Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2025
Relevant document: 23rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be here today to bring forward these regulations, which are enabled by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, during the passage of which some nine years ago I recall sitting for many hours. The IPA provides a framework designed to protect the public by giving law enforcement and the intelligence services the tools they need to prevent, detect and prosecute crime. It also safeguards the privacy of individuals by setting out stringent controls over the way the IPA powers are used.
Communications data reveals the who, where, when and how of a communication but not, I emphasise, its content, such as what was written or said. CD is routinely relied on as evidence in 95% of serious organised crime investigations and has played a significant role in every major terrorism investigation over the past decade.
These regulations will update the public authorities listed in Schedule 4. Only those public authorities listed in the schedule are permitted to use the CD powers in the Act and therefore have the authority to compel communications data from telecommunications or postal operators. In addition to this safeguard, Part 3 of the IPA sets out the specific statutory purposes for which the communications data may be acquired by the relevant public authorities. The Communications Data Code of Practice provides guidance on the process of making a Part 3 application under the Act, which ensures that the power is used only when it is both necessary and proportionate. The IPA requires public authorities to have regard to the code in the exercise of their functions.
These regulations add 11 new entries to the schedule: the Intellectual Property Office, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology; the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, an executive agency sponsored by the Department for Transport; the Security Industry Authority, an executive non-departmental public body sponsored by my department, the Home Office; Counter Fraud Services Wales, an organisation hosted by the Velindre University NHS Trust; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team—a bit of a mouthful—situated within the Department for Business and Trade; the integrated corporate services counter fraud expert services team situated within the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero; the counter fraud and investigation team situated within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and the South East Coast Ambulance Service, the North West Ambulance Service, the West Midlands Ambulance Service and the East Midlands Ambulance Service.
Except for the four ambulance trusts, the public authorities to be added are all new entrants to the schedule and to CD powers. Following their addition to Schedule 4, the seven newly added public authorities will be able to apply for an independently approved authorisation via the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which, if granted, can be used to compel tele- communications or postal operators to disclose CD for the purposes set out within their designation in Schedule 4. They will not be given the power to internally authorise CD applications.
The four entries relating to the English ambulance trusts retain their CD powers and the ability to internally authorise applications. The umbrella definition of “an ambulance trust in England”, which included a total of 10 English ambulance trusts, has therefore been removed and replaced with the four named individual ambulance trusts. Therefore, six English ambulance trusts will be removed from the schedule because they have confirmed to us that they no longer require those CD powers. The Welsh Ambulance Services NHS Trust and the Scottish Ambulance Service board will also be removed from the schedule, having confirmed that they no longer need to retain their CD powers.
This SI makes no change to the ambulance service in Northern Ireland and its designation in the schedule. The regulations will amend the Insolvency Service’s designation to include the Department for Business and Trade following the machinery of government changes. There is no change to the Insolvency Service’s ability to acquire CD for the purposes already listed in Schedule 4.
In summary, communications data is vital for evidence in criminal and national security investigations. These changes will enable the aforementioned public authorities —I have mentioned them in this introduction—to carry out and fully work through their essential statutory duties in order to safeguard the public from threats. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Lord Harper (Con)
My Lords, I will not detain noble Lords for long. I have three questions for the Minister. First, I want a little detail on the process that is undertaken by the department. Who triggers the review into which organisations have these powers, whether that is as a result of requests from organisations that currently do not have powers but require them or whether it is a periodic review that the department will undertake? It would be helpful to know a bit more about the process.
Secondly, I have a question on the powers that are now given to the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, which is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. I have looked at those powers and at the other parts of the Department for Transport that have similar powers. They all seem very sensible, so I support the change that is being made. My question is on the Driver & Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is another executive agency of the Department for Transport. As far as I can tell, it does not have these powers, but I would have thought that the same arguments that apply to the DVSA—around public safety and the criminality involved in, for example, forging driving licences, which are important identity documents—would also require the use of communications data. Why has the DVSA been given these powers and not the DVLA? Surely the arguments for one are also true in the case of the other.
The other area is that provoked by the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the arguments around the ambulance trusts. It makes a reasonably coherent argument that there seems to be some inconsistency. I understand that organisations that require these powers must demonstrate that they have a compelling need and that they have appropriate compliance activities in place. It seems a little odd, therefore, that the powers are being removed from all the ambulance trusts in England. They are being restored for four of them but I do not understand, because there is no detail set out, what it is about those four that means that there are compelling needs that do not apply to the others. Also, of the four that are kept, only one had requested to keep the powers; the others had not expressed a preference. Given that organisations are supposed to have a compelling need in order for them to have these powers—I remember the debate when, as the Minister set out, the Investigatory Powers Bill was going through both Houses of Parliament; I was Chief Whip at the time—it seems to me that, in the case of three of those ambulance trusts, the compelling need case cannot have been made because they did not respond to say that they needed the powers. The powers appear to have been left with them only because they had not specifically said that they did not want them, but that does not appear to be the legal and policy test applied by the department. I would be grateful if the Minister could set that out.
I have a final point on resourcing. The instrument and its Explanatory Memorandum say that there is going to be an increase in requests made to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office because all these organisations will need approval to use these powers. The assessment by the department says that it expects those requests to be minimal, but it does not set out the basis on which it has reached that conclusion. Obviously, there are resourcing requirements that will flow from that, so it would be helpful if the Minister could set out the basis on which that conclusion was reached.
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his informed and expert introduction to these timely regulations. When he and I were serving in another place, we were contiguous neighbours; I saw how he was ubiquitous, conscientious, much liked and very successful as an elected Member.
Like the Minister, I spent many years as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee. The committee saw a lot of the security services and high-ranking police officers—understandably so. In all this, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner was, justifiably, for ever lurking in the background. He was very much a wise, reflective, independent person of stature, as the committee thought. Paragraph 2.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to Lucy Montgomery-Pott, a deputy director for the investigatory powers unit. They are truly an important person in all this.
Not so long ago, as members of a Joint Committee, we crossed south of the river for a briefing by the then commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. Alongside him was a future commissioner of the Met. The commissioner had assembled the very people who, under direction, exercised those then new powers. We talked to them and noted professionalism and reassuring ordinariness. It was police and Parliament at work together for the common good.
I support these regulations and wish the professionals well, though I think, in all seriousness, that a parliamentary democracy and its security services need always to consider each other very seriously. Arguably they will never sit together easily, because we are a democracy. I speak today as a matter of principle to formally challenge the Executive, in the person of the Minister, who propose orders and regulations. Time is of the essence and the temperature is high, but my formal questions are these. Who is the Investigatory Powers Commissioner? What is the length of his service and what might be his contract? Will you declare the annual money or fees he draws for his most honourable services? Presumably he is from the field of law, but what is his expertise and how many staff serve in his office? Again, I thank the Minister for his introductory remarks.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, we on this side recognise the Government’s intention to update the Investigatory Powers Act introduced by the previous Government, and we are supportive of introducing measures that protect the public by giving law enforcement the tools they need to prevent and prosecute crime.
As noble Lords across the Committee are aware, technology is a fast-moving space. As society’s use of technology changes, it is essential that we adapt and it is imperative that our public authorities are fully equipped with capabilities to prevent criminals exploiting technology features, hiding their identity, evading detection and putting the public at risk.
This statutory instrument amends the Investigatory Powers Act by providing 11 new public authorities with the power to obtain communications data. Seven of the new public authorities listed will have the power to apply for an independently approved authorisation to compel telecommunications and postal operators to disclose communication data. The remaining four entries are English ambulance trust services that were previously designated under the definition of an ambulance trust in England, which included a total of 10 ambulance services in England. Under the changes, this definition has been removed and replaced with individual entries, as six of these ambulance services have confirmed they no longer require the communication data powers.
Following the Home Office’s review of Schedule 4, this instrument ensures that only public authorities with a need to acquire communications data will be able to request access. While we on these Benches do not oppose the amendments being made, we must question why certain ambulance services will hold the ability to retain this power over other ambulance services.
We recognise that some ambulance services should retain these powers, which may help in preventing serious injury or death, but we must consider whether the inconsistent treatment of ambulance services presents any future risks. We understand that access to communications data is useful for some ambulance services, but we must not rule out that others might require access in future. Can the Minister assure us that services requiring access in future will not be unduly limited or delayed if judged to be in the pursuit of legitimate public interest?
We recognise that these powers are necessary, but they need to be complemented by adequate resources if they are to be wielded effectively. Can the Minister therefore update us on what consultations his department has undertaken with the public authorities empowered by the regulations? Can he confirm that those authorities have adequate resources and legal advice on the use of the new powers?
We recognise that the addition of entries to Schedule 4 increases the demand and strain on the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. This concern has been raised in Brian Leveson’s annual report on the use of communications data. It is essential that the Government consider ways to reduce pressures on the operational effectiveness of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office. Can the Minister set out what steps will be taken to address this?
In conclusion, while we do not oppose the measures being introduced, we would like some reassurance that those ambulance services that have been excluded will not be disadvantaged in the pursuit of preventing injury or death. We urge the Minister to recognise the impact of the amendments on the resources of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office and ask for further clarification on how these authorities will be supported in exercising these powers in the interests of the public.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to noble Lords for the short and useful debate. As my noble friend Lord Jones, who I have known for a very long time, said, it is useful to challenge the Executive on a number of matters to date.
If I may, I will start with my noble friend Lord Jones, who made an all-encompassing comment regarding the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The current IPC is Sir Brian Leveson. He will be well known to Members of this House and has served in a number of capacities, including as a High Court judge. The commissioner is assisted by a team of 13 commissioners, who must all have held senior judicial office. Together they are responsible for the use of investigatory powers by public authorities. They are supported by a body of civil servants, known as the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which includes authorising officers and inspectors. Self-evidently, as I mentioned earlier, they were put in place by the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. Their responsibilities include a statutory obligation to inspect the use of certain investigatory powers and to exercise delegated functions, as part of which they independently review communications data under Section 60A applications submitted by public authorities.
My noble friend touched on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harper, and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, on the budget. In the financial year 2023-24, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office operated within a budget of £15.74 million, of which it spent only £13.06 million. That was confirmed in the IPCO annual report 2023, which was published in May of this year. I hope that helps my noble friend.
I am grateful for his service, not just in both Houses but on the Intelligence and Security Committee, and for his kind words about my service. I hope that also answers in part the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Harper—who I will come back to in a moment—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower.
The noble Lord, Lord Harper, made a very valid point about what the process is for a public authority to be added to Schedule 4. Public authorities can be added to Schedule 4 either through primary legislation or by the use of a delegated power provided at Section 71. The delegated power provided at Section 71 provides that we have an enhanced affirmative procedure, which includes the requirement for a 12-week statutory consultation with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
The changes being made here are, in a sense, the result of the bodies themselves asking either to be included or removed from the Act. If they wanted to be added to Schedule 4, they had to supply a very comprehensive business case that officials in the Home Office have examined and evaluated in some detail. The Home Office has then had to include a 12-week consultation process with public authorities and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. In this case, the consultation period for the new additions began on 23 October 2024 and completed on 17 January 2025. The IPC agreed that the seven public authorities had made a clear case for access, and the IPC response informed the Home Secretary’s policy assessment to include the amendments in the regulations that we have put before the Grand Committee today.
Lord Harper (Con)
I would be grateful if the Minister would allow me to probe this a bit further. To be clear, on the ambulance trust, given that the wide-ranging power for all ambulance trusts in England already existed in the schedule, what exactly was the trigger for a consultation? These trusts already had the power; this just changes the way the power has been described in the legislation. Further, if there was some kind of interaction between the trusts and the department and some trusts specifically asked for this, for those that did not, given that there was a conversation and a consultation process and there is supposed to be a compelling need, why has the power been left in place for those ambulance trusts that did not say they needed it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord puts his finger on the point that, originally, all ambulance trusts were included in the schedule. As part of their general reflection, the six English ambulance trusts that are being removed by the regulations today specifically said they do not need those powers anymore. That left Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland and Wales equally said they do not want the power, so they are being removed, and Northern Ireland has not requested removal and therefore is in the schedule.
Of the four remaining trusts, one of them determined that it wanted to retain the powers under the Act. Again, as part of the consultation, that went through the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, which agreed. Three of the trusts did not respond to the Home Office in relation to the consultation and discussion that we had. They had not requested to be removed. We asked them if they wanted to stay on, and they have not responded. For the safety of the Home Office’s reputation and for the security of reducing risks, we have left them on, but we will continue to press them to ensure that, if they wish to be removed, they can be.
I have discussed already with officials that I think we should be going back to those trusts again. We can bring a further instrument forward, but I do not think it is appropriate that we take them off because they have not responded. There is an argument about whether they should have responded—that is a legitimate challenge to put to me and to the Home Office, and I am having discussions on it internally—but I do not want to take them off in case that decision was just a slip between cup and lip.
Lord Harper (Con)
I am grateful for that answer. I can certainly understand—and do not necessarily disagree with—a safety-first approach from the Minister. I have one further question: given that ambulance trusts broadly all do the same thing, has the Home Office or the health service undertaken any work to understand for what reasons those trusts that have wanted to keep the powers are using those powers, to test whether they are actually necessary? If they are necessary, for what reason do those trusts that do not want the powers, or have not asked for them, not need them? It does not seem entirely obvious why some ambulance trusts would need the powers and some would not.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
That is a fairly valid challenge. The decision to apply is for the ambulance trusts. They were initially all included. Some have determined that they have not used this power, and therefore they do not wish to have it any more. One trust has maintained the power because it wishes to use it, and three have not responded, so we have kept them on just in case because we do not want to risk operational errors.
The type of purpose that they could use it for may well be, for example, that an individual who comes into contact with the ambulance trust is in the middle of a mental health episode, is disorientated, does not know who they are and is not aware of where they are, what they have done or where they have been. There could be individuals who are involved in alcohol intoxication. There is a range of reasons why there might need to be access. As it happens, the vast majority of trusts have said they do not need or want this power. If one trust has said it wants to retain the power, it is reasonable that we assess that further downstream. But the determination is that the trusts themselves decide whether they want that power. Therefore, we are making sure that there are no operational risks in that.
On removing the authorities that did not respond, I am not particularly pleased that we did not have a response from three authorities—I will put that on the record. They should respond accordingly. But there is always the danger that, if we took them off now, they may end up using their powers without realising they do not have them any more. They may find themselves in a litigious position, and I do not want to see that either.
For the moment, that is a very valid challenge and this should be kept under review, but that is the logic behind it—if that helps the noble Lord.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
In case it may help, I was involved in the original RIPA 2000 and discussions about this. I remember the whole thing about ambulances. The reason it was thought of then was vexatious 999 calls to the ambulance service. Obviously, that had happened somewhere, but, clearly, it does not happen in many areas, so they do not need this training. But, if it does happen in some areas, it is quite reasonable that it should be retained somewhere just in case, because it may need tidying up. It will probably depend on whether there are particular individuals in certain areas, and you may need to give the powers and take them away again. I seem to remember that that was one of the main reasons we gave it in the first place.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl for that intervention. The decision that the Home Office has taken is that it is for organisations to apply. With the ambulance trusts, once we have determined that we will remove the general exemption—because organisations have requested removal—we are then in a position to allow them to do that. Both noble Lords have made fair challenges on the assessment and oversight of that. Ultimately, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner is the determinant of that matter, and I am facilitating that process today.
Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the Grand Committee do consider the Licensing Act 2003 (UEFA Women’s European Football Championship Licensing Hours) Order 2025.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I move seamlessly from investigatory powers to the European football championships, as is the wont of the Home Office. This order was laid before Parliament on 15 May.
The summer brings with it the UEFA European Women’s Championship 2025, or the women’s Euros, as we like to call it. It will be held in Switzerland and, happily, both the women’s football team of England and of Wales have qualified and will be competing in this important tournament.
Accordingly, I bring before your Lordships a proposal to allow the extension of licensing hours in the event—as we very much hope—that one or both teams progress to the semi-finals, scheduled for 22 and 23 July, or the final, scheduled for 27 July. Do not ask me to choose between England, where I was born, or Wales, where I live and have represented in Parliament. Section 172 of the Licensing Act empowers the Secretary of State to make an order permitting the relaxation of licensing hours to mark occasions of exceptional international, national and local significance. I hope that, in the event of a semi-final place or a final place, or both, for the home nations in this major international competition, that would constitute such an occasion.
There will be interest in and excitement around the tournament, and fans will want to congregate to support and, I hope, give a cheer to—verbally and in a glass—the English and Welsh participation in the semi-finals and/or final. The decision to lay this draft order follows a public consultation that the Home Office undertook earlier this year. A majority of respondents—87%—supported the proposed extension of licensing hours for the semi-final, and 3% fewer, for reasons unbeknown to me, said that the final should also have that extension.
Respondents agreed with the proposed duration of the extension—until 1 am—and supported its application to both England and Wales. There was also consensus that the extension should apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises. Therefore, establishments that serve on the premises will be permitted to remain open until 1 am on the evenings of the semi-finals, which are scheduled for 22 and 23 July, and on the evening of the final, on 27 July, without—this is the important thing—the need to submit a temporary event notice. This will reduce the administrative burden on both businesses and local councils, saving time and resources for all involved but reaching the same conclusion where extensions can be made.
It is important to note that this extension applies solely to the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption after 11 pm. It does not extend to premises licensed only for off-sales, such as supermarkets and off-licences. Furthermore, establishments that provide late-night refreshment—this is defined as the supply of hot food or drink to the public between 11 pm and 5 am—but do not hold a licence to sell alcohol for on-site consumption will not be covered by this order. Such premises may continue to provide late-night refreshment until 1 am only if their existing licence already permits them to do so.
It is important that we recognise that police representatives are always concerned about the potential for increased crime and disorder. Operational decisions on deployment and resourcing are matters for individual forces. I am confident that the appropriate measures will be taken to mitigate any risks, as has been the case during previous tournaments. There have not been any significant incidents of large-scale disorder linked to licensing extensions, and this is testament to the licensees, the police service and the Great British public, who manage these things in a responsible way.
The noted changes in this order include a modest, time-limited extension of two hours, which is, I think, proportionate. Should neither of the England or Wales women’s teams reach the semi-finals—and therefore not reach the final either—the normal licensing hours will remain in effect on 27 July.
The forthcoming tournament will generate significant interest and excitement. I hope for success for England and Wales. It is for that reason that we have brought this order forward, to allow the Great British public to enjoy an extra glass, should they wish to do so, in a licensed premises. I wish both teams the best of luck and commend the order to the Committee.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this order, but I should go over the background from which I speak.
I was the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association at the time of the then Licensing Bill. I spent many happy hours debating the Bill with the then Minister, Kim Howells, and with somebody called Vernon Coaker, who was at the time the Home Office Minister responsible for law and order in relation to licensing. I have therefore been through this whole process. I was party to the original legal application before the High Court to change the law in relation to licensing hours and the whole question of TENs as it related to the men’s World Cup in Japan and South Korea. At that point, the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, changed the law and made it possible for licensed premises to change their hours with a degree of flexibility.
However, the issue has always remained a problem because the police and the licensing authorities were given powers—one might almost describe them as delayed powers—so that they could object to certain licensed premises if they were concerned about some form of order being maintained at that particular premise. Of course, given the development of major sporting events concurrently with the development of modern technology, what was relatively new for the men’s football World Cup in Japan and South Korea some 20-plus years ago is now absolutely part of our lives. People respond quickly to major sporting events; this order is specifically intended to address that issue.
It is probably appropriate that it should apply to just the semi-finals and the final, but I have my doubts, as I say, because of the rise in interest in international sporting events, particularly women’s sporting events. Interest in and attendance levels at women’s football matches are rising at an incredible speed, so I have some doubts as to whether it should be for just the semi-finals and the final, but we will have to wait and see.
There is another major sporting event this summer, of which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and I will be deeply conscious. An indication of the growth of interest in women’s sport is that I am sure he and I will be tomorrow at the launch of the Women’s Rugby World Cup with the Speaker of the House of Commons. The Women’s Rugby World Cup is taking place from 22 August through to its conclusion on 27 September. We wish all the relevant teams the best success in that.
The RFU has the objective of filling Twickenham on 27 September for the largest attendance ever at a female rugby match. Given that that event takes place partly during our recess and that the police and licensing authorities will need to be responsive, have the Government and the department given serious consideration to what action needs to be taken with an order should similar circumstances arise only a few days or weeks after the Summer Recess? As the Minister indicated, part of the problem that arose last time was that some licensing authorities were not as speedy in responding to the requests of the public. Ministers had to make appeals asking them to please be helpful; some were and some were not, but we do not want to go through that process again.
It is specifically for that reason that we have this order today. That makes sense, but I am concerned that, only a few weeks after this event, we will have another major sporting event and, in this case, it will take place all over this country—unlike the football tournament that we are discussing, which is taking place in another part of Europe. Could the Minister please clarify, either today or imminently, that there will not be a need for a similar order in similar circumstances only a few weeks away? If there is, we should bring that forward before the Summer Recess.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, my friend the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, has made all the points that I was going to make, except with more technical details, so I shall not delay the Committee very long. The fact is that these major women’s events have proven that they can attract large crowds. They are slightly different crowds with a slightly different dynamic—one is probably slightly politer and better behaved—but whether that is positive or negative I will let others judge.
There is one basic point behind this: will there be set criteria to get this extension through? Getting it through is important, and this would mean that the political establishment is a little more ready to respond and able to put pressure on the Government to make sure that it happens. When we have these events, particularly when we are enjoying success, how are we getting ready to celebrate? The growth of women’s sport is a huge bonus to our country, and women’s sport on television seems to encourage grass-roots participation. The great failure of the Olympics—a major, wonderful event—is that it did not affect the grass roots. Women’s team games have encouraged growth in both association and rugby union football, both of which have enjoyed success. In both tournaments, the seeding means that we should have British teams in the finals or later stages.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. In the coming weeks, we will be preparing to support our home nations in what will be a proud moment for Britain. The 2025 UEFA European Women’s Championship will be held in Switzerland. I am delighted that, this year, both the England and Wales women’s national teams have qualified for this prestigious moment. For Wales, this monumental occasion will mark the first time they have qualified at the European Women’s Championship. For our defending champions, England, this will be their 10th appearance at the competition. If I may say so, in the spirit of good internation relationships, I wish both teams well, and both are to be congratulated on having the opportunity to appear there.
We must recognise the symbolic significance of historical moments such as this for future generations of female footballers and athletes. Last year, the Football Association reported a 56% increase in the number of women and girls playing football. Between 2020 and 2024 alone, the number of female coaches rose by 88% and the number of referees increased by 113%. That is why it is essential for us to support the statutory instrument introduced today, which proposes a temporary extension of licensing hours across England and Wales should either or both teams progress to the semi-finals or the final.
The extension of the licensing hours comes after overwhelming support from a Home Office consultation. Under the instrument, the normal licensing requirements of submitting a temporary event notice application and the £21 fee to the local authority will not apply. The extension will apply only to the sale of alcohol for consumption on the premises, such as bars and pubs, but will not be applicable to off-trade premises, including supermarkets and off licences.
We must recognise that this occasion is one that can help support local pubs in England and Wales, many of which have faced challenges over recent years, with an unprecedented number of closures. During the Lioness’s 2022 triumph, a peak of 17.4 million viewers tuned into the BBC1 programme, making it the most watched women’s football game on UK television. An additional 5.9 million viewers streamed the game online to watch on the BBC iPlayer and the BBC Sport website and app.
Not only will the extension of licensing hours help boost business for pubs and bars but it will allow them to accommodate the increase in demand during these key tournament dates. Fundamentally, this is an opportunity for us to come together and cheer on our national teams, who have done so much to inspire people across the country. I am sure that both sides of the Committee will agree with the positive benefits of the statutory instrument raised in today’s debate, from inspiring the next generation of footballers to boosting our local businesses. We have lots to celebrate over the coming weeks, and I am sure noble Lords will join me in wishing the very best to both Wales and England for the tournament.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful to the three noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lords, Lord Hayward and Lord Addington, have moved the goalposts slightly, in the sense that this was a women’s football order. It has had a full consultation, which has given the support to date that I have mentioned. Noble Lords have made a very compelling case for the Women’s Rugby World Cup based in the United Kingdom to be considered. I will certainly consider those representations, and I will get back to both noble Lords. At the moment, there are no plans in the Home Office for such an order, but that does not mean that we cannot consider it. However, there needs to be a public consultation, because we have to do that. I will have to reflect on whether that would fit in with the timescales for the event that both noble Lords mentioned.
Lord Hayward (Con)
I appreciate the clarification that the Minister is giving. I referred to previous events where requests were made of licensing authorities to extend hours on the grounds of good reason rather than waiting for the law—namely, waiting for the police authorities and the licensing authorities to respond. Under those circumstances, that request came from the Minister without any consultation. So, although I understand that best practice would require consultation, conscious of the timing that we are up against, I do not want that to be imposed as a barrier where, if you do not have consultation, you cannot produce an order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I appreciate that, but I hope that both noble Lords will recognise that that was not an item that I expected to debate today. It seems eminently sensible to examine that, but I cannot give the noble Lord final chapter and verse on that proposal based on the helpful discussion that we have had. The case has been made very ably and strongly for the encouragement and recognition of that World Cup being held in the United Kingdom, for the reasons that both noble Lords have mentioned. So, if they will let me, I will take away that proposal.
Section 172 of the Licensing Act 2003—which the noble Lord remembers vividly, even 22 years on, and the discussions that he had—empowers the Secretary of State to make an order. The criteria mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, are the relaxation of licensing hours to mark occasions of
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
A Women’s World Cup held in the United Kingdom potentially has the merit of being included under those criteria, but this is not an issue on which I can give the noble Lord a definitive answer today. I will reflect on that outside the Committee and hopefully be able to write to him and the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, in due course.
Lord Addington (LD)
The noble Lord is being very helpful. We are asking to get into thinking that this is a normal, sensible thing to do. The noble Lord has said, “Yes, we’ll have a look at it. That is a good idea”, but making sure that that becomes normalised is what we might take as a bonus from this sensible order.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Essentially—this goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made—the power in the Licensing Act for the Secretary of State was never designed to be a blanket power; it was designed to cover, as has been mentioned,
“exceptional international, national, or local significance”.
The Secretary of State has to consider that the celebration period in relation to the order—which would be given either by executive power or by formal order—marks an occasion of exceptional national significance. Both noble Lords have mentioned the Women’s World Cup as a whole. If they reflect on today’s order, they will see that it is not about the UEFA Women’s Championship in Switzerland as a whole; it is specifically targeted at the semi-finals on 23 and 24 July and the final on 27 July.
I need to take away from today whether or not the Home Secretary, in this case, will reflect on the semi-final and final of the competition that both noble Lords have referred to, or the whole competition. This order, which is tangential to the issues that have been raised, features only the semi-final and final, and therefore that was the proposal that the Government brought forward.
I very much welcome the support for the order by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, and the points he made. There is an opportunity here to celebrate both England and Wales, should they make the semi-finals and final, and to help boost businesses in the hospitality sector and provide much-needed income and refreshment to those businesses. That is why I fervently hope that England and Wales make the semi-finals and final, and fight it out in an appropriate way in whichever Swiss football stadium they are playing in on 27 July.
This has been a useful debate and, if noble Lords will allow, I will reflect on those two matters and respond in writing. But, for the reasons that I have mentioned, this is for a specific event on a specific date, not for blanket Secretary of State coverage. But noble Lords have made a very strong case. If I may return to football —the round rather than the oval ball—for women, I commend this order to the Committee.
Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Lord Leong
That the Grand Committee do consider the Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)
My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 14 May and form part of the programme to implement the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. This Government remain committed to fighting economic crime while ensuring that our country maintains its reputation as a place where legitimate businesses can thrive. These objectives are supported by the reforms within the 2023 Act. Much progress on these reforms has already been made, and implementation of the Act continues at pace. This instrument forms part of the next phase of reforms.
It remains a key principle that those who are running and controlling companies should have their details publicly registered. This ensures that it is transparent to the public who those people are and that they can be held accountable for the company’s affairs. However, having personal information on the public companies register can put individuals at increased risk of harm, including fraud and identity theft and for other reasons such as in cases of domestic abuse. This instrument therefore aims to strike the right balance between transparency and privacy, ensuring that the register does not become a tool for wrongdoing. At the moment, individuals can already apply in certain limited cases to protect their residential address from the public register. Protection means that the registrar cannot display the address publicly. However, Companies House still retains the address and can share it with law enforcement and others who have functions of a public nature, if appropriate.
This instrument delivers the second of several reforms to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. It builds on regulations that came into force on 27 January. Members of this House might recall that this previous statutory instrument expanded the circumstances in which an individual can apply to protect their residential address from the public register. This new instrument will further expand the protection regime, allowing individuals to apply to protect their signature, business occupation and date of birth. It will also allow applications to protect a residential address where it is not already possible to do so, with the exception of certain charge-related filings and company names. The exceptions here reflect the consequential impacts that protecting information from those filings would have, given that their transparency is key for due diligence purposes. The Government will keep this under review.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as the author of company law textbooks and the occasional lecture on company law. I thank the Minister for setting out the intent of these regulations with notable clarity. I should say at the outset that I have no problem with these regulations except that, I would argue, they probably do not go far enough. Surely it is right and consistent with the intention of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act that we enact these regulations.
I wholly approve of the protection of the residential addresses of those people who may be the subject of fraud and identity theft; that seems very sensible. My questions to the Minister are twofold. In what limited circumstances will it be thought necessary to display the residential address, based on the points made by the Minister? Also, given that they are so few—if, indeed, there are any—should it not be the case that we simply do not show residential addresses? Based on the fact that Companies House will hold them anyway, the default position should therefore be that they are not shown, rather than that they are shown, and it should not depend on individuals applying through this process for them not to be shown. Natural inertia means that some people just will not do it. It seems to me that the reverse presumption would be sensible.
I have just two further brief points. The first relates to how Companies House will publicise this procedure so that people are aware of it if we are to go down this route. Secondly, how long is the application procedure likely to take? In the meantime, the address will be there, and the potential for corporate fraud and identity theft will be present.
With that, I am otherwise happy with these regulations.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for introducing this statutory instrument, which is part of a secondary legislation programme implementing the reforms of the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. Combating economic crimes is a top priority for all noble Lords, and it is essential that we support our UK businesses to thrive and contribute to economic growth.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition recognise that registering personal information of individuals, including their residential addresses, can lead to them being subject to an increased risk of fraud, identity theft and stalking. Currently, a director of a UK company or members of a UK limited liability partnership are able to apply to Companies House to prevent their residential address being displayed on the public register or disclosed to credit reference agencies. Aside from that, it is possible for an individual to protect their residential address from the public only in certain limited circumstances.
The statutory instrument introduced today will bring in additional measures to enhance the protection of personal information on the register. It builds on regulations that came into force earlier this year and will expand the circumstances in which an individual can protect their residential address. This instrument also adds to the existing address protection regime by allowing for the protection of an individual’s signature, business occupation and date of birth.
Under the legislation, any individual would be able to apply to suppress their residential address from public view, unless it is also the registered office address of an active company or part of the company’s name. The instrument will also remove the requirement for certain community interest company documents and statements of solvency to be signed, and the requirement for directors of overseas companies to provide a business occupation. It expands the grounds on which people with significant control can make an application to request the registrar to refrain from disclosing their residential address to a credit reference agency, as well as making other minor amendments to secondary legislation relating to PSCs, which are applied to limited liability partnerships and eligible Scottish partnerships.
His Majesty’s Official Opposition support the measures being introduced. We recognise that having personal information on the company’s register brings an increased risk to exposed individuals, and we are pleased that today’s reforms will bring in protections for personal information on the public registers held by Companies House.
Lord Leong (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, and the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for their contributions. I will respond to some of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, and I need to declare an interest: I was the publisher of his major textbook, Bourne on Company Law, and I have known the noble Lord for several decades now. I can say with great pride that his book sold many copies.
The noble Lord’s point about residential addresses is very important. We need to address two points here. When a company is live, it needs a registered address. If the registered address is the residential address of the director, it has to be shown unless an alternative address is shown as the registered address. That is something of which directors need to be mindful when they use their residential address as the registered address.
Secondly, where there is a charge on a company, the director’s residential address may appear on the public record so that people know what property is being held as security for the charge. It is important that we ensure transparency in what is being displayed publicly. At the same time, we have to be mindful that we need certain protections, and these regulations support that as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, also asked how Companies House is sharing or marketing what it is doing. Since the last regulations, Companies House has been emailing every director on its register to inform them of the new regulations coming into place. The last one is on identification, verification and all that, and it has tremendous support. I do not have the statistics in front of me, but Companies House has cleaned up a lot of the register and removed hundreds of thousands of names, as well as “fraudulent” companies, from the register.
This is the next step in cleaning up the Companies House data. This is an ongoing process and there will be further regulations to clean up the database. Eventually, within the allocated five-year clean-up period, we hope that what we will have on the database will be up to date and relevant.
In summary, today’s debate has once more showed that it is vital that we get the reforms within the 2023 Act right. These regulations are another step towards that goal and ensure the right balance between transparency and privacy.
Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
That the Grand Committee do consider the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 (Extension of Duration of Non-jury Trial Provisions) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 26th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, this draft order extends provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 that enable criminal trials to continue to be conducted without a jury in Northern Ireland, where certain conditions are met, for a further two-year period until 31 July 2027. Otherwise, these provisions would expire on 31 July this year. The non- jury trial provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which apply only in Northern Ireland, provide for a non-jury trial in exceptional cases where certain conditions are met that create a risk that the administration of justice might be impaired if the trial were to be conducted by a jury.
The decision to proceed with a non-jury trial is made by the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland, following a request from the Police Service of Northern Ireland or the Public Prosecution Service. In a non-jury trial, a single judge sits alone to hear the case and must give reasons for a conviction. Any person convicted before a non-jury trial has a right of appeal on either sentence or conviction without leave.
Following a 12-week public consultation and consideration of the indicators previously identified by the working group on non-jury trials, as well as wider information about the security situation in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State has determined that these non-jury trial provisions continue to be necessary to uphold the fair and effective administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
I reassure noble Lords that in Northern Ireland today there is a strong presumption of a jury trial in all criminal cases. In 2024, less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland were conducted without a jury. However, in the small proportion of cases in which they are exercised, the non-jury trial provisions not only protect potential jurors from threat of intimidation but offer certain defendants protection from the possibility of a hostile or fearful jury.
To further reassure your Lordships’ Committee, the Government ran a 12-week public consultation from 9 December 2024 to 3 March 2025. Only 17 responses were received through the public consultation: nine were in favour of extending the NJT provisions for a further two years, three were opposed and five neither clearly supported nor objected. The responses in favour typically cited the continued presence of paramilitary control and coercion in Northern Ireland communities, meaning that victims and families fear participating in the criminal justice system and that there is continued risk of jury intimidation.
Some of the responses against extending the provision suggested that the alternative non-jury trial provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 could instead be relied upon in Northern Ireland. However, as pointed out by some responses in favour of the extension, the threshold for the use of these provisions is much higher than under the 2007 Act. This makes it unsuited to deal with the unique challenges associated with Northern Ireland, as it would expose jurors to an unacceptable risk of intimidation and potentially undermine the administration of justice. In addition, while the 2003 Act includes provisions for a non-jury trial where there is jury tampering, it does not mitigate against the risk of jury bias, which the consultation responses have demonstrated is an ongoing risk in Northern Ireland. The full details of these responses were published in the Government’s consultation response document, which can be found on the NIO pages on GOV.UK. This was published on 6 May, the day on which this draft order was laid before the House.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I have two principal reasons for speaking to this instrument. The first is that I currently chair the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of this House, and therefore am very sensitive to issues that affect the communities in Northern Ireland. One of the issues that is absolutely of the greatest importance is the way in which the justice system operates.
My second, more particular reason is that I was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Independent Reviewer of National Security Arrangements in Northern Ireland in 2007. I prepared a report that led to the amendment of what were, at that stage, called the Diplock courts—and often still are—in 2007. I recommended that the system should have some instrumental changes made to it but that, in principle, the courts should continue. Critics rather wryly called them the “I can’t believe it’s not Diplock” courts after I made my recommendations. I have been following those courts, which have held non-jury-trials ever since, for the past 18 years, in some detail. I have spoken to lawyers practising in those courts and to some judges who have worked in them, and obviously I have tried to form my own judgments.
I absolutely agree with the Minister that, unfortunately, at the present time, it is not yet possible to say that there should be only jury trials for offences involving sectarian issues and aspects of terrorism or paramilitary activity. However, that is not to say that I believe that this system should continue indefinitely into the future; happily, the Minister has not suggested that today. It is notable that the number of non-jury trials has been reduced in recent years. I had hoped that that would happen; it has taken rather longer than I had hoped, but I am pleased to see that that has now occurred.
There have been some recent disturbances in Northern Ireland, which reaffirm my belief that there are still difficult sectarian issues, including bullying within communities and intimidation in some parts of them. That said—it will not surprise your Lordships to hear this from someone who has been at the Bar for over 50 years doing criminal cases—I believe that part of what is sometimes called the holy grail of our criminal justice system is jury trial. There may be changes in the jury trial system in England and Wales shortly; we await the Leveson report. I am sure that many of us lawyers in your Lordships’ House will view them with all of our critical faculties—but, of course, objectively at all times.
In this situation, it is right to extend these courts on the basis of need. Therefore, I empirically support what is proposed by the Government this afternoon.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the chairman of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. I thank my noble friend the Minister for her presentation of this statutory instrument. I should indicate that I am a member of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in your Lordships’ House.
Following on from the noble Lord, I also renounce and reject violence from all paramilitary organisations in Northern Ireland. It is wrong now as it was wrong over all the years of the Troubles; that point cannot be overemphasised. The murder and terrorism were wrong. They took the lives of innocent civilians in many instances and robbed families of loved ones. Those scars remain—that is a fact of life.
However, 27 years after the Good Friday agreement of 1998, 19 years after the St Andrews agreement of October 2006 when the decision was taken to devolve policing and justice—I well remember being there—and 15 years after when, in 2010, the legislative position on policing and justice was enacted and the first Minister for Justice was appointed, I get a sense of déjà vu. We debated this issue back in 2021. When will actual normalisation take place so that we no longer require non-jury trials? As a democrat, I do not feel happy about or sit comfortably on non-jury trials. I was brought up and reared in Northern Ireland and come from the democratic Irish nationalist community. There were many rigours in all such jury systems. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether, from the Government’s research, they can provide a guesstimate of when we can move to normalisation?
I note, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, that such trials are not in total use any more in Northern Ireland. There were 12 non-jury trials in the Crown Court in 2023, in comparison to a total of 1,423, so they are not used readily. However, I am conscious of the fact that there is still evidence of paramilitarism; this was clearly demonstrated some weeks ago when people in certain communities were bullied by paramilitarism and paramilitaries, because you could translate sectarianism in this instance into racism. Several people involved in that were, it was suggested, also involved in other acts of terrorism, threats and intimidation.
I ask my noble friend the Minister: when is normalisation likely? This is all related to the legacy issue. Currently, the Secretary of State is considering the repeal of the legacy Act. When will the new legacy legislation come forward? I know that that is circumscribed by certain legal instruments in certain courts because, yesterday, I had the opportunity here to meet two daughters of Sean Brown, who was brutally murdered in March 1997 in Bellaghy. There is a need for a full investigation and inquiry because there are lots of twists in the tale of why he was murdered. His family need to know that; they need truth and justice.
With that, I understand the reasons for the extension. It is not something that I sit happily beside, but I hope that we are moving to full normalisation and that we will not see an extension for another two years in two years’ time.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
My Lords, I support this draft order extending the provisions in the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, which will, for a further two years until 31 July 2027, enable criminal trials to continue to be concluded without a jury in Northern Ireland if certain conditions are met. The provisions are there to protect potential jurors from intimidation and offer defendants protection from potentially biased jurors in specific cases. The extension is also informed by the security situation in Northern Ireland, including the fact that the threat level from Northern Ireland-related terrorists has remained at “substantial” since March 2024.
As we know, non-jury trials take place only in exceptional circumstances. Under the old Diplock scheme, the default was a non-jury trial for certain offences. I entirely understand the Government’s reasons for wanting to extend the measures, given the circumstances in Northern Ireland; those have already been touched on. We know that, in the past weeks, we have witnessed serious violence across Northern Ireland. Police officers were seriously injured, property was attacked and were people attacked in their own homes. Let me say this clearly: the violence that we have witnessed on our streets in recent days cannot be justified and must be condemned. We have people in Northern Ireland who want to take us back to those days but we, as democrats, must resist that.
The other issue I want to raise—the Minister will be aware of it—is the resourcing and funding of the PSNI. It has continued to fall over a number of years. In fact, the current budget is simply inadequate and the pressures on the service are unsustainable, certainly in the long term. The PSNI is currently running at an estimated deficit of £34 million, which is a huge amount of money, and the force requires significant financial investment over the next number of years. We know that the chief constable has touched on this issue many times because, at this moment in time, we have 3,300 police officers in Northern Ireland; the chief constable is saying that, for the police in Northern Ireland to do the job that they need to do, that figure needs to be raised to over 7,000. This can be done only by the proper resourcing of policing in Northern Ireland but that has not been the case. I appeal to the Minister and this Labour Government: if they seriously want good, effective policing across Northern Ireland, it is important that the PSNI is properly resourced.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her presentation. I am pleased to support the order. We all have a responsibility to ensure that peace, stability and justice are protected and long-lasting. It is important to acknowledge that good progress regarding the security situation in Northern Ireland has been made and that the threat to jurors has, in some instances, been reduced.
However, recently collected evidence confirms that there remains concern about the potential for jury intimidation and bias, particularly in cases with paramilitary connections. Although, as we have heard, there are only a small number of cases where a non-jury trial is necessary, it remains my view that the current provision, though far from perfect, should continue to serve Northern Ireland as a necessary function in supporting the effective delivery of the criminal justice process. Naturally, there is a certain reluctance to renew such exceptional provisions—like others, I wish that such measures were a thing of the past—but, given Northern Ireland’s exceptional security complexity and the spectre of the threat of intimidation from dissident paramilitaries and other criminal elements, the renewal of the non-jury provisions is necessary.
Of course, it is important that we have safeguards. These are built into this, in that decisions for non-jury trials are made on a case-by-case basis. Of course, the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland must suspect that one or more of the four safeguard conditions are met. Another protection is that any person convicted before a non-jury court has the right of appeal against sentence or conviction without leave and has the opportunity to have the judgment against them explained; of course, that is not available if they are convicted by a jury.
It is my hope that the day will come when measures such as those before us today are unnecessary, but, unfortunately, the consultation and evidence clearly show that that stage has not been reached. The onus is on all of us to continue to work maturely in order to work out practical ways forward towards achieving a more normalised society in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we will not be back here in two years’ time to renew this order.
One point of concern that I have regarding non-jury trials is that it appears that they are sometimes subject to considerable delay. I believe that this should be investigated. Of course, jury trials in Northern Ireland are also delayed sometimes, which is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Finally, almost 26 years after the signing of the Belfast agreement, we still have the curse of paramilitary organisations operating across Northern Ireland. Does the Minister agree that it is time that these paramilitary organisations left the stage without being offered more financial incentives?
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, before I turn to the instrument before the Committee, as this is a Northern Ireland debate and it is 1 July, I want to take a moment to reflect that today marks the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. We remember the heroic sacrifice of the men of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Thiepval on that day in 1916 and, later in September, that of the 16th (Irish) Division at Guillemont and Ginchy. I had the honour of representing His Majesty’s Government at the Somme on a number of occasions, including in my last official engagement as a Minister on this day last year; there was never a more solemn, moving or poignant duty.
I turn to the instrument before the Committee. The Opposition support the ninth extension, under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, for a further two years of non-jury trials in a small number of cases. As the Minister who extended these measures in your Lordships’ House in 2023, I could probably repeat almost word for word what I said a little over two years ago; I am sure that the Committee will be relieved if I do not do so.
As has been pointed out, a non-jury trial may be permitted if the defendant is associated with a proscribed organisation or if the offence being tried is in connection with religious or political hostility. Such cases are high-profile and continue to provoke strong opinion across the community in Northern Ireland. In such circumstances, the risks of jury intimidation and juror bias remain very real probabilities. As such, I agree with the Minister that these measures are both necessary and proportionate.
With that said, it is also worth considering the very real progress that has been made. As the Minister pointed out, and as was recognised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the number of non-jury trials is now around 0.7% of the total number of trials in Northern Ireland and has been at that level for the past few years. To put that into further perspective, that is a total of 10 cases out of some 1,500 in the Crown Court in 2024; this compares to around 300 a year during the peak of the old Diplock system in the 1980s.
I noted with interest the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who is a distinguished former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and, now, the chair of the scrutiny committee. I, probably like him, have lost count of the number of times I have sat in rooms in Washington and New York and had to explain to Irish-American audiences the difference between the old Diplock system and the system that we have had since 2007. We all look forward to the day when all trials will be conducted in front of juries and these measures can lapse, but we remain some way from that today.
The fact that these measures are required reminds us that, although life in Northern Ireland has in many respects been transformed over the past 30 years since the ceasefires and the subsequent Belfast agreement of 1998, there remains a potent terrorist threat. Although the threat level went down from “severe” to “substantial” in March 2024, there can be absolutely no room for complacency. I am always conscious that the difference between those two threat levels of “substantial” and “severe” is one word—“highly”—because “substantial” means that an attack is likely while “severe” means that an attack is highly likely. So we cannot be complacent.
There persist in Northern Ireland small numbers of people determined to pursue their political agenda through acts of terrorism. Although their actions will always ultimately fail in their objectives, they retain both lethal intent and capability. However, they will never succeed because the future of Northern Ireland will only ever be decided by democracy and consent—never by violence. That has been the determination of successive Governments over many years, including the ones in which I served, and I believe that it is the determination of His Majesty’s current Government today.
The reason why there are not more successful—if I can use that word—national security attacks in Northern Ireland is down to the skill, professionalism and bravery of the Police Service of Northern Ireland and our other security agencies, which do so much to thwart them. Like the Minister, I place on the record once again our unstinting support for them, along with our admiration and thanks; we owe them a huge debt of gratitude for the superb job that they do.
In that context, I genuinely welcome the additional security funding for the PSNI that was announced by the Government in the recent spending review. The need for that additional security funding was recognised and delivered by the then coalition Government in 2010 and continued by its Conservative successors. I am pleased that it has been maintained by the current Government; it is of huge importance for the PSNI in its efforts to keep the people of Northern Ireland safe and secure.
In conclusion, the extension of these measures, though regrettable, remains necessary in certain cases to ensure that the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland continues to function. I was struck by the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, on the delays in the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland. It seems that it can take an interminable time for cases to come to trial; every effort really does need to be made to try to speed up the process.
I agree with the Minister that no Government in the United Kingdom treat this issue of the dispensing of juries in criminal trials lightly. We all share the hope that, sooner rather than later, the day will come when we can dispense with these measures. Until that day comes, however, we have a duty to extend them; the Opposition therefore support the order before the Committee today.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
First, I thank all noble Lords—and the noble Baroness—for their support for the extension of the non-jury trial provisions.
Before I move on to the substance of what we have been talking about, I want to reference something that the noble Lord, Lord Caine, rightly raised: today is the anniversary of the Somme. Unfortunately, due to parliamentary time and business in both Houses, no Minister is able to go to Northern Ireland today, but the Secretary of State laid a wreath at the Cenotaph to recognise the service of and remember those who lost their lives and fought to give us everything that we are discussing today around our access to a fair justice system.
I also thank the noble Lord for making sure that every anniversary is always referenced in the House. He taught me well when I took over his former role on Northern Ireland. His first piece of advice was to make sure that I always know which anniversary it is; I am grateful for both that advice and his ongoing support.
We are using an exceptional system that is used only in very limited circumstances. There is rightly a presumption for a jury trial in all cases. As I have said, and as we have touched on, non-jury trials account for less than 1% of all Crown Court cases in Northern Ireland. The Government are committed to ending the non-jury trial system under the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, but now is not the right time to do so; I am very pleased that noble Lords recognise this.
This Government are committed to tackling the threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism, as the previous Government were, and to supporting the Northern Ireland Executive’s programme to tackle paramilitarism. However, we believe that further progress on the security situation is required before we can be confident that these non-jury trials are no longer required. I want to touch on some of the points made by noble Lords; I hope to answer all their questions but, if I do not, I will reflect on them in Hansard and write to noble Lords.
It is incredibly important that we touch on the current situation with regard to paramilitarism in Northern Ireland. As has been said very eloquently in your Lordships’ House, not only was it was never justified; it is not justified today. It requires a concerted effort, from those of us who believe in democracy and peace, to keep fighting the good fight. Perhaps that is not the appropriate language to have used. Violence and criminality have no place in Northern Ireland. They serve only to hold us back from decades of progress as we move forwards towards a peaceful and prosperous future in Northern Ireland.
I turn to some of the specific points. My noble friend Lady Ritchie touched on the number of non-jury trial cases in 2023. As the noble Lord, Lord Caine, stated, it was 10 cases out of 1,501 last year, or 0.7%. There has been a clear trajectory downwards in those numbers.
On ending the temporary provisions, which I think all noble Lords agree is where we need to end up—as was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Caine, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie—none of us wants to see this system of non-jury trials in place for longer than needed, but much depends on the security situation. While I wish I could tell my noble friend when the security situation will be resolved, that is unfortunately beyond my gift. I wish I could resolve it tomorrow. The Government will keep the provisions under constant review and continue to ask the independent reviewer of the justice and security Act to review the operation of non-jury trials in their annual report. As I said in opening, without prejudging any future consultation, the Secretary of State has asked officials to examine, over the next two years, how Northern Ireland can move away from these provisions when the time is right.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My noble friend will recall that I and others discussed with her in the last few weeks trying to ring-fence funding in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street specifically for policing in Northern Ireland and to transfer it to the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that it is used not by other government departments but simply for policing. Has there been any progress on that?
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
I do not know where I got 3,000 from—I meant to say 6,000. I apologise to the Committee and ask for correction.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his correction. He did worry me a little that something had happened within the PSNI that I had missed. I have my own slight correction to make, which is more of a technicality: the £200 million I announced for police recruitment has been approved by the Department of Finance but needs executive approval, which it is yet to receive. I wanted to clarify that before I got myself in trouble.
Regarding the very genuine question from my noble friend and many others on the ring-fencing of the PSNI grant, I understand why this is such an issue. We increased the budget during the SR to £19.3 billion, which is the highest amount on record. However, we must be clear on what devolution is and is not. The money has been sent to Northern Ireland; it is there, and it is now up to the politicians in Northern Ireland to prioritise funding. However, as noble Lords will be aware, we have ensured that there is ring-fencing for the additional security fund, and we continue to work daily with the Executive to secure additional funding.
On the delay in trials raised by the noble Lord, Lord Browne, while the Justice Minister for England is here and definitely heard that request, I will clarify for the record that the issue of delays in the projection of non-jury trials was raised by two respondents to the consultation on how long this was taking. One respondent who objected to the extension of the provisions in particular raised the concern that a judge sitting alone could adjourn the case for a longer period of time than would be possible if a jury had been sitting. However, this should be seen against the backdrop of the wider criminal justice system being subject to delay.
The justice system is devolved, and it is for the Department of Justice to lead. It has work under way to address some of the causes, including work to reform committal processes. PSNI is also progressing work to improve the timeliness of case file submissions to tackle delay. In March 2025, the devolved Minister of Justice welcomed the allocation of additional funding to progress reforms within the justice system, and £20.45 million has been allocated to help speed up and transform the criminal justice system.
Lord Caine (Con)
I do not wish to detain the Committee for much longer. The noble Baroness rightly said that the criminal justice system is devolved in Northern Ireland, but these are cases that involve national security issues, which are, of course, a responsibility of His Majesty’s Government and the Secretary of State. In former times it was very common practice for the Secretary of State and the Justice Minister to have frequent meetings at which they would discuss these matters. Could she assure me that these are continuing and that the Secretary of State regularly engages with the Justice Minister to try to speed up these delays in the criminal justice system?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
Like magic, a piece of paper has arrived that confirms that the Secretary of State—
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
My officials are absolutely brilliant. It confirms that the Secretary of State engages with the Justice Minister regularly on issues of shared interest and concern, and this obviously includes issues pertaining to national security and will continue to do so. I will endeavour to get an update on anything else that is going on and write to the noble Lord.
I think I have answered most of the substantive points, but there are a couple of others that I want to touch on. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his previous work on counterterrorism and the work that he is doing with the Northern Ireland committee. That is a step towards normalisation, which has been a theme as we talk about some of these issues. Making sure that normalisation happens, in terms of both counterterrorism and the operation of our communities, is key because we are democrats. Making sure that we are being held to account is key.
My noble friend Lady Ritchie asked when legacy legislation will come forward. She knows me well as a Whip, and I am adamant and clear that we will definitely bring forward such legislation when parliamentary time allows. All noble Lords will be aware that this was a manifesto commitment and was in the King’s Speech, and I expect to spend many hours in Committee debating it with all of you.
Lord Caine (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister, and I appreciate that she cannot give a time commitment on the introduction of legislation, but can she confirm whether the Government intend to set out the next steps on legacy before the Summer Recess?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)
I can assure the noble Lord that he and I are likely to be in correspondence before Summer Recess.
Lord Hay of Ballyore (DUP)
On the £200 million that has been allocated to policing, have the Executive received that amount? There is some confusion on the £200 million. We are getting information that, until now, they have received only £5 million. Clarity on the £200 million would be important, especially when it comes to policing. Has it been approved by the Executive?
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
I believe it is still waiting to be approved by the Executive. But in terms of the block grant, one of the things that we have been able to reassure the Executive on is what their funding is going to be over the next three years, and that gives them a level of confidence to move forward.
I have received another clever bit of paper. Yesterday’s June monitoring round announcement confirmed that the Executive have agreed to give the Northern Ireland Department of Justice first call on up to £7 million in future monitoring rounds in the current financial year, towards the first year of the PSNI workforce recovery business case. That is the £7 million, not the £200 million. But I want to reassure noble Lords before I sit down or give way that this is a devolved matter, and how they are allocating their money is a matter for colleagues in Belfast.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
As a former Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive, I say that the Minister will appreciate that that sort of commitment from the June monitoring process is not really a commitment because I know personally that these sorts of commitments were made to me as Housing Minister and they never necessarily materialised. I ask whether it is possible for her, as a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, to impress upon the Northern Ireland Executive the importance of the definite allocation of funding for policing because the chief constable needs it in order to deal with current policing pressures in advance of dealing with those issues to do with legacy that are pre devolution.
Lord Hay of Ballyore
Following on from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, there is confusion about this £200 million, where it has gone, who is allocating it and so on. We need clarification around the allocation of future funding for police.
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent
My Lords, what I can say is that this is a good first step to getting police on the streets. The very fact that we are having this discussion about how we are going to spend more money that the UK Government have allocated to the Northern Ireland Executive is a good step. I think all noble Lords would agree that John Boutcher is an extraordinary public servant and has made an effective argument as to why he needs additional resourcing. The onus is therefore on the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that they are communicating clearly with him about next steps. On that note, I think I have answered all questions from noble Lords, and I hope that they will continue to support the adoption of the SI.
Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025
(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Timpson
That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025.
Relevant document: 29th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, this Government inherited a prison system on the brink of collapse. The previous Government added just 500 net spaces to our prison estate, while at the same time sentence lengths rose. As a result, the prison population is now rising by 3,000 each year and outstripping supply.
When we took office, we were left no option but to introduce a temporary change to the law that allows prisoners serving an eligible standard determinate sentence to be released on licence after serving 40%, rather than 50%, of their sentence in custody. This enabled the end of the dysfunctional and unmanageable end of custody supervised licence scheme. But we knew this was a first step.
Since taking office, this Government have delivered almost 2,500 prison places. In the most recent spending review, we committed a further £4.7 billion to open 14,000 more by 2031. This is the largest prison expansion since the Victorian era. That longer-term investment is necessary, but not sufficient in itself, to avoid the capacity issues that we have faced in the criminal justice system for many months. In May, the Lord Chancellor announced that the adult male custodial estate across England and Wales was forecast to run out of places by November this year. Alongside the Government’s long-term building strategy and sentencing reform, this grave projection requires immediate action, particularly in respect of the current use of recall.
Last October, we commissioned the independent sentencing review, led by the former Lord Chancellor David Gauke, to find sustainable policy solutions and ensure that no future Government are ever again in a position where we have more prisoners than prison places, and are forced to rely on emergency release. This review suggests that recall should be rare and a last resort, replacing standard and short-term recalls for those on standard determinate sentences with a 56-day fixed-term recall. The Government have in principle accepted this recommendation, which requires primary legislation to implement.
A Bill will soon be introduced to implement many of the review’s recommendations. However, it will take time to take effect. The impact of sentencing reforms will not be felt before spring next year. We therefore remain in a critical position until then. Our custodial estate stands as a reservoir filled to the brim. Any further influx risks overflow, with serious consequences for the system and society alike. That is why we are taking targeted action on recall, which remains a significant driver of prison demand.
The recall population has more than doubled since 2018, from 6,000 to 13,600 prisoners in March this year, without a corresponding growth in offending rates. With more people in prison and under community supervision serving longer sentences, recall rates have naturally increased. When recalled, offenders serving standard determinate sentences can currently receive either a standard or a fixed-term recall. The length of a fixed-term recall is set out in primary legislation. It is set at 28 days if the sentence is 12 months or more, or 14 days if the sentence is under 12 months. During this time, the Probation Service will put in place robust risk management plans and stringent licence conditions for their release. After this period, they are automatically re-released. Those not suitable for a fixed-term recall may currently receive a standard recall, under which they remain in custody until the end of their sentence, unless re-released earlier by the Secretary of State or the Parole Board. Our latest data shows that at least 48% of all recalls are fixed term rather than standard.
This order provides for the mandatory use of fixed-term recall in specified circumstances. We estimate that this will be able to create an additional 1,400 prison places. It shall apply to adult offenders serving standard determinate sentences of fewer than 48 months, except where they are under the age of 18 at the point of recall, are convicted of terrorist or national security offences or pose a terrorist risk, are managed at MAPPA levels 2 or 3—which includes certain violent and sexual offenders—or are recalled in connection with being charged with an offence. These offenders can continue to receive a standard-term recall, with release subject to Parole Board or Secretary of State decision. In all other applicable cases, a fixed-term recall must now be imposed.
It remains the case that the Probation Service will undertake an individualised risk assessment before any offender is released under this measure, regardless of the offence they commit, including the risk of physical, emotional, psychological or sexual harm, to inform their risk management plan and licence conditions. Offenders face re-recall to prison if they breach licence conditions or their risk escalates.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for outlining this SI. Both the Prison Service and the Probation Service are in a mess. There is no point in wasting time apportioning blame. My family motto, ar bwy mae’r bai—who can we blame? —is used far too much in modern situations.
The criminal justice system is out of kilter. There are not enough judges. There is no money to fund the number of sitting days for which the Lord Chief Justice has called. There are not enough prosecutors to man the courts that do sit and it is no longer profitable for barristers to appear for the defence. The simple consequence is that there are 17,000 remand prisoners sitting idly in cells awaiting trial. That is nearly 20% of the prison population. Compare that to the 1,300 new prison places that this measure envisages.
The next problem is the length of sentences. There is no God-given standard for the amount of time a person should spend in prison for an offence. An eye for an eye is about as far as the Bible ever took us, along with a lot about forgiveness and redemption. Henry VIII made himself head of the Church, but 72,000 people were executed in his time, 75% of them for theft. In Elizabethan times, the death penalty was imposed for theft of more than a shilling. There were no problems of an excessive prison population at that time, but neither did it solve the crime problem.
When I was in mid-flow in my practice in the 1980s, sentences were probably a half to two-thirds of what they are currently, but political competition created a demand for longer sentences. Which party could be tougher on crime? They were fully aided by the media in this, and public pressure to increase sentences was the result. I discussed this with the late Lord Judge, when he was Lord Chief Justice. The gist of his reply was that you must expect the judiciary to react to and follow what the public want. The recent battle between the Lord Chancellor and the Sentencing Council was deeply depressing; they should really be on the same side.
Fuelling the demand for longer sentences is a perception that the country is going to pot, and that crime is more and more rampant. But, if you look at the statistics, you get a different picture. In 1982, there were 620 homicides. It grows to just over 1,000 at the beginning of this millennium, after which there was a decline. In the year ending last December, the number reduced to 535 homicides, as recorded by the police.
By way of comparison, I have some knowledge of Trinidad where I visited death row. In the early 2000s, it held about 150 inmates as part of the royal prison. In the most recent comparable year, 2024, there were 624 homicides in Trinidad—more than the UK, but in a population of 1.5 million as opposed to the 70 million in this country. Crime is not rampant.
The next problem is the recruitment and retention of prison and probation staff. I have spoken many times about the problems at Berwyn prison near my home in Wrexham—the largest prison in Britain. In May this year, His Majesty’s Inspectorate found that a new governor had indeed injected some energy into dealing with its problems, but it reported that
“too many prisoners … did not have enough to occupy their time, with 25% unemployed and 27%”—
only 27%—
“in part-time work or education”.
I am sure that these figures will not impress the Minister.
There has always been a severe shortage of experienced prison officers at this prison. It was explained to me by an experienced and senior prison officer from Parkhurst on the Isle of Wight that prison officers look to their fellows to protect their backs, and they will not apply for positions in new prisons with rookie prison officers. In the last statistics that I saw, something like 80% at Berwyn prison had not served three years in the job.
This SI asks a lot of the Probation Service to prop up all these failures elsewhere in the criminal justice system. The Probation Service has very similar problems of retention and recruitment. The Minister referred to being one on one with a probation officer. I was told of one incident where one probation officer was looking after a group of a dozen or so, whose day’s task was painting a wall. One youth complained of vertigo after climbing a ladder and demanded that he be taken home. The sole probation officer, who drove the van, had no option but to pile all his charges into the back of the van to take the unfortunate individual to his place of abode. When they returned to the painting job later, someone had nicked all the paint tins. The system is broken.
So what is the lesson from all this? This SI will not solve a single part of the structural problems that I outlined. It is a stopgap, a thumb in the hole of the dam. If the Minister leaves this Room with his officials thinking that they have solved the problem and skinned this instrument through—despite the excellent report of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose criticisms I entirely support—they will fail the people of this country. It is more than a battle for funds with the Treasury. It is more than for the Ministry of Justice to become a protected department. I hope that this Minister will have the vision and energy to drive wholesale reform through. He will earn his place in history if he does.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest: I was the lead non-executive director of His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service from 2018 to 2025. I support the proposal that the Minister has put before us. I note the noble Lord’s family motto, but am nevertheless compelled to observe that many of these short-term fixes that are being put in place to deal with the capacity crisis could have been addressed by the last Government much sooner.
I think I am right to say that the recall population is growing faster than the overall prison population as a whole—no doubt, if that is not correct, the Minister’s officials will correct me. Nevertheless, we should have addressed the growing recall population long before we were forced to by the capacity crisis. Too many offenders are recalled with little benefit and much disruption. This reform, small though its impact is—the noble Lord is quite correct about that—will put a brake on the length of recalls but not reduce substantially the number of offenders recalled. As the Minister said, we will have to wait until the implementation of the sentencing reforms proposed by David Gauke to make long-term reform to the numbers of people being recalled. I hope we will address that problem robustly. As I say, I support this reform, but we really need to put an end to these short-term fixes and get a grip on the whole sentencing issue. We will have the chance to do that before long.
I have two caveats of concern in this proposal. First, I quite understand the concerns that people have about the public protection safeguards, particularly for offenders who have committed offences involving domestic violence. The Minister referred to those and I know from my experience in HMPPS that the safeguards are robust and I hope that they will protect those victims appropriately.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the order. We must, of course, recognise the extent of the pressures facing our prison services. Prison spaces have reached capacity and recalled prisoners are a significant driver of prison place demand. Recall is a measure available to His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to bring an offender managed in the community, following release from prison, back into custody. That is a point to which I will return. Under current legislation, recall is used when offenders breach their licence conditions, no matter how minor the breach of licence conditions may be, even in the case of a non-violent offender. It will also apply where their risk is elevated.
As indicated, at the end of March this year, 13,583 prisoners had been recalled into custody, together with a further 17 mentioned by the Minister. That is an increase of 10% since the year before and more than double the recall population in 2018. These figures are a matter for concern, and we recognise the Government’s intention to address the challenges through interventions of various kinds, but we have several concerns with the approach taken in this order.
First, we must recognise that if a prisoner is sent to prison for four years, re-releasing him back into the community after 28 days poses significant risks to victims and the wider public. The reforms introduced by the Government create considerable risk to the public and are required to be reconsidered.
Secondly, there are 10,500 foreign criminals in our jails and 17,000 people in prison awaiting trial—on remand—which, together account for almost one-third of the prison population. It is essential for the Government to reconsider the judiciary’s offer of extra court sitting days as a means of reducing prisoner numbers and to address the whole issue of remand and how it is approached.
Thirdly, we know that there is not one solution to fix the current prison population pressures, but we must be acute to the threat of re-releasing high-risk violent offenders to the public when they have a track record of poor compliance. Probation services are already struggling with unprecedented demands, and it is essential that the Government reconsider the implications of these reforms on both the victims of crime and the issue of wider public safety.
Fourthly, I quote Dame Nicole Jacobs, the Domestic Abuse Commissioner for England and Wales, who said that she could not stress enough,
“the lack of consideration for victims’ safety and how many lives are being put in danger because of this proposed change”.
We must be responsive to the warnings made by the Domestic Abuse Commissioner. These reforms cannot safely exempt perpetrators of domestic abuse from the proposal, because they do not know how many domestic abusers are serving time in prison or currently being monitored by probation.
In conclusion, we recognise that the Government have difficult decisions to make, but they must do so with a rational approach, not one that proposes changes that further endanger lives. We urge the Government to reconsider their plans for recalling prisoners and choose the safety of the public over pressure on prison spaces. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on this. I do not expect him to respond to the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that somehow the death penalty could be a solution; clearly, that was not his intended meaning. But I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lemos: the number of recalls as well as the period of recall is critical here. As I indicated in a previous debate in the Chamber, it respectfully appears to me that one ought to address whether minor licence breaches should, in the case of non-violent offenders, result in recall at all. There are alternative means of dealing with this.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions this afternoon. I will write if I miss any answers to specific questions, but I will try to answer them all here.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, made some important and interesting points around the Prison and Probation Service being in a mess and blame. I am not in the blame game—I am in the “fix it” game—but we all recognise the complex problems that we have across the whole justice system. It needs a thoughtful, long-term vision.
On the issues in the courts, the Leveson review will be published shortly. The Government are going through this important process to address the problems that the noble Lord raised, but, in the meantime, a record number of sitting days have now been funded in the Crown Court. That is still not enough, though; we need a sustainable system.
The Gauke review has been published and will, I hope, soon lead to legislation. We talk about sentence length. The progression model described in this review is very interesting. It is aligned with the Texas model: if you behave well, you have a certain release point, but, if you behave badly, you stay in prison for longer. I am interested in how incentives work in prison because the model is well proven in other jurisdictions.
It is not just about the Leveson review and the Gauke review; it is also about the spending review. The Treasury has given us a substantial amount of money to build new prison places, so that by the end of this Parliament we will have more people in prison than ever before. There is also investment in probation, with an extra £700 million for more staff, accommodation, tags and technology. We need these three reviews, but we also need long-term culture change and a sustainable plan.
I am glad the noble Lord talks about HMP Berwyn— I can also see it from my house. I know quite a lot about what is going on there, because a foster child who used to live with our family is a prison officer there and tells us regularly about what is going on. The noble Lord is correct that there are still recruitment gaps at HMP Berwyn; the retention rates and the average length of service of a prison officer there, and in other prisons as well, are too low. That is why I am implementing the prison officer training review, which I carried out before I came into Government, to make sure that we recruit great officers who learn the skills quickly, alongside the more complex skills required, and who stay. One of the things that we have lost over the years is the long- term skills base that the service had for many years.
I think I am one of the few Ministers who has visited HMP Parkhurst recently. It has a full complement of officers, with a very different employment set up—it makes a big difference when you have enough staff; that is very clear. When a prison has enough staff, we can get enough prisoners into activities, education and so on.
The ask of probation is significant, and noble Lords and noble and learned Lords are 100% correct that this is where the heavy lifting needs to be done. It is about investing in recruitment, training and technology. If we do not get this right, we will keep having problems in our prisons as well. I agree that we need long-term reform to solve this problem. In the short term, it is important that we do not run out of space. We need a sustainable justice system. I am sure the noble Lord will be pleased to know that I certainly have the vision and energy to get this done. The satisfaction is not for me but for the officers and probation staff, so that they can be enabled to do the job they came into the service to do.
My noble friend Lord Lemos raises some very important points around short-term measures. They just prove that the system is unsustainable, and this has been going on and on. We need to make sure that the staff who work in the Prison and Probation Service have far more consistent leadership and policy-making from us so they know what they need to do, rather than it changing all the time. We need to make sure that capacity is sustainable, and that we have enough probation and prison staff to do the job.
The organisation needs a strong vision, but within that vision, victims need to come first. That is why the role of victim liaison officers and the victim contact scheme is really important, but we need the resources. The noble Lord is quite right that we need to invest in probation. That is why the 45% increase in funding to £700 million is really important.
What is happening with technology? This morning, I was a dragon: we had our first technology “Dragon’s Den”, where I sat in on seven presentations from some of the most developed technology companies in the world. We had someone from New Zealand and someone from America, as well as UK-based technology companies, presenting their solutions to some of our problems. Some of those were about what we can do to improve what happens in a prison, but most of them were about probation, and that is exactly where we need to invest in our technology.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, raised very important points around the concerns about the 28-day recall and what happens when someone is released after that. It is better than the emergency releases, which were less controlled, and 28 or 14 days give us time, hopefully, to find accommodation and the medical support that people need. However, we do not want to have as many recalls as we have now; he is completely right about that. Public safety has to be our priority, but we also need to ensure that probation staff are focused on those at highest risk, because they are probably more likely to be recalled. I agree that we need rational thinking, but we need space in our prisons to ensure that the reforms coming down the track can take effect, so we cannot run out of space before then.
Recalls have doubled since 2018. The noble and learned Lord is completely right that the number is far too high, but I believe we have high levels because too many people are leaving our prison system addicted, homeless, mentally unwell and unemployed. Having been on the employment side of this work for more than 20 years, I know that it is incredibly difficult to employ someone who may be very talented but is ill and homeless. It is about having a sustainable system and reducing the number of recalls over time, but we will do that most appropriately by setting people up when they leave prison to succeed rather than to fail.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do not want to be difficult, but why should we not pursue the suggestion, even in advance of the Gauke review, of not recalling? Is it completely impossible not to recall people for minor breaches of a sentence for a minor offence? Why can we not get on with that?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
This recall works by using MAPPA levels 2 and 3, terrorist offences and so on, but, in the longer term, recall will form part of the discussions around the Gauke review and the sentencing Bill. However, it is important that we have recall as a tool for victims of domestic violence whose perpetrators are ignoring orders against them.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
I intervene to emphasise the point that I and the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, have made. In the case of offenders who commit a minor breach of their licence and have not been sentenced for a violent offence, there is surely a compelling case for not recalling them at all—there are other means of dealing with them through the Probation Service—so that we do not have a situation in which someone who has been in prison for fraud, for example, is stopped for a road traffic offence and sent back because they have breached the terms of their licence. It does not seem to make any sense in this context, and this could be done more or less immediately.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
I support the noble and learned Lord in that. There are recalls for failure to keep appointments, such as tagging appointments. If the Minister were to lay down a rule that people were to be tagged before they left prison and not wander around the countryside until they fail to make an appointment for that purpose, it would do a great deal of service.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
Our probation officers are experts in managing risk and their decisions determine whether someone is recalled, but it is important that we look into examples where it seems that someone should not be recalled. We need to have diversion options available too; the breaches may be minor, but they might not be from the victim’s point of view and may be part of other offending behaviour. IPP offenders, for example, can sometimes be recalled if their behaviour is similar to their original offence.
I hope noble Lords agree that this order is necessary to address the critical capacity issues faced by our prisons in the immediate future and is an appropriate bridging measure to avert a crisis before longer-term solutions are implemented. This draft instrument is a critical part of the Ministry of Justice’s approach to ensuring that our criminal justice system can continue to operate effectively. I trust that your Lordships will recognise its necessity, and I therefore commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.