Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Consideration of Commons amendments
Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the discussions that have taken place in the usual channels to ensure that the calling of the election does not unduly disadvantage victims who have waited for many years for this legislation to be brought forward. We on our side have strived to be collaborative throughout the Bill’s progress and, while we have not been able to achieve everything we would have liked, we acknowledge that the department has been willing to negotiate on some matters and make a number of amendments in lieu.

It is a shame that my noble friend Lady Royall’s amendments on stalking were not successful as part of the negotiating process. On stalking and the eligibility for home detention curfew, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very interesting point about the CPS charging stalkers with alternative offences as well. As I have said in other debates, I have dealt as a magistrate with stalking matters relatively recently. If lesser charges of harassment can be pressed in the alternative, the court would have better choices to make when determining guilt or otherwise. I thought that that was an interesting point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not mention unduly lenient sentencing. While that was not part of the wash-up agreement, the Government nevertheless committed from the Dispatch Box to keep unduly lenient sentencing under review. As far as I can or cannot commit any future Government, I think it is something that any Government would want to keep under review, as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is important.

We also welcome the amendment in lieu, Amendment 32A, on the duty for agencies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. I congratulate her on all her sterling work on this Bill. This does not go quite as far as we asked, but it is an improvement, nevertheless.

The Labour Party remains committed to introducing a statutory duty of candour. It is a shame that the Government have not felt able to go further, but at least there is a review in the Bill.

We are pleased that the infected blood provisions will make it on to the statute book and be commenced at Royal Assent, and we welcome the recent government Statements and hope that compensation will get to people as early as possible.

On IPP, we have tried to work collaboratively across party lines and there is further work to be done. We want to ensure that solutions proposed are robust and assessed with public safety in mind, and we will work at pace, consulting widely on potential ways forward.

We of course welcome the concession on controlling or coercive behaviour and the MAPPA process, in Amendment 99A. It is an important marker, but only part of a bigger picture where violence against women and girls needs to be addressed. There is more work to do, but passing this Bill is an important step towards a new era of transparency and advocacy for victims of crime.

In conclusion, I thank my honourable friend Kevin Brennan for steering Labour’s response to the Bill through the other place and my noble friend Lady Thornton for her support for me during the passage of the Bill. I also thank our advisers, Catherine Johnson and Clare Scally.

Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also thank his civil servants, who have been extremely helpful to me and, I know, to many other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. Turning back to the noble and learned Lord, I know he will say that he works as part of a team, but the team needs a leader and he has been the leader for this Bill in this House—and that has been to the benefit of all noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill.

The Bill is an accomplishment. It is only a step in the road, and I hope we can work on the progress that has been made in any future Governments who may be formed.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will deal briefly with the points made. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the firewall is a difficult one. No doubt it will continue to be discussed in the years ahead. The Government do not feel able to go further at the moment.

On Motion E, which is on the importance of training, I hope we have now put in place something effective, though indirect, to ensure that training will happen properly. That will no doubt be kept under review and be publicly reported in the annual report, so that this House and the other place can monitor how that is going.

On Motion G, which is on MAPPA, I respectfully suggest that the Government’s amendment completes the picture. It includes coercion and controlling behaviour. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made about the importance of the CPS considering exactly what it charges is important, but I stress my own understanding that a risk assessment will take place in every case so that, even if there is not actually a stalking charge, the fact that it is stalking-like behaviour should be properly taken into account in assessing the risk before HDC is used.

On the commitment in relation to unduly lenient sentences, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, at the time we envisaged that we would include something in the Criminal Justice Bill. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. The Government’s commitment remains as long as the Government are the Government—no doubt a future Government will wish to take that matter forward as well.

Those are my brief comments on the substantive points that have been made, but I will make some very brief concluding remarks as we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I once again thank all those who have engaged and collaborated throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Roborough, who, if your Lordships remember, took over the passage of the entire Bill at a certain stage in Committee and have taken on certain sections of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Roborough has done very important work, particularly on MAPPA and related points, but my noble friend Lord Howe, as your Lordships know, has taken on a major role in relation to the infected blood issues. I am very grateful to them.

I am very pleased that the Bill has made it through this process. We have not lost it and I put on record my own thanks to all the officials who contributed to the Bill. They have already been warmly thanked in the other place, but I need particularly to mention Nikki Jones, Katie Morris and Lizzie Bates, who were among the team leaders. I also personally thank the infected blood team at the Cabinet Office.

Since I may not have another opportunity, I will say, personally, what a privilege it has been to deal at this Dispatch Box with the affairs of the Ministry of Justice over the last two years, and how much one appreciates the courtesy, perspicacity and hard work of this House. Members actually listen to the debates and take on board the points made. I think most people understand that we are trying to find solutions to very difficult problems and there are very often several points of view. My overall impression is that, on the whole, the House works very closely and collaboratively. As a newcomer to your Lordships’ House, I may say personally that that is a most impressive situation—possibly unique among legislatures in the western world.

Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Amendment) Rules 2024

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, these are the procedural rules to enable the Upper Tribunal to handle the new appeals regime under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. These rules are already in force: this is by nature of a made-affirmative statutory instrument, which has been in force but needs to be renewed unless it sunsets after 40 days.

As your Lordships will probably recall, the suspensive claims, already approved by Parliament in Sections 44 to 49 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, are those cases where it is argued by the appellant that there would be serious and irreversible harm if they were to be removed or that the removal conditions were not met—for example, if they were actually lawfully in this jurisdiction.

Exceptionally, these rules are made by the Lord Chancellor instead of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, but there is very close liaison with the committee. Going forward, that committee will be able to amend or replace these rules as it deems appropriate under its usual procedures. That is all I need to say by way of explanation of this instrument. I commend the rules to the House.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise the controversial background to this SI and the legislation that has really formed a backdrop to many months of deliberations in this Chamber. Nevertheless, this SI, as the noble and learned Lord explained, is already in place, and this is, essentially, a renewal of it. Of course, there needs to be a robust and in-place appeals procedure. On that basis, we are happy to support the SI.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support.

Coroners (Suspension of Requirement for Jury at Inquest: Coronavirus) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we support this SI. We thank the noble and learned Lord for everything he has said and recognise the point he made that the coroner will still have discretion, rather than there being a requirement to empanel a jury for hearings.

I want to make a slightly different point to the other noble Lords. Everyone has quite rightly said how backlogs affect families of those involved; that, of course, is true. But there is another, positive reason for continuing with the current arrangements, albeit on a temporary basis, and that is the quality of the decision-making itself. For any witnesses who are having to wait longer, there will inevitably be a degradation in their memory. For that reason—not just the very laudable reason of trying to reduce difficulties for families—the outcomes will be better through reducing the whole coronial process of reviewing these decisions.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I understand that guidance from the Chief Coroner explains that great weight should be given in particular to the wishes of the family. I accept, as others have said, that there are very serious delays in the coronial system. The example given by the noble Baroness sounds like a highly regrettable situation and I will ask my officials to look further into it.

I venture to say that the coronial system, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has just observed, is ripe for a fairly thorough review. This division between local authority responsibility and judicial responsibility is probably not the most efficient or sensible arrangement. That is something we should do, both from the point of view of families going through a very traumatic situation of bereavement—it is very serious when things such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness happen. The point about witnesses is also a very fair and important one. This is ongoing work to tackle the delays in the coronial system and its general efficiency.

Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we on our side support the statutory instrument and recognise and endorse everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said regarding the importance of recognising the Hague convention and being one of the first adopters of the new convention and, as the noble and learned Lord explained, the ratification process and the importance of the UK maintaining its status as a world leader in its courts system.

I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, about the Arbitration Bill. I well remember the Second Reading debate in the Moses Room, where the Back Bench was replete with retired Supreme Court judges—which, as the only non-lawyer taking part in that debate, was a very instructive process for me.

Every noble Lord who has spoken has really made the same point about the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill and the Arbitration Bill. All I can say is that, from my side, I also did what I could to try to get these Bills to be recognised, but, as the Bills started in the Lords, that was a problem. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, says about improving the wash-up procedure, because these are not politically contested Bills yet they are very important for UK plc. In the future, I will very much do what I can to make sure that my political party, whatever its position, will do everything it can to get these Bills on the statute book as quickly as possible.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I particularly thank those who have been kind enough to express personal regards in remarks about me—to which I would respond only that no one operates individually and I have a wonderful team in my private office. I have magnificent officials in the Department of Justice. I have very strong ministerial colleagues both in this House and in the other place. We work as a team and it is that team that keeps us, as it were, in orbit and it is to them that one owes the warm thanks of this House.

The main point made by all noble Lords is to express unanimous disappointment, regret and frustration at the loss of the Arbitration Bill and the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill. I can only agree with those sentiments and express the profound hope for both those measures, particularly the Arbitration Bill, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, where so much work was done was done by the special committee, at Second Reading and elsewhere that it would be an enormous regret and a very serious black mark on our processes if all that had to be done again.

I very much hope that, whatever Government is in power, that Bill, in particular, is brought back as soon as possible and that we are not defeated or held up in any way by inflexible and archaic procedures. The same applies with equal force to the litigation funders Bill. With those brief comments, I commend the regulations.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires courts to interpret legislation compatibly with rights under the European Convention on Human Rights as far as is possible. Clauses 49 to 52 would disapply Section 3 to prisoners as a group when it comes to legislation about their release. It is disappointing to see this Government wasting parliamentary time and public money to remove human rights from prisoners.

There is no evidence of the Human Rights Act 1998 limiting the Parole Board from making decisions about prisoners. These clauses appear to be trying to solve a problem that does not exist, while the Government ignore the many critical problems across our criminal justice system. We in the Labour Party are proud that it was a Labour Government who brought about the Human Rights Act in 1998, and a future Labour Government will continue to be a bastion of justice and hope, unlike this current Government, who cannot bring themselves to focus on the real issues affecting the public.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, and my noble friend Lady Lister spoke about the lack of support from the Labour Party if he were to press this matter to a vote. He said—I wrote it down—that he thought this was “a sad portent for the future”. That is a harsh interpretation of our stance. I have just reiterated our commitment to the Human Rights Act. We would not have chosen to support him if he had pressed the matter, but the statement I have read out reaffirms the Labour Party’s commitment to the Human Rights Act. Having said that, I think the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has put his finger on the central question. If the Government see no diminution of the Human Rights Act, why are they disapplying Section 3 within this Bill? Do they believe that it would breach the Human Rights Act if they failed to disapply the Act in this case?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his amendments, which seek to remove Clauses 49 to 52. I am extremely sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, but the Government laid out their position in Committee and nothing the Government have heard since or this evening alters that position.

As I think I have said previously, Section 3 of the Human Rights Act is a procedural, not a substantive, provision. Clauses 49 to 51 effectively disapply Section 3 in relation to prisoner release legislation. Let me start by reiterating that nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by prisoners. If I was asked, as I think I was, to confirm that the full range of substantive rights under the ECHR remain: yes, of course they do. Nothing in these clauses removes or limits any convention rights enjoyed by prisoners. A breach of human rights may still be pleaded before any domestic court or in Strasbourg in the usual way, and we would not want to prevent such action by prisoners where it is warranted.

I respectfully respond to the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, by saying that this provision does not represent either an invitation or still less an instruction to the courts to disapply the Human Rights Act; nor does it imply, as suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and perhaps by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that the Government believe there is any breach of the European convention in relation to this legislation. That is not the case. The Government do not accept that there is any breach whatever in this legislation. It is the Government’s position that a matter as important as the public protection test should be for Parliament and that it should not be open to the so-called writing-in or reading-down provisions of Section 3, which is an interpretive position which means that the courts may be required to go further than usual in interpreting legislation that would otherwise be compatible with convention rights. Although this has happened less often in recent years, it can require courts to stray from Parliament’s original intention, and the Government do not think that that is appropriate in this context. The real issue is the balance between the courts and Parliament from a procedural point of view.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the government amendments in this group. The Government have listened carefully to the two previous Lord Chief Justices and decided that the High Court is the most appropriate place to hear parole referrals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said that the Government’s amendments in this group were better than his, which has circumscribed the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised an interesting point about how the courts should deal expeditiously with parole-type matters, and I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say on that.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, once referred to the court, the timetable and listing will be a matter for the court, but I am sure that it will take account of the need for expedition and the remarks made in the Chamber just now.

Parc Prison

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 14th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating that Answer to the Urgent Question. It was only yesterday that the Minister was answering an Urgent Question at that Dispatch Box about overcrowding in our prisons, and it was less than a week ago that Wandsworth prison received an urgent notification from the chief inspector about its unsatisfactory regime. Drug abuse and drug deaths form a common theme, from HMP Parc to HMP Wandsworth and across the prison estate. That is notwithstanding that, as the Minister said, not all the deaths at HMP Parc were drug related. Nevertheless, a majority of them were. Recently, the prisons ombudsman issued a stark warning telling prisoners at HMP Parc to throw away their drugs immediately due to the severe risk that they posed to their health.

The number of drugs found in our prisons has surged. There have been more than 90,000 drug finds over the past five years, according to the latest figures. Synthetic opioids are becoming a growing problem as part of the overall increase in drug use in our prisons. Prison staff are being targeted to smuggle drugs into our prisons. More than 1,000 officers and staff were investigated in 2023 alone. Can the Minister outline what further steps the Government are taking to crack down on this route of smuggling?

One way to stop drugs getting into our prisons is through physical security measures, yet reports in the Times newspaper found that body scanners to detect drugs in another prison were not being staffed, or were being staffed in an absolutely minimal way. Does the Minister believe that body scanners should be put to better use?

The problem with illegal drugs in our prisons is endemic and growing. It requires a systematic, wide-ranging response to drive drugs out of prisons. Can the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing about prison security, mental health support, working with third-party providers in education and health and getting prisoners out of their cells so they can be engaged in purposeful activity? Of course, underpinning all this is the key role that the Probation Service must have in preventing reoffending. What is the Government’s strategy to reduce this endemic problem?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for those questions, which are entirely relevant and reasonable. The Government and, indeed, the country must face the fact that we have a very considerable problem arising from the increased availability of synthetic opioids in the community. Noble Lords will be aware of how widespread this problem has been and still is in the United States, and we are now seeing that problem in this country. The difficulty is that such drugs are approximately 500 to 1,000 times stronger than heroin and it is particularly easy to overdose on them, so there is a very high risk of prisoners almost accidentally causing themselves great harm or even of giving rise to fatal incidents.

This is a very considerable challenge of which the Government are aware. We are redoubling our efforts to stop these drugs entering the prison, bearing in mind that, once the drugs are in the community—and they are in the local community in various areas around a number of prisons—that is not a very easy thing to do. Obviously, one must have searches—that must include staff searches, due to the risk that staff may be importuned to carry these drugs—as well as on-site drug testing. Handheld devices are particularly effective in this area and body scanners play an essential role. I agree with the noble Lord that body scanners should be fully manned. If they are not being fully manned, that must be addressed.

In addition to those measures, particularly at HMP Parc, drug amnesties have been used from time to time, especially recently, to persuade prisoners to surrender their drugs. There is a national operational response plan; I will not go into detail but it is supported by the national substance misuse delivery team. The use of intelligence in the local community to identify weak points—particularly, again, in relation to those who may be deliberately or inadvertently carrying drugs into prison—is also important.

I gather that HMP Parc is currently rated green/amber on the issue of security, which is not a bad rating in the circumstances. However, I fully agree with the noble Lord that we have to work as a society to combat this. I pay particular attribute to the Gwent Police, NHS Wales and the Welsh Government for their very close collaborative working on these tragic matters.

End of Custody Supervised Licence Scheme: Extension

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the ECSL scheme was launched last October as a temporary response to the capacity crisis, which has seen the prison population soar to 88,000. At that time, it was for 35 days’ early release. The Government’s narrative was that this would relieve increasing pressure on prisons and allow probation staff to manage clients back into the community safely and effectively. That has not worked sufficiently, so they are increasing the early release to 70 days. Does the Minister agree with me that this shows that the Government have failed to properly manage the prison estate for capacity, safety and basic decency? Does he also agree with me that there needs to be a renaissance in our probation services so that we make more use of community orders and suspended sentences, rather than ever increasing the prison population?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think the House is well aware of the pressures on the prison estate. We have had considerable difficulties in recent times, particularly with a highly increased remand population and the ongoing effect of Covid. The Government have embarked on the largest prison building programme since Victorian times. We have opened two new prisons, and there are two more on the way for which outline planning permission has now been achieved. We are working as well as we can to deal with the situation, but temporary measures are unavoidable, I am afraid, as the Labour Government found when they were in power some time ago. I agree with the noble Lord that sentencing, in terms of community orders and suspended sentences, is very much a subject that should continue to be considered fully.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Domestic Abuse) (Amendment) Order 2024

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 7th May 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this order is supplementary to what became Statutory Instrument No. 150 of 2023, which I had the honour of moving in this Room on 23 January 2023. That SI provided legal aid for the new procedures under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, namely: domestic abuse protection notices, known as DAPNs, which provide immediate protection following a domestic abuse incident; and the new domestic abuse protection orders, known as DAPOs, which provide flexible, longer-term protection for victims.

Under that statutory instrument, legal aid was provided for a number of procedures in the family, county and criminal courts but, at the time, there was a small omission for advocacy in the magistrates’ court or on appeal from orders in the magistrates’ court to the Crown Court. This order simply fills that lacuna, which came to light in the course of working through both how this new regime was to operate and the complex provisions of Schedule 1 to what is known as LASPO to make sure that the legal aid regime covering these new orders was complete and comprehensive. We are simply filling a small gap in the regime that had not been spotted before.

This new statutory instrument before the Committee will ensure that legal aid is available for those proceedings. Let me go into more detail. The statutory instrument before your Lordships will make advocacy for those persons who are protected by a DAPO—or those who are subject, or potentially subject, to a DAPO—available under civil legal aid in magistrates’ courts. This form of civil legal aid will apply to DAPO cases where the application for the DAPO is made by the police in the magistrates’ courts. It will extend to appeals to the Crown Court and to applications to vary or discharge the DAPO in these courts. The respondent to an application for a DAPN will also be entitled to legal aid.

Your Lordships may recall that these procedures will for the first time enable these kinds of orders to be made by a range of courts, including magistrates’ courts, family courts, county courts and the Crown Court. In practical terms, they will make sure that the procedures and approaches to these orders mesh together, in view of the different courts that now have jurisdiction. This matter has been, and is being, worked through; as I understand it, a pilot scheme will be launched later this year to test the way in which these procedures will work. If your Lordships approve today’s statutory instrument, there will at least be a comprehensive legal aid scheme covering the procedures envisaged by the 2021 Act. I beg to move.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this welcome SI. We are happy that the lacuna has been addressed. I disclose to the Committee that I am a magistrate in family and criminal courts, and I occasionally have DAPO hearings, at which both the applicant and respondent are often unrepresented at the moment, so I welcome this situation being addressed.

The Minister mentioned a pilot starting, but I was not quite sure to which he was referring. Is it the one in Croydon, which I have been told about? As I said, I hear domestic abuse prevention orders when I sit at the moment, so is this a development in the existing orders I already hear? I am not quite sure to which pilot he refers.

I also make the point that family courts hear non-molestation orders now. These may be replaced by DAPOs, and we welcome the meshing together of the various civil orders across different jurisdictions.

I want to raise a separate issue, which I am afraid I did not have the foresight to give the Minister notice of. Last year, on 24 July, I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, about updating the information that must be disclosed on enhanced criminal record certificates. I gave the example of domestic violence prevention orders —not domestic abuse prevention orders—and what would happen if such an order were put in place. It is clearly not a criminal order but, if it is breached, it is a criminal offence and it would appear on a criminal record check. I will not go into the details of the case on which I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, but he gave me a very comprehensive answer on that issue, on 5 October. My point is that the answer was a complicated one—in fact, I will give the concrete example, because it is difficult to explain this without doing so.

I was hearing a domestic violence prevention order, and the applicant was a woman who wanted the order made against her former boyfriend. The applicant’s lawyer was a part-time judge and she was paying him privately. The applicant’s lawyer said to me that the best way to resolve this was with a no-facts finding, where an order is put in place, and that for a limited period the couple did not want to see each other any more. He said that it would be satisfactory to proceed in that way. The respondent heard the advice that I had received, and I explained that, if he were to breach the order, it would be a criminal offence. I asked what his attitude was to that course of action. The respondent said to me, “This is completely impossible for me because I am a primary school teacher. If I get this civil order, I will have to disclose it to my head teacher and I do not know what impact that would have on my career”. I gave him the advice to find a lawyer and fight the application. That is what actually happened, and that is the case that I raised with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.

Subsequent to that hearing, the legal adviser said to me that the primary school teacher would not have to disclose the matter to his head teacher because the legal adviser, as a solicitor, would not have to disclose an equivalent civil order to her professional body. It was therefore not necessary for the respondent to disclose this information. This was said after the hearing.

I was very cautious about accepting that advice, because different professional bodies will have different advice and, particularly when you are working with children, different and more stringent circumstances may pertain. I explained all this to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and, as I said, he gave me a very full explanation of the situation in which that primary school teacher would find himself. In a nutshell, it is complicated. What that man has to disclose, as an obligation and what the order requires to be disclosed, is not straightforward.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 30th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments is concerned with the scope and role of the independent advocate. I open by paying tribute to the work that my noble friend Lord Wills has done on this role for many years now through a number of Private Members’ Bills. If he chooses to test the opinion of the House on his Amendment 119AA, we will support it.

I shall speak briefly to the amendments in my name in this group. Amendment 104 would enable the Secretary of State to designate incidents causing serious harm or death to a small number of individuals as major incidents where there was a significant public interest in doing so. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave the example of Fishmongers’ Hall, where there were few fatalities but nevertheless it was a serious incident that had a national impact. The noble Lord and I will listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 104.

Amendment 107 would require the standing advocate to communicate the views of the victims of a major incident to the Secretary of State. Amendment 109 would require the Secretary of State to consider the views of victims of a major incident on whether to appoint an additional advocate and who to appoint. Amendment 110 would place a requirement on the Secretary of State to consider the views of the victims of a major incident before terminating the appointment of an advocate appointed in relation to that major incident.

Amendment 111 would require the Secretary of State to make guidance under Clause 38 publicly available. Amendment 112 would require the Secretary of State to consult the standing advocate before issuing, revising or withdrawing guidance in relation to matters to which advocates appointed in respect of major incidents must have regard. I look forward to the Minister’s response to all those amendments, none of which I intend to press—they are essentially probing amendments.

I shall comment briefly on the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, about the situation in Wales. I listened with interest to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said on the matter. I am not a lawyer, as I have said many times in this House, but the word used in the amendment is “concurrence”, not “consent”. I do not know whether that is a substantial difference but the whole of that mini-debate referred to the word “consent”, not the word used in the amendment. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an interesting and substantial point, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

In conclusion, if my noble friend chooses to press Amendment 119AA, we will support him.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, first I shall speak to the amendments tabled in my name, on behalf of the Government, which address the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about the relationship between the Secretary of State and the Welsh Government. Government Amendments 103A and 109A will require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident that occurs in Wales and before appointing an advocate in respect of that incident. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, has tabled Amendment 109B, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and other noble Lords have supported it.

The scheme here is being administered and funded by the UK Government. The Government’s position is therefore that the right level of involvement for Welsh Ministers is to be consulted by the Secretary of State before decisions are made, rather than requiring consent or concurrence, as Amendment 109B suggests. The Government believe it would not be proportionate for the UK Government to require the consent of Welsh Ministers, thereby in effect giving them a veto over those decisions. The Government must be able to act quickly following a disaster. I believe these amendments prioritise both speed and operability while respecting aspects of this policy that cover devolved areas.

For the avoidance of doubt, I add that, as far as the Ministry of Justice is concerned, we have perfectly good relations with the Counsel General for Wales, and we are in regular touch with Welsh Ministers on matters of mutual interest. For myself, I do not anticipate any difficulties arising from the sensible amendments proposed by the Government. Given that the Government have tabled these amendments, and having regard to the points I have just outlined, I hope the noble Baroness will not press her amendment. I shall be moving the amendments in my name in this regard.

Government Amendment 110A is a technical amendment, clarifying the grounds on which the Secretary of State may omit from reports material that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would prejudice an investigation, inquest or inquiry. This is an important amendment to ensure that materials relating to national security or those that might prejudice a subsequent investigation or criminal trial, for example, are protected. In the Government’s view, the amendments preserve the necessary balance between protecting that integrity and giving reassurance that the independent public advocate’s reports will not be unduly affected. It is a sensible precaution to take.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not at this moment in a position to give that confirmation at the Dispatch Box. I will give further thought to it, and write to the noble Lord in due course as to whether the Government are in a position to give that assurance. I see the force of the point.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate. I acknowledge the points that the Minister made on my Amendment 118, about the existing consultation that the Government are doing and the broadness of the amendment. What was contained in the amendment was an aspiration, I suppose.

My noble friend spoke to Amendment 119 and gave the very moving example of Jenni Hicks. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also reminded us of the “Marchioness” disaster in 1989. Here again, the Minister said that the independent pathology review will look at processes. We look forward to what may come out of that, and to the Minister’s answer to my noble friend’s question about whether it will have the force of statute. For now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 118.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, although this has been a relatively short debate, it has been quite comprehensive. All noble Lords have spoken with brevity about these sensitive issues.

I will highlight two points. First, I pick up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, about how any order made by the Crown Court should automatically be reviewed by the family court. That was a useful addition to the amendment, although I suspect my noble friend may be pressing the amendments as they are. Nevertheless, I thought it was an insightful point.

My other point about Amendment 91, on psychologists and people with professional expertise, is that the problems extend beyond experts. In family courts, I see McKenzie friends who clearly have their own agendas, and it is an issue with which one has to deal—but that is a tangent to the main points in these amendments. If my noble friend chooses to press her amendment, we will of course support her.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.

The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his extensive consultation with me and colleagues on my side of the House, and with many other noble Lords who have taken an active interest in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, very adequately set out his amendment. It is not a matter for me, but my understanding is that he is unlikely to push it to a vote. If he were to do so, we would not support it, as I have explained to the noble Lord. Having said that, I acknowledge that there has been wide consultation and the Government are moving their own amendments in this group. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of his amendments.

I will briefly touch on the personal testimony of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about her life as a family judge. I will also touch on what the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said about the meetings he went to with the victims, which I also attended. But I want to say something a little bit different. Of course, it was extremely upsetting, but I have to say that I was absolutely amazed by the resilience of the victims we spoke to and their keenness to help other child victims who still come forward today. I found that extremely admirable.

This is the first group, and we will be moving on to more contentious issues in subsequent groups. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for moving his amendment, and those who have spoken in support of it. In particular, I thank the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her sobering words. I also salute the courage of the children who have participated in discussions about the progress of the Bill. I say to them: you have achieved quite a lot by participating in this discussion.

As I hope to explain to the House, the Government are absolutely clear that victims who are children have particular experiences of criminality that are different from the adult experience. They have different needs from adult victims and they therefore require a different approach. That, as I hope to explain, is fully recognised.

That said, the amendment in itself is not one the Government can support, for the simple reason that children are already included as victims under Part 1 of the Bill. The Government’s view is that that is manifestly clear, as a matter of legal drafting, across the statute book. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has just pointed out, “person” includes “child” and that is beyond argument. That is the customary usage across the whole statute book, and the Government are not persuaded that we need to make an exception in this case.

On the technical matter of legal drafting, as I have just emphasised, children are in a very special position when it comes to the victims’ code. That is why the current code sets out specific provisions for child victims and others who are considered vulnerable or intimidated. Those are known at the moment as enhanced rights. That is also why we have committed—and I therefore recommit the Government—to ensuring that the new victims’ code, which will go out to consultation as soon as we have Royal Assent, fully addresses the needs of child victims in particular. We shall seek views on the proposals regarding children in that public consultation.

I come to the government amendments in this group. In particular, we have listened carefully to the arguments for greater assurances as to the Government’s intentions, which is why we are proposing government Amendment 21, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, which will ensure that the Secretary of State must consider whether different provision is required in the code as a result of the particular needs of children, now defined as those under the age of 18, and those with protected characteristics, when the new code is prepared and during any future revisions to the code. Although this group is about children, I entirely take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, about other vulnerable persons, who are also covered by Amendment 21. That is a perfectly fair point, and one that the Government have well in mind.

The Government are delighted to have worked constructively with the Children’s Commissioner to consider how the victims’ code can better reflect the distinct needs and experiences of child victims. I am pleased that the noble Baroness expressed personally to me the other day her strong support for this amendment and her personal appreciation of the Government’s work in this area.

To move on through the Bill, in addition, Clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to issue guidance for agencies delivering code awareness and compliance duties, which will specifically include guidance on how sensitively and effectively to gather information on children. Clause 13 states that commissioners under the duty to collaborate must consider the specific needs of children when preparing their joint needs assessments and local strategy. Clause 15 requires the same when issuing guidance on support roles. I hope noble Lords might accept that we now have, in the Bill itself and prospectively in the revised code, very full provision for children.

The word “children” is a slightly colloquial term—it can mean a number of things to different people—so, for absolute clarity, we have tabled amendments to change the references to “children” in Clauses 11, 13 and 15 to

“individuals who are under the age of 18”

to make it clear that there is a very clear legal cut-off for the special requirements of children, which is those under the age of 18. Those are Amendments 54, 63 and 74.

Finally, I add also that we have heard the concerns about young victims not always being able to engage with the code or understand the sometimes overcomplicated documents that the Government produce. On behalf of the Government, I commit to developing an accessible version of the new code—a “child-friendly” version, if I may refer to it colloquially—which we also intend to consult on post Royal Assent, as we recognise that we can do more to improve the accessibility of these provisions for children themselves.

All that said, I think I have already explained that the Government do not, for what I must confess is a somewhat technical reason, but a real reason none the less, support the proposal to change the drafting as suggested in Amendment 1. But I hope that I have sufficiently explained the supreme importance of children, and the Government’s recognition of that importance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has pursued this matter doggedly. We have all received emails updating us on the discussions. I too look forward to what the Minister says. We all have our own horror stories of inappropriate translation and interpretation. I am sure that the Minister has from his career, too; it is a feature of life in courts and the wider criminal justice system. Nevertheless, I will listen with anticipation to what the Minister has to say.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, talking of experiences, my abiding memory is of a case in the county court where the interpreter opened the proceedings by telling the judge that he was deaf. Matters deteriorated from there.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, very much for her Amendment 13. The Government recognise that victims must be confident that the criminal justice process will be accessible to them so that they can participate effectively, regardless of their first language. We think that details of the specialist support services are better in the code, but I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her constructive engagement on this issue.

As she is aware, we have been drafting strengthening content for right 1 of the victims’ code, which is the right to understand and be understood, ahead of publicly consulting after this Bill has received Royal Assent. This strengthened wording makes it clear that victims are entitled to access interpreting and translation services from qualified professionals. “Qualified” and “professionals” are the decisive words that the noble Baroness referred to. I hope that I have reassured her that we have heard and considered her arguments carefully and are committed to addressing their intent through the victims’ code. On that basis, I invite her not to press her amendment.

Prison Officer Pension Age

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Monday 26th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Yes, the Government recognise that up to a point. What we are discussing is the right way to get there. The Government are not convinced that this statutory amendment is the right way, but there are other ways of doing it, through our codes and the provisions that we have for the NHS, the police and now the Hillsborough charter—the matters that have been mentioned.

I cannot go into specific detail on the Post Office, because we do not know what has happened, but the duty on a prosecutor to follow the codes that they must follow is a duty on that individual. I will not go any further than to make that comment.

Finally, in the spring, the Government hope to publish their response to a report by the Law Commission on reforming the common-law criminal offence of misconduct in a public office. We have to await that response to see whether it bears on the issues that we are discussing. With those points made, the Government recognise the sensitivity of and differing views on this matter. The Lord Chancellor’s Oral Statement on 6 December said, very explicitly, that we will keep it under review. While legislation alone and the Government’s view cannot ensure a culture of openness, honesty and candour, we do not rule out bringing forward legislation at some future point if we are persuaded that it is needed. The matter is still under reflection, from that point of view.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, summed it up, really: while this is a probing amendment, it is about changing the culture and behaviour of organisations. I was talking to my noble friend Lady Thornton during this debate. She sits on an NHS trust and was saying that a culture is embedded in the way that the NHS practises its procedures now, which has come from it having a duty of candour for the last 10 or 11 years. The Minister made other points about addressing the same issues, so it is not as though one set of responses precludes another, such as the duty of candour.

Of course, I am pleased that the Lord Chancellor has said that he will keep an open mind on this and keep the matter under review. I acknowledge the Minister’s points about creating the independent advocate role, the review of legal aid and individual professional standards, which are being looked at, but none of them precludes also having a duty of candour. That was the point made by all who spoke in support of the amendment. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw Amendment 133.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we also support this group of amendments. I want to reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Bach. You could not have had two more eminent Members of this Committee to table these amendments. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas, are familiar with these types of decisions. I do not think I can add to the weight of the arguments put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett.

The only point I will make is about process. If the Minister says that he wants to think about this—I do not know what he is going to say—then it would be very helpful to know his thoughts before Report. From what I have heard of the argument, it seems that the Government have an uphill battle trying to defend the current position. If the Government are minded to think about this again, we really need to know what that is before Report.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Burnett and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, would mean that parole referrals under the new power in the Bill would be sent to the Divisional Court of the King’s Bench Division, which is part of the High Court, instead of the Upper Tribunal, which is currently used for most cases—although not for national security cases.

Noble Lords know that the Bill introduces a new power to allow the Secretary of State to refer a top-tier case—that is a case where the index offence was murder, rape, causing or allowing the death of a child, or serious terrorism—for a second check by an independent court if the Parole Board has directed release. The question is which court that should be. Noble Lords may recall that at one stage it was suggested—I think by a Select Committee—that it should be the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. The Government consulted the Judicial Office in June 2023. The result of that consultation was that a preference was expressed for the Upper Tribunal to hear those cases. The Upper Tribunal has wide-ranging powers under Section 25 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, facilitated by the Upper Tribunal rules, which essentially gives it the same powers as the High Court. It has experience of hearing oral evidence. The Government’s view, in the light of the consultation with the Judicial Office, was that the Upper Tribunal was the appropriate court.

None the less, the Government feel that it is obviously desirable to sort this issue out in a sensible way and I am very happy to consider it further. I am even happier to say that the Government’s reflections will be shared before Report, so that everybody can consider their position. There should not be any particular controversy on this kind of point; it is a rather specialised point, if I may put it like that.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and spoken to on her behalf by noble Lord, Lord Marks. The Government entirely agree with her that the processes ahead of us and how we are going to manage it should be very fully understood by all actors. I will briefly explain how the Government see things at the moment. First, the procedural elements of the new process may require amendments to the Parole Board rules and the tribunal rules—or the rules of whatever court we determine. That must be scrutinised by Parliament and go through a period of consultation. There will have to be a period of training of judges. We know that the referral process will need to be transparent and speedy. Work is currently in train as to how far this will be operationalised from the point of view, first, of maintaining public confidence and, secondly, on what basis the Secretary of State refers things to the relevant court—to use a neutral phrase for the time being.

Currently, the Government are working through exactly how the relevant tests would be applied. The Government propose to publish their policy on how the legislation will be applied, outlining how cases will be selected for referral and ensuring that prisoners, and importantly victims, are fully informed of who will be in scope. I envisage a transparent and open process by which the details of the new regime are sorted out.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Monday 5th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 36, which is in my noble friend Lord Bach’s name, as well as my own. This is a probing amendment. It does not set out to challenge the Government’s position on delivering their commitment regarding local criminal justice boards, within the scope of the clauses on code compliance. It seeks to set out the benefits of putting LCJBs and police and crime commissioners together.

First, it will drive consistency of approach to code compliance, which can be monitored through LCJBs. Secondly, it will deliver effective collaboration and shared accountability of code compliance and encourage attendance from criminal justice boards. Thirdly, it will ensure that statutory guidance is reflective of the LCJB approach. Fourthly, it will recognise the LCJB role in victims’ code compliance, given the policy intent to place the boards on a statutory footing.

This amendment does not state that LCJBs are the only forum in which to comply with the current regulations. However, LCJBs are important forums that need to be bolstered in order to deliver on the Bill’s ambitions, drive consistency and ensure local shared accountability for code compliance across criminal justice bodies and the elected policing bodies. This amendment will deliver that aim through enshrining them in this Bill.

The Ministry of Justice published guidance for LCJBs in March 2023. This guidance reiterated the commitment to placing LCJBs on a statutory footing:

“In line with recommendations made by the Review, a suitable legislative vehicle is being sought to place LCJBs on a statutory footing and mandate that the PCC act as Chair”.


By giving local criminal justice boards their own place in the legislation, this amendment would remind local partners of their shared accountability for and commitment to supporting victims of crime and to delivering the new responsibilities set out in this Bill. We would also provide PCCs, who chair the majority of these boards, with the levers they need to ensure that the boards are effective and set clear expectations of their members.

Turning to the other amendments in this group, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke to Amendments 30 and 31, and I agree, of course, with the points she made. She spoke very powerfully on the importance of independent scrutiny and transparency, and she proposed a “framework, not a straitjacket”. She believes, as do I, that what she is proposing is a better way of holding agencies to account. She also quoted the noble Lord, Lord Russell, on the Government currently marking their own homework; he wants to deliver a better system through these amendments.

I also want to endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about recognising both domestically related and non-domestically related stalking. I have dealt with stalking matters quite a few times in magistrates’ courts, and even though, from an outsider’s point of view, they can seem less important, I am absolutely convinced that, for the people being stalked, it is an extremely alarming and frightening position to find themselves in. In fact, I dealt with that sort of case very recently. It also reinforces the point in Amendment 51 about the training needed for justice agencies in order to recognise stalking and its importance.

In conclusion, I noted with interest the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, about multiple inspectors and inspections and the need for this to be carefully thought through. They were very fair questions, but I do not think they add up to an argument against. Their points were well made, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answer.

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

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for their contributions to this group. I first apologise for my heavy cold and thank my noble friends Lord Roborough and Lord Howe for stepping into the breach and dealing with subsequent groups today.

The amendments in this group essentially seek stronger compliance mechanisms, credibility, as has been said, more specific obligations on training and a wider role for the Victims’ Commissioner—in other words, we are in the field of awareness and accountability, to use two of my four “A’s”. The Government would not be proceeding with this structure if they did not believe that they were delivering a credible structure. The whole purpose of Clauses 6 to 10, combined with guidance under Clause 11, is very much to improve awareness and compliance. Under Clause 6, criminal justice bodies must promote awareness and review their compliance, and, in particular, under Clause 7 the PCCs for each area must supervise the criminal justice bodies in their area and provide reports for the Secretary of State. That is all combined with the collection and sharing of information about how they are functioning, together with the publication of compliance information under Clause 10.

In that latter regard, I ask noble Lords not to underestimate the importance and strength of shining light in dark corners. We have seen it in other parts of the criminal justice system, such as the family justice system. Once you have the information and it is in the public domain, that is a huge contributor to raising standards generally. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, pointed out, some police forces are doing extremely well; I think Cheshire was the example he gave. So it can be done under the existing system. The question is, how we bring everybody up to the same standard. Clauses 6 to 10, coupled with the duty to collaborate under Clause 12, and the preparation of the strategy and the needs assessment under Clause 13, all involve everybody collaborating, working together, learning from each other and generally arriving at best practice. In the Government’s view, that is a perfectly sensible and entirely efficient and fruitful way to go. So in general terms, at least at this stage, the Government are not persuaded of the need for the further amendments in this group.

I turn for a moment to the rights of individual victims under the statutory code. Without reopening exchanges from the previous occasion, I would like to state categorically on behalf of the Government, at the Dispatch Box, that Clause 5 is not and is not intended to be an ouster of judicial review. The code, its operation and the bodies responsible for this operation are, in the Government’s view, subject to judicial review. From the point of view of the individual victim, that may be something of a technicality but, given the modern prevalence of public interest litigation by groups of various kinds, it is not insignificant that the relevant bodies and the code itself are subject to judicial review.

As for the individual victim, the Government agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that giving victims the right to sue directly in the courts—for example, for damages—is not the best approach. In the case of the individual victim, the route is a complaint to the ombudsman, who may give such redress, including compensation, as it is within their power to give. Noble Lords will note that another improvement in the Bill, in Clause 23, enables the victim complainant to go direct to the ombudsman rather than through one’s MP. That is an important reform.

What are the enforcement mechanisms if this system does not work as envisaged? What are we going to do about it? I shall give noble Lords a little bit of colour from the additional document about compliance oversight, published on the MoJ website last month and referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. At national level, there will be a new cross-criminal justice system governance system, with a programme board and a ministerial taskforce to monitor compliance nationally. The Victims’ Commissioner will be fully involved; we are putting the Victims’ Commissioner at the heart, administratively speaking, of the way in which this is developing—as will the various inspectorates and other important stakeholders.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, said, one weapon with which to address non-compliance will be the use of non-statutory non-compliance notifications similar to those used in the Prison Service to drive change. Also very potent, if I may say so, are the inspections themselves. Clauses 19 to 22 give the relevant powers to the inspectors of constabulary and probation and so forth to have inspections. Another aspect that adds to the powers of the Victims’ Commissioner is to build the commissioner into those structures and to require those bodies, when developing inspections, to fully consult the commissioner. There is also the possibility of joint inspections, which is another tool. So when you need to do something on a targeted basis, in this Bill you have the powers, in the end, to do it. That is the Government’s general position.

I now turn to the specific amendments. Amendment 30, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, seeks to create a duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations minimal thresholds for the code of compliance and to instigate inspections when these are breached in two consecutive years. The Government’s position is that we fully agree that clear indicators are needed to identify severe and persistent non-compliance. However, it is almost certain that what the Government propose to adopt will be a range of indicators, rather than a specific minimum threshold, to consider not just when entitlements are being delivered but how they are received by victims. Those indicators should be decided by the bodies that are responsible for delivering the code, which is why it will be a matter for the ministerial task force. As I have said, the task force will include the inspectorates, the Victims’ Commissioner, and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[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.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

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

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

[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.

Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Well, one of my roles is to be a lot of trouble—although I will not be a lot of trouble in this particular debate.

The noble Lord spoke about the Supreme Court judges talking with passion about judicial pensions. As a lowly magistrate, I have sat in magistrates’ retiring rooms with district judges, and I can say that they talk with equal passion about judicial pensions—I have heard about it for a number of years. A number of them are of course part-time district judges, and the matter is of great importance to them.

The noble Lord said that he approaches this debate with “a sense of closure”. I think that everybody hopes for a sense of closure on this issue, so the first question that I put to the Minister is: are we right to think that this is the last time that we will hear about this issue? It would be interesting to hear his reflection on that.

Previously when I have taken part in these debates, I have had sitting behind me my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is an actuary and an expert on these matters. The particularly interesting question that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised was on how these pension reforms will fit in with the wider objectives for the judiciary as a whole in building diversity and flexibility and other desirable objectives, which will affect pension entitlements, one way or another. If the Minister could say something about this in the wider context, that would also be of interest.

I have a further question about the likely timetable for implementing this remedy. Is it already under way and when might it be complete? A final question is on whether any judges would need independent advice on whether they should accept these proposals. Is it their responsibility to get their own independent advice? I do not know how that works. Is there an expectation that judges should take independent advice before receiving these pensions?

Other than that, we clearly support the measures as far as they go. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those remarks. I respectfully tiptoe in the distinguished shoes of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—let me make it absolutely clear: he was one of the most astounding Ministers in the ministry for many a long year. The Government entirely accept and support the sentiments he expressed that the judiciary should reflect as fully as possible the society it serves. There is still a way to go on that, and we may well touch on it in the debate on the next statutory instrument, where I have some observations to make on that very point.

All I can say from a pensions perspective is that it is important to be able to attract very good people into our judiciary. We increasingly call on them to do very difficult and demanding work. The judicial pension scheme is aimed at being a secure and attractive scheme sufficient to ensure that we attract a competent, robust and diverse judiciary. It is difficult for the Government to go beyond that but, clearly, this has to be a part of the general move to make sure that we have a sufficiently diverse and competent judiciary. As far as that general point is concerned, it is indeed a matter of ongoing concern to the judges that that should be the case, as both noble Lords said.

In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I hope—again—that we will now see the end of these processes and that we have now got it right. As your Lordships will appreciate, it is a fiendishly complicated area. It has been complicated by some quite intense litigation in the background. Judges may well want to take independent advice, but the judiciary has shown no lack of either independence or knowledge about the pension arrangements in the various fora in which that has been debated. It is partly because of the detail into which the Government have had to go that these statutory instruments have been introduced. I understand that the timetable for implementation is in the next few months. It is rolling forward and there should be no further difficulty; we very much hope that the end is in sight.

I hope that I have answered your Lordships’ questions and points. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is quickly refreshing his notes. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has done much better than me, because I could not find anything of interest to say, so I will say nothing.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think I have only one question to deal with, on the transitional arrangements for the 99 persons with whom we are concerned. My understanding—I will write to the noble Lord if my understanding is wrong—is that these persons have already been or are being transferred, so they are subject to an appropriate regulatory structure.

There is an issue in that there is some kind of dispute between CILEX and CILEx Regulation, which regulates it. That is an ongoing matter that will be resolved in due course by the Legal Services Board, or perhaps it will recommend a solution to the Minister. As I understand it, it is not appropriate for the Government to comment at this stage on how that will be sorted out. CILEX wants to be transferred to the Solicitors Regulation Authority, whereas CILEx Regulation is resisting that. It is an unresolved, ongoing dispute that is separate from the issue we are discussing, but the Government’s position is to stand away from it while the regulatory bodies sort it out between themselves. I do not know whether I have managed to approach the noble Lord’s question—

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Removal of Prisoners for Deportation) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 26th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we in the Opposition support this order. It is sensible, and it is one element in a raft of measures recently announced by the Lord Chancellor. It is designed to address the overcrowding crisis in our prisons.

I thank the Minister for his recent letter, which I received yesterday, which stated that, as a result of extending the early removal scheme from 12 months to 18 months, around 300 more foreign national offenders will be brought into the early removal scheme window at any one time, as he explained in his introduction. We look forward to seeing the other measures proposed by the Lord Chancellor being brought forward through new primary and secondary legislation.

However, this crisis was predicted by the National Audit Office, the Justice Committee and the Chief Inspector of Prisons, and I am sure that HMPPS has been well aware of this impending crisis for many years. Though the crisis was predicted, the proposed changes, including this one, were neither planned nor consulted on.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, said, 20,000 new prison places were promised by the Government for the mid-2020s. This target will not be met, and the Government have had to revise their timetable on several occasions. Three proposed new prisons are stuck in the planning system, and there is growing scepticism that the Government will be able to meet their revised timetable.

In some establishments, prisoners are locked up for up to 22 hours a day, and prisons are so understaffed that many of the activities so important to rehabilitation are simply not happening, such as trips to classrooms for education, to the library, or other activities, all of which aid rehabilitation. Of course, for some prisoners, these activities are a condition of their eventual release. The tragedy of the situation is that we are now seeing reoffending rates increasing: 25% of male former prisoners will reoffend within one year of their release.

I turn to today’s order to extend the early removal scheme. After 13 years of Conservative rule, the number of removals of foreign national offenders has dropped by 40%. The Government may point to Covid, but in 2022 the Government were removing around half the number of foreign national offenders that they were pre-Covid.

In the other place, my honourable friend Ms Cadbury quoted a prison governor who warned:

“I expect it will require significant numbers of new Home Office staff for this initiative to be effective”.


We understand that the Home Office already faces problems with staffing. How many additional staff will be needed to put this proposal into effect?

In last week’s Statement and in this statutory instrument’s Explanatory Memorandum, there is no clear information about the estimated costs, including those of any legal challenges to deportations.

An incoming Labour Government would recruit an additional 1,000 Home Office caseworkers to reverse the drop in removals that we have seen since the party opposite came to power in 2010. It would create a returns unit to triage and fast-track the removal of those people with no right to be here.

I do not think I am breaking a confidence when I say that last week I had a brief discussion with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton about last week’s Statement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, fairly pointed out that the Statement was similar to that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he was Lord Chancellor in 2007. While the details of the proposals are different, the overriding objective of creating some headroom in the prison estate is the same. Of course, in 2007 there were about 80,000 prisoners and now there are about 88,000.

The point that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer made is worth repeating. He said that, notwithstanding the temporary benefits of the proposals made by the Statement, overall prison numbers will continue to go up. That is for a variety of reasons, including the lengthening of some prison sentences. I hope the noble Lord thinks it fair for me to recount that brief conversation.

It is in the light of that that I will comment on Sir Bob Neill’s speech in the other place. The gist of it was that, while he supported the Government, he was sceptical about the ever-increasing length of prison sentences. He said that, while prisoners have done wrong and need a degree of punishment, ever-increasing sentences are not the answer. He went on to say:

“We have to use prisons sensibly, and be honest about the fact that a degree of rationing is required”. [Official Report, Commons, 24/10/23; col. 774.]


I think the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was making the same point in his intervention just now. What evidence is there that ever-increasing sentences reduce crime and reoffending? In my experience, Ministers point to public demand for ever-lengthier sentences and not the evidence of their benefit in reducing crime and reoffending.

At yesterday’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee meeting the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, questioned a policy which could be characterised as foreign prisoners potentially getting less time in prison in order to ensure that UK prisoners can continue to be sent to prison. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned other questions that came out of that scrutiny committee meeting, namely which nationalities are most likely to be impacted by this change in the regulations. He suggested it might be Romanian and Albanian prisoners. Of course, we have good relations with both those countries, and I hope the Minister will be able to say that we have well-established lines of communication for discussing that question and the impact of any increased number of removals.

In the light of the concerns raised by the scrutiny committee, can the Minister reassure me that sexual and violent offenders will not be allowed to be freed to their home country up to 18 months early? This may—I think it would—worry the victims of those offenders. They need reassurance, which I hope the Minister can give, that this will not be the case for those particular categories of offenders. I also hope the Minister can also reassure us that this scheme excludes those convicted of terrorist offences.

In conclusion, we in the Opposition support this order. It is, in a sense, an admission of failure by the Government. This is a predicted and avoidable failure. Nevertheless, for this scheme to work, to achieve the extra 300 removals foreseen, it will need to be adequately resourced and have the laser-like focus of the Ministers concerned.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their interventions on the matter of this order. A number of very wide-ranging points have been made. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, for his comments on sentencing more generally, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, and just now by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for their points on where sentencing is going in general terms. It is a very important general question, which the Government are keeping under review and which I am sure public opinion will discuss. But I think today is not the time to go into detailed discussion of sentencing policy.

As far as the prison estate is concerned, we hope that the package of measures that the Lord Chancellor announced the other day, including a presumption against shorter sentences, will over time progressively reduce those pressures. It is fair to point out, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has just mentioned, that every Government for the last 15 years or so has faced these pressures. They have been extremely difficult to deal with, particularly in the recent past because of the sharp increase in remand prisoners and severe difficulties in the planning process—but for which we would be in a very much stronger position. None the less, the Government are keeping the matter under close review.

As regards the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, I hope that, when this league table becomes known, the ministry for which I am responsible manages to keep at the bottom of the table. It is the sort of table one wants to stay at the bottom of, rather than at the top, unlike most league tables. In relation to the specific point made about arrangements with Albania, Romania and other countries, I will, if I may, write to the noble Lord setting out the position, which is affected not only by the early release scheme but by reciprocal prisoner transfer agreements to take each other’s washing in, if I may put it loosely and inappropriately.

Respectfully, as regards the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, my understanding is that those removed are not allowed to come back. There are rearrested if they do, and if they are caught they have to serve the whole of their sentence, so there is a very considerable risk there. In relation to the number of Home Office staff needed, I cannot say. It is a matter for the Home Office how many staff it will need in precise terms. I am assured that it is recruiting the staff it considers necessary, and if I have further information that I am able to supply, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, appropriately. I note the estimate put forward by the Labour Government—if there were ever to be one, which remains a totally hypothetical possibility at this stage.

In relation to prisoners who do not qualify for this, and that the reassurance the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked for, the scheme certainly does not apply to terrorists. I anticipate that it does not apply to serious sexual offenders and violent offenders, whose release under the scheme would not be appropriate. Again, I will confirm the exact position in writing so that I do not misrepresent the position while I am on my feet at the Dispatch Box.

I hope I have covered, albeit very briefly, the wide-ranging points that have been made and I commend the order.

European Court of Human Rights

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 25th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that dialogue is important. We have a very productive dialogue with the European Court of Human Rights. It has touched recently on the important question of Rule 39, and it has been a very constructive dialogue which I hope will continue.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, asked a question about France and how it is seeking to rebalance its relationship. I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord’s answer to my noble friend’s Question. He talked about an up-to-date human rights framework and went on to describe the now rejected Bill of Rights as a rebalancing of rights. Are these hints that we might see some legislation in the forthcoming King’s Speech seeking to rebalance those rights?

Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this draft instrument relates to both transparency and security in our court system. Generally, and for good reason, there is a statutory prohibition on photography and audio recording within court buildings. Photography is prohibited under the Criminal Justice Act 1925, and audio recording is prohibited under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. More recently, Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 permitted certain exceptions—your Lordships will probably have seen sentencing remarks being broadcast recently in the Crown Court and live-streaming by the Court of Appeal, and there are some other examples. This statutory instrument deals with security and transparency, and it is made under those powers, building on the existing exceptions.

There are four aspects to the statutory instrument. The first is CCTV in court buildings, which is in Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the instrument. CCTV clearly plays a most important role in the safety and security of those who work in, or visit, our courts. The instrument ensures that the continued use of CCTV cameras in court precincts—but not courtrooms—is fully authorised and lawful. Indeed, there is currently CCTV in many court precincts. That is thought to be perfectly lawful, but this statutory instrument puts the issue beyond doubt, in case any issue ever arises in that connection.

The second aspect, in Articles 7 to 9 of the statutory instrument, relates to the use of body-worn video by operational staff. This is already common practice outside court buildings, but there is a legal issue as to whether body-worn video cameras can be lawfully worn within court precincts. Of course, such cameras are worn regularly by those who have to deal with potentially dangerous and difficult situations, such as police officers and prisoner escort staff, particularly staff from the prisoner escort and custody services transporting prisoners to and from the court.

There was a pilot scheme in 2017-18 to pilot the use of body-worn video within court precincts. There was a doubt at that time over the legality of the practice, so it was paused and then the pandemic somewhat overtook events. This provision deals not only with prisoner escort and custody staff but with police officers and court and tribunal security staff. Noble Lords will be aware that wearing body-worn cameras is now common practice in the police force, including when officers are authorised to carry Tasers, in which circumstances they are mandated to wear body-worn video. These updated provisions provide for body-worn video to be worn in the court context, but I emphasise that under Article 9 of the instrument, the body-worn video is not switched on unless there is a security alert or an escape.

The third provision is, I hope, an extremely innocent one. It is the practice in adoption cases for a photograph to be taken of the judge, who robes up for the occasion, with the family. Just in case anybody were ever to challenge that practice, this instrument makes it perfectly clear that photographs taken on that occasion are fully authorised, despite the statutory prohibitions on photography in court buildings.

Lastly, the instrument corrects a small omission in the previous order, the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, which authorised circuit judges and certain others, including High Court judges, to have their sentencing remarks filmed and broadcast. What that earlier order did not quite provide for was the situation that occasionally arises in which the judge sitting in the Crown Court is actually a Court of Appeal judge. That was the situation in the lamentable case of Wayne Couzens, who pleaded guilty to murdering Sarah Everard, which was presided over by a Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Fulford. The order amends the earlier instrument to make sure that we have included Court of Appeal judges.

I hope this is relatively straightforward. All stakeholders have been consulted, the Lord Chief Justice has given his assent and I commend the instrument to the House.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to say that we support the statutory instrument and the various changes that the Minister outlined. I will just give a couple of comments and anecdotes. The first concerns CCTV in court precincts. I sat on the case—the only time I sat with the Chief Magistrate, as a winger, a magistrate—of a tribunal judge who had been assaulted in the courtroom. Of course, there was no film of that assault, but there was CCTV of the corridors approaching the courtroom, and from that we could see people going in and out, we heard the evidence and we reached our determination. It turned out that the person we convicted of assaulting the judge questioned the CCTV and was looking for the sources of it. The CCTV was able to be provided and we went ahead and convicted the defendant.

I have another small point on which I cannot resist picking up the Minister. On his third point about adoption cases, it is not just judges who do adoptions; magistrates also do them in family courts, and I have done a number myself. They were very happy occasions, and we took many photographs for the records of the families concerned. Nevertheless, we welcome all the minor changes outlined by the Minister and, on that basis, we accept the SI.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I stand entirely corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to magistrates, whose work I have paid enormous tribute to on previous occasions, and I do so again. We entirely depend on our extremely important lay magistrates and I apologise for the omission, which was correctly drawn to your Lordships’ attention. I comment the instrument to the House.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, if the noble Lord chooses to move to a vote, we will support him. This amendment would build on last year’s Bill, which introduced similar changes to unexplained wealth orders. It is a welcome development, and I hope that the noble Lord presses his amendment to a vote.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately, the Government are not able to accept this amendment, although we are sympathetic to the points made by my noble friend Lord Agnew. The amendment is designed to protect public authorities from having costs awarded against them if they fail to recover the proceeds of economic crime under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

First, the Government are not persuaded that public authorities that lose their case should be protected in this way. Secondly, this is a major breach of the general principle applied in civil litigation in the High Court that the loser pays.

Thirdly, it is a major interference with the discretion of the court on the question of costs. Fourthly, if such a change were to be contemplated, it should be a matter for the Civil Procedure Rules and not something inserted without detailed reflection on Report in your Lordships’ House. Fifthly, it would produce even more inconsistency than allegedly we have already. I do not accept that there is material inconsistency, but you would have one rule for some POCA cases and another rule for other POCA cases, because not all POCA cases are economic crime cases.

However, the Government are prepared actively to consider a consultation to properly consider this matter and the evidence with a view to ensuring that there is a correct balance of justice and the proper consideration of the pros and cons. That, very briefly, is the Government’s position.

I will briefly deal with one or two points. This is not like unexplained wealth orders, which have been mentioned. Those are an investigative procedure and not determinative of civil rights and obligations. In some respects, the UWO procedure is closer to a search warrant than to a recovery of money in civil litigation. It does not provide an analogy to the present case.

It is true that there are various costs regimes in various cases. It is probably not useful to weary your Lordships with particular decisions, but it is not without interest that in the case of Pfizer and Flynn, which involved the Competition and Markets Authority, the authority lost at first instance and was ordered to pay some of the costs. The Court of Appeal overturned that on the basis that it did not want to have the “chilling effect” of public authorities having to pay the costs when they lose litigation. However, the Supreme Court restored the original judgment and said, “This so-called chilling effect is only one factor”. In other words, it is not decisive. You must consider in that jurisdiction all the factors. The Government draw from that case that the so-called chilling effect is not necessarily decisive, and that one must have a regime that enables the court to balance all the relevant effects.

With all respect for the motives behind it and the concerns that have been expressed, this amendment is too blunt an instrument to be a proper exercise of primary legislation in an area which very much calls for balanced consideration under the Civil Procedure Rules. As I said at the outset, the Government are perfectly prepared actively to consider reform of the Civil Procedure Rules with that aim in mind.

I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that this is not an occasion to make an exception to the well-established rule that has stood for hundreds of years, whether it applies to HMRC, the National Crime Agency or the FCA. If they make a complete Horlicks of a case, there is no reason to let them off the costs. That is the Government’s position.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Special Procedures for Community and Suspended Sentence Orders) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 26th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in further answer to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I understand that we will be engaging external contractors to support the evaluation of these proposals. So there will be some element of external verification, but I expect your Lordships’ House—indeed, both Houses—to take a close interest in how we are getting on and to demand explanations and information. I hope that there will be a collaborative approach all the way through.

I will take some of the other points raised; I have already touched on some of them. It is very important that we have evaluations and the same judge, and that we assemble the relevant data. As emphasised by noble Lords, it is particularly important that we take a collaborative approach, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to as the “scaffolding”, in which there is a truly multiagency approach and access to services.

To take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson, this is a holistic operation because we are already engaged in rehabilitation for offenders in prison. We have employment advisers in prison and local employers helping them into jobs. We even have small things such as the Friday release Bill, which enables people to access services before the weekend and further arrangements are in train to make sure that there is accommodation, a bank account, a national insurance number and all those things, and they are beginning to have an effect. That aspect is not underestimated at all. Investment in training is accepted, and we should make sure that those who engage in this kind of work have appropriate training.

As to the concern that was said to have been expressed by probation officers that this is a route to “up-tariffing”—I think that was the expression used—that is not the aim of the exercise at all. One has to be very alert to making sure that nothing of that kind occurs. The law of unintended consequences has the habit of striking when it is least expected, but this is something to keep an eye on. As I said, the rehabilitation of offenders is very much at the forefront of our minds.

My noble friend Lord Jackson marked our paper as “could do better”. I do my best to reassure your Lordships that this is a sure start. As others have said, let us hope it leads to wider things and presents a real opportunity to make a difference. With that, I commend the statutory instrument.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain why two Crown Courts and one magistrates’ court were chosen? The magistrates’ court is for women offenders. Of course, the vast bulk of low-level drug offences are seen in magistrates’ courts, not Crown Courts, so I would be interested to know whether there is an explanation for choosing this particular combination of courts.

Also, the noble and learned Lord just said that there was not an overwhelming response when looking for pilot courts. I suggest that the reason for that is that a number of the courts have been round this course before. In the past, similar types of arrangements have run into the sand for various reasons. I gave my own example of the drug court at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court. I sat on that separate rota and it was discontinued because it could not demonstrate the benefit of that approach.

From what the noble and learned Lord has said, it seems that there is a more holistic approach to gathering data in order to make a proper assessment; that is a very important element of what is being suggested and piloted here. I think that we just need to acknowledge that, in the ranks of court professionals and the professional people who have advised me, there is some scepticism about this. We need to be open-eyed about that because this idea has been tried a number of times and not been fully evaluated. Good luck to it this time but there needs to be a proper approach to form a proper basis for future decisions.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I am able to give the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a comprehensive answer to his first question as to why we did not do more in magistrates’ courts. We certainly wanted, in terms of the Crown Court, to see to what extent we could divert from custody, which tends to be the issue in the Crown Court. That is why two Crown Courts were chosen.

On the magistrates’ court, it was felt that we should give priority to the problem of low-level offending by women. That is an area where it is felt that this approach can make a significant difference. One is working to some extent with the art of the possible and the resources available.

I have more or less finished. The last thing that I want to say was that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly expressed scepticism. This approach has been tried before and the results have been rather depressing. The difference this time will be in the data and the evaluation. We have concrete evidence so we can convince everyone that it is working.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this brief debate. I look forward to discussing this issue further as the pilots evolve and I commend my Motion to the Committee.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for setting out so eloquently and clearly its content and purpose. So clearly has he set out the Bill that I do not think I need repeat what it says, save to say that there are essentially four main aspects in relation to LPAs. It simplifies and digitises the process; it requires identity checks on the donor; it has a better procedure for objection involving, for example, local authorities, the police and other interested parties; and it provides that only the donor can register. I think those are the main points but, thanks to that very clear explanation, your Lordships are already fully seized of the content of the Bill and I will say no more about it.

I add the Government’s thanks to Mr Stephen Metcalfe for his great and persistent work in another place to bring this most important Bill to its present fruition. I hope he will accept our thanks and compliments for that very important work.

It is sometimes forgotten by the general public, I think, that both Houses of Parliament do important, detailed work on very detailed points. It is not a great political circus; we are working hard on matters of detail that affect people’s lives. As has been said, with over 6 million LPAs, increasing at the rate of a million a year, this really does affect people’s lives. For that reason, we are particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others who have spoken in favour of this Bill.

I will deal with a number of the points raised in this debate. First, I stress that, although the process will be primarily electronic and will facilitate access to powers of attorney by other parties when the need arises—for example, a bank—if an attorney needs to activate the LPA, there will also be a paper channel so that those who do not have the internet or are not equipped to operate it can do so. It will be a fully flexible system so that donors, attorneys and others involved will be able to use whichever channel best suits their needs, be that digital or paper.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

If there is a discrepancy between a paper copy and a digital copy, am I right in thinking that it will be up to the court to decide which of the two versions is correct?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as far as I know, the noble Lord is entirely correct in his assumption. If I am, or he is, wrong, I will write accordingly to clarify that point. It will ultimately be for a judicial process—possibly for the Office of the Public Guardian, initially, and then for a judicial process—to determine which of the two conflicting versions is the “authentic” version.

This change, by reducing the laborious and very time-consuming verification of paper documents, will, or should, over time release resources for the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate and pursue cases that look dubious or are attempted frauds, or which raise other difficulties. So we see this as not only benefiting the donors and attorneys but removing burdens on the Office of the Public Guardian and allowing that very responsible organisation to reinvest its resources in enforcement or investigation, or in improving safeguards as necessary. So, for the reasons that have been given, the Government welcome this Bill very sincerely.

I will briefly address the points raised by other noble Lords. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, the Government fully support the work of the Court of Protection, and the judges of that court do magnificent work under very difficult circumstances. Of course, this is part of the wider digitalisation of the civil justice system, which the Government are also supporting and, if I may say so, making quite good progress on under the remarkable leadership of Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, who is very focused on digitalisation and the future of the justice system in that respect. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, we always have to find a balance in these systems between protection of the vulnerable and facilitating the processes. That, I hope, is the balance that has been struck under this Bill.

On the points rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, the Government welcome the mention of health and welfare LPA. That is sometimes forgotten as a part of the machinery, but it is important; one never quite knows when one is going to lose one’s health and welfare, or to need an attorney to look after one from that point of view.

Living wills, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, is under separate legislation and is a separate issue. The point about the wet signature holding everything up and leading to people not knowing quite what the patient’s wishes are is an important one. The Government will certainly note the points that have been made today and continue to reflect on them.

On the points raised by the Law Society about the certificate provider and whether we have sufficient checks in that respect, the department is considering those and in due course will make proposals about the best way of achieving that. There could well be changes to the certificate itself, the forms used and the supporting guidance. I am not sure that legislation will be necessary, but we could tighten up the existing procedures, or at least review carefully whether they are sufficient, and test any potential changes with stakeholders and users to ensure that they achieve the core aims we need to achieve.

Scotland has been mentioned. The Scottish Government have given a legislative consent Motion. The UK Government felt that one was not needed, but at least there is one so that point does not arise.

Concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that powers of attorney granted in Scotland are not always readily recognised in England and Wales. The Government’s view is that that is primarily a question of raising awareness. There is no legal reason why a Scottish power of attorney cannot be recognised in England and Wales, as far as I am aware, so it is primarily a question of raising awareness and making sure that the relevant professionals are more familiar with the status of Scottish powers of attorney than may apparently be the case.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, noted the interest of licensed conveyancers in relation to Clause 2. I can confirm on behalf of the Government that the Bill is not intended to interfere with the previous or indeed ongoing practice of organisations such as the Land Registry accepting copies of powers of attorney from licensed conveyancers. So the licensed conveyancer will send in the documents that are necessary, which may well include a copy of the power of attorney. That is a long-standing practice that has given rise to no difficulty, and nothing in the Bill is intended to change that practice.

There is a second important aspect to the Bill, which is to enable chartered legal executives to certify copies of a power of attorney. That is not only correct in itself but is part of the Government’s general policy of facilitating CILEX members to carry out tasks and functions that other legal professionals, solicitors and barristers can carry out. Only yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will remember, the Grand Committee passed statutory instruments enhancing the number of judicial appointments that CILEX members can aspire to. Together with this provision, that is also part of the Government’s overall policy of widening the pool of qualified lawyers so there is absolute availability of qualified lawyers.

I think I have covered the points that were raised. It only remains for me to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill and to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in particular and other noble Lords who have spoken today.

Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his persistence on this matter. As he said, it is the third iteration of this Bill. I think it has been improved and has, if nothing else, it has prompted the full engagement of the Government on this matter. As we will hear from the Minister, and as far as I am aware, the Government are taking on board the points that the right reverend Prelate is making, but maybe not in the form of this Bill. Nevertheless, that is progress. In a sense, it shows the power of Private Members’ Bills, even when they do not ultimately succeed in themselves, because they are part of a process.

I also urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans to continue his campaign. Gambling is a source of addiction. He has mentioned the 400 suicides each year related to gambling, particularly among young men, and I remember him making that point in previous debates. This is a very important area. The coronial system may be one part of the solution, but I hope to hear from the Minister that there is a wider consideration of how to reduce gambling-related suicides, which are a scourge on our society.

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

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for, again, providing a valuable opportunity for the House to debate this deeply sensitive issue. I also respectfully commend his tireless commitment to highlighting the need for a better understanding of the factors that may contribute to a person’s tragic decision to take their own life and to, in his words, collect “better stats” on this issue in the gambling context. The Government fully recognise the importance of gathering better information on these factors. I thank the right reverend Prelate for the changes that have been brought forward to the Bill, and all noble Lords who have spoken on this hugely important issue.

However, the Government believe that this measure is not quite the right way to tackle these important issues, and I shall briefly explain why. This Bill would require a coroner to record an opinion as to the relevant factors in the case of a death by suicide. That would radically change the nature of the coronial investigation and the nature of an inquest. The scope of a coroner’s inquest is to determine who has died and how, when and where they died. The key issue is how—the issue is not why. It is focused on the physical means of death and whether the verdict should be suicide, accidental death, unlawful killing and so forth. The legislation is quite clear that it does not extend to determining the much deeper issue of why somebody died, which may well be a very mysterious and complicated issue, and could date back to some childhood trauma. For that reason, the Government do not feel it is right to extend the coroner’s jurisdiction in this way. The Bill, as presently drafted, would extend to all inquests, whether gambling-related or not.

We already have, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, a mechanism within the coronial system where, if they think fit, coroners can draw attention to particular circumstances in particular cases—the system known as the “prevention of future death” report. That is an option the coroner can pursue; it is entirely up to them, if they feel there are particular circumstances that they wish to make more widely known so that preventive action can be taken in other cases. It is perfectly clear from past case law, and a recent case in the High Court—Dillon against the assistant coroner for Rutland in north Leicestershire—that this is entirely a matter for the coroner, and their principal duty is to determine who has died and how, when and where they died. It is also true that the investigation of relevant factors could be a very difficult job in an inquest, and possibly quite distressing for family members. For those reasons, the Government are not able to support this Bill.

However, there are a range of initiatives that are being put in place to deliver on the Government’s commitment to understand better the circumstances that lead to self-harm and suicide and to support effective interventions. In relation to gambling addiction, which is of particular significance to the right reverend Prelate, the Government have recently published a comprehensive package of measures and the gambling White Paper, including a statutory levy to fund enhanced research, education and treatment. More generally, the Government have committed, through the NHS, to a long-term plan to expanding and transforming mental health services in England to support local suicide prevention plans and develop suicide bereavement services. The 2021 fifth progress report on the national suicide prevention strategy is now being supplemented by a new national suicide prevention strategy to be announced by the Department of Health and Social Care later this week. There is more I could say about our commitment to taking forward and improving effective surveillance and prevention, but I hope that I have given the House at least some indication of the important the Government attach to this vital issue.

This House is in the course of debating the Online Safety Bill, which was referred to in the debate we have just had and, in that context, there will be a further opportunity to revisit the issues that have been canvassed today in a general sense. I reiterate the Government’s gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for this debate today. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this difficult matter.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, described the Bill as a “nugget of change”; that is a modest thing for him to say.

Although the scope of the Bill is narrow and specific, it will make demonstrable change. There have been attempts to make this change in other, larger Bills in the past, which have fallen by the wayside, so I congratulate him, as a relatively new Member of this House, on getting through this significant addition to the way we manage people who come out of prison. As he said, this is a very vulnerable group of people who are very likely to reoffend, particularly if they are released on a Friday, so every step, however little, matters to try to reduce reoffending. I congratulate the noble Lord.

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

My Lords, I too add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for persevering in taking this Bill through the House and for continuing the good work of the honourable Member for Barrow and Furness, Mr Simon Fell, in the other place.

This is a simple yet effective Bill that will play an important role in supporting the Government’s drive to reduce reoffending and protect the public. It will ensure that custody leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community and turn their backs on a life of crime. The Bill achieves that by enabling the offender’s release date, where it would have fallen on a Friday or the day before a public or bank holiday, to be brought forward by up to two eligible days, so that they will be released earlier in the week. Offenders with resettlement needs will no longer need to try to access these services, under what may well be very challenging circumstances, as the weekend begins and services and support stop or fade away.

The Bill applies to both adults and children sentenced to detention. It will ensure that the relevant release provisions exist and apply in all youth settings, including the recently created secure 16-to-19 schools.

I am very grateful to the Members, Lords and officials who have worked so diligently to bring forward the Bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and his colleagues for their support and encouragement. I am once again very pleased to reiterate the Government’s support, and very much look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.

Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have only one question for the Minister: are there going to be further SIs on this matter? I remember debating previous SIs on the McCloud remedy, if I can put it like that, and the various things that need to be put in place. As the Minister said, it is extremely complicated. I have an expert behind me—my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton—although he is not taking part in this debate. My real question is: are there going to be further SIs on this matter?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am happy to answer the noble Lord’s question in the negative: as far as I know, this is the last SI for the judiciary. The McCloud remedy is still to come in other parts of the public sector. This is the first of the McCloud SIs, I think, and we will gradually work through the public sector. The noble Lord and I have laboured on previous occasions through the detail of this dense matter, but I am happy to say that those particular labours seem to be coming to an end at this point.

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a non-controversial instrument and we, the Opposition, support it. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the priorities, particularly the priority to encourage diversity. He said that about 50% of newly recruited judges are women, and 14% are from ethnic minorities.

I want to drill down a little on that latter figure. My understanding is that the ethnic minorities are not evenly spread: some ethnic minority groups are far worse represented than others. From my perception as a magistrate, black men are about the worst represented in the magistracy, and I suspect that it may well be the same for the judges. It has to be said that we see a larger proportion of black men in our courts as defendants, so this is a concerning situation. It emphasises the importance of encouraging diversity and actively recruiting among certain ethnic minority groups to try to improve that situation.

The Minister made another point about people from non-graduate backgrounds applying for judicial appointments and said that they can work their way through CILEX to become a judge, as he showed. As he knows, I sit as a magistrate, and I remember that when I was first sitting as a magistrate, we still had a few magistrates’ clerks who were non-graduates. I understand that this is still possible, although it is quite unusual these days. Certainly all the legal advisers I have spoken to think it is something that should be kept as a route for people to work their way up through to becoming a legal adviser and then on to becoming a judge if that were possible. I do not know whether the route up through the magistrates’ clerk’s career, if I can put it like that, is something else that would be covered by this or is already covered within these provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to that point. I think it is a good thing to maintain non-graduate routes potentially to the very top as there are in other professions.

It would be useful if the Minister set out what he sees as the next step for further encouraging diversity and widening opportunity. What more does he hope to do in his current role to promote those desirable objectives?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I understand—and I will correct the position in writing if I am wrong—that CILEX members can already be appointed as legal advisers. Speaking for myself, I would certainly support the idea that we should preserve non-graduate routes from the “lowest” position right through to the highest. I think that is essential so that everyone can work their way up without necessarily having to spend enormous sums of money on obtaining very expensive legal qualifications, in some ways, top-heavy legal qualifications, as is currently sometimes the position. The noble Lord’s point on that is very well taken, and the Government must certainly bear it in mind.

As to judicial diversity in general, the judicial diversity forum works on this. There is a programme known as PAGE which supports potential judicial applicants from underrepresented groups. I understand that, by December last year, 667 lawyers had participated in workshops run through that programme. The MoJ is providing considerable amounts of funding and there is in additional £200,000 for 2023 for the targeted outreach programme—TOP—managed by the Judicial Appointment Commission to support diverse candidates towards more senior roles. By December 2022, 229 candidates had had one-to-one advice from a senior team with expert knowledge of the selection process to improve their chances. Forty people who participated in the PAGE programme have subsequently become judges. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that in terms of ethnic minorities the position is somewhat unbalanced and there are fewer black participants than the Government would wish, but it is the case that black PAGE participants who have applied to be judges have been appointed at a rate more than double that of the wider pool of black candidates over the past three years, so there is some evidence of success in this programme, which needs to be fully reinforced.

The Government are very conscious of the situation to which the noble Lord refers and will continue to work on improving that matter, as well as on encouraging female candidates from ethnic minorities. That is another very important element of outreach and is emphasised in the TO programme run by the Judicial Appointments Commission. This is ongoing work and I hope the Government will never take their foot off the pedal in this regard. I commend the order to the Committee.

Miscarriages of Justice

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My noble friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is essential to our system that jurors be properly looked after, and the Government will continue to consider the points raised in her question.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the easiest way for the Government to reduce miscarriages of justice is to reduce the courts’ backlog? One of the biggest sources of injustice is people—potential appellants—simply dropping out of the system because it is slow and complex and there is a long wait. This is within the Government’s powers to invest in; it is a direct way of reducing miscarriages of justice and is for the benefit of both victims and appellants.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, with respect, the Government do not entirely agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there is a connection between miscarriages of justices and delays in the court system. The Government are doing their very best to reduce those delays, which no one wants. They are partly caused by the longer-term overhang of Covid and are particularly and more recently caused by the barristers’ strike. The Government are doing their very best to reduce those backlogs by introducing further judges and adding resources wherever they can.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition support this draft order. Supporting ex-offenders into employment is something that we must all endeavour to be better at, especially given the central role employment can play in preventing future offending. It is vital that our criminal records system does not unnecessarily trap people in the past when they are committed to reform and have stayed out of the offending cycle and rebuilt their career. However, the overriding concern when legislating in this area must always be the protection of the public.

The exemptions included in the 1975 order strike that proportionate balance because those areas of work, such as working with vulnerable individuals or potentially sensitive information, require a high degree of trust. We are satisfied that the proposed extensions to the 1975 order can be introduced while maintaining that vital proportionate balance. Given the culture that we have seen across some of our fire and rescue authorities, and the police, we must ensure that people are properly safeguarded. I am glad that representatives of the fire authorities are here today.

Justice system intermediaries have very high levels of responsibility for the vulnerable individuals they assist, including children, and they sometimes have unsupervised access to them. Notaries also frequently deal with vulnerable people and highly sensitive information, and it is right that individuals who undertake such work are subject to additional DBS scrutiny.

The relevant organisations are producing guidance to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken with regard to the disclosure of criminal records in these additional areas, to ensure that equality and individual privacy are upheld alongside public protection. What plans, if any, do the Government have to review this guidance to ensure that it is indeed proportionate, as the Minister emphasised, and drafted in line with the anticipated need of those professions, as recommended by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee?

Can the Minister share whether the draft order represents the extent of his department’s current intentions to change the criminal records system? Will he also inform us whether he has had any recent meetings with the organisation #FairChecks, or whether the Government have any plans further to reform in relation to its campaign about offences committed in childhood?

When preparing for this short debate, I reflected on my experience with the DBS system. As somebody who has worked all their life in private industry, I have never been checked in the DBS system. I have recruited many people and been recruited, I have been a company director and various other things, and I have never been checked. However, I have been checked by the DBS system as a magistrate and as a coach for my son’s sports clubs to make sure that I am a fit and proper person to carry out that coaching role. However, I have never had to jump that particular hurdle in my working life.

As the Minister said, this is a very live issue when one deals with youths, as I do as a magistrate. It is not unusual for me to have a youth in front of me who says that he aspires to being a football coach. Of course, if you are a football coach you will be coaching youths, which requires the highest level of DBS check. It is not necessarily a bar, but it is the highest level. When I sentence youths, I want to encourage them to go on to fulfil their ambition, if it is to be a football coach. While on the one hand we support these enhanced safeguards, I hope they will not be a bar on people fulfilling their ambitions. The fear is that these enhanced checks will act as a disincentive for people to go ahead and apply for certain types of roles, such as the example I gave.

I hope the Minister can expand a little further on what the Ministry of Justice is seeking to do with a wider review of the whole DBS system, and how it could be thorough on the one hand but on the other proportionate to the aspirations of people who seek to get a job as a firefighter, as in his example, or, as in my example, a youth who wants to be a football coach. The system is very cumbersome. The effect of that is that it discourages people checking and putting their names forward. I hope the Minister can expand a little further on the work the Ministry of Justice is doing to look at the whole criminal records review process.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and for the support he offers to this statutory instrument. I will respond to his two main questions. First, on the guidance, officials from the Ministry of Justice, with the help of officials from the Disclosure and Barring Service, are working closely with representatives from these professions to develop and update their guidance to ensure that it is proportionate and fair. As far as I know, that is an ongoing process and a matter for ongoing review to make sure this scheme works proportionately.

As far as other plans are concerned, as I understand it—having regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and a recent judgment of the Supreme Court—the intention is to remove the disclosure of certain youth cautions, warnings and reprimands from the system altogether so that there is less clutter, if I can use that shorthand, in the system. There is also something called the multiple conviction rule, which I think necessitated disclosure when there was more than a single conviction. This will, I hope, reduce the likelihood of protection of the public unduly interfering with the important objective of rehabilitation; that is the intention, at least.

We have to find a balance. We are doing our best, particularly in the youth area. I am conscious of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about those who aspire to be a football manager and so forth. We really do not want, if we can possibly avoid it, to put obstacles in their way from when they got into trouble at 15, 16 or 17 when they are now 27 and settled down. We do not want the earlier criminal record to be a blight on their lives. We have to strike the right balance.

Work on this is ongoing. My good friend in the other place, the right honourable Edward Argar, is meeting criminal justice charities on 13 June—tomorrow, I think. It may even be today; I have slightly lost track of what day it is at the moment. They will discuss further reform of the criminal records system to see whether we can simplify it and tip it a little more in favour of youth, in particular, to ensure that the rehabilitation objective is properly followed.

That is the most I am able to say this afternoon. I am sure that there are further instalments to come in this important story. Unless noble Lords have any other questions, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Monday 12th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for explaining this really quite complex area. The only thing I was going to ask the Minister was whether he could explain the timeframes within which the appeal must be lodged: seven days for the Upper Tribunal and then 23 days for a further appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Court of Session. Are those timeframes standard in these types of cases? How have they arrived at them?

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, expressed the case very fully and I thought the way the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, summarised it was a fair comment about the accessibility of these processes to people taking part in them.

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

My Lords, Clauses 43 to 51 are an essential part of the scheme of the Bill, just like Clause 54 on legal aid, which we discussed earlier. I think by now your Lordships are very familiar with the scheme of the Bill but, just briefly, for the record, I will try to outline these clauses and answer the questions that have arisen as we go through.

The first thing the Bill does is to render certain claims —protection of human rights and modern slavery claims—non-suspensive so that making them does not delay the removal of an illegal migrant to a safe third country. However, the Bill then provides safeguards for removal in two cases: where there is a serious harm suspensive claim and where there is a factual suspensive claim—there has been a mistake as to whether the conditions are met.

Then the Bill goes on to provide that if the Secretary of State refuses those claims there is then an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. In general, the Government’s position is that that provides proper safeguards. It does not dismiss safeguards—if I may use the phrase just used by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—it strikes a fair balance between expedition and fairness to the migrant. It does not in any way destroy justice because the ultimate decision in relation to the suspensive claims is in the hands of a very respected and senior judicial body and legal aid is available in order to bring those claims.

The basic timetable, to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that there are seven working days from receipt of the notice of removal to bring the claim, subject to the possibility of an extension if that is necessary to secure justice in a particular case. The 23-day period—I think I am right although I will correct myself in writing if I am wrong—is for the Upper Tribunal to take its decision. Those time limits for appeals are specific to this Bill. This is an expedited procedure that provides strict time limits, but in the Government’s view they are fair time limits.

One should make it clear that we have two situations. The first is where the Secretary of State certifies that the claim is clearly unfounded. In that circumstance, the person concerned has to apply for permission to appeal. That is the current approach, as I and the Government understand it, in the asylum and human rights system. It is effectively to weed out unmeritorious appeals as those designed to do no more than frustrate removal. Those cases are decided by the tribunal on the papers. Similarly, if you make a late suspensive claim—a claim out of time—it will be considered only if there are compelling reasons. That is at the level of the Secretary of State but if they consider that there are no compelling reasons, you can go to the tribunal and say, “There are compelling reasons why I was out of time”. Again, that is for the tribunal to decide on the papers.

These provisions are designed to ensure that claims are made at the earliest opportunity and prevent late claims being used to frustrate removal, undermining the overall effectiveness of the claims process. Once a claim has been made to the Secretary of State but not refused, and then to the Upper Tribunal as well, the whole process is suspended until the tribunal has taken a decision, so there is protection during that period.

Clause 47 also deals with another problem that constantly arises in this kind of case, where somebody tries to raise something new at a late stage. Again, there is a procedure for dealing with that: effectively, that the new matter can be considered by the Upper Tribunal only if there have been compelling reasons for it not to have been raised earlier. In relation to late claims, claims out of time and new matters, there are those checks to prevent the system being abused.

Clause 48 then requires the various timeframes to be respected. It places a requirement on the tribunal procedure rules to secure that those timeframes are respected. As I have just said, there are seven working days for the submission of a substantive appeal—I think that is in Clause 48(1)(a)—and a 23 working-day period for the tribunal to decide that substantive appeal. Those timeframes may, as I say, be extended. What we have here is a process that, in the Government’s view, is essentially a fast-track process but none the less a fair and balanced one.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

These very short timescales are no doubt part of the deterrent effect which the Government are seeking to put in place through the Bill. What estimate have the Government made about the workload on the tribunal process? Is it really sustainable to have such short timescales?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have been working closely with the senior judiciary to ensure that we have the relevant judicial manpower and resources to deal with the workload. I am not, as of this moment, in a position to give specific details but one of the reasons for allowing the judges of the First-tier Tribunal to sit in the Upper Tribunal, which gives us a pretty wide pool to draw upon, is that it enables us to draw upon recorders, retired judges and others. The Government are at the moment satisfied from the discussions they have had that there will be sufficient judicial capacity to meet any reasonably foreseeable workload, but that is a perfectly good question and I thank the noble Lord for raising it.

I will come in a moment to the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about judges in general, but I will first deal with government Amendment 115A, which provides for the first set of tribunal rules effectively to be made by the Lord Chancellor rather than, as would normally be the case, by the Tribunal Procedure Committee. That committee normally takes quite a long time to make new rules—maybe 12 months or more—so, since we are working to implement the Bill as soon as practicable, government Amendment 115A provides for the first set of tribunal procedure rules, including these time limits, to be made by the Lord Chancellor so that we have the relevant tribunal procedure rules in place as soon as possible after Royal Assent.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the proposed amendments are to cover the technical situation where somebody who is not necessarily a citizen or a national happens to hold an identity document of that country, and therefore—almost by definition, but certainly by strong presumption—is clearly someone who has a close relationship with that country. Assuming it is a safe country and that there are no other circumstances that might create an exception, that is a place to which they should normally be returned. If, as I think the question is posing, there are real risks in sending that person back to a particular country, the procedures in the Bill kick in. That would be a question of fact in each case.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of the government amendments. I have two questions. First, what would be the status of people who have no passport: stateless people? Of course, there are stateless people in refugee camps. There are, perhaps preponderantly in refugee camps but also elsewhere, people who have no recognised state.

Secondly, it so happens that I was in the West Bank in Palestine last week. Palestinians who live in the West Bank are entitled to a Jordanian passport. They are not entitled to an Israeli passport, but they have an identity document as Palestinians in the West Bank. That is a different category from the category of people who are completely stateless. I am wondering whether the Minister could explain how these two particular examples might be accommodated within these government amendments.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will, if I may, look into the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and give a more precise answer. I think, just as an initial answer, we are essentially dealing with nationals of a country listed in proposed new Section 80AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which is to be added by this Bill. They are EU and EEA countries, together with Albania and Switzerland. It is to those countries that this applies. The provisions I referred to relate to EU countries, EEA countries, Albania and Switzerland, and I do not think that they touch at all on the situation of stateless persons in particular, or those who hold a Jordanian but not an Israeli passport, et cetera.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I do not have that figure with me, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, with it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting and short debate. I query one statistic that the Minister used: he spoke about a 35% increase in sentences between six and 12 months during the six-month period after the introduction of the increased sentencing powers for magistrates’ courts. That seems a high figure. The SLSC report projected an increase of perhaps 500 prisoners over a two-year period because of that increase in sentencing. To me, that sounds a lot less than 35%, but, nevertheless, I take the Minister’s broader point.

In the Minister’s conclusion, he described the Government’s course of action as the lesser of two evils, but there are many more than just two evils. A number of evils leading to the increase in the prison population have been identified in this debate. The whole point of the debate is that we do not know the proportion of those evils which are leading to the increase in the prison population by 4,000. The Minister has not given any extra information so that we can judge whether the course of action taken by the Government has addressed the more serious of the various evils leading to the increase in the prison population. The point of the SLSC report was that the Government used a cruder mechanism when using the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts as a sort of valve for regulating this, when so many other factors are leading to the increase in the prison population. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting debate, and I hope that the Government will look at the data in the round and review this decision again in the coming months. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Nuptial Agreements

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have confidence in the courts to apply the general law, which is that prenups should in general be respected unless it is unfair to do so. That is not far off what the Law Commission recommended in 2014.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, most couples going through a divorce do not have their financial arrangements made by judge. Some reach settlement with the assistance of lawyers, others through mediation and arbitration. Of course, many do not have access to lawyers because of the withdrawal of legal aid. When the holistic review looks at financial provision for divorce, will that include the increase in legal aid for divorcing couples?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I think the answer to that question, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that this is not directly within the Law Commission’s terms of reference, but it is well within the review of civil legal aid upon which the Government are currently embarking.

Jurors: Mental Health Impact

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, lay participation in justice, whether through the jury, the magistracy or, I would add, membership of tribunals, is at the heart of the common-law system and the Government will fully support that participation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, judicial officeholders, their partners and their children are offered helpline support 24/7 for 365 days a year through the Ministry of Justice. There is no equivalent for jurors. Arguably, judicial officeholders are better placed to withstand the pressures of their role because they have the support of their peer group. When jurors leave the court, they are on their own. Does the Minister think that this should change and the Government should offer the same support to jurors as is offered to judicial officeholders?

Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 20th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017. The statutory instrument was approved in the other place on 21 February.

At present, the fee-paid judicial pension scheme provides only for eligible fee-paid judicial service on or after 7 April 2000. The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to provide pension benefits for certain eligible fee-paid service before 7 April 2000. The situation arises as a result of three cases.

The first was O’Brien 1 in 2013, when it was decided that fee-paid judges were workers and therefore eligible for pension benefits that mirrored those of salaried judges under the then judicial pension scheme. That was from 7 April 2000, the date when the relevant EU regulation was transposed into UK law. It led to the 2017 regulations.

In 2018, in O’Brien 2, the European Court of Justice found that eligible fee-paid judicial service prior to 7 April 2000 should also be taken into account for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. If one was already a judge on 7 April 2000, service before that date should count towards the pension.

In 2019, in the Miller case, the UK Supreme Court found that the time limit for fee-paid pension entitlement claims runs from the date on which the judge retired from judicial service rather than the date on which they left the fee-paid office concerned. You had until your ultimate retirement date to make the relevant claim.

Although we now have a new judicial pension scheme, these regulations ensure that the judgments I have just referred to are fully implemented and that the judges concerned get pension benefits in respect of their historical fee-paid judicial service.

The detail of the regulations is, if I may say so, impenetrably complex, as a result of different pension arrangements over the years. There was a different arrangement in force between 1981 and 1995, and then again between 1995 and a later date. These regulations deal with the pre-1995 provisions as well as the post-1995 situation. They make certain changes or additions to eligible offices and provide for a way of dealing with small amounts; one can commute to have a lump-sum payment, if there is just a small pension entitlement; they provide for the purchase of additional benefits; they apply to various techniques for reconciling various amounts outstanding; and they correct certain minor errors. These are very detailed matters indeed, but the essential purpose is to make sure that the pensions to which those judges are entitled are enshrined in the statutory instrument.

There was a consultation in 2020, and the responses received were broadly supportive. Officials have been in close touch with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have been kept apprised of developments, and, as I said, there has been close consultation with the judges affected.

In closing, I will make two points. Questions have been raised as to whether these regulations are affected by the retained EU law Bill currently before Parliament. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law, the regulations provide for already acquired pension rights, and I can confirm that they will not be sunsetted or otherwise adversely affected as a result of that Bill. Assuming that in due course it becomes an Act of Parliament, the relevant rights will be preserved.

Lastly, I point out, in case anyone has ever glanced at my CV, that I have no personal claim under any of these regulations.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the cavalry has just arrived in the form of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is a pensions expert. Unfortunately, he will not say anything on the SI, which I will take as a level of endorsement of it. He is nodding his head—jolly good.

As the Minister said, the SI amends the judicial pensions regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and provide pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2022. It mirrors the pension benefits for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.

As the Minister set out, the SI amends the 2017 regulations, as required by O’Brien 2 litigation. In several ways, it is very complex. The Labour Party supports the SI. In essence, its purpose is to ensure that the work of fee-paid and salaried judges is undertaken and remunerated in the same way, and that that is recognised in their pensions.

I thank the Minister in particular for being very clear about the retained EU law Bill. I was indeed going to ask about that, and he could not have been clearer in saying that the Government will not put any sunset clauses in and will expect to retain all the provisions under this SI after the retained EU law Bill is passed.

I will go no further than that, because the Minister has answered the questions I was going to ask. As I said, the Labour Party is happy to support this statutory instrument.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in those circumstances, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 20th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move. As your Lordships will know, the home detention curfew—or HDC—scheme allows certain prisoners to be released from prison early and kept on an electronically-tagged curfew in their home. The scheme was first established some 20 years ago. The statutory instrument before us extends the permitted maximum HDC by 45 days—around six weeks—from 135 days to 180 days. I will say a little more about the effect of that in a moment.

In parallel with the statutory change, which extends the HDC period, the Government are at the same time introducing non-statutory policy changes to exclude certain kinds of offenders from the scope of HDC. As your Lordships know, in statutory terms, certain offenders are totally excluded from HDC—for example, when they are sentenced to more than four years or are registered sex offenders, terrorists, or others. Other kinds of offenders are presumed unsuitable under the relevant HMPPS policy framework, including, for example, foreign national offenders liable to deportation, those convicted of possession of an offensive weapon, possession of firearms, and so on.

Following the discussions that took place in connection with the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made important contributions, further offences are now being added to the “presumed unsuitable list” to coincide with the coming into force of the statutory instrument on 6 June. These are offences relating, for example, to stalking; harassment; the breach of a non-molestation or similar order; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. In other words, offenders guilty of those offences will be presumed not suitable for HDC, unless the prison governor concerned is persuaded of exceptional circumstances.

In addition, since April 2022, it has been mandatory for information to be gathered from police and children’s services about domestic abuse or safeguarding risks. It is only after that information has been gathered and a full risk assessment made that an offender may be released on HDC. While the HDC period is being extended, these parallel measures protect the public—in particular, from potential abusers.

The net effect of these measures, in parallel, is that fewer offenders are likely to be eligible for HDC, whereas those who are eligible may be on HDC for up to six weeks longer. In practice, the net increase of prisoners out on HDC is expected to be about 300 up from the current figure, which is about 1,850. I should add that, in practice, because of the requirement to serve a minimum of a quarter of any prison sentence, this statutory change affects those serving between 18 months and four years, with those serving between two and four years eligible for the maximum period of 180 days.

In addition to these developments, technology in this area continues to improve. GPS now allows the monitoring of offenders away from home, which also enables certain types of offender, such as those known as acquisitive offenders, to be targeted. If one is wandering away to do some shoplifting, the GPS can follow one, as it were. It also now permits alcohol monitoring, so alcohol monitoring tags have been rolled out across England and Wales. This technology development is supporting the policy.

HDC has been used successfully for 20 years to better manage the transition of eligible offenders from prison back into the community, and the changes I have outlined continue along that path. The other place has just approved the statutory instrument this afternoon, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that introduction, and we support the SI. As the Minister said, the current maximum period that an eligible offender may spend in the community on home detention curfew is 135 days, and this is being increased to 180 days through the order. He gave an example and talked about the improvement in the technology for those who are on HDC. Are all prisoners on home detention curfew on some form of electronic monitoring, or are some deemed to have no monitoring necessary?

The Minister also spoke about the greater use of GPS monitoring, rather than just home curfew monitoring, and alcohol monitoring. Would he care to speculate on what other forms of technological improvement we might see in the next few years? I have been involved, on and off, in giving tags to people on bail, and so on, and I have seen the technology used and abused over the years. It is interesting how the technology has developed and how the courts and prison system is learning to work with it appropriately. I should appreciate it if the Minister would speculate a little on how that might change in future.

The MoJ states that the purpose of running the home detention curfew is to ensure that offenders have a smooth transition back into the community from custody. We agree with that, and we support the scheme as a whole. However, we say that there is limited evidence to support the claim about reoffending statistics. The draft Explanatory Memorandum points to research published in 2011 that shows that offenders released on home detention curfew

“were no more likely to engage in criminal behaviour”.

That is a rather lukewarm endorsement of the policy—even though we do support it. The Ministry has said that it will publish internal evaluations on the expansion of the scheme in 2024. Given the lack of clear supportive evidence for the effectiveness of the scheme, despite the length of time it has been running, will the Government ensure that robust evaluations are made as soon as possible?

Divorce: Financial Provision

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, cohabitation is not envisaged as being within the review we have been talking about today. It does raise important issues and the Government keep them under review.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that the time taken to reach a financial settlement following a divorce is often far greater than that taken for the divorce itself. The noble and learned Lord will also be aware that children often suffer badly from family breakdown and its consequences, particularly when there is an acrimonious and protracted divorce. Legal aid is currently permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is evidence of domestic abuse. Will the Government reconsider the issue of legal aid for matrimonial matters, particularly where one party has insufficient resources to get the necessary advice?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government have commissioned a review of civil legal aid, which includes legal aid in the family courts. The point the noble Lord raises will be included in that review.

Criminal Justice System: Translation and Interpreting Services

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this is not the moment to debate the wider points of the retained EU law Bill. As for the Ministry of Justice, most retained EU law has already been removed. We are left with some 23 pieces of legislation out of 3,700. I am not best placed to describe or consider the wider implications of the Bill, and, with respect, I think that is for another occasion.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is correct in saying that there are 23 identified Ministry of Justice items on the Government’s dashboard, and that was as of 28 February. Is the Minister satisfied that the Ministry of Justice review of the relevant legislation from the ministry’s point of view is complete and that that number of 23 will be the end of the story?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am satisfied, as far as we can ever be satisfied in this exercise, that that is the correct figure. One cannot ever rule out something turning up, but as far as I know that is a correct working hypothesis.

Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity on this issue. Does the Minister agree with me that, while the vast majority of parents and carers will act in the best interests of their loved ones, proper processes still need to be in place to protect the assets of vulnerable people? The Government have said, and the Minister repeated just now, that they intend to improve the processes of going through the Court of Protection—specifically, improving processing times and simplifying court forms. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in this regard?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, yes; I am able to fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We identified two problems. The first was the clunky—if I may use that expression—procedures of the Court of Protection, and the second was a general lack of awareness of the general law under the 2005 Act. On the first, the Court of Protection has in the meantime been digitalised. As from this month, anyone can apply online for the relevant authorisation, known as a “deputyship”. The relevant pilot reduced waiting times from 24 weeks to eight weeks, and the court forms are being worked on at the moment with a view to making them simpler and more user-friendly. So, there is good progress at the level of the Court of Protection. On the second problem, the general awareness of the need to observe the 2005 Act, we are in the process of a cross-government consultation to improve and raise public awareness.

Independent Public Advocate

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is one piece of legislation that I am very glad to see but very sorry, of course, that it had to happen. We have here a response to things going very badly wrong. The three examples mentioned are things that we did not expect to go wrong but did, with horrible consequences. They all have in common that they happened quickly and on one day. I can think of a few other things. My noble friend Lady Brinton, who hoped to be here but has not been able to make it, gave the example of contaminated blood. Would this be caught by any definition as a case where independent public advocacy is required?

I am still not clear on whether one person or a panel is coming through here. That is probably my fault. When will the trigger point to get involved be? Will it be case law? Will it be a judgment? To add to that, my example was the accounting cock-up—I cannot think of any other way to put it, although that is putting it too mildly—with the Post Office system. That is a massive problem that has caused tremendous harm and, it is assumed, loss of life through suicide on numerous occasions. Where the trigger point will be is very important.

My noble friend Lady Brinton was also going to ask how much resource could be called on. It will probably have to vary because there will be differing circumstances and different bodies to call on. How will the Government have the resources to follow it through? Will they set a precedent of what is initially available and where to go, because in all three cases—here and in the two that I have just mentioned—there will be slightly different requirements to do stuff. A fixed panel will not to be able to do it—end of story. There needs to be a greater degree of flexibility than just having a panel. The capacity to call in expertise as one goes through will be needed.

I hope we will have further discussion on this before we get legislation. We will have to know, or we will have yet another long and brutal session in Committee and on Report to get this out. An issue such as this should not have that because we have had all the discussion already. We know what we are trying to get at. If we know that we will be removing a few cases from this which have to go somewhere else, then fair enough. There will have to be a line drawn somewhere, but there will be an argument about what the trigger point is.

My principal point is: what is the trigger point for having the body brought into action? That must be set. If the Government do not know now, can we know the process by which they will decide? The first time that we decide will be incredibly important for what follows. Will resources after that follow the individual case or will they remain in place? Let us ensure that we know exactly what is happening here, because I am afraid that without that, we are getting nowhere.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their comments and interventions. I begin by indicating and reiterating the willingness of the Government to work collaboratively across party with all these measures and to consider possible changes to the scheme that I have briefly outlined. Speaking for myself, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it seems very sensible to have those discussions in early course so that we do not get into a legislative battle when the Bill is already set in stone.

On the specific points raised, and subject to my renewed expression of willingness to discuss this, whether to give agency to the families is a very important point for further discussion. At the moment, it is envisaged that the Government should trigger the appointment or operation of the public advocate in particular circumstances, but the question of what power to give the families to trigger it is for further discussion.

Similarly, the power to establish a Hillsborough-type panel is something that we need to consider in some detail, not least with a view to avoiding duplication. We have had some expertly conducted inquiries—on Grenfell by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and on Manchester Arena by Sir John Saunders. One does not want to duplicate or overconfuse the issue; we need to work out the exact relationship between that kind of statutory inquiry and this kind of operation. Those are matters for further discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of scope. The concept at the moment is that of an event—a specific disaster like the three that we have been talking about: Hillsborough, Manchester and Grenfell. Whether contaminated blood, the Post Office and the NHS-type scandals that we have unfortunately experienced over the years fall within the definition is for further reflection. They are probably not events, as presently constituted, so we need to think about this further. Will this have a roving remit for everything that goes badly wrong somewhere in the system or is it directed specifically at major disasters? At the moment, the Government’s thinking is the latter but, again, I express my willingness to consider this further.

On resources, clearly this will not work unless sufficient resources are available. Exactly how that is done, where they come from and on whose budget they fall are all details that need to be refined.

We have taken a decision in principle. It is now for everyone to work collectively across the parties to sort out the details and make this work, in the interests of the families, whom we will consult fully to make sure that we have filled in the gaps, closed the loops and got a good working system to make sure that Hillsborough never happens again.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he say when we might expect the victims Bill?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am sorry; I hope the victims Bill will be with the House shortly, in this Session.

Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Wednesday 1st March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are well aware of the difficulties of the situation. Our approach to the present problem is that we cannot contemplate the automatic release of many of those prisoners that a resentencing exercise would involve. What we can do is better prepare them for release, especially with regard to mental health problems, and better look after them “in the community” when they are released, so that they are not available for recall. In that way, the Government hope that these figures will be substantially reduced.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his tenacity on this issue, but the reality is that this group of prisoners is becoming ever more difficult to deal with. They have higher rates of mental health problems, self-harming and suicide, and higher recall rates. That is the reality of what the Prison Service is dealing with. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be specialist training for probation officers to deal with those prisoners, and for mental health workers to understand them, to try to reduce the recall rates when they are released?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I can give that assurance. The problem is acute; it gets more difficult as time passes. The need for specialised training and proper attention to these matters is growing. The action plan will include a special supervisory board with specific responsibility for IPP prisoners, with a view to tackling this very difficult problem.

Domestic Abuse: Defence for Victims who Commit an Offence

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 21st February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot give a date for the appointment of the next Victims’ Commissioner but I think it will be made as soon as possible.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that new action needs to be taken to tackle domestic violence, and will he accept the merits of introducing a new domestic violence register to track offenders and help protect victims? It would be similar to the sex offender register and have similar administration, and it would protect women from domestic violence.

Probation Service: Chief Inspector’s Reviews into Serious Further Offences

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way on that point? He said that there would be domestic abuse inquiries, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, mentioned the £5.5 million for them, which was in the Statement. What exactly are the inquiries? Are they checking what I would call “call-outs” and social service records? I am talking not about convictions but about call-outs by the police to domestic situations, which are recorded, and the wider social service records, which are sometimes used in courts in different contexts. Is that the information that he is referring to?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My understanding is that this covers relevant inquiries by the police and children’s services and any history of restraining orders or other similar court action in the past relating to domestic abuse, but I will write to the noble Lord to confirm how far it reaches. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Not quite. The practice in family courts, domestic abuse courts and criminal courts is to get more information than the Minister has just alluded to—namely, call-outs. That is when the police are called to a situation. There may be no action taken, but the record of the call-out is kept and passed to family courts in some circumstances, and sometimes to criminal courts as well. I am just checking that that is the information that will be available to the probation service.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I cannot confirm it at this moment. My understanding is that such information should be available if it is recorded in the police record, and not just if there was a consequence—so if a call-out had occurred, even if there was no further action. I ask the noble Lord to allow me to confirm that to be absolutely sure that I have understood the question and given the correct answer.

Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid: Family and Domestic Abuse) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 23rd January 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too welcome this SI. I declare that I sit as a family magistrate in London and I am currently chairman of the Greater London Family Panel, which means that I represent about 300 family magistrates within Greater London.

A very concentrated amount of expertise has been displayed in this short debate. I have to say my noble friend Lord Bach was really quite shameless in his flattery of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, no doubt trying to get him to go further along the lines of these SIs, because we are, of course, all pushing in the same direction.

My noble friend Lady Drake spoke about the importance of kinship care. She gave the example of public law and private law special guardianship orders and explained how they are playing an ever-greater part in the type of disposals we deal with in family courts. It is very interesting for me, with my magistrate’s hat on, to see how different local authorities access SGOs and how they vary across the country as well as across London. It is good that, in that aspect of the SI, there is some more money available for legal aid support for people going for special guardianship orders.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, who of course has real expertise in this matter, not least because she was a previous chairman of Cafcass, spoke about the importance of early intervention. I know the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, is also very keen on early intervention. It needs to be funded and co-ordinated. I know that both Sir James Munby and the current president, Sir Andrew McFarlane, are very keen to try to divert as many cases—particularly private law cases—away from family court as is practical.

It has to be said that about 80% of the private law cases we see in family court have domestic abuse allegations. If you make that allegation, it is not suitable for mediation and, depending on how serious the allegation is, it can make for a much more protracted court procedure. It is a difficult thing to do, but trying to move the cases is the right direction, if I can put it like that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, also spoke about expanding legal aid for domestic abuse protection orders—of course, we are now in the criminal sphere—and how these types of orders may in some ways replace other types of interventionist orders, in both the family and the criminal courts: non-molestation orders in the family court, and restraining orders in the criminal court. When he gave his examples, he talked about tagging and various interventions for people who are potentially going to be put on domestic abuse prevention orders, but I am not clear whether there is any legal aid for advice for people who are potentially subject to those orders.

I say this because of one case that I dealt with remotely. It was an application for a domestic abuse protection notice, and there was no defence lawyer. The prosecuting lawyer, who was actually a part-time judge, advised that we as a court should put in place a domestic abuse prevention order, with no findings made by the court. As I chaired that session, I felt duty-bound to say to the defendant that, if that were put in place and he were to break it, there would be a criminal conviction. He pointed out to me that, by profession, he was a primary school teacher and the very fact of this order being put in place, with no findings of guilt, was enough for him to have to tell his head teacher. Who knows what would have happened to his career in that light. So that young man needed proper advice, and, in the end, I, as a magistrate, gave him it, not the other lawyer in that case. I am not sure that that was appropriate, and I could see how that scenario could easily have gone wrong if the young man had not received appropriate advice.

Nevertheless, as I said, we welcome this SI, which pushes in the right direction. I look forward to similar SIs in the future.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly thank noble Lords for their various interventions and points. I will take back the last point from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on domestic protection orders and have a look at it. We understand that legal aid is available for advice on domestic abuse protection orders. Whether the gentleman in question would have qualified for legal aid may be another matter, if he was a teacher. There may be an issue here, and I will explore this a little further to make sure that we are covered on that kind of point.

On the wider issue, I hear with interest and sympathy the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, on legal aid for special guardianship orders in public law proceedings, particularly early advice for kinship carers. That will be a feature, among many others, of the review of civil legal aid generally that we are about to embark on. I am afraid that flattery, which is completely undeserved in this context, is one of the things that does not move the Government, particularly the Treasury, in any direction, so, as your Lordships pointed out, we are taking small steps and coming at various issues perhaps somewhat obliquely and in sequence, with a view to tackling problems as best we can as they arise. We will continue to try to address gaps of the kind that the noble Baroness identified. The Government are very happy to have gaps pointed out to them so that consideration can be given to those matters. Clearly, special guardianship is very important; whatever you may think of the pros and cons of the apparent decline in adoption, there is no doubt that special guardianship has assumed a greater importance. We need to reflect that in our underlying structures.

Family law generally is perhaps slightly outside our discussion today, but this Room is so brimming with expertise on the subject, particularly the experience of the noble Lords who sat on the Select Committee we discussed, and of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who is one of the most experienced magistrates in this area one could hope to meet.

We need to address a whole range of interconnected issues: signposting, so that people know early on where they can get help; early advice; how you manage dispute resolution and the best means of it, bearing in mind the committee of this House’s comment that mediation may not always be the best solution, as there may be other possibilities. We need to think of the difficulties facing local authorities and those facing Cafcass. There is a huge mosaic of matters that we need to think about. I am not in a position today to make any promises on behalf of the Government, but I can assure noble Lords that these matters are on the radar and that we will take them forward as best we can and as soon as we can.

National Security Bill

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Committee stage
Wednesday 18th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 115 in this group, where we call for an assessment of the impact of Clauses 87, 88 and 89 to be published before they come into force.

It has been a powerful but relatively short debate. I shall not repeat the points that have been made, mostly by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, with her four grounds for opposing the clauses standing part. I wanted to reinforce the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he said that the gravity of the offence may be low. I can talk directly to that because, as a sitting magistrate, I have dealt with terrorist incidents that involved graffiti. The defendant in the case pleaded guilty to graffiti but, because of the nature of the graffiti, was charged under the Terrorism Act. We went ahead and fined that offender, but it was an offence under the Terrorism Act.

We have been relooking at Clause 87. Would that sort of example of a terrorist conviction be caught under the provisions, and would that individual who pleaded guilty to a terrorism offence of graffiti lose his right to civil legal aid in the decades to come?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I can briefly explain, first, the Government’s view of the principle behind the provision, then come later to the detail of how it operates. In the Government’s view, looking at it as a matter of principle, through their actions individuals who commit acts of terrorism seek to threaten and undermine the very democratic institutions that are at the heart of our democracy in this country. It is right that persons who have committed acts of terrorism against democracy should be subject to a different approach when it comes to granting civil legal aid. The different approach is, in this case, that these provisions do not entirely deprive a “terrorist” of civil legal aid, because exceptional case funding remains available. That is granted in around 75% of the cases in which it is applied for, so we have a safety net there. The practical effect of what is proposed is that those with the relevant terrorist convictions follow a different route from others. In other words, the automaticity of legal aid is somewhat different if you have committed a terrorist offence.

Apart from the question of principle—and that is the principle that the Government are advancing—the questions that have arisen in this debate essentially focus on two issues, or sub-issues. First, have we drawn the definition of terrorist offence too widely, catching very minor incidents, such as the graffiti incident put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, or the relatively minor terrorist offences to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, drew attention? Secondly, are there particular circumstances, of which domestic abuse is one, where there should be some exception to be made, and where it is going too far to have this blanket restriction, and there are obvious cases where there could be a fully justified grant of legal aid on the normal procedure, rather than forcing someone to go for exceptional case funding? On both those points, I shall undertake to reflect and to look at the underlying impact of these provisions—but the general principle is as I have outlined.

Prisons: Chaplaincy Service

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 10th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the Government already support and fund the Welcome Directory. That resource enables prisoners to seek help to resettle safely in the community. Each probation region may commission and fund local services, including community chaplaincy services. The Government will keep these funding arrangements under review, in view of the importance of the rehabilitation of prisoners in the community.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Over a decade’s worth of Conservative government has led to a failing prison system, with failing rehabilitation. To change this, we need an evidence-led, trauma-informed approach to rehabilitation. Prisons now contend with a revolving door of staff, with constant recruitment failing to fill the vacancies across the estate. This is a crisis made by the Government, because of cuts and a lack of investment in the justice system. What will the Minister do to retain experienced staff and recruit new staff?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government can point with some pride to a fall in reoffending rates in recent years and an extensive programme of recruitment for not only prison staff but the probation service. In terms of the discussion today, which is about chaplaincy, we look forward to greater involvement of chaplains in sentencing planning, resettlement planning and the steps taken when prisoners are released to ensure that their release is successful and that they do not reoffend.

Probate: Waiting Times

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I very much apologise to the noble Baroness for that incident. I hope that I have made it clear that this is a priority. We have to sort this out.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, according to the Law Society website, the biggest source of delay in probate applications is waiting for inheritance tax documentation. Can the Minister say what is being done to tie up HMCTS with HMRC to make sure that the proper information goes automatically to the probate service so that it can resolve this issue?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for that question. I am not in a position to answer it, but I will write to him with an answer on the relationship between HMRC and HMCTS.

Lammy Review

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 28th November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I can give my noble friend the assurance that she seeks. Through the community sentence treatment requirements programme we are working with health agencies to improve access to mental health services for those who need them. In particular, liaison and diversion services are funded by the NHS and should now be present in all police custody suites and magistrates’ courts to provide early intervention for vulnerable people, acting as a point of referral and providing a prompt response to concerns raised by police, probation or youth offending teams. I hope that has addressed the question asked.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in answer to the right reverend Prelate, the Minister said that there had been progress regarding disproportionality. He went on to give the noble Lord, Lord Marks, an example of trying to get a better balance of judges and magistrates. I might characterise those as inputs, but what about the outputs? What about disproportionality in stop and search, in charging, and in ethnic minorities in prison places? What progress has been made on that front?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, stop and search is a matter primarily for the Home Office and the police, but I know that there is special training for police services in relation to this, including better use of body-worn cameras and other action taken to ensure that stop and search is less of a problem than it has been hitherto. In relation to charging, the Lammy report found no discrimination by the CPS in charging decisions, but there is ongoing academic work to establish exactly what the position is as far as the CPS is concerned.

As far as other matters are concerned, this is very much a matter of trust in the system between the ethnic minority and those who are dealing with that person. One of the things in train in the police station is a trial of an opt-in system when legal advice is available. As noble Lords know, free legal advice is available to everyone in the police station. The take-up by ethnic minorities is not very great, because it has to be asked for, but if it is given automatically and the person has to opt out of it, that could make quite a difference in building trust. That is an important initiative currently in train that I hope will bear fruit in due course.

Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

As I said, the Government’s view is that, despite the intractability of the problem, public protection must come first. That is the position we have taken over the years. Without at all prejudging the Government’s position, I shall say a word about the suggested resentencing exercise. The only reason these offenders are detained is the Parole Board’s decision that they are unsafe to be released. That is the situation with which we are faced. If we talk about resentencing in that context, many of the prisoners have already exceeded their original tariff. I simply ask your Lordships to reflect that to resentence for the actual offence may not be a particularly fruitful exercise, because the tariff has already expired. Is it that what we are really considering is a reassessment of the risk to public safety? That is an assessment that the Parole Board is already carrying out. So where does all that take one? I simply leave that question rhetorically for your Lordships.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it is certainly true that this is a difficult issue and it is difficult for the Government to manage the risk of IPP prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Minister talked about extra resources for the probation service. I should like to press him a little on that. Does he accept that with the high recall rates of IPP prisoners out on licence, there should be special training for probation officers dealing with these former prisoners out on licence to prevent them either reoffending or breaking their licence conditions?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very similar and powerful point in the recent debate on the probation services and the support they can give these prisoners in the community. The Government will look very closely at that, as they will all the issues raised in the report.

Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion, which I support. She made a powerful case. I will not repeat the points she made but, in opening, I put six questions to the Minister.

First, why was removing probation recommendations not included in the root and branch review and why was there no prior consultation with all the stakeholders before the changes were implemented? Secondly, on the removal of probation recommendations, what impact assessments have been carried out regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP prisoners?

Thirdly, the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Therefore, what impact assessment has been carried out on this issue, and did the Government seek the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?

Fourthly, under the changes, what protections are in place for probation staff who are required to attend a public parole hearing? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness that these hearings should be public, but the question is specifically about the protection of parole officers—and, potentially, expert witnesses—when they are taking part in these hearings.

Fifthly, how many responses were there to the root-and-branch review, and how many of those were in favour of the public parole hearings? I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether anyone at all supported the Government’s proposals.

Sixthly, will the Government withdraw these changes if the judicial review finds against them?

In July’s Justice Questions in the other place, Kate Green MP challenged Dominic Raab on the proposed changes. He argued that

“there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/22; col. 711.]

Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, added in September’s committee session that differing recommendations would seem

“quite confusing, given that we are one HMPPS”,

and that the new change

“kind of tidies”

that up. That was the justification.

I must say that I find that explanation very surprising. I am absolutely sure that Parole Board members are well used to assessing conflicting sources of information; it is what people who sit as judges, or in a quasi-judicial capacity, do all the time. In other contexts, such as criminal courts or family courts, it is absolutely routine to get recommendations from probation officers—or in the context of family courts, recommendations from experts—which can indeed be contradictory. That is what the judges or magistrates do when they decide the merits of a case.

I hope that the Minister, who is exceptionally experienced, will bring an open mind to this situation. There have been a lot of changes on the Government and Treasury Benches over the last few months—or days. He is in a position where he can bring an open mind to this, and I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness’s regret Motion in that spirit.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion.

The principal concern is that the recent changes to the Parole Board Rules prevent prison and probation staff making specific recommendations in the reports that they give the Parole Board. It is said that this has implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to parole review, and complaint is made that this was done through the negative procedure without consultation. What we are not considering today are other changes, such as changes relating to the move from closed to open prisons, which are, strictly speaking, not the subject of today’s regret Motion.

I will provide some background. The Parole Board of England and Wales is an arm’s-length body which, as has been pointed out, performs a judicial, or at least quasi-judicial, function. It is required by statute to decide whether prisoners serving eligible sentences can be safely released into the community—that is the board’s decision. The statutory test requires that the board must direct release if it is

“satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Is it still open for any expert to give a recommendation if they so choose?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My understanding is that they are not to make recommendations. They can make their risk assessments and say whether there is a valid release plan; they can do all of those things. They can say this man or woman poses no risk to the public, or does pose a risk, or whatever it is, but they cannot express an opinion on the very question that the Parole Board is required to answer: whether the prisoner should be released. This is essentially a change that brings the decision on release back to where it belongs: the Parole Board, not the expert.

European Court of Human Rights

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 5th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

We remain a leading force for human rights in the Council of Europe; I will give two examples in response to my noble friend’s question. We are supporting the development of a binding convention to protect the profession of lawyer and the right to practise the profession without prejudice or restraint, and we advocated among other member states for greater awareness of the convention rights among all state parties. This led to a new recommendation in September 2021 on the dissemination of the convention and other relevant texts. In addition, we will shortly participate in the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights, which will start a review of the system for the selection and election of judges to that court.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, on 14 July in response to the Human Rights Act debate tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Minister said he had plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly to narrow the differences between the UK Government and those legislatures. Has he had those meetings, and how did they go in terms of narrowing the differences?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the position is that those meetings have not yet taken place. It proved quite difficult to arrange them in the Recess and in the light of the impending change of government. I am due to see the Welsh Government on the 19th of this month, and provisional dates for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been arranged for before the end of September.

Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 19th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we support these provisions. They will replace and extend the temporary emergency provisions included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which allow for certain proceedings to be observed remotely and recorded. We believe in the principle of open justice and think this goes a step towards that and should be welcomed for that reason. However, we are aware that sometimes legal proceedings are very sensitive and painful, and attending a court or tribunal can be a difficult experience for people. For that reason, decisions regarding which types of proceedings should be broadcast or available to different people to observe should not be taken lightly. I am very aware that different jurisdictions will have different considerations in that respect.

Just for the record, I sit as a magistrate in the family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I sat all the way through the coronavirus pandemic. I started off in the family jurisdiction doing court hearings by BT MeetMe and we graduated to MS Teams. We were making extremely difficult decisions which we felt we had no alternative but to make because of the circumstances which we found ourselves working in as a court.

Of course I agree with the objectives behind this statutory instrument, but I wanted to make one substantive point on the level of technology in these courts. It is highly variable between jurisdictions. When one is dealing with litigants in person, it is not unusual for them to be trying to do things on their mobile phones. Sometimes they have poor signal and all sorts of handicaps if they are trying to take part in court proceedings remotely. In my experience, when a court is 100% remote —that is, everybody is remote—it can be made to work. However, it is more difficult when it is hybrid—when some parties are in the room and others are not. Whether it is fair to go ahead with a hearing is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in my experience, hybrid hearings in various jurisdictions can be detrimental to people who are not physically in the room, and the court needs to be aware of that when it is deciding whether to go ahead with a case. Nevertheless, having said that, we welcome this statutory instrument and we will be happy to support it when it is put to a vote.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, thank you. On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am not sure that I have an answer off the cuff that I am able to give, and I entirely understand the point he makes as to the difference between “must” and “may” or similar expressions. I think the presumption, which I do not have the confidence to reproduce in Latin but which is to the general effect that everything is presumed to be regular unless the contrary is shown, would kick in here, and it would be a matter for the Lord Chief Justice to decide whether some further guidance is made necessary. I hope that those two points will at least accommodate the observation of the noble and learned Lord. However, the overall point is understood.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Monday 18th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Her Majesty’s Government, with respect, are not pushing ahead with any reckless decision. The policy of the Government is to remain within the convention on human rights; speculation to the contrary is quite unfounded.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been asked this Question many times and has said that it is the Government’s policy to remain inside the ECHR. However, scepticism and questions persist because a senior government Minister, the Attorney-General, has a number of times over the last week said that she wants to withdraw from the ECHR. What conversations has the Minister had with the Attorney-General in the last few days to resolve this?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I have had no conversations with the Attorney-General, and what the Attorney-General says or may have said in her capacity as a leadership contender is neither here nor there—as an unsuccessful leadership contender, I hasten to add. We need to get this straight. Unless we can define the boundaries of the debate we are about to have, we will be in a very unsatisfactory place. We are talking about the mechanisms of the convention—we are not talking about whether we should be in the convention or not. I remind the House that the UK has the best record of all member states within the convention; we are a party to, I think, seven United Nations conventions on human rights; we are very active in the Council of Europe in a number of respects; we fully support the ICC in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and there is no question of this fine tradition being mitigated, let alone abandoned.

Rape: Criminal Prosecutions

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Tuesday 28th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to the Question in the other place. This is a deeply serious subject. The situation in our Crown Courts is dire. Home Office figures show that just 1.3% of the 67,125 rape offences recorded by the police in 2021 led to a prosecution. The Statement pointed to a small improvement in the figures, and I acknowledge that improvement. However, those improvements are starting from a tragically low base. In the vast majority of cases the police do not refer the case to the CPS because they see witnesses as unreliable through drink, drugs or mental capacity.

I and the Government believe that the proper training of police officers can improve this situation. I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, does he believe that there should be specialist rape units in all police forces? Secondly, does he believe that the number of specialist trained police officers should be publicised and publicly available?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that the question of improved training for the police has an important role to play in dealing with the situation that we are faced with. We are undertaking, in effect, a multitrack approach, which I think has three main aspects: restoring victims’ trust in the system; improving investigations—that is where police training comes in very directly; and improving the procedures in the police, the CPS and the courts. With those three aspects, including increased training for the police, I venture to hope that we shall recover from the present situation.

European Convention on Human Rights

Debate between Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Bellamy

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, respectfully, I do not accept the characterisation put forward by the noble Lord. The approach in this Bill is balanced, as I have just explained, and is described in this morning’s Times as a “constructive and sound” approach—a phrase that I would readily adopt. I fully accept that the great tradition of this country by great lawyers such as David Maxwell Fyfe should, and does, continue. The UK is one of the most active members of the Council of Europe. We have not only promoted the Brighton declaration I referred to a moment ago, which finally came into force last October, but we have recently been party to a further recommendation on better dissemination of human rights information across the Council of Europe and to a declaration to revitalise Articles 5 and 6 on liberty and the right to a fair trial. We have taken a lead in dealing with the situation regarding Russia and on generally improving the mechanics of the court. That leading role will continue.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble and learned Lord to the Dispatch Box. When the Human Rights Act was incorporated into the ECHR in 1998, I was a delegate to the Council of Europe. I remember many speeches in this Chamber and in the Strasbourg assembly about the importance of that incorporation process. Many of the speeches were directed to our new eastern European friends about the importance of the ECHR. My noble friend’s Question is about the impact of this proposed legislation in Europe. Does the Minister believe that the Bill of Rights Bill introduced yesterday will enhance or detract from compliance with the convention in Europe?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his welcome. The Government believe that, when we have cleared away the fog surrounding this Bill, and fully understood it and together analysed it in detail, it will be seen to be a reinforcement of human rights. It will not detract from the framework of human rights or have any adverse effect on our friends and allies in eastern Europe and other members of the Council of Europe.