Baroness Hamwee
Main Page: Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Hamwee's debates with the Ministry of Justice
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is unavoidably unable to be here. I apologise for taking his place from the second Bench; I am sure noble Lords will understand that I need propping up.
I thank the noble and learned Lord for explaining the Conservative amendments in such clear detail. They read to me as if he and his party are going along with the Bill with such reluctance that they would really like to oppose it completely, and have proposed so many amendments so as to come just short of wrecking it. I know that the noble and learned Lord will say that he is giving shape to the presumption, and I accept that some of the amendments will help to clarify the position. He calls them “practical and operational”; I do not necessarily read them that way. But I do think is a pity. He quotes a very few cases, and few cases make bad law; and using language such as “roaming our streets” does not help a sensible and calm debate on a Bill which is thoughtful and addresses not only the matter of prison capacity but what will be best for particular offenders to assist them, as I read it, not to reoffend. From these Benches, we wholeheartedly support that.
I have to say, too, that, if we were to accept these amendments, we would be in danger of constraining magistrates so much that they would read what they are given as prescription instead of leaving them scope to produce the best sentence in the particular circumstances of the offender.
On the first amendment in this group, can the Minister say how often a sentence of just short of 12 months is given? I hear 12 months as being quite a usual order, so that, if one changed the terminology, one would be nullifying or at any rate reducing the effect of the central part of this Bill. On Amendment 4, concerning danger not just to an individual but to the public, when I read it, I thought, “If there is a real danger to the general public, we probably wouldn’t be looking at a sentence of less than 12 months”.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, there is a curious diffidence over so important a part of the Bill as Clause 1. I shall not say much about it, except that, although the amendments are worth studying to see whether they do improve how Clause 1 can operate, they seem to stem from a general hostility to the Bill disguised as a sort of benevolence. It is a strange position that the Conservative Front Bench has taken.
We would be in a happier situation if we were discussing this Bill because we had worked out a coherent alternative criminal justice policy and the sole reason for carrying it forward would be that it would be better at protecting the public, recognising, as it should, that many people who are in prison are not being improved in their propensity not to reoffend by being in prison, and some of the people in the community are not getting the support and structure they need to make their lives responsible—or reduce the danger to the public in general.
However, we are considering this Bill because our prisons are full and will remain full and get fuller unless we do something about it. That does not preclude having a sensible criminal justice policy in support of provisions such as Clause 1, but it does necessitate it. The good thing about this Bill is that significant parts of it are addressed to better provision in and out of prison and in the transition from prison to being out of prison—a matter on which the Minister has plenty of specialised knowledge from his own experience. It may be that we can tidy up Clauses 1 and 2 a little, but we should be quite clear in our minds that they are necessary clauses to deal with a crisis. We will rely on other parts of the Bill to ensure that we are dealing with that from the point of view of criminal justice reform, and not merely trying to empty prisons.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I made some remarks in the previous group about my concern that magistrates in particular would be constrained by being proscribed as to the detail of what they can do. In listing the offences of the offender, if some offences are not on the list, is that list conclusive? I am not sure that this is as helpful as the Opposition would suggest.
I wonder how many of these amendments are appropriate for primary legislation, and how many would or could go into sentencing guidelines. There are noble Lords here who know far more about the workings of both the courts and the guidelines than I do or could.
I am a bit confused about the suggestion that 12-month sentences are being abolished. I do not read them as being abolished. Would some of what is listed attract sentences of less than 12 months? I also wonder what is meant by “associated offences”, which crops up in a number of these amendments. Additionally, what are offences with “a connection to terrorism”? If an offender commits a terrorist act, is he looking at 12 months or less?
Many of the people who are listed in Amendment 6 and its companion amendment strike me as people who would benefit not from being in custody but rather from receiving support and rehabilitative services. I do not, of course, take issue with the comments made about the capacity of the Probation Service. We are all concerned about that, and we would all be with Baroness Newlove on that comment.
We were also told that there is no bar to reoffending. Is the suspension of a sentence not itself a bar to reoffending, given that, if the suspension is lifted, the custody applies? That strikes me as something of a bar.
I will try not to say this again today but I will repeat the point I made about the language that we use. I commented on the use of language such as offenders being free to “roam the streets”; “career criminals” seems to be a similarly unhelpful phrase.
Baroness Hamwee
or the court is of the opinion that, having considered the basis of opinion provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (basis of opinion provisions not to affect power to mitigate sentences), it should mitigate the sentence to one of a community sentence as provided for in that section.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to clarify that the ‘basis of opinion’ provisions in section 77 of the Sentencing Act 2020 still apply and that a court can still, where appropriate, mitigate a sentence to a community sentence.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, before I get on to the detail of this amendment, may I say how much I agree with the comments that have been made about the increasing complexity of the Sentencing Code, the guidelines and so on? I started to look at them in connection with another amendment and found that I was very quickly bogged down. However, we need to sort out Clauses 18 and 19 first, I would say to the noble and learned Lord; otherwise, we could find ourselves in worse trouble.
I am grateful to the Prison Reform Trust for raising a reminder of community sentences and their place; my amendment provides specifically for community sentences. It should not, of course, be necessary, but it seems that it might be important to remind magistrates in particular. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has another amendment directed to the same end, which is probably more straightforwardly drafted—though I did not draft this one; I will come to that. The briefing that I have received from the Prison Reform Trust is very much based on the risk of increasing the imprisonment of women. The point might apply not only to women, but the position of women has just been trailed by the Minister.
We welcome the presumption that we have just been talking about against custodial sentences of 12 months or less, but there are implications of a custodial sentence that is suspended that do not apply to community orders. I tripped over the issue when I was looking online for the views of women’s organisations on the Bill, and I found an article by Vera Baird for the Centre for Women’s Justice. She wrote:
“There is abundant evidence to show that women are disproportionately given short custodial sentences, mainly for non-violent, low-level offences such as shoplifting—”
I am sorry to use that term in the presence of my noble friend, but I am quoting—
“or breaches of court orders. Nearly 70% of women in prison are victims of domestic abuse”—
that is an MoJ figure, I think, and I should perhaps declare an interest as having been chair of the charity Refuge for a number of years—
“many have complex needs and whilst, for male prisoners, relationships can be a protective factor, families rarely stay together if the mother goes to prison”.
On that issue of complex needs, the article also makes the point:
“Women with multiple needs may breach suspended sentences due to the complexity of their lives, the challenges they face in complying with court-ordered requirements, mental health disorders, caretaking responsibilities, unstable housing and lower employment prospects. Conflicts with conditions, missed appointments or failure to meet financial obligations linked to their sentences, can result in technical violations which will breach the suspended sentence and lead to women being returned to court for imprisonment. Women may also breach community orders, but the consequences are not likely to be as severe. Women on suspended sentences live under the threat of prison from day one of the sentence, long before the benefits of treatment and support, which may be offered alongside a suspended sentence order, have any chance of working”.
In case anyone thinks that I am advocating letting women off, community sentences are punishment. Vera Baird wrote that this amendment—I think it is this one; I have since seen a longer alternative—was drafted by members of the Women’s Justice Board. I mention that because I know that the Women’s Justice Board is very much supported by the Minister, and I have an amendment about it later, but it is significant that it is backing this. Vera Baird said that it was tabled in the Commons; it took me a while to track it down, but as far as I can see there was no comment from the Minister in the Commons in response to this amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 29A. It is not often that I feel daunted in speaking out on legislation in this Chamber, but I feel a slight nervousness when a lot of senior police officers, former judges and KCs start—
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Yes, luckily they have, so I do not really need to be nervous at all.
Often, in putting my or the Green Party’s views—which obviously overlap quite a lot—I feel that I am speaking from the street. I talk to a lot of people who probably do not know much about this sort of thing, and they probably agree with me on some of it.
On simpler legislation, I know for a fact that the Met Police would like simpler legislation around protests. It is absolutely sick of the confusion and it is time for us to revisit it. However, that is not for today.
Amendment 29A would make a simple but important change: it would require courts to consider the use of a community order before imposing a suspended sentence order. This would strengthen the Government’s own intention to reduce the overuse of short prison sentences—an aim that I and, I am sure, many across the Chamber, including the Minister, warmly welcome. However, unless we make it clear that community orders must be properly considered first, we risk creating what justice organisations call a net-widening effect. In other words, people who should have received a community order may instead receive a suspended sentence order simply because it appears to be a tougher alternative to custody.
A suspended sentence order is still a custodial sentence. It carries the weight and the lifelong consequences of a criminal record, and it places people at far greater risk of imprisonment if they breach its terms. By contrast, a community order is a genuinely non-custodial disposal. It is designed, when properly resourced, to address the underlying causes of offending, whether those are mental health needs, alcohol or drug dependency, or others. Community orders enable people to keep their jobs, maintain their homes, stay connected to their families and communities, and continue caring responsibilities—all factors that are well established as reducing the risk of reoffending.
If the Bill’s aim is to reduce the crisis in prison capacity, we must avoid funnelling people into suspended sentences where a community order would be more effective and safely promote rehabilitation. Otherwise, we simply increase the pipeline into custody through breach, defeating the very purpose of the Government’s reforms. We also risk the danger that this disproportionately affects women as it currently stands, which we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
This amendment is supported by Justice and aligned with the recommendations of the Independent Sentencing Review, which suggested
“introducing ‘crime reduction’ as an overarching principle”
to guide sentencing. Community sentences can play a crucial role in achieving that. They provide a real opportunity for rehabilitation and practical programmes that help people rebuild their lives without the barrier of a custodial sentence on their record. Crucially, community orders can command public confidence when victims are properly informed about what they involve and understand how these sentences can reduce future harm.
Amendment 29A would simply ensure that the most proportionate, most effective and least harmful sentence is considered first. It would strengthen the Bill’s stated ambition of reducing pressure on prisons while supporting better outcomes for individuals and communities. I hope that the Minister sees this as a constructive amendment that aligns with the Government’s own agenda. I urge the Committee to give it serious consideration.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I agree that my amendment is not necessary, but perhaps that is in a technical sense; it is the practical situation that the Prison Reform Trust, particularly, and the Women’s Justice Board were pointing to.
Of course I will withdraw the amendment; but before I do so, I just throw back into the arena the hope that there can be some way of reminding magistrates that community sentences are still available and should be used. To my mind, they are the first thing that should be considered.
I hesitate to mention sentencing guidelines, particularly as the noble and learned Lord has imposed a self-denying ordinance on mentioning them again. I would not suggest what the mechanism should be, but there should be some mechanism. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to say more about lists other than to note that these amendments contain a lot of lists. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, will not think this is in any way an aggressive point, but I think I picked up that he would expect to see some fleshing out of the term “serious”, as well as the detail of “specified offences”, through a mechanism that follows today’s debate. If he is looking for encouragement for further work subject to some of the comments that were made earlier, then he has it.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Sandhurst, for sharing their views and tabling these amendments, which aim to prevent sentences for certain categories of offences from being suspended. I would be interested to hear more about the Marie Collins Foundation; I have never heard of that organisation before. If it would be helpful, I would be interested in having a meeting with the noble Lord and the foundation to learn more and see what I can gain from that.
I must be clear that it is at the discretion of the independent judiciary whether to impose a suspended sentence, taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and following the appropriate guidance set by the Sentencing Council. For example, sentencing guidelines are clear: it may not be appropriate to suspend a sentence if the offender presents a risk to any person or if appropriate punishment can be achieved only by immediate custody. If the offender breaches the order by failing to comply with any of the requirements or committing a new offence, they can be returned to court. If the breach is proven, the courts are required to activate the custodial sentence unless it would be unjust to do so. Of course, criminals serving suspended sentences also face the prospect of being sent to prison if they fail to comply with the terms of these orders. So, under this Bill, someone could receive a two-and-a-half-year sentence, suspended for three years, and with an electronically monitored curfew lasting for two years. In this scenario, if they breach their curfew or commit a further offence, they face the prospect of being sent to prison.
I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is already provision within this Bill to prohibit the use of suspended sentence orders under any circumstances in relation to sentences for offenders of particular concern and extended determinate sentences. These sentences can be imposed in relation to the specific offences listed in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Russell, where the court is of the opinion that the offender is dangerous. Currently, if an extended determinate sentence is imposed for two years or less, it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence, and both can be suspended. However, the Bill will change that position so that where an extended sentence is imposed, it cannot be suspended under any circumstances, including when it is imposed alongside a standard determinate sentence.
I turn to terrorism sentences. Where a life sentence is not imposed, unless there are exceptional circumstances, a serious terrorism sentence is required if a court is of the opinion that there is a significant risk of harm to members of the public and the offence was likely to cause multiple deaths. The minimum sentence of imprisonment will then be 14 years and therefore a suspended sentence order would not be available. The noble Lords have also proposed to exempt offences with mandatory minimum sentences and those eligible for referral under the unduly lenient scheme. If the offence being sentenced has a mandatory minimum sentence and is capable of being suspended, judges still retain the discretion to impose an immediate custodial sentence when there is the appropriate outcome.
To be clear, we are not abolishing short sentences. Offences falling under the unduly lenient sentence scheme are rightly treated very seriously. I reassure noble Lords that Clause 2 does not interfere with existing mechanisms that allow for the review of sentences in these cases. We believe that these safeguards protect the public while preserving judicial discretion. Sentencing in individual cases is rightly a matter for the courts, considering the full circumstances of the case.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, which would prevent the court from suspending a sentence where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and to exempt offenders convicted of multiple previous offences from being suspended. I can reassure noble Lords that the sentencing guidelines are clear. Where an offender has not complied with previous court orders and the court thinks that they are unlikely to comply in the future, that may be a reason not to suspend the sentence.
Additionally, when an offender is in custody—for example, when they have breached their licence conditions by committing a further offence and have been recalled into custody as a result—the court will not suspend the sentence. Sentences are generally served concurrently when the offences arise out of the same incident, or where there is a series of offences of the same or a similar kind, especially when committed against the same person. The key point is that the court should ensure that the overall sentence imposed on the offender is just and proportionate. Noble Lords will know that this Government take prolific offending extremely seriously, and previous offending is already a statutory aggravating factor.
I must also be clear that a suspended sentence is not a soft option. The courts can impose a range of requirements on an offender, ranging from curfews to exclusion zones. This Bill includes tough new restriction zones, which will restrict offenders to a specific geographic area. These will be electronically monitored in most cases and are intended to serve as not just a punishment but an important tool to protect and reassure victims.
Reoffending is unacceptably high for victims and the public, and we must drive it down. That is why we are ramping up intensive supervision courts, targeting the prolific offenders whose criminal behaviour is often driven by addiction or other needs. The international evidence is clear: these courts cut crime, with a 33% decrease in the rate of arrest compared to offenders who receive standard sentences. That is just one way in which this Government are putting the necessary structures in place to build a sustainable justice system going forward.
Suspended sentence orders in appropriate cases give offenders a chance to stay in work, keep stable housing and access support in the community. All of this goes towards reducing repeat offending and supporting rehabilitation, and it is right that that remains the case. By targeting the causes of offending in the community, we can lower reoffending rates and in turn reduce the number of victims. I hope noble Lords are now assured of the Government’s position on this, and I therefore ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment, and the amendment to page 10, line 25, is intended to ensure the court can take into account each offender’s situation as a whole and in particular not to reduce the offender’s income so that employment, training and housing cannot be accessed.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I speak to Amendment 36, and will also speak to Amendment 39.
Amendment 79 in the name of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is in this group. As rapid consultation during the course of this afternoon’s proceedings has revealed that none of us is entirely clear what we wanted to say, I hope that it is not too late to de-group it. There will be the opportunity to come to it on one of the days next week. I am sorry if that causes a problem to any colleagues. Otherwise, I will just let the Minister reply as if it had been introduced.
Amendment 36 and 39 deal with income reduction orders. They are complex and not very practical, I would suggest. These orders were not, I understand, recommended in the independent sentencing review. They are not easy to achieve; they can impose additional and unpractical burdens on the court system, which as we know is overstretched, and on HMRC and benefits administration. A lot of fines are imposed by the court; they are the most common criminal sanction, but payment is persistently low. In 2023, 49% of fines remained unpaid after 12 months, despite the requirement that they are set at an amount which can be paid within a year. If that rather simpler system cannot reliably recover half of what is imposed within a year, the more complex income reduction order is not likely to be more successful.
The IRO penalises a person for finding employment by making deductions from their earnings each month. This poses the risk of discouraging individuals from engaging in employment or, at any rate, formal employment. They may move into low-visibility work or decide they are better off not working at all. The impact of court fines is disproportionately severe for low-income households. People with court debts are very likely to live in social housing and very likely to be unemployed, strong indicators of economic precarity. The fines system, particularly additional court charges, rigid payment plans and deductions from insufficient benefits, often escalate the total owed beyond what is affordable for people on low means. I do not need to spell out the path that some people may follow.
I have some questions for the Minister. First, what is the projected collection rate for IROs, and how does it compare with the current 50% unpaid at 12 months for court fines? How will the system track fluctuating incomes, PAYE changes, zero hours and self-employment, and resolve disputes without adding to the burden on the court? What employment impact assessment has been conducted—I am going to come back to employment in a moment—given the Minister’s well-known support for hiring people with convictions to cut reoffending? How will IROs avoid pushing low-income households further into poverty?
I said that I would come back to employment. Our Amendment 39 raises the dangers, as we see it, of income reduction orders hindering the good things that we want to see—offenders taking up employment and training and achieving housing. If the net income with which an offender is left is too low for these various activities, the net benefit would be a disbenefit as we see it. I beg to move Amendment 36.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
I did not quite follow what the noble Baroness proposed about degrouping, but I draw attention to what it says in the Companion, which is that
“de-grouping is discouraged once each day’s groupings have been published”.
But I may have misunderstood.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
No, the noble Lord, Lord Lemos, is quite right. I had only realised it shortly before we came to this group. “Discouraged” means no in House of Lords language, I think. So I wonder whether the Minister can regard me as having spoken to what is set out in quite a long amendment, because I am sure he will have words to answer what my noble friend would have said, had he been here.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My Lords, one of the three guiding principles of the David Gauke Independent Sentencing Review was to expand and make greater use of punishment outside prison. We are determined to make sure that crime does not pay, which is why we introduced Clause 3, giving courts the power to impose income reduction orders on offenders who receive suspended sentence orders. From the debate we have just had and from my prior conversations, I know that noble Lords have a keen interest in how these will work in practice, and I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this at greater length today. I have been employing prisoners for over 20 years. Many are on day release and, in some cases, a proportion of their earnings goes back to victims. Income reduction orders are inspired by that principle: offenders must pay back to society for the harm they have caused.
I first turn to Amendments 37, 41, 42 and 44, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst. They seek to specify what must be contained in the regulations detailing this scheme. I assure noble Lords that we are working cross-government to develop a process for delivering income reduction orders in a way that works cohesively with the rest of the powers that sentencers have at their disposal. We have intentionally kept the legislation flexible to ensure that we can deliver this measure in that way. For example, we do not agree that it would be appropriate for income reduction orders to be mandatory in certain circumstances. This would unnecessarily curtail judicial discretion to decide whether an order should be imposed based on the full facts of an individual case.
The Sentencing Council is actively considering what updates to its guidelines are needed to account for the Bill’s reforms, including these orders. My officials are working closely with the council. I reassure noble Lords that regulations will be subject to the affirmative parliamentary procedure, so noble Lords will have the opportunity to debate and discuss these details prior to implementation.
I turn to Amendments 38 and 40 and am happy to explain the rationale behind the drafting of this Bill. Let me be clear: this measure is a penalty for high-income individuals. It will ensure that criminals who break the law, and who benefit from keeping their jobs and continue to earn a significant salary, pay back to society. I doubt that anyone in the Committee would disagree with that. The intention is to set an income threshold that would apply at an appropriately high level. But the Bill sets a baseline that the threshold for an income reduction order can never be below. The aim is to ensure that those with incomes in line with the minimum wage cannot ever receive this penalty. The minimum wage is set at an hourly rate, and 170 times that is a reasonable approximation of the hours likely to be worked over a month.
Noble Lords have also questioned why there is an upper limit. A core tenet of our criminal justice system is fairness and proportionality. So, setting a maximum percentage of an offender’s excess monthly income that can be collected protects individuals from receiving an excessively harsh penalty. We need to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. If the court determines that a higher penalty is appropriate and the offence is serious enough to carry an unlimited fine, the court will still be able to impose that, either instead of or as well as an income reduction order.
But income reduction orders must not be a disincentive to employment or amplify existing hardship. As someone who has championed the employment of ex-offenders for years, this is the last thing I would want to happen. Therefore, they will be applicable only to offenders who earn or are deemed likely to earn a significant income. We will set the minimum income threshold through secondary legislation at an appropriate level. This will ensure that low-income households are not in the scope of this measure.
As with any other financial penalty, judges will consider an offender’s means and circumstances when choosing whether to apply an income reduction order at sentencing. This can include, but is not restricted to, income, housing costs and child maintenance. Additionally, the provisions in the Bill allow the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the deductions that must be made when calculating an offender’s monthly income for the purposes of assessing whether an income reduction order can be applied.
Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, proposes to create a power for a sentencing court to require an offender to make periodic payments or other contributions towards the maintenance and welfare of their dependants. I must inform the noble Lord that there are existing mechanisms to deal with payments to dependants. For example, the family courts are able to make spousal maintenance payments on divorce.
This proposed new clause would require the court to inquire whether an offender has responsibility for children or other dependants. Although this is well intentioned, it risks creating practical difficulties. Inquiring whether a person holds parental responsibility, has dependent children or other dependants—and subsequently inquiring about the circumstances and reasonable needs of those dependants—may require interpretation of family court orders, birth records or informal care-giving arrangements for the purposes of verification. Imposing such a duty risks delaying sentencing.
This Government have committed to identifying and providing support for children affected by parental imprisonment. As such, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Education are working to determine the best way to do this to ensure that children get the support they need. This builds on a range of services offered by His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to help families and significant others, where appropriate, to build positive relationships with people in the criminal justice system. This includes social visits, letter writing, video calls, family days and prison voicemail. I hope this addresses the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Beith. I ask the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I got my calculator out because I was reminding myself, so far as I could, what the amount might be, in cash terms, that an offender could be left with. I am not sure that I believe what I am finding, multiplying the national minimum wage by 170 and so on. I realise that we are talking about the future, but is the Minister able to share now what the cash amount would be?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
My intention is that this concerns people who are earning significant amounts of money and might otherwise have a custodial sentence. Let me give the example of long-distance lorry drivers. They regularly earn over £70,000 a year. These are the people who I believe this income reduction order is appropriate for, not people who do not have means beyond that which they need just to look after their children and so on. It is very much, as I reiterated in my comments, for high-income earners. That level is the minimum wage level, and that is where we see the minimum. We obviously need to have further conversations internally on this, but my intention is that this covers people who earn significantly more than that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
That is helpful, because what is a high income to one person is not necessarily a high income in the eyes of another. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments and for dealing with them in that way. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 36.