Office for Students

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, what a genuinely engaging debate—I am also going for “joyful” today. I thank noble Lords for their congratulations. I am having a very good day, even if my husband-to-be’s credit card is probably not.

Moving on to the debate, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for opening the debate and, moreover, for the significant role he has played in shaping our world-class higher education. I never for a moment thought that I would ever be responding to “Two-brains” in an education debate, but I am delighted to do so. I agree with him on the joys of being a Whip at this end of the building. We are allowed to speak; the Chief Whip will decide whether that is for good or ill. The noble Lord’s ongoing contribution to the broader debate about the future of our universities is deeply valued.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, for requesting this debate. I know that he, having been instrumental in setting up the Office for Students, continues to have a keen interest in the future of our universities and in securing the future of our higher education system for the benefit of our students, the taxpayer and the economy. Higher education is vital to the future of our country. Our universities are revered globally for excellence and act as one of the country’s greatest enablers of two of this Government’s missions.

First, higher education is the engine for growth. It ensures that we have a highly skilled workforce and delivers world-class research that underpins long-term innovation and economic growth. In many communities, it acts as an anchor for local economic development and civic impact. It adds billions of pounds of value to our economy each year, supports hundreds of thousands of jobs and generates over three-quarters of all our education exports.

Higher education also provides opportunity. It enriches the lives of learners, regardless of their background, and how they access education—including at the Salvation Army, which, for the record, is where my mother was born. For many, it is a truly transformational experience. Graduates have better choice, better paid employment and are better able to contribute to the economy and society as whole, challenging understanding and developing new ideas. This contributes to a healthier, more cohesive society for us all. I have first-hand experience of this. I am the first person in my family to have gone to university. My grandmother, from the East End of London, would have been somewhat confused by where I ended up, but I know only too well how higher education can transform lives to ones of aspiration and achievement.

Secondly, higher education is an engine not only for the economy but for social mobility. This lies at the heart of the Government’s commitment to build skills for opportunity and growth, so that every young person can follow the pathway towards a better future that is right for them, whether at university or elsewhere. Technical education and further education are also key to ensuring that people have the right role for them and are able to find joy and happiness at work, which is what we are doing today.

The Office for Students is fundamental to all this through its effective and independent regulation of the sector. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on the fact that there was no regulator in place when some genuinely challenging elements came into being. It is vital that we now have one, making it work in a way that delivers for the sector and the country.

The primary purpose of regulators is to protect the public. At the point when most students enter higher education, through tuition fees, they make the single biggest investment that they are ever likely to make. These fees are, of course, largely underwritten by the taxpayer through the student loans system. Therefore, it is vital that our universities and colleges offer high-quality provision that ensures a good return on that investment for students and the country, and it is right that independent regulation should seek to ensure this, while protecting and promoting the student interest.

What is the need for stronger regulation and the new strategy? We need to take a step back. Noble Lords will recall the report from the Industry and Regulators Committee on the Office for Students, published in September 2023, which provided a stark assessment of the regulator’s past performance. Indeed, it was entitled Must Do Better.

Last July, the Government published the report of Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS. The review sought to be forward-looking and create a platform for change, but Sir David was very clear that the environment within which the OfS operates has changed considerably since the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Madingley, first made the case for the regulator in 2010 and, indeed, since the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, articulated his vision for higher education in the 2017 White Paper Success as a Knowledge Economy.

The current situation is volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous. Navigating this uncertain terrain will be a challenge for many providers, their students and, as it has proved, the OfS itself. Sir David found that the case for regulation was clear. He recognised the improvements the OfS had made since the publication of the Industry and Regulators Committee report but recommended that the OfS should focus on the key priorities of quality, financial sustainability, acting in the student interest and protecting public money. In short: do less but do it better.

Following the resignation of the noble Lord, Lord Wharton, as chair of the OfS, and while a permanent replacement is recruited, the Secretary of State has appointed Sir David as interim chair to oversee the implementation of his review. The OfS has begun this work, setting out a proposed road map for the next five years in the consultation currently running on its strategy, which are discussing today. However, while this important long-term work progresses, immediate priorities and risks must be assessed and addressed.

Central to Sir David’s analysis was a focus on the financial sustainability of the sector. Concerns about the sector’s finances have continued to grow, even appearing in the news this week. In November, the OfS published analysis of the higher education sector’s financial health for the 2022-23 financial year and forecasts for the next four years. It made for troubling reading, finding that both domestic and international recruitment are below the sector’s expectations; that by 2025-26, income could be £3.4 billion lower than provider forecasts; and that up to 72% of providers are expected to be in deficit if they do not take significant mitigating actions.

As a result, the OfS made the decision to temporarily pause the processing of applications regarding the OfS register, degree-awarding powers and university titles, to refocus their resources on managing the critical risk of financial sustainability in the sector. I reassure noble Lords that Education Ministers and officials meet with the OfS on a regular basis, and this specific issue was discussed with the OfS in November and again in December.

Of course, this is not the ideal decision for the OfS to make, and I do not underestimate the impact on those providers whose business models rely on achieving registration or progressing with degree-awarding powers, but it is a decision for the OfS as an independent regulator, not for Ministers. Furthermore, it is in line with the recommendations of the independent review and with expectations set out in the regulator’s code to prioritise resource to manage the greatest risk.

The pause is limited to new and early-stage applications. The OfS expects to restart the process in August, or earlier if possible, and will review every three months until then. Affected providers have been contacted individually and will be informed of progress and changes. I recognise the concerns that this stifles growth, but it is about keeping the show on the road while we deliver our long-term strategic ambitions for higher education. On that note, I will answer some of the specific questions put to me by noble Lords.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, there are unlikely to be more than 100 applications from franchised providers. We require only those with over 300 students to register for the new franchising model, and the largest 10 unregistered providers account for 58% of all franchised students at unregistered providers. This will work quite quickly and effectively with the largest suppliers.

With regard to the “Strengthening oversight of partnership delivery in higher education” consultation, we think that it is important to make progress towards strengthening the regulation of franchised higher education. The OfS has currently paused the registration of new higher education providers in order to support the sector with financial sustainability concerns, as I said, but this is being reviewed every three months.

With regard to institutions that are already in process, which the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, touched on, the OFS has said that it will process applications that are already well advanced. If the noble Lord has knowledge of where that is not happening, I would be grateful for the information. It will also review that every three months. Given what we are talking about between now and August, that seems proportionate, but, if there are specific concerns, I would like to hear from the noble Lord.

On global chains and the pause, I think it is fair to say that education is global. The best of education, as we discuss regularly in the House, allows people’s brains to flourish. Universities are cathedrals for learning, whether they are here or elsewhere; the more exposure we have to more people, the better position we are in to move society forward.

On global change, it is for providers and universities to make decisions about business models, including international investment. However, I can reassure noble Lords that this is temporary to address a critical risk. If there are people with whom we need to engage in the interim, we will endeavour to have those relationships to reassure those institutions. The OfS will consider such applications as soon as the process restarts but will, I hope, seek to work with partners as the pause is ongoing.

I believe that I have answered on the next bit. We are getting through the questions.

All three noble Lords asked: why so much regulatory burden now? Individuals and the taxpayer have invested hugely in higher education. It is right that this should be regulated. However, regulation has to be proportionate and not stifle growth. I agree that the Chancellor’s speech yesterday was excellent. We must also make sure that we are all contributing to the delivery of growth in order to continue to invest in the public services that I, for one, care so much about.

The Office for Students must, and does, abide by the Regulators’ Code and should not impose unnecessary burdens, but students’ experience and outcomes are critical. We need to ensure that students are getting what they pay for.

With regard to further education colleges, as raised by the noble Baroness—am I okay for time, Mr Whip?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede) (Lab)]

Yes.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

Thank you. It is quite nice to be on the other side.

FE colleges form an essential part of the HE landscape. We are very aware of the burden on colleges that are regulated by a number of different bodies. That is why, for example, we are proposing to exempt FE colleges from the new proposed requirements for franchising. I emphasise again that the pause is temporary. If FE colleges wish to register, they will be able to do so from this summer.

On the wider education strategy, in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, the Secretary of State has been clear and has announced five priorities for the reform of higher education. Given the time, I will not outline them but will write to the noble Baroness with the details.

I am very grateful for the thoughtful contributions that noble Lords have made during this debate. There is a great deal of higher education expertise in your Lordships’ House—some of which is a little terrifying—and I welcome this opportunity to benefit from it. I conclude by commending the efforts of the OfS. The Government continue to maintain their strong support for the regulator and its important work in protecting the interests of students. I also recognise the risks that universities and, by extension, students are facing. I assure noble Lords that both the Government and the OfS maintain a keen focus on overcoming these challenges to ensure that we maintain the secure, stable and world-class higher education that we are all so rightly proud of.

Rape: Prosecutions

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate, particularly, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for bringing this debate here today. One main theme in the debate has been the issue of trust: trust within the criminal justice system and, particularly, trust in women when they report rape. That underlies all the speeches made here this afternoon.

Rape and other sexual offences are among the most serious crimes that can be committed. It is right that we work hard to ensure that survivors receive the swift and compassionate response from our criminal justice system that they deserve. This Government were elected on a clear, landmark pledge to halve violence against women and girls over the next decade. Improving the criminal justice system’s response to rape is central to that pledge. Although our pledge necessarily focuses on the disproportionate impact of these crimes on women, we recognise that men and boys can also be victims of sexual offences, including rape. Noble Lords might note that I introduced the relevant amendment for male rape in the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and that has changed the perception of male victims of sexual offences.

As we have heard, if you are a victim of rape in this country today, your chances of seeing your case reach trial are low, despite the courage it takes for survivors to come forward. Only a fraction of reported cases end in prosecution and, if charges are brought, it may take years for your case to come to trial. While the number of rape prosecutions has increased over recent years—now at the highest level since 2010—they continue to fall short of what victims, and the wider public, would expect. This Government are determined to transform the response to rape in this country, so that victims are supported and perpetrators brought to justice swiftly. That is our goal. It is a simple one, even if the task itself is not.

Let me set out the factors that have led us to this point. In 2019, charges and prosecutions for rape had fallen to an historic low, prompting the previous Government to carry out an end-to-end review of the criminal justice system’s response to adult rape offences. This review found that the system had, in fact, faltered from around 2016 onwards—a year that saw a sharp decline in rape prosecutions, coupled with a decline in convictions. The reasons for this drop are varied but well documented.

The first concerns systemic issues. When this Government took office, we inherited a justice system under intense pressure and a growing backlog of cases in the courts. The volume of outstanding cases in the Crown Court now stands at over 70,000—a record high. When the justice system is under this level of strain, everyone feels the impact; it is a sad fact that this includes victims, particularly victims of sexual offences. For many victims, the wait they might face is simply too much to bear. As it stands, around 55% of rape complainants, despite coming forward, eventually withdraw from the criminal justice process. Understandably, they want to focus on their own mental health and rebuilding their lives.

Rape cases also require specialist expertise; this point was made by both previous commissioners, who gave, if I may say so, some interesting ideas. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, talked about group police work as the way to tackle this issue; he compared it to terrorist offences and the like, and I found it an interesting idea. Of course, this is a resource issue. These resource issues include the challenge of having enough specialist barristers, both prosecuting and defending, willing to take on these highly sensitive and difficult cases.

For prosecution volumes to improve, victims must also have the confidence to come forward and report what has happened to them, knowing that they will be taken seriously and, crucially, be given the support they need. Sadly, this is not always the experience of rape victims. This means that improvements in training, culture and local policing practices must all come together in a seamless and consistent manner. Victims will have confidence in the system only if they see it working effectively and compassionately.

I have set out some of the systemic issues. Now let me briefly highlight the challenges particular to this category of offences. First, many rapes are committed by someone known to the victim—often a current or former partner. Estimates suggest that more than 40% of adult rape victims are, or have been, in a relationship with their attacker. This complicates the investigative process.

Secondly, it is widely acknowledged that sexual offences, in particular rape, are often under-reported. Many victims fear the stigma of speaking out. Others lack confidence in the criminal justice system itself, feeling as though they are not being listened to or taken seriously—and, indeed, that they are the ones under scrutiny, not the perpetrator. During an investigation, it is not unusual for the police to request a victim’s personal records. Noble Lords will know that these requests have, at times, gone too far, causing unnecessary upset to victims, compounding their trauma and causing them to drop out of their case altogether.

I have outlined some of the challenges; now let me set out some of the commitments that this Government have made to begin addressing them. First, we have committed to ensuring swifter justice for victims and reducing the wait times that contribute to so many withdrawing from the process. One of the most vital steps in addressing this is reducing the time it takes from a charge being laid to the actual trial; we are working with the judiciary on how we can best fast-track rape cases through the courts.

More broadly, we have taken decisive action to drive the outstanding case load down, such as funding extra sitting days, which will see courts sit for a total of 108,500 days this financial year—the highest number in almost a decade. We have also increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months for a single triable either-way offence. We expect this to free up around 2,000 sitting days and allow judges to deal with the more—indeed, the most—serious cases.

However, if victims are going to see justice done more swiftly in this country, we cannot simply do more of the same. We must go further. It will take once-in-a-generation reform, which is why the Lord Chancellor has commissioned Sir Brian Leveson to carry out an independent review of the criminal courts. Sir Brian will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as how our courts can operate more efficiently. I am sure that noble Lords will await the review’s findings with interest.

The Government’s second commitment is that every victim of adult rape should have access to a free, independent legal adviser. Later this year, we will introduce new independent legal advisers, who will offer free legal advice to victims of adult rape at any point from report to trial. These advisers will help victims understand their rights, including in relation to the use of personal information, as well as offering clarity about the court process, timelines and what to expect. These advisers will not undermine the right to a fair trial or prevent evidence coming to light. They will simply help victims understand and, if needed, take steps to protect the rights that they already have.

Our third commitment is that specialist rape and sexual offences teams will be introduced into every police force, ensuring that the right capabilities are in place properly to investigate these offences. Victims must have a positive experience when dealing with the police, which will in turn increase reporting and deliver better outcomes for victims. We are working closely with policing partners to make this a reality.

Encouragingly, the volume of rape cases being reported to the police has followed a significant upward trend in recent years despite the prevalence of rape remaining flat, as measured by the Crime Survey for England and Wales. This means more brave victims feeling confident to report their offence to the police without increases in the number of incidents of rape.

Those are just three of our commitments. They will be underpinned by a new strategy to combat violence against women and girls, to be published later this year, which will help us transform how government, and the justice system as a whole, responds to these horrific crimes.

Let me emphasise again that rape is an abhorrent crime. It has no place in our society, and far too many survivors have suffered without seeing justice or receiving the support they so desperately need. A combination of factors, including strained court capacity and inconsistent resourcing, have contributed to the level of rape prosecutions we see today, but it is not enough simply to reel off the complexities. We must act, and that is what the Government are doing. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this issue for debate.

I shall now answer some of the specific questions asked by noble Lords. First, education is a cross-government endeavour that starts with prevention. My colleagues Ministers Davies-Jones and Phillips are leading on this issue, as are colleagues in the Department for Education. Relationship, sex and health education is now a statutory part of the curriculum, and within that, people are learning about domestic abuse and consent. So there is a cross-departmental approach to this important part of the solution to the problem.

Other noble Lords asked about attrition—women dropping out of the process. The answer to that is in the three specific promises I made: to support women through legal advice, to speed up the process, and to ensure that women understand the reality of the court process they will go through.

Other noble Lords asked about the experience in court. Trauma-informed training has already been delivered at Snaresbrook, Leeds and Newcastle Crown Courts, with over 400 professionals trained so far, including court staff, CPS staff and the police. In addition, witness waiting rooms and in-court technology have been upgraded in selected courts, and Section 28 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act also addresses the way victims are treated as they go through these types of cases.

I might say that I have dealt with these matters myself. Very unusually, I have dealt with a youth rape. Magistrates would not normally deal with rape, but on appeals in the youth court a magistrate would sit as a winger. I dealt with one at Harrow Crown Court, and I thought it was handled as well as it possibly could be. Interestingly—I will close on this because I am being looked at by my Whip—the young woman concerned chose to be in the courtroom while the case was proceeding because she wanted to be part of the whole process. The technology was available for it to be done in a different way, but that was her choice, and I thought it was a very powerful one on her part.

If I have not answered noble Lords’ questions, I will write to them.

Asylum Seekers: Legal Aid

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for his Question. We are committed to improving the experience of all users and providers of civil legal aid. The Government are determined to improve and stabilise the civil legal aid sector, which was neglected for many years. Civil legal aid fees have not increased since 1996 and were cut by 10% by the previous Government. As an important first step towards this and having considered the evidence from the review of civil legal aid, we will consult on uplifting legal aid fees for immigration and asylum and for housing and debt this month, two sectors which we believe are particularly under pressure.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. The Public Accounts Committee determined last year that there is a supply crisis in the immigration and asylum legal aid market. As a result, increasing numbers of asylum seekers are removed from the UK before being able to evidence their claim properly or mount a meaningful appeal. It cannot be right for justice to be sacrificed on the altar of cost saving. Given that in the year ending June 2024 48% of asylum appeals were successful, what support can the Government provide to those unable to lodge an appeal because they simply cannot find a legal aid representative to assist them?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we are working within the sector to try to build up the support for people able to provide support for those making potential appeals. We are working with and funding the Law Society to enable it to fund the accreditation of suitably qualified people to enable this work to be undertaken. We are increasing the base of lawyers and others who can take on this work.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, what provisions are in place when an asylum seeker is refused their initial asylum claim and NASS, the National Asylum Support Service, records only their refusal decision and not that the asylum seeker has submitted their appeal, with their accommodation and subsistence allowance therefore not reinstated?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for giving me notice of his question and I will write to him. I hear similar questions in my other private life, and I will ensure that a proper answer is provided to my noble friend’s question.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, most research suggests that about 60% of eligible asylum seekers cannot find a legal aid lawyer. The announced increase in legal aid rates should help but will not deal with the advice deserts across the country. Given the language difficulties and the complexity of these cases, online remote lawyers cannot cover the deficit. How will the Government encourage more solicitors to take on this work, and does the Minister agree that the review of civil legal aid has already demonstrated that urgently reducing the bureaucracy and complexity of legal aid contracting is at least part of the answer?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for the question; I certainly agree with the second part of it. Regarding the first part, the answer is very similar to the one I gave to the right reverend Prelate. The Government are funding the Law Society to help build up the base of lawyers and other legal professionals who can provide the advice to which the noble Lord has referred and to get rid of the “advice deserts”. I take his point about people not always giving their advice face to face; nevertheless, there has been a big change in remote advice for people seeking to make applications which we think has been beneficial. Nevertheless, there is the underlying issue of getting more people to work within the sector.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, we know that civil legal aid is now available in very limited circumstances and the disposable income threshold is little more than £3,000, so very few of our fellow citizens could ever qualify. An asylum seeker who has paid thousands of pounds to a people smuggler can reasonably argue upon his arrival at Dover that he has no disposable income and qualifies for legal aid, but the result is that we are now spending tens of millions of pounds on asylum cases from the Legal Aid Fund. Is there not a better and more efficient means of dealing with claims and the advice required by those seeking asylum in this country, including the suggestion of a government-supported and centralised legal representation unit for asylum cases, rather than this dispersed disposal of legal aid into what has been an advisory desert?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I was not aware of the suggestion of a centralised legal aid representation facility. If that is still being actively considered, I will write and confirm that to the noble and learned Lord. Nevertheless, he makes a reasonable point about building up the resources to be able to process these cases effectively, efficiently, fairly and humanely.

One other factor is that Duncan Lewis, the well-renowned law firm, has written that it believes that the new rates, which are very likely to be agreed, will help it to do more work in this area.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, anyone who reads the newspapers can see the huge gulf between the Rolls-Royce justice system available to those with bottomless pockets and what is available to those who have no legal aid and no money. Justice is not done if it is not affordable. I have in mind family law, which has a claim as great as asylum seekers, where people are left at the most stressful moments in their lives with no legal aid. Will the Government commit to some evening out of legal aid across all cases so that every citizen can get the legal aid and advice that they need?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very sympathetic to the question and the point that the noble Baroness raises in it. As she may know, my personal background was as a magistrate in the family law space, and I saw many hundreds of litigants in person when dealing with those cases. It is true that they very often were not adequately able to put their case forward. We are looking at various initiatives in that space, such as mediation vouchers and possibly early legal advice, and different approaches, but the fundamental point the noble Baroness makes is fair.

Courts: Backlogs

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government remain committed to bearing down on the Crown Court backlog, but the challenge in doing so is significant. The Lord Chancellor has commissioned an independent review of the criminal courts, led by Sir Brian Leveson, to recommend long-term reform. Sir Brian has been asked to specifically consider the merits of hearing more trials outside the Crown Court. Jury trials will always remain a cornerstone of our justice system for the most serious cases, but we must consider bold action to tackle the backlog in our courts.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. He is right that, because of the terrible inheritance of these court backlogs, we have to think radically and challengingly. We have to think about the victims. Some victims now are having cases listed as far away as early 2028. Is it right that a class C drugs offence sits in the Crown Court queue, while a vulnerable rape victim has to wait five-plus years from report to court? That often risks them walking away and allowing a potential rapist to escape. Does he agree that justice delayed is justice denied?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend that justice delayed is justice denied, and I agree with the sentiments she expressed in her question. But that is the argument for bold and ambitious reform—and we very much hope and expect that that is what Sir Brian will deliver. The review will consider the merits of longer-term reform, as well as court efficiency. Sir Brian will consider court reform options that would reduce demand on the Crown Court, including reclassification of offences, consideration of magistrates’ sentencing powers and the introduction of an intermediate court. The review will provide findings on court reform by spring this year, and its findings on efficiency will come forward by autumn this year.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, will this Government distance themselves from the Conservatives, who blamed the backlogs on Covid and on criminal barristers, who had no option but to strike to secure proper remuneration? Will the Minister tell the House what immediate steps they propose to address the real causes of these record backlogs, which delay trials and frustrate justice—in particular, too few judges, lawyers and court staff; a wrong-headed cap on court sitting days, severely criticised by the Lady Chief Justice, which has led to unplanned courtroom closures; and trials adjourned through listing and prisoner transport mistakes?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the two factors to which the noble Lord referred are real factors—Covid and the action by barristers. However, there is an underlying problem of increasing cases coming to Crown Court, which overlays the other problems to which the noble Lord referred. The Government have increased the number of allocated sitting days to 108,500, the highest level in almost a decade, and increased the sentencing powers of magistrates’ courts from six months to 12 months. Nevertheless, with those two increases, there needs to be further radical reform to address the problem to which the noble Lord referred.

[Lord Keen of Elie (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister noted, much of the Crown Court backlog can be traced back to the effects of the Covid epidemic. Indeed, I acknowledge that there has been an increase in the number of sitting days for the Crown Court. However, the Lady Chief Justice has indicated that there are a further 4,500 sitting days available. We are in a situation in which many major Crown Court centres are sitting at only half capacity, with many of the courts simply empty. There are courts and judges available, but I am repeatedly advised that there are not suitable defence counsel available, many having been driven out of criminal practice due to the absence of a sustainable fee income. A recent increase in legal aid fees has been granted to solicitors in criminal practice. Is it not time for this Government to address a similar increase for barristers in criminal practice?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is right to draw attention to the 12% increase in fees for criminal aid solicitors. That is a substantial amount of money. The Government are exploring options to incentivise the early resolution of cases, which includes the remuneration of everyone in the criminal justice sector. The Government are informed by the 2021 report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and considerations are ongoing on this matter.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, sitting with two assessors, I tried a brutal rape and GBH case. The perpetrator was found guilty. Had we had trial by jury, it would have added weight to the conviction and sentencing. Is not the best way to deal with the court backlog that we request the Lord Chancellor and the Judicial Appointments Commission to appoint more judges and persuade retired judges, including the noble and learned Lords, to put all hands to the pump? They are sprightly.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for his observations. We are taking a different approach, which is to look at the overall working efficiency of the court system. I acknowledge that there are substantial backlogs, particularly in rape cases, because they are often very complex cases. There is also the added distressing fact that many rape victims drop out of the process because of the lengthy delays. I acknowledge that that is a problem, but we believe that the best way to address this is to look at how the system operates as a whole. We are looking forward to receiving Sir Brian’s recommendations in due course.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope my noble friend the Minister knows that I have a lifetime of respect for professional tribunals, lawyers and judges, including Sir Brian, and their fair remuneration. Notwithstanding concerns about the backlog, which are considerable, I hope he agrees with me that there will always be benefit in jury trial for the most serious cases. That benefit is about public confidence, legitimacy and participation in the legal system on which the rule of law depends.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I completely agree with my noble friend: public confidence is absolutely paramount. That is one reason why jury trials were persisted with—quite rightly—during the Covid period. Having said that, there are certain types of cases where it is maybe not appropriate that a jury trial should be available. I anticipate that Sir Brian is looking at those sorts of cases.

[Lord Burnett of Maldon (CB)]

My Lords, the current outstanding backlog in the Crown Court is a little over 73,000; it was only 40,000 when Covid struck. The Minister has already indicated that the volume of cases coming into the Crown Court continues to increase. Has any solution occurred to him or his colleagues other than to restrict the right to jury trial for the relatively low-grade cases of the sort that the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, spoke of, which clutter up the Crown Court?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord makes a very fair point. It is regrettable that the numbers are so high and are increasing—that is the underlying problem with which we are grappling within the Ministry of Justice. It is interesting that in the family court system we are back down to the pre-Covid numbers; that is good, and we are trying to bear down on that further. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord makes a very good point and I am sure that Sir Brian Leveson will address these points.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of considerable concerns articulated by the Magistrates’ Association, among others, on the single justice procedure and the impact on vulnerable people, such as those with dementia or cancer, who have been brought to court. As he knows, that system is a magistrate with a lay expert supporting him. Will those issues, which are long standing since the establishment of the single justice procedure in 2015, be part of the ongoing review, as articulated by his right honourable friend Heidi Alexander two months ago?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have sat as a single justice on certain types of cases. I understand that there are concerns about the single justice procedure, but I am not sure of the answer to the noble Lord’s question about whether it is part of Sir Brian’s review. I will write to him on that question.

European Convention on Human Rights: 75th Anniversary

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to commemorate the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights.

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

My Lords, this year marks the 75th anniversary of the signing of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, known as the ECHR. This Government are proud that the UK was one of the original drafters of the ECHR and will use the anniversary to illustrate our renewed commitment to the international human rights framework and the rule of law.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that excellent reply—eventually. Will he and the Government involve my noble friend Lord Touhig, the leader of our delegation, and other Members in the plans? Can he confirm yet again that our Government believe in the integrity of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg and particularly that, unlike the previous Government, we will not renege on our membership of the European Convention on Human Rights?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am happy to give my noble friend the assurances he is looking for. We would be happy to consult him and my noble friend Lord Touhig on the events which we will organise during the coming year for the anniversary of the signing of the ECHR. My noble friend may be interested to know that I was chairman of the celebration of the ECHR’s 50th anniversary, and it is something that I am very pleased that I did.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Does the Minister accept my concern that the court is becoming increasingly interventionist and is making decisions in areas which should properly be left to national Parliaments, and that where this is happening national Parliaments have very limited ability to modify or reverse those decisions?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The Government support the European convention, but we want to work constructively within the convention as laws develop within it. We want to have a constructive, long-term approach that we can properly celebrate in this anniversary year.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

Ending the ban on gay people in the military, ending teachers hitting children in schools in Scotland, ending the retention for life of DNA samples of innocent people, ending the persecution of gay people in Northern Ireland because of their sexuality, and ending the practice of imprisoning and hospitalising autistic people are all areas in which campaigners have had to fight, but they are rights provided by virtue of our membership of the convention. Does the Minister agree that perhaps some of the people who now believe most strongly that it has been interventionist take for granted the benefits that it has provided for citizens of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question and agree with everything he said. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have been clear that this Government are committed to the international human rights framework and that we will never withdraw from the ECHR. The noble Lord’s points are well made.

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

My Lords, last year, the European court ruled that Switzerland violated the ECHR by failing to adequately address climate change. This was just the latest example of judicial overreach by the court. I am pleased to say that there was an excoriating dissenting opinion from the UK-appointed judge. Does the Minister agree that this is a dangerous precedent to set? Will he commit to working with other democratic European countries that have also expressed concern to ensure that substantive reforms to the system are progressed?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the incoming Secretary-General of the Council of Europe is a Swiss national and former Swiss president. I am sure he will be very well versed on the issue which the noble Lord raises. It is right that we want to work with the European convention in trying to address environmental problems. That is a body of law that is currently being developed. The Government are committed to that, and we will work within the various European agencies to develop that body of law.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, Articles 10 and 8 of the convention protect our rights in respect of family life and private life and freedom of expression. The Minister will be aware that the former Biometrics and Surveillance Camera Commissioner, Professor Fraser Sampson, and the European court itself expressed grave concern about mass surveillance in the United Kingdom by Hikvision cameras and about the increase in surveillance generally. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this anniversary to undertake to look again at whether we are sufficiently compliant with Articles 8 and 10?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. I remember dealing with those types of questions while I was an Opposition Minister in the Home Office. Whether Articles 8 and 10 are indeed breached by these cameras is a very live question; they are everywhere and they are being used in ways that we do not always understand. The noble Lord makes a good point.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interest of cross-party amity—an ambition that I know my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock shares—it is important when celebrating something as significant as the ECHR’s founding to assign credit where it is due. Given that Churchill called the ECHR into being, David Maxwell Fyfe and Harold Macmillan were instrumental in its drafting, and Margaret Thatcher described our membership as “common sense”, will my noble friend the Minister strain every nerve to ensure that the Conservative Party is given due prominence and credit as we celebrate this anniversary?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am happy to agree with what my noble friend said. I want to mention one other name, that of my former honourable friend Terry Davis MP, who has died, and whose funeral is at the end of this month. He was Secretary-General of the Council of Europe between 2004 and 2009.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the anniversary would be a good opportunity to dispel the myths just promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that this was a purely British or Conservative invention, and to recall that the Attlee Government reluctantly agreed to sign the ECHR only on the basis that the court would not have jurisdiction in the UK as British citizens would not be allowed to take cases to it? It was a policy continued a few months later by Winston Churchill, when he came into power. Both were presciently advised of the risk to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, recently pointed: that it was inconceivable that any Government would take the risk of entrusting to an international court legislative powers that Parliament would never entrust to the courts of this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The original Treaty of London was on display at Blenheim Palace on 18 July when European Ministers were meeting. We were proud that that treaty was on show. It is a symbol of the originating nature of the British Parliament in the founding of the treaty and something of which we should be very proud.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that one of the really important virtues of the European court is that it protects the human rights of people in member states with poorer records than our own?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to agree with what my noble friend has said.

[Lord Polak (Con)]

My Lords, Article 9 of the ECHR guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The impact of the Saturday pro-Palestinian marches on central London synagogues has been severe, leading to dropping attendance, intimidation, disruption of services and the forced cancellation of events. The next march is scheduled for 18 January, close to the Central Synagogue. Will the Minister work with police to move the start location of the march far enough away so that families can go to and leave synagogues in safety?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is a matter for the Metropolitan Police. If appropriate, I will draw his comments to the Met’s attention.

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the benefit of ongoing membership of the ECHR is, among other things, that it is vital for the continuation of the Belfast agreement?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the right reverend Prelate for that question. He is right that the Good Friday agreement is underpinned by the convention, and it is important that that should continue.

Non-Consensual Sexually Explicit Images and Videos (Offences) Bill [HL]

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 13th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by acknowledging the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there is obviously formidable support for the Bill, as we have heard in today’s debate. It is an important Bill, and one which is bringing this issue to the very top of the political agenda.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, I too have experienced in my role as a magistrate many cases of domestic abuse and domestic violence. I know the noble Lord had that experience during his time as a police officer. Sadly, it is not unusual; it is just that the perpetrators are finding different ways to extend such misogynistic abuse towards women. That is what underlies the noble Baroness’s Bill today.

I would be happy to meet my noble friend Lord Knight and other noble Lords to discuss the Bill and, if I may say so, the wider context of how within government we are going to try to meet the objectives of the Bill through other legislation. I will write to noble Lords on any specific questions that I fail to answer.

I thank the guests of the noble Baroness, Lady Owen: the victims and survivors who are here today. Their physical presence here adds an additional seriousness to the debate. I reiterate the point of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that this is a very well-attended debate for a Friday afternoon, which again is a testament to the importance of the issue.

The Government and I share your Lordships’ concern that more needs to be done to protect women from this form of abuse and to punish those responsible for it. Advances in technology have meant that intimate images can now easily be taken, created or shared without consent, and all at the click of a button. The technology to create realistic deepfake sexual images is readily available to turn harmless everyday images from a person’s social media profile into pornographic material which can then be shared with millions in milliseconds. This cannot continue unchecked.

First, I will talk about the criminal law. Our police must have a comprehensive suite of offences, so that they can effectively target these behaviours. There is a range of existing offences to tackle intimate image abuse, both online and offline, but it is clear that some gaps in protection remain. That is why the Government made a clear commitment in the manifesto to ban the creation of sexually explicit deepfake images of adults. I appreciate that noble Lords and campaigners want us to act without delay, and may be concerned that we are not seizing the opportunity to support this Bill. Let me reassure the noble Baroness and the whole House that we will deliver our manifesto commitment in this Session of Parliament. However, we must act carefully, so that any new measures work with existing law and, most importantly, effectively protect victims and bring offenders to justice. That is what our legislation later in this Session will do. Our manifesto commitment is just the beginning. We are considering whether further legislation is needed to strengthen the law around taking intimate images without consent. I will update the House in due course on this issue.

Ahead of that, I want to mention briefly a couple of areas that have been discussed today. The first is the question of solicitation, mentioned by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Owen. As I am sure the noble Baronesses know, for every offence, except those that are specifically excluded, it is automatically also an offence to encourage or assist that offence. Therefore, as soon as we have made it an offence to create a sexually explicit deepfake, it will also be an offence to encourage or assist someone else to commit that offence.

I want to be clear on this: you cannot get round the law by asking someone else in this country to break the law for you. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Owen, is also concerned about the solicitation of deepfake sexually explicit images from other jurisdictions. The question of the application of the laws of England and Wales to other countries is very complex, particularly in relation to offences where elements are committed in different jurisdictions. I reassure her that we are looking very carefully at that issue.

I next move on to the deletion of images, again raised by various noble Lords. I share the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that perpetrators who are convicted of an intimate image abuse offence are not given their device back by the police with images of the victim still on it. There is already provision under Section 153 of the Sentencing Act 2020 for the court to deprive a convicted offender of their rights in any property, including images, which has been used for the purpose of either committing or facilitating any criminal offence, or which the offender intends to use for that purpose, by making a deprivation order. The courts already have the power to deprive offenders of devices used to commit a sharing offence and of the images which are shared without consent. While judges’ use of these powers is a matter of judicial independence, we will closely examine what changes may be necessary to make sure that such incidents do not occur.

To talk a little more widely about the work that we are doing, while the criminal law is important, it is just one lever we can use to tackle intimate image abuse. Let me outline for noble Lords some of the other work that the Government are doing in this area. I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about how advertising drives so much of revenue, which may well be encouraging the further development of these forms of abuse.

Intimate image abuse rightly has serious criminal consequences, but we are also taking steps to tackle the prevalence of this harmful online content. In November we legislated to make sharing intimate images without consent a priority offence under the Online Safety Act 2023, which we have heard quite a lot about in today’s debate. These images will therefore become “priority illegal content” under the Act, forcing social media firms and search service companies to take action to remove them. I noted the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, about how all these platforms, not just the big ones, should be subject to these new provisions in the Online Safety Act. We know there are concerns about the process of getting images removed online. The Government’s priority is getting Ofcom’s codes of practice in place. Then we will assess, based on evidence, how effective those protections are and whether we need to go further.

As I have already mentioned, the internet has opened up new outlets for misogyny, and I know noble Lords share my concern at the rise of certain influencers who make a living by peddling their vile ideologies to our young men and boys. This toxic online culture can all too easily lead on to violence against women in the real world. That was a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, and the noble Lords, Lord Bethell and Lord Clement-Jones, and I agree.

It is also critical that we support the victims. There are, of course, many victims of this form of abuse. I remind noble Lords that my department provides funding for a number of services to help victims cope and recover from the impact of crime, including intimate image abuse.

I am not going to have time to address all the points, but I want to pick up one particular point, which I had not heard before, made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, about audio abuse. I take that point seriously and will make sure it gets fed into the system when we are considering legislation.

I find it difficult to disagree with any of the points made by noble Lords, but I know there will be frustration across the House about the Government pursuing their own legislation within this Session. I hope that noble Lords will understand that we want to make it sustainable and that we want the legislation to be solid, to use the noble Baroness’s word, and future-proof as far as is possible. I know very well that this is a difficult thing to do. We have a lot of work to do, and I am sure that all noble Lords will support the Government’s efforts in this field.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, can I get his assurance that any pledge on a creation offence will be consent-based and that intent will not have to be proved? He has pledged to legislate in this Session of Parliament, creating the offence, but I would really like to know what kind of vehicle that is going to be and what the implementation period is. As all noble Lords have said, we cannot afford to wait. Any legislative vehicle that is going to take a year to pass, with a long implementation period, is simply not good enough.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Regarding the noble Baroness’s question about consent, I would like to reassure the House that in a criminal case the onus is never on the victim to marshal evidence or to prove intent of the perpetrator; it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service when investigating the alleged offence or prosecuting the case in court. That is why we work with the CPS when considering changes to the criminal law, to ensure the offence can be prosecuted effectively.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the whole purpose of the discussion today has been, to use the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, that there should be strict liability and not intent. Surely we are not talking about mens rea in this at all.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I absolutely heard what the noble Baroness said about strict liability offences. The Government’s position is as I just said. However, I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said.

[Baroness Kidron (CB)]

For those of us who have been dealing with sexual offences for some time, the one thing we know is that if you have to prove intent, it is worse than useless. I urge the Minister to take that away and to say to the House as a whole that intent will not be a satisfactory solution to the noble Baroness’s Private Member’s Bill.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am afraid I will have to repeat the point I made previously: we understand very well the strength of feeling on this argument, and we are actively considering it.

[Lord Banner (Con)]

My Lords, I think the Minister said earlier that an offence of soliciting would add nothing because of the current established offences in relation to aiding and abetting, et cetera. Can he elaborate on his rationale for that, particularly in circumstances where the primary offence is committed overseas, perhaps in a jurisdiction where it is not actually an offence?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am afraid I cannot elaborate further, because of the complexity of the situation that the noble Lord highlighted. We realise that it is difficult, and we need to get the law right. I do not want to say that we are taking our time, because this is an absolute government priority. We are in the process of identifying a suitable vehicle to address these issues in this Session of Parliament. The noble Lord makes a good point.

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am still slightly confused about timing. I am sure the Minister understands the difficulty the House is in here. I think he said—and I would like him to repeat it, if this is the case—that the Government’s intention is to complete their considerations of the issues raised by this, and other matters related to it, within this current Session, rather than within this Parliament. The Session we are currently in is due to come to a close in a reasonably short time. Can he confirm that?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am very happy to confirm the point that my noble friend has raised. In fact, in my briefing, the words “in this Session” are underlined—so, yes, that is indeed the case.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

Can I ask my noble friend a very simple question? Do the Government anticipate that any woman or girl will ever consent to the creation of what this legislation is aimed at—deepfake pornography to be used for revenge or for misogynistic reasons?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My noble friend raised that point with me the other day, and I checked it with advisers in the department. I think it would be unwise to assume that a woman would never, under any circumstances, consent to images being made.

Prisons: Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this has undoubtedly been a powerful debate, with views expressed passionately. I have in front of me a reasonably lengthy speech in which I will address most of the points made today; if I do not answer of the questions asked, I will of course write to noble Lords.

I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her opening remarks and for securing this debate. The issue of the IPP sentence is one that continues to generate immense debate across the whole House; indeed, many of the noble Lords who have spoken in today’s debate have been pivotal in ensuring some of the significant steps forward that have been taken already. The Government recognise the obstacles still faced by those serving IPP sentences, especially the 2,694 prisoners who, as at the end of September, remain in prison.

It is pleasing—and, as I say, to the great credit of many in the House—that the first phase of the changes to the IPP licence period in the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 have now been implemented. As noble Lords will know, the introduction of the automatic licence termination period has led to the end of the IPP sentence for 1,742 people who were on licence in the community up until commencement on 1 November this year; I well remember working with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on those amendments when the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, was in the opposite chair, if I can put it like that. The Government recognise, however, that this does not immediately change the circumstances for those still serving the IPP sentence in prison, and that there is more still to do in order to support these offenders to take the necessary steps towards being cleared as safe for release by the independent Parole Board.

Before I go any further, I am aware that many noble Lords will be familiar with the IPP sentence; however, some may not, including some listening from outside, so I will provide a brief overview before turning to the question at hand. The IPP sentence was first introduced by the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as a means of managing high-risk individuals who had been convicted of serious specified violent or sexual offences. The Act was amended in 2008 to give the courts discretion to impose an IPP sentence provided the tariff was at least two years, or the offender was convicted, at any time, of an offence under Schedule 15A of the Act—top-end violent and sexual offences were incorporated within that.

The Government are clear that it was absolutely right to abolish the IPP sentence, and we are determined to do all we can to support the remaining IPP offenders to finish their sentences. At the time of abolition, there were more than 6,000 offenders serving an IPP sentence in custody. Since then, a substantial number have been released on licence. As of September this year, 1,095 IPP prisoners are in prison having never been released, and a further 1,599 are in prison having been recalled to custody as their risk could not be safely managed in the community. It is right that the release of any IPP prisoner is subject to a thorough risk assessment and that the prisoner will be released only when the independent Parole Board determines that the prisoner’s risk is now capable of being effectively managed in the community on licence.

Legislating to give every IPP prisoner a definite release date and post-release licence, or legislating to provide for resentencing by a court, would result in them being released irrespective of their remaining risk. This would be the case even where the Parole Board had previously determined, in many cases repeatedly, that they continue to be too dangerous to be released, as they have failed to meet the statutory release test. Either legislative approach would put the public at an unacceptable risk of harm, which the Government are not prepared to countenance for any IPP prisoner through any partial resentencing.

The IPP annual report, published on 15 November, covers the period up to the end of March this year but also includes the latest version of the HMPPS IPP action plan for this current financial year. The plan puts a greater emphasis on effective front-line delivery in our prisons, challenging HMPPS operational leaders to ensure that each IPP prisoner has the right sentence plan and access to the right interventions, programmes or rehabilitative services to reduce their risk of reoffending. This is the best way to move them closer to being deemed safe to be released by the Parole Board.

Where these core fundamentals are in place, IPP prisoners can make progress towards release, provided they continue to engage fully with HMPPS staff working with them. The Government are determined to achieve this, including ensuring that HMPPS delivers effective sentence planning and timely prison transfers. As things stand, around 30% of IPP prisoners are not in a prison that can deliver the requirements of their sentence plans. The action plan, and particularly the effective delivery of the workstream that focuses on operational delivery on the ground, are the vehicle through which this situation must and will improve. Let me be very clear that we believe that these key actions will be the bedrock of significant improvements to the support and prospects of IPP prisoners. These are: the right plan, the right place, the right service and the right support for each offender.

The Government are determined to make the necessary progress on this issue. My noble friend Lord Timpson, the Minister for Prisons, Probation and Reducing Reoffending, has met many key stakeholders and is building a deeper understanding of HMPPS governance for overseeing the delivery of the plan. Just last week, he attended the external stakeholder challenge group, and he knows that stakeholders will continue to hold HMPPS and the Government to account. My noble friend remains passionate about this work and will be attending the IPP Progression Board next week to engage with the senior leaders at HMPPS who are responsible for delivery of the action plan. He has already spent significant time with staff across HMPPS, and I know that he is extremely positive about the high quality of leaders and staff, both operationally and centrally, and their huge commitment to deliver effective work to better the prospects of offenders.

The refreshed plan is made up of nine workstreams covering required actions relating to operational delivery, policy and analysis. This includes important policies, such as a new one on progressive prison transfers for indeterminate sentence prisoners, published on 14 November, which provides, for the first time, a formal set of requirements designed to ensure the smooth progress of prisoners to access the required interventions they need. This is important, as it means that where an identified next step is agreed with the prisoner and those who manage their case, the necessary actions to transfer them to the new location can happen swiftly and with care about the inevitable disruption such moves can create for individual offenders.

The refreshed plan also includes the expansion of psychology services through the prison gate for some of the more complex cases. This means additional support for both the offender, for example, through bespoke one-to-one support sessions, and the probation officer in their management of the case. This level of continuity from the prison into the community is important in providing effective support during those often challenging early stages for offenders following release.

The refreshed plan includes a quarterly review of progress for all detention for public protection cases in prison who were convicted prior to their 18th birthday. This review ensures that the offender’s progress remains on track, which means that they have an up-to-date plan and are engaging with it in the right prison. Where there are any concerns identified, appropriate action is taken to try to address them. The refreshed plan includes continuous improvement of the internal IPP data dashboard, which gives HMPPS operational leaders important information about the progress of their specific cohorts. It includes prioritising IPP prisoners for important regular keywork sessions and sentence management activity in times of high resource demand pressure across our prisons.

Health plays a vital role and, sadly, we see some cases where health or mental health issues can impede a person’s ability to progress. These issues must be treated, and I am pleased that the Chief Medical Officer has agreed to the Lord Chancellor’s request to consider the IPP sentence as part of his independent review of offender health. This will help us better to understand the specific health challenges faced by those serving the sentence and enable us to work with the Department for Health and Social Care to improve the support available to them.

HMPPS is taking the IPP issue very seriously at every level of the service, notwithstanding that we are making progress against a backdrop of well-known prison capacity issues and the huge strain on staff resources to implement the necessary measures to tackle it. It is important that we allow the action plan, and particularly the front-line-facing operational delivery plans, a chance to bed in before we review their progress in March next year. I assure noble Lords that if at any point it is clear that more needs to be done, we will review all options to enhance the level and type of support delivered to IPP prisoners even further and take decisive action to deliver any which we believe will make a difference.

Finally, it is important that this review of progress also leads to the setting up of clear measures of success in the next version of the action plan. We will use the review of the current plan early next year to identify those measures and benchmarks against which we can all gauge future progress. These will be shared as part of the next annual report and updated action plan, which will be laid in Parliament before the Summer Recess.

The Government’s priority continues to be the protection of the public, but I hope that noble Lords can see that we also remain fully committed to doing all we can to support the safe progression of those serving IPP sentences. I look forward to updating the House on the progress that I am confident the action plan will achieve in the next IPP annual report next year.

Let me repeat my gratitude to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and address some of the points made. First, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked how many IPP prisoners will never be released. Obviously, I cannot give him a number for that, but I can say that we apply a red, amber, green rating to prisoners currently on an IPP sentence and, at present, around one-quarter have a red rating, which means they are not engaging with services within prison at all. I think that answers his question. I shall sit down now and will write to noble Lords on any questions I have failed to answer.

Home Detention Curfew and Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 13 November be approved.

Relevant document: 10th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, in moving this order, I thank members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this statutory instrument. The Government laid this draft order on 13 November. I hope that has given noble Lords an opportunity to scrutinise the order and its accompanying explanatory documents. I welcome this further opportunity today to be clear about what the order will do and the Government’s reasons for taking these measures.

The draft order is a key part of our continuing efforts to resolve the capacity crisis in our prisons. After inheriting from the previous Government a prison system on the verge of collapse, on 12 July the Lord Chancellor was forced to announce a measure to address the immediate risk of running out of prison places. This was a change to modify the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences from 50% to 40%. Specified offences were excluded from this modification. The draft order before us now makes further important changes to that original measure by excluding further offences from this modification.

As part of our continuing efforts to avoid running out of prison spaces, the order amends the provisions relating to the home detention curfew—HDC—by extending the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC in the community. HDC enables eligible, risk-assessed offenders to be released from prison six months early, subject to an electronically monitored curfew. We are proposing to extend the maximum time that an offender can spend on HDC from six months to 12 months. To be clear, the eligibility and suitability criteria remain the same—for example, sex offenders are still excluded in statute and those serving sentences linked to domestic abuse are presumed unsuitable under the policy.

It is right that the sentencing review is given time to do its work, but the capacity crisis in our prisons has not gone away. When we introduced emergency measures in July, we believed that they had bought us about a year. However, after the summer of disorder, the next crisis could be just nine months away. For that reason, we must implement further measures urgently to ensure that we do not face running out of places again. This change to HDC will help to ensure that the criminal justice system is able to function as it should, helping to prevent further acute capacity pressures and avoid running out of prison places, which would cause criminal justice gridlock.

As to the purpose of this draft order, it relates to release measures within the Criminal Justice Act 2003. The first part of the draft order deals with HDC. HDC has been in operation since 1999. The scheme enables certain prisoners to be released from prison early while remaining subject to significant restrictions on their liberty. Offenders who are released from custody on this basis are tagged and placed on a curfew. This curfew must be for at least nine hours per day, by law, but is generally around 12 hours per day as a matter of policy. The curfew requirement must remain in force until they reach their conditional or automatic release date. Those released on HDC are subject to probation supervision and other restrictions as necessary. These may include GPS location and alcohol monitoring, exclusion zones, non-contact conditions and travel restrictions. If offenders breach the terms of their conditions, they can be recalled to custody to serve the remainder of their custodial sentence.

The rules on eligibility will not change as a result of this draft order. Offenders must complete half of the custodial part of their sentence before they can be considered eligible for HDC. Release on HDC is also entirely discretionary. There are a number of offences that are excluded from its scope by statute—for example, serious violent offences and all sexual offences. Other types of offending are presumed unsuitable as a matter of policy, including those often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking, harassment and coercive control. Offenders serving sentences for any of the presumed unsuitable offences will not be considered for release unless the prison governor is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying this. Any offenders who meet this test will still be subject to a rigorous risk- assessment process before release on HDC is approved.

We are proposing to change the maximum period that an eligible prisoner may spend on HDC. We plan to extend it to 12 months from the current maximum of six months. Offenders eligible for HDC will continue to be risk-assessed and will still be subject to strict licence conditions and an electronically monitored curfew. As the previous Prisons Minister stated in February, the reoffending rate for prisoners released directly from custody was close to 50%, but for the types of offenders released on to HDC it was 23%.

The previous Administration committed to doing a review when HDC was extended from four and a half months to six months. That review did not take place, and the growing crisis in our prisons has meant that we need to take further action. HDC is closely monitored by HMPPS and the MoJ, and data on releases and recalls is regularly published. That will continue. I must be clear that this measure is urgently needed to reduce the pressure on the prison system. The challenges facing us across the prison estate are such that we must take urgent action to allow the sentencing review to take place. By extending HDC, we are using a long-standing mechanism that has robust safeguards built into it.

The order will also amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Requisite and Minimum Custodial Periods) Order 2024, which established the SDS40 early release measure by modifying the automatic release point for those serving standard determinate sentences for eligible offences from 50% to 40%. The SI seeks to exclude six further offences from the early release measure.

SDS40 was delivered extremely effectively, but there was a problem with 37 prisoners who were released in error. Those offenders had been prosecuted under a repealed law that we had not excluded from SDS40. The Court of Appeal had ruled that we should treat the offenders who had been prosecuted under this offence after it had been repealed as if they had been prosecuted under the new offence, which was already excluded from SDS40. That ultimately meant that those prisoners were not identified as being ineligible for early release under SDS40. All the offenders released in error were returned to custody.

Subsequently, a thorough search uncovered similar anomalies where legislation creating criminal offences has been repealed and replaced. We had already taken the decision to exclude such offending, which relates to stalking, harassment, sexual harm and so-called revenge pornography, from the scope of emergency early release.

We are therefore acting quickly to exclude five further offences from SDS40 to ensure that the spirit of the original exclusions is delivered. This will ensure that anyone convicted of any of these offences cannot be released early under SDS40.

The draft order also excludes murder from SDS40. Anyone convicted of murder in the UK would have received a mandatory life sentence so would not be eligible for release under SDS40. However, some jurisdictions do not have life sentences so it is possible that in a small number of cases a UK national convicted of murder in a foreign jurisdiction may be given a determinate sentence for murder by that foreign court and may then be repatriated to the UK to serve that sentence in a prison in England and Wales. We want to ensure that no offender in this position could be released under SDS40.

Shortly after coming to power, the Government took decisive action to stop our prisons from collapsing. SDS40 was an emergency response to the crisis that we were faced with. We worked at pace to ensure that the scheme was as effective as possible while protecting the public by excluding the most serious offenders and providing specific protections for victims of certain domestic abuse offences.

We have kept SDS40 under constant review and are now acting quickly to address a small number of anomalies in the original legislation. The draft order extends to England and Wales only, and there should be no direct effect on the devolved Administrations. I beg to move.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, both as Victims’ Commissioner and a victim going through the criminal justice system, I was horrified to read the NAO report published week which assessed government plans to expand the prison population. The report told us that on current forecasts the population would exceed prison capacity by 12,400 by the end of 2027. It is impossible to see how this can be absorbed by any building programme, let alone one that can be completed in just three years. It leaves the Government in an impossible position of having to explore all alternatives and it is against this backdrop that we find ourselves here today.

I am told that the home detention curfew scheme is hugely effective. Other than in the context of reducing the prison population, I am not sure how this statement can be made. As far as I am aware, there has been no recent evaluation of the scheme, but I would be interested to hear on this point from the Minister. Prison governors are responsible for selecting offenders who are suitable for the scheme. It is to their credit that compliance levels are relatively high. However, can we really be confident that current compliance levels will remain if the scheme is, in effect, doubled in length? Again, I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view.

It will come as no surprise when I say I come to this debate from the perspective of the victim. As I have said before, most victims seek justice, not vengeance. On hearing a sentence being delivered, the victims expect the sentence handed down to be served in full. This is not unreasonable; surely it is what we mean by justice. Victims listen to the remand time that has been deducted from the sentence; they know that part of the sentence will be served on licence, but they struggle to accept a prison sentence being reduced—by up to 12 months—through one or other early release scheme simply to reduce prison population pressures.

I fear that retrospective pruning of sentences by all successive Governments over the years has had a corrosive effect on public confidence in our justice system. How can you trust a justice system if all Governments keep moving the goal posts? It also adds an extra layer of complexity on sentencing and, heaven knows, sentencing is already complicated in the first place.

I make a plea to this Government and future Governments: let this be the very last time we have to extend an early release scheme to bail us out of another prison crisis. We need a sustainable sentencing regime where the sentence handed down is the same as that victims hear and the same as that the offender will serve, and we need a prison system that has the resilience and the means to meet the challenge.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I briefly intervene, if I may. In doing so, declare my interest: until about 1 pm this afternoon, I was a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I largely agree with my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Marks. I agree with them because I have made that very same speech probably about 20 times in the last 10 years—nobody listens, it does not matter. The short point I want to make is this: who monitors the monitors? One of the problems that we have noticed over the last several years, when looking at the use of tags, is that far too often the monitoring organisation falls down. One expects ingenious people on tags to try to get out of the restrictions imposed by them, but one does not expect the monitor to fall down in its duties. Can the Minister please assure us that rigid steps are being taken to make sure that the monitors are monitored, and that if they fail, there is some form of contractual sanction?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this short debate. I agreed with all the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, on the importance of victims, but one point that is worth emphasising is that it is a discretionary matter for the governor as to whether a home detention curfew is granted. My understanding is that 40% of applicants for home detention curfews fail that application. That is distinct from SDS40, where there is a mandatory reduction from 50% to 40%; whether a home detention curfew is granted is a discretionary matter. The noble Baroness was broadly supportive of the measures in this SI, and I thank her for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a number of interesting points. The one I found most interesting was about extending tagging on perpetrators beyond the HDC period and maybe beyond the licence period— I do not know exactly what he is suggesting. As he will know, a sentencing review is under way, and it may be that there is an increased use of technology. I will make sure that the noble Lord’s point is fed back to the Ministers who are enabling David Gauke and his team to do that review.

A couple of days ago, I met the Estonian Justice Minister, and a couple of weeks ago, I was in Poland. It was interesting to talk to the Justice Ministers in both those countries about how they are extending their use of technology in a number of ways—there are a lot of possibilities there. I would not be at all surprised if this is looked at further as part of the sentencing review.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, went on to talk about the capacity of the prison estate and the need to have spare capacity so that the system can essentially be managed properly for the benefit of the prisoners. This means that they can complete their courses and be relatively near to home, so that family ties are not broken. All the noble Lord’s points on that are absolutely right. What he said is very ambitious, but I hope the Government are matching his ambition in the sequencing of the steps we are taking to try to have a prison system that reduces reoffending—that should be, and is, the primary objective of any prison system.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, raised a point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised, on who monitors the monitors. My noble friend Lord Timpson is monitoring the monitors, and he is having absolutely regular meetings with Serco to reassure himself that the technology is working properly and that the further technology that we will need will be available. This is a real issue, and the noble Lord is right to raise it. It is very much alive in my noble friend’s head, if I can put it like that.

The noble Lord, Lord Murray, asked whether we would return to the old regime in due course. The answer to that is that we will keep the current proposed changes under review. One difficulty that we have had is that the situation is changing so quickly that it has proven difficult to do a proper review in a stable regime. The previous Government did not do a review of the previous regime when it went from four and a half to six months, and the current changes from six to 12 months need a suitable amount of time to bed in, to make sure that a proper assessment is done so that the Government can take a view about future steps. I hope that that puts the noble Lord’s mind at rest—the Government will constantly keep these matters under review.

Motion agreed.

Humanist Marriages

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

On behalf of my noble friend, and with her agreement, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in her name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, under the previous Government, the High Court found in Harrison a difference of treatment in weddings law towards humanists. However, it also found that the then Government had demonstrated that the difference in treatment was justified given the legitimate aim to address differences in treatment as part of wholesale reform. As a new Government, we need properly to consider these important issues and will set out our position in due course.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, when the High Court ruled that the lack of legal recognition for humanist marriages was discriminatory, this was surely an argument for the last Government to do something, which they failed to do. Is it not now time for this Government to go through the process of having an impact assessment?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we will assess marriage in the round, including humanist weddings, and we will announce when we do that in due course. I agree with the general point which my noble friend has made.

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, just under 20 years ago, Scotland legalised humanist marriage. Remarkably, data from the National Records of Scotland show that more Scots now choose a humanist wedding than those who marry in all other religions combined—that is, the Church of Scotland, the Roman Catholic Church and all other religions and faiths. On present trends, humanist weddings in Scotland will soon overtake civil ceremonies as Scotland’s first choice. How can we any longer deny the humanist option to those who want to wed in England?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Scotland was able to accommodate humanist weddings within its existing legislative framework for weddings because it operates an officiant-based model, whereby regulation of weddings takes place via the officiant. In contrast, in England and Wales, we have a buildings-based scheme. It is in that difference that Scotland was able to make this accommodation, and that factor will be taken into account in the review to which I have already referred.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

My Lords, can I help the Minister? I am afraid I did not understand much of his original reply, but it seems to me that there is a problem that he has that they do not have in Scotland, Northern Ireland or in Jersey, where humanist marriages have been allowed. Indeed, Scientologists were allowed to marry almost 20 years ago. What specifically is the problem? If there is a problem, will he look to other parts of the United Kingdom for the resolution? They got it right; we need to do something about it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, there are a lot of anomalies within weddings arrangements in England and Wales, and it is for that reason that we want to look at all of them. If we were to go down the route of secondary legislation for humanists, for example, that would create a further anomaly. We do not want to go down that track; we want to look at the whole system in the round.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, “in good time” and “in the round” are just not good enough. There is a gross unfairness in that couples wishing to have a humanist ceremony in England and Wales must also have a civil ceremony, which means additional cost and outlay. Will the Government, instead of giving excuses, move forward and commit to taking action?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I can say to the noble Lord only what I said to other questioners, which is we want to look at this question in the round. There are many other groups—faith and non-faith—who also feel they are not fairly treated by the current arrangements, and we want to take their views into account when we look at this.

[Baroness Murphy (CB)]

My Lords, it may be an anomaly, but there are now 350 religious organisations in this country which are registered to conduct weddings. In 2013, an order was laid in Parliament that we could approve weddings for humanists. Why are we allowing this anomaly to continue? Is it not straight discrimination?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, my answer is the same as that given to the previous questions, which is that there are indeed anomalies in weddings law within England and Wales; they cut across many religious and non-religious groups, and we want to look at the question in the round.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, just to change the angle for a little bit, humanists have a long tradition of conducting same-sex wedding ceremonies, with LGBT people much more likely to be non-religious than the population as a whole. Does the Minister agree that such a change in the law would be significant for same-sex couples?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The statistic that the noble Baroness cited is accurate from my experience. Yes, such a change would have a disproportionate benefit for same-sex couples, and that factor should be taken into account in the review.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than an equality impact assessment, what are required are certainty, clarity and essential fairness in the law governing all marriages, religious and non-religious, in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission back in 2022? People now use a variety of ceremonies—religious and non-religious—and should, frankly, be confident of their status at the end of each ceremony. Surely, the Government can direct reforms to meet those requirements.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. The objective of the Government is to have clarity and fairness in relation to weddings within England and Wales. There were 57 recommendations in a 500-page report from the Law Commission, and the Government need to take their time to consider them all carefully.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, England and Wales are outliers on the issue of humanist marriages, with Scotland having applied legal recognition in 2005, Northern Ireland in 2018 and the Channel Islands at the same time. The Republic of Ireland has had it since 2012. To avoid my noble friend having to repeat the same answer, can I put it to him that this is an equalities issue, and it offers the Government the chance to extend laws that exist for some UK citizens to all of us?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. Indeed, it could be seen to be an equalities issue, but the Government’s approach is to look at this matter in the round.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I am afraid that my noble friend has been unsuccessful in getting a different answer, but I take the point he makes.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said “in due course”, but it has been more than two years since the Law Commission report. There are people still getting married in either domestic premises or religious premises that are not registered. They find out—it is usually the women—that they are not lawfully married only when it comes to their wanting a divorce that they then, of course, cannot get. Can the Minister put this somewhere into citizenship, so that people are aware that, if it is going to be only in due course, this injustice will be dealt with?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. In my time as a family magistrate, I often had people in front of me who were married in religious ceremonies but not married in the eyes of the law, and we had to unpick the arrangements for those separating couples. The noble Baroness has made a very good point.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand the concern on these Benches that the last Government used to use “in due course” to do nothing for long periods, sometimes years? Can the Minister start a different process, and give some indication of when this matter will come back to the Chamber and where the Government will take action?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Well, I have been advised by my Leader that I need to say “in the fullness of time”.

Judicial Pensions (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

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

Considered in Grand Committee on 11 November.

Motion agreed.