Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 5th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, this is another important group of amendments and we support all of them. I remind noble Lords of the importance of this. Since the Bill assumes that everybody arriving irregularly will be detained and automatically removed, where they are going to be removed to becomes important to us all, and for us to have some consideration about the criteria which the Government will use is of particular importance. Can the Minister confirm that deterrence does not trump human rights with respect to removals? That was the implication of what his noble friend Lord Murray said earlier—that deterrence is everything and something that has to be achieved irrespective of any other consequence.

Since the Government always say that they are on the side of the British people, let me be controversial for a moment. With regard to the issues that we have been discussing in this group of amendments, I do not believe that the British people believe that deterrence should trump human rights. Let us make this real. I have looked at this, as other Members have done, in relation to various LGBTQ rights in countries that the Government say will be safe to send failed asylum seekers to through the Bill. Let us take the case of Nigeria; as my noble friend Lord Cashman has said, you can be flogged for being gay there. In Malawi, it is up to 14 years’ imprisonment with or without corporal punishment. In Liberia, it is a maximum of three years in prison.

Can the Minister tell us, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, whether a failed asylum seeker who is gay would be removed to those countries? In the end, that goes to the essence of what we are talking about. I want to know, and the British public and this Chamber want to know: will such an individual—or anyone in circumstances detailed in the helpful amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett—be deported, or not? I do not think they should be deported in those circumstances. I do not see how those countries can be included in Schedule 1; I do not understand that at all. I do not believe that the Minister would want anyone —a female asylum seeker, for example, who has failed according to the terms of the Bill—to be returned to a country where they would be persecuted. Would such a country be included in Schedule 1? Rather than these general terms, let us see the specifics of what would happen.

Some noble Lords who have been Members of the other place will know that people will often say in general terms, “It’s an outrage”, or that “It’s about time those people were sent back” or “dealt with”. Then, the individual case—the individual family, the individual asylum seeker, the individual gay person—comes up and that very same community launches a campaign to stop them being deported. You can see it happening up and down the country because people are genuinely decent. When the human consequences of a piece of legislation are made clear, that general enthusiasm and support dissipates because they understand its consequences.

When the Minister answers the various questions of noble Lords, I want him to answer the specifics about an individual gay person who has failed as an asylum seeker under the terms of the Bill. Will they be returned to the sorts of countries and the sorts of persecution that other noble Lords and I have outlined?

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

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have put forward amendments in this group and contributed to this debate. The Government completely understand the sincerity and thought that has gone into these amendments and we are grateful for those observations but, for the reasons that I hope I will be able to explain, the Government do not feel that we should accept the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I wish to probe a little more what the Minister said. I understand his points about certain parts of countries. As I understand it, the Government accept that, in certain parts of countries, the risk to the individual will be such that that person should not be returned or sent to them if they are part of what could otherwise be a safe country. What is our Government’s mechanism to secure a guarantee from that country’s Government that that person would not then be sent to that region?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I suppose that the direct answer is that one would have to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the country concerned. I agree that that may not be enough, and the situation may well be such that it is not appropriate to designate a part of the country. All I am saying is that one should have this power; I am not necessarily saying the circumstances in which one should exercise it. It would still be open to an individual, in a suspensive claim, to say, “I’m still at risk because I might be transferred to the part of the country where it would be too dangerous for me to be sent”. That would be part of the analysis that the tribunal seized of the case would have to make.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I appreciate that the Minister said that, therefore, a negotiation may have to be done on not sending someone to part of a country. How would the British Government and the Home Office then monitor that to ensure that the host country kept to the agreement and that people were not moved to the part of the country that was deemed unsafe?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government would have to monitor it as best one could, and, if it turns out that an arrangement is not satisfactory, it probably may not be a good idea to designate that part of the country as safe in the first place. All I am saying is let us not deprive ourselves of the opportunity to have this flexibility. We can work it out as we go forward.

What I should come to now are Amendments 35, 36, 41 to 52 and 54 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, so ably developed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and spoken to by others. In essence, they seek to amend either Clause 5 or the references to various countries listed in the schedule on the basis that certain individuals would have a well-founded fear of persecution and that we should therefore now declare in statute which these countries are and on what basis people should not be sent back to them. In general terms, the Government’s view is that it is not desirable to enshrine in statute descriptions of which countries are safe or not, or of particular groups of individuals or those with protected characteristics. The route—

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I will finish my train of thought and then give way. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly asked about the route for the protection of the individual. If there is a removal notice to a country in question, and if they have a well-founded fear of persecution and would be at real risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to that country, they have a right to make a suspensive claim—a claim of suspensive harm—and that claim is then appealed to the Upper Tribunal. That is their individual protection in which their individual circumstances are closely considered, including in a judicial process. That is the essential protection.

I also clarify that, if you read the Bill with care, you will see that people cannot be sent back to a country unless we are satisfied that the country is prepared to accept them. In practical terms, that will include Rwanda at the moment and other countries in the future, with which we might be able to form immigration partnerships. However, that is a precondition that does not necessarily apply to many of the countries listed in the schedule.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

First, following on from what the Minister said at the beginning of the answer he has just given, when he said that the Government do not feel that it is appropriate to list characteristics of individuals in the Bill, I ask him: why in Schedule 1 are there, on eight occasions, a description of an individual in the list of countries for men only? They are deemed not safe for women; therefore, the Government have described certain groups of individuals by a characteristic.

Secondly, and very importantly, the point I raised—which the Minister may be coming to, based on his last answer—was that most people who claim asylum on LGBT, sexual orientation or gender identity grounds tend not to start with that. Therefore, it would be completely missed if there were not people supporting them to be able to go through a normal process. In some cases, it takes five or six attempts before that person will claim asylum on their own characteristic, because they do not trust authority, and so that trust has to be built.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the first part of the question asked by the noble Lord, it is true that there are certain countries designated for men only, and so forth, in the existing schedule. The Government do not consider that that is an appropriate precedent to extend at this stage. Circumstances change and countries change, so it is much better to deal with this on an individual basis. It is probably the case, one would have thought as a matter of common sense, that, if it arises, the Government’s travel advice to particular countries, to raise one particular point, is likely to be a highly material fact, when they come to consider the risk of serious and irreversible harm.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister for the answer he gave to a point I raised earlier. I ask him whether, before Report, he will talk to some of those organisations which have been the secondary referrals for people who have tried to make claims that they would be in danger in unspecified other countries. They face the extreme inconsistency of quality legal advice in different parts of the country, and they often obtain quality legal advice only when some well-meaning social worker or other person refers them to the Children’s Society or some other organisation, which has a proper team of lawyers, who are able to give informed advice. Around the country, where the people we are talking about tend to be dispersed, the knowledge of this part of the law is thin.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are always prepared to talk to anybody who would like to put forward various ideas. We will come to the question of legal advice and legal protections and procedures in a later group, where I will be very happy to elaborate on the Government’s plans in that respect.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The judge in an Upper Tribunal would no doubt be trying to determine the will of Parliament in deciding the issues before us. In what circumstances do the Minister or the Government believe a judge would send a gay individual going to the Upper Tribunal as the result of a suspensive claim back to Nigeria or a similar country?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am not sure I completely understood the question. It may well be that in practice there will be various countries to which people with certain characteristics will never be sent because it is well known either at the level of the case worker and the Home Office or at the level of the judiciary that such a claim would give rise to a risk of “serious and irreversible harm”.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Let me try again for the Minister. It is often said in court that judges were uncertain as to the intention of Parliament and it was not clear in the legislation what Parliament actually meant and therefore there was ambiguity. For the sake of avoiding any ambiguity, let us say that a suspensive claim goes to the Upper Tribunal, where the judge will determine whether that claim is right and whether an individual should be sent back to a particular country. So that the judge in the Upper Tribunal is not in danger of misreading the will of Parliament, I do not think that Parliament would want a gay individual who had failed because of the terms of the Illegal Migration Bill to be sent back to a country such as Nigeria which flogs gay men. I am asking the Minister of the Crown to say what the Government’s attitude is towards gay men in those circumstances, so that a judge in an Upper Tribunal will know what the intention of Parliament was. I hope that was clear enough for the Minister.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s position is that no one should be sent back if to do so would lead them to face

“a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm”.

If that is the position in relation to gay men in Nigeria, there should be no difficulty in them satisfying those conditions.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I am sorry to trouble the Minister again, but I have been listening to this with great interest and have two questions. First, is the Minister able to say any country outside Europe where it would be safe to send a gay man or indeed woman back? Secondly, if there are any countries, would it be possible for the Government to put those on their website?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

It will remain a question of fact in each case and the examples of relevant harm are set out in Clause 38(4), which refers to

“death … persecution … torture … inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”

and where onward removal would raise a risk of

“real, imminent and foreseeable risk of … harm”.

If that in practice amounts to a situation in which you could not send a gay person back to that country, that would be a decision for the tribunal.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am so grateful to the Minister for responding with his characteristic courtesy and patience. I think I can help him, because I think the problem here arises from the Government own cake-eating, if I can put it like that. The general proposition in the Bill is that we will now decide on a blanket basis that people are to be removed, regardless of their circumstances, because of the means of their arrival, not because of the circumstances of their past and their persecution. Fair enough; that is the thinking behind the Bill. Then the Government say, “Here is the schedule of safe countries”, again on a blanket basis. Then the Government say, “But only for men”—so they have already adopted the approach that there are some countries that are safe for men but not for women. But then when my noble friends and other noble Lords in the Committee say, “But gay people are a vulnerable group in many parts of the world, just as women are”, the Minister is, I think, forced into the Government’s position of saying, “But women are not a precedent”.

That logic is not standing up to scrutiny, in this Committee at least, so I hope that, after Committee and before Report, the Minister might just consider that issue of gay people, or LGBT+ people, in particular. We all know, in this Committee, that just as there are some countries that may be safe for men but not women, there are many countries that are not safe for queer people either. Rather than playing on this sticky wicket, which he, with his characteristic grace, handles with great aplomb, perhaps before Report, the Government could think again.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government will of course consider that, as we try to consider everything that is said in this House, before Report. I simply reiterate that under Clause 5(3)(d), it still has to be

“a country or territory to which there is reason to believe P will be admitted”—

and that is probably not very likely to be satisfied in the particular countries we are talking about, such as Ghana, for example. Having responded to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the Government will of course consider the position.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

On that very point, what is the point of having Ghana in that schedule? There is no agreement with Ghana at all, so how do the Government know that Ghana would be unlikely to accept someone who is not admissible under the UK scheme? The UK will presumably not necessarily divulge that that person is gay.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I sought to explain earlier that Schedule 1 is an amalgam of all the existing schedules that exist. Ghana was already on a list of countries to which people could be sent, and the present practice is not to send people back to places where they are at serious risk. That practice will continue under this Act when you make a suspensive harm application. It is a historical situation, but it has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. As I said to the noble Baroness a moment ago, the Government will reflect on what has been said in this debate.

That brings me to deal specifically with the question of Rwanda and the fact that there are currently proceedings pending in relation to Rwanda, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, pointed out. So far, the High Court has upheld the position on Rwanda: we will see what the Court of Appeal judgment says. If the case goes further, it will be a matter for judicial decision and we will see how that works out, but we will not take Rwanda out at this stage, while the matter is still pending. I think that is also the answer, if I may say so, in relation to Amendments 43A and 49A on Hungary and Poland. These are ongoing proceedings: let us see what the outcome is and then it can be properly determined whether Poland and Hungary are countries that should remain on the list. That is not clear yet and it depends on the outcome of those pending proceedings.

I think that I am nearly through, except for the very important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, as to whether we should beef up Clause 6(4)(b), which at the moment places certain requirements on the Secretary of State, in deciding on possible new countries and territories. The thrust of the amendment suggested by the noble Lord and supported by others is that effectively there should be a more detailed list of conventions and other international instruments to which the Government should have regard, with a specific obligation of consultation. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and others wanted in particular to enshrine the obligation to follow the decisions of domestic courts and the Human Rights Act.

The Government’s position on this—and of course, as with other things, we will reflect on it—is that these are effectively de facto covered in the existing Clause 6(4)(a) and (b). They provide that the Secretary of State must—it is a positive duty—

“have regard to all the circumstances of the country”

and

“must have regard to information from any appropriate source (including member States and international organisations)”.

That, in the Government’s view, necessarily requires the Secretary of State to have regard to case law, whether it is domestic or European; to have regard to international conventions and obligations; and to have regard to what international organisations say—and they are not exactly bashful when coming forward in this kind of area. The Secretary of State would be seriously at risk of being found to have acted irrationally or found not to have taken into account relevant considerations, if there was a major international organisation, a major convention or a major decision that had somehow been overlooked. So the combination of the normal duties of rationality and duty to take into account all relevant considerations, plus the actual wording of Clause 6(4), in the Government’s present view, covers the situation adequately.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. The hour is late, and I promise not to intervene again on his remarks. Before we get to group 19, which is also linked to this amendment, or indeed before we get to Report, could the Minister arrange for his officials or perhaps for himself or his noble friend to meet the Salvation Army and the other providers and stakeholders to which I referred in my remarks? It was they who raised these concerns—and, given that they have a contract with the Home Office, they are in a pretty good position to know the territory.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My noble friend Lord Murray tells me that that is already in train—or, certainly, there is no objection from the Government’s point of view.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his patience and graciousness. Given the amendments that I raised, which I co-signed with others, particularly with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and given the notion that deterrent trumps all, I am still not reassured that a person would not be returned to somewhere like Uganda, where you face 14 years’ imprisonment or the death penalty for “aggravated homosexuality”. I am not reassured that a person will not be sent to those countries if they are at serious risk. Historically—and I shall close on this intervention—in the Home Office, people have been told that they will be returned to countries where they should not make their sexual orientation or gender identity known. I do not want us to return to those days.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

In taking full account of what the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, has just said, which was obviously a powerful comment, I simply reiterate, as I have said to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the Government will consider the content of this debate. However, I reiterate first of all that this is a judicial and not a Home Office decision, and that those concerned will need to explain to the tribunal why they do not want to be sent back to these countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

The equality impact assessment that the Government have done on this talks particularly about sexual orientation. The very point that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others have made is that people will be returned. The Government more or less say that that will be the case unless something happens:

“Where individuals are from a country where their sexual orientation is criminalised, and their exploitation is linked to their sexual orientation, they may require additional support in order to trust and engage with law enforcement”.


That is the Government’s own equality impact assessment. Where in the Bill is that extra support in place? I cannot see it anywhere in the Bill to ensure that discrimination does not take place against people from the LGBT community. Therefore, subsequently, if this support is not put in place, people from the LGBT community will be sent to places where they are unsafe due to local LGBT laws.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, at this stage I do not think I can elaborate beyond the answers I have already given. This is going to be a matter for the judicial process—through the appeal process, the legal advice and the legal representation that these people have. If they can show serious and irreversible harm, then they will not be sent to these places.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the care with which he has responded to these amendments. I do not know whether I am right, and I do not want to embarrass him, but I sensed a slight feeling of discomfort with the issues we are having to address. I applaud him for that.

It seems to me that noble Lords have been both practical and principled in this debate. I agree with the analysis about half an hour ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, of the position, but the practicality has been by testing the reality of different circumstances. It was the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who said that, when faced with the situation of somebody one knows well being in this precarious position, it all looks very different. I agree; it is rather similar to feelings about people who come from other cultures. We are suspicious of them—“But not So-and-so—no, she is fine”.

On Amendment 30, I will read the report of what the Minister has said. I was not challenging most of subsection (4). It was simply the discretion, and I take what has been said about the Secretary of State having to act reasonably and so on. Subsection (5), however, says that “exceptional circumstances include”. That, to me, raises questions about what might not be included on the face of the Bill.

The Minister is quite right that I was trying to read “prevent” as someone being put at risk, and I think the Bill should say so because a person is prevented from being removed only if, in his individual case, he falls within the exceptions. That is not the natural understanding of the term. I have to say that I remain very concerned about the issue of a part of a country. A conflict in one part of a country can spread very fast, and can the risk to an individual—if he is persona non grata in one part of the country, that can become known in another part of the country very easily—and we are talking about individuals.

I am still a bit confused about “in general”. I understand that the lists we have are an amalgam of previous lists. The Minister defends the position—I think I am right in saying—by referring to procedures that can be used to challenge a decision. We are going to get to some more of this later in the Bill, but noble Lords have already shown their concern about the very narrow circumstances in which challenges—if I can use the term broadly—can be made.

A couple of things have come up in the Minister’s response that have made me think again about these. I would have mentioned some in any event, but I sure that noble Lords will understand that I am, at this moment, speaking a little bit slowly for reasons of time. If there is to be a negotiation about a home country and whether to have a negotiation with that country, does that actually raise the risk of drawing the individual to the attention of the authorities in that country and putting that person in greater jeopardy than he may have been?

The notion of acceptance by the receiving country has also been raised. I do not know whether the Minister can answer this tonight; if he can take a couple of minutes to do so, it would be helpful. If the UK and other countries are going to say, “Will you accept this individual?”, does that not, again, put that individual in jeopardy, because the reason for his having sought asylum in the UK will become known? We are in Committee, so the Minister is free to reply if he can help at this point.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I expect that I am being asked to play a sort of night watchman role in continuing the batting until stumps are drawn. As far as I know, it is not the case that the Government intend to engage in negotiations in relation to particular individuals. The Government’s general policy is to engage in discussions with particular countries about reciprocal arrangements and migration partnerships. There are various reports of other countries that are currently engaged in discussions.

Subject to correction—I am sure my noble friend Lord Murray will put me right—I think it is very likely to be the case that a lot of what we have discussed tonight in relation to Ghana, Nigeria and Uganda is simply not going to arise. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and others are sceptical about that and it may be that the Government need to provide some further reassurance to satisfy noble Lords. Perhaps the noble Baroness will forgive me for noticing the time.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. That has raised further issues in my mind about what information may be given—not necessarily about an individual—to a receiving country, whether the questions may be asked and how the UK responds.

I think stumps probably can be drawn, though it is not in my gift to say so. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 30.

Parole Board Recommendations: Open Conditions

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what proportion of Parole Board recommendations for prisoners to be transferred to open conditions were accepted by the Secretary of State for Justice from January to March; and on what grounds such recommendations can be rejected.

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

My Lords, the Question refers to the transfer of a life or other indeterminate sentence prisoner to an open prison. That is an operational decision for the Secretary of State. He is not obliged to follow the Parole Board’s advice but will take it into account. From January to March 2023, the Secretary of State considered 90 recommendations by the Parole Board for a prisoner to be moved to open prison. The Secretary of State accepted 14 recommendations and rejected 76.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, it is an old saying in Parliament, “Never ask a question of a Minister unless you know the answer already”, and I read with interest the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, on 27 April. The figure that the noble and learned Lord has quoted is less than one in six referrals from the Parole Board, and I cannot get my head around how small it is. The Minister outlines the criteria to be taken into consideration, but the Parole Board making the recommendation will surely know what criteria the Government are going on. What is the point in it keeping on making referrals if the Secretary of State is not going to listen?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I think I should clarify that this particular advisory function of the Parole Board has no statutory basis. It dates historically to the time when the Parole Board was part of the Home Office. The Parole Board has no operational responsibility for the safety and security of the open estate, nor for the rehabilitation of prisoners, nor for the categorisation of which prisoners are suitable for which prisons. In June 2022, the Secretary of State adopted new criteria for the transfer of prisoners to open prisons and unfortunately, in the Secretary of State’s view, those criteria have not been fully followed by the Parole Board’s advice. Those decisions by the Secretary of State can of course be challenged in the courts.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, in the first quarter of last year, 88 references were made from the Parole Board, and 80 were accepted. The change over the past year can have nothing to do with whether the Parole Board is following the Ministry of Justice criteria, which say

“the prisoner is assessed as low risk of abscond; and … a period in open conditions is considered essential to inform future decisions about release”.

The Parole Board is following the criteria laid down by the MoJ, but the MoJ is following a different route, and the question is: why?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who has enormous experience and expertise in this area, the Secretary of State’s view is that the Parole Board is not entirely following the change in criteria that was adopted in June 2022, particularly in regard to the essential nature of the move to open conditions to inform future decisions about release. There is indeed a further condition that the

“transfer to open conditions would not undermine public confidence in the Criminal Justice System”.

That is a matter for the Secretary of State.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, in March, the High Court held that the previous Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, had acted unlawfully by instructing probation officers not to give the Parole Board their view of the risks of release of particular prisoners if that conflicted with his views. Can the Minister assure me that the new Secretary of State for Justice, Alex Chalk, who I warmly welcome to his post, has a better understanding of the importance of the independence of the Parole Board and its processes?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Secretary of State will of course abide by the recent decision of the High Court and will entirely respect the constitutional position of the Parole Board. I should add that what we are talking about today in relation to the 76 decisions is 32 prisoners serving a mandatory life sentence for murder, 11 serving a discretionary life sentence for rape and various other sexual offences, eight on an IPP sentence for serious sexual offences and another 25 for serious offences, all involving violence against the person.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble and learned friend share my concern that too many people are going to prison? Has a recent assessment been made of the effects of community restorative justice, which I saw in Northern Ireland when I was chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in the other place and which was extremely effective?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very fair point. That is a matter primarily for the Sentencing Council, but the Government will of course keep it under review.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, we long ago got rid of Home Office Ministers setting tariffs in life sentences because it permitted politics to become involved in the justice system. Can my noble and learned friend assure me that of the 76 decisions made by the Secretary of State rejecting a Parole Board recommendation, politics played no part whatever in any of them?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, those decisions were all taken on the merits. I repeat that it is an operational matter which prison the prisoner should be in. That is quite distinct from the question of whether a prisoner should be released, which is the primary role of the Parole Board.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, the principal reason that people are worried about this is because they believe that release straight from closed conditions and high security conditions increases the risk of reoffending and that a period in open conditions is very helpful in reducing that risk. Will the Minister return to the House at a future date to inform us of what has happened as a consequence of the decisions taken by the Secretary of State? Preventing a period in open conditions does not prevent release. All it does is prevent preparation for release.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am entirely happy to give the House whatever information it requires at any time, and I fully accept that a move to an open prison is potentially one aspect of a prisoner’s progression towards release, but in modern thinking, it is not the only route. A number of closed prisons operate prisoner progression programmes towards release direct from closed prisons, and those relatively new programmes are enjoying results. Several hundred prisoners are released every year from those closed conditions without, as far as I know, any evidence that that poses a risk to the community.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, does the Minister accept that short-term prison sentences tend to lead to very high reoffending rates and that prisoners often come out more criminal than they went in. If we can ensure that community sentences really address the underlying causes of criminality—and the Justice and Home Affairs Select Committee is looking at that—will the Minister accept that short-term prison sentences really should be abandoned in favour of community sentences?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot as of today accept that proposition. I entirely see the arguments, it is a very big question and I am sure we will discuss it on a future occasion.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, presumably the Secretary of State has access to all the information that the Parole Board has, and the Parole Board is well aware of all the relevant matters, so why the difference? Should the Secretary of State give reasons for rejecting the recommendations?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Secretary of State gives reasons in every individual case, and those cases can be challenged.

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble and learned friend given consideration to what might be called the ripple effect of the change in criteria on Parole Board decisions, where the sentences are less than life sentences, where it is making other judgments about moving people from closed to open prison? I ask that because anecdotally one hears—and my noble and learned friend may be able to comment on this—that there are now spare places in open prisons that cannot be filled, while the closed prison estate comes under ever more pressure.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State, when introducing these new rules in January 2022, prioritised the precautionary principle and the protection of the public. Despite enormous pressure on the closed estate, he took the view—in my view rightly—that public protection was more important than the short-term expedient of transferring prisoners who are not suitable for open conditions to open conditions simply to reduce pressures on the closed estate.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that the Government’s policy is being driven by dogma again? They are not looking at the evidence. Reoffending rates are still far too high, jails are full and yet Ministers are claiming that they are going to have longer and tougher sentences. Do the Government not need to revisit this and come up with a coherent plan to deal with the matter?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, reoffending rates are slowly coming down, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the previous Secretary of State for his work on improved education in prison, employment opportunities, accommodation on release and other reforms which I am sure will bear good fruit in due time.

Imprisonment for Public Protection Action Plan

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I very much thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for his opening remarks and for securing this debate, and all noble Lords who have spoken. As some of your Lordships know, I have met a number of you already and my friend, the right honourable Damian Hinds, the relevant Minister in the Commons, and I recently met the families and explained the Government’s reasons for proceeding with the action plan.

First, to restate the problem, IPP prisoners who have never been released have all, without exception, come before the Parole Board, which has been unable to say that they are safe to release. That is the essential stumbling block with which the Government and previous Governments have been struggling. The question is what to do about it.

As far as the resentencing exercise is concerned, as I think I have explained on a previous occasion, the Government’s position is that most of the relevant prisoners have already served a sentence, so on what basis exactly can one resentence such a person? What one is really doing is looking to find a way to release, or to improve the prospects of release for, the individuals concerned, and/or—as has been rightly pointed out—to address the problem of recall. Quite a lot of these prisoners have been released but found themselves being recalled for one reason or another.

With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, there is no evidence that these recalls are arbitrary; they are for the breach of licence conditions. It may well be that there are some licence conditions that are difficult to comply with, or that the individuals themselves find it difficult to comply with; that, therefore, is something to be looked at. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has just remarked, the Chief Inspector of Probation is about to investigate in detail the processes of recall to see whether this is being done properly and proportionately. That is a very important new element of the situation.

I respectfully suggest that the action plan is a very important step forward and another new element. The essential purpose of the action plan is exactly the purpose that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, referred to, which is to break the Catch-22. How will we go about breaking the Catch-22? This is a shared problem. The Government are not trying to reserve the problem to themselves; it is a problem that every noble Lord and every member of the community can make an important contribution to. That is why, among other things, we have included an external stakeholder group in the arrangements, and why the Government have committed to publishing regularly information on its progress, so that everybody can see the data—data is a pretty important part of this—and the whole process can be put under the spotlight. That is what needs to happen: this issue needs to come up the agenda and be put under the spotlight.

Just for a moment, I shall record some aspects of the action plan, so that they are on the record. First, we have something we have never had before: a senior IPP progression board chaired by Mr Jennings, to whom reference has already been made, who is a most dedicated civil servant. That board is to drive forward measures in this area.

There are four basic principles set out in the plan; we have all read it, so I will not spend time reproducing them. There are success measures. There are six workstreams, two of which—I think workstreams 3 and 4—will in due course try to deal with the futility of the prisoners and the feelings of hopelessness that have been mentioned; to deal with the mental health issues, as there are quite a number of references to psychologists and so forth, and one is aware of the views of the Royal College in that respect; and to make a real, effective, tangible change.

The plan also extends, of course, to the community. Progression panels are being established in the community for each prisoner, in addition to their bespoke sentence plan, to give everybody a reasonable chance of getting through what is a very difficult situation.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, rightly said, no responsible Government can ignore the need for public protection. That has to be borne in mind. I have to record—I make no apology for doing so—that this is yet another debate in your Lordships’ Committee where no one has used the word “victim”. Victims and potential victims have to be borne in mind as well, so one is struggling to find a balance in what is an intractable and difficult historical situation.

It is quite difficult at the moment to put flesh on the plan, as I think my noble friend Lord Moylan was asking us to do—has it taken account of this and has it taken account of that? Such points will of course be fed back. As the board takes control and drives this forward, I have every reason to hope and believe that all the points that have been made by your Lordships today will be taken into account. This is a very important advance. It will be driven by competent and experienced civil servants, and I would ask your Lordships to judge us by results. We do not have any results yet because it has only just started, but it is intended to respond to the very special situation where people have possibly lost faith in the system, are fragile and need special attention. I hope that will be delivered.

It is perfectly true that there have been staff shortages in the probation service. We have recruited some 4,000 new probation officers during the last three years—1,500 in the last full year. We have to make sure that the action plan adapts to those resources. There will be a review by the IPP progression panels, which we have directed largely to prisoners in the community.

I take very much to heart the opening comment from my noble friend Lord Moylan that it would be quite wrong to raise hopes only to see them dashed. However, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the fact that the Victims and Prisoners Bill will come before the House, so I anticipate that this is not the last debate that we will have on this subject. I would personally be very open, as I am sure would be the Government, to serious and concrete suggestions for a further look at, or even reform of, the structure that we have at the moment. That is something that any responsible Government should continue to consider. I hope that the forthcoming Bill will be an occasion for further debate. To touch on one point made by my noble friend Lord Moylan, in the Government’s view this is in part a moral issue, and I think the supervisory board will also have that well in mind under the action plan.

I am afraid that I cannot answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, as to how long it will be before the last IPP prisoner is released, nor can I say at the moment, or quantify, what kind of additional finance in due course might be devoted to this problem. I can say—as I hope I have tried to illustrate—that the whole issue is very much on the radar. Obviously, from any Government’s point of view, nobody wants to keep anybody in prison unnecessarily—it is going to be expensive; no one wants to recall people unnecessarily. The strain on the probation service of dealing with all this is already pretty heavy, so if we can lighten that strain and reduce the general burden, and find ways in which people can break this Catch-22 and make their way successfully through the system, that is the Government’s objective.

I am conscious that I may have not responded to every point that has been made. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that I am afraid I cannot accept that the report is shoddy. Enormous effort has gone into this and will go into this. Your Lordships have my personal assurance that the Secretary of State and relevant Ministers will continue to drive this forward. Let us look forward. I would not say that this is the end of the story, and I am sure there will be opportunities for further reflection and debate when the forthcoming Victims and Prisoners Bill reaches this House.

Forgive me if I have not answered all questions; I shall write to anyone who would like a further answer than I have been able to give today. I thank noble Lords for their attention.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Magistrates’ Court Sentencing Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, the House is fortunate in having my colleague and noble friend Lord Ponsonby, and with some reason because he has sat for many years on the magistrates’ courts and has enormous experience of their functioning. We are also lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, whose memory stretches back—I dare not ask him how many years—to his early days when embarking upon a career at the Bar, and to a certain magistrate whom he much respected in Wales. We are fortunate, too, to have the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, who is behind the Minister, and who also clearly has much experience as a magistrate, although I think she has ceased to be one.

In my experience, and this goes a long way back, magistrates are on the whole sensible people—after all, having been magistrates for 10, 15 or 20 years, they have become very experienced—and are not great senders to prison. Magistrates are actually reluctant to send people to prison, particularly for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, presented. It does not do much good to have somebody in prison for three or six months to set a kind of an example. It does not work, or did not in my experience, for the normal kind of criminal offences involving theft and violence. But it was quite good for motoring offences, because it set a rather good example to all motorists. If the driver of a motor car who is otherwise without conviction misbehaves really badly in driving their car—these are normally citizens who have not had previous convictions —and they are sentenced to prison for a short time, that is a very big shock.

The central issue has been rightly raised by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. There should be proper research on the figures to see whether the basis of this is right, because magistrates across the board do not have a record of imprisoning the people who appear in front of them. It seems to me that to change the sentencing policy down from 12 months, which is only a moderate period, to six months is complete nonsense. Magistrates should have that freedom. All that happens is that the appeals go up—in my day—from the magistrates’ sessions to quarter sessions, and, for many years now, to the Crown Court. One of the things that magistrates were able to do—I am sure this remains the position—was that, if they considered that they did not have sufficient powers to sentence the offender for a period of more than 12 months, they could send the case to the higher court and it could be dealt with there.

In summary, we are very spoilt by the presence of those who have experience in magistrates’ courts in this House. There should be proper research and I welcome all of those suggestions.

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

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whose Motion this is. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and his colleagues in the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for their report. Their comments are understandable; I will say more about the background to this in a moment.

I would first like to make one overarching point. I would like to reassure the House, and through the House the magistracy in general and the Magistrates’ Association, that this change is no reflection whatever on the magistracy or its use of the extended powers. The Government place immense value on the continuing and outstanding contribution of magistrates in the justice system. I believe everyone in this House is very aware of the exceptional work that magistrates do. This has already been mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Hacking, and by other noble Lords.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

Before the Minister sits down, has he any figures for the occasions when the magistrates do not consider that they have sufficient powers under the current regime and therefore send the accused to the Crown Court for sentencing?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I do not have that figure with me, but I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, with it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords who took part in this interesting and short debate. I query one statistic that the Minister used: he spoke about a 35% increase in sentences between six and 12 months during the six-month period after the introduction of the increased sentencing powers for magistrates’ courts. That seems a high figure. The SLSC report projected an increase of perhaps 500 prisoners over a two-year period because of that increase in sentencing. To me, that sounds a lot less than 35%, but, nevertheless, I take the Minister’s broader point.

In the Minister’s conclusion, he described the Government’s course of action as the lesser of two evils, but there are many more than just two evils. A number of evils leading to the increase in the prison population have been identified in this debate. The whole point of the debate is that we do not know the proportion of those evils which are leading to the increase in the prison population by 4,000. The Minister has not given any extra information so that we can judge whether the course of action taken by the Government has addressed the more serious of the various evils leading to the increase in the prison population. The point of the SLSC report was that the Government used a cruder mechanism when using the sentencing powers of the magistrates’ courts as a sort of valve for regulating this, when so many other factors are leading to the increase in the prison population. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting debate, and I hope that the Government will look at the data in the round and review this decision again in the coming months. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Nuptial Agreements

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce the draft Nuptial Agreements Bill, as drafted and recommended by the Law Commission in its Matrimonial Property, Needs and Agreements report, published on 26 February 2014 (HC 1089).

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

My Lords, it was announced on 4 April that the Law Commission will be conducting a review of the law on financial provision on divorce. While this review is taking place, the Government do not consider it the right time to legislate in respect of nuptial agreements. The Government favour a holistic rather than a piecemeal approach to any future legislative reform in this area.

[Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)]

My Lords, I am disappointed but not surprised by that response. I declare my interest as practising in this field. It is well known that this is stand-alone legislation which came about as a consequence of a House of Lords decision in Radmacher in 2010. During the coalition, the Law Commission set up a paper and, as a consequence, in 2014 there was a response which is oven-ready for putting on the statute book.

Instead of that happening, with almost indecent haste and despite the warnings, the no-fault divorce law has proceeded through these Houses. We have more people with pre-nuptial agreements and more people getting divorced, and there is no direction for the judges as to how the law has changed as a consequence of these agreements being enforceable. Please can the Minister explain why it is acceptable to delay this legislation, which would be quite simple to push through, in circumstances where the courts are over-burdened, the judges have no direction and lawyers practising in this field have lucrative groundhog days ahead?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Shackleton for her question. The answer is twofold: first, the Government consider that the present root-and-branch review of financial provision is better than looking at a particular outcrop within that landscape. Secondly, any Government have to prioritise. In recent years, priority has been given, for example, to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2022, which introduced no-fault divorce; and the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Minimum Age) Act 2022, which made it illegal to marry under the age of 18. These are all fundamental reforms and I make no apology for prioritising those measures.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, may I start by wishing the Minister a happy birthday—and ask him whether there is any prospect of this Bill being enacted in his lifetime and mine? He has mentioned all these other statutes, which are not really relevant. The failure to enact this Bill undermines the no-fault divorce law, because the failure to have binding nuptial agreements leaves couples in as antagonistic and expensive a situation as before. Will he please get on with it?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for those birthday wishes. It is often said that life begins at 40 but experience shows that it is very much later than that. I very much hope that we will be able to legislate in her lifetime, if not my own. Prenups are undoubtedly an important issue. Since 2010, the law has been that there is a presumption in favour of enforcing prenuptial agreements unless it is unfair to do so. Secondly, although this is an important question, it affects a relatively small and privileged cohort, and it must take its place in the queue on that basis.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

The Minister refers to a small cohort. Has he any idea how many nuptial agreements exist as a percentage of those people who get married these days?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have that information. I will see if I can find it and if I can, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a sensible move. It would make sense to introduce this legislation now, provided that it does not affect the overall review that is taking place. Why does the Minister not just act on this one piece of legislation now?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is hard for me to add to my previous answer. The Government feel that we must look at the whole landscape and get the law on financial provision sorted out, and that gives us the context in which we can decide what to do about prenups.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, as others have said today, such a Bill can stand completely independently of the planned reform. The whole point is that those who embark on this do not want to litigate, in the unhappy event of a divorce, and do not want to expose themselves to all the uncertainties of the court’s discretion. Why on earth can the Government not do something about it now?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is not a straight- forward issue; even the Law Commission’s report of 2014 made it clear that there had to be quite a number of exceptions in relation to financial need before one could legislate. As I say, the Government prefer to proceed on a broad front rather than deal with this issue specifically.

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I have practised as a divorce lawyer in South Africa, where the prenuptial agreement is respected, and it should not be seen purely as a protection for high net worth individuals. Why is there so much resistance to respecting and introducing a prenuptial agreement?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have confidence in the courts to apply the general law, which is that prenups should in general be respected unless it is unfair to do so. That is not far off what the Law Commission recommended in 2014.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, most couples going through a divorce do not have their financial arrangements made by judge. Some reach settlement with the assistance of lawyers, others through mediation and arbitration. Of course, many do not have access to lawyers because of the withdrawal of legal aid. When the holistic review looks at financial provision for divorce, will that include the increase in legal aid for divorcing couples?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I think the answer to that question, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that this is not directly within the Law Commission’s terms of reference, but it is well within the review of civil legal aid upon which the Government are currently embarking.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

When are the Government going to get on with financial relief and produce some legislation?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

When the Law Commission’s report is available.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, it was very reassuring to hear the Minister say that we need to consider legislation very carefully before it is introduced and see how it fits in with other Acts and so on. Can he assure us that similar procedures have been applied to some of the legislation currently before the House with which we are struggling?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government always do their best to ensure that the legislation is comprehensive and consistent.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I thank everyone for the extraordinary debate that we have had on this issue today. I continue in the vein of looking for optimism in the outcomes of some of the discussions that we have had. I pay particular tribute to Members of this House who have joined Members of the other place in relentlessly pursuing this issue, to the extent that there is now a far greater understanding—not only in Parliament but in the wider country and the communities particularly affected—about the issue of SLAPPs, which perhaps a year or two ago was not understood at all.

To start by going back to the very basics, SLAPPs are, as we know, strategic lawsuits against public participation, abuses of the legal system, generally by the super-rich—and, it is important to remember, they are intended to harass, intimidate and financially and psychologically exhaust one’s opponent. I am not sure that that element has quite come through, although everyone is fully aware of it. We have talked today about this practice being embedded in the system and its close relationship to the scourge of economic crime. In other debates that we have had on the Bill so far, we have highlighted the real extent of economic crime facing this country. All of us have an obligation and commitment to come together to work out how we are going to deal with it.

As we have heard, the use of SLAPPs has been linked to Russian oligarchs. That is inevitable, given what has happened over the past year, particularly with regard to looking at ways to prevent journalists from reporting on their links to economic crime, with particular reference to the war in Ukraine. As we have seen, SLAPPs are not only used by those committing economic crime, but the amendments proposed here narrow the definition to those concerned with suppressing information on economic crime. The wider point which we need to take on board is about the serious concerns that SLAPPs are now being used to suppress democracy globally. It is important to put it as far as this.

I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has had to go, but I would like to say to him that his attempt to reassure us on the numbers has not had that effect at all. It has been clearly stated that the small numbers that reach court highlight and emphasise the problem that we have.

I shall go on to ask the Minister to comment on the view coming from the other place that SLAPPs are under a separate jurisdiction and therefore should be under a separate Bill. We have heard some great arguments as to why we should look at these amendments seriously and incorporate them into this Bill.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to their amendments and clearly given us a full understanding of the purpose behind them and how they will contribute to the overall objective. From our position on these Benches, we look forward to engaging in full and detailed conversations as to how, as I suspect will be necessary, we present further amendments on Report. We support the principle of the Government bringing forward effective legislation and will continue to call out this issue wherever it occurs, whether on this estate or elsewhere, when anyone in a position of influence puts undue pressure on someone to make sure that important matters do not see the light of day.

I want to highlight some of the reasons why feelings are running so high. We need to understand and remember the severe power imbalance between the claimant and the defendant. In this context, journalists and media outlets are put at a disadvantage from the outset, as we have heard today. Defending a legal case can, as we know, be prohibitively expensive and a huge drain on resource. As we need to emphasise every time we speak about this, SLAPPs can create significant financial jeopardy for journalists and media outlets, with legal costs starting to accrue long before cases get anywhere near reaching court.

Putting ourselves in the place of those who have been subjected to this, I think that the process of defending a legal case in this sphere can feel like punishment: a fear of devastating financial impact, potential loss of savings, their homes, pensions and livelihoods if a case goes to court. The effort in putting a case together involves massive distraction from the work that people are trying to do. As others have said—it is a serious charge but one we should take seriously—this is having the impact of undermining the basis of democracy.

We have talked about how libel laws in the UK are weighted, but we also need to emphasise the issue of libel tourism. It remains an issue in the UK. The bar to bring a case here is problematically low, and the use of privacy and data protection laws is increasing. We need to consider that SLAPPs in the UK are often pursued against individuals rather than the organisation they work for, which undermines the resources available to mount an adequate defence.

One of the themes running through all our discussions on the Bill is the reputational damage to London and, therefore, the country. London’s obvious position as a global hub for the super-rich has compounded the problem. We must make sure that clients cannot use threats of legal action to clean up their image and remove unfavourable information from the public domain. There has been insufficient recognition by the UK Government and official bodies of the connection between protecting media freedom and countering corruption.

Returning to the personal, I suggest that other factors include the psychological impact of intimidation and harassment on those subject to legal challenges. That has not been sufficiently recognised, and such things lead to a massive impact on mental health.

Will the amendments before us today tackle those issues? I think that is a subject for further discussion, but the main question that has been put repeatedly from across the Committee today is whether the Government are serious about measures to end these practices. We had some optimism in July last year when there seemed to be a commitment that legislative reform measures would come forward, but where are they? Are they being moved forward? Will the Government follow through by supporting the measures proposed in amendments to the Bill?

We have heard that this is a serious issue. It is urgent for so many reasons that we have discussed today. My last question for the Minister is: will the Government take this opportunity to act, recognising how urgent the situation is, and meet with us to discuss ways that we can move this important matter forward?

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

My Lords, I warmly thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who have spoken to me directly on this issue. I also thank noble Lords for the enormous amount of thought and consideration that has been put into this issue by those who have spoken. There is significant strength of feeling across the Committee on this important issue. I begin by providing an assurance that the Government share those concerns and that it is clear to the Government that we should take legislative action against SLAPPs. As the Government have set out, for many reasons that have been mentioned in this debate, we are firmly committed to legislating effectively, comprehensively and without undue delay on this issue.

Noble Lords will not necessarily be entirely happy when I say that we do not think this Bill is the correct vehicle for tackling this issue. There are essentially two reasons for that. One is that here we are dealing with economic crime. I take my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier’s technical point about the scope of the Bill, but the major issue here is that, even if we were to put in an amendment to this Bill, it would still be too narrow because we are not covering matters that are not economic crime, such as freedom of expression, political interference, national security and so forth. The Government’s preference would be to handle the entire landscape of SLAPPs in one place, and that is not this Bill.

[Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)]

The Minister talks about introducing some SLAPPs legislation “without undue delay”, but there is no possibility of a timetable to introduce that. We are only 15 or so months away from a general election, and the legislative timetable is jammed solid already. There is no fixed slot for it to come in. I utterly reject the idea that the Government want the perfect to be the enemy of the good: “We are going to do everything in one Bill”. Why not do this bit now, which will take very little parliamentary time? As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, it will deal with probably 80% of the problem, because we know that shutting down debate on economic crime is probably our biggest problem. When in 10 or 15 years’ time—this point was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—the Government finally find the perfect moment, although some of us will be dead by then, they could then repeal the relevant clauses of this Bill and do it all in one bit. But I utterly reject the pathetic excuse that this is not the right moment. I ask my noble and learned friend to be a little more straightforward in his commitment.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely understand the frustrations felt by my noble friend Lord Agnew and others. It is not to be ruled out that we could find an appropriate legislative vehicle for this matter before the next general election. That is not to be ruled out. However, I cannot today go further than to say that this issue will be brought forward by the Government when parliamentary time allows. That is normally a long-grass phrase—kicking it into the long grass. I regard it today, and say it today, as a short-grass phrase because I am not at the moment giving up on having legislation relatively soon, but I can give absolutely no commitment on that matter.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I ask the noble and learned Lord, as a little test of this commitment, is there is a draft Bill? If there is one, his assurance is really wonderful but, without one, is it not just a phrase for the long grass?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I can tell your Lordships that the Government have not been idle in preparing possible drafts to deal with this matter, and I am very happy to keep in close contact with noble Lords between now and Report on progress and to discuss as widely as we need to how we should approach this matter.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

What the Minister is saying is potentially helpful. His initial statement was almost verbatim what we got at Second Reading and in previous Bills. I could almost set it to music now, I have heard it so many times, but we seem to be getting somewhere. Will he clarify whether he is happy to continue discussions with us about these Bills, which, apparently, the non-idle Government have been working on or about a possible amendment to this Bill? Will he clarify which one we are addressing here?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

It is the former. The second point here is that the Government are not happy, for reasons that I shall now, I hope, go into a little detail about, about the actual amendments being proposed here. I preface that by saying that we should not overlook the fact that there is one enormous conceptual issue behind all this, which is the question of access to justice. This is probably the first time that anyone has ever legislated against someone bringing something to court, which is something that we need to stop and think about. Where is the balance? If I may say so, reference has been made to the rule of law, and it is somewhat ironic to say that we must uphold the rule of law by penalising someone who seeks access to justice. That is a very difficult area, and we need to find a balance. The Government would like to explore further how that balance is to be found because, in the Government’s respectful view, it is not yet found in the amendments before the Committee today.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I think that we are actually in agreement on that, and I hope that I made it clear earlier that what we need to do is to work together to get this right with critical friends, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, who will bring a forensic examination of whether the work is right, but I go back to an earlier comment that this is difficult. Yes it is, but it is not impossible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept that it is not impossible and, to take the phrase of a noble Lord earlier, that it is actually doable. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, who used that phrase.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I was hoping that someone with a great deal more legal knowledge than me would rise to speak, but I feel that I need to challenge the Minister’s comment that this proposal is unprecedented. Other noble Lords will be able to say more, but we have a process of law about vexatious litigants who are unable to bring cases. There is a whole set of rules there, and there are rules in the family courts that eventually stop cases being brought. So it is not the case that this is something that has been miraculously conjured out of the air that does not exist in any form whatever in the legal framework.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on that last point I had primarily in mind the amendments that seek to criminalise bringing cases before the courts, which is the subject of some of the amendments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am sorry. I appreciate the access that the Minister is giving us. I am really following up the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made. The Government are not being inactive. Can the Minister tell us how many people are in the dedicated team that is currently pursuing this issue? It is complicated, as he pointed out, and Government do want to get more depth on this, so how many people are now working on this, and when does he think they might actually come up with something that could then go into a draft Bill? In a sense, what is the timetable and what is the amount of horsepower that is going into that timetable?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord a timetable. I cannot tell him how many people are working on it, but I can tell him that important work is being done. I am not in a position, and I very much regret that, to go further than that today, but I am prepared to keep in close touch with your Lordships between now and Report to share progress and thoughts on whether there is a legislative vehicle that can conveniently—and soon—be introduced.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I am sorry. I will press the Minister a little more on that. When will we first hear from him on that update on progress?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Can I write to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, on that point?

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I eagerly anticipate it.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

Can I ask that we are all included in the correspondence?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Absolutely. I will write to everybody after this debate and try to elaborate a little on what I have said. I hope noble Lords understand that in terms of my boss, I recently had a change of personnel, and it takes a little while to allow the dust to settle, if I may put it like that.

The only other thing I would respectfully draw noble Lords’ attention to, and I fully accept there is a certain amount of controversy as to how big this problem is, is that the Solicitors Regulation Authority issued a warning notice on 28 November 2022, which led to that authority undertaking investigations in relation to SLAPP complaints, so we are not without a regulatory instrument to at least hold the line until we are able to legislate. That, as far as one can tell, has had a salutary effect on the practical consequences of SLAPPs. It is not the case that nothing has been done.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the amendment which I have put forward criminalises access to justice. It does not do that; it criminalises a threat of litigation that is unwarranted and known to be unwarranted without reasonable excuse. It is perfectly simple, but I would be very unhappy to leave this Room today with the thought that the Minister has in mind that my amendment is criminalising access to justice.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I expressed myself a little loosely. Let me put it like this: in the Government’s view, this is not an area where we should introduce the criminal law, whether it is in relation to pre-litigation or in any other respect in terms of litigation. One is faced with a very basic question of when is something that is a robust and justifiable approach to litigation in a pre-action letter a threat. That is not straightforward, in the Government’s view. The Government’s view is that this is not a matter where the criminal law should intrude.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble and learned friend, but his reference to the Solicitors Regulation Authority prompts me to ask him a couple of questions. He makes reference to access to justice and to the Government being nervous about legislating in a way that would call that into question. As I said at the start, the amendments that I have tabled, Amendments 87, 88 and 89, are directed at the Solicitors Regulation Authority. As my noble and learned friend has already said, it issued a notice recently to reinforce the fact that this kind of activity is unacceptable.

My amendments seek to codify that yet further and give it the power, which it does not feel it has sufficiently clearly in law, to act when a solicitor is conducting themselves in a way that could be supporting somebody trying to prevent proper inquiry into what could be economic crime. I am struggling because I understand the argument my noble and learned friend is making about parliamentary time and the Government wanting to legislate for this in the round, but I also know as a former business manager that it is very difficult for any individual government department to be confident, even if it wants and hopes to be able to legislate in the way he is indicating that he and his department do, because the timetable is not in its control.

There is frustration in this context because we know that this is about only economic crime and that we are proposing amendments that would tackle only economic crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, has said several times—maybe this is a bigger issue than even the SRA is telling me. This would make a difference none the less. In my humble view—I am not a lawyer—I do not think we are proposing anything that would limit people’s access to justice. When my noble and learned friend goes back to his department, even if he cannot make any kind of commitment at the Dispatch Box today, which I understand, could he at least have a conversation with others that is a bit more open-minded than his colleagues seem to have been on this matter up to this point?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that intervention. I can certainly have that conversation. I do not want to give the impression that the Government are close-minded. We are very prepared to legislate and have said that we are willing; the question is finding the right vehicle. I will deal with my noble friend’s amendments in a moment. When I said a moment ago that there are issues around access to justice, I meant no more than that. We have to be very careful in talking about approaching a court and whether that is in some way unprofessional, subject to sanctions or otherwise criticisable.

As far as the Government can see—if I may think aloud—there are probably two essential mechanisms to deal with this, one of which is in part reflected in some of these amendments, although the Government would not entirely agree with how it is put. One is an early disposal mechanism and the other, critically, is a cost protection measure so that people are not exposed to costs. As has been said many times, the risk of having to pay the costs is the real imbalance. Those are two general thoughts that, I hope, illustrate that the Government are not closing their mind to this. We are thinking about it and hope to come forward with a comprehensive, balanced solution, but today I cannot say exactly when.

With that background, I will deal with the specific amendments, which the Government are sympathetic to but cannot accept. On Amendment 80 from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, as I have already said, new criminal offences should be created with care. That is especially true when targeting professionals with responsibility for assisting persons to achieve access to justice. There is a risk of inadvertently undermining access to justice in that way and the Government’s view, as I have said, is that a criminal approach in this area is not correct and would in any case create quite a lot of difficulties around proof beyond reasonable doubt, the concept of reasonable excuse, et cetera. Criminal offences need to be clear and we are very reluctant to see a new criminal offence created. That is our position on Amendment 80—it is too far-reaching. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, in due course to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

Briefly, I urge my noble friend to look at the correspondence I have had with the SRA specifically about the Bill. The SRA makes it clear that what I am proposing by way of these amendments would give greater clarity to the fact that SLAPP cases which relate to economic crime would also not be subject to the current cap but would benefit from that cap being lifted, which the Government are seeking to do. To put it another way, my amendments are trying to make sure that the intention of what is already in the Bill is achieved in the way that the SRA is asking for.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Indeed. I respectfully suggest to my noble friend that she may have copied the letter to which she refers to the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice recently.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

It was also copied to the Minister’s office.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Indeed. I suggest that I meet with my noble friend and we go through it with a fine-toothed comb. I am happy to meet with anybody else who wants to go through particular amendments with a fine-toothed comb and see where we are, because there is no point in arguing about things where we are ad idem.

The same point arises on Amendment 89, which relates to POCA—I pronounce it “poker”, but others pronounce it “pocker”—and Section 327 of that Act. Amendment 89 aims to stop corrupt claimants using their criminal property to pay their legal fees. Our view on Section 327 of POCA is that that is already effectively covered because it makes it a criminal offence for anyone to convert, conceal or transfer criminal property, so the payment for legal services using criminal property is already a crime. I am led to believe that the Solicitors Regulation Authority will shortly publish new guidance on the application of POCA in relation to solicitors’ responsibilities in that respect. So our position on our amendment is that it is already covered, but again, let us discuss this in detail so that we can get it right. Formally speaking, for those reasons I ask my noble friend in due course not to press her amendment today.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for his Amendments 105 and 106, and for the care and attention that he has devoted to this. Again, the Government’s position is that these amendments do not quite cut the mustard, if I may put it that way.

As drafted, Amendment 105, which seeks to create a new defence, would cut across several other areas of jurisprudence. There is a common law public interest defence for a breach of confidence, and a very careful balancing, in Section 4 of the Defamation Act 2013, as to when you can have a public interest defence in defamation cases. This kind of provision should not be rushed through without a careful examination of its side effects on other legislation and potential unintended consequences. Neither does the amendment quite attack what the Government would suggest is the main problem, which is not whether you have a defence but whether you have the money to fight it in the first place. You need some cost protection to be built into the SLAPPs framework.

The same point applies to Amendment 106 on the power to strike out. There are already powers to strike out, and the noble Lord makes it clear that we need to clarify those powers—but one cannot get away from the fact that, typically speaking, a strike-out application is very expensive and complicated, because you are trying to throttle a case at the beginning and the court is having to go through a great deal of work to get there. In the end, a strike-out will probably not be effective in achieving what the noble Lord seeks to achieve. We share the objective, but we are not sure that this is the right way to do it.

While we are sympathetic to the sentiment behind the amendments, from a technical point of view, the Government do not think that they are quite right. Unscrupulous claimants could exploit all this by ensuring that the process remains very complicated, long and burdensome. That is the Government’s position on these amendments. I repeat that I am very happy to engage so far as I can in a dialogue with noble Lords to see whether we can make further progress on the technicalities of this issue and look for a proper legislative vehicle in which to carry it forward.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I do not believe the Minister addressed the point that I and a number of other noble Lords raised about the international dimension of this, and the UK’s position in the international framework. Noble Lords may have seen that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, was joined in this Committee by some guests, one of whom was Sebastien Lai, the son of Jimmy Lai, who was a victim of what has been labelled lawfare by the Chinese state in Hong Kong. We are also seeing British institutions being used as a weapon for that lawfare. Does the Minister acknowledge that there is a true international reputational issue and that the whole rule of law across the world is under attack?

Reflecting on what the Minister said, I think we heard something of a hint about the Government’s thinking that cost protection could be one way of addressing this issue. That fails to address the point made by the Labour Front Bench and others that, even if there is cost protection, an enormous amount of time, energy and stress goes into a case. Even if you are able to take away the financial threat, you are taken away from doing other journalism if you have to spend months engaging in a case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. I am perfectly prepared to accept that there is an international aspect. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is on the case, it has issued its warning notice—fired its warning shot—and that is having an effect, so it is not as if the position is not being tackled. The question is about legislation, and the need to get it right from a rule of law and an access to justice point of view. There is a conflict here, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, pointed out. One has some misgivings about this because, as was also said earlier, journalists are not always right, and one must bear that in mind. If you have ever been on the receiving end of the tabloid press as a defendant, you will know that they still have not inconsiderable power if you have no money to defend yourself.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

If I may say so, one of the formative experiences of my childhood was being on the receiving end of tabloid journalism, and it is something I will never forget. That does not alter my commitment to getting this right.

I am encouraged by the Minister saying that my amendments do not quite cut the mustard—“do not quite” is a pretty good score in my book. I agree with him that early access will be a key feature of the right answer here, and cost protection, depending on what form it takes, is potentially helpful. He constantly prays in aid access to justice is a big issue, and I agree that the definitional issue of a SLAPP is very important. However, in the conversations he has promised to have, I would want him to make a distinction between harassment and denying the right to justice. Denying the right to justice, the ability to go to court if you wish, is not what I am about—I am about where people have no intention of going to court if they can possibly avoid it but are simply harassing people who want to bring economic crimes into the light. The Minister has given us a hint that there is a government Bill in draft here. I am taking that in good faith; I hope that faith will be well placed and that we will see it soon.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Again, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. The key problem is to distinguish access to justice from harassment. It is quite difficult, but it can be done. That is my answer to that question. On where the Government are, as I said before, we are working on drafts, but I cannot go any further than that until I know whether there is a legislative vehicle and which it can be. I am sorry not to be able to commit the Government at the Dispatch Box today any further than that but, as I said, I am hoping—and I can only express as a hope—that this is a short-grass and not a long-grass issue.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I apologise to the Committee, I perhaps should have declared my position as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong in my last intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

This has been a very interesting debate. The essential point of my amendment is that I want to stop it before proceedings commence, and you can do that with criminal law and sanctions only by saying that someone who threatens litigation knows what he is doing and intends to stifle proper journalistic investigation, and he has no reasonable excuse for it. To my mind, that is within criminality. For the Minister to say, “We can’t have another criminal offence, we have too many”, is just a joke. This Bill is littered with new criminal offences —every day we debate new criminal offences in the Chamber. It is a joke to say that my simple amendment cannot be accepted because it creates a new criminal offence, as it is designed to—not to put people in prison but to stop them doing what they are doing today. It is intended to change the atmosphere and culture and prevent the use and internationally known abuse of SLAPPs in this country from going any further.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Just to clarify, as I said, the Government’s position is that it is not appropriate to introduce a criminal offence in relation to access to justice. It is not a question of just having another offence. Access to justice is a very important area, and we are on a slippery and possibly Orwellian slope if we start saying that it is criminal for someone to go to the law on some point. It is a very difficult area—that was all I said.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

So, according to the Minister, it is not criminal for a person to threaten litigation, with all the expense and worry that that involves and the way that it crimps the investigation of crime. He is saying that it is not unlawful and should not be criminal. There are criminal offences that cover conduct far less morally bankrupt than that, which is what I hope we shall discuss with the Minister before Report. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I do not have an enormous amount to add but I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his comments and for the full explanation of the amendments before us in this group.

I will add a concern about the removal of the schedule naming the offences. Perhaps we will need to have a better understanding of why that would be an advantage, but I remain to be convinced on that point. On Amendment 90, I do not have much to add to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which lead to a need for greater clarification before we can move on from this.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Once again, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I will first take Amendments 81 to 84, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.

Whereas our lengthy debate earlier in the day was directed at expanding the Bill, this is directed at narrowing it. It may not be a total surprise if I say that the Government are not very happy about proposals to narrow the scope of the Bill. As was said, these amendments arise, apparently, with the support of the Law Society and the Bar Council. The Government met the Law Society and the Bar Council on a number of occasions and the question of the definition of economic crime was gone into in some detail, and one is a little surprised to see that this matter is being persisted in.

The list of the offences in Schedule 9 is very close to the list of offences in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, which applies to deferred prosecutions in various cases, which are often relevant in financial matters, and, although not exactly the same, they are based on that definition.

The other introductory comment that I would, if I may, make is that, while the overwhelming bulk of the legal profession upholds the highest standards, much of this Bill would have been unnecessary were that true of all legal professionals. It is against that background that the Government are reluctant to run the risk of introducing loopholes into the Bill by reducing the scope of Schedule 9.

The first point to note is that the definition of economic crime in Clause 180 and Schedule 9 applies right across the Bill and includes the information-sharing measures in Clauses 175 and 176. Those measures, for example, entitle bank A, when it receives from bank B a large sum of money, to ask bank B whether it is a proper transaction, so there is information-sharing between financial institutions. Clause 176 enables a financial institution to notify a platform, for example, that it has concerns about particular transactions or clients. These are pretty essential powers in the Bill, and the definition of economic crime applies to those powers as well. In the Government’s view, it would not be desirable to have two definitions of economic crime across the Bill as a whole.

The definition applies to other legal services measures in Part 5 of the Bill, which amend the Solicitors Regulation Authority fining limit and information provisions. So for consistency and ease of understanding, the Government’s position is that it is sensible to have a single definition of economic crime through the Bill, and not reduce that definition at this stage. Just to make an illustration, there was some suggestion that introducing the word “theft” would go a bit too far. It may in a certain situation be quite difficult to say whether something was fraud or theft—it might well be both—but it is not the sort of argument that the Government feel that one should get into. Having worked with the Law Society of England and Wales and the Bar Council on these matters, the Government have clarified in the Explanatory Notes which offences are likely to be most relevant to the financial sector. They have not excluded them, but they have indicated that fraud, money laundering, terrorist financing, bribery, and any offences under regulations made in relation to money laundering are likely to be the ones that the profession should concern itself with most in practice. But it is important that regulators should not be unduly constrained in the ambit of the definition of economic crime in this Bill.

I can reassure noble Lords that all the existing safeguards that apply to regulators under public law principles, including what is proportionate and fair, continue to apply. Section 3 of the Legal Services Act provides that the Legal Services Board must have regard to the principles of transparency, accountability, proportionate action and consistency and target only those cases where action is required. The new objective in relation to economic crime fits within that framework. One is to an extent tilting at windmills here to try to reduce the scope of this major piece of legislation designed to tackle the very serious problems that noble Lords have now debated at length. On that basis, I shall ask the noble Lord in due course to withdraw his Amendment 81 and not press his other amendments.

I turn to Amendment 90, which affects the regulatory objective. The essential aspect of the amendment is that the objective is too wide and that we should spell out that it is all subject to legal professional privilege. Those are the essential points that were made.

I will take the point about legal professional privilege first. The Government entirely accept and agree with the noble and learned Lord that legal professional privilege is a fundamental principle of English law. It protects the confidentiality of communication between a lawyer and client in terms of legal advice, and ensures complete fairness in legal proceedings in terms of litigation privilege, for example. However, the Government are not able to accept the amendment for the following reasons.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, first, I warmly thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for a characteristically compelling and very moving speech on this issue. I also thank him for the work he is doing—in particular, in encouraging his contacts in Brixton to work with prisoners to obtain jobs on their release, particularly from Brixton prison. This is a very positive development, and it has been a great pleasure to work with him on this issue. I am grateful for the very broad support the Bill has received, both in the other place and in this House, and to all those who have worked on it, particularly Simon Fell MP. I am also grateful for the input of Nacro and other interested parties. It is a great pleasure, for once, to be able to say that we are all more or less on the same page, working in the same direction.

As far as the Government are concerned, the direction of travel is indeed towards rejuvenation, to use the word of the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and rehabilitation generally. I was particularly pleased about and grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, for recounting the positive developments at Berwyn prison in particular, which seems to be setting a good example of the work that can be done and what can be achieved with targeted resettlement and rehabilitation efforts, particularly concentrating on employment—local possibilities with local employers—and accommodation and related matters. I take the opportunity to say that that was very much driven by my right honourable friend the late Secretary of State for Justice, who resigned today but who has very much led the direction of travel for rehabilitation and resettlement of prisoners.

The importance of the Bill is shown by the widespread and consistent support it has received. It is a simple measure, as has been said, but it is likely to have a strong and positive impact on the rehabilitation of offenders leaving custody and it is clear that it commands widespread public support. I am sure that it will particularly help the repeat offenders referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and I hope that it will reduce that “very lonely place” to which the noble Lord, Lord McNally, rightly referred. It will be particularly important, as has been mentioned, for youth offenders, who were underlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. Because we now have relatively fewer youth offenders in custody, youth offending establishments can be quite far away from home, so youth offenders who are released face enormous difficulties if they do not have a support system. This will enable much better support for that particular category of prisoners, including those who have been in the recently created secure 16 to 19 year-old schools, and will mean that they will experience no delay in contacting their youth justice worker and can be properly protected. I compliment and thank the Youth Justice Board for all its work in this general area.

I fully accept the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there is a great deal more to be done, but I venture to suggest that we are beginning to make progress in these areas with the various initiatives that have rightly been mentioned. In that connection, the noble Lord asked what has changed since the Government’s previous position. As I understand it, there was a consultation on the Prisons Strategy White Paper which produced a lot of responses. It enabled further discussion to be had, particularly with policy officials, prison staff and third parties in the community as to how we should manage all this. The Secretary of State will now delegate the decision to prison governors and the equivalent but will give some guidance as to how it is going to work, so that you give priority to certain people and make sure that, as it were, it is staged down through Wednesday and Thursday as well as Friday. There will still be some residual prisoners who are released on Friday; there is no particular reason why those who have homes to go to, such as the white collar offender, should have particular priority, but that enables you to give priority to the people who need it most.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked why we need an Act of Parliament. We need one because—I think I am right about this; I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong—if Parliament says you should serve a sentence of so much, you have to serve that sentence. Only Parliament can authorise people to be released just short—in this case, a couple of days short—of serving that sentence. Although it is only a couple of days, one needs legislative authority to do it. I think that is the answer, but I will check in case I have it wrong.

I hope I have covered the various points that were made. This is perhaps not the occasion to discuss sentencing policy. I entirely accept the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that these matters, including whether we should use prison in a slightly different way and whether we should avoid shorter sentences, need to be reviewed continually. These are important issues but I venture to suggest that they are not for today.

I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for his contribution, in particular in relation to the female estate. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester is particularly concerned about that. As has been pointed out, we have the same problem with the female estate because it has relatively few offenders so there are not that many female establishments, meaning that offenders are often far from home; they can also be very vulnerable when they are released. This problem needs particular planning; I hope this Bill will give us an opportunity to ameliorate it.

Following what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was kind enough to tell us, I can say that the Government have taken significant steps in improving prison leavers’ accommodation; in building stronger links with employers through dedicated prison employment leads, so that there are now people in the prisons who are responsible for finding employment and prison employment advisory boards through which, as the noble Lord illustrated, local business leaders can come into local prisons; in offering more work within prison; in delivering and improving a prisoner education service; in increasing access to drugs rehabilitation; and in other actions.

The reoffending rate is slowly coming down, from 31% in 2009-10 to 25.6% in 2019-20, and the Government are further investing in driving it down. These are important interventions. The Bill will be an important support for all the things that are going on and will ensure that the offenders most in need of help will be given a full opportunity to access support before a service is in effect closed for the weekend. We will develop policy guidelines to help heads of establishment or the appropriate officials in youth establishments to target exactly the offenders most in need and support them to make decisions that allow offenders who need it time to resettle and reintegrate into their community.

This is a simple and proportionate Bill. I think I have covered most of the points that were raised. I can only reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and everyone who has helped to support the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Prison Officers: Retirement

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for tabling this Question and all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I will try to explain the Government’s position but, before I do so, it is right for me to highlight and pay tribute to the vital role that prison officers play in keeping the public safe and rehabilitating offenders. Prison officers and probation staff are vital key workers; many go above and beyond the call of duty to keep safe the public, their colleagues and those committed to their care. One is hugely impressed by the commitment of prison staff, who work in the most challenging of circumstances.

I will first make a clarification regarding a phrase used in the Question and at times this afternoon: the “retirement age” of 68. This is the age at which the state pension is fully payable, so we are not talking about a retirement age; we are talking about the age at which a full pension is payable. Nothing prevents anyone retiring before 68; many in the prison service retire before that age and very often return part-time or do other jobs. We are talking about the state pension age and the fact that, in line with the rest of the Civil Service, prison officers at the moment qualify for the full pension at that age.

I should say to noble Lords, although I am not fully apprised of the details, that I think there is a Statement today about the fact that the Government are considering the point at which to introduce the age of 68. There is talk of deferring the introduction until after the next general election in 2026, having regard to changes in life expectancy following the pandemic and other factors. However, this afternoon, let us continue with the hypothesis that we are talking about a difference between the state pension age which applies to all prison officers and the whole of the Civil Service, as compared to the lower pension age that applies to police officers and firefighters. I think I can leave out of account the armed services because we are probably in general agreement that that is a different case, for fairly obvious reasons.

It is also worth recording that, as I understand it, as of today, about half the prison service in bands three to five, who joined before 1 April 2015, are on legacy pension arrangements of one kind or another. In those cases, their retirement age may well be 60 or 65, depending on the legacy arrangement in question. It is perfectly correct that the full pension age refers to recruits joining after 1 April 2015, and it is likely to be between 65 and 68, depending on the precise date of birth of the individual in question. As noble Lords have observed, that results from the reforms proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, in the Hutton report in 2011, subsequently enacted in the Public Service Pensions Act 2013.

The answer to the first part of the Question as tabled is that 68 is the full pension age because this is the age which applies to the Civil Service generally, which comprises hundreds of thousands of people, and reflects the recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton. It is quite true that his recommendation 14 proposed an exception for the uniformed services, but he defined uniformed services as the Armed Forces, police and firefighters. He suggested in those cases that the normal pension age should be 60, which was in fact an increase from 55. But he did not, as has been pointed out, include prison officers.

In effect, the thrust of this Question is whether prison officers’ retirement age should be reduced from that which applies across the public sector now to that of police and firefighters. For various reasons, the Government’s position is that such a reduction is not appropriate in the present circumstances—or, to put it another way, the Government are not yet persuaded that such a reduction is appropriate. I deliberately put it in that slightly softer way because I entirely accept the comments that have been made that the Government would wish to have a constructive relationship with the trade unions and, particularly, with the Prison Service. I will come back to the questions that have been asked in that regard.

The short answer to the Question that has been posed is that despite the very persuasive points that have been made by noble Lords today, the Government do not currently consider that the job of a prison officer, very demanding though it is, is sufficiently comparable with that of a firefighter or a policeman to justify a downward reduction in the qualifying age for full pension.

Firefighters have exceptional fitness requirements much more stringent than those for prison officers. They do life-threatening work. Similarly, the work of police officers, generally speaking, involves a higher degree of risk of fatality or serious injury. Since the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, did not include prison officers, it would not, in the Government’s view, be appropriate to reopen that issue.

Certain general points arise in this respect. The first is that in most western societies such as this one, the general trend is to raise the pension age. We know that that is happening as a result of longer life expectancy, ageing populations and falling birth rates. Looking at it for a moment in a global view, any responsible Government concerned with controlling public expenditure in the future would have to think very hard before reversing the trend—actually lowering a pension age. We have seen the opposite problem in France, where they are trying to raise a pension age. Fortunately, we have not had the same problem in this country. But, in current circumstances, to reduce the pension age would be going against the grain of wider economic trends and demands. That is a first point.

A second point, if I may make it—and I would be interested to know whether noble Lords agree—is that we are, as a society, moving away from the idea of a job for life, or that you start a career and continue in that career, like the distinguished examples given by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, of his father and by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, from his long career in the trade union movement: starting at 16 and remaining typically in that same occupation for many years. These days, people move around a great deal. The expectation that today someone of 18 would think of remaining with the Prison Service until he is 68 would be open to question, frankly, because modern youth, certainly the ones that one knows of anecdotally in one’s immediate circle, do not really think in those terms.

So the Government are cautious about acting on the basis that someone at the age of 20, deciding whether to join the Prison Service, is at all focused on whether their full pension would be payable in 2071, 2068 or 2063. In the Government’s view, that is not the kind of thing that affects recruitment or retention. So that is a further general point in relation to the impact—which is probably contestable—that this pension age has on the decision of a recruit to either join, or stay in, the Prison Service. These are rather detached points, and the cause and effect that has been raised is not entirely persuasive in the Government’s view, to put it as softly as that.

Thirdly, the issue of the contributions was raised. Under the standard Civil Service pension scheme, the employee rate is about 4.6%, and there is an employer contribution of 27%, which is pretty generous, compared to police and firefighter schemes, where the rate is between 12% and 14%. It is possibly the case that there is link between pay and pensions, and one has to look at them as package, as it were. In 2017, and on an earlier occasion in 2013, the Government considered, and negotiated with the prison officers, a package that would have involved a lower pension age but also had various points about pay and conditions. The POA voted on the package, and it was rejected.

So it is not as if the Government have not done anything in this respect; they have addressed questions of pay and pensions. The 2017 negotiations—they might be the Liz Truss negotiations to which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred—did not reach agreement. The Government would say that that was not for lack of trying on the Government’s part, because a package was sufficiently agreed by the parties to be put to a ballot, but the ballot did not work. My noble friend Lord Attlee said that a retirement age of 65 had been “conceded” in the negotiations but, if I am correct, that would have been in the context of the wider package. I do not think that anything, as such, has been conceded separately as an appropriate retiring age for prison officers.

I will pick up the remaining points. I entirely accept my noble friend Lord Balfe’s suggestion that the Government desire a constructive relationship with the Prison Service. I am not in a position to commit the Prisons Minister to discuss this with the Prison Officers’ Association as a separate point, but the Minister is in constant touch with it, and I am sure that this, among other issues, will come up.

On this particular issue, there is a slight complication at the moment as a result of the McCloud judgment, which has thrown in some doubt the 2015 pension reforms as regards the younger members of the various pension schemes. There is a question about whether there is an age discrimination issue in those reforms. That is currently under consideration by the Cabinet Office, and, as I understand it, a remedy will be duly developed across the Civil Service to deal with that judgment. That may change the landscape a bit, but I think a detailed discussion of pensions should probably take place when that remedy is clear—or is announced or agreed, whatever the situation is—and would probably need to take place in relation to discussions about pay as well.

In relation to pay, the Minister for Prisons, my colleague Minister Hinds, has only today been giving evidence to the Prison Service Pay Review Body. Prison officers received a pay award last year, which has been welcomed. There are some signs of improved recruitment and retention. We have an extra 4,000 officers compared with 2017. Retention is still an issue in some prisons, but not in all prisons; some parts of the country have no trouble at all in recruiting and retaining prison officers. In general, the retention rate on average—I mean the rate of those not retained—is around 15% annually. Across both the public and private sectors, the national average is about 14% and in the Civil Service it is about 12.5%, so it is not completely out of line. But that is an average, and there is not a problem everywhere; it is only a problem in some cases. There are very focused efforts on trying to improve that situation, but the Government are not persuaded that there is a real link between the ultimate pension age at which the full pension is payable and the problems of retention and staffing in prisons. I think that they are due primarily to other factors and not the pension issue, although I accept that the pension issue has some symbolic value.

However, this is a difficult issue, and the Government would not wish to indicate that the position is for ever closed. It depends on what the remedy is that comes out of McCloud and further discussions. I would not presume for a moment to be able to replicate or follow the magnificent example of Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, who was mentioned earlier as a very fine Minister of Labour in the 1950s Conservative Government, but I hope that we find a way to move forward constructively with all parties on this question.

Committee adjourned at 4.47 pm.

Jurors: Mental Health Impact

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the emotional, psychological and mental health impact on jurors of sitting in serious criminal trials.

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

My Lords, research into the impact of jury service has found that most people enjoy their service and find the experience interesting and informative. We know that some people can find it distressing. Anyone feeling this way is encouraged to contact their GP, who can put them in touch with the necessary support services. We are currently looking at options, including providing guidance to courts, to explore what more can be done.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that Answer but there are now increasing reports in the media of those having adverse reactions to the evidence that they are hearing, and the type of evidence they are having to hear is more graphic and often video footage. Will my noble and learned friend outline whether there are plans to have a proper systemic review of a court centre and talk to jurors before, and particularly after, their experience to see whether people are being adversely impacted by doing jury service?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the latest research was done by Professor Cheryl Thomas in 2020: 81% of those who had served on a jury said that they would be “happy to serve again”; 78% found it “interesting”. At the same time, it is quite true that 42% found the experience “stressful”. It is an issue, and the department is exploring options. What shape those options will take—whether there should be some sort of counselling service, whether it should be authorised by a judge and who would provide it—are all questions currently under consideration.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that everything depends on the nature of the trial? If you are asking jurors to hear a case involving graphic evidence of sex abuse, it really is not good enough to say that, if they are troubled, they can go to their GP. The same is surely true of the judges who have to hear such cases on a regular basis, it is true of the court staff and it is also true of the counsel and solicitors who specialise in this area. Really, something needs to be done about this.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, the Government are exploring options. Sometimes a judge will warn jurors in advance that it is distressing and ask whether any of them wish to be discharged. There is a post-trial leaflet and an interesting video, which I watched yesterday, for jurors after the trial, which suggests what they should do if they feel stressed. Some courts of their own volition make references to local charities, and we are providing further guidance to courts on what to do in those circumstances.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I will come to the assistance of the Minister because he has been a practitioner in the courts, as I have. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not someone who practises in front of juries—

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

—but it is commonplace now for judges to say to a jury that a case is of a sexual nature or involves homicide or murder where the facts are particularly troubling and gruesome, and to ask: “If any of you have any reason why you feel could not sit on such a case, then please come forward and tell me”. You can have a juror say, “I have had an experience in my past which will make this particularly difficult”. Judges will take the opportunity to say that the juror does not have to sit. That is commonplace in serious cases now. I ask the Minister: should it not be an obligation on the Crown to inform a court and the judge who is sitting that a case may be very disturbing for jurors, so that they can step forward and withdraw from sitting as a juror on that particular case?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness that in most cases of this kind judges will warn jurors in advance. That should generally be done, and I think it is for the judge to decide.

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

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, raises a very important issue. We ask citizens to perform this important public service and increasingly, as she said, it can be harrowing and traumatic. At present, as the Minister said, HM Courts & Tribunals Service tells jurors only that they can consult their GP or the Samaritans, who counsel potential suicides. The noble Baroness is right that professional counselling must be available where necessary. Will the Minister arrange such counselling and ensure that its availability is known to potential jurors at the time they are summoned so that they can see what the potential dangers are and consider their position, and have the information available throughout?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that I can add to my earlier Answer that the Government are currently considering all options. Roughly 100,000 people serve on a jury every year; most, as I have just said, find the experience interesting and informative, and the Government will keep this under close review.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is helpful to see what happens in Scotland. The Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service provides specialist assistance in cases of particularly violent and distressing crimes. It is available in the court. It is available to jurors, who may not realise, even given the warnings that have been referred to, that the scenes they are going to have to view repeatedly as a juror as the evidence goes on are particularly distressing. Will the Minister have a look at what happens in Scotland and perhaps follow its example?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I will gladly look at what happens in Scotland—I believe there is a service provided through NHS Lothian. I am not sure I can undertake to follow a Scottish example; Northern Ireland has a counselling association associated with its employee assistance programme. We are exploring a number of options.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, is not the criminal justice system unusual among public services because it depends on volunteers, or at least non-professionals, for the vast majority of the work? Jurors are present in our most serious cases and magistrates hear the overwhelming number of criminal cases. Will my noble and learned friend the Minister therefore ensure that His Majesty’s Government look at both these groups of non-professionals and ensure that they are given the financial and non-financial support they need?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, lay participation in justice, whether through the jury, the magistracy or, I would add, membership of tribunals, is at the heart of the common-law system and the Government will fully support that participation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, judicial officeholders, their partners and their children are offered helpline support 24/7 for 365 days a year through the Ministry of Justice. There is no equivalent for jurors. Arguably, judicial officeholders are better placed to withstand the pressures of their role because they have the support of their peer group. When jurors leave the court, they are on their own. Does the Minister think that this should change and the Government should offer the same support to jurors as is offered to judicial officeholders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government can accept that there is a case for offering further support for jurors who have been through very distressing cases. I should perhaps observe that jurors have been trying distressing cases now for hundreds of years so we are not in a new situation. A 24-hour helpline may be one of the options that we should explore.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I ask the Minister that those who look at whether or not jurors should be helped are shown some of the sorts of photographs that jurors may have to see, because they would be pretty shocked.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely accept that comment.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern and surprise that no one has mentioned the welfare of police officers who have to sit through hours of usually pornographic material involving children, which can have a tremendous effect on their stress levels?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, makes me think: if Boris Johnson is brought to trial, would it be possible to volunteer for the jury?

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, how on earth is one supposed to answer that question? Fortunately, as far as I know, that does not arise—or it certainly does not arise yet.

[Lord Kamall (Con)]

My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord opposite, would counselling also be offered?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Would it be offered to jurors who served on a jury in relation to the late Prime Minister? I do not think I can answer that question.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, many horrible things happen in life and have done so for decades and decades. Does the Minister believe that we need to think that people need to be a little more robust? I certainly found in the Navy when things had happened that if you asked people whether they had been affected, they would tell you they had been affected, but if you did not ask them, they just got on with their job.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is unusual to have so many opportunities to agree with noble Lords opposite. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord West. Although we have had a moment of levity in this Question, I respectfully remind your Lordships of what the late Lord Devlin famously said:

“Trial by jury is … the lamp that shows that freedom lives”.


The Government entirely agree with that and will support juries as much as is needed.

Prisons: Education

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 23rd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the potential merits of bringing the delivery of prison education into the public sector.

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

My Lords, core education in prisons is delivered by four providers: three classified as public sector providers and one as a private sector provider. Wider, non-core prison education is delivered by a range of suppliers, including the third sector. We are engaging with the market to encourage new providers to work with us to deliver high-quality prison education. We do not currently envisage fundamental change to the present system of outsourcing core delivery to specialist education providers.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree with me, Charlie Taylor and the Education Select Committee that education is fundamental to rehabilitation, so the fact that current providers do not have teaching prisoners to read as their responsibility is staggering? Can the Minister agree to look, at least, at the launch of the prisoner education service as an opportunity to bring all prison education back into the public sector, with standardised curriculum and qualifications, which are so important when prisoners are moved, and standardised education staff contracts to assist with recruitment and retention?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. The Government entirely agree that prison education is vital for rehabilitation. In the Government’s view, it does not follow that education, particularly in relation to reading, should be brought back into what the noble Baroness describes as the public sector. Specifically on reading, I can report the Chief of Inspector of Prisons’ remarks of yesterday. Following his report last year, he considers that we are seeing some improvement in reading and that there are encouraging signs of good developing practice in relation to reading education in prisons.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, as a member of the Justice and Home Affairs Committee, I know that the Minister has recognised the huge importance of prison education. Have His Majesty’s Government assessed the potential benefits of doubling the prison education budget, and, in particular, have they assessed the impact of such a policy shift on reoffending rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government currently spend about £125 million a year on the core programme and a further £30 million on special development strategies. In relation to the future, we are developing new contracts from 2025, and I am sure the question of the budget will arise in that context.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, made the point about rehabilitation being so vital. Can my noble and learned friend publish statistics to show the variable reoffending rates between those who do not get qualifications and various other things from education in prison, and those who do? I think this could be very interesting and salutary information.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to improving the statistics in this area, and I will investigate whether we can publish that further information.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, the best education in the world, public or private, is useless if there are not the staff there to enable prisoners to get out of their cells to receive it. But if they could, the education service has been carved up by just four main providers, and governors have little or no say in who delivers education in their prisons. The House of Commons Education Committee report has already been mentioned. What are the Government going to do about this issue?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Staffing levels are a continuing problem, but full-time equivalent prison officers have increased by 3,677 between 2016 and December 2022; it now stands at 21,632. In the Government’s view, there is no problem with the quality of our existing providers. The challenges of prison education are evident to all, and the Government are doing their best to tackle them.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, when I conducted the review into self-inflicted deaths in prison some years ago, a very substantial issue arose about the cancellation of education sessions simply because there were insufficient staff to transport prisoners to education venues within prisons or, alternatively, because prisons were locked down. What proportion of education sessions do not go ahead for the reasons I have described? If those statistics are not collected, could the Minister explain why this rather important performance indicator is not looked at?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the information he rightly seeks, but I will see if I can. Attendance at classes is an ongoing issue. It is sometimes due to staff shortages. We have introduced new KPIs for prison governors which include attendance, among other things, so I hope to see improvement in this area.

[Lord Bellingham (Con)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that a vital part of prison education is to help former offenders into gainful employment at the end of their sentence? A number of businesses such as Timpson, under the inimitable Sir John Timpson, have done pioneering work in this field to help prevent recidivism. What more can the Minister do with his department to encourage other firms to follow Timpson’s example?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend in paying tribute to Timpson. There are many other employers with which we are in close touch. The Prison Service has recently introduced prison employment advisory boards in all prisons and an employment innovation fund, and heads of education, skills and work will be established across the prison estate. This is all to improve post-prison employment, which is, I am glad to say, on the increase.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, would the Minister agree that prisoners have probably the highest density of special educational needs of any group in society? All these groups need different learning patterns compared to the norm to be successful. Is the prison education service equipped to, first, identify and, secondly, provide the extra different types of learning to this client base? If not, it is not going to succeed.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord that the Prison Service needs to be equipped, and I respectfully suggest that it is. There are a whole range of things here. There is the core curriculum, which is made up of English, maths and digital skills; vocational courses, such as construction; personal development courses; and digital personal learning plans. I assure the House that the Government are on the case and working hard to improve matters.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the Open University offers a range of introductory access modules funded by the Prisoners’ Education Trust, under the banner of “Steps to Success”. They have been specifically designed to help students find out what it is like to study with the OU, get a taste of a subject area, develop study skills and build confidence. As a former teacher, I can tell your Lordships that those things are vital. Does the prison estate have the facilities to offer such excellent distance learning, and who would meet the cost of these courses that are on offer?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, there is a problem within the prison estate in relation to distance learning from external providers, because most prisons do not have external access to the internet. There is an intranet, and it may well be that in due course organisations like the Open University are encouraged to access that facility. But I take the noble Baroness’s question and will investigate further.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows about the Clink Charity, which sets up restaurants in prisons where prisoners are taught by chefs and then serve meals to the general public. If any noble Lords do not know about this, I urge them to go to the one in Brixton. These now have a 49.6% rate of lowering reoffending, because prisoners come out with a job and a skill and somewhere to sleep, which is arranged. This all depends on the good will of the governors. Can the Minister assure the House that he will encourage such projects? I think there are seven now, but there could be many more.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the answer is yes. Prison governors are now specifically required to have regard to developing employment opportunities for those in prison, attendance rates at courses and other matters. I pay tribute to Clink, which is a very well-known and respected organisation. Similar programmes are being offered by other employers, and this is all, I respectfully suggest, good progress.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, in my experience with broader education projects such as Debating Matters Beyond Bars, I have found that private sector prisons can be more flexible and less bureaucratic than some state-run prisons. Does the Minister agree that we should focus less on who provides prison education and that education should be given far more priority? Does he also agree that prison education should not be limited to literacy, as it often is, but should be far more imaginative?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government regard prison education with high priority and are working to improve its imaginative and innovative aspects all the time.