put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, is not appropriate for the reason that I just set out.

--- Later in debate ---

However, it is not clear what “greatest possible weight” means—of course, it can be interpreted as the only consideration to be made. That leaves the clause open to a range of interpretations, even if one believes that this is the area which should be given most weight rather than weighing up all the competing factors that are to go into a parole decision, should the language not be clarified.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with all the speakers so far. My concern is that Clauses 49 to 51 may be another way for the former Justice Secretary, Dominic Raab, to dilute the human rights framework through the back door.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the convention on human rights as far as is possible. The clauses would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. Several groups have rightly raised concerns about that.

I, too, cite the Prison Reform Trust, which said:

“The introduction of specific carve-outs from human rights for people given custodial sentences contradicts one of the fundamental principles underlying human rights—their universality and application to each and every person on the simple basis of their being human. Moreover, it is precisely in custodial institutions like prisons that human rights protections are most vital, because individuals are under the control of the state”.


In written evidence to the JSC, the Bar Council stated:

“There is no evidence of any systemic impairment due to the HRA of the Parole Board’s ability to make high-quality, safe, decisions about prisoners—no statistical analysis of recidivism/public safety concerns from prisoners released due to interpretation of legislation in line with Convention principles”.


In his speech at Second Reading in the other place, the chair of the Justice Committee, Sir Bob Neill, said:

“Whatever one’s view of the Human Rights Act, there is no evidence that this is a problem in such cases. In fact, the evidence we heard from practitioners, from both sides, is that it can be helpful to have to have regard to section 3 in these hearings. These clauses seem to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, and I wonder whether we really need them. It is perfectly possible to have a robust system that still complies with section 3. This is a needless distraction that sends the wrong signal about a certain desire to pick unnecessary fights, which I know is not the current Secretary of State’s approach”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/5/23; col. 604.]


I really could not have put it any better, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, this group is a stand part challenge to Clauses 49 to 52 of the Bill, which, in essence, disapply Section 3 of the Human Rights Act to prisoner release legislation. The issue before us is, as much as anything, to do with the constitutional balance between Parliament and the courts. It is not about disapplying the Human Rights Act; it is about who does what. What do the courts do and what does Parliament do? That is the issue.

The provisions with which we are concerned include the new release test for releasing prisoners on licence—namely, the public protection test set out in Clauses 41 and 42, which make it abundantly clear that the protection of the public is the overriding factor. The Human Rights Act is also disapplied in relation to the referral mechanism, referring the most serious release decisions by the Parole Board to a court—currently the Upper Tribunal—and to other prison release decisions. As far as I am aware, no amendment has been tabled in this House objecting to the principle of the new public protection test, nor to the proposed referral mechanism—though there is an argument about which court it should go to—nor to the principle of our IPP reforms, except that it is argued that we should go further. Parliament has plainly indicated what it is trying to achieve.

Against this background, where exactly does Section 3 of the Human Rights Act fit in? Lest any misunderstanding persist—which it seems to do—my first point is that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by any prisoners, or anyone else for that matter, by virtue of Section 1 of the Human Rights Act or under the convention. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, whether it be the right to liberty, family life or any other right protected by the convention. Clauses 49 to 51 do not alter or detract from those rights in any way.

Even if—which I do not for one moment believe—anything in the legislation from which Section 3 has been disapplied were held by a higher court to be incompatible with the convention rights, in such a hypothetical case it would be for the court to make a declaration of incompatibility. Then, in accordance with the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, it would be for Parliament to decide what to do—whether to amend the legislation and, if so, in what way. In other words, it is the job of Parliament to make challenged legislation compatible with the convention. It is Parliament’s legislation; it is for Parliament to fix it, and it is the constitutional responsibility of everyone in either House to find a legislative solution.

The problem with Section 3 is that it gives finding the legislative solution to somebody else altogether—namely the court. This is Parliament’s legislation and not the courts’. That was why I said at Second Reading that Section 3 of the HRA is, in essence, a procedural and interpretive provision that requires legislation to be given effect to in a way which is compatible with convention rights. Those words “given effect” have led, in certain circumstances, to the court reading in or reading down words into the legislation that Parliament has passed. In other words, the court is empowered under Section 3 to add to or subtract from what Parliament originally intended. This has been a difficult section to apply. It has required courts to depart from Parliament’s intention and, if I may say so, to stray into the legislative realm.

These amendments directly raise the proper balance between the courts and Parliament when it comes to legislative matters. That issue was highlighted in the 2021 Independent Human Rights Act Review. It was discussed over 80 pages, toing and froing on all sorts of points and suggesting numerous recommendations and amendments, with the majority of the panel finally recommending a series of reforms to Sections 2 and 3.

On the Government’s position that Section 3 is a most unusual power in this respect, I can do no better than refer your Lordships to the trenchant criticism of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act on constitutional grounds by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, King’s Counsel, present in this Chamber, in his evidence to that 2021 review. His basic point was that it is not the function of the courts to legislate; it is the function of Parliament. Against that background, in the present context, the Government’s position is that, on an issue of importance, such as public protection and prisoner release, it is for Parliament to determine what the test should be.

In the unlikely event of any of those provisions being disapplied, and a declaration being made under Section 4, again, it is for this House and the other place to put it right and not to delegate, abdicate or push away that responsibility on to the courts. That is the Government’s position and it is essentially a question of the constitutional balance between what we do and what somebody else does—in other words, the courts. That is essentially the background to these amendments.

Clause 52 sets out the approach a court should take if there is a challenge on human rights grounds regarding the release of a prisoner. I do not accept the characterisation by the noble Lord, Lord German, that the wording of Clause 52 is effectively saying that public protection is an exclusive requirement; it simply says that that is a requirement to which weight should be given. No doubt, the courts are perfectly capable of arriving at a sensible interpretation of the provision, but the Government’s view is that the importance of public protection is a matter that Parliament can rightly draw to the court’s attention as something to which weight should be given. I will just add that that requirement does not apply to the so-called non-derogable rights under the convention, which are: Article 2, the right to life; Article 3, the prohibition of torture; Article 4, the prohibition of slavery, and Article 7, no punishment without law.

The courts already consider risk to the public. The Bill simply ensures that weight is properly given to that consideration. The essential point is that on these matters, in this context, it is not for someone else to be reading in or reading down what your Lordships decide; it is for your Lordships and for Members of the other House to put matters right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for missing the opening part of this debate. I was with representatives of the Bar Council discussing these very issues.

Having chaired a committee that questioned Dominic Raab about his ambitions for the Executive to take over functions which I do not think that any of us regarded as appropriate for takeover, this seems to me to be Members of the House of Lords doing what we do so well. We are trying to help find a way through and answer the questions. We should just be rubbing the whole thing out because of that Executive takeover, which is anathema to probably everybody who is sitting in the Chamber at the moment.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this group is actually more limited than the debate that we have had. It was very succinctly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, when he gave his three short points in introducing his amendments. Very amusingly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said that the shadow of Dominic Raab should not remain across this Bill. A good way of removing the shadow is with these three amendments here.

The debate has strayed into the next group, but I will not address any comments on that group. As far as the specific proposals in the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, of course we agree with them on this side of the Chamber. I noted the point that the noble and learned Lord made about the reason why the chair of the Parole Board would not have a judicial function. It would mean that he or she could be sacked.

I also noted the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and other noble Lords, that it is absolutely normal and to be expected that in any number of judicial and quasi-judicial roles, the heads of those particular functions also sit as judges. That is standard practice and it adds confidence to the various institutions that the people who head them are also practising and sitting tribunal chairs or judges.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, but there is a very strong array of speakers against the Government’s proposals, including the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, who is a former chair of the Parole Board. We have two former Lord Chief Justices, a former Solicitor-General and my noble friend, a former shadow Attorney-General. It sounds like a pretty convincing line-up against the Minister.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for speaking to his amendments with his customary clarity. I hope I can be helpful to him and the Committee in my response.

I have heard unmistakeably the reservations expressed across the Committee about these proposals. Before saying anything else, I undertake to represent to my noble and learned friend the Minister the strength of those reservations. I do so without commitment at this stage but in good faith. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain where the Government are currently coming from in making these proposals so that noble Lords can understand the issues as we perceive them.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove lines 35 and 36 of Clause 53, which would have the same effect as removing the clause in its entirety. Clause 53 amends Section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows the Secretary of State to make rules with respect to the proceedings of the Parole Board. At the moment, the provision permits rules to be made about how many members deal with particular cases, or that specified cases be dealt with at specified times. This clause adds that the Secretary of State may also require cases to be dealt with by

“members of a prescribed description”.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove that addition.

I will explain briefly why we want to ensure that the Secretary of State can make rules about who sits on parole cases. In the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, the Government committed to increasing

“the number of Parole Board members from a law enforcement background”

and ensuring that every parole panel considering a case involving the most serious offenders has a law enforcement member on it. We are talking here about murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like.

The Government of course recognise that each and every type of Parole Board member brings with them different experience and skills. That range and diversity contributes to generally effective risk assessments and sound decision-making. However, members with law enforcement experience, such as former police officers, have particular first-hand knowledge of the impact and seriousness of offending. Many will also have direct experience of the probation system, including, for example, licence conditions and the likelihood of an offender’s compliance with such conditions.

Clause 53 enables the Secretary of State to make the secondary legislation needed to prescribe that certain Parole Board panels include members with a law enforcement background. We will, naturally, continue to consider operational readiness before we lay any secondary legislation. I hope that explanation is of help.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I wonder whether I could detain the Committee for one minute on Amendments 156 and 157. The background to this is my time as chairman of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, when, with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, we drew attention to the creeping growth in the power of the Executive at the expense of the legislature in our reports Government by Diktat and Democracy Denied?. Therefore, when amendments present changes to be effected or not effected by secondary legislation, my ears prick up.

First, we have to recognise that there has to be secondary legislation. The SLSC looks at between 600 and 800 regulations per year. To think that those can be put through by primary legislation is fanciful. The Government’s system would be completely gummed up, so something has to be done.

Secondly, we all know that the system for scrutinising secondary legislation is weak, to say the least. There is no chance to amend, even if the House were to agree that one particular provision in a regulation was inadequate or wrong; it is all or nothing. There is no room for ping- pong or other things we see in primary legislation. All those things are important. This House has decided to stand in the way of secondary legislation only six times since 1968. The last time, in 2015, led to a full-scale constitutional crisis, the Strathclyde review, et cetera.

With great respect to my noble friend Lord Attlee, it seems that Amendment 156 would lock us into the structure we currently have. He says that a criminal justice Bill will be along in no time at all; maybe, but we would be locked into the structure we have because the Secretary of State has no power at all. By contrast, Amendment 157, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would give the Secretary of State some powers, but only to loosen, not to tighten. It seems to me that, in so far as we are seeking a balance between the Executive and the legislature, between moving too quickly and not moving at all, Amendment 157 is to be preferred, and I hope the Committee would not accept Amendment 156.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting and relatively short debate. We have four groups of amendments covering IPP sentences, and this first group is perhaps the easiest and most benign to agree with. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that we in the Opposition have no problem with this group. I acknowledge the interesting point that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, just made regarding the differences between Amendments 156 and 157. Nevertheless, we have no problem agreeing with the generality of amendments in this group. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for his crystal-clear description, quoting my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, when he introduced the amendments.

We agree with the general thrust of these amendments and, if it comes to it at a later stage, will support any amendments that may be pushed further. I would like to do the Minister’s job and say what the problems might be. I acknowledge that, with a reducing cohort of IPP prisoners in prison, you are dealing with very difficult and potentially dangerous people. As this number reduces, the problem gets greater. I think that is a fair point to make. It is a point the Minister usually makes, but I want to make it from this side of the Chamber.

We will come to more ambitious proposals in subsequent groups, but here we are just dealing with various amendments to licence conditions and fairly imaginative ways of reducing them overall. We support them in the generality.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this too has been a wide-ranging debate and more wide-ranging than that on the first group. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken because there are a number of amendments in this group, all of which push in the right direction. They are helping the Government to do what they say that they want to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Carter, moved Amendment 154, which is consequential on Amendment 168. That addresses what he called a lacuna and creates a power that mirrors the powers that the Secretary of State has to release prisoners serving a fixed-term licence. This is a very practical way of proceeding, and we support his amendment. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, in her characteristic way, asked why, if the Executive have the authority to recall, they cannot be given the authority to release—a very succinct way of summing up the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Carter.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, in his Amendment 161, is effectively reversing the burden of proof for IPP prisoners. He described it as a nudge to the Parole Board and discussed how significant that nudge would be, but it is a welcome nudge, none the less. It has the historic credentials of being supported originally by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. It is a welcome amendment.

We then had the very interesting intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, reflecting on the 2012 LASPO Act and that the provision was already in that Act and had just not been enacted by the Government. I remember the 2012 Act and the noble Lord, Lord McNally, taking it through the House as part of the coalition Government. I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to those points because it would be very difficult not to acknowledge the power of the arguments that have been put forward by noble Lords on Amendment 161.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, spoke to Amendments 159 and 160. He made interesting points about the independent scrutiny panel and other ways of pushing this in the same direction. We would support those amendments as well.

Perhaps the most moving speech was given by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, when she read the email from the man who eventually killed himself. That amendment was about aftercare. As she said, we have damaged these people and we owe it to them to give them the extra support.

It was in that spirit that my noble friend Lady Blower, on her Amendment 164, spoke powerfully in favour of independent mentors, a pilot scheme and extra support in various ways. She was very powerfully supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox and Lady Hamwee. This seems to be a very practical way of supporting people. We have heard that the level of recall is increasing. This should be a mechanism of getting recall down, with people who are coming out of custody less likely to be recalled if they are properly supported.

This has been a wide-ranging debate. There have been a lot of practical suggestions and amendments. We want to encourage all of them, to get out of this Bill a package of measures to protect the public as appropriate and to move away from this sentencing regime, which has been so unfortunate for the last decade.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, the Government agree entirely that our joint objective is to arrive at a package of measures that sufficiently protects the public while dealing with the problems of this existing sentencing regime. That is our overall objective.

My noble and learned friend Lord Garnier invited us to be bold. I suggest that the Government are already being bold in reducing the licence period to three years in circumstances where even the JSC recommended five years. We have already gone further than that very distinguished committee suggested. I do not think that anyone could accuse the present Lord Chancellor of a lack of determination or hard work. To continue the analogy used by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier of us plodding through treacle, we are really trying to find sensible answers to very difficult questions.

In addition, on the general point of hope and certainty and the very tragic case of Matthew, who committed suicide after he had been in the community for 10 years, as I said earlier these government amendments deal with that point. The “three plus two years” have an automatic determination that gives hope and certainty. That is a very large step forward. It is not a total answer to the problem, but I invite noble Lords to take account of the substantial progress that we are making.

Criminal Jurors

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to report to the House that the present Lord Chancellor secured a major financial injection from the Treasury, specifically to improve the court estate—which, in some areas, has been a problem, as my noble and learned friend has rightly pointed out. I am sure that at least some of that money will, rightly, go on improving accommodation for the jury.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I was a juror about 35 years ago at the Old Bailey. It was a multiple rape case, and I can still remember the details and the name of the perpetrator. I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her pursuance of this issue. The Minister talked about ad hoc support for jurors. Can he be more specific about what his department is proposing to offer jurors?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think that this will be the subject of the test and trials later this year that I have just mentioned, but I shall give an example. Following the recent Letby trial and the tragic events at the Countess of Chester Hospital, the jurors in that case were offered support by a charity in Manchester called Victim Support, and I thank that charity for its offering in that respect. It was, specifically, a counselling service for those jurors. My understanding is that every member of the jury was offered it, but that the take-up was very low.

Employment of People with Criminal Convictions

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as your Lordships know, under the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 the Government have been progressively reducing the need to disclose previous convictions, particularly in relation to community sentences and sentences of under four years, and now even some non-violent sentences of over four years can be regarded as spent. As the noble Baroness has said, the ban the box campaign run by Business in the Community, which comprises more than 150 employers covering over 1 million roles, asks employers to delay the point at which applicants are asked to tick a box on and give details about any criminal convictions so that they can expose their skills at interview before any disclosure of convictions is made, if such disclosure is still required.

The Government are very pleased to commend the work of Business in the Community, which has now led the ban the box campaign for several years. In 2021 it passed the milestone of covering more than 1 million roles, and as long ago as 2016 the Government signed up to it for the Civil Service. The noble Baroness rightly identifies that this is a very important initiative. Increasing rates of employment on release from prison is very important, and the Government will continue to support the initiative.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I was going to ask about ban the box as well. The Minister has given a full answer. However, can he say something about the practices of the Ministry of Justice? When it contracts with numerous companies and NGOs, does it require them to practice ban the box themselves?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will have to come back to the noble Lord on that question, as I am not in a position to answer it straightaway.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Benjamin would have liked to speak from these Benches today, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here. She told me that, in signing all these amendments, she supports the attempt of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to strengthen interpretation, in particular, but also access to services in other languages. Much has been said, and I will not repeat it, but we need to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has from every possible aspect in your Lordships’ House—whether in debates or on legislation—ensured that we think about the importance of other languages that are not our first or our own. One of the key things that has come through this short debate is that that relates to not just the traditional languages that we may have perceived through learning at school or going on holiday but the rights of people who are deaf to have BSL interpreters; to have easy-read or particular interpreter support for children or those with learning difficulties is equally vital.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us that this is all about fair access for victims, and he talked about “the culture”. I worked at Cambridge University for 20 years in various roles and on two or three occasions had to help foreign-language students when they had been victims of crime. They had good English, but they did not have confident English to deal with what had happened to them in the aftermath of an incident, let alone understand the culture of how our system works—whether it is the police or the criminal justice system. Having an interpreter to whom they can explain what has happened and in return to hear how the process will happen—importantly, that must neutral, as many noble Lords have mentioned—is vital.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for raising the issue of vulnerable groups because that is important too. He might be amused to know that I am now the step-grandmother of a six year-old child for whom Welsh is very much her first language—I am trying to catch up. A child of that age just speaks the language as it comes and even in the family environment it can throw you when you do not understand. How much more important is that when you are navigating a system such as the criminal justice system?

My noble friend Lord Marks set out the important reasons for the criminal justice system that we professionalise language and interpretative services. We absolutely support that on these Benches and I hope the Minister will listen favourably to all the comments that have been made so far.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for this group of amendments, to which I have put my name. I echo the point that she has had a sustained campaign on this through a number of Bills and I very much hope that this group of amendments will reinforce her campaign, if I can put it like that, and the Minister will look at it favourably. She gave various examples of shortcomings in the court system where interpretations go wrong and I have had personal experience of every single one of the shortcomings that she highlighted. I suspect that anyone else who has worked in the courts, particularly in our metropolitan cities, will have experienced those shortcomings as well.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds spoke about his work as a linguist and I think I am right in saying that he is a Russian linguist—he is nodding his head a bit. It reminded me of when I understood the difference between interpretation and interpreting. That was when I was working in Ukraine and had a Russian interpreter interpreting for me. She was so fluent that she could talk simultaneously in whatever conversation was happening and, she told me, she also did her shopping list in her head at the same time. That is how fluent she was. There really are some remarkable people who do this work. The other thing I learned through various aspects of my life is that there are specialisms within interpreting and it is very important that you recognise the limits of the interpreters one is dealing with at any particular time.

This brings me on to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She gave the example of an Albanian gang member who was involved in interpreting in a case of alleged rape. One thing I have become aware of in dealing with domestic abuse, particularly when it is minority groups with minority languages, is that you have to be very cautious about who the interpreter is. The information that comes through the interviews with the lawyers and the like can easily leak out into the wider community of that group and can undermine the woman in whatever legal remedy she is seeking. It is a point that I absolutely recognise.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about the processes themselves and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, talked about value for money. He also spoke about sign language and lip-reading, both of which I have experienced in court. It is quite an exhaustive process and I understand that it is quite expensive when you have to have relays of sign language interpreters when one is dealing with particular cases. Nevertheless, there is a fundamental point underlined in this group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about access to justice and we need to make sure that the standards are as high as possibly can be obtained.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “Don’t underestimate good intentions when interpreters are interpreting”. Many times, I have seen them try to help understanding by overexplaining things, which actually undermines one side or another of the case. I understand that this is a difficult, sensitive issue but I very much hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will give as much reassurance as he possibly can—both that standards are kept at the highest possible level and that all necessary procedures and protocols are properly reflected—so that the aspirations of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, can be fully met.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for raising this important topic. I join in the general commendation of the way in which she presented her amendments and the way in which noble Lords have subsequently supported them.

In relation to the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, I will, if I may, trespass on your Lordships’ indulgence. Let me say that, having had to work for several years in an entirely foreign language and an entirely unfamiliar legal system, I am quite conscious of the difficulty that one has. There comes a point—in my experience, at least—when you get stuck between two stools and you cannot say anything in either language in trying to express yourself. So the subject matter of what we are discussing is well understood.

Perhaps we might start with the common ground. It goes without saying that interpreting—I emphasise that word—and translation services must be of the highest quality and clarity in the criminal justice system, as well as tailored to the victim’s needs. As far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, interpreting and translation services are provided under contracts where the various standards and requirements are laid down. As I think the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, pointed out, those arrangements have been subject to ongoing and extensive review, which I hope will be completed shortly—at least not before long—to ensure that we have the highest quality. Obviously, the general objective is fairly self-evident: in the justice system, you must have a high standard of interpreting and translation. For the CPS, interpreters must be on the National Register of Public Service Interpreters. That is the first area of common ground.

The second area of common ground is that, for those whose first language is not English, the right to understand and be understood is enshrined in the code. It is right 1—the most important right of all—and is set out on page 15 of the present draft of the code, which says that

“providers must communicate in simple and accessible language and all translation or interpretation”—

I take the point that it says “interpretation” but probably should say “interpreting”—

“services must be offered free of charge to the victim”.

So this is recognised as a right. If it is not always achieved, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, feels, that is, in effect, why we are here. The whole structure of the Bill aims to remedy possible defects and create a system in which we can raise standards progressively and consistently across the country, commissioning bodies can learn from each other and we can improve the service available to victims, generally speaking; that is an operational issue rather than an issue of principle. No one is disputing the broad thrust of the comments that have been made.

Here, once again, we come to what is in some ways the philosophical issue behind everything that we have been discussing: to what extent should we introduce matters in the Bill and to what extent should we deal with the operational and detailed aspects in the code or in guidance? On that point, the common ground tends to be a little more limited, if I may say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak on Amendments 108 and 109, in the absence of the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, who would have made a contribution. She comments that child abuse and exploitation can happen to any child, in any family, in any location, and, as she would always say, “Childhood lasts a lifetime”. Child abuse and exploitation can have a detrimental impact on children that stays with them for the rest of their lives, harming their mental health, their development and sense of trust. Right at this moment, there is a child experiencing this type of trauma. Of course, it also has a devastating impact on their family and friends, and society as whole. As a country, we still do not provide or fund anywhere near enough for specialist support services to stand up for children’s rights and those who have experienced devastating trauma and abuse. It is shameful that, as a nation, children are left with the horror of abuse, and suffer in silence without any statutory right to support.

Support services are vital for child victims. They give children a space to work through their trauma and begin to recover, offering mental health and counselling services, and advocacy services which help children and their families to navigate the complexity of statutory agencies and the criminal justice system. Child-centred services, such as the Lighthouse, which was described earlier, can also reduce the impact of harm and other risks later in life, including going missing from home, alcohol and drug misuse, homelessness and interaction with the criminal justice system.

In one study, more than eight in 10 male prisoners said they had experienced at least one adverse childhood experience, which includes physical and sexual abuse, and domestic abuse. Yet local services, mostly run by the voluntary and community sectors, are chronically underfunded and undervalued. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sex Abuse, which is hosted by Barnardo’s, has recently published a comprehensive study of the current landscape. I will not go into the detail because the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has already covered the results. But just as much as Barnardo’s and the other children’s charities feel that they have a moral duty to support vulnerable children and young people, we cannot continue to see these vital support services as just a charitable add-on that is nice to have. These are life-saving services for a lot of children who have experienced abuse and exploitation. We must ensure that enough are available to support the number of children who, every year, face abuse and exploitation.

From these Benches, we support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, which would place a duty on the relevant authorities to commission sufficient child-specific support services for child victims of abuse and exploitation.

My own Amendment 100A in this group follows on from the very thorough report from the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which gave the Government 20 recommendations, of which the first is a statutory duty of mandatory reporting, by which those in certain employment, whether paid or voluntary, and regulated professions should report allegations of child sex abuse to relevant authorities. The Government have yet to respond on these recommendations. I hope that will change soon.

This Bill is not the right place for an amendment on mandatory reporting. The amendment would provide children and young people with the status of a victim if a person in a regulated profession had a suspicion that they were a victim of child sex abuse. As we have heard from most speakers on this group of amendments, children and adults react differently to trauma. Children need specialist help right from the start. Giving them that recognition as a victim is vital.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the discussion on this group has been remarkable. I agree with everything that all noble Lords have said. Indeed, I went to many of the same meetings about which other noble Lords have spoken so eloquently.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with everyone who has spoken so far. I say to the Minister that, given the mentions earlier today about putting the victims’ code on a statutory footing, the brevity of this debate is in inverse proportion to the importance of the amendments. We appreciate that the Government have not come as far as us. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who helpfully set out the concerns of the committee that she quoted about this not being strong enough to get compliance.

I want to go back over a little bit of history. When I joined your Lordships’ House in 2011, a number of inquiries were going on relating to victims of crime. I became vice-chair of the all-party group on victims of crime. That group introduced the stalking inquiry report, which led to stalking law reform. Between 2011 and 2019, this House debated the role of a victim’s code and the victims of crime on many occasions. I had a Private Member’s Bill on the issue which had its Second Reading in July 2019. Not only did the Conservative manifesto of 2019 mention it but there was more detail about it in an addendum to it. I have no doubt that that was due to the work of the then Victims’ Commissioner, who is the Victims’ Commissioner again, sitting on the opposite Benches.

All that was because the current system does not work; it is quite simple. Until the services that have to provide the victims’ code are made to do so, there will be no incentive for them to deliver it if they have other pressures. It is the old thing: if you have to do something, then you will. You will have targets and you will be judged by your performance. Without that—if this is just a “thing too much—it will not happen.

As we come to the end of this Parliament, I want to say that it was a key tenet of the Conservative manifesto to make sure that a victims’ code was enshrined in law, but what we have seen is not what was spoken about during that general election campaign.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I find myself in a difficult situation, because in the previous group I had said that we should not have a sterile debate about whether we should have all the victims’ code on a statutory basis, and I challenged the Minister to look at individual provisions that should be on a statutory basis. I understand that that is not the tenor of the debate that we have been having in this group. However, Amendment 108, which was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Polak, in the previous debate, looked at a specific element—namely, to do with the relevant local commissioning of bodies for specialist support for children who are victims, and whether that should be on a statutory basis, so as to put it on a similar basis to that for domestic abuse victims. I do not think that the Minister answered that amendment. While on the one hand I acknowledge the point that having an all-or-nothing approach may not be the best use of our time, on the other, it would be helpful if the Minister addressed the specific proposals in the amendments in the previous group.

Having said that, we are at a relatively early point in Committee, and there will be opportunities to bring these matters back. As my noble friend said, she has a further group of amendments looking at the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner. Having explained my position to the Minister, I look forward to his response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others, who have spoken in this part of the debate. To take up at once the challenge of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, the Government’s position is that there are no specific amendments, including Amendment 108, which could or should be promoted into the Bill—they should all be dealt with in the code, in the right place. The difficulty of putting specific matters in the Bill, among other difficulties, is that you make a policy choice, irrespective of the available resources and the available situation in different areas, and so forth, as to which—

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

5: Clause 1, page 1, line 16, at end insert—
“(e) where the person is a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct.”

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by reiterating my noble friend’s point about acknowledging the way in which the noble and learned Lord wound up the previous group of amendments and about working consensually across the Committee as we progress through the Bill. My second point is simple, but I think it worth making. As noble Lords will know, I sit as a magistrate in London in family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I rarely see victims. I see victims only in trials—they sometimes turn up to trials to give evidence—and I hear from victims only when I sentence and the victim’s impact statement is read out. Through all the rest of the processes which I routinely go through sitting in a magistrates’ court, I do not hear from victims, and I do not see them. It is a simple point, but I thought it was worth making.

The Minister also had his four As, which the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has just referred to—awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. We agree with those as far as they go, of course, but of course many of the elements in Committee will concern whether accountability should be enforceability. That will be the crux of a number of our debates in Committee.

This group deals with child victims. Amendment 5 in my name clarifies that the definition of “victim” should include a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation that constitutes criminal conduct. I will go through the amendments in the group and then comment more widely. Amendment 6, and Amendment 10 in my name, extend the definition of “victim” to a child who is

“a victim of child criminal exploitation”.

Other noble Lords will speak to that as well. Amendments 7 and 11 seek to ensure that the explicit definition of a victim includes those who are subject to modern slavery—another aspect that we will debate within this group. Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lord Hunt, is specifically about verbal abuse of children.

While the Bill makes important reference to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and to children as victims of domestic abuse, the same organisations that fought for that Act are now asking for the same ambition to be applied to children who have experienced abuse and exploitation. Last week, I and other noble Lords now present in the Chamber went to a survivors’ presentation organised by a coalition of charities led by the NSPCC, where we heard first-hand about survivors’ experiences and how the support organisations and criminal justice system responded to their trauma.

What was particularly telling about those survivor experiences was that, although the abuse itself was, of course, wholly negative, we did hear from one or two survivors who had had a relatively good experience of the criminal justice system—although there were other experiences that were much more negative. That contrast made those testimonies even more powerful. This morning, I, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, visited the Lighthouse project in Camden. This provides a one-stop shop for child victims of sexual abuse. It is a model of how these services should be provided.

It is in that context that this group is being debated. I want to set out the scale of abuse and exploitation of children. Children—that means people under 18—make up about 20% of the population. The Centre of Expertise on Child Sexual Abuse has found that children are the victims of about 40% of all sexual offences. One in 10 children in England and Wales is sexually abused before the age of 16 and that number means that there are an estimated half a million child victims every year.

Children abused by parents or carers are almost three times more likely to experience other forms of domestic abuse as well, and it was found that 42% of childhood abuse survivors suffered more than one type of abuse. The Bill explicitly recognises children as victims only of domestic abuse and as a result fails to acknowledge the multiple forms of abuse and exploitation that children can experience. They can be subjected to multiple forms of abuse and exploitation during their lifetime. To avoid failing these children, the definition of a victim must cover all forms of abuse and exploitation, in addition to domestic abuse.

The victims’ code of practice recognises that those under 18 are vulnerable and affords them enhanced rights. The children’s coalition, a coalition of charities that are informing what I am saying now—and has no doubt briefed all noble Lords here in Committee as well—has argued that there should be consistency across all legislation, recognising as distinct victims all children, not just those who are affected by domestic abuse. The coalition urges government to ensure that the Bill reflects the code by ensuring that children who experience abuse and exploitation, in addition to those who experience domestic abuse, are in the Bill so that the entirety of the harm they experience is explicit within primary legislation.

If the definition is not amended, the children’s coalition foresees that this will have unintended consequences for the relevant authorities and those in charge of delivering victim support services. Resources will be directed to focus on the needs of children who are victims of domestic abuse above other forms of harm. The coalition is concerned that there is the potential for a hierarchy of abuse that would leave thousands of children affected by other forms of abuse and exploitation without recognition and, ultimately, without support. By not explicitly recognising children as victims in their own right, the Bill could have significant implications for the level and quality of support available.

I am told that evidence already shows that a lack of support for children following abuse and exploitation exists and that ensuring that children and the full scale of the harm they experience are explicitly in scope will act as a cornerstone for responsible agencies commissioning services to make sure that they reflect the needs of children in full. So this is a specific example where legislation will make a difference.

It is impossible to design an effective justice system response to childhood victims without understanding the scale of what we are talking about, which I set out earlier. This cannot be done without recognising all forms of abuse, but this is a specific example where the black letter of the law will have an impact on the services that are delivered to childhood victims of abuse that falls outside the scope of domestic abuse. It is in that spirit that I beg to move Amendment 5.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 7 and 11 in this group and I want to be clear that I agree very much with the views that are behind all these amendments.

I hope that my first question—a technical question—will not be regarded as negative. Is a child a person within Clause 1(1)? That will affect amendments and how they are framed. My second question is probably a bit indelicate. It has only occurred to me this evening, while listening to the examples that your Lordships have given. It is a direct question to the Minister. Is the MoJ aware of examples of possible candidates—that is probably not a very happy term—who have been exploited or subjected to criminal or marginally criminal behaviour, which have not made their way to us? It may be possible. I possibly should not put the Minister on the spot now, but maybe we can talk about what the MoJ has considered and discarded. Amendments 7 and 11 have been brought to us by Hestia, which supports victims of modern slavery. It is concerned with ensuring that those who are born to victims of modern slavery are covered.

I know that we have Clause 1(2)(b), which refers to circumstances

“where the person’s birth was the direct result of criminal conduct”,

but it would be very unfortunate if we were to run into the weeds of whether someone is a victim of rape—in other words, what is the relationship between the mother and the offender?—or if there is a doubt as to who is the father because the woman has been subjected to forced prostitution and the object of multiple rapes, because that kind of issue detracts from the support that is needed by the children of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking, whose experience in itself requires support.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is the Government’s position. In most cases the child will experience the effect of criminal conduct, that being the effect on the mother. That is a sufficiently direct nexus, as it were, to bring it within the scope of the clause.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. The gist of the Minister’s summing up is that he believes that all the examples given in this short debate are already covered in the Bill. I think he said that there may be a detailed section in the code covering children; I understand that that was not a firm commitment but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.

The Minister gave a number of examples of why the Government want a more explicit recognition, but I gave a specific example where I argued that the black-letter law on the recognition of children could—and does—affect the accessibility of victims’ services. When local authorities look at how to allocate services, there is potentially a hierarchy there. We think that children should be at the top of that hierarchy, equal to domestic abuse victims; that was the specific example that I gave to the Minister.

Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate on which I and others will reflect. I agreed with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. He clearly tabled it to raise awareness—one of the Minister’s four As—and he has effectively achieved that goal. I will be interested to see whether he wishes to take it further. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think I have explained this matter several times before to your Lordships but, in brief, the situation is this. We have 1,200 prisoners who have never been released. Almost all of those have come several times before the Parole Board, which each time has decided that they are not safe to release. Any resentencing exercise would inevitably either aim at or result in possibly a thousand persons being released who are not safe to release. The cohort includes many violent and sexual offenders, who are particularly difficult to manage in the community. The Government feel that they cannot take that risk and should not raise expectations but manage the situation by preparing the remaining prisoners for safe release.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, when IPP sentences were in place, the offender received a minimum tariff. When the offender went to prison, an offender manager, who is a probation officer, wrote a sentence plan. That same probation officer would also review that plan. Can the Minister say with confidence that all the elements of the sentence plans which are currently in place can be completed, and in a reasonable time?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is a very good question. A strengthened action plan—a strengthened sentence plan for each IPP prisoner—is an essential part of the wider IPP action plan. That is currently being worked on so that each IPP prisoner still in custody will have a personalised, updated and—we hope—effective sentence plan eventually leading to their release if that is at all possible. The newly established IPP progression board dealing with this matter now includes stakeholder representatives, who met in September and just before Christmas and will meet again in March, when we will report a full update on how the action plan is progressing.

Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, but I do not have his great experience or knowledge. I will make a very lay man’s point. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy for his illuminating outline of the background to this question and the history, taking us through why the Government are now keen to unify the employment tribunals within the overall structure of the tribunal system and keep them more obviously within judicial law than they might have been before.

My question is one of clarification. My noble and learned friend explained that the Government do not seek to reduce or undermine in any way the lay composition of employment tribunals in future. Will there be specific instructions to the Senior President about the composition of the panel, including whether one, two or three members will be present? Will there be guidance on the balance between judicial and lay members?

In particular, I pick up on the point from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about the employer-heavy element in tribunals. I recall when my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy brought the academic freedom Bill through the House last year. At the time, it seemed important to me that we did what we could to redress the balance for single employees battling against a powerful establishment, often with the law behind them but unable to bear the pressure of finances and the stress that such cases can bring. For these reasons, I say to my noble and learned friend the Minister that it is necessary to keep this in perspective, even if we want to bring it in line with our overall judicial system.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord said that this is not a backdoor to reduce the lay members within the judicial system. He went some way to say how much judges appreciate working with lay members, who are sometimes experts in other fields. The two noble Lords who spoke before me raised concerns on exactly this issue.

Although my brief is to accept the proposals of the Government without reservation—which I do, of course —I have reflected on my own experience. A number of magistrates sit on a number of tribunals; I can think of about 10 colleagues who do this, as it is quite common. Some sit on employment tribunals and some on other tribunals. Sometimes they are experts and sometimes they are lay people in other contexts. I remember a couple of separate discussions, with a magistrate who was a trade unionist and with magistrates who were employers, all of whom sat on these employment tribunals and were sceptical about the changes foreseen by these regulations. That scepticism was about money-saving and about trying to get consistency within the system when there is no merit beyond that consistency itself. There needs to be more of a reason than just consistency to make a change such as this. The noble and learned Lord gave us some reassurances in his opening, but there is scepticism out there nevertheless.

The question that both the noble Lords asked is: after these regulations go through, what criteria will the Lord Chancellor look at, if and when proposals come for more tribunals to be determined by single judges sitting alone, rather than by a panel of three? Will there be a process to review this? We heard from the TUC and I gave my personal anecdotes about colleagues with whom I have sat, and it seems to me that the justification of consistency alone is not sufficient. There needs to be a more profound justification to make this change. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. On the mechanics of this—I will be corrected by those sitting behind me if I get this wrong—if your Lordships approve these regulations, that in itself delegates to the Senior President of Tribunals the power to decide on composition. There is no further step by the Secretary of State; he simply delegates it, as he is empowered to do under the 2002 Act.

It is then for the Senior President of Tribunals to issue a practice direction setting out how he proposes to exercise those powers. There have already been some consultations in relation to that, which are possibly those referred to by the Trades Union Congress. The Senior President has intimated that, until he has the power to make the practice direction, it is not appropriate for him to make the result of the consultation public. I am sure we will know that in due course, but it is not too difficult to speculate, as a lot of reservation has been expressed about the very point that your Lordships are making. This point is not new; it is in the public domain. In effect, it is: “Don’t tinker with the well-established working relationships of employment tribunals”. That is thoroughly understood.

The Senior President of Tribunals does this job with all tribunals across the piece. Employment tribunals are special up to a point, but this is a job that he does and, if I may say so, we have to acknowledge that we have a wise and experienced president, as I am sure we will in the future. I am equally sure that he will exercise those powers responsibly.