Special Immigration Appeals Commission (Procedure) (Amendment) Rules 2018

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Wednesday 23rd May 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I will be very brief. We note that these changes are supported by the judge who chairs SIAC, Mrs Justice Laing, and whatever we may think about the closed material procedure, the changes themselves are clearly sensible.

I use this opportunity to suggest that it is very important that closed material procedure be used only as a last resort and in cases of necessity. I note that only 14 cases have been before SIAC in the year under consideration, and that itself is a helpful indication.

On the implementation of the changes to immigration bail under Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016, it is plainly sensible that there should be arrangements for the commission to grant bail. “Financial condition” is sensible terminology that is much better than “recognizances”, if I may say so. We also think it sensible that there should be arrangements for the amendment or variation of bail conditions in appropriate cases.

The Minister is plainly right that leap-frogging is a useful procedure that is used in other courts and jurisdictions. Where there is a point of law of public importance or binding authority that would prevent a decision at a lower level than a Supreme Court, it is plainly sensible that the Supreme Court should be the first port of call in cases that are so certified by the commission, and where the importance of the case warrants it.

We also applaud the longer time limits. The time limit was five days for appellants who were in detention and 10 days otherwise. Fourteen days is a very short time limit, but it is at least a little longer, and it is of course important that appellants have a chance to consider their appeals and their applications for a certificate under the legislation before they have to make the application. However, broadly, we support this statutory instrument.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I have one brief question, about the role of the special advocates. When we discussed the Justice and Security Act, one of the drawbacks of the special advocate procedure, very good though it was, was the inability to re-interview the client after an initial briefing. Does that proviso still work in these cases? In the case of an immigration appeal, are special advocates still unable to re-interview their client to find out their views on the information that has been put before them?

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Does the noble Lord accept the argument that the quantum of damages is essentially a political decision that should be taken and justified in Parliament, not taken by judges in courts? How do aggrieved people achieve change there? We know how they achieve change in a political situation: they can lobby their Member of Parliament and get change. Is the noble Lord saying that this must be left to the judges and that we have no way of obtaining redress for decisions that an individual might feel are unfair or inaccurate?

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

Absolutely not. The Judicial College can respond, and be required to respond, to political guidance if Parliament chooses to legislate on the level of damages. I do not say that that is what is wrong. My concern is about the fairness and comparability of picking out whiplash injuries in an attack on fraud and reducing the compensation to genuine claimants accordingly. My point about the £225 and £450 figures—

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Monday 21st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 42H is in this group, which I tabled in a rather more inquiring—and perhaps a rather less decided—frame of mind than the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Ramsbotham. I am not yet certain that there is not a role for new thinking on some commercial operations in these new institutions. I begin by apologising to the House for not having participated in proceedings on this Bill so far.

Amendment 42H is concerned with ensuring a high-quality educational experience for young people in these new institutions. As we have heard, this links into Amendments 44A, 44B and, to a lesser extent, Amendments 47 and 48. My interest in this topic comes from my involvement with the all-party parliamentary group on prisons, of which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is the chairman. From time to time, the group hears presentations which are exceptionally powerful and persuasive. The presentation of relevance to my being here tonight was given by the Prisoners’ Education Trust, with whose help I have tabled this probing amendment.

It is, I think, generally accepted that having somewhere to live and a job to go to are the most significant factors in reducing reoffending. As a subset of this, research shows that the higher the level of educational achievement, the higher the likelihood of finding employment. Therefore, I entirely endorse, and very much welcome, the Government’s commitment to improve the educational journey for young offenders. This probing amendment is designed to discover how things will work at a practical level in the context of the secure colleges that are proposed to be established under Clause 29.

It seems to me the first set of challenges revolves around location. Noble Lords have pointed out that young offenders in larger secure colleges may well be at some distance from the homes to which they will return at the end of their sentence. How will the continued education of those young people be linked into their local authority and/or other community support programmes? In addition, given the recognition of the useful role that release on temporary licence plays in rehabilitation, which seems to me entirely sensible, how will that fit in with a continued and progressive educational experience?

Secondly, within the institutions themselves, there seems to be a number of challenges to providing this worthwhile educational experience. As the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, there is the shifting nature of the population, with young offenders arriving and departing in a way that may be educationally disruptive and not at all helpful to a scholastic timetable. As the number of young people in custody decreases, there is also the likelihood that the residual number may be particularly disturbed and troubled, and therefore the emergence of gang culture may well become prevalent. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us his thoughts on how that could be tackled, and whether there are sufficient resources so to do.

Of course, one way to address these various challenges would be to increase the use of IT-based distance learning. It is a field which continues to develop very quickly. New IT approaches can capture the imagination of young people in a way that the more conventional pedagogic approach does not, and can therefore play a valuable role in supplementing the latter, more formal approach. Further, an online tutor could also help overcome the problems of transitioning to the community from the secure college. However, I am given to understand—the Prisoners’ Education Trust is concerned about this—that the Government have reservations about increasing these young people’s exposure to distance learning. Will my noble friend tell the House whether this revolves around the cost of the system, the availability of suitably trained personnel or, perhaps more prosaically, issues of IT security?

As I said at the outset, I am convinced that improving educational performance provides a significant chance of reducing reoffending among young people. Therefore, I welcome the Government’s commitment to it. It will require some fresh organisational thinking, which is why I think commercial activities might be helpful—especially, as we have heard already, in the context of these larger secure colleges.

To address this, my amendment proposes a requirement to establish an individual learning plan. In turn, the construction of the ILP will have to involve all relevant bodies, statutory and non-statutory. It will require the assessing of the individual’s prior educational achievement and, finally, a path for that individual’s future demands. In the amendment I argue that this customised approach is likely to provide the most efficient and cost-effective way forward.

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

My Lords, in this group I speak principally to Amendment 43C in my name, and in the names of my noble friends Lady Linklater, Lord Carlile and Lord Dholakia.

In spite of the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to the effect that our amendment was unduly complex—

Financial Crime: Legislation

Debate between Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Thursday 17th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, in no year since the turn of the century have there been more than 25 successful prosecutions for bribery in England and Wales. Indeed, in 2005 there was only one. Those numbers are ludicrously small. Anyone who believes that the numbers reflect a standard of probity in British business that leaves little to be desired is suffering from an excess of complacency or an excess of naivety that leaves them blind to the reality. Those prosecutions were brought under the old legislation, which was principally passed in 1906 and 1889. Those statutes were plainly not fit for purpose. It is a mark of the lack of seriousness with which we have treated bribery, particularly bribery in a commercial context, that it has taken so long to replace legislation which is more than a century old and which produced such a limited response to serious criminal activity.

The OECD anti-bribery convention, to which we are now signatories, marked a milestone in international co-operation in stamping out bribery in international business. However, the UK’s response to its obligations under the convention has to date been mediocre at best. That should all have been set to change with the passage of the Bribery Act last year, yet this admirable legislation has not come into force and we are now entitled to be impatient. It was supposed to come into force last October. In September, a brief consultation on the proposed guidance was announced, which would last until November, with a view to commencement in April this year. The consultation paper had draft guidance annexed to it. In January, further delay was announced and further work on the guidance was said to be needed.

My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Justice says that we are back on track. He rightly says that corruption is bad for business and that we must be at the forefront of stamping it out, not only in the developing world but in international trade generally. That must mean that he completely rejects the argument that British businesses cannot compete with others that may be corrupt unless they, too, offer bribes. It is that argument that represents precisely the evil that the anti-bribery convention was designed to stamp out.

It is a pity that on occasions in recent months the CBI and the Multinational Chairman’s Group, to which my noble friend referred, have sounded close to rehearsing that argument in seeming to press for further delay and in their complaints about the implications of the Bill. That is the answer to the point powerfully and elegantly but, I suggest, wrongly advanced by my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lady Wheatcroft. It is no good saying that it is acceptable for small companies to pay small bribes, perhaps disguised as something else such as the transport tax that was referred to, and that it is only large bribes that the Act should outlaw. We have to rely on our markets wanting to buy British goods and services because they are competitive on price and quality.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I know that my noble friend has just six minutes, but it is a travesty of what my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft and I were saying to suggest that we were advocating small bribes. From the beginning, both of us have said that we are absolutely against bribery. It is the reality of the situation that we are asking the House to address.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, that is what was said, but the description of the transport tax being moneys paid to officials in small amounts to enable goods to be imported into those markets amounts to small bribes. I do not accept that they are acceptable. It is to be conceded by those who take our position that there may be a cost to that strict position, as my noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lady Wheatcroft point out. However, if it is a cost, it is a short-term cost, with the prize of a long-term business environment that is clean. The enforcement of the anti-bribery convention internationally and the Bribery Act in this country is a prize worth gaining.

The delay has been damaging to the reputation of this country and its business. As my noble friend Lady Williams explained, there is great anger with the United Kingdom in the United States and in the OECD. In the United States, the very strong legislation in the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which is rigorously enforced by the SEC and other federal enforcement agencies, has brought about a complete change of approach. The United Kingdom’s performance has been seen as hopeless and the delay in passing the Act has been seen as worse than that.

Meanwhile, we have regular reminders of the extent of the problem. Noble Lords have referred to the British Aerospace scandal and, in particular, to the previous Government’s extraordinary decision to stop investigating the Al Yamamah contract for the sale of aircraft to Saudi Arabia. The emergence even now of further evidence, which was highlighted in the past few days by my right honourable friend Sir Menzies Campbell, of a $70 million payment in connection with the contract makes the point

We have recently had the MW Kellogg engineering case, with a £7 million settlement over a contract for a gas liquefaction plant in Nigeria after payment of more than £100 million in bribes by the parent company. We had the disgraceful Innospec case last year, where a British company had paid bribes of $17 million to secure sales in Indonesia of a highly toxic lead fuel additive that is banned in the UK and elsewhere, the bribes having been paid to prevent the chemical from also being banned in Indonesia.

The list goes on. The evil of corruption is a cancer in our international trading system. It must be removed. The anti-bribery convention and the Bribery Act are powerful instruments. In Richard Alderman we have an energetic and effective director of the SFO, but we need the Bribery Act to become law. The guidance is needed fast. It needs to show a commitment to thorough enforcement. It must not be said that it waters down the effect or the effectiveness of the Act. Only in that way can Britain’s damaged reputation for probity in international business be restored.