Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for that point. It is certainly something I will take away when we come to consider the Government’s position.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I apologise, because I know my noble and learned friend wants to complete his speech, but I ask this question simply because I failed to hear. The action plan has been spoken of a lot during the course of this evening. Is that an existing document, and is it published?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Yes, and yes.

On the basis that I accept, on behalf of the Government, the importance of this topic, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

This is the first of three very short amendments to deal with the independence of the Parole Board. I do not think—and I hope—it is not disputed that the Parole Board is a judicial body and independent. If that is contested, we shall we be here for much longer today—so I hope it is not. I assume it is not going to be.

The second issue is that, if a body is judicial and independent, that independence must be recognised. There are three ways in which Clauses 53, 54 and 55 breach the independence position. First, in Amendment 169, the intention is to remove the power of the Secretary of State to predetermine the membership of the board. We have been very successful with judicial bodies in this country in allowing the judicial body itself, or its president, to determine who sits on panels. I can think of no good reason to change that—unless, of course, the previous Lord Chancellor had other plans for the kind of body he wanted.

The second is the business of sacking the chair. I use the word “sack” as I think it is a good, earthy word for what the previous Lord Chancellor wanted to do. We are the nation that established the idea that Kings could not sack judges, at the end of the Stuart period. We led the way forward, and virtually every proper democracy has that principle. It would be absolutely astonishing if we regressed from that, away from the rule of law. This is a pointer to it: it is quite wrong and should be removed.

The third aspect is quite disingenuous: the desire to remove the provision in the Bill that the chairman of the board should not deal with individual parole cases. It is absolutely unintelligible. Why would you want to make the chairman of a judicial body incapable of dealing with cases? The reason for this was that it could then be claimed that, if the chair of the board was not dealing with cases, the chair did not have a judicial function, and that could therefore justify the sacking. This is both disingenuous and very bad in principle. The chair is turned, effectively, into a pay, rations and hiring functionary rather than a leader.

Secondly, if you are chairing a board dealing with parole, you want to lead it, to know what is going on in the cases, and you want views. You have to sit and do the cases. From my own experience, it is quite clear that, if you have a judicial leader who does not actually understand the business of the courts, the fellow members of the judiciary—in this case, the Parole Board—will have no respect whatever for them.

These are three short points; there is no more I can really say about them. They are all bad points in the Bill. This seeks simply to remove them.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my former neighbour, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for permitting me to jump the queue. I want to make some equally brief points to the points made by the noble and learned Lord just now. I will start with Amendment 171. This makes as much sense as requiring the Lord Chief Justice, as head of the judiciary, not to be able to sit in individual cases, either at first instance or at appeal; to deny the Master of the Rolls, who I believe is the head of the civil appellate system, the ability to sit on cases; to deny the chancellor of the Chancery Division the ability to sit on cases; and to deny the president of the Family Division the ability to sit on cases.

These are judicial functions which may have an administrative function as well. If we were really to go down a road whereby the shadow of Dominic Raab is to spring forward into the enlightened era of Alex Chalk, I think we would be making a mistake. That is enough about that.

None of the judicial officers to which I have just referred is removable on the say-so of the Secretary of State. Equally, the constitution should not suffer the embarrassment of having the head of the Parole Board, who is a judicial officer, being removed on the say-so of the Secretary of State. I have a suspicion that if Alex Chalk had written this Bill it would not have contained these clauses.

Amendment 169

“seeks to ensure that the decision as to the composition of the Board is an independent judicial decision made by the Parole Board”.

Again, to go back to my references to the senior judiciary, it is the Lord Chief Justice who deploys the judges within the court system, it is the Master of the Rolls who decides which judges in the appellate court should sit on which particular case, it is the Chancellor of the Chancery Division who decides which of the Chancery Division judges should do what, and it is the President of the Family Division who does the same in relation to Family Division cases. It strikes me as being a perfectly normal and respectable constitutional arrangement. It would be a pity for Mr Raab, who has now moved on, to be able to continue to control the system. He is gone; these should go as well.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support all three of these amendments. They were tabled by the penultimate Lord Chief Justice, and are supported by the most recent Lord Chief Justice and a distinguished recent Solicitor-General, who spoke just now. I am afraid I can only claim to have been shadow Attorney-General in what was, to use a cliché, a bad year, for a shortish time to make up the numbers. I cannot add to the arguments that have been so persuasively put.

It is wonderful to see the noble Earl the Minister in his place; I did not expect him to take this particular group. I invite him to talk to his noble friend from the Ministry of Justice, who I suspect—I hope the noble Earl does as well—privately has a lot of sympathy for these amendments, because they are commonsensical. I ask the noble Earl to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, to speak to the Justice Secretary patiently and persuasively about these matters.

I start from the position that the Executive should interfere in individual sentencing as little as possible—preferably not at all. Under our constitutional arrangements, it is not the Executive’s responsibility, nor part of their functions. That is why the independence of the Parole Board is so important, as the noble and learned Lord just said. It is hard not to believe, I am afraid, that these proposals would actually have the effect of reducing that independence.

I have down on the amendment paper that I will oppose Clauses 53 and 54 standing part of the Bill. I will not press that at all tonight, but in this short speech I will talk about why I gave that notice; it may save a bit of time later on. It is really because I have two questions for the noble Earl. I asked the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, at Second Reading, but quite understandably he was so overwhelmed with the matters that he had to reply to in the minutes that he was allowed that he was unable to answer them at the time. I absolutely appreciate that.

The first question is to ask why, under the Bill, the Justice Secretary will send some cases where he has found the Parole Board has got it wrong to whichever body it is that he eventually sends them to, but not others. It was argued in this House in Committee, I think last week or the week before, that that should be not the Upper Tribunal but another body altogether. If he sends some cases where he thinks the Parole Board has got it wrong but not others, that will not make any sense at all. Surely he must send all of the case that he finds to be wrong to this judicial body or none of them. If he sends some then surely the position is not satisfactory. There may one day be a Lord Chancellor—certainly not the current one—who is less generous and would not send any that he felt was wrong to a court. If that position may develop, why on earth is this part of the Bill being proposed?

My second question is this, and the Committee deserves an answer to it: will the Justice Secretary himself make these decisions, or will they be passed down to junior Ministers or to senior civil servants? I have no objection at all to senior civil servants taking important decisions but it is not appropriate that they—or, in fact, junior Ministers in the department—should take these decisions. What is the answer: will they or will they not? If they will, the problems associated with the Executive interfering in sentencing become much more acute. Does the Minister agree? I would be grateful for an answer to both those questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for speaking to his amendments with his customary clarity. I hope I can be helpful to him and the Committee in my response.

I have heard unmistakeably the reservations expressed across the Committee about these proposals. Before saying anything else, I undertake to represent to my noble and learned friend the Minister the strength of those reservations. I do so without commitment at this stage but in good faith. It may be helpful to the Committee if I explain where the Government are currently coming from in making these proposals so that noble Lords can understand the issues as we perceive them.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove lines 35 and 36 of Clause 53, which would have the same effect as removing the clause in its entirety. Clause 53 amends Section 239(5) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which allows the Secretary of State to make rules with respect to the proceedings of the Parole Board. At the moment, the provision permits rules to be made about how many members deal with particular cases, or that specified cases be dealt with at specified times. This clause adds that the Secretary of State may also require cases to be dealt with by

“members of a prescribed description”.

Amendment 169 seeks to remove that addition.

I will explain briefly why we want to ensure that the Secretary of State can make rules about who sits on parole cases. In the Root and Branch Review of the Parole System, the Government committed to increasing

“the number of Parole Board members from a law enforcement background”

and ensuring that every parole panel considering a case involving the most serious offenders has a law enforcement member on it. We are talking here about murder, rape, terrorist offences and the like.

The Government of course recognise that each and every type of Parole Board member brings with them different experience and skills. That range and diversity contributes to generally effective risk assessments and sound decision-making. However, members with law enforcement experience, such as former police officers, have particular first-hand knowledge of the impact and seriousness of offending. Many will also have direct experience of the probation system, including, for example, licence conditions and the likelihood of an offender’s compliance with such conditions.

Clause 53 enables the Secretary of State to make the secondary legislation needed to prescribe that certain Parole Board panels include members with a law enforcement background. We will, naturally, continue to consider operational readiness before we lay any secondary legislation. I hope that explanation is of help.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Am I to draw the inference from what my noble friend has just said that, under the current arrangements, inappropriate members of the board have been inappropriately appointed to particular cases?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

No, not at all, but we think that certain Parole Boards can be strengthened usefully by having additional members with the experience that I have described. I have not implied or, I hope, made any criticisms of Parole Boards that have sat in the past or their decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I am sorry that it is very late and I am being tiresome. My noble friend the Minister said that there may come a time or there may be circumstances in which it would be necessary to remove the chairman or chairwoman of the Parole Board. I wonder whether my noble friend could perhaps give me one or two examples of the sets of circumstances in which that might apply.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

A mechanism already exists for the Secretary of State to ask an independent panel to consider dismissing the chair if there are concerns about the postholder’s performance or ability to do the job effectively. That route remains our preferred approach in the unlikely event that a dismissal is required. However, as the board is a high-profile public body, making important decisions on public protection every day, it is right, in the Government’s submission, that the Justice Secretary should have the levers to change the leadership if a situation arose where it was necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the work of the board. It is not a power that any Secretary of State would ever use lightly, and ideally there will never be a cause to use it at all. We are talking here about situations where, for example, there might be conflicts of interest, security issues or confidentiality issues. At the moment, my understanding is that there is no mechanism to dismiss a chair should any issue of that kind arise. The grounds at the moment are quite restrictive.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Just to be clear, the Government are proposing that they will need to sack somebody who could be responsible for a breach of confidence, a breach of security, or some other grievous breach; but they will already have appointed this person to that job. Surely the vetting procedure leading up to the appointment would weed out the sort of eccentric people who would leak, or breach confidence, or misconduct themselves.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is exactly why I said that it is not a power that it is likely any Secretary of State would use often, if at all.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise that I was unable to be in the Chamber for the entirety of the Second Reading, although I heard most of it. I will speak first to Amendment 164, which is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who sadly is not in his place this evening.

As we have heard from many noble Lords’ contributions, serving and recalled IPP prisoners need practical help and support. The purpose of this new clause would be to give effect to some of that practical help and support, which they clearly need. As we all know and have heard several times from noble Lords, these prisoners are often so over-tariff that they have lost any hope of ever being released. They therefore need to develop internal, as well as external, means of support in the build-up to a parole hearing, as well as on release and in transition into the community.

The IPP mentor and advocate scheme would assist prisoners in formulating a detailed release plan with the help of an independent, suitably qualified individual. At the parole hearing, the mentor would provide practical support to the prisoner to assist them in making a clear and articulate contribution to the proceedings, although the new clause is perfectly clear that they would not provide legal advice or make legal submissions. On release, the formulated release plan would assist former IPP prisoners to make a smoother transition into the community and act as a blueprint for successful reintegration.

The organisations that are willing and able to help offenders with resettlement in the community are often not well-known to IPP prisoners, and localised, relevant resources would be signposted to the prisoner by this scheme. While in prison, the IPP prisoner could, with the help of the IPP mentor and advocate, establish communication with organisations relevant to their risk management profile and assist them with proposed resettlement needs. On release, of course, the IPP mentors and advocates would help them to implement their release plan and provide practical support, making further recommendations relating to their specific needs to strengthen their prospects of a successful reintegration into the community. The cost of such a scheme would be modest. Moreover, it would reduce pressure on the prison population, which is at capacity, and prevent recalls to prison.

As we know, there are many ad hoc mentoring schemes in which prisoners are assigned to a mentor to help them during their prison sentence or when they get out on licence. These can help with particular risk factors and provide general support and guidance. It is very important to recognise that IPP prisoners suffer from all these same issues. Whatever the reasons that took them into prison and got them incarcerated, they still need this help and support. One particular and distinct need relates to the fact that many of them—as has been said—have lost faith in the justice system. It is therefore important to ensure that they are given access, on a voluntary basis, to a mentor and advocate who can support them with the steps needed to ensure they are prepared for life in the community.

The scheme could, of course, be subject to a pilot in the first instance and would recruit suitably qualified individuals. These might be, for example, retired probation officers, members of an independent monitoring board, retired members of the Parole Board, or other suitably qualified individuals who have knowledge of the criminal justice system. Following the successful pilot, the scheme would then build up to, perhaps, 50 mentors and advocates working on a part-time or full-time basis.

While it is anticipated that the scheme will be centrally commissioned, there may be innovative ways to fund it using cross-budget resources. Clearly, the better resourced the scheme, the more effective it will be. It is anticipated—these are not my calculations but those of people who have a much clearer understanding of the situation and the likely costs—that the fully rolled-out scheme, employing up to 50 full-time or part-time mentors, would cost less than £3 million a year for a period of three years.

There are still 1,200 IPP prisoners who have never been released, and more than that on recall. Given that it costs the taxpayer £44,000 or £45,000 per annum—my figure is £44,000, but it may be that others know better and it is £45,000—to keep one prisoner in custody, if the scheme were to free up 67 places in the prison estate each year it would pay for itself. How much better it would be if these IPP prisoners were given this extra support, given the particular injustice that they have endured.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I was delighted to be able to co-sign her amendment. It is also a pleasure to witness a debate in the Chamber this evening which has brought us together in unity, both of purpose and of experience. All of us, in our different ways, have had different experiences of the prison system, the courts system and of prisoners, and yet we have all reached the same conclusions, the starkest of which was presented to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, in the first group of amendments, when he observed, entirely correctly, that there is a reluctance to be bold. I would convert his observation—if I can do so while looking at a former Lord Chief Justice—into an injunction: we must no longer be timid, we must be bold.

I have absolutely no doubt that my noble friend the Minister and all his colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, and in particular the estimable current Lord Chancellor, are entirely well motivated in what they wish to see in relation to IPPs and indeed to other pretty appalling aspects of our prison system. However, having a benign intention, walking quietly and saying nice things is really not enough; the reluctance to be bold must be got rid of, because we need action. We need it for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, highlighted of the very sad case of the man on licence who took his own life.

I was very pleased indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, was able to lead on the group of amendments we are now discussing, because if ever a speech fulfilled the promise made at a maiden speech, it was his. I am very grateful to him, because we constantly need prodding and reminding that IPP prisoners are not a subject to be spoken of once every six months, with sympathy and wringing hands. They are a living, constant problem, and indeed, as the late Lord Brown, said, what has been done to them is a stain on our justice system. We should all be very grateful, as I think a number of us have already indicated, to the late Lord Brown for the work that he did.

We should also be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is absent, for his change in attitude and his admission that he got it so badly wrong when he was Home Secretary in the early part of the Tony Blair Government. It is not difficult to salute him, because you can tell when you talk to him and listen to him that his change of heart is indeed sincere. So, if he can be bold in doing that, please will the Government be bold and get on and do what is right?

Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, I have spent quite a considerable time visiting prisons. I have probably said this before, and I can never remember the precise figure, but I think I have been to about 75 prisons, young offender institutions and secure training units in England and Wales—I have not been to a prison in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. It was abundantly clear, whenever I went to an adult male prison in which there were prisoners serving IPPs, from both looking at, talking to and interacting with them but also with the governing staff, that the most impossible group to manage were the IPP prisoners. They were literally hopeless. They had no future—no boundary and no observable, touchable limit to the torture that they were going through. That is why we must be bold, that is why we cannot allow this to go on, and that is why all these amendments, in every group, deserve the support of this House and the support of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My noble friend is of course talking to an audience in this Chamber which agrees with every word he is most eloquently saying, and it is obvious that the Government should press on. The one thing he has not spoken of is the reason that Prime Ministers and Governments will not, and what it was that drove liberal-minded, sensible people such as Tony Blair and David Cameron to defend this IPP system. It is, straightforwardly, fear of public opinion, fear of the media—in particular of the tabloid press, but the whole of the media. The one thing even the most liberal Prime Minister, and certainly those who surround him in 10 Downing Street, is convinced of is that they must never be seen to be “soft on crime”. The only pressure that ever comes from No. 10 in response to some highly publicised crime is for longer sentences to be imposed for whatever criminal offence has currently come into fashion. In an election year, that is even more likely to apply and to be our principal problem today.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I will have to check tomorrow morning the Hansard report of where I had got to in my speech; I have a suspicion I was in the middle of a sentence in which I was just about to say exactly what my noble friend said—but I am grateful to him, because he was able to say it so much more eloquently than I would have done.

We are in the position with criminal justice and sentencing that we were in the first decade of the 20th century with Dreadnought building. If the Germans have five, we must have six. If we have six, they must have 10. If they have 10, we must have 15, and so on —and guess what? You get 1914.

Here, we are dealing with adult, mature politicians who take instructions from editors and proprietors. Yet, if they bothered to ask the public—and occasionally the press do ask the public—they would find that the public are not nearly as keen on longer sentences or on IPPs as they might think. Had they been braver and bolder—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, would have us be—perhaps we would not have arrived at where we are.

I regret that I have spoken for far too long in Committee, but over the last 25 years this issue has really annoyed me. I am so grateful to the Prison Reform Trust, of which I too am a trustee, for its assistance in trying to restrain my enthusiasm and, at times, my anger about this subject and for providing me with the information and the assistance which I hope have to some extent informed this debate. There is not a single amendment on the Order Paper this evening which does not deserve the gravest consideration of this Committee and the urgent action of this Government.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it was a real privilege to witness that exchange and I think we are getting to the heart of why we are all here and are so passionate about this. I have a couple of short clarifications, because at this point by the time I get to my amendment on re-sentencing there really will be nothing else to say; I am rewriting my speech rapidly every time everyone speaks.

When I first heard about the indefinite sentences that were associated with IPPs—when they first came out in that arms race to prove how tough we could be on law on order—I was horrified. I was delighted when the noble Lord, Lord Clarke, abolished them; I thought that was it, because I was not in Parliament and not following. I went into prisons as part of work I was doing with an educational project called Debating Matters Beyond Bars which encouraged prisoners to debate and could not believe it when I discovered that, despite the sentences being abolished, there were still IPP prisoners.

In fact, I told the prisoners in my own characteristic way that they were wrong and that IPPs had been abolished and could not still exist. So I was determined once I got in here to at least discover what on earth had gone wrong. I cannot bear it, now we are tackling the issue, that, even though the sentences have been abolished, they will still exist when we have finished dealing with this Bill. It seems abhorrent.

I wanted particularly to back up the mentoring proposals from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. If you talk to any families of IPP prisoners, or IPP prisoners themselves, they know that they have been destroyed and damaged by this sentencing regime. They are not gung-ho about it. They do not just say, “Release us, we’ll be fine”. What they would really gain from is mentoring. It is the kind of creative solution that would help us support the re-sentencing amendments. This is the kind of support that people will need.

It was hard not to shed a tear at the very moving speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, who said that many of the people whose mental health was suffering had been destroyed by IPPs. But we should also note that it could well be that their mental health is not permanently damaged by the ongoing psychological uncertainty, anxiety, torture and so on. We need a combination of the mentoring scheme and a recognition of the fact that the sentencing is, to be crude, literally driving people mad—and the sanest person would go mad. You do not necessarily need medication; you need compassionate, grown-up intervention and support. In that sense, I support all the amendments in this group and all the others, but I really think that, for want of a better phrase, we have to be the grown-ups in the room now and try and sort this out.

Criminal Jurors

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, speaking from the experience of a sometime, extreme lowly, recorder of the Crown Court, the first thing that one is taught as a criminal judge is to ensure the well-being of the jury. I am sure that all judges go out of their way to ensure that the jury is properly looked after—as do the court ushers and the jury bailiffs—and they are, generally speaking, warmly thanked for their participation. There will be occasions when further support is needed, and the Government are, as I said, planning trials and tests, later this year, to explore the options.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I ask a question as an even more lowly recorder than my noble and learned friend the Minister—albeit that he and I have not carried out that role for some many years. Can I suggest to him that there is a practical way in which juries can be better appreciated, despite the good work of the court staff and so forth? Their accommodation is, frankly, hopeless. They sit for long periods, having to concentrate, on uncomfortable benches. They retire to pretty low-grade rooms, and those who are in the jury-in-waiting are accommodated in fairly poor-quality accommodation. Could my noble and learned friend see if the department can improve the jury accommodation, not just in the modern courts—they are a bit better—but in some of the older and more dilapidated courts?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to report to the House that the present Lord Chancellor secured a major financial injection from the Treasury, specifically to improve the court estate—which, in some areas, has been a problem, as my noble and learned friend has rightly pointed out. I am sure that at least some of that money will, rightly, go on improving accommodation for the jury.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 15 in my name. I also offer my support to the other amendments, not least that in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, which seems to be an uncontroversial proposal that simply corrects a lacuna in the Bill.

One of my abiding mantras is that there is no such thing in our society as a hard-to-reach group. What we have—and have all too often—are services that fail to make sufficient effort to ensure they reach all those they are intended to assist. It is not good enough for a service to exist; the people it is meant to support have to know it is there and be able to access it. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, spoke powerfully earlier this evening. I gather that she spoke at a Women and Equalities Committee oral evidence session where she emphasised that many victims are unaware of the support services available to them. I will not go any further, because I think she may want to speak in a moment; I will not steal her thunder.

The intention of the amendment in my name is to make it clear that responsibility for ensuring that victims can access services does not lie with the potential service user. We need it in the Bill because too many victims are simply not aware of what they ought to be able to look for for help—or they cannot access that help in a format that meets their needs.

I gather that in the other place the Minister claimed that the duty on criminal justice agencies to use reasonable steps to make victims aware of the code would suffice. Yet signposting is much more than enabling someone to know that a service exists. It means putting them in a place from where they can access the service. Sometimes that cannot be done by a leaflet, however good, or a few words spoken to a traumatised victim in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. It requires enduring engagement by service providers until the message can be heard, and that may be some considerable time later.

The Women’s Aid Survivor’s Handbook provides a clear example of what practical support should be included. Such support can be a lifeline to victims of abuse who, for example, may be planning to leave their perpetrator. The ability to access thorough information on a full range of issues, with easy-to-follow guidance, is crucial. It is also imperative that black and minoritised women, deaf and disabled women and LGBT+ victims are able to access support that meets their very specific needs and is sensitive to their experiences of additional inequalities and intersecting forms of discrimination. Victims should also be made aware of the range of helplines and online support, including the Women’s Aid live chat helpline and other appropriate domestic abuse and violence against women and girls support. Simply saying that there is a code will not bridge the gap between the victim and the service they need. I hope the Minister will feel able to offer proposals to strengthen the signposting requirements in the Bill ahead of Report.

I finish by recollecting that exactly one week ago in your Lordships’ House we debated, for a good hour and a half, what makes for good signage and who is responsible for it. Specifically, we discussed changes to the requirements placed on warning signs for level crossings between private or heritage railways and farm tracks—it was more interesting than you might imagine. Surely if we can improve signage to help a farmer get his sheep across a railway track, we can properly sign victims to the services they need.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will not follow the right reverend Prelate down the byways of Manchester, or the sheep farmers and their signposts, but I support him and indeed the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in the thrust of the amendments that they have introduced. I am part of a catholic gathering which supports the amendments tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord. I do it because I think it is a sensible, practical thing to do, but also because I have seen it work.

Many years ago, when I was the shadow Minister for Prisons in the other place and my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton was the leader of the Opposition, I visited a huge number of prisons. I think I visited about 75 of the 145-odd prisons, secure training units and young offender institutions in England and Wales, and in a number of prisons, certainly adult prisons in London, in Wales and in other parts of England, I saw restorative justice in action.

It is a delicate process and one needs to be very careful that it is, as the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes clear, carried out where appropriate and that it is available where appropriate. Not every victim is ready to enter into a conversation with the person who committed a crime against them. I have been in the room when RJ took place between prisoners and the victims of murder, the victims of serious violence and the victims of domestic burglary. It takes a very strong person to go into a room and listen to the explanation, the apology, the regret of a prisoner who has killed your husband or your son or your daughter. You need to be very strong and very brave. Equally—I suppose to some extent it is easier because there is, if you like, an advantage to the prisoner to be seen to be behaving in a humane way—I think it is fair to say that for many of the prisoners, some of whom were not very articulate, who had not been educated and who had many social, economic and other disadvantages, it was quite brave of them to come to terms with the horrific things that they had done. So I think “appropriate” is the most important word in the amendment tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries.

Also, tailoring the scheme, or the particular episode of restorative justice, to the needs of that particular victim is so important. It is not just a blanket answer: putting two people in a room with a presider, if you like, to make sure that it goes well. You need to think about it extremely carefully and treat the individuals concerned extremely carefully; it cannot be forced and it cannot be rushed.

But I believe that restorative justice is a hugely important factor in the reduction of crime and recidivism. It brings together people who have been perpetrators and those who have been victims in what can only be a traumatic experience—namely, the experience of the crime but also the experience of meeting the person who committed the crime against you or a loved one.

I am delighted that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has tabled his amendment, as I am that the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, have tabled theirs. This is a subject which has been discussed many times but has never been properly resolved. It has to some extent been seen as a luxury add-on to the criminal justice system; it is not—it is vital and fundamental in the appropriate cases. I say this as someone who has looked at the practical effects of it not only as a shadow Minister but also as a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust, which has been well-invested in this aspect of the criminal justice system.

Finally, I thank the noble Baroness for tabling her Amendment 13. I thought I knew quite a lot about the criminal justice system, but I had absolutely no idea that the oddity she highlighted this evening existed. It needs correcting.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, it is perhaps particularly appropriate that I follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, as a way of highlighting the fact that the amendments in this group addressing restorative justice, a number of which are in my name but have already been introduced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, are not party-political. This is a conviction, understanding and belief that goes right across the political spectrum and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, said, has arisen from practical experience. Speaking to other noble Lords in the Corridor who have seen my amendments, I have had many people who said, “I wasn’t really convinced and then I saw restorative justice in action, and now I am totally a convert to this idea”. The Government are getting a clear message from right across your Lordships’ Committee that, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, what was said in the other place—the idea that “Oh, we can put something in the code”—really is not going to do it; we need this in the Bill as a step forward.

I went through this at Second Reading, so I will not repeat it all, but if we look at what the Government are offering now, in their wording is a suggestion that restorative justice is nice when we can find the resources, so you might be lucky enough that there might be the resources available in your area or you might not. That is simply not good enough.

Briefly, I agree very much with all the amendments in this group and echo the comments about Amendment 13. The noble Baroness, Lady Gohir, has found something that the Government can surely pick up, because it so obviously needs to be sorted out.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin with the routine: reminding the House of my entry in the register of interests, including my practice at the Bar, which covers cases that have to do with the general subject matter of the Bill.

I now move to a unique, but none the less welcome, aspect of today’s proceedings. We have just heard the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere—and it was, if I may say so, worth waiting for. As the noble Lord explained, his peerage was gazetted in 2019, but he was introduced into your Lordships’ House only a couple of weeks ago. He also explained why there had to be a hiatus: for the last seven years he has been general counsel to No. 10 Downing Street, giving legal advice to four successive Prime Ministers. I am sure that he provided a much-needed element of stability at that address. Listening to the dangerously quiet advocacy that he was able to deploy just now makes me grateful that there is such a thing as the Government Legal Service and that such intellects as the noble Lord’s are deployed in its service.

It would have been difficult for a government lawyer working at the very heart of the Administration, who was not a law officer, to speak without giving the impression that he was speaking for the Government and, more particularly, the Prime Minister. But now the noble Lord is one of us: free to speak his mind from the Cross Benches and to give us the benefit of his experience and undoubted wisdom acquired over his many years in the Government Legal Service. He has worked on dozens of Bills, taking them through their entire legislative cycle, from policy formation to implementation into law, so we will rely on him to ensure that legislation leaving this House is in better shape than it was when it arrived.

Like the noble Lord, I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and I particularly look forward to his reforming the law on IPPs and other aspects of the criminal justice system, as well as his analysis of Home Office and Ministry of Justice Bills—I am sure that we will not be short of them—and his contributions to our debates on international and treaty law. Today we heard the overture, and it is with eager anticipation that we await the many, I hope, successive acts of the opera. The noble Lord is more than welcome, and we all wish him well as a Member of your Lordships’ House.

I turn to what I believe to be an important omission from the Bill, which otherwise I generally support. For want of time, I will not discuss the vital question of IPPs, but other noble Lords from right across the Chamber have already done so, and I dare say that others may yet do so. My noble friend Lord Moylan and other noble Lords will table amendments in Committee, and I will join them when they do.

The omission I would like to deal with is the absence of support for overseas victims of corruption and fraud. Thanks to the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 and the Online Safety Act 2023, economic crime, bribery, money laundering and fraud are back in the news and on political agendas—although they have not really been out of the spotlight over the last 20 years.

Multinational companies have been fined more than £1.5 billion over the past decade after investigations by the Serious Fraud Office into corruption abroad, but only 1.4% of those fines, amounting to about £20 million, has been used to compensate victim countries. That is according to research carried out by Mr Sam Tate, a partner of the City of London law firm RPC. This needs to change.

Much of this corruption occurs in African countries that are already suffering terrible economic hardship from food, climate and energy crises, as well as from inflation. They are in dire need of economic support to repair the damage caused by corruption. The British Government have been vocal in their support for compensating foreign state victims of corruption, but the action actually taken to compensate foreign states tells a different story and leaves us, I fear, open to charges of hypocrisy. Most corruption cases brought before the English courts involve foreign jurisdictions. This country steps in as the world’s prosecutor and prosecutes crimes that take place in other countries, but then keeps all the fines for itself.

This is important, because corruption causes insidious damage to the poor and to the not-so-poor, particularly in emerging markets and economies. The United Nations says that it impedes international trade and investment, undermines sustainable development, threatens democracy and deprives citizens of vital public resources. The African Union estimated in 2015 that 25% of the continent’s gross domestic product was lost to corruption. Every company convicted of overseas corruption in this jurisdiction should be ordered to compensate the communities they have harmed. That would be both just and effective. Compensation should come through investment in programmes targeted at decreasing corruption and benefiting local communities by, for example, building and resourcing more schools and hospitals.

At first glance, our law encourages compensation: it is required to take precedence over all other financial sanctions. So far, so good—but, as with many noble ambitions, the problems lurk in the detail. Compensation is ordered in criminal cases only where the loss is straightforward to assess, even though the trial judge is usually a High Court or senior Crown Court judge who will deal routinely with complex issues every day.

Let me refer to two completed cases that are matters of public record. In 2022 Glencore pleaded guilty to widespread corruption in the oil markets of several African states. Although it was ordered to pay £281 million, not a single penny has been ordered to go back to the communities where the corruption happened, largely because it was held that compensation would be too complicated to quantify. The Airbus deferred prosecution agreement tells a similar story: the company was required to pay £991 million to the United Kingdom in fines, but compensation to the numerous Asian companies where the corruption took place formed no part of the deferred prosecution agreement.

The process for compensating overseas state victims needs urgent simplification so that real money can be returned to them. An answer lies in incentivising the corporations that commit these crimes to pay compensation voluntarily on the understanding that it would not increase the total amount, including penalties and costs, that they would have to pay. The company could be further incentivised by receiving a discount on the fine it would still be required to pay to the UK Treasury, or an increase to the fine if it refused or failed to make redress.

The required changes are straightforward and would cost the taxpayer nothing. We could create a standard measure of compensation that would ensure consistency and transparency, as well as avoiding the difficulty of calculating a specific amount of loss or damage in each case. The compensation figure could equal whichever is the higher of the profit made by the company from its corrupt conduct or the amount of bribes it paid to obtain the profits. This already happens when companies are sentenced, save that all the money goes to the British Treasury. The defendant company would pay nothing more, but at least some of the money would benefit the victim state and its citizens.

This could be achieved by requiring the defendant companies to enter into an agreement with the relevant state that would include obligations to comply with UN guidance on the treatment of compensation funds and to identify projects for which the funds could be used. To encourage states to enter into these types of arrangements, corporations could be permitted to donate the compensation funds to the World Bank or the IMF for projects in the region instead—or to pay down the country’s debt if an agreement cannot otherwise be reached.

The benefit of this approach is that unlike at present, where there is no disadvantage in doing nothing, it puts the onus on the corporates to take restorative action. It also addresses the difficulties in quantifying loss by creating a simple approach that gives companies early sight of the amount they will have to pay.

I am not so naive as to think that compensation paid to some foreign Governments by, for example, British corporate defendants found guilty of overseas bribery in our courts, will necessarily be spent on good causes in that state. I accept that such a scheme might encourage corruption by permitting foreign government officials to benefit from the corruption and then to benefit from the compensation, but the time has come for us to design a scheme to increase dramatically the percentage of recovered money that repairs the damage caused by corporate corruption abroad.

If the Government are serious about placing victims at the heart of the criminal justice system—and I believe they are—that should include an effective, watertight compensation regime that makes a reality of the mantra that corruption is not a victimless crime. Overseas victims of complex financial crime such as corruption are currently finding it far too difficult to be recognised and to receive support and compensation in our courts. Compensation should be returned to those affected by corruption, in line with the principles that the United Kingdom committed to at the Global Forum on Asset Recovery, a continuing by-product of the Anti-Corruption Summit initiated by my noble friend Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton in 2016.

This Bill would be enhanced if victims of complex financial crime and corruption from other jurisdictions were recognised as victims and compensated appropriately. These reforms would comfortably fit into this Bill, I suggest, but they need the political will to amend the sentencing guidelines on corporate corruption. They will need a carefully designed set of rules to implement the practical aspects of the policy. If we do this, we can hold our heads high and enhance our national reputation in the fight against international corruption.

Lord Chancellor and Law Officers (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, and thank her not only for her comprehensive opening remarks and for the committee’s report but for inviting me to give evidence to the committee last year. It is a very balanced report which, if I am right, underlines the importance within our constitution of the roles of both the Lord Chancellor and the law officers in protecting the rule of law. The noble Baroness was entirely right to remind us of the recent occasions when that has broken down. I am also delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Hennessey, in his place, because it means we can benefit from his wisdom this afternoon, and also because, I hope, it suggests that his health has been restored to him. I look forward to hearing from my noble friend the Minister and from other noble Lords speaking this afternoon.

At the risk of doing something unusual, I will talk about myself. I am by no means the only lawyer here, but I believe I am the only person here who can claim membership of the former Solicitors-General club. Long ago, an Attorney-General said that being Attorney-General was the worst job in government and being Solicitor-General was the best. Both have their upsides and downsides, but I have a certain pride that I held an office in the 21st century that was held in the 18th century by my direct ancestor William de Grey. I have inherited his gout but not his intellect: he had what we nowadays call a stellar chancery commercial practice at the Bar and, although in his final years his hands were riddled with gout, preventing him from holding a quill, he was able to give extempore judgments as Lord Chief Justice after long and complex trials that stand the test of time to this day.

Shortly after my appointment in 2010, I was showing off to the then Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that de Grey had been successively Solicitor-General and Attorney-General from 1763 to 1771, under five Prime Ministers. After that, I told him, de Grey became Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas. The noble and learned Lord smiled engagingly and gently reminded me that some apparent precedents are easily distinguished upon their facts.

Before I return to the subject of law officers, I agree with the current Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who said earlier this week at Mansion House—reflecting some of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, a moment ago—that:

“It is my belief that a Lord Chancellor’s primary interest should lie in nurturing the long-term health of the Courts and Tribunals, the legal system and the independence of the judiciary”.


If I had my way, I would return to the Lord Chancellor’s duties doing the things that the noble and learned Lord mentioned. Some would say that the ship carrying that sort of Lord Chancellor has sailed, never to return. I disagree. If it can be changed in one way, it can be changed in another way.

Government departments are frequently repurposed. It simply requires the political will to do it. I would release the Lord Chancellor from the prisons portfolio and the expenditure responsibilities that go with being Secretary of State for Justice, save those connected with the administration of justice. The Lord Chancellor does not need to be an elderly lawyer devoid of ambition; our current Lord Chancellor is, after all, young—at least from where I am looking—but by no means the youngest there has been. He is a very able lawyer, bright and enterprising, and a member of the former Solicitors-General club. Whoever it is, they should be someone with sufficient calibre and character to hold their own in and be listened to with respect by the Cabinet—and someone who does not feel the need to ring up Downing Street for permission to support the judiciary. Elizabeth Truss’s response to the committee, as cited by the noble Baroness a moment ago, was inadequate. I agree with the assessment of the noble Baroness of what one needs in a Lord Chancellor.

In my evidence to the Constitution Committee last year, I said that one of the things I have worried about over the last several years is that the fellowship of lawyers and Members of Parliament, between the judiciary and the Government and the judiciary and Parliament, has gone. We no longer speak the same language. When I took one of the many recent Lord Chancellors to dinner in my inn, they felt like they were going into a foreign country. Not so very long ago, the Lord Chancellor not only would have known most of the people there but would have appointed many of the judges in the room. There was a shared constitutional understanding about their separate roles: the role of Parliament, the role of the Executive and the role of lawyers and the judiciary. That has gone.

It is a great pity, and it discourages members of the Bar and solicitors from entering public life. By that I mean not just those who have law degrees or those who are called to the Bar or admitted as solicitors or advocates in Scotland; I mean those with High Court and appellate practices, men and women of standing within the legal professions who command the respect, if not always the agreement, of the judges they appear before. These people are discouraged from coming into the House of Commons. Why give up a good practice? Why swap all that for the likely inability to continue your practice and, associated with that, the public obloquy that goes with being a Member of Parliament in an era of social media? I know plenty of people much younger than me who would make excellent Members of Parliament, excellent Ministers and excellent law officers, but they will not come anywhere near Parliament because they see it as poison. The consequence is that, although we may from time to time find lawyers of sufficient experience fit to be law officers, it is becoming increasingly difficult.

I was lucky enough to have a London-based practice, which required me to travel no further than the Royal Courts of Justice on the Strand, so I could maintain it to a reasonable level while a Member of Parliament. However, for a criminal barrister with a circuit practice, nowadays it is either Parliament or practice but not both. In 1992, when I first got in, the Whips kindly told me that I could not have two passports: I was either at the Bar or I was a Member of Parliament. I ignored them. But when, for example, my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham was first in the House of Commons, he was in court in Birmingham during the day and in the Commons in the evenings. My late noble and learned friend Lord Rawlinson of Ewell told me that, when he entered the House of Commons in 1955, he was told by the Whips that he was not expected to be present until late afternoon and that, if he did come in, it would be assumed that he had no practice.

More than 40 years ago, Lord Rawlinson, a former Solicitor-General and Attorney-General, led me in a very long libel action that gave us plenty of time to get to know each other. He told me that, when he was appointed Solicitor-General in 1962, the then Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, said, “Remember, you are the last of the Crown officers who remains a Member of the House of Commons”. He then gave him a learned seminar on the history and constitutional role of the law officers. It was made clear that, as Solicitor-General, his first duty was to the Crown, his second was to Parliament and his third—and it was only third—was to the Government of which he was a member. He was told that the Attorney-General is the principal agent for enforcing legal rights and is required to intervene when the public interest, not the Government’s interest, is affected. Sir Hartley Shawcross, one of the great Attorney-Generals, said that

“although the Attorney-General is a member of the government he has certain duties which he cannot abdicate in connection with the administration of the law, especially the criminal law”.

Of course, along with the DPP, the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecution agencies such as the Serious Fraud Office, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General are responsible for criminal prosecutions as part of their quasi-judicial, independent role. Although Dominic Grieve and I made a point of going to court, for example to prosecute in contempt cases and to appear in criminal appeals that had nothing whatever to do with the Government or in the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice to represent the United Kingdom, we wished that we could have done so more often. I think that we appeared in court a good deal more than both our immediate predecessors and those who came after us.

More recently, the law officers have appeared in court only rarely and most often in unduly lenient appeals, but this was an important part of our duties that had nothing whatever to do with our political existence. Neither of us found it difficult to separate ourselves into our respective functions as politically aware but apolitical law officers on the one hand and party-political Members of Parliament on the other. Having a foot in both camps made us more useful advocates and advisers in a way that a Civil Service lawyer could not be.

Mr Cameron appointed me Solicitor-General in 2010 during a three-minute telephone call. Had he had the time to think about it, I am sure that he would have agreed with Macmillan. I certainly tried to keep Harold Macmillan’s advice to Peter Rawlinson in the forefront of my mind when I was Solicitor-General.

To many Ministers and Members of Parliament, the law officers are either mysterious, barely known creatures or an inconvenient reminder that the law of the land applies to them. Like lawyers in private practice, law officers cannot talk in detail about their work, which is confidential to their client—the Government. However, nor should they just say “no”; they should try to be imaginative and help the Government navigate through their difficulties. Their power, if they have any at all, lies in speaking truth unto power and in resignation. The law officers are more like submarines than the ships of the line in the Cabinet: you know that they are down there somewhere, unseen and unheard, quietly going about their business patrolling the murky waters of Whitehall, but, if they surface and their concerns or disagreements with the Government become known to the wider world, either the Government are in trouble or they are.

It is the fate of the law officers, if they behave as law officers and restrain themselves from making excessively political speeches, to be seen by their parliamentary colleagues as part of some mysterious priesthood, out of touch with the cut and thrust of political controversy. Their offices are off Central Lobby, well away from those of the departmental Ministers behind the Speaker’s Chair, and they cannot show off about their work because it is largely confidential. However, they are not vestal virgins or Trappist monks. They are active constituency MPs or legislators in one House or the other.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can I ask the noble and learned Lord to bring his speech to a close?

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I am just doing precisely that. The law officers have party-political allegiances and accept collective government responsibility. Their offices and that of the Lord Chancellor are not bad because they are old; they are old because they are good. So long as we can encourage good lawyers from all parties and all three jurisdictions to come into Parliament—as we actively should—these offices should remain to serve our constitution. Let us therefore work tirelessly to restore that fellowship between the law and Parliament, which has been lost, and do both institutions a favour.

Parole Board Recommendations: Open Conditions

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Thursday 25th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[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.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 25th April 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 80, in my name and those of the noble Lords, Lord Cromwell and Lord Agnew, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans, for whose support I am most grateful.

I will give a little background to set the amendment in context. In the 2021-22 Session, I drafted and introduced a Private Member’s Bill on the issue of SLAPPs, based on the Ontario model, as endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Obviously, I had modified that model to suit the procedures of the civil justice system in England and Wales. Through the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I met with the Under-Secretary of State in the MoJ, James Cartlidge MP, and his officials, and had a very positive meeting with them.

My draft Bill was basically acceptable in principle, but there was one matter, they told me, it did not deal with: the scourge of pre-action threatening letters, designed to inhibit and intimidate journalistic or academic investigation. However, I was told that the Government were proposing a consultation on the issue, and indeed there was a call for evidence on 17 March 2022. It was wide-ranging; there were 48 questions asked of respondents. As it happens, not one referred to the issue of threatening letters prior to proceedings. However, one respondent suggested that any pre-action letter should require a statement of truth, so that any false allegations in the letter could be treated as a contempt of court.

The consultation finished in May of last year, and the MoJ published a full response in July. Dominic Raab said in the foreword:

“Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Protection, or SLAPPs, are a growing threat to freedom of speech and a free press – fundamental liberties that are the lifeblood of our democracy. Typically used by the super-rich, SLAPPs stifle legitimate reporting and debate”.


This is the point that I want to draw to your Lordships’ attention—he continued:

“They are at their most pernicious before cases ever reach a courtroom, with seemingly endless legal letters that threaten our journalists, academics, and campaigners with sky-high costs and damages”.


At the Second Reading of this Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, said:

“The Government are committed to tackling SLAPPs”


—I am sure that is right—

“but as the first country to pursue national legislation on such a complex issue”

—he ignored all the states of the United States, Canada and Australia, where such legislation exists, but never mind about that—

“it is right that we take the necessary time to consider this carefully and make sure we get it right. We will introduce primary legislation to tackle SLAPPs—this is where I am going to upset all noble Lords—as soon as parliamentary time allows”.

Now, I have to admit, I was upset. He continued:

“We are in the process of ensuring that we have anti-SLAPPs legislation which properly and comprehensively addresses the problem”.—[Official Report, 8/2/23; col. 1317]


So when will parliamentary time allow? Certainly not in this Session: it is highly unlikely that it will feature in a programme running up to a general election. So we are looking at years before this legislation can come to pass, although I guarantee that a Liberal Democrat-led Administration would deal with the matter as a priority.

I come to the substance of my amendment. I take the view that the endless stream of threatening letters—the “most pernicious” element, as Mr Raab described it, and really he should know—can be dealt with in the context of this Bill by criminalising their use in the investigation of the crimes set out in Schedule 9. I appreciate that may not cover the whole gamut of strategic litigation, and that a wider Bill will be necessary in due course, but investigative journalism is very much involved in turning over the stones of fraud, money laundering, bribery and the rest, and it is certainly in that area that SLAPPs have most frequently been used.

So the new offence that I propose could not be simpler:

“It is an offence for a person or entity without reasonable excuse to threaten civil litigation against another person or entity with intent to suppress the publication of any information likely to be relevant to the investigation of an economic crime”.


I think that is fairly understandable. The prosecution would have to prove a threat; a solicitor’s letter will speak for itself, and it will be for the jury to decide and judge its contents. Evidence will be necessary, of course, to prove intent, but that raises no more problems than in any other case in which intent has to be proved. Again, it will be a matter for a jury. An evidential burden would be placed on the defendant to raise a reasonable excuse for the prosecution to disprove, and the ultimate burden of proof of guilt would, of course, rest with the prosecution.

I believe that an offence of this nature, simply stated, would immediately result in a change of culture among those reputation lawyers who profited from this type of litigation. Their collective response to the consultation to which I referred was, “Nothing happening here, guv. Threatening? Oh, it’s just the rough and tumble of ordinary litigation”. No longer would the young Turk in the office be able to dash out on his laptop ill-considered threats. He would know that he will have a responsibility to interrogate his client thoroughly before committing his firm to intimidating conduct which would land both him and his senior partners in the dock, with all the reputational consequences for themselves. Further, it would be a great relief to threatened investigative journalists if, instead of having to consult their lawyers at considerable expense, they could make a complaint to the police and allow the criminal law to take its course. We can make this change now and let the great stew of reform of the civil procedure system which is slowly cooking in the MoJ follow “when parliamentary time allows”.

I conclude by strongly supporting the other amendments in this group for the same reasons. These are creating the means to tackle the SLAPPs problem of imbalance, as described in paragraph 15 of the Government’s response to the consultation. This is how the Government put it:

“the extreme power imbalance and inequality of arms between, on the one hand, media organisations, advocacy groups, academics, and journalists and, on the other, Claimant corporations or wealthy individuals who typically bring these cases”.

This group of amendments is designed to do something now—action, as the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, called for on an earlier amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for allowing me to speak before him. I shall speak to the three amendments I have tabled in my name. I should declare that I chair the Communications and Digital Select Committee, and I have tabled those three amendments with the full authority of the committee, because they follow the work that we have done over the past year or so inquiring into the practice of SLAPPs. We have also been in correspondence with the Solicitors Regulation Authority, and that correspondence is available on the committee’s website. 

My amendments are Amendments 87, 88 and 89. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, for signing all three of them and to my noble friend Lord Faulks and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing Amendments 87 and 88. I add, in a personal capacity, that I support the other amendments in this group, both that from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell.

At Second Reading, we heard a comprehensive description of the impact of SLAPPs against journalists and public bodies, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has given us a taste of that in his opening remarks, so I will not go over any of that again.

In very simple terms, looking at our different amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is tackling this from the perspective of the rich and powerful who abuse the legal system; the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, is seeking to introduce provisions that support journalists or public bodies in mounting a defence against that action; and, in my amendments, I am trying to deter and prevent solicitors from supporting anybody, normally the rich and powerful, in bringing forward this action in the first place.

In Amendments 87 and 88, I am trying to make it explicit that solicitors cannot accept clients who want to abuse the legal system and avoid and suppress information that could be relevant to economic crime, by giving the regulator clear power to fine and sanction solicitors who breach that rule. They also make it clear that dirty money cannot be accepted for fees when the purpose of the action could prevent someone being subject to the justice system.

To unpack that a little further and focus on those two amendments, at the moment the SRA can fine traditional law firms and solicitors up to £25,000—we know how small a sum that is for some of the very large and powerful legal firms involved. Strangely, the regulator can fine different types of law firms—what are known as alternative business structures—up to £250 million, but this applies only to that kind of category of firm. There is an odd discrepancy. The Solicitors Regulation Authority recently criticised the inadequacy of the £25,000 limit and called for it to be addressed.

My amendments are very much in line with the aims of the Bill, which already removes the regulator’s fining cap for a narrow set of economic crime transgressions but does not specify that this will be applicable to SLAPP cases relating to economic crime. The SRA has said that the Bill’s tests are tightly drawn and the numbers of relevant cases that will fall within them are limited. My Amendments 87 and 88 make it clear that measures to remove the fining cap for professional misconduct also apply specifically to cases that involve an abuse of the legal process to suppress legitimate reporting on economic crime. Not all SLAPPs are about economic crime but, importantly, the regulator says that around half of its current SLAPP investigations are linked to economic crime. Amendments 87 and 88 therefore provide a sensible and proportionate change that supports the spirit of the Bill and government policy to tackle SLAPPs.

Amendment 89 is about closing loopholes that allow the rich and powerful to abuse our legal system and use criminal funds to pay for it. Throughout our scrutiny of SLAPPs as a committee, I have learned that payment for legal advice is not subject to the same type of money laundering regulation checks as other legal services. The Proceeds of Crime Act apparently does not prevent lawyers accepting dirty money to pursue SLAPP cases or require them to report suspicious activity. We have held evidence sessions on this matter and our witnesses described it as a significant issue. Addressing this is complex because—I say this in a Committee of very distinguished lawyers—everyone should have a right to use our justice system and lawyers will need to be able to represent criminals without prejudicing confidentiality. I understand the argument that I expect lawyers to make on the need for criminals to be able to seek proper support and for questions not necessarily to be asked about money.

--- Later in debate ---

With this Bill, the Government are setting out their commitment and strategy to achieve a significant reduction in economic crime and to increase corporate transparency. A number of speakers on previous days have pointed out what a unique opportunity this Bill is to tackle economic crime. To leave SLAPPs, which protect economic crime and act against transparency, on one side for an undefined “later” to deal with them would be illogical to, frankly, the point of negligence. It would also fly in the face of all the previous government declarations on tackling this issue. Could the drafting of these amendments be improved? That is very likely, but that is not unusual in Committee. The House of Lords is a unique pool of legal expertise, some of it present here today. I know that noble and learned Members and others are interested in dealing the SLAPPS issue and in, above all, getting it right. Between now and Report I would like to draw on this pool, in particular as critical friends, as well as the Minister and his officials. I therefore appeal to the Minister not, as hitherto, just to read out a bland statement but to seize this opportunity to engage with the spirit of these probing amendments so that we arrive at an amendment that is satisfactory, unambiguous and fit for purpose to introduce on Report with government support.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by confessing to having been at the media law Bar for the past 45 years or so, so I know a little bit, but not a huge amount, about the subject we have been discussing. I want to salute the enthusiasm of the noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Cromwell, and my noble friend Lady Stowell of Beeston. As I said at Second Reading, this is a subject that needs to be discussed. It needs a through and very comprehensive debate.

The Long Title of the Bill is:

“A Bill to make provision about economic crime and corporate transparency; to make further provision about companies, limited partnerships and other kinds of corporate entity; and to make provision about the registration of overseas entities”.


Having read that, I go on to admire the ingenuity of the drafter of these amendments to fit them into the Long Title because, whereas there is a debate to be had, and it must be had, about SLAPPs, I question whether this Bill is the appropriate vehicle for that debate. That is a procedural issue.

My second point is that when I began at the defamation Bar in the mid-1970s, the economics of the media world were entirely different. Print media were riding high. They were selling millions of copies. The Sun was selling nearly 10 million copies a day. The Daily Mail, owned by Associated Newspapers, was selling a huge number of copies a day. Social media and online media had not been invented.

I used to be instructed by newspaper groups to go to the Queen’s Bench Masters’ corridor, acting for defendant newspapers, to run up legitimate legal arguments—they were not made up—which were there to starve the claimant, in those days called the plaintiff, out of the claim. The newspapers knew very well that they had a case to answer, but they had more money, so the police officer, schoolteacher or nurse who had allegedly been defamed in the local or national newspaper, unless they had an immensely rich backer, was never going to be able to withstand the onslaught of daily interlocutory applications made against them. Sometimes the master would accede to some of the applications that we made, and sometimes they did not, but the newspaper did not care because it had the cash. The individual—the claimant or plaintiff—did care, and sometimes was frightened off by the prospect of having to spend vast sums of money to recover his or her reputation in court.

The boot is now on the other foot. The print media is impoverished and no longer as rich as it used to be; the regional press is decimated, the local press more or less non-existent, and the national press is under some considerable strain. If you want to make money in the media world, you do not do it by publishing printed newspapers—you do it through the broadcast or online media. What we are now seeing is that those who are in the legitimate, perfectly lawful and praiseworthy business of writing as journalists, and those who publish written journalism in hard copy as publishing companies, are finding it increasingly difficult to withstand the economic might of those who disagree with what they have to say in their newspapers. Do not get me wrong: I entirely sympathise with people such as Catherine Belton, who was sued by various Russians—a range of very rich people. But one would get the impression from listening to the noble Lords who have spoken so far that the courts are weak and feeble arbitrators of the disputes that are before them.

For the last 45 years, I have seen cases struck out—I like the American expression, to strike, that the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, used a moment ago. For the last 45 years, and long before that, before I was out of nappies, Queen’s Bench judges in the High Court in the High Court in London—and I dare say in Edinburgh and Belfast as well—have been striking out cases that were abusive, vexatious or frivolous. What the courts have to deal with is not just the law but the evidence. Just because a worthy defendant complains that they are the victim in a SLAPP case, the court cannot simply take the allegation on the face of it—it has to look at the evidence. By and large, evidence is something that you get to at trial, albeit it that evidence is occasionally tested at the interlocutory stages of an action.

While saluting the enthusiasm of the noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments and who have ingeniously used this Bill to run the argument, I urge the Committee to be cautious, because the number of SLAPP cases is remarkably small compared to the number of writs issued each year. It is important that this Committee does not mislead the public about the extent of the problem. Legitimate claims have repeatedly been incorrectly described as SLAPPs by the media—but of course the media has an interest in calling them SLAPPs, for the economic reason that I have described.

In the recent case of Banks v Cadwalladr, decided by Mrs Justice Steyn only last year, she said:

“Ms Cadwalladr has repeatedly labelled this claim a SLAPP suit, that is a strategic lawsuit against public participation, designed to silence and intimidate her. I have set out a summary of my conclusions in paragraph 416 below. Although, for the reasons I have given, Mr Banks’s claim has failed, his attempt to seek vindication through these proceedings was, in my judgment, legitimate. In circumstances where Ms Cadwalladr has no defence of truth, and her defence of public interest has succeeded only in part, it is neither fair nor apt to describe this as a SLAPP suit”.


Despite this, Mr Banks’s claim continues to be referred to as a SLAPP by large sections of the media. Of even greater concern is the reference by some journalists to individuals taking out what they call SLAPP orders—whatever they might be—echoing the media’s disingenuous campaign against privacy rights, including by pejoratively referring to privacy injunctions or agreed confidentiality clauses as gagging orders.

I do not want to be misunderstood. SLAPPs are a problem, but their prevalence is wildly overstated, and it seems to me—after 45 years of jogging around this racecourse—that solicitors are unlikely to be complicit in many of them. I rather suspect that more solicitors are dealt with by the Law Society, the SRA or the police for stealing client money than for running SLAPP cases.

Let us please just settle down a bit and not get overexcited by the one, two or three Russian oligarchs who have made an allegation that they have been defamed and who, on the evidence, have sometimes been proven right and sometimes wrong. The essential point is that a dispassionate judge, dispassionately looking at the evidence, will make a dispassionate ruling on what he or she has found, as Mrs Justice Steyn did in the Banks case, and the world goes on.

Being sued is indeed expensive and annoying, and it enables lawyers to be instructed and charge fees—I am afraid that is part of the way we do things in this country—but to suggest that SLAPPs are a plague and a menace just on the say-so of one, two or three cases, of which a number of us may or may not disapprove, does not prove the case. There is much work to be done to look into the question of SLAPPs and much debate to be had, but this Bill is not the place to have that debate. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords who have brought forward these amendments because the matter needs to be discussed, but it is not properly discussed within the confines of this Bill.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, speaks as a lawyer. I speak as a journalist, with a long career in newspapers. I declare my interest as chair of the oversight committee at the Financial Times. I assure the noble and learned Lord that the very presence of the possibility of SLAPPs weighs very much on the minds of journalists. As he explained, newspapers no longer have the sort of money that might have funded the types of cases that he described and indeed worked on, but now there are some very important cases that they do need to pursue, and for that reason I very much support all the amendments in this group.

I will give just one example: the case of Wirecard, which was company fraud on a massive scale that cost a lot of people a lot of money. One brave journalist on the Financial Times had pursued the case for a long time, against huge opposition from the company and those around it who were making money from it. His editor was prepared to allow him to continue to pursue the case, at which point the German company hired a well-known London law firm which threatened all sorts of litigation and also criminal proceedings. It accused him, without any base, of having been interested in manipulating the share price of Wirecard in order to make a great deal of money. At that point, the Financial Times was risking a great deal of money and a huge hit to its reputation. The law firm bombarded the company and the journalist with letters threatening all sorts of things, but the Financial Times decided to stick with it. In the end, as we all know, that was the right decision and some people were able to salvage some honest money that would otherwise have been lost to an almighty fraud.

A lot of organisations, not just media organisations, do not have the wherewithal even to contemplate being put in that position. A lot of small NGOs investigating fraud—in many cases financial fraud—do not have the funds to risk getting to the stage where a court might well say that there was no basis to the litigation and throw it out. It is the intimidatory effect of the very existence of this sort of legislation that causes the problem. Therefore, we need to get this legislation on the books as quickly as possible. As noble Lords have said several times, we cannot afford to wait. Here is the perfect piece of legislation to make these few amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Cromwell, said, improvements could be made to them, but the principle must be right. We should go ahead.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Before the next contribution, I apologise to the Committee but I must be in two places at once. I hope the Committee will forgive me for not being here when other speeches are made and the Minister winds up. If that is thought to be very rude, I shall sit here, and there we are, but if I may, would it be—

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

It is unprecedented.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

It is unprecedented and very rude of me, but there seems to be rather a lot going on at the moment.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

I will take 30 seconds to respond to a couple of the noble and learned Lord’s comments while the rest of the Committee decide whether they are happy. Apart from trying to remove from my mind the image that the noble and learned Lord planted earlier of him in his nappies and thanking him for his kind words, I say that he is exactly the kind of critical friend that we need to get this right. However, to suggest that it does not belong in this Bill, which is about economic crime and transparency, which SLAPPs directly impinge on, is disingenuously playing with words. SLAPPs are embedded in our system and directly relate to economic crime and transparency.

On his reference to there being very few cases, I made the point earlier that most cases never see the light of day because people are intimidated. That is exactly the point here. Our courts need defined tests to examine potential SLAPPs and sometimes say “That is not a SLAPP”, and sometimes say, “That is a SLAPP”. Some egregious cases will get that treatment. As my colleague to my left said, it is the threat of the sheer cost of getting to trial, along with all the other intimidatory tactics, such as of truckloads of documents turning up at your house on a Friday night, that we need to dissuade law firms pursuing.

Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. Because she set out the arguments so well and so fully, there is very little more that I need to say—save that, in standing, I want to demonstrate that this is not a party-political issue; this is a matter of constitutional propriety, and I think it is a matter of justice.

I suppose this is a smallish point, but I think that the negative procedure is the wrong way to deal with a statutory instrument of this nature. According to the notes attached to the statutory instrument, this regulation has been in law since the summer, and this is the first time that your Lordships’ House has had an opportunity to discuss it. As we have learned from the noble Baroness’s remarks, this statutory instrument carries with it matters of huge importance which should not just be lightly passed into law.

The second point I draw from her remarks is that, long ago, we got rid of political decision-making in the tariff-setting of life sentences for prisoners, and yet we are now introducing political input into questions which should be dealt with by the Parole Board by a “single view” of the Secretary of State. I suppose there was a time when the Secretary of State for Justice might be expected to know something about the law, but that is no longer the case. Therefore, it seems to me all the more extraordinary that a political Minister should have the power, passed by this little-discussed measure, to have a single view which trumps all others—indeed, shuts out all others.

In essence, I entirely support what the noble Baroness had to say, and I am reasonably certain that most other speakers will as well.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and to reinforce her concerns about recent changes to the parole process.

When it considers a prisoner’s case, the Parole Board has two decisions to make: first, whether to direct the prisoner’s release; and, secondly, whether to recommend that the prisoner should be transferred from a closed prison to an open establishment. The board carries out these functions to an extremely high standard. Its members include current and former judges, police officers, Crown prosecutors, probation officers, psychiatrists, psychologists, lawyers and members of other professions.

All Parole Board members receive thorough training on risk assessment, which is regularly reinforced by risk-focused in-service training. In every case which goes to an oral hearing, the board assesses whether a specialist member—such as a psychiatrist, a psychologist or a member with particular training in terrorism issues—should be on the panel. As a result of this strong focus on effective risk assessment, the proportion of prisoners released on parole who commit a further serious offence is less than 0.5%, which is a remarkable record of the success of the Parole Board in its work. It is difficult to see how any system based on human judgment could produce a significantly better result.

An essential part of the parole process is the provision to the board of reports from specialists working for His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service—including prison staff, probation officers and psychologists—as well as other specialist reports commissioned by the service. These reports contain a detailed assessment of the prisoner’s risk. They include information about the prisoner’s progress in custody, their sentence plan, their risk of reoffending, their risk of serious harm and the arrangements and licence conditions which would be in place if they were released.

In the past, these reports also contained recommendations for or against release on parole and for or against a transfer to open conditions. The Parole Board was not bound to accept these recommendations, as it has a duty to make its own independent assessment of the prisoner’s suitability for release or open conditions. However, it was obviously helpful for the board to receive recommendations from professionals who had particular knowledge of the prisoner because they had worked with him or her on a regular basis during the prisoner’s sentence.

These recommendations have now been prohibited. This decision is totally illogical, since professionals who are commissioned by the prisoner’s legal representatives will not be prohibited from making recommendations. If a prison psychologist assesses the prisoner and believes that he or she is not safe to release, they are prohibited from saying so. However, if an independent psychologist is commissioned by the legal representative to assess the same prisoner and concludes that they are safe to release, they can make a recommendation for release to the Parole Board. In this case, the board would receive only one recommendation from a psychologist, a recommendation in favour of release, as even though the prison psychologist considers that the prisoner remains too dangerous to be released on licence, they are prohibited from saying so to the Parole Board.

This approach is patently nonsensical. It is difficult to see what it has to do with protecting the public or promoting sound decisions. The decision to prohibit these professionals from making recommendations seems to have arisen from the desire of the previous Secretary of State, Dominic Raab, to reject recommendations for open conditions in certain cases, specifically cases where he argued that a move to an open prison would

“undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system”.

This phrase seems to be shorthand for refusing recommendations in high-profile cases because of a fear of adverse media publicity, even when there is strong evidence of the prisoner’s suitability for open conditions.

The former Secretary of State may well have feared that it would look embarrassing if he refused a recommendation for open conditions when his own professional employees in the Prison and Probation Service recommended this. This does not seem to be a very grown-up way of making decisions. ln any organisation, senior leaders are entitled to overrule the recommendations of subordinates if they consider that there is a good reason for doing so. But no sensible leader would prohibit their staff from making recommendations in the first place in areas where the subordinate has particular knowledge and expertise.

The Secretary of State has always been able to reject recommendations for open conditions made by the Parole Board. But it makes no sense for him or his officials and the Parole Board itself to make their decisions in the absence of recommendations from those who have close knowledge of the prisoner. The new Secretary of State should review this change in the parole procedure and reverse it. This would be by far the least of the U-turns which the Government have undertaken in the last few weeks. None of us would be inclined to crow over a sensible reversal of policy of this kind. On the contrary, we would welcome a readiness to change direction after considering reasoned arguments from those with knowledge and experience of the parole system.

I believe strongly that future parole decisions should continue to be based on the accumulated experience and expertise of the Parole Board, informed by reports and recommendations from professionals with close knowledge.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

I apologise for intervening. I forgot to refer to my interests in the register. I am a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust and am connected to a number of other prison welfare bodies.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of my noble friend’s regret Motion, which she moved with such clarity. She speaks with great experience and authority, as she told us at the beginning of her speech.

These regulations, already in force, feel like an attack on the Parole Board. I have been knocking around the legal system for decades, and I know many people who have been, and some who are, judicial members of the Parole Board. I think I reflect their feeling of the Parole Board being under attack from the Government, so I want to start by praising the Parole Board: for its fastidious care over the evidence in cases for which it is responsible; for its determined and proper independence, which is key; and, indeed, for its accepting the increased judicialisation that has made its processes more transparent and public. The Parole Board has moved with the times, and it perfectly understands its responsibilities.

Like others, I want to focus on paragraph (22), which provides that:

“Where considered appropriate, the Secretary of State will present a single view on the prisoner’s suitability for release.”


Even by statutory instrument standards, those are words of breathtaking vagueness. I suggest that this provision is a very unwise and unwelcome change for the following reasons. First, it is nothing less than an unwarranted interference by Ministers with what is clearly, now at least, a judicial process. Nobody can deny that the Parole Board is a judicial process; the issue goes, therefore, to the heart of the separation of powers. The previous Lord Chancellor knew perfectly well that he was attacking the separation of powers. I have, sneakingly, more confidence in his successor, who in my view has operated with some skill in bringing to an end quickly the justified strike by criminal barristers.

As I said a moment ago, the provision is vague. What are the terms of reference that would make it appropriate for a ministerial single view to be given? What does a “single view” mean in this context? Who is actually going to make these decisions? Who is going to prepare the papers to be put in the Minister’s red box? This is such an unclear procedure as to be wholly unacceptable.

Why on earth are report writers such as psychologists, an example already given, those with real knowledge of the prisoner concerned and, by definition, experts themselves to be banned from expressing a written opinion, which, of course, is not more than that—an opinion, not a decision, on the outcome of the case? This seems to me to presage a political reaction to media stories in an attempt to influence the Parole Board. That can have no legitimacy.

Furthermore, these ministerial decisions or recommendations are apparently not binding. What do they really mean? Well, they obviously mean that the Minister does not trust the tribunal, or at least he does not trust the media’s reaction to a decision that may be made by the Parole Board as a tribunal. But it certainly puts unacceptable pressure on the Parole Board.

With those comments in mind, please will the Minister tell us whether the Parole Board was consulted and, if so, whether the Parole Board welcomed these proposals and in what terms? Indeed, I think that we are entitled to know who else was consulted. What did they say? Did anyone support these proposals? If so, who were they and what reasons did they give?

Also, please will the Minister tell us how many cases this is expected to apply to? Is he, as a very experienced and eminent lawyer, comfortable with these changes? Do they accord with the ethical principles that separate Ministers from the courts and tribunals? He should be clear, when he answers, that most responsible commentators and respected NGOs see this as a slippery-slope provision to be deprecated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

In a sense, this is an inter partes procedure, with the Secretary of State on one hand and the prisoner on the other. The Secretary of State, like a party, is putting his view to the board. That is the single view that, in my submission, he is entitled to put.

While I am on the single view, this is likely to refer simply to the very top tier of cases, probably 150 to 200 cases a year out of the many thousands that the Parole Board deals with. It refers to very dangerous, highly sensitive cases of prisoners involving murder, serious violence and so forth. In those cases, it is thought right that the Secretary of State, through his representative before the Parole Board, should be able to present a single overarching view. That is a sensible approach which avoids confusion and uncertainty.

Nothing in any of these reforms prevents or limits the ability of the Parole Board to make the right decision or the ability of the relevant members of staff, whether psychologists, probation officers or whatever, to make the risk assessments or to put in whatever observations they wish within the assessment that they are required to make, except to make the relevant recommendation.

It is not a change that should in any way undermine the system. HMPPS staff will continue to provide reports to the Parole Board. Their reports will still contain the same detailed evidence and assessment of risk as before. The only omission will be a recommendation on what decision the report writer thinks the Parole Board should make. Far from undermining the Parole Board, the intention of these reforms is to draw a sharp distinction between the roles of those who provide evidence and those whose duty it is to assess the evidence and reach a decision. That is the essential background.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

Does my noble and learned friend think it appropriate that a political Minister should be the conveyor of a single view—the only view—on a matter for quasi-judicial discussion?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Secretary of State has an overriding duty to protect the public. In that context, as the guardian of the safety of the public, he is entitled to present his view to the Parole Board, which then decides.

On the second point made by the noble Baroness in relation to the implications for the progression of offenders, the Government’s position is that there is no change. The rules by which prisoners progress through the system and their opportunity for release will continue to be assessed by the Parole Board, as they are at the moment.

On this occasion, I will not go into the open prison/closed prison issue, because that is not the subject of what we are discussing today. On the point we are discussing, this change in the rules about the recommendations, it is a very limited change and is fully in accordance with general principle. HMPPS will continue to provide comprehensive evidence to the Parole Board and factual evidence for the assessment of risk, as before.

Prisoners: Imprisonment for Public Protection Sentences

Lord Garnier Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot go now into details of the action plan which will be published. What I can say is that we are absolutely focused on the sword of Damocles nature of the licence hanging over the prisoner. That is why we brought in the automatic referral. What I can say, though, is that prisoners are recalled from licence only when they exhibit behaviour which makes their risk unmanageable in the community. Over 40% of recalls are in relation to fresh offences committed when on licence.

[Lord Garnier (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, refer to my trusteeship of the Prison Reform Trust. Some years ago, Dame Anne Owers, the former prisons inspector, said that there was a link between humanity and effectiveness. Do the Government have their own view on the link between humanity and effectiveness in relation to the IPP regime? Why do we have to wait for them to be told what to say by the Justice Committee?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I think the link between humanity and effectiveness might lie beyond a short answer to a question. What I can say is that quick fixes—such as retrospectively abolishing the IPP sentence or resentencing IPP offenders—would expose the public to unacceptable risk. We have to recognise that people were given IPP sentences because they were considered dangerous. Having said that, we are working towards making sure that all prisoners subject to an IPP sentence are properly reviewed and their sentences are progressed.