Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for my lateness—I got slightly confused about the Northern Ireland Bill and when it was coming.

I will speak to Amendment 4 in the name of my noble friend Lord Russell. I follow my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, so there is very little more to be said. The only thing I can say is that ASB is so important. ASB is far more common than we know and far more common than the police will say. It must be taken seriously. I have a friend whose father was the victim of ASB over many years and actually snapped. He attacked the person who was causing it and ended up with a custodial sentence himself. So you can turn victims into perpetrators with this and it needs to be defined in this Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords very sincerely for their most moving and constructive speeches. I will first respond to the invitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, to conduct these proceedings in as open and consensual way as possible. In the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Argar did precisely that, and I propose to follow exactly the same approach, and to discuss as widely as we can the various difficult issues that are in front of us. That is an essential function of this Chamber.

To a great extent—I think my noble friend Lady Newlove accepted this, up to a point—we have made very considerable progress in support of victims generally over the last few years. But the problems that remain are, in particular, that victims are still often unaware of their rights, that the required services are not provided, or that the relevant authorities are not accountable. So the questions in front of us are not so much points of principle as questions as to how we change the culture of a system to make sure that victims are properly supported, as they should be.

I suggest, in shorthand, that essentially we should seek four things. First, victims should be aware of their rights and entitlements under the code. Secondly, those services should be accessible. Thirdly, those responsible for providing them should be accountable. Finally, the system should be affordable; speaking on behalf of the Government, I am bound to make that point. Essentially, we have four As: awareness, accessibility, accountability and affordability. It is within that framework that I will respond to the various points that have been made, with great conviction and sincerity, about the definition of “victim” in the current draft of the Bill.

We are dealing with five questions all together. One is about carers and those who suffer vicarious harm, which is raised in Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The second is about people who have been victims of a defendant who has subsequently been made the subject of a hospital order as distinct from another criminal sanction. Thirdly, there is the question of anti-social behaviour. Fourthly, there is the question of homicide abroad. Finally, where the criminal conduct has been caused by another family member, there is the question of whether they are still a victim; that is raised in the amendment by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I will take those points, and probably in that order.

As regards Amendment 1, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, as I read it, the definition of “victim” is not confined in its present form to victims of serious sexual or violent behaviour; it is very broad, extending to all crimes. It refers first to persons who have been subject to witnessing a crime. The Government’s position is that those who have witnessed a crime are already covered fairly explicitly in the definition in Clause 1.

That takes us on to the difficult question of how far you go on the carers of victims and others who have suffered indirectly rather than directly. On that point, the Government’s present thinking is that we should have a system that serves the direct victims primarily, and that we cannot, at this stage at least, extend the definition of a victim too far. If I may say so, there is force in the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox: if one makes the concept of a victim too wide, one may well finish up with a system that is not as workable as it otherwise would be. There are all kinds of people who are, in one sense, victims but who are not necessarily the direct victims to whom we must give priority. The job of a Government is to make decisions as to how to prioritise services. We are very pressed on resources on all fronts, so I urge your Lordships to take that point into account and to consider that the definition of victim in Clause 1 is already very wide. I will come to certain points made in that connection in a moment. It would not be the right approach, by statute, to extend that already broad definition any further than it is. Broadly speaking, that is the Government’s position on Amendment 1.

On the point about hospital orders in relation to Amendments 8, 12 and 19, the question is whether the victim is a person who has been subject to criminal conduct. A person may well be the perpetrator of criminal conduct but still finish up being ordered by the court to be detained in a secure hospital, rather than serve a criminal sentence. The Government’s position is that many of the victims whose perpetrator has finished up in front of a mental health tribunal are already victims under the Bill. They are covered so long as the conduct is criminal. Your Lordships may have seen the tragic case in Nottingham this week, where the defendant, who was clearly schizophrenic and should never have been on the streets, was convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of dismissed responsibility. It was criminal conduct, so those unfortunate families are victims. The point that is rightly made—

[Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)]

If the Minister would not mind giving way, I will clarify—I am sure that this is what he meant—that there are many people who are successfully treated for schizophrenia who live in the community. I think that he is referring to an individual who was very ill and who sought the charge of manslaughter yesterday because of diminished responsibility. I would not want the impression to be given in Hansard that people cannot live their lives—quite challenging lives—with schizophrenia in the community.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that point. I have in my own family direct experience of a similar situation. That particular individual had already committed a number of crimes and there was a warrant out for his arrest. That is a very specific case and that is the context in which I made my comment.

On the assumption that, in many of these cases, we have someone who is already a victim under the meaning in the Bill, the problem rightly identified is that the procedures of the mental health tribunal do not, at the moment, quite correspond to the procedures in the main courts, particularly on the right to give a victim statement. The Government’s position is that that is not a satisfactory state of affairs; they are working with the authorities in the mental health tribunal and others to operationalise how we have the same system for mental health tribunals as for the main courts system. I hope to be able to give your Lordships further information that will enable your Lordships to say that this point—which is rightly being made—is being addressed by the Government. As soon as I am in a position to give further information about that, I will. The point of principle that a number of noble Lords have made is accepted; there is no dispute about that.

We then come to the equally difficult question of anti-social behaviour. Again, the first question is whether the victim has been subject to criminal conduct. Strictly speaking, whether or not the police have taken any action is not decisive of the question of whether the conduct is criminal. It may well have crossed the criminal threshold and, if it has, the victim should be entitled to relevant circumstances.

If the conduct has not crossed the criminal threshold, that is a more difficult situation because the scope of the Bill is victims of criminal conduct, and it is quite difficult for the Government, at least at this stage, to contemplate bringing within the scope of this Bill conduct that is not criminal. But a lot of anti-social behaviour is criminal, so how are we going to tackle this? Again, I am not in a position to give your Lordships as much detail as I would wish, but there will shortly be before your Lordships the Criminal Justice Bill currently making its passage through the other place, which will tackle and address a number of legitimate concerns about anti-social behaviour by enhancing the powers available to the police and other local agencies under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely accept the points that my noble friend is making, and I am very happy to have a further meeting to discuss this, the interrelationship between the bits of legislation that we are dealing with, the interrelationship between the various authorities and who exactly is responsible for what.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, to further emphasise that, I think it would be helpful to the Committee to recognise the sheer scale of anti-social behaviour. Some freedom of information requests looking at the period between 2019 and 2021 identified that, believe it or not, there were 3.5 million reports of anti-social behaviour, so it is on a similar scale to stalking on an annualised basis. Those are probably the largest two areas of cases involving victims across England and Wales.

Those statistics were done across 34 out of the 43 police forces. They demonstrate the huge variability across the country, police and crime commissioner by PCC, and police force by police force. That is the problem. Some areas are doing really well with existing resources, without needing extra money. With proper leadership, organisation and training, they are doing a really good job. Kudos to the Government and the Minister for achieving good results in some areas. The challenge for the Government is: what is the problem with taking action to ensure that is replicated efficiently and systematically right across England and Wales? The evidence is clearly that it is not. If the authorities can do it within existing resources, we are not talking about huge amounts of extra money. That is not the issue; the issue is the way they go about what they do.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention and entirely accept the point he makes about the variability across the country. Although this evening we are not on Clause 6 and supplementary Clause 11, for example, or Clause 10, about code awareness and reviewing compliance by criminal justice bodies, one of the main drivers of the Bill is to raise the standard of victim support equally across the country; to publish league tables; to have the data; to put pressure, if you like, by almost shame and stigma on those that are not performing as well as they should so that it is publicly known; and, in extreme cases, to give directions that they need to improve and so forth.

The steps we need to think about are how we make the various parts of the legislation consistent and operational, what role the code plays in anti-social behaviour when it is criminal conduct, as it often will be, and how we operationalise the way in which particular police forces and other agencies offer consistent services across the country. That is my thought on this point.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

On this particular point about anti-social behaviour, Louise Lotz was a friend of mine. The problem was that her local police force did nothing about the earlier stages of anti-social behaviour. One of the things that this amendment is trying to achieve is that police forces just watch the pattern of anti-social behaviour; if they see it going up, their response should also start to change. I wonder whether the Minister will take that into account. I look forward to joining any meeting about that as well.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I certainly take that into account. I again think that we collectively need to understand a little more about what the Criminal Justice Bill progressing through the other place is doing about this, because the problem of anti-social behaviour is that it exists and is not being controlled. That Bill is trying to address that problem. Here we are dealing with the victims, which in some ways is the end result, rather than the fact that it is happening in the first place, so tackling it and what is happening in the first place is probably a very important aspect that we need to understand further. I take all these points, and I think we should take it further collectively as soon as we can.

Then we come to the difficult issue of homicide abroad. I hope that nobody infers that the Government do not have enormous sympathy for those who suffer these very difficult situations, but I respectfully suggest that a crime of homicide committed abroad is in a slightly different category, as far as the victims’ code is concerned, from a crime of homicide committed in this country. Clearly, the various rights under the code —for example, the right to make a victim statement—as well as the nature of the offence, what the criminal processes are and so forth are rather different if we are talking about a crime that has been committed in South America or somewhere outside this country. The responsibility for looking after victims of homicide abroad falls primarily on the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, which offers support through the homicide service. Noble Lords may well say that it is not adequate support or enough support.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

I have worked with the Foreign Office on this as well, and every time I have gone there, its first point of call is “We don’t have many resources; there’s not much money; we make the money from passports; it is only a small number of families that come through”. If we keep putting it to the Foreign Office, it will keep batting it the other way. Not only are we talking about families dealing with countries with different languages which are trying to get financial gain and who also have jobs to hold down but we have a Foreign Office that really does not do much for them and they feel lost. I appreciate what the is Minister saying, but I think it is about resource. I am not asking for lots of resources, but I want them to work collaboratively to help those families resolve the issues.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

If there has been a homicide abroad and those families are living here, there is a real danger that the message will be that the Government think that that homicide does not matter as much as a homicide that happened here. The Government might say that they do not have the resources. I pointed out that it is about 80 homicides per year—the numbers are not huge—but those people who are so severely traumatised, retraumatised and carry on being further damaged by the experience often become enormous consumers of resources because of mental health services, because they are unable to work and so on, and eventually they may need benefits. There are all kinds of things that they may need. It is a false economy to look at it in terms of resources to the FCDO. I hope that the Minister will meet me and others to discuss ways that the victims’ code could be asterisked where there are things that may not be as appropriate if the homicide occurred here, but it would say that the lives of British citizens are of equal value wherever they are in the world and that whether it was a terrorist attack, a homicide here or a homicide overseas, those lives are of equal value.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, of course I am prepared to meet the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and any other noble Lords on this point to discuss it further. There is certainly a point about the signposting in the code, what the code should say about all this, whether we should give further additional priority to homicides abroad, and exactly what the role of the Homicide Service is and other related resource issues, as well as where the earlier point I raised about priorities comes in: we cannot do everything. This is an important topic for further discussion, and I do not rule out examining further how far we can go in response to the very legitimate concerns raised.

I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, will forgive me for coming to her last, but I think her point was about the definition of a victim where the person is a victim as a result of the criminal conduct of a close family member. The obvious example would be a road incident where somebody who had been driving over the limit or driving dangerously had killed themselves, leaving behind bereaved children. On the wording of the code, those children would be victims. The Government do not think that even in those circumstances should we reduce or limit the concept of a victim. It is conceivable that somebody could be a perpetrator and a victim at the same time, because if you have driven dangerously, had a crash and killed your child, you may both be guilty of criminal conduct and a victim of your own conduct, as it were. That may be a highly theoretical and hypothetical example, but the Government are not proposing any change to Clause 1 in relation to those very tragic kinds of case.

I hope I have dealt with the main amendments proposed in this first group, and I respectfully invite your Lordships not to pursue them at this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, on these Benches we add our thanks to the Children’s Commissioner for her very helpful round table and briefing notes. We also thank Hestia. I thank other noble Lords for their amendments, which specify children in the definition of a victim. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Benjamin made strong arguments to include who victims of abuse and criminal exploitation are, as well as those who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is a salutary reminder that children can be damaged by verbal harm. Intense and repeated verbal abuse is damaging. That is somewhat different from the point the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, which was about young people having arguments about matters of principle and offence; that is not what we are talking about.

Some years ago, I lived next door to a family who used the most extraordinary bad language to their toddler, time after time. The example I can just about repeat in your Lordships’ House was his name, which was “Paul, you little bleeder”. It went on, from worse to worse. As he grew up, we heard his own language mirroring that of his parents. One of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, is right to propose this is that a child like that needs help and support from other agencies, as do his parents. It can be within a house, or it can be separate, but it is very different from the argument the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was trying to make, and I hope she would accept that.

In a later group, probably next week, we will come to a group with much more detail about the protection required for child victims. All these amendments would ensure that definitions at the start of the Bill recognise that child victims have as many needs as adults. Agencies need to remind themselves that child victims may not always present in the same way as an adult and may not always need the same services as an adult. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester said, the lessons of Rochdale show that too many agencies do not always see children as victims. There, I am afraid that the police and some other agencies saw them as perpetrators. That is absolutely unacceptable.

I apologise again to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, but I am picking up on the arguments she made about the lack of sympathy from officialdom and police. She went on to argue that it is important that people recognise that these children are victims. But this is not about sympathy; it is about getting help and support for these children. Sympathy may be part of it, but these amendments are not put forward to get sympathy for children; it is to change their lives, and to recognise that they are victims and will need specific services thereafter.

I am mindful of Nicky Campbell and others who were abused at the schools he attended and how their experience of not getting support early in their lives has affected them for their entire lives. This is not just an issue about children; it is about how those children grow up and manage their own lives. As I said at the end of the previous group, one can save money in the longer run on services by ensuring that victims—in this case child victims—get support as early as possible.

Finally, I echo the points made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee in Amendment 7 on the child victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Hestia’s briefing was very helpful in reminding us that everyone in a family unit, especially the children, is affected by modern slavery and human trafficking, the consequences of which have long-standing impacts. So it is becoming clear from all parts of the House again that we need a separate definition of child victims. Their experiences, needs and the services they seek are all different.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this very important debate on how we assist, support, improve, validate and value children who have suffered various kinds of abuse. The question—I respectfully suggest it is a somewhat technical question—is whether we need to amend this Bill, whether we should do it through further sections of the code, and how we should approach the problem.

The Government’s position at the moment is that a child who is a victim of abuse and exploitation which constitutes criminal conduct is already a victim under the Bill. So the large numbers of children, rightly referred to, who have apparently suffered domestic abuse in the past—children who have been through the recent domestic abuse inquiry and so forth—would, in the ordinary meaning of words, I think, have been subject to criminal conduct under Clause 1(1)(a). As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, a child is undoubtedly a person, and the Government’s position is that this is very largely covered.

The phrase “child criminal exploitation” in itself implies someone who has been exploited by criminal conduct—which is already covered. So I hesitate to recommend to your Lordships that we need to further complicate the Bill itself, or the Act as it will eventually become, one hopes, by having further definitions. I accept the point made by my noble friend Lady Sanderson that there probably is some confusion at the moment in some of the guidance out there, and there is probably a great deal of inconsistency in how it is applied by different authorities in different parts of the country. As I said earlier, one of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure a much more even and consistent approach across the country by all relevant agencies.

It is important to clarify two things—and I respectfully suggest we should do this in the code rather than the Bill. The first is that we need, perhaps, to clarify that the phrase “criminal conduct” in the Bill does not imply that there has been a prosecution, let alone a conviction. It is whether, on the facts, this is a person who has suffered from the relevant conduct. Secondly, I suggest to your Lordships—and I cannot officially commit the Government tonight because I do not have the authority to do so—that we need when revising the code to have a detailed section on children, and special reference to the particular problems that have been rightly raised tonight, so that everybody has full guidance on what they are supposed to do with child victims of various kinds. That is probably a more apt way of proceeding than trying to redefine what we are talking about in the Bill. With the greatest respect, I suggest that “child criminal exploitation” is a somewhat difficult concept to define.

I could add that the act of manipulating, deceiving, encouraging, coercing or controlling a child almost certainly amounts to a criminal offence in itself—it does under Part 1 of the Modern Slavery Act, and we have been talking about modern slavery. We also have the wide terms under the Serious Crime Act 2007, in which encouraging or assisting an offence is also an offence. So I respectfully suggest that almost all the examples one can think of are already covered by the definition of “victim” in other Acts. At the moment the Government are not persuaded that we should be tinkering further with this particular definition, but I see the force of the argument that we need to have special mention and explanation as regards children when we come to revise the code and the guidance that accompanies it, and the duties of the various agencies to provide their services.

I suggest that the same broad analysis covers the important point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in relation to verbal abuse. It is already in Clause (1)(4)(a) that “harm” includes physical, mental, emotional or economic harm. I think that most kinds of verbal abuse are covered—but, again, this is a matter that is more for the way one drafts the code than it is for the Bill itself. That would be, I think, the Government’s position at the moment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I did not quite catch what the Minister said when referring to Clause 1(2)(a). Was he saying that a child who is the child of a victim of modern slavery will fall within

“seen, heard, or otherwise directly experienced”?

I am not sure what “directly experienced” extends to. Is his argument that the child of a victim of this particular crime would fall under Clause 1(2)(a)? I am sorry; the Minister talked about it but I did not quite hear.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think that is the Government’s position. In most cases the child will experience the effect of criminal conduct, that being the effect on the mother. That is a sufficiently direct nexus, as it were, to bring it within the scope of the clause.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this group. The gist of the Minister’s summing up is that he believes that all the examples given in this short debate are already covered in the Bill. I think he said that there may be a detailed section in the code covering children; I understand that that was not a firm commitment but, nevertheless, it is a step forward.

The Minister gave a number of examples of why the Government want a more explicit recognition, but I gave a specific example where I argued that the black-letter law on the recognition of children could—and does—affect the accessibility of victims’ services. When local authorities look at how to allocate services, there is potentially a hierarchy there. We think that children should be at the top of that hierarchy, equal to domestic abuse victims; that was the specific example that I gave to the Minister.

Nevertheless, this has been an interesting debate on which I and others will reflect. I agreed with every word of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said about my noble friend Lord Hunt’s amendment. He clearly tabled it to raise awareness—one of the Minister’s four As—and he has effectively achieved that goal. I will be interested to see whether he wishes to take it further. For now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Non-custodial Sentences: Public Confidence

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the public’s confidence in non-custodial sentences.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that the public have confidence in non-custodial sentences. The Government’s response to the Justice Select Committee’s report, Public Opinion and Understanding of Sentencing, was published last Thursday, 18 January. The Government are currently considering the Justice and Home Affairs Committee’s report of 28 December 2023, Cutting Crime: Better Community Sentences, and further note the Sentencing Council’s current consultation on revised guidelines for the imposition of community and custodial sentences.

[The Lord Bishop of Gloucester]

I thank the Minister for that Answer. I look forward to the Government’s response to that committee report, given that a 2019 report by the Sentencing Academy suggested that public attitudes to sentencing are, in part, due to a lack of evidence-based information. Our prisons are overcrowded and, overall, what we are doing is not working to break cycles of reoffending and change the lives of offenders, victims and communities. So what more can the Government do to raise evidence-based awareness of the effectiveness of sentences and, perhaps, share outcomes from the female offender strategy and women’s centres to promote public support for an alternative model for both male and female non-violent offenders?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government accept that we can do more to increase public understanding of the working of the criminal justice system. We are committed to open justice: broadcasting judges’ sentencing remarks is a notable step forward; the further availability of transcripts of those remarks is another step that we can take. It is also important to publish sentencing and other information in an accessible form, on GOV.UK and on social media. We should be ambitious to improve the data that we already publish on criminal justice statistics. The Sentencing Council website has extensive information on how sentencing works, and a number of other steps can be taken to improve public knowledge of what is happening.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that public support for non-custodial sentences would be improved considerably if the Government took immediate steps to deal with the workforce gap in the Probation Service? Every probation service in the country is undermanned; there is a shortage of 400 officers in London; and 20% of new probation officers leave the service before they finish qualifying.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that the key to public confidence in community sentences is rigorous offender management. We are investing £155 million a year in the Probation Service, which is in recovery mode. We have over 4,000 new trainees and even in London there has been a 10% increase in recruitment. The Community Payback programme, which is targeted specifically at community sentences, involves a further £93 million, and an increase in staff and resources for that programme.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I note my interests in the register. A community sentence that has public and judicial support, particularly for women offenders, is one with a mental health treatment requirement, which is often combined with a drug rehabilitation and alcohol treatment requirement. A national rollout is well under way, but these sentences will be fully successful only if there is increased capacity in each of these services, especially mental health. Will the Minister therefore ensure that there is such capacity across the country to enable the successful completion of these community sentences and to reinforce judicial and public confidence in them?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Government, I entirely accept the value of the various outcomes that the noble Lord just mentioned. We should celebrate success stories, particularly in relation to female offenders—mentioned by the right reverend Prelate a moment ago—and youth offenders. As the noble Lord just indicated, there are far more options for community sentences available now than there used to be. There is tagging, alcohol tagging, alcohol treatment and drug treatment. Quite a range of possibilities are therefore open to the court, combined with the national drug strategy being run by the Department of Health to get people off drugs. I cannot promise to ensure increased capacity, but the Government are certainly working to that end.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, speaking not just from these Benches but as chair of the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee, we found it persuasive that community sentences are followed by much lower rates of reoffending than custody. We know that prisons are “universities of crime”. Should this not be a message that the Government promulgate?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the actual message is, in essence, for the Sentencing Council to transmit. The Government and Parliament set the framework, the Sentencing Council sets the guidelines, and our independent judges impose the sentences. The Sentencing Council’s present guidelines emphasise that community orders can be highly positive, last longer than short custodial sentences and involve important restrictions on day-to-day liberty; and that breaching them can result in significant adverse consequences. We must entirely combat the idea that community sentences are a soft option, and that is the Government’s position.

[Lord Farmer (Con)]

My Lords, the need to weigh public confidence against improving rehabilitation, reducing costs and the need for prison places seems to be ignored when sentencing for serious and violent crime. The trend here is for ever longer custodial sentences. People convicted of murder now spend 60% longer in prison, on average, than in 2001. No balancing act is being attempted, and no rehabilitation. Justice cannot be driven by vengeance, so why are the Government arguing for ever longer sentences?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not aware that the Government are arguing for ever longer sentences. On the contrary, the sentencing Bill that your Lordships will shortly consider has a presumption to avoid prison sentences in certain circumstances—particularly short sentences. As far as murder is concerned, the statutory sentence is life imprisonment. That is not a matter for the Government. The time one serves as a sentence for murder is a matter for the Sentencing Council guidelines. I think I would accept—as the Justice Committee accepted—that it is true that public opinion in recent years seems to have moved towards heavier sentences for serious crime. But I do not accept that, as my noble friend suggests, that overrides rehabilitation in all circumstances.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, pre-sentence reports are vital to improving the effectiveness of community sentences. They allow courts to tailor sentences, and give sentencers confidence that the interventions they are recommending are not only suitable but available in their area. Worryingly, according to the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, the number and quality of pre-sentence reports prepared by the Probation Service has been declining dramatically—thanks in no small part to the disruption caused by the Government’s ill-judged attempt to privatise the Probation Service. Given that good pre-sentence reports and good sentencing decisions go hand in hand, what are the Government doing to reverse this decline?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness on the importance of pre-sentence reports. As I just said, the Government have put a great deal of investment into the Probation Service to, among other things, restore and improve pre-sentence reports. The Sentencing Council consultation—open now and completing in February—indicates that pre-sentence reports should be available in all cases except where the likely outcome is a fine or a conditional discharge. Once again, the Government are addressing the question the noble Baroness raises.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time.

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That this Bill be committed to a Special Public Bill Committee.

Motion agreed.

Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 November 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 January.

Motion agreed.

Imprisonment for Public Protection

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reply to the letter addressed to them on 17 August 2023 by the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and others, concerning imprisonment for public protection.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are grateful for the UN special rapporteur’s interest in this important matter and have considered her letter carefully. A response was sent on 19 December 2023 and published on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights website at www.ohchr.org. The IPP action plan aims to promote sentence progression for all those serving IPP sentences, and provisions in the Victims and Prisoners Bill will reduce the number subject to that sentence over time.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend and apologise that my Question was tabled, quite by coincidence, on the day that the Government issued their response to the letter. Does he accept the evidence submitted to the Justice Select Committee in the other place, and referred to by the special rapporteur—that the mental health problems caused by the IPP sentence itself multiply the difficulties that the prisoners face in obtaining release, and that therefore the Government would be wholly justified in considering any legislation in treating them as a special case with particular needs and trying to assist them to obtain discharge of the sentence?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government accept that there are certain special mental health issues for a number of these prisoners. They are being tackled, as far as we can do so, within the existing system. The action plan to which I referred contains provisions in that regard, particularly on improving psychological services and providing better support for prisoners on licence to avoid later recall. I do not accept the second part of my noble friend’s question that it follows that we need special legislation to deal with this.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, we must all be so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for his continued campaigning on this issue, and we are grateful to the Government for responding at such length to the rapporteur. If everything in the IPP garden is so rosy in relation to indeterminately detained people, some of whom would have got a sentence of only months for their actual crime, why did the Government abolish this sentence in the first place, and why did the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, as late as 2016 call the threshold that prisoners have to meet to secure their release both ridiculous and absurd?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I do not assert that everything in the garden is rosy. This area is one of the acute—perhaps the most acute—dilemmas faced by the Ministry of Justice. Your Lordships will be aware that the subject of IPP prisoners is being addressed in Part 4 of the Victims and Prisoners Bill currently before Parliament, which we will shortly discuss in detail in Committee, and I am meeting noble Lords on Thursday to take that discussion further.

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, this is not just a major problem in the system; it is a major disgrace to the British justice system that these thousands of people are being kept in this way. When I persuaded my then Cabinet colleagues to abolish the IPP system because it was working so badly, unfortunately I was unable to persuade them to change the application of the licensing system in the ordinary way to these prisoners. I am glad that the Government are now contemplating action. I look forward to the legislation, but it has taken years. Will they consider something drastic, such as that, when prisoners are released on licence, the licence period should be for a much shorter period than usual, because at the moment people are being returned for quite minor breaches of licence, to the disproportionate consequence of an indeterminate sentence that may keep them in prison for life? Why cannot they be released on licence for 12 months and thereafter be subject to the usual criminal law for the protection of the public? Will the Minister consider that, and every other suggestion flowing to him from the campaigners?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the House will be aware that the Victims and Prisoners Bill reduces the qualifying licence period from 10 years to three, with the presumption of termination at that point, and automatic termination two years thereafter if there is no recall in the meantime. A recent report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found that in none of the cases examined was the recall inappropriate but that, in some cases, further additional support in the community might have avoided the need for recall. That has led to a number of recommendations, all of which the Government have accepted.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, when I served on the Justice Committee in the Scottish Parliament, I recall that Scotland chose a different path from England and Wales when the sentences were introduced by the Labour Government in 2005, and it was right that they were abolished in 2012. The UN rapporteur’s figures make very sobering reading, stating that 97% of those still imprisoned are now two years beyond the tariff and 46% are 10 years beyond the tariff, with rehabilitation having been designed as an integral part of the sentencing. What are the obstacles for the Government in implementing the recommendations of the Justice Committee in the Commons, endorsed by the UN rapporteur, for resentencing and rehabilitation now being put forward? What are the obstacles to this happening, so we can finally put to bed what has been a very sorry exercise?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think I have explained this matter several times before to your Lordships but, in brief, the situation is this. We have 1,200 prisoners who have never been released. Almost all of those have come several times before the Parole Board, which each time has decided that they are not safe to release. Any resentencing exercise would inevitably either aim at or result in possibly a thousand persons being released who are not safe to release. The cohort includes many violent and sexual offenders, who are particularly difficult to manage in the community. The Government feel that they cannot take that risk and should not raise expectations but manage the situation by preparing the remaining prisoners for safe release.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, when IPP sentences were in place, the offender received a minimum tariff. When the offender went to prison, an offender manager, who is a probation officer, wrote a sentence plan. That same probation officer would also review that plan. Can the Minister say with confidence that all the elements of the sentence plans which are currently in place can be completed, and in a reasonable time?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is a very good question. A strengthened action plan—a strengthened sentence plan for each IPP prisoner—is an essential part of the wider IPP action plan. That is currently being worked on so that each IPP prisoner still in custody will have a personalised, updated and—we hope—effective sentence plan eventually leading to their release if that is at all possible. The newly established IPP progression board dealing with this matter now includes stakeholder representatives, who met in September and just before Christmas and will meet again in March, when we will report a full update on how the action plan is progressing.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I reinforce the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Clarke. Has the time not come to provide a presumption that all IPP prisoners who have served the tariff should be released unless there is robust evidence tendered to the Parole Board that they are unsafe to be released?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, that is, in effect, the present position. The Government have no interest in holding these prisoners, especially given the pressure on the prison system generally. The Government’s fear, worry and concern is public protection, for the reasons I have given.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, the special rapporteur, Dr Alice Edwards, whom I had the pleasure and privilege of meeting last month with the Justice Unions Parliamentary Group, stated forcefully that:

“The UK, as a society with a strong rule of law tradition, has measures in place to protect the community after individuals are released”.


Why then does the Minister think that these measures will be ineffective in the case of IPP prisoners?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government replied in detail to the learned special rapporteur with a letter of over 13 pages on 23 December, to which I refer your Lordships. I look forward to further debate and discussion on this matter when we are dealing with the Victims and Prisoners Bill.

Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Roborough]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 November 2023 be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 January.

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) (Amendment) Regulations 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, your Lordships last considered matters relating to judicial pensions following the McCloud judgment on 15 June, when the Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023 were before them. On that occasion, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I said that I hoped your Lordships would not be troubled by this matter again. Unfortunately, a small technical point has arisen on those 2023 regulations that we were then considering; these amendment regulations address that point. Perhaps I could briefly explain.

As your Lordships may recall, in 2015 the Government introduced new pension arrangements across the public sector following a report from the Public Services Pensions Commission. As far as judges were concerned, the new arrangements were set up in the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, which I will refer to as the 2015 scheme. Those aged over 55—that is, those approaching retirement —were allowed to remain in their previous legacy schemes and were not required to join the 2015 scheme, as every other judge was required to do.

Those judicial arrangements were then challenged by younger judges who said that they were victims of age discrimination in being required to join the 2015 scheme without the option to remain in their previous legacy schemes, which were supposedly more favourable. The challenge succeeded in the McCloud case in 2018 so, after various consultations and actions, Parliament passed the Public Service Pensions and Judicial Offices Act in 2022; in effect, it remedied the McCloud judgment by giving everyone the option to choose between their previous legacy scheme and the 2015 scheme. I understand that around 3,000 judges were affected by the McCloud judgment and that the process of allowing them the option to choose is currently in train and is so far proceeding according to plan. However, a group that apparently numbers between 30 and 50 judges has a particular situation: largely prior to the McCloud judgment, they made payments into the 2015 scheme. Typically, it was top-up payments, pension transfer payments or other supplementary payments.

However, as it turns out, through the effect of the McCloud judgment and what is thought to be the effect of Section 61 of the Equality Act, they were never technically in the 2015 scheme. In law, they always remained in their legacy schemes, so what is the status of the payments that were made into the 2015 scheme to which these judges did not, in law, belong? It is simply to correct that issue that these regulations are being put before your Lordships.

Effectively, the regulations simply say—one sees it in particular on page 2 of the regulations in the new Regulation 38A, which is introduced into the 2023 regulations—that the value payments made into the scheme are referred to as purported value payments and are to be treated as having been received by the scheme. Although there was doubt about whether they could be received by the scheme, this now deems them to be treated as having been received by the scheme. There are similar parallel provisions in relation to the various kinds of transfer payments that we are referring to.

That is, as I understand it, the essential purpose of these regulations: simply to tidy up a point. I have to say that it is not a particularly clear point, but the Government feel they should make assurance doubly sure by putting that matter beyond argument.

Finally, another group of judges numbering no more than three, I gather, benefit from an earlier judgment—the O’Brien judgment—which said that fee-paid judges were actually entitled to a pension. Those judges similarly made some payments into the 2015 scheme and the question is about the exact status of those payments. These regulations again provide that those payments are deemed to be in the 2015 scheme. I know there is a famous phrase that we have too much damned deeming going on in the legal system, but this is simply there to clarify the position.

Unless I have omitted some fundamental point or made any misstatement, that is the essential purpose of the regulations and I beg to move.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I held his position in the Government between 2010 and 2013. I became Minister of State at Justice with the now noble Lord, Lord Clarke—Ken Clarke—as Lord Chancellor. One of our first visits was to go across Parliament Square to pay a courtesy call on the Supreme Court. He was, of course, in his element as a QC and a former Home Secretary, but I was filled with trepidation when soon after we arrived three Supreme Court judges bore down on me, clearly to seek some discussion on some high point of law—some difficult and abstruse point. I need not have worried: what they wanted to press me on was judicial pensions. There was some passion in that. I remember one of the first stages in the coalition Government, which probably ended up in the 2015 Act, was to try to address the various anomalies and uncertainties in judicial pensions, so it is with a sense of closure that I come this afternoon to support what the noble and learned Lord memorably described at an earlier stage as

“44 pages of the densest technical complexity one could imagine”.—[Official Report, 15/6/23; col. GC 375.]

Why am I not surprised that that should be the legislation dealing with judges’ pensions?

I am sure that we share with the Minister the hope that this is the final tweak to the regulations. In voicing our support from these Benches, I ask him how the regulations fit in with the more general objectives of judicial reform. Will we see a judiciary—particularly a senior judiciary—more diverse in social, gender, ethnic and educational background than hitherto has been the case? Does the Minister agree that it is important that our legal system should as much as possible reflect the society it serves? There is much to admire in the intellectual quality, integrity and independence of our judiciary. Its members are most certainly not “enemies of the people”, but they must not be seen as a Brahmin caste, separate from society as a whole.

The direction of travel in recent years has been slow but steady. I hope that a sensible and secure pension scheme will underpin the flexibility and social mobility necessary to retain confidence in and respect for our judiciary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Well, one of my roles is to be a lot of trouble—although I will not be a lot of trouble in this particular debate.

The noble Lord spoke about the Supreme Court judges talking with passion about judicial pensions. As a lowly magistrate, I have sat in magistrates’ retiring rooms with district judges, and I can say that they talk with equal passion about judicial pensions—I have heard about it for a number of years. A number of them are of course part-time district judges, and the matter is of great importance to them.

The noble Lord said that he approaches this debate with “a sense of closure”. I think that everybody hopes for a sense of closure on this issue, so the first question that I put to the Minister is: are we right to think that this is the last time that we will hear about this issue? It would be interesting to hear his reflection on that.

Previously when I have taken part in these debates, I have had sitting behind me my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is an actuary and an expert on these matters. The particularly interesting question that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, raised was on how these pension reforms will fit in with the wider objectives for the judiciary as a whole in building diversity and flexibility and other desirable objectives, which will affect pension entitlements, one way or another. If the Minister could say something about this in the wider context, that would also be of interest.

I have a further question about the likely timetable for implementing this remedy. Is it already under way and when might it be complete? A final question is on whether any judges would need independent advice on whether they should accept these proposals. Is it their responsibility to get their own independent advice? I do not know how that works. Is there an expectation that judges should take independent advice before receiving these pensions?

Other than that, we clearly support the measures as far as they go. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for those remarks. I respectfully tiptoe in the distinguished shoes of the noble Lord, Lord McNally—let me make it absolutely clear: he was one of the most astounding Ministers in the ministry for many a long year. The Government entirely accept and support the sentiments he expressed that the judiciary should reflect as fully as possible the society it serves. There is still a way to go on that, and we may well touch on it in the debate on the next statutory instrument, where I have some observations to make on that very point.

All I can say from a pensions perspective is that it is important to be able to attract very good people into our judiciary. We increasingly call on them to do very difficult and demanding work. The judicial pension scheme is aimed at being a secure and attractive scheme sufficient to ensure that we attract a competent, robust and diverse judiciary. It is difficult for the Government to go beyond that but, clearly, this has to be a part of the general move to make sure that we have a sufficiently diverse and competent judiciary. As far as that general point is concerned, it is indeed a matter of ongoing concern to the judges that that should be the case, as both noble Lords said.

In relation to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, I hope—again—that we will now see the end of these processes and that we have now got it right. As your Lordships will appreciate, it is a fiendishly complicated area. It has been complicated by some quite intense litigation in the background. Judges may well want to take independent advice, but the judiciary has shown no lack of either independence or knowledge about the pension arrangements in the various fora in which that has been debated. It is partly because of the detail into which the Government have had to go that these statutory instruments have been introduced. I understand that the timetable for implementation is in the next few months. It is rolling forward and there should be no further difficulty; we very much hope that the end is in sight.

I hope that I have answered your Lordships’ questions and points. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is quickly refreshing his notes. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Employment Tribunals and Employment Appeal Tribunal (Composition of Tribunal) Regulations 2023.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, this draft instrument will delegate the power to determine the composition of employment tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal to the Senior President of Tribunals. The regulations form part of a wider ongoing policy on the part of the Government to create a single judiciary in which all parts of the judicial system form a seamless whole, whether courts or tribunals, and to further the work of ensuring consistency of operation within the tribunal system.

Your Lordships may recall that, in the very old days —I am not completely sure but this may even predate the noble Lord, Lord McNally—tribunals were, in effect, almost a part of the department to which they were associated. Down the end of the corridor in the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Social Security, there would be a tribunal that was supposed to review the decisions of the department. Over the years, however, it has been the Government’s policy, pursued particularly by the Labour Government and later by the coalition, to create a proper, independent, separately administered tribunal system.

From mid-2007 onwards, we have had a formalised, unified tribunal structure, in which all the various tribunals form the first tier. We have First-tier Tribunals, which consist of a series of tribunals dealing with social security, educational special needs, immigration and asylum, and various other things, with an appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The whole is presided over by a Senior President of Tribunals, who is currently the right honourable Sir Keith Lindblom. The Senior President of Tribunals decides on the composition of those various tribunals, across the board.

For historical reasons, employment tribunals have been an exception to this system. As your Lordships will recall, employment tribunals have a rather special history: they were originally called industrial tribunals and were set up at a time when, to gain public confidence, it was thought—rightly so—that those tribunals should have a particular statutory set-up shared jointly by what are now the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice. The composition of employment tribunals was set out separately under the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. As your Lordships know, the original idea, dating from the 1970s, was that there would always be someone representing the workers, someone representing the bosses and a legal chairman of that composition.

Times have moved on a lot since. The Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 set out a new framework, which provides that the Lord Chancellor has the power to determine the panel composition of employment tribunals, which he can delegate to the Senior President of Tribunals. These regulations implement that provision and allow the Lord Chancellor to delegate to the Senior President of Tribunals powers to determine the panel composition of employment tribunals, thus bringing them more fully within the unified system of tribunals and making the panel composition the same as all other tribunals.

The Senior President would be able to issue practice directions of the types of cases that can, for example, be heard by a judge alone, but he has to consult the Lord Chancellor about any practice direction that he is minded to make. The idea is to update the system, to create a more flexible process and to bring arrangements for employment tribunals and employment appeal tribunals in line with those that apply across the unified tribunal system.

Your Lordships will know that, particularly following the Covid pandemic, the tribunal system has been under great pressure. There is a need to be as flexible as possible to tackle these backlogs and to implement processes that are as efficient as possible. I take this opportunity to say that tribunals, particularly employment tribunals, have recovered well from the pandemic; the outstanding case load is falling and is below the pandemic peak. Members of employment tribunals and the judges in this sphere have done great work to tackle the backlog.

There is a matter that relates to what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked about on the previous statutory instrument: the status of non-lawyers who work in the judicial system. I will not call them lay members, as that phrase is not particularly appealing to them. It is not the Government’s intention that this should be a kind of backdoor to reduce the role of non-lawyers in our legal system. The Government’s view is that, from time immemorial, non-lawyers—citizens—have played an essential part in our legal system as a whole. That might have been as magistrates—the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is a notable example—in a jury, or as members of tribunals.

We feel that this “lay participation” brings an extra texture, adds extra confidence, brings extra insights and greatly enhances the system as a whole—particularly from the point of view of diversity, which was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. You are drawing on a wide pool of potential appointments to tribunals and, generally speaking, that is an avenue in which you can enhance diversity in the wider judicial system. The regulations are not intended to undermine that in any way. I have had the great privilege of sitting as a judge in the Employment Appeal Tribunal, where the effect of the lay members was particularly striking. I will follow the noble Lord, Lord McNally, with a moment of personal reminiscence. In those days, the Employment Appeal Tribunal had some very distinguished trade union members: I think of George Wright of the Transport and General Workers’ Union; Norman Willis, the former secretary-general of the TUC; and others— I think I just missed Jack Jones, but only by a short margin. They brought enormous skill, wisdom and common sense to the operation of the appeal tribunal, and one would not wish to jeopardise that.

I thought that I would take the opportunity to make the Government’s position on that point clear. This statutory instrument is designed to bring employment tribunals in line with the rest of the system and to enable us to be as flexible as possible without in any way undermining the principle of lay participation, which I have just emphasised. On that basis, I beg to move.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, it is perhaps one of the wonders of our system that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, and I should both have had the same job in government. I am not a lawyer, whereas he is a very distinguished lawyer and indeed a very distinguished judge. I used to be—if you are going to invite people of my age to speak at these gatherings, you are going to get some reminiscences—very nervous of that. At any meeting, I would say, “I have to explain that I am not a lawyer”. Then I entertained a distinguished jurist from the United States and explained that I was not a lawyer, and he said—very slowly—“Then I will speak very slowly”, so I stopped doing that.

I should also say that, in background and upbringing, I belong to a generation that was—and is—supportive of dialogue rather than confrontation in industrial relations. The Employment Tribunals Act and the setting up of the tribunals certainly underpinned and strengthened that approach to industrial relations. Of course, we will probably give a nod to it today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in his opening remarks, the noble and learned Lord said that this is not a backdoor to reduce the lay members within the judicial system. He went some way to say how much judges appreciate working with lay members, who are sometimes experts in other fields. The two noble Lords who spoke before me raised concerns on exactly this issue.

Although my brief is to accept the proposals of the Government without reservation—which I do, of course —I have reflected on my own experience. A number of magistrates sit on a number of tribunals; I can think of about 10 colleagues who do this, as it is quite common. Some sit on employment tribunals and some on other tribunals. Sometimes they are experts and sometimes they are lay people in other contexts. I remember a couple of separate discussions, with a magistrate who was a trade unionist and with magistrates who were employers, all of whom sat on these employment tribunals and were sceptical about the changes foreseen by these regulations. That scepticism was about money-saving and about trying to get consistency within the system when there is no merit beyond that consistency itself. There needs to be more of a reason than just consistency to make a change such as this. The noble and learned Lord gave us some reassurances in his opening, but there is scepticism out there nevertheless.

The question that both the noble Lords asked is: after these regulations go through, what criteria will the Lord Chancellor look at, if and when proposals come for more tribunals to be determined by single judges sitting alone, rather than by a panel of three? Will there be a process to review this? We heard from the TUC and I gave my personal anecdotes about colleagues with whom I have sat, and it seems to me that the justification of consistency alone is not sufficient. There needs to be a more profound justification to make this change. I look forward to the noble and learned Lord’s response.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. On the mechanics of this—I will be corrected by those sitting behind me if I get this wrong—if your Lordships approve these regulations, that in itself delegates to the Senior President of Tribunals the power to decide on composition. There is no further step by the Secretary of State; he simply delegates it, as he is empowered to do under the 2002 Act.

It is then for the Senior President of Tribunals to issue a practice direction setting out how he proposes to exercise those powers. There have already been some consultations in relation to that, which are possibly those referred to by the Trades Union Congress. The Senior President has intimated that, until he has the power to make the practice direction, it is not appropriate for him to make the result of the consultation public. I am sure we will know that in due course, but it is not too difficult to speculate, as a lot of reservation has been expressed about the very point that your Lordships are making. This point is not new; it is in the public domain. In effect, it is: “Don’t tinker with the well-established working relationships of employment tribunals”. That is thoroughly understood.

The Senior President of Tribunals does this job with all tribunals across the piece. Employment tribunals are special up to a point, but this is a job that he does and, if I may say so, we have to acknowledge that we have a wise and experienced president, as I am sure we will in the future. I am equally sure that he will exercise those powers responsibly.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Second reading committee
Tuesday 19th December 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Committee do consider the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, as our learned Chairman has just indicated, the procedure is, as I understand it, that we will formally move a Motion for Second Reading on the Floor of the Chamber after this debate and then I will move a Motion that the Bill be referred to a Special Public Bill Committee for further consideration. It is a kind of hybrid Bill procedure because this is a Law Commission Bill following the Law Commission report of 5 September 2023, which contained a draft Bill.

I should say at the outset that there are two changes to the draft Bill presented by the Law Commission. First, Clause 1(3) of the Law Commission version provided that the Bill would not apply to any existing arbitration agreement. That caused a certain amount of concern because there are many thousands of existing arbitration agreements going back many years and, if that situation had prevailed, we would have had a dual system for a very long time, as old arbitration agreements became subject to arbitration. The Bill now provides that its changes do not apply to arbitrations that have already commenced, as distinct from existing arbitration agreements. I have taken the precaution of checking with the law officers that that is regarded as satisfactory and that it is in line with earlier precedent in relation to the Arbitration Act 1996, which this Bill amends. That is the first point.

The second point is that the Bill now extends to Northern Ireland, which is thought to be consistent with policy. It does not extend to Scotland, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, well knows. Scotland has its own regime under the Arbitration (Scotland) Act 2010.

Following those introductory comments, I will briefly take your Lordships through the Bill, conscious as I am that almost everyone in the Room knows much more about it than I do. I have a certain sense of déjà vu, as this is not unlike appearing once again in front of the Supreme Court, or the House of Lords as it was, considering the galaxy of knowledge and experience that we have before us this afternoon. Your Lordships well know that the arbitral process is of great importance and value, particularly to the commercial community of this country, which is a most important centre for international arbitration. Arbitration is a method of resolving disputes to which the parties willingly submit and, in the Government’s view, it should be promoted and kept up to date.

The background to this Bill is the decision by the Lord Chancellor in 2021 to ask the Law Commission to review the Arbitration Act 1996, which contains the present law—I know that certain noble Lords, notably the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, go back well before that and have lived this development over many years. The 1996 Act contains a thorough code of the principles and practice of arbitration in this country. This Bill is intended to bring that structure and framework up to date and ensure that we remain abreast of international developments and that London and these jurisdictions remain competitive on the international scene. Arbitrations in England and Wales generate some £2.5 billion annually in arbitral and legal aid fees alone and in 2021, according to the Law Commission, London was the world’s most popular seat for international commercial arbitration, notably in banking, insurance, trade and other businesses.

Your Lordships will be very familiar with the provisions of the Bill, but I will briefly summarise them. Clause 1 provides that the law governing the arbitration will, unless the parties agree otherwise, be the law of the seat of arbitration. As noble Lords know—I will try to get this completely right—in contractual disputes, the contractual liability will normally be determined by the proper law of the contract, but the contract may provide that the arbitration be elsewhere. A contract may be governed by Russian law but have arbitration in London. In that event, what is known as the curial or supervisory jurisdiction is governed by English law; for example, whether an arbitrator should be removed or to which court some challenge to the arbitral award may be made will be the subject of the law of the seat—in that example, English law.

However, suppose the question is whether the dispute is within the agreement to arbitrate in the first place. In my example, would it be governed by the Russian law of the contract or the English law of the seat? This question has exercised the courts over many years and there have been different views and decisions. In Enka v Chubb in 2020, the Supreme Court, in a split 3:2 decision, arrived at a somewhat complex test for deciding exactly which law governed the agreement to arbitrate. That gave rise, among other things, to a desire for certainty and a clear and simple rule. That simple rule is now provided in Clause 1, which provides that it would normally be the law of the seat unless the parties agree otherwise.

My understanding is that that is already in line with certain standard arbitration agreements and the rules of bodies that provide arbitration services. That is the essential provision of Clause 1. As I am sure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, is well aware, England, Wales and Northern Ireland will thereby align with Scotland, so we will have a common position across the four jurisdictions.

Clause 2 provides a statutory duty on arbitrators to disclose circumstances that might reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality, to maintain the integrity of arbitration in this country. There have been some well-publicised incidents, as a result of which it should be put beyond doubt that arbitrators have a full duty to disclose anything that may reasonably give rise to justifiable doubts as to their impartiality.

Clauses 2 and 3 support arbitrators in making impartial and proper decisions without fear that they might incur some personal liability. In the case of an application for the removal of an arbitrator, Clause 3 provides that the arbitrator will not be liable personally for costs unless they have acted in bad faith. Clause 4 provides that an arbitrator will not be liable for resigning unless the resignation is shown by a complainant to be unreasonable. Those provisions effectively support the independence of arbitrators.

Clauses 5 and 6 deal with jurisdiction. Under Clause 5, if there is a challenge to the tribunal’s jurisdiction on which the tribunal has already ruled, the losing party cannot go directly to the court on a preliminary point to challenge that; it must await the final arbitral award and then make that challenge under Section 67. That in effect rules out earlier challenges to the court on jurisdiction.

Clause 6 clears up something of a mystery: when an arbitral tribunal decides that it has no jurisdiction, does it none the less have jurisdiction to award costs? Clause 6 provides that it does; there is a power to award costs even if the arbitral tribunal has found that it has no jurisdiction over the dispute in question. Clause 7 effectively replicates the summary judgment procedures available in the court and empowers arbitrators to make an award on a summary basis if a particular issue has no real prospect of success.

Clauses 8 and 9 pertain to the powers of the court. Clause 8 empowers it to make court orders reinforcing the orders of emergency arbitrators. These powers already exist in relation to normal arbitrators, but on occasion emergency arbitrators are appointed, so this makes sure that the existing powers to issue court orders apply equally where there is an emergency arbitrator. Clause 9—again, similarly to normal court proceedings—entitles arbitrators to make orders in support of arbitral proceedings against third parties, most likely banks that may be holding relevant funds. That provision resolves a certain conflict in the case law and aligns the position of arbitral proceedings with that in court proceedings.

Clause 10 is essentially a tidying-up measure. There are various bases for challenging an arbitral award in the 1996 Act: Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, Section 68 for serious irregularity or Section 69 for a point of law. Clause 10 ensures that, where there is a challenge under Section 67 for lack of jurisdiction, the remedies available to the court are the same as they would be were the challenge under Sections 68 or 69, to bring a certain degree of consistency across the three main ways of challenging arbitral awards.

Under Clause 11, if an arbitral party applies to the court to challenge an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal had no jurisdiction under Section 67, that challenge should not be a full rehearing with new evidence and arguments—it should, in effect, be decided on the existing record so that the court does not have to restart or do the whole thing afresh on the basis of the challenge to the jurisdiction of the tribunal. That will streamline and simplify the operation of such challenges.

There are then some quite short, technical provisions. Clause 12 clarifies certain time limits. Clause 13 codifies the law in relation to the staying of legal proceedings and Clause 14 streamlines the process of applying to the court under the 1996 Act for certain preliminary rulings on jurisdiction and points of law. Clause 15 repeals certain sections that have never been brought into force and are therefore redundant.

That is a very brief outline. I am not sure whether it was a fast trot or a slow canter. Your Lordships are much more familiar with this area than I am. The Bill is intended to increase the competitiveness of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and primarily London, as a seat of international arbitration, to foster growth in both domestic and international arbitration, to introduce a fairer and more efficient process and to reduce reliance on resort to the court. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contributions to this debate, in particular for the broad welcome that the Bill has received from the Committee. I take it on myself—authorised, if I may, on behalf of this Committee —to pass on our warm thanks to the Law Commission and its team, one of whose representatives are here, for the extraordinary work that has been done on the Bill, and indeed to all those who participated in the consultation. As has been said, it is a model of its kind. All legislation should aspire to reach this kind of standard. That is the first thing I need to say.

Secondly, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, on his tour de force, going back to 1698—almost as if he was there in 1698, though not quite perhaps—and thank Mr Landau for coming today and blazing an earlier trail, in which we follow with diffidence as the years go by. We are well aware of the points he made on the importance of achieving a good balance between the courts and arbitration on the one hand, and promoting arbitration in this country and pursuing that objective, as the Law Society has today underlined.

With those introductory comments, perhaps I could deal briefly with at least some of the points that have been made, bearing in mind that we still have the Public Bill Committee to come; further points can, of course, be raised then. The equality point, raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and commented on by the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, is a difficult one. The Law Commission decided not to proceed to do anything about it but it is something that we can, of course, keep under review. When the Equality Act next comes up for consideration, I anticipate that this point would need to be addressed.

The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, raised the Nigeria case and the tension inherent in arbitration between privacy and transparency. I will make two points about that case. First, in a sense, it established that London is capable of dealing with this kind of fraud, because there was a judge who was able to expose it, and a procedure and, in the end, it was demonstrated that the supervisory jurisdiction in England and Wales works very well.

Secondly, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, that it was almost certainly a one-off—a quite extraordinary exception to the general rule. However, the Government ought to take under advisement whether we should do anything to further establish or reinforce what is undoubtedly the case—that London is clean, to use the word of the noble and learned Lord. With the co-operation of the professions, we ought to quietly establish whether anything further should be done to ensure that that is indeed the case. However, it was a disturbing case and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, question marks remain in some cases, over some aspects of the legal profession in relation to SLAPPS, transparency and so forth. In some areas, further consideration may be necessary in due course.

I am glad that the issue with the words “of itself” in new Section 6A(2) has been drawn to the Government’s attention. Again, we should reflect on that. I think that I understand what the draftsman is driving at, but perhaps we should embark on further amendment to that section and whether it is necessary—perhaps we should consider that further.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, raised the issue of the review under Clause 11 and the whole question of what the rules of court should do and how far they should go. That may link back to our earlier discussion about the Nigeria case, because this is the court taking a very active review role. No doubt there will be a consultation in due course on the rules of court, and it will be important to bear in mind the points made today.

Those were the main points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked whether we planned to have an assessment in a year or two. That is a little far ahead for the Government to be looking at the moment.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

However, this is an area where Governments, the profession and practitioners are constantly aware of the need for London to be competitive, fair, open and transparent and to prosper. As the years pass, this will be reviewed over time to ensure that London remains competitive by the natural play of market forces.

I think I have covered the main points raised. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Could I draw the Minister’s attention to Section 61 of the 1996 Act, which the Law Commission has not pronounced upon? This is the section on the power of the arbitrators to award costs, and how they should do so. Section 61(2) says that

“the tribunal shall award costs on the general principle that costs should follow the event”.

That is the regular jargon used in cases conducted before our law courts. At the very end of the case, the winning party gets up and asks the judge to award costs following the event—namely, that that party has won and therefore the other party should pay all the costs. That goes to the point that I was making that this should be a promotional Act, attractive to those from overseas—and how are those overseas persons meant to know or understand what

“costs should follow the event”

means?

It is more complicated than that. This came out in two cases, both under the jurisdiction of the wonderful Law Lord, Tom Bingham. When he was a mere Mr Justice, he did the case of “Catherine” in 1982—and then, when he was the Lord Justice of Appeal, he presided on the Norwegian Cruise case of April 1988. In both those cases, he did not follow the normal rule of costs following the event, because in both those cases the winning party had taken up excessive time on matters that it lost in the dispute. Therefore, it is not so simple as costs following the event and the loser paying.

What I suggest concerning this clause is that we take the opportunity during the passage of the Bill to remove that phrase and leave it as a simple judgment of the arbitrator or arbitrators—what is the fair order on costs that that they should make.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for that intervention. As far as I know, the Law Commission did not consider that specific question, so I am not entirely sure, as of now when I am on my feet, to what extent we should widen the debate in the context of this particular Bill. But I shall take his point back and further consider it, and see whether the Government have a position on the point that he very strongly makes.

Motion agreed.

Legal Services Act 2007 (Approved Regulator) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 23 October be approved.

Relevant document: 1st Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 12 December.

Motions agreed.