Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

Lord Bach Excerpts

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Howe of Idlicote]

My Lords, I want to add my very brief words in support of these two proposals. Indeed, I hope very much that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham will get together and work out the best framework. A women’s justice board—I hope that that title will be retained—is without doubt something that has been called for, for a long time. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, I would like to say how pleased I am that the Youth Justice Board has been retained—very wisely, if I may say so.

It is clearly a fact that women need rather different treatment, which is increasingly being recognised. There is a parallel with the kind of treatment and systems for young people, because they are a special group. Women above all have care for their young, and it is crucial that we stop the business of separating children from their parents by the systems that we have within the criminal justice system. We have been told by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, that it costs something like £15,000 to treat a woman within the community compared with £56,000 within the prison system. Far more important, even than that cost, is to keep the family together. One of the really good things that this Government are concentrating on, I am glad to say, is community sentences. It is with an increase of confidence in community sentences that we are likely to see these sorts of programmes for women really develop.

I also want to support my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham’s demand—and it must be a demand—for someone to be in charge. He has made this point again and again. Someone must be responsible for what is happening and reporting back to Parliament on the progress made. Programmes for treatment—not just for youngsters and/or women but for many people, whatever their age, within the criminal justice system—will emerge from this, and we can learn from the report back.

That is more than enough from me, but I support this hugely important initiative and hope that it will get off the ground as soon as possible.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, this has been a short but very important debate, and I commend all those who have spoken so far, showing great expertise. We have heard their voices before on this subject, much to our advantage.

The previous Government commissioned the report from my noble friend Lady Corston after the tragic and avoidable deaths of six women in a short period who were detained in the secure estate. Her report of 2007 was a watershed moment in our understanding of women's experience in the criminal justice system. The recommendations were not limited to the secure estate but extended more widely to the entire criminal justice system, including the aim of preventing offending by women as well as dealing with women who had already offended. I am proud that we as a Government took forward the majority of those recommendations. Within just over two years, several were implemented in full; others were piloted.

We are concerned that some of the recommendations are no longer getting the necessary resources. Everyone knows that we all want the same end, but it is a question of what means are employed to get it. We invested £15.6 million in the provision of additional services for women at risk of offending in the community, creating one-stop-shop support services and developing bail support to meet the needs of women. I understand that that has now been lowered to £3 million and that three of the one-stop-shop support services are no longer being financed. One close to where I come from is in Derby. Can the Minister find out and tell us the position? Is much less money being put in than was planned and are three of the one-stop shops not to receive any funding in the next financial year?

We set up a central ministerial responsibility. Two powerful women Ministers, Maria Eagle and Vera Baird, were put in charge of ensuring that the Corston recommendations were fulfilled. I believe that Mr Crispin Blunt is now in charge, but no longer is there that successful joint ministerial responsibility. Why has the women's justice policy unit, set up in the Ministry of Justice but including civil servants from many departments, being disbanded? I hope that those are fair questions, and if the Minister cannot answer them tonight, of course he can tell us by letter in due course.

I support the two sets of amendments. It is good to hear that both noble Lords will get together so that another amendment can be put at Report, which we very much hope will be accepted by the Government or, if not, by this House. Far too many women go to prison each year. The system is clearly still out of kilter. We should be grateful to my noble friend Lady Corston for starting us on a route to fixing a system that has been described so graphically this evening, not least by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. Of course, the system is not fixed, as my noble friend Lady Gould said in moving her amendment. We want a system that works for the public, victims and offenders.

A powerful statutory voice at the centre of the system, whatever it is called, would be of huge benefit. As has been said around the Committee this evening, it worked very well with the Youth Justice Board. We are delighted that the Youth Justice Board is to survive. That would not have happened had it not been for this House. Its very existence hung in the balance for almost a year. It survived, and we are grateful to the Government, and particularly the Minister, who I am pretty sure played an important part in that decision. However, I hope that that does not indicate a certain state of mind towards the institution or organisation recommended in the amendments. As the Opposition, we certainly support the amendments and very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to them.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I of course accept that knife crime is a very serious problem, ending, as it does all too often, with a charge of murder. However, the way to solve the problem is not by creating more and more new offences. The way ahead is surely to follow the example of a remarkable woman, Karen McCluskey, a former nurse and qualified forensic psychiatrist. She saw that the only way to reduce knife crime among the young was to work with the gangs among which they lived, moved and had their being. With the help of the Glasgow police, she did just that. I shall not go into the details; they are all to be found in a copy of the Guardian of 20 December last year. It is enough to say that, as a result of her efforts, violent offending among the 500 gang members in eastern Glasgow fell by 46 per cent and knife crime by an astonishing 85 per cent. We should follow her example and not spend our time creating new offences which add nothing to the existing law. It is good that, as we have heard, the level of knife crime is falling. If we think that we are accelerating that process by enacting Clause 128, all I can say is that we are deceiving ourselves.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, knife crime has been a scourge on communities throughout Britain. I think my party, when in government, did quite a lot to tackle this appalling problem and yet it persists. Of course, some would say that the answer is to deal with the causes of such crime, particularly where young people are concerned. Yet the Government say that the answer is to create a new crime that is entirely covered, as the noble and learned Lord has just made abundantly clear, by existing crimes. For my part, I cannot see any logic behind it at all. Frankly, someone who uses a bladed weapon to threaten another person is guilty of a very serious criminal act, but that act is covered by existing statute law. More than that, there is guidance on sentencing and, of course, there is case law.

For our part, we will not be drawn tonight into the game that we fear the Government are playing with this legislation. It is legislative public relations, no more and no less. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response to the points that have been made so well by the two previous speakers. I wonder whether he is as proud of this piece of legislation as he was of the last piece of legislation concerning rehabilitation of offenders. I rather feel that he is not.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, we believe that currently there is no offence that specifically targets the behaviour covered by this clause; namely, the most serious of threatening behaviour where people carrying a knife or an offensive weapon use it to threaten and cause,

“immediate risk of serious physical harm to that other person”.

We believe that we are sending a clear message to those who behave in that way that they cannot expect leniency.

I understand, and very much respect, where my noble friend Lady Linklater is coming from. I want to make two points, one of which I have made before to the noble Lord—I am always tempted to say “my noble friend”—Lord Judd, who I am glad to see in his place. I make them to the noble Baroness as well. I understand that these under 18 year-olds, these children, may have various and complex difficulties in their personal lives. I did not. I was brought up on an ICI estate, where there were children who had difficult and complex lives but they did not adopt crime or violence. My simple point is that even children have choices and many do not adopt a path of violence.

I speak as the parent of three young children who have just come through their late teens. I know the fear in the hearts of parents of teenagers who go out on a Friday or Saturday night. The fear is always there that one piece of bad luck, one act of disrespect, will end up in their child being severely injured or perhaps even killed by someone carrying a knife. We are addressing that fear. All speakers have acknowledged that knife crime is a serious problem. I am as pleased as anyone that there has been some decrease in knife crime, but I do not think that it does any harm, particularly in the 16 to 17 year-old age group, to do a little bit of public relations and to send out a message that it is not fashionable—it might even be plain stupid—to carry a knife, to brandish it and to threaten people with it. I do not belittle any of the examples that have been given of people who deal with the problems of violence in our society but, in putting forward this law, we are addressing a real issue and making it clear that knife crime is unacceptable. It is not the first example of a minimum sentence. Nor is it the first example of a minimum sentence for 16 and 17 year-olds. There is a minimum sentence of three years for certain firearms offences committed by 16 and 17 year-olds. That measure was brought in by the previous Labour Government in the Criminal Justice Act 2003.

The Government believe that it is right to have minimum sentences specified in law where a certain offence warrants a strong and clear message that a certain type of behaviour will not be tolerated in a decent and law-abiding society. That is why we are legislating for the courts to be able to apply a minimum custodial sentence of four months' detention and training for 16 and 17 year-olds. However, as was pointed out, the legislation builds in discretion concerning the welfare of the offender, which is sensible. The amendments tabled by my noble friends would remove the minimum sentence not only for 16 and 17 year-olds but for adults. The Government cannot accept them. They would undermine our firm intention to stamp out these crimes. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment and the noble and learned Lord will not oppose the Question that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on having put this issue before the Committee. I am not sure that I see some of the points she made as quite as clear-cut as she suggests they are. There can be tremendous complexities and very real, painful stories behind houses that stand empty for longer than six months. There may indeed be social issues that in themselves need to be addressed. But what I think she is absolutely right about is that if a high percentage of the people who are squatting in the way described are particularly vulnerable with a disproportionate number of problems, for the life of me I cannot see how adding criminalisation to all the other complexities that they face so inadequately will help them to sort out their lives. It seems to be a cynical and cold-blooded approach. I have moments, when listening to the Minister, when I fear that he has got embarrassed about liberal principles and feels he must distance himself over and over again. I certainly do not recognise any liberal principles in this piece of legislation.

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, the Committee owes a debt of thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for having brought this difficult subject to our attention. It is not her fault that we are discussing it in the watches of the night and she has no need to apologise for taking the time of the Committee in explaining her point of view. As she said, the provision on squatting was introduced in another place with very little opportunity for scrutiny even on Report. The debate was pretty short. So this represents the first chance, and I hope not the last, for Parliament to get its teeth into these proposals.

Prima facie, the new criminal offence will demonise the absolute poorest, those with mental health issues and those who, frankly, have no other option than to shelter in properties that are, for the most part, unfit for habitation. Of course, we take the view, as does everyone else of sensible mind, that lifestyle squatting is quite beyond the pale and absolutely unacceptable—we oppose it as a principle as much as anyone else.

However, there is a big difference, as the noble Baroness demonstrated, between those few who jump carelessly into properties owned by others with the intent of abusing—severely abusing in some cases—the rights of ownership and those who have no other option unless they want to live on the streets. Anyone who lives in central London, for example, knows that the number of people living on the streets is going up as we speak. A large number of those people have no doubt, from time to time, “squatted” in the terms of what will become this legislation.

Our media, of course, are quite happy to remind us of the instances of outrageous behaviour by lifestyle squatters, but they are curiously quiet when it comes to telling us about, for example, a veteran with severe post-traumatic stress disorder who is addicted to drugs and alcohol and shelters in a property riddled with asbestos. Is he the sort of squatter whom the Government are out to get?

Squatting for the main part is already illegal and, in most instances, criminal, too. The Criminal Law Act 1977 makes it a criminal offence for any person to leave premises when required to do so by “a displaced residential occupier” or “protected intended occupier” of the premises. Parts 55.1 and 55.3 of the Civil Procedure Rules allow for owners to evict someone in a residence they do not occupy. Moreover, an interim possession order, backed up by powers in Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act, means that a criminal offence is committed if an individual does not leave within 24 hours of such an expedited order being granted. So given that all homeowners are protected by the criminal law, unless their property has lain empty for a substantial period and no one is imminently moving in, where does this need for reform of the law lie?

Perhaps a hint came in the signature leaks to the media. A series of reports leading up to the unveiling of this government policy focused on the very sad case of Dr Oliver Cockerell and his pregnant wife who, the ministry briefed, were thrown out of their house by squatters. However, in that case, it emerged that the police, for once, had wrongly stated that the case of the doctor and his wife was a civil issue and not one for them. In fact, as Mr Cockerell and his wife were protected intended occupiers, it is more than arguable that the police should have intervened under the current law. Their failure to do so was not atypical and the position does not require the kind of legislative, heavy-boots intervention that the Government intend.

The Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill that we are debating tonight both deal in parts with impecunious and very vulnerable people. The two Bills together will increase the number of people who have to resort to living in condemned housing out of desperation. We know, thanks to social welfare researchers, that there is a significant prevalence of mental health problems, learning difficulties and substance addiction among those who are homeless. In fact, the Government’s own impact assessment, referred to in passing by the noble Baroness, tells us who is forced to squat. It said:

“Local authorities and homelessness … charities may face increased pressure on their services if more squatters are arrested/convicted and/or deterred from squatting. Local authorities may be required to provide alternative accommodation for these individuals and could also face costs related to increases in rough sleeping in their areas. An increase in demand for charities’ services”—

food or shelter—

“may negatively impact current charity service users”.

It goes on:

“There may also be a cost to society if this option is perceived to be unfair and/or leads to increases in rough sleeping”.

When the costs are identified, as the noble Baroness said, they are reasonably substantial.

We do not believe that the Government have a clue how many people actually squat. The reason for bringing in this new piece of criminal legislation is pure populism. It is demonisation of the poor by another method. We had concerns and said so on Report in another place. Those have been reinforced, frankly, by the way in which the Welfare Reform Bill and the legal aid Bill have been carried through by the Government. We have heard much more about opposition to the plans as they now stand.

I am not saying that we agree precisely with the amendment of the noble Baroness. It may be that six months is too little. I hope that when she withdraws her amendment tonight and there is time between now and Report there will be some discussion as to what the right amount of time should be and whether the wording is appropriate.

However, if the noble Baroness were to bring back her amendment in a different form, perhaps with a longer period of time, we would be sorely tempted to support it on Report. I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in her brief intervention. We were criticised incredibly strongly and sometimes with justification for bringing in too many new criminal offences by just those people who are bringing them in now. This debate and the previous one introduced two new criminal offences that are frankly not needed. What is the explanation for that?

It is very telling that the Metropolitan Police, the Bar Council and the Law Society, none of which are natural friends of the squatting community, all think that bringing this particular legislation is completely unnecessary. We look forward to hearing the noble Lord's justification for it.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, beware the caveat about being sorely tempted to support the amendment. We will wait until Report to see how sorely tempted the noble Lord is. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that this is a knotty and difficult problem, and so it is, but let me put it simply; the Government believe that the criminal law can and should go further to protect homeowners and occupiers. There should be a specific criminal offence that protects people from those who squat in their residential buildings.

Many residential property owners have described the anguish that they experience when discovering that squatters have occupied their properties. I say to my noble friend that local authorities too have expressed concern about this problem. The huge expense and incredible hassle of getting squatters evicted has been described.

The Government believe the harm that can be caused by squatters is unacceptable and must be stopped. The new offence would be committed where a person is in a residential building as a trespasser, having entered it as such, knows or ought to know that he or she is a trespasser and is living in the building or intends to live there for any period.

The whole point of creating this offence is that the Government want to send a clear message to existing and would-be squatters that occupying someone else's house without permission is unacceptable, whatever the circumstances of the rightful owner or the state of the building. It does not suddenly become acceptable to squat if the owner of a property happens to go away for six and a half months. Amendment 188 is designed to protect people who squat in residential buildings that have been empty for more than six months, where no significant steps are being taken to refurbish, sell or let the property.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I have one question: why was the Bill's Title changed?

[Lord McNally]

It was decided that this was more descriptive of what the Bill was intended to do. I also draw the attention of the House to the fact that, late yesterday, I tabled Amendment 198, which added to the Long Title,

“to make provision about the rehabilitation of offenders”.

It is probably the only criticism that I would make of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but I sometimes think that—rather like his desire for committees in the structures we were talking about yesterday—he gets obsessed with form rather than substance. The rehabilitation of offenders is in the Bill. What is more important, it is in the daily action of the Ministry of Justice. Ever since I became the Minister, every day I have emphasised the importance of rehabilitation, for exactly the same reasons as the noble Lord, Lord Judd, gave. It is a win-win. If you can rehabilitate, you save the public purse from having to put someone in prison again at a cost of £40,000 or £50,000 a year. You save future victims from the crimes that that person would have committed. Actually, it is a triple whammy, because if you can really rehabilitate, you get a taxpaying, constructive member of society. Everything that we have been doing, especially in Part 3 and the piloting programmes, is aimed to get effective rehabilitation.

I am very much impressed at the attention paid to my speeches at Liberal Democrat conferences. I shall take even more care over them in future. As for the rest, you will have to wait for my memoirs. I do not think that changing the Short Title at this stage of the process is helpful or will have an effect.

On what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said right at the end, this is an extra half day in Committee for the Bill. Perhaps if we all made a resolution to make shorter speeches, we would not find ourselves debating these issues at 23.33. In the mean time, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.