Prisons: Staff Safety

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is of course right that the challenges are not entirely new and that the logistics of ensuring that prisoners are taken to courses and to facilities where they can obtain education will always be a challenge, particularly with a large prison population. There was a report by Dame Sally Coates into the education of prisoners. That they should be given education is clearly very much at the heart of the advantage we believe can be obtained by rehabilitation, and it will be up to prison governors in a particular prison to ensure that this happens. They will be judged by the delivery of this education. By giving greater autonomy to prison governors it will be much less easy for them simply to say, “This is all too difficult”.

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, is my noble friend satisfied—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, we should move on to the next Statement.

Criminal Cases Review Commission (Information) Bill

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Friday 26th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I have no particular views as to the merits of the Bill itself, although it sounds admirable to me, and I hope and believe that it will soon reach the statute book, which would be a good thing. However, I would just ask my noble friend whether he has any news about the case of Sergeant Blackman, which is currently before the Criminal Cases Review Commission but seems to have been stuck there for some time. Sergeant Blackman was a Royal Marine serving in Afghanistan who was charged and convicted of certain offences relating to his service in that place. His case, as I say, has gone before the Criminal Cases Review Commission—rightly so, in my view—but appears to have got stuck. Does my noble friend have any news on that particular matter?

Prison Reform

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I start by confessing that my experience of prisons is pretty limited. I was briefly responsible—for a couple of years—for the Army detention centre at Colchester, but most of my relevant experience was under the direction of my noble friend Lord Fowler, to whom, naturally, I add my thanks for this debate. While I served as a junior Minister in the DHSS under his guidance, special hospitals were part of my responsibility and I remember visiting them on a number of occasions, including, if I may say so to my noble friend Lord Forsyth, one in Scotland at a place called Carstairs, which was also a special hospital at that time.

I will focus on a particular issue, namely the way in which we treat older prisoners. By that I mean those of, say, 80 years of age or more, although there is room for more than one view as to what the precise age should be. For example, I understand that in Italy nobody goes to prison over the age of 70 years, and I dare say there are similar age limits in other European countries.

My interest in this matter was roused by a case before one of the county courts, as I recall, about a year ago now, when a man in his late 80s was ostensibly convicted of leaving his shotgun in public view on the back seat of his car and was sentenced to a term in prison. I say “ostensibly convicted” because it turned out that the judge had got both the sentence and the law wrong, and the prisoner was, correctly, released very quickly. We are sometimes told that we ought not to criticise the judiciary. I do not do so on this occasion, because there may have been considerations of which I am unaware, which did not seem obvious from the reports that I read.

In June last year, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Mr Nigel Newcomen, delivered an important address on this matter. He of course draws on extensive knowledge and experience. Apparently, those aged over 60 are now the fastest growing segment of the prison population. The recent flurry of prosecutions for historic sex offences is no doubt one of the causes, but longer sentences also contribute. Thus it is, presumably, that increasing numbers of prisoners die from natural causes while in prison. Mr Newcomen refers to a number of cases in his lecture. He refers, for example, to one prisoner in his 94th year, who was removed from a care home to serve his first prison sentence for a historic sex offence and died a few weeks later after falling out of bed in his cell. In his lecture Mr Newcomen makes four recommendations for improving the arrangements for so-called geriatric prisoners. The Minister will no doubt be familiar with them; I should be glad to know which of them are now being implemented.

I am also concerned about the excessive use of restraints on older prisoners who in reality present little or no risk of escape. I have seen reference to one particularly shameful case where an elderly man in the last hours of life was eventually allowed to go to hospital and his restraint was finally removed only after he had died. That case was also referred to by Mr Newcomen. Can the Minister also say what arrangements are available for prisoners with serious medical problems; for example, double incontinence? Again, there are some quite shocking cases of the prison authorities simply ignoring these problems, which is quite unacceptable.

I also draw the Minister’s attention to a recent letter in a publication called Inside Time, which I understand circulates among the prison population, which relates to the treatment of an 83 year-old prisoner who had serious medical problems. Another prisoner was appointed to look after him, which raised serious question about access to his medication and other related matters. If the account set out in that particular published letter is accurate, we will need better and fuller particulars and an explanation.

Our present policy in respect of older prisoners is wholly unsatisfactory. Prisons, almost by definition, are designed to hold younger, comparatively fit people, and if there are no proper arrangements for holding much older prisoners, they should be released on licence or some other solution found. No doubt there are one or two who, given the gravity and may be comparative recency of their offence, need to be kept inside, but that does not apply to the majority.

Before I sit down, I will refer to a slightly different matter, namely the arrangements for the imprisonment of younger women who may have small children. There are now some improved sentencing guidelines on this matter, which I hope the Minister will be able to refer to and confirm. We are a civilised and compassionate nation, and our present policies should reflect those qualities.

Inquiries Act 2005 (Select Committee Report)

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne (Con)]

My Lords, I had the privilege of being a member of the committee which the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, chaired and I pay tribute to him for his chairmanship and, above all, for his patience, not only with the members, who, no doubt, irritated him from time to time, but, of course, with the response from government departments, which, while not malevolent, was lethargic to say the least. It was disappointing that it was not possible to get more positive observations from the Government, as my noble friend has described. I, too, am looking forward to the valedictory speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby. I am jolly sorry that he has decided to leave the House. I have known him for as many years as he has been here, I think, and will miss him, as we all will, very much.

I agreed with virtually all of the committee’s report and all the conclusions which my noble friend described, but if noble Lords look at paragraph 234, they will see that there is reference to one member of the committee who disagreed on one matter. That one member was me and I shall tell noble Lords where my concerns arose. It related to the representation of witnesses by counsel when they appear before a public inquiry. I spoke from a little experience. I was one of the witnesses before the Scott inquiry, 20-odd years ago now, chaired by the then Sir Richard Scott, who is now, of course, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. That inquiry had a counsel for the inquiry called Presiley Baxendale, who became pretty famous in her time, and who adopted a very confrontational attitude with the witnesses. She was, of course, trying to get the best information she could for the benefit of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, or Sir Richard as he was then, in reaching his conclusions, but she did choose to be very aggressive.

I was, I think, the only witness before that inquiry who was represented by counsel. Most of the witnesses were still civil servants or serving Ministers. I had just left the Government at the time and actually said that I would not appear unless I was represented by counsel because that inquiry did not have the power to summon witnesses by order, so to speak. I was represented by the then Sir Patrick Neill, who is now of course the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen. In fact, I was treated entirely courteously and I hope that my evidence was of some benefit to Sir Richard, as he then was, in reaching his conclusions.

However, some of the witnesses before the Scott inquiry were scarred, as my noble friend has described, by the examination and cross-examination to which they were subjected by Presiley Baxendale. That, I think, is regrettable. By scarring witnesses and treating them in that way, you do not get better evidence. The witnesses are not there to be tried for some offence; they are there to give the best information they can. I believe that Ms Baxendale did not serve the inquiry well by treating some of the witnesses as she did, and who turned out to be permanently scarred. At least one or two of them retired from their work shortly afterwards and, frankly, that was not satisfactory. I must say to the noble and learned Lord, who is sitting in his place, that he should have intervened to stop some of that, and I and the rest of us regret very much that he did not. I believe firmly that that did not improve the evidence he was given and is very much to be regretted.

That is really the main point I want to make. I think that witnesses who are compelled to appear before a public inquiry ought to be entitled to have counsel that is paid for by the inquiry, if they so wish. That would enable them to be protected in a way that some witnesses on other occasions have not been protected, and I hope that it can be further considered on some future occasion.

The inquiry we are now discussing, chaired by my noble friend Lord Shutt, did a good job. I was proud and pleased to be a member of the committee. We were well chaired by the noble Lord, if I may say so, and well served by the officials, led by Michael Collon, who also attended upon us. I am grateful to them for that, and I support the report which has been submitted for your Lordships’ consideration today.

House of Lords: Reform

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, let me say at once that I acknowledge how complex a task it must have been to put this Bill together. Unlike some, I think that it was brave and constructive to produce it so that we can have something concrete to argue around.

I start with some clarifications. Nothing that I am about to say should be taken as a disparagement of Members in the other place. There has been an undertone of that in some of the contributions. The vast majority of them are decent, intelligent and conscientious Members of Parliament who are trying to do their best for the public realm.

Secondly, although I oppose elections to this House, I accept the need for reforms as many others have done. Many have mentioned the Steel Bill, as do I. Thirdly, we must accept that the onus is on those on my side of the argument—the non-elected side—to justify the non-elected status quo, which is almost unique in the democratic world and against the spirit of the times.

Further—I do not know whether this has been mentioned—we stand in particularly intense conflict of interest on the Bill, because the majority of us will be booted out if it goes through. We have to try extremely hard to be objective and see ourselves as others see us. At times, we can be apt to be a trifle too self-congratulatory.

I want to talk a little about a referendum. Some have mentioned it; I heard the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, praise it yesterday. Partly because of the conflict in which we stand, I believe strongly that this should be put to the people of this country in a referendum, although I am very chary of referenda. Let us not forget that it was in the Labour manifesto that there should be a referendum. Some will say that a referendum is superfluous because all three parties had it in their manifestos at the election that this place should be elected. That is a spurious argument. It was far from being a mainstream issue. Only zealots plough through modern manifestos.

I also note that in the European Union Bill, which my Government are in the process of legislating, they propose referenda for 50-plus Community arrangements. One will require a referendum if there is any change to either the right of election or the right to stand in any European election. How can it conceivably be right for us to impose a referendum under those circumstances while denying a referendum under these much more direct and plangent circumstances?

I do not believe that this is our Parliament. It belongs to the public. We are not just changing this House in the course of the Bill; we are uprooting it. I cannot for the life of me see how my Government, who claim deficiency of democratic authority as the reason for the Bill, can then ignore that democratic requirement. It would surely be aping the deficiency that they level at us to push through reform without it.

I devote the remainder of my time to the potential impact on the quality and character of this House if elections go ahead. First, who will want to stand for elections to this House? Given that it will have seriously inferior powers, what ambitious man or woman wanting a full-time career in politics will make this their first choice? Furthermore, that second-rateness will be wantonly rubbed in their faces if paragraph 111 of the White Paper is followed into legislation. It states that,

“the level of salary for a member of the reformed House of Lords should be lower than that of a member of the House of Commons”.

What on earth can that mean in terms of status or the authority of this place? We will be so inferior that we cannot even get the same rate as the people down the road.

The idea that someone might start here as a means of climbing to the elevated House of Commons is scotched, first, by the 15-year term and, secondly, by a ban on going straight from this place to the other place—there has to be a five-year break. It is not as if we will work less assiduously. The constituencies will consist of about 450,000 and does anyone suggest that that will not yield a massive amount of work? Of course it will. We will have less than half the number in the reformed House to deal with the plethora of legislation and policy than the other place will have. What sense is there in that? There will be less power, less pay, more work and no title. Who really believes that ambitious politicians will come to this place?

[Lord Trefgarne]

Will the noble Lord take a little care in denigrating the potential candidates for an elected Chamber? I am thinking of being one myself and I would have no plans to go on to the House of Commons.

Prisoners: Voting

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that is a trick question because it assumes that a decision has been made about the vote being granted to prisoners. I have said that the Government have been actively considering the issue over the summer. It is only five months—not five years—since this Government came into office. We are looking at the situation and will make a report to the European Council of Ministers, as we promised over the summer, at its meeting on 30 November.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, is it not the case that there is room for more than one respectable view on this matter? Is it not further the case that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and, presumably, the judges of the European court, very few people are in favour of this proposal? Will the Minister be guided accordingly?

[Lord McNally]

I agree with my noble friend that there are people who believe passionately that the removal of the vote is a proper sanction for someone who has committed a crime that justifies a prison sentence. There are also people—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is one—who see the granting of the vote to a certain category of prisoner as being a useful way of rehabilitating them into society. Both views are perfectly respectable. The Government are considering both views and will make their decision in due course.

Supreme Court: Retirement Age

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I hear what the noble and learned Lord says. As he knows, there are ongoing arguments for making maximum use of the undoubted talent in the Supreme Court—his point—and about what others rather inelegantly call “bed blockers”. How to bring forward and rejuvenate the Supreme Court must also be fed into this debate.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, never mind extending the tenure of Supreme Court judges to the age of 75 —is there any provision for shortening their tenure if they prove not to be up to the job?

[Lord McNally]

One thing that the Lord Chancellor told me when I joined him in the Ministry of Justice is that the politicians and the judiciary kept well apart. I intend to follow that advice.

General Election: Voting Deadline

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Wednesday 7th July 2010 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Trefgarne]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the number of citizens denied the opportunity to vote at the general election on 6 May because of the 10 pm deadline or other administrative difficulties; and what steps they propose to take to prevent those problems in future.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I have to declare an interest: I preside over certain premises in Surrey which hosted one of the voting stations at the last general election.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Electoral Commission’s report of 20 May suggested that just over 1,200 people were affected by problems with queues at the close of poll on 6 May. We are considering the report carefully and will take any appropriate steps necessary to prevent this situation happening again.

[Lord Trefgarne]

I am grateful to the Deputy Leader for that reply. Were the problems to which he has referred about the same in Scotland and Wales as they were in England?

[Lord McNally]

I am not aware of problems in Scotland or Wales—perhaps I shall be informed of some within a very short time—but the Electoral Commission did not mince its words about the problems where they did occur. It said that they were down to inadequate planning processes and contingency arrangements. However, I point out that 27 polling stations out of 40,000 and 1,200 voters out of more than 29 million were affected.

Queen's Speech

Lord Trefgarne Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, perhaps I may ask your Lordships to put the following date in your diaries: 3 July 2012. There is a tiny thing going on at the East End of London—I think that they are opening the Olympic Games, or something—but the important event on that occasion is the 50th anniversary of my taking my seat in your Lordships' House. I had hoped that my noble friend Lord Coe would have me carry the flame up the last few hundred steps, but his office has been silent on that matter up till now.

I very much welcome and appreciate the gracious Speech which we are discussing today—the more so because it was significantly crafted by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister; of course the right honourable gentleman the Deputy Prime Minister made an important contribution as well, and I welcome that. I guess that I would have liked the gracious Speech even more if it had been solely crafted by my right honourable friend, but sadly, that was not to be.

Seriously, I would like to comment on one aspect of the gracious Speech which I very much appreciated. It was the language of the Speech which, this year, was so much better than in previous years. I am never quite certain who puts the gracious Speech into the language which Her Majesty reads out. Once, I ventured to table a Question on who had crafted the language. I was told that it is entirely lese-majeste to do such a thing and to remove my Question at once, which of course I did. This year, the Speech was in much better language than previously, and I greatly welcome that.

Thinking forward about the composition of your Lordships' House and the position of hereditary Peers like myself, of course I accept that, in the fullness of time, when reform is complete by whatever means we eventually decide, hereditary Peers such as me will inevitably disappear. I am naturally sorry about that, but it is the way it is. Back in 1999, the House of Lords Act passed with the concurrence of the majority of the hereditary Peers, who went thereafter in an orderly manner, following the agreement between my then noble friend Lord Cranborne and the then Lord Chancellor.

I suppose that it is worth commenting en passant that in any other country, if the Government of the day had forced through legislation to remove two-thirds of the opposition of one House of Parliament there would probably have been tanks on the streets. Not here, my Lords. As I said, noble Lords went in an orderly and dignified manner following the agreement to which I referred.

Looking forward, I am not wholly opposed to the principle of a largely or partially elected House. I am not in favour of a wholly elected House because I think that there would be an important role for a number of appointed Peers within an elected House, so I adhere to the 80:20 per cent formula, which I hope will find some favour in due course. I believe that we should keep a place for, for example, the leaders of the churches. Today, we introduced the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. I have to speak carefully; I live in his diocese. I rather fear that in any formula that I may suggest, the Bishop of Guildford might not continue to find a place in your Lordships' House. However, I think that the present formula, where there are 26 bishops from the Church of England in your Lordships' House, is a bit one-sided. I would welcome an arrangement where there were leaders of all the significant faiths represented in your Lordships' House. I suppose that that would naturally mean a reduction in the number of bishops from the Church of England. Noble Lords may then ask whether that challenges the position of the established Church. I suggest that that is a matter for another day.

I also want the retired service chiefs to continue to have a place in your Lordships' House. I emphasise that they should be retired service chiefs. The serving ones, of course, serve all different Administrations with enthusiasm and equal loyalty, but when they come here as a retired Marshal of the Royal Air Force or whatever, they render a considerable service. I like, too, to see one or two retired police chiefs; I see the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in his place. That is an excellent arrangement, and perhaps other senior figures in our society could come to the House.

There are disadvantages to an elected Chamber, not in principle perhaps but in practicality. I have no doubt whatever that a largely elected House would exercise the present powers of the House right up to the limit, and I have no doubt that when they got to the limit the House would argue for more powers. I can well see that our honourable and right honourable friends in another place would not much care for that, but if there were to be any increase in powers in your Lordships' House, there is only one place from which those powers could come—the other place—which would cause inevitable difficulty.

It is said that a second Chamber that was elected largely through proportional representation, as has been suggested, would create tensions between the two Houses that would be difficult to resolve. However, those difficulties are resolved quite satisfactorily in other countries such as the United States, so I do not believe that those things are insuperable. I therefore welcome and support the proposition that a significant number of Members of this House be selected by an election of one kind or another.