Operation Soteria

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her Question and for giving me of her time yesterday at our informal engagement so that she could outline the thinking behind this Question on an exceptionally important topic. She asked about introducing specialist courts for sexual violence; we have already completed a national rollout of pre-recorded evidence, which spares victims the ordeal of having to appear in a live courtroom and assists them in giving their evidence to the best effect. We will update the victims’ code so that CPS prosecution teams must meet with rape victims ahead of court cases to answer their questions and allay any concerns that they may have. In the next phase of our specialist sexual violence support project, we will ensure that participating Crown Courts have the option to remotely observe a sentencing hearing by videolink, and that will be available to any victim of crime who seeks it, subject to the agreement of the judge.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, there certainly are some improvements—and that is to be commended—but they are incremental against, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, the stages of the process. It is a particularly difficult set of crimes to investigate, often because of the consent issue where there is an existing relationship or, alternatively, because 70% of the victims are vulnerable at the time of the attack; in fact, they are often selected because of age, infirmity, alcohol or whatever. I wonder whether it is time for the Law Commission to consider whether the law fits the nature of the crime and whether it would allow research with juries to understand why they do not convict in some of these cases—something that is not allowed now. Otherwise, I think both the investigators and the prosecutors are getting worried about the prejudices exhibited sometimes by juries and therefore the charges do not go forward and the whole system stops. I just wonder whether it is time for an objective look at the crime as well as the investigation.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am again grateful for that contribution from the noble Lord, who of course speaks from his professional insight and great experience in investigating and superintending police officers working on this. I am aware that there is objective data about jury responses to crimes available which is the result of meticulous study in England and Wales. I can also assure the noble Lord and the House that we as a Government are working with the Law Commissions in relation to that.

Rape Trials

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the expression “misogyny”, and the extent, meaning and parameters of that expression, are currently under consideration. Beyond that I do not intend to provide any further answer.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, what are the chances of investigating and prosecuting serious sexual offences when 70% of victims are regarded at the time of the attack as vulnerable, sometimes due to alcohol and sometimes to age or mental illness? This means that the prosecution decisions can be quite difficult when the account of the victim is regarded as inconsistent. We never know how juries accept their evidence, and we never have any research into how juries reach their verdicts. I wonder whether this area is something on which the Government would consider instigating proper research to find out what it is that influences a jury. It is not always the things that we believe make a difference.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I can tell the House that there is work currently under way by the Law Commission to address misconceptions in this field. The expression often used is “rape myths”, although I am not sure that I am especially fond of that. I think “misconceptions” better addresses and refers to the topic raised by the noble Lord.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)]

My Lords, I briefly but strongly support Amendment 292D, but not the other two—I say that without needing much elaboration. I have two main reasons for supporting Amendment 292D. First, it is promoted by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for whom I always have the greatest regard. He now has the expertise and experience of this job, so his judgment on it, as he knows what he is talking about, is surely worth listening to. We should take advantage of the expertise that he now has in this field and his appreciation of the crunch issues that are involved.

The second main reason is this: I am generally against these absolutist or purist positions such as those adopted uniquely—it appears—in this legislation. Once you have sinned, you are out for life. It is ridiculous. Some small measure of discretion or flexibility is generally an advantage. Of course, it is unlikely to happen that often, but we have surely heard two wholly compelling instances where it is a flagrant injustice to say to these people, now in maturity, having served the public, that because of one slight error in their youth and having strayed once they are never eligible again. This is a point of genuine principle: we ought not to pass this opportunity of putting it right.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bach, in his amendment. He could have added police officers to his list of occupations that would not have been barred. He chose not to, but it seems rather odd that only police and crime commissioners can be excluded entirely by a previous conviction.

I do not agree with the amendments proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Harris, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I do not know whether I have unique experience, but certainly I have experienced both police authorities and PCCs as a chief constable and then as a commissioner. Having been the person held to account, I am probably the person to whom you would least listen—I may have the most prejudice. I find both roles to be about equally effective and, frankly, equally ineffective.

Police authorities had the great benefit that they were a broadly based group of people, rather than one person. They were not directly elected, but they tended to create an awful lot of committees. The consequence of creating committees is that things take an awfully long time: that may not be understood here, but people take a lot of time to make decisions. That was my experience. Police and crime commissioners, where you could get a good relationship, tended to make quicker decisions, but, frankly, in somewhere like London, they struggled to be representative of the nearly 9 million people or to hold all the views—particularly of minorities —through one person. That was a challenge, but it could be overcome at times. Certainly in London, which was my latest experience, there has been a plethora of accountability regimes, whether it be a police and crime commissioner selected by the mayor, the Home Secretary, 32 local authorities, the police and crime scrutiny committee and a number of committees of Parliament. I am not sure that that made it better accountability; it just made more of it.

We ought to think carefully about how we govern the police. I am not sure that this is the best way to address that problem. It could be improved, but I am not sure that this is the best way. There are three reasons for this. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is the fact that you are only getting one applicant for the role of chief constable good evidence that this is because of PCCs? It may be, but I think that it is more to do with the fact that the officers who are applying believe that the solutions have already been determined. They believe that the police and crime commissioners, usually with the sitting deputy, are going to select that person, whereas in the past, with police authorities, at least there was a broad spectrum of people and it was far harder to arrange a conspiracy. I think that it is good evidence, but perhaps for the wrong reason. It is a problem that needs to be addressed and it is not helping the police leadership to develop in the future.

My objections to the amendment are around logistics. If we end up having a referendum at every PCC election, the danger is that we will end up around the country with a mixed tapestry of governance. In some places it would be PCCs and in some places it would be police authorities. We might even flip them at the succeeding election, although I guess that you would not get one if you had a police authority—there would not be another opportunity to have a referendum and then reselect a PCC.

In our current police tapestry, we have 46 forces, 43 of which have local accountability. This has to happen nationally, whether it be the police authorities or PCCs; we need to make national arrangements to govern these things. We already have a complicated arrangement: with 46 governance sets—with different governance sets as well—that is a tapestry too far.

If these things are to be changed, we should look at it properly, and in the round. We should see what has worked and what has not to make improvements. What we should not do is decide it locally. This is a role for government; the governance of the police should be set centrally. There may be local affiliations, but the Government have responsibility to set the governance of the police. As I have said before, I would have far fewer police forces, which might make this a little easier. Whether one agrees with that or not, I would not have a referendum every time a PCC is elected.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, I endorse every word of what the noble Baroness just said. In a previous incarnation—that is probably the wrong phrase to use; I am mixing my religions—I was a professional linguist in Russian, German and French, working in government service. One of the things you learn as a professional linguist is that language goes deep. This is not simply a matter of picking someone off the street who can order a pint in a Spanish bar; you are dealing with the stuff of people’s lives. Surely accuracy is vital, for the sake of not only clarity of understanding but justice itself.

I could give many examples of how this works. There is the difference between translation and interpreting. Interpreting goes deep, because you have to understand that some things cannot be translated. That is how language works.

I will not trespass on eternity here, but will simply say that justice, whatever the logistical problems highlighted a moment ago, demands that people have clarity of understanding and expression in courts of law. I endorse every word that was said in the last speech.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

I too support this amendment. I was really surprised that there is not already a standard and that this is not consistent across the criminal justice system. When the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, explained that the Metropolitan Police had already taken the lead on this, I was hoping that that was during my time, but it was not. However, I think this is a good idea. This is about not only high and consistent standards but experience—experience within the criminal justice system will be relevant at various times—and integrity. These people will have access to private and confidential information. For all those reasons, it is important that there is a consistent, high standard.

Each part of the system, whether the police, prosecutors, defence, courts, judge or jury, requires this to happen consistently. It seems amazing that at the moment they are not able to rely on the same interpretation or translation of the same material. That seems odd. At least in the case of the police, you can go back and check some of the original evidence. Body-worn video, CCTV or audio recordings of the interview might be available, so someone can go back and check. However, as far as I am aware, that is not the case in court. There is a written record, but that in itself is open to interpretation and is not always entirely accurate.

There are things that feed into the criminal justice system which are also important and rely on the contribution of the individual and what they say, for example psychiatric assessments. These can be vital in determining whether someone is guilty or so psychiatrically ill that they should not be held guilty for their actions and in determining what actions will follow a sentence.

This is not a minority issue, particularly in London. The last time I saw the figures, around 27% of the 250,000 arrests carried out by the Metropolitan Police every year are of foreign nationals. There is then at least a risk that they are speaking a second language, not their first, which imposes certain challenges on the whole system. It is vital that they, as well as witnesses and all the other people who play a vital role in the criminal justice system, are able to be heard.

Finally, it seems to me that this is particularly pertinent in an adversarial system which relies an awful lot on cross-examination. Are mistakes made in court? Is consistency observed between the original account and those given by various witnesses? Language is very important. We would all say so, but I would say it is even more important in an adversarial system, which sometimes seeks to cause inconsistency in the account that is given. This creates an even bigger burden for the system to make sure that the account of the language is of the highest standard available. It is important that the Government create such a system, so I support this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Hypothetically, yes, but I hesitate to give the noble Lord a definite commitment on that, as my information on these points is substantially in answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness. But, if the noble Lord will permit me, in exploring these important points, I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice writes to him and that there is a meeting with the noble Baroness, as she sought, to discuss with her the future of this amendment. I hope that that answer will satisfy both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

Just to continue on that point, it is important to bear in mind that we are reviewing and engaging in consultation with various bodies. But we need to take into account the broad-ranging needs of the Ministry of Justice and to ensure that we have a service appropriate for the wide range of circumstances and the various commissioning bodies to which I have made reference. There are concerns that mandatory NRPSI membership may give unnecessary control over the supply chain, and the police interpretation contract does not require interpreters to be NRPSI registered. We need to complete a full and objective assessment of MoJ needs across the board and not to introduce NRPSI standards when we do not know what impact they might have on the overall justice system.

The Ministry of Justice is looking constantly to improve the service for users and to work collaboratively with interpreter membership organisations and language service providers to ensure that the short, medium and long-term service needs of the criminal justice system are met. Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service is starting up a language services future pipeline working group, which will focus on the issue of securing suitably qualified interpreters in the long term.

I will develop that point. As the single biggest public sector user of language services, we believe it is important for the Government to encourage new entrants into the interpreting profession and to provide them with appropriate opportunities to build up their experience levels and to maintain standards of excellence. We have an independent quality assurance supplier, which has recently developed a subsidised trainee scheme, encouraging qualification in languages that are in high demand in our courts. We will continue to work with it, and with other organisations, to improve our service and to ensure it provides access to suitably qualified interpreters in the future. The arrangements that we have in place are designed specifically to ensure that our courts and tribunals are supported by high-quality language service interpretation that meets the needs of all our court users, both now and in the future.

I turn now to some of the submissions made by your Lordships in Committee. I fully accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on the distinction between translation and interpreting. But on the submission made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Hogan-Howe, I return to the point that there is a wide range of functions which interpreting has to carry out. With the greatest of respect, each of those noble Lords answering on this point predicated their submission on the fact that we were talking about translation at the very highest level—at the most important level of translating a potentially complex criminal trial.

In response to point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, again I accept that the single function of an interpreter in these circumstances is to act as a conduit by which English may be rendered into a foreign language and the foreign language rendered as accurately as it may be into English in order to assist the court. Again, that is at the very top end of the spectrum. Lower down, in simpler and more straightforward functions that I identified—the most elementary part of the range of needs that I discussed—it may well be that some well-meaning attempt to intervene and to assist, such as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, discussed, might be appropriate. I am thinking of the simple telephone inquiry that I referred to.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just two points that I would like to have clarified. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, proposes a consistent high standard. I was not sure from the Minister’s response what the equivalent is in the contract. I hear that there is one, but I do not know what it is.

The second point is that there might be a spectrum of quality of interpretation. I understand that in a broad sense, but if that was to include the magistrates’ court, there are two issues there. First of all, someone’s liberty is at risk for six months and, in any case, they could be committed to a higher court for a more substantial penalty, should the magistrate decide to do that. Finally, as we have heard only today, if we look at things such as inquests, they can have very substantial consequences both for the people who apply to them and for the people who might be judged by them.

I am not quite sure about either of those points. First of all, what is the standard? Secondly, is it true to say it is always such a wide spread of necessity, given the importance to the victim, the suspect or the witness, in each of these cases?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

As I think I have said, the contract provides that, at the highest level, the standard is commensurate with that of the NRPSI. In answer to the noble Lord’s second point, of course none of that interrupts anything that I have said about the importance of identifying the point at which interpretation facilities suitable for the most complex case is to be found. Simply because a matter is not being tried at the Crown Court does not mean that it would not engage the need for the most detailed, able and comprehensive of interpreting facilities.

In closing, I can, as I said earlier, indicate that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister dealing with this matter, will meet the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who is proposing the amendment. In the circumstances, I ask her to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I broadly support this Bill, with one area of discomfort and one suggestion for improving the system of controlling the danger of released convicted terrorists. The three recent incidents at Fishmongers’ Hall, Whitemoor prison and Streatham remind us of the continuing threat from Islamism and the terrorism associated with it.

For five to six years, I have been concerned about two major threats, one of which these cases represent, and that is the wave we are now experiencing of releases from prison of people arrested on short sentences over the last few years. The second is the return of foreign fighters; 20,000 Europeans went to Syria in the hope of a caliphate, and the street-level terrorist attacks we saw in the succeeding years in the UK and across Europe were profound things that have affected our society. Both are things that we needed to plan for and that we are now experiencing in real time.

I suspect that many people would have been surprised that those convicted of terrorism and given determinate sentences were automatically released halfway through their sentences. It cannot have been easy for the Prison Service, trying to impose a disciplined regime without a lever to affect their behaviour that had some effect on their release date. The requirement for the Parole Board to consider whether it is safe for a terrorist prisoner to be released is essential and long overdue. The Government propose that this should take place two-thirds of the way through the sentence. I agree, as that is a more significant period. It allows the gravity of the offence to be recognised and any attempts at deradicalisation to take place. Most importantly, it keeps the public safe for longer.

I admit to some discomfort at the retrospective nature of this legislation. It is important—though some would say it was a fine point—that the ECHR forbids the retrospective extension of sentences because, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the prisoner and their family the outcome would be the same. In this country, on the whole we have succeeded in maintaining the majority support of our minority communities by incrementally and forensically changing the law to confront the latest terrorist behaviour. Any apparent breach of a fair approach can be a recruitment aid for radicalisers and terrorist groups, as we experienced with internment in Northern Ireland. However, on balance I believe that our national security requires this change now to keep the public safe, and the impact on convicted prisoners is not disproportionate or unreasonable.

The Government’s argument would be stronger if they made clear arguments about what they would do with the longer time these prisoners are to be kept in prison for. Three areas need constructive ideas to be developed in the remaining months before these prisoners are released. First, as has already been stated, deradicalisation in our prison system appears at best to be stalled. It is not working, as these three cases sadly show.

Secondly, the assessment of whether someone remains dangerous at the point of giving them a licence or at the end of that licence does not appear to be working either. Neither of these issues is easy, but there are other places in the world which have dealt with them more effectively.

Finally, I think that we should set up a new unit to monitor and control those released prisoners throughout their licence period. We cannot leave it entirely to the probation service. There is a risk that released prisoners will not feature highly on the priorities of either the security services or the police, who are monitoring thousands of individuals and are said to have hundreds of live operations while also attempting to obtain convictions in those live operations.

Such a unit could be modelled on the Metropolitan Police’s fixated-individuals department, which has been in existence for at least 20 years. That is led by the police but has consultant psychiatrists and mental health nurses to manage those fixated on royalty and those in diplomatic or government positions. I would add surveillance and technical monitoring dedicated solely to monitoring terrorists on their point of release, because the numbers will grow and therefore the risk is likely to be magnified.

We need a new approach, and part of that will be about a psychiatric assessment. Such an assessment already takes place in the Prevent space, where a pilot is taking place, and it certainly takes place in live operations, where the security services and the police struggle to know when it is the right time to make an arrest or intervene in the behaviour of someone who seems to have terrorist inclinations.

I was attracted by the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Anderson that, instead of keeping people in prison, we could extend their licence period. However, I am not persuaded, for several reasons. First, presumably one of the reasons for suggesting this is because better or stronger licence conditions is less intrusive than prison, but I would prefer them to be in prison and the risk removed altogether rather than managed. Secondly, we have already accepted that the test for whether someone is dangerous is very hard to achieve. Therefore, if we still have to apply that test at the end of the period of detention, the proposal of my noble friend Lord Anderson would be less persuasive. Also, the probation service does not have the system in place that he would prefer, and I doubt that it will be put in place over the next few days, which is the period we are talking about. Therefore, that system would not be there to mitigate any risk from letting people out, even if we thought that there may be of some level of danger. Thirdly, both systems may have legal challenge if one accepts the theory that by changing the terms of the sentence at some point there may be a legal challenge to even that type of change. If there is to be a legal challenge, it would probably be best to make the change effective rather than worry that some of these people might kill after they are released.

Finally, the proposed changes, which are broadly proportionate and reasonable, are unlikely to be a better recruiting sergeant than anything else that has happened recently. While there may be some risk, it is not profound and, on balance, the Government’s proposal is reasonable, and I therefore support it.

Streatham Incident

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in commending the response particularly of the firearms officers yesterday. They make very quick decisions in very difficult circumstances. I am sure we all feel as though they had taken great steps.

However, yesterday’s events showed how difficult it is, even when surveillance is in place within what seems to be touching distance, to control dangerous people on the streets. We should not overreact after the two events, in November and now again in February. We need to ask three questions.

The first is the exam question. None of these comments is intended to be critical of the system or individuals, but how can the system allow the release part way through a sentence of someone who, within hours of their release, the police and security services have concluded requires surveillance, and allow them to wander around the streets of this city or any other, given that we do not have thousands of surveillance officers? There is a fairly limited resource, so they had to price in a pretty high bar before they got this commitment, yet the state has said they are okay to be released from part of their sentence. That is an unfortunate juxtaposition which I am sure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned, needs to be addressed.

However, one day those people will come out, whether or not they serve more of their sentence, so we still have to consider what we will do for and with them. The deradicalisation work needs a complete quantum leap. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, said that it needs more resources; I am afraid that it needs a complete rethink and refresh. It is not just resource; the sad reality is that we are not sure whether people have been deradicalised or what works. There are international examples of it working and we could learn much from them, but we have to have a root-and-branch look at it.

Finally, we need to consider control orders, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, although I do not necessarily agree with him. Having a period of home imprisonment or incarceration may be a halfway house. However, control orders are designed for people who have not yet been convicted of or charged with offences but who are dangerous. Whether it is the old ones, to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred, or the new ones, they are available. There are precious few of them in place, because they drag resources with them. At times, people will argue for internment, but these orders can make a difference where somebody is not charged or convicted. The licence conditions and MAPPA conditions mentioned by the Minister are not sufficiently strong for this type of offender.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord makes a very good point; this type of offender presents very particular issues and challenges. However, when looking at release and sentencing, we have to remember that there has to be a balance of rights. We must always acknowledge our adherence to the rule of law. No matter what the immediate consequences may be, we have to have regard to the wider consequences to civil society of any departure from our adherence to the rule of law, but this creates considerable challenges.

I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of deradicalisation and the need to try to develop our policy and approach to it; perhaps we should rethink it.

I go back to what I said before on control orders. I do not want to comment on the immediate case because it is still under investigation and report but, in the context of post-sentence release, I nevertheless emphasise that we now have a system of licensing conditions which can impose stringent controls on an individual after their release from custody.

Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019

Lord Hogan-Howe Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for his explanation of the order. I agree with almost all of what noble Lords have said, but I part company in respect of austerity. In 2010, we were bust: about £1 in every £4 was being borrowed, according to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it was not sustainable. Painful cuts had to be made everywhere—and I am afraid that the party opposite is responsible for that.

It is unfortunate that there was not proper consultation on this order, because the feedback that Ministers would have received might have dissuaded them from taking this course of action. We cannot amend the SI—that is perfectly proper—but we need not worry too much because we will have a sentencing Bill fairly soon and that will give us a great opportunity to look at these matters in detail.

My noble and learned friend said that these changes would provide more time for rehabilitation prior to release. We have all read the chief inspector’s report. Very frequently, in respect of purposeful activity, it is said that it is boring, repetitive and often not relevant to employment on release, or words to that effect.

I have spent the last two years taking a very close look at the UK’s prison system, and I have concluded that it is fundamentally flawed from top to bottom. It is truly terrible. The rehabilitation efforts are pitiful, partially because it is so difficult to do it in the current prison system. Longer sentences will only make matters worse. How could anything else be the case?

I worry that these changes might make it more difficult to maintain discipline in prisons, because there will be less time available to add to a sentence in the case of misconduct. I fear that this is a foolish policy, for all the reasons so well articulated by noble Lords.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have always been a fairly hard-nosed enforcer in terms of policing and thought that punishment was really important as part of a sentence. However, I am not sure that I support these measures. With around 85,000 people in prison, there are far too many already.

Prison broadly fails. Having 85,000 in prison is at least one mark of success of the criminal justice system. It is often complained that the police arrest no one, the Crown prosecutors charge no one, the courts find no one guilty and even if they do, they never put them in prison. Well, 85,000 people got there somehow, and they have been increasing in large numbers over the last 30 years, so I think that, by one measure, we ought to have confidence that the criminal justice system can work.

But I am afraid that the prison system is failing. It has failed because the proportion of people who commit offences within two years of release is well over 80%. It is the least effective form of preventing recidivism of all the forms we know, and it is the most expensive. Of those who go into prison, two-thirds have a drug habit, but by the time they leave 80% do. One of the most secure places in the country cannot stop drugs getting in, it appears.

My brief final thoughts are these. It seems to me that if we are to take this measure—and I understand why there is some intuitive support—then there have to be some of the counterbalancing measures that some noble Lords have discussed. First, we have to look at sentencing guidelines. These have always drifted upwards. I cannot remember the last announcement from the Government that said, “This prison sentence is far too long, and it is about time we reduced it.”

Secondly, the only people who think that prison is a pleasant place are people who have never visited one. Whether it is four, six or eight years is almost immaterial, but there needs to be honesty in sentencing. What happens now is that people are announced to be going to prison for 14 years when what is meant is that you are going for seven and, in the event that you misbehave in prison, you will stay for 14. It is far better to be honest and transparent in those announcements.

Thirdly, I would invest in technology post release, such as the sobriety scheme we discussed briefly yesterday that monitors people’s alcohol intake, their drug intake and sometimes, perhaps, if they have a mental illness, whether they have taken their medication. These are things that really can have an impact on release.

Finally—and this may seem to be an abstract point, but I think it is really important—one reason we are having so many difficulties, I am afraid, in controlling our prison population is to do with the corruption of some of the staff. I do not say that they are all corrupt, because that would be very unfair, but I am afraid that the Prison Service lacks a prison investigation command. The last Prisons Minister did instigate a prisons intelligence system to look at corruption, but it is no good having intelligence that no one is going to investigate. Many of our prisons sit in rural areas with our smallest forces, and they do not regard it as a priority to look at prison staff corruption and see whether there is a criminal act taking place. I urge the Government to look at that seriously.

Perhaps if we were able, even if we were to extend the period before a licence is considered, to reduce the overall prison population by changes in sentencing, the savings we would make could be invested in some of the things we have all talked about today. It would be wise to make sure that we are safer in the future and that we have a more liberal approach to the detaining of people who are, at the end of the day, convicted of serious offences.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I can be short, as a small mercy to the Minister, because so much has been said with such force in this debate. As was alluded to earlier, there is so much said about the democratic deficit of an unelected second Chamber, but the one thing we might occasionally say in return is that this is a place where it is possible to have a thoughtful, rational, dispassionate and at times passionate debate about law and order, including what works and might work, including rehabilitation and some of the other concerns that have been so well expressed today. It is invidious to pick out a particular speech, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will have to forgive me: he will not thank me for saying that he was perhaps the greatest Conservative Justice Secretary or Home Secretary that we never had.

I can adopt a lot of what has been said, with perhaps one slight distinction. If this were proper populism, why would the dial be moved from the 50% point to the two-thirds point? Will that really satisfy any proper populist instinct in the population? If this is really about chasing headlines, the difference between automatic release at the 50% point and the two-thirds point will not work for very long. If this were to be a proper “hang ’em, flog ’em, throw away the key” kind of policy, or if it were about what was once called honesty or transparency in sentencing, why have automatic release at all?

The Minister quite rightly addressed the value of early release in allowing a period of supervision in the community. I suggest that it also incentivises good behaviour in prison and engagement with regimes that can help cut reoffending post sentence. But that kind of incentive is achieved by a discretionary release, not by automatic release.

As always, I have the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, ringing in my ears, as they are designed to do. He quite rightly pointed out that Governments of both persuasions have at times conducted an arms race on law and order, including sentencing. One of the consequences is that you have long sentences to chase the headlines and then automatic release because of overstuffed prisons. That is a ratchet which both sides in politics have contributed to in recent years, and it is not desirable going forward.

If this were proper populism, it would be about complete transparency and no early release. If it were more enlightened, it would be about discretionary release for more serious offenders; however, again, you would then need resources for the Parole Board—or whoever the decision-maker would be—to determine on a case-by-case basis whether people are safe for release.

I have caught the eye of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She and I know from other debates and tragic cases the dangers of releasing dangerous people early in terms of the ramifications for subsequent victims and so on. It is not wrong of the public to be concerned about that. Building public confidence in sentencing is not populist per se, if we build that confidence properly by reducing reoffending. We have heard from all sides of this House how this measure is not likely to reduce offending.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he takes issue with debates about austerity. Fair enough. We do not need to do that in this debate, because on the Government’s own case this measure will, I think, cost £680 million. The question in my mind is whether this is the best way to spend that £680 million to protect people, look after victims and make the country a little safer.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but we should consider this given the current state of the criminal justice system—and not just the prisons. I know that the contribution on this of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was slightly light-hearted; we do not really measure the success of the criminal justice system by how many people are in prison, not least when rape victims are feeling so let down at the moment and we have, I think, the worst conviction rates on record. I ask myself what £680 million could have done if directed towards rape investigation and prosecution in particular, given how difficult they are.

I do not want to pretend that this is the most fundamental principle being breached by this instrument because, as I say, whether it is automatic early release at 50% or 75% of your sentence, this is just a wasted opportunity. It does not seem at the moment to sit in a broader context of an enlightened approach to these matters.

For reasons that I consider deeply painful and unfortunate, this Government now have a really huge opportunity, if they choose to take it, to turn down the ratchet on law and order. They do not need to play to this imaginary or real gallery. They have an opportunity for some considerable time to change the debate on law and order. That is not to deny public concern about crime but to meet that concern properly, not with a headline or by moving the dial on automatic early release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point but to investigate and work to reduce reoffending, including by investing in community orders and so on and so forth.

This order is therefore a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Minister will not consider it an irritation or an impertinence that some remarks have been made robustly; I do not believe it is because anyone believes that a populist heart beats inside him but because this House, of all places in public debate, cares very much about trying to change the discourse and policy in law and order and about doing something positive with the platform that we have.