Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks, set out his amendments clearly, and concentrated on the fact that the decision about a terrorist connection is made by a judge at the sentencing stage, not by the jury when they are assessing guilt or otherwise.

The noble Lord said that prior to the Bill, a limited number of offences were included. Those were serious offences, so his argument was that it did not make that much difference if there was a terrorist connection. He gave the example of ABH, for which the maximum sentence is seven years’ custody, although the penalty for low-level ABH may be some type of community order. His argument was that putting a terrorist connection on a wider range of lower-level offences would have a much larger effect on the likely sentence.

The noble Lord also spoke about activating notification requirements, and early release provisions. He prayed in aid the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who previously raised the possibility of Newton hearings. I am much more sympathetic to that possibility than that laid out in the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, which would mean that either somebody admitted in open court that there was a terrorist connection or there would be a trial of the issue.

Surely that determination should be made by the judge. A judge could make a determination that a Newton hearing was the right way forward. Perhaps the Bill should be amended to enable the judge to make a determination for a Newton hearing, or to take it on himself or herself to make a determination of whether there is a terrorist connection. For that reason, we will abstain on these amendments—but if, at a later stage, amendments along the line that I have just suggested, giving the judge discretion to order a Newton hearing, are tabled, we may well be in favour of those.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. The amendment would require a trial of the issue as to whether there is a terrorist connection to an aggravated offence. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, for the way in which he set out his amendment, but I am afraid we feel that it would represent a fundamental departure from existing processes—a significant divergence from practice within the wider criminal justice system—and it is therefore not an amendment that the Government consider necessary or appropriate.

It may be helpful if I first briefly recapitulate why the Government are making the changes that we propose in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord McCrea, gave a good summary. Clause 1 will expressly require the courts, in cases where it appears that any non-terrorism offence with a maximum penalty of more than two years was committed in the course of an act of terrorism, or for the purposes of terrorism, actively to consider whether the offence was committed with a terrorist connection and should be aggravated as such. At present only specified offences can be so considered. Closing this loophole will make for more effective and flexible legislation, reflecting the fact that terrorist offending takes a wide variety of forms.

The noble Lord, Lord Marks, gave some examples of offences that are and are not covered. It might be helpful to include further examples. Various offences under the Firearms Act 1968 are not currently covered, including possessing a firearm with an intent to endanger life; as are offences under the Criminal Damage Act 1971, including destroying or damaging property with an intent to endanger life, and arson. There are many more, but I hope that provides an illustration of some of the offences that we think ought to be considered, if needed.

These changes will also ensure that the consequences of a terrorist connection are applied consistently to all offenders. The identification of a terrorist connection by the courts has a wide-ranging impact, as the noble Lord noted. It must be treated as an aggravating factor when sentencing, helping to ensure that terrorist offenders receive punishment befitting the severity of their offending and the risk that they pose to public safety. It will also result in offenders being subject to the registered terrorist offender notification requirements following their release from prison, which supports the police to manage their risk more effectively.

Finally, under the Bill, these offenders will be subject to a minimum of 12 months on licence following their release and will be eligible to have certain licence conditions imposed on them to assist in the effective management of their risk. I emphasise that both the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, and the Crown Prosecution Service expressed their strong support for this change. In fact, Mr Hall stated in his oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place that this change, out of all the measures in the Bill, would make the most substantial difference to public safety.

Having set out the background, I will address the substance of the noble Lord’s amendment, which proposes a significant change to the process by which the courts in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, determine a terrorist connection at the point of sentencing. This process is well-established, having been in successful operation for more than a decade since the provisions of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 came into force. It is also consistent with the wider criminal justice system.

Under the existing process, courts are required to apply the criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—when determining whether an offence has a terrorist connection. The court will make this determination on the basis of the usual information before it for the purposes of sentencing—that is, the trial evidence or evidence heard at a Newton hearing, if necessary, following a guilty plea—and take into account any representations by the prosecution or defence, as well as any evidence heard.

Furthermore, in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, it is the standard approach for the judge, rather than the jury, to determine the presence of aggravating factors as part of the sentencing function. To provide one example, Section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020 requires the court to aggravate a sentence for an offence if it was motivated by hostility based on certain protected characteristics, such as race or sexual orientation. The judge will determine such a finding as part of the sentencing. The terrorist connection provision works in exactly the same way. This very issue was debated by your Lordships’ House in 2008, when the terrorist connection provisions were first enacted. It was concluded then that the existing process is appropriate and the reasons that I will now outline still stand.

During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, the then Government set out that, as part of their consultation on that Bill, they considered whether the determination of a terrorist connection should be made by the jury, rather than the judge at sentencing. That included discussing the option with experienced prosecutors in this area. It was concluded, however, that there were significant practical issues in taking that approach. For example, having to prove the terrorist connection as part of the trial would lead to lengthy diversions, were the defence to argue that the action of the suspect did not fall within the definition of terrorism. Such an approach would divert the prosecution from its primary aim to secure swift justice for the substantive offence—that is to say, securing a conviction or freeing the individual on trial—and would unnecessarily create significantly longer terrorism trials.

Alternatively, if the jury were to be responsible for determining whether there was a terrorist connection as part of a sentencing exercise after the trial, it would have to be summoned to make such a determination following a guilty plea. This would be entirely novel and run counter to well-established sentencing procedure. We therefore strongly believe that it would not be right to put it in the Bill. It was concluded then, as we maintain now, that sentencing is properly a function for the judge.

That is why the Government cannot accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Marks: it would impose unusual requirements on the finding of a terrorist connection, deviate significantly from well-established practice and, in doing so, put that process out of kilter with the courts’ considerations of other similar aggravating factors. The current system provides adequate safeguards against the erroneous finding of a terrorist connection. A judge who has determined that the offence was committed with a terrorist connection is required to state in open court that that is the case. That determination is capable of being appealed to the Court of Appeal. For the reasons outlined, despite the noble Lord being minded to do otherwise, I hope that he will see fit to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is a great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, particularly given his deep and long experience in counterterrorism and the legislation in this area, along with his wide experience of the workings of the Parole Board.

Clause 27 was the subject of considerable controversy in Committee because as it stands, it would remove the role of the Parole Board from the determination of whether, and at what stage, a terrorist offender should be released from custody. Without wishing to repeat the arguments that were canvassed in the debate on the clause at that stage, many of us felt then and continue to feel strongly that the Parole Board has had, and should continue to have, an important part to play in determining whether and at what stage even dangerous terrorist offenders should be released on licence.

The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, refers to prisoners who are serving extended sentences and applies after they have completed their custodial term, thus changing the architecture of extended sentences, as he has put it. Such prisoners’ release would be contemplated only after the custodial term, at which stage their cases would be referred to the Parole Board for consideration, as they then would on every further anniversary of the completion of that custodial term.

As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, has explained, before the board could direct release, it would have to be satisfied that two important conditions had been met: first, the prisoner did not represent a grave risk to the public, and secondly, it was no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. We would have preferred that the amendment went further and applied more widely for the reasons that we expressed in Committee, but we regard the work of the Parole Board, whose members are specialists in the field, as extremely valuable. We are firmly of the view that a full hearing before the Parole Board is the best way to determine whether a prisoner should be released after a suitable minimum custodial term, having regard to the elimination of the threat that the prisoner posed to public safety and to such progress as might have been made in the prisoner’s deradicalisation, rehabilitation and reform.

I should emphasise that throughout our approach to this Bill, we have maintained the position that hope of rehabilitation should always be part of the process of punishment, even in severe terrorist cases, and that sentences which offer no hope are counterproductive. We recognise that all prisoners are likely to be released one day and that rehabilitation is more achievable in the context of a release on licence than it is in the context of continued incarceration. That is a position that was rightly taken and recognised by the experts who briefed a number of Peers at the Joint Extremism Unit drop-in session that was arranged for us by the Ministry of Justice. Those who attended found it to be interesting and informative, and we are all very grateful. For my part, however, I confess to remaining perplexed that the Government have decided to cut the role of the Parole Board in the way set out in Clause 27. This amendment would reduce the impact of that particular cutting axe, and I therefore support it.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 2 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, sets out an alternative possible architecture for assessing terrorists and the possibility of extending sentences. In speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, expressed their faith in the Parole Board and the view that it should play a much fuller role in assessing terrorist prisoners who are coming towards the end of their sentences. I too joined in the very useful expert panel held last week with presentations from Home Office experts as well as senior psychologists who have an overview of this work.

The probation service itself employs around 350 psychologists, some of whom are specialists in this work. The message I got from that meeting last week is that it is very complicated work and there is no guarantee of success. However, that does not mean that there should not be efforts—indeed, very strenuous efforts—made to try to rehabilitate these offenders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25 struck me as setting out a number of concerns that we would like to have seen in the Bill now. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had to say, except that I do not think that they amount to post-legislative scrutiny. Both highlight concerns that we expressed at an earlier stage, although not all those concerns. My noble friend’s Amendment 12 is rather different in that after a year’s experience of the Bill—an Act, as it will then have been—it would assess its impact. Like him, I have had a similar impression: a kind of inconsistency between the words that we see on paper in the Bill—the impression that is given about responding with even tougher sentences, which is supported by some of the debate that we have had—while privately we have had much more nuanced conversations which have encouraged me, even though I am somewhat depressed by this legislation.

I want to say a word—well, several words—about Amendment 13, which would provide for a review of the use of polygraphs. The amendment came out of amendments in Committee, not our own but those proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he called for a pilot and a report to Parliament, including on specified matters. I understand that, with a relatively small number of terrorist offenders to whom the polygraph condition will apply, it is quite hard to undertake a useful pilot, but that does not negate the importance of an assessment of the polygraph condition which is published in the public domain.

Crucially, the review that we propose in Amendment 13 would be an independent review. Its report would include data, as set out in the amendment’s subsection (3), on the number of terrorist offenders subject to the polygraph condition and on the number of terrorist offenders recalled to custody following a test. I should mark those sentences as copyright of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I think I lifted them wholesale. It would also cover regulations, rules and codes of practice, and make recommendations regarding those, and the report would be made to Parliament. We have included the caveat that any material that the Secretary of State considered might prejudice public safety should be omitted.

The review would be within three years of the Section 32 polygraph condition coming into force. I understand, though I could not quite pin it down, that the Government are intending a review after a couple of years, which would essentially be the same; after two years is more or less the same as within three years.

I take this opportunity not only to argue for a review but to ask the Minister to confirm what is planned by the Government. not only as to the timing but as to the four elements that I have listed.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I have one amendment in this group, Amendment 25, and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton put his name to Amendment 24. I was very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that she had read our amendments and that they seemed sensible; I think that is a good start. The general point made on this whole group is that there is an appetite for reviewing different aspects of this legislation, and the amendments referred to go into particular aspects of that.

I want to make a slightly more general point. It is important that the general case for this sort of legislation is made regularly. I have had the opportunity in recent days of talking to young people who are becoming more politically active and engaged. They are very interested in terrorism legislation as a whole, particularly in how Parliament seeks to review it, change it and make it more effective. Particularly in our House, we have a duty to make sure that those arguments are remade and heard by the general public.

The specific amendment that I have put my name to concerns looking at particular impacts on prison capacity, the National Probation Service and offenders convicted of terrorist offences, as well as levels of bad behaviour in prisons—a point that I made on an earlier group. Also within my amendment are financial matters, because there is a very significant financial impact of the review of extended sentences and licence periods.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this has been an extremely brief debate and quite a blunt one. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was very clear: during the passage of a previous Counter-Terrorism Act this House voted for a deadline and this current legislation is seeking to remove it. The Government commissioned an independent review back in January 2019, which has been repeatedly delayed and postponed, and the initial statutory deadline of 12 August 2020 will now be missed. The Government have said that they intend to have a report ready by summer 2021. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, he has been very generous by putting in his amendments a deadline of the end of this current calendar year.

In the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to this short debate I noted a tone of exasperation, and I do not blame him or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for using such a tone. I really do not see why the Government cannot reaffirm their commitment to a deadline and I will be very interested to hear the Minister’s response to both noble Lords.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, would add a new statutory deadline of 31 December this year for the completion of the independent review of Prevent. I am happy to say once again that we share the noble Lord’s and noble Baroness’s commitment to a successful independent review and the opportunity that it provides to learn lessons from what is and is not working—as well as to listen to a wide range of voices about how best to safeguard those who may be vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism.

The review restarted on 26 January, with the appointment of William Shawcross as the new independent reviewer. As I undertook to do in Committee, I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has had a conversation with Mr Shawcross about the timescale for his review. He certainly agrees with the need to complete it as swiftly as possible, while affording it the consideration that it requires. He hopes to complete his work well before the end of 2021, and of course there will then need to be time for a government response to be prepared and laid before Parliament. However, it is out intention to set out the date of his report and, indeed, the Government’s response in the revised terms of reference, when they are published shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, referred to the remarks of my right honourable friend James Brokenshire, made in his first stint as Security Minister, about government responses being swift and timely. I hope the greatest reassurance to the noble Lord is the fact that my right honourable friend is back in that important post, albeit currently recuperating from his operation, from which we all wish him a speedy recovery. I am sure his remarks then stand now, as they do for my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who is covering while he recuperates.

We all agree that it is necessary to have a thorough, evidence-based review that engages communities and sees Prevent delivery in action and that has practical recommendations for improvement at the end of it. We fear that, at a time when fleetness of foot is vital, a statutory deadline could limit this. We referred in Committee to the ongoing pandemic; alas, it continues now we are on Report, and I hope noble Lords will all be mindful of the need for flexibility in light of it.

Mr Shawcross is keen to proceed at pace, as I say, but reintroducing a statutory deadline for the completion of his independent review would mean that, if he encountered a challenge to his timeline because of the pandemic, we would have to revisit the legislation or he might be forced to compromise in how he meets his objectives. Of course, we hope that there will not be any difficulties, but there remains a risk of further or ongoing restrictions, with all the unpredictabilities of the pandemic and the implications that that could have for Mr Shawcross, his team and those who wish to provide their input into the review. As such, we think that that remains sensible.

We believe that it is achievable for Mr Shawcross to complete his work quickly, while undertaking a thorough and robust piece of work—but it is important for the legislation to retain the flexibility for the reviewer, should he need it, to ensure that the valuable work of his review is not undermined. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will agree and, therefore, withdraw his amendment.

Divorce

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord’s question addresses aspects of detail as well as recent case law. I do not have the detail and the material with me to permit me to provide the noble Lord with a satisfactory answer. Again, I shall ensure that I correspond with him and put down in writing the answer to his question.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in November, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service, Cafcass, triggered its prioritisation protocol in South Yorkshire and the Humber region, which means it is allocating only the highest priority cases there due to severe understaffing. The trade union Napo has described this as a crisis. What steps is the Minister taking to prevent this prioritisation protocol being triggered in other areas, and what estimate has he made of the extra resources necessary to stabilise Cafcass in this region and to prevent a similar protocol being triggered elsewhere?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

The question covers some of the ground posed by an earlier question but I am happy to answer it. Approximately £3.5 million of additional funding has assisted Cafcass in increasing staffing levels. Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service has recruited approximately 900 additional support staff across jurisdictions and around 700 further appointments are currently sought. Your Lordships will be aware that Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service has established 17 Nightingale courts across England and Wales. These give 32 additional courtrooms to alleviate the pressure on courts and tribunals. These courts are hearing, as well as family cases, civil, tribunal and non-custodial criminal work. I can advise that judicial sitting days in the family court have been increased. Current projections are that a level of nearly 96,000 sitting days for 2020-21 may be accomplished—5,000 more than allocation—and the courts sat for record numbers of days in June and July 2020.

Jurisdiction, Judgments and Applicable Law (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 8th December 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining in some detail this statutory instrument. This SI fixes the defects in civil regulations, family regulations, mediation regulations, Rome regulations and even the rules of regulations. Is the Minister satisfied that all the problems have been ironed out? With only 24 days until we leave the EU, how many more instruments can we expect to see before the House before we go? Can he confirm that none of the amendments in this statutory instrument are in any way being discussed in Brussels today as part of the negotiations for when we finally leave?

I move on to an issue that I raised with the Minister when we had a private talk with the Minister in another place, Alex Chalk, on a specific concern of mine. I remind the Minister that I sit as a family magistrate in London and deal with the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders, which come under these regulations. The issue that we have in our courts is with the question of enforcement of these orders. As the Minister said, they will principally move to being enforced under the Hague conventions of 1996 and 2007. However, the issue that we have in our courts is that we have no powers, as far as I am advised by legal advisers, to enforce these maintenance orders.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]]

I have been overlooked and it has gone straight to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

I was just concluding my comments, but I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is after me on the list.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

When I am in the chair, there is no possibility of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, ever being overlooked. I call him now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Relevant Court) (Retained EU Case Law) Regulations 2020

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 25th November 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Labour Party does not support these regulations. When responding to the government consultation, both the Bar Council and the Law Society expressed a strong preference for the power to depart from retained EU case law to be reserved only to the Supreme Court and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland. In its response to the proposed changes, the Law Society clearly stated that

“the power to depart from retained case law should not be extended to UK courts … beyond the Supreme Court ... Any change from this position constitutes a major shift in the administration of justice. This could result in a lack of legal certainty through the emergence of novel judgments that are either not binding on other courts or are inconsistent with precedent.”

Those serious concerns should not be overlooked by the Government.

On 2 July this year, the Government launched a consultation on whether the extension would be the right thing to do. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, went through the findings of that consultation, and he teased the Minister about his wry Scottish sense of humour, because of course the results of the consultation were very different and far more negative than he intimated.

My honourable friend Alex Cunningham, when speaking in the other place, explained that granting the power to depart from retained EU case law to the lower courts is likely to encourage litigation by parties who hope to overturn an earlier judgment that relied on EU case law, and subsequently will increase the volume of cases. That will inevitably put additional pressure on the courts, which already face a significant backlog due to both the pandemic and the cuts that we have seen in the courts system over the past 10 years.

Both the legal sector and trade unions expressed their opposition to the Government’s proposals. Unions are hugely concerned about the impact that a mass departure from retained EU case law would have on workers’ rights. Unions were also clear that the Government should not go ahead with the plan because it would undermine the doctrine of precedent and cause significant uncertainty and disruption to both employers and employees.

We accept that the courts should have the power to divert from EU case law vested in UK law, but that power should remain exclusively with the Supreme Court. We request that the Minister address all the concerns expressed by the legal profession and the trade unions. Will he outline why the Government have chosen to proceed with these regulations? Can he help outline what they plan to do to ensure that the courts under the Supreme Court are able to operate effectively, and to ensure that the changes do not simply result in increased litigation and, ultimately, in even more appeals to the Supreme Court? What reassurance can he give to trade unions that their fears are unfounded and that workers’ rights will not be compromised as a result of the changes proposed in this statutory instrument?

We believe that, based on current evidence, the Government cannot truly justify the changes brought in by the statutory instrument. The Labour Party has sought to work constructively with the Government as they have embarked on their programme of introducing necessary secondary legislation across all areas for use after the transition period. However, on this occasion, we do not feel that the changes to be implemented by these regulations are justified. We will not vote against the regulations, but we do not support them.

Integrated Communities Strategy

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 17th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord’s point. As my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, has remarked in your Lordships’ House in the past, the matter is a social and educational question as much as it is a legal one. It is in order to establish the extent of the problem that the Government are continuing to await the findings of the Law Commission and to look in detail at the meticulous research being carried out.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that it is relatively common for couples to come to family courts in England and Wales saying that they are married under sharia law, only to be told that the court does not recognise this status of marriage? The Government plan to support awareness programmes arising out of Dame Louise Casey’s review of marriage published in 2015. Can the Minister tell us what steps have been taken to provide such educational material in the citizens advice bureaux and in the family courts across the country?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con) [V]]

My Lords, sharia law is not part of the legal system of England and Wales, and that has been made clear in the past. In relation to the provision of material via the citizens advice bureaux, to which the noble Lord refers, I will write to him about the availability of that material and how it is being promulgated through these bodies.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2020

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 10th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the introduction of these two amendments to existing pieces of legislation. The Minister fully set out the reasoning behind the amendments and their effects. Two Acts are being amended by the orders. The first is the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, which will be amended in two respects: by removing the multiple convictions rule in certain circumstances and also by removing the requirement, in certain circumstances, that the sections order apply to any spent youth cautions. The second is the Police Act 1997, to which the second order makes various amendments, which the Minister fully explained.

I have a few questions for the Minister which arise out of his introduction. I was pleased to see that the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development welcomed the changes, particularly on youth convictions, but it warned that, too often, employers routinely carry out DBS checks, even when they are unnecessary for the job that is to be undertaken. Does the Minister share this concern? Also, with unemployment rising and the difficult situation we are currently facing, what else are the Government doing to help offenders? They find it very difficult to get work.

When the Minister was explaining this, he referred to cautions but he did not explicitly refer to conditional cautions. Can I assume that all the provisions he has referred to apply to both youth cautions and youth conditional cautions? He made it clear the provisions apply to both the regular certificates and the enhanced certificates, but when judges or magistrates are sitting in court and looking at the police national computer, will that have a full list of cautions, conditional cautions, warnings and all the other out of court settlements? Will that still be recorded in the PNC, which is seen by magistrates and judges when they are sentencing?

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, noted that I was a member of the independent parliamentarians’ inquiry chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, but more significantly Robert Buckland was on that commission, and as far as I remember, he agreed with everything that commission said, and that commission went far further than today’s amendments. Therefore, I look forward to the Lord Chancellor’s continued support for the work of the commission of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

The noble Lords, Lord McCrea and Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, talked about a wider review of how criminal records and orders are dealt with. I was particularly pleased to hear the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, to today’s debate. I sat as a youth magistrate with the noble Baroness for many years, and I know she talks with huge experience from her work as a youth magistrate and on the Youth Justice Board, and I agree with the sentiments she expressed.

I will close with a personal observation. Last night, my son, who is a part-time cricket coach, was filling in the form for his DBS check. I have to say that I find it odd that, when filling in that form, the onus was on him to diclose any convictions or cautions, rather than on the system to have the data available. There was no problem in his case, but it seems to me that is a strange system. Nevertheless, I support these amendments and am happy to do so.

Probate Service

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 27th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie [V]]

My Lords, in fact, we have taken steps to simplify the probate process. We are replacing affidavits with a statement of truth, accepting electronic-type signatures on probate forms, and allowing legal representatives to sign legal statements on behalf of clients. These steps will simplify and accelerate the process.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, there has clearly been a lot of adverse press and we have heard from other noble Lords about personal experiences where the probate service has not performed as we would all wish. What confidence does the Minister have that the probate service is performing as well as he claims it is? What monitoring does he think is appropriate to put in place so that we can all have confidence that the probate system is fit for the present large increase in Covid-related deaths that we have seen?

[Lord Keen of Elie [V]]

My Lords, in late 2019 we saw a very clear and discernible improvement in the turnaround of probate applications and probate grants. As I indicated, in January to March this year the average waiting time for a grant of probate was about four weeks. Some, of course, are simpler than others. Indeed, where written rather than digital applications are made, there is greater room for error and therefore of delay in respect of these matters. However, we are monitoring the system. That is why we can give figures on the turnaround on probate grants. We are training additional staff as well. We appreciate that this will be required, given that there will be an increase in probate applications over the summer, reflecting the increased death rate as a result of the Covid pandemic.

Competition Appeal Tribunal (Coronavirus) (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Coronavirus Act 2020 made provisions for the use of video and audio technology in courts and some tribunals. However, these do not apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal. As a result, remote CAT hearings using videolink arrangements are effectively operating on a closed basis, with access available only by invitation to the parties and other persons who have been notified. This is contrary to CAT’s rule of procedure number 99, which requires hearings to be in public. These hearings therefore run the risk of challenge because they have not been conducted according to the rules. The order removes that risk by granting the CAT temporary power to broadcast its proceedings. The order applies to England and Wales and will expire on 25 March 2022, as we have heard—the same day as the Coronavirus Act expires.

This has been an interesting debate and I thank the Minister for his clear exposition of the reason for the order. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, spoke very clearly about the threat of a loss of leadership by British courts in competition law because of our withdrawal from the EU. He outlined the wide scope of the tribunals and that there is a large interest by specialist groups that can lead to up to 100 people wanting to view and be attendees at court hearings. He also made the interesting point that the CAT’s workload is likely to increase because of coronavirus, leading to more mergers and issues to do with competition.

The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, also supported the order. She raised an interesting question about how this differs from CVP, which currently operates in the criminal courts. I remind noble Lords that I sit as a magistrate in London, so I use CVP quite often, but in the family courts we use a mixture of technologies, including Skype for Business and Microsoft Teams, and we will be using CVP in the very near future. So a variety of technologies are available. Can the Minister say anything about the appropriateness of having the flexibility to use the most appropriate technology? It differs for different legal encounters, if I can put it like that.

We heard about the trailblazing role of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the Scottish courts. He and a number of noble Lord asked about the potential permanence of these types of arrangements. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, made a very interesting point when he summed up that this should be used as an opportunity for a wider review of giving better access to justice in our courts system up and down the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised a number of interesting points. He asked who would own the feeds and the information. My understanding is that the copyright holder will be the tribunal itself. He also raised questions about using computer technology to look at facial expressions, and raised concerns about emotionally vulnerable people appearing at these hearings. I am very concerned about this in my work in the family court. It might not be so relevant in the CAT, but it is certainly a very relevant question in the family court. We have to consider the appropriateness of giving judgments to people who are remote. They might be alone when we reach decisions in the family court. So it is a very relevant question in the judicial environment in which I operate.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, also asked interesting questions about what the parallel arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland would be and whether they would be retrospective and start from the same point that the Coronavirus Act started in early March.

This has been an interesting debate. Some real questions have been raised and there are some real opportunities for further reform in the coming years. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Royal Commission on Criminal Justice

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, at this time we are not intending to make any decision with respect to smaller juries.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is a gross imbalance between rising levels of reported crime and a fall in prosecutions to a 50-year low, after a decade of cuts in the police, forensic services and the CPS? Can the Minister say whether the royal commission will consider the growing use of out-of-court disposals when it looks at the workings of the criminal justice system?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, we have previously announced increases in the provision for police numbers. With regard to the royal commission, the terms of reference have not yet been finalised; I am therefore not in a position to confirm the precise terms.

Northern Ireland Act 1998 (Section 75 —Designation of Public Authority) Order 2020

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Labour supports this instrument, which designates the new Independent Monitoring Authority for the Citizens’ Rights Agreements as a public authority for the purposes of Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Section 75 of the Act is transformative. Its aim is to change the practices of government and public authorities so that equality of opportunity and good relations are central to how government and policymakers operate. It does this by giving public authorities that carry out functions in relation to Northern Ireland the statutory duties of equality of opportunity among the nine equality categories, and good relations between persons of different religious beliefs, political opinions and racial groups. The IMA will be an important public authority in Northern Ireland, so it is right to give it the same statutory duties that other public authorities have in regard to it.

The IMA has a crucial role to play following our departure from the European Union. It will be an important safeguard for the rights of citizens of the EU 27 in the UK after the end of the implementation period. Being the single authority responsible for monitoring the implementation of the citizens’ rights provisions of the withdrawal agreement is no small task. I, too, was going to raise the question just raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about what would happen if we were to leave the EU with no agreement. Will there need to be further legislation or amendment of these orders, given that the status of Northern Ireland will be different from that of other parts of the United Kingdom? We expect that the Government will keep their commitments around the IMA, and it will be an organisation with genuine teeth when it begins its operations in Swansea later this year. Again, points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, about the power to bring legal action against the Government or a public authority that has failed to implement or apply the citizens’ rights agreements. Its power to do that is crucial to the credibility of this body.

Subjecting the IMA to Section 75 duties will make it a better organisation and put it within the remit of the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland to investigate it if it does not follow the duties as set out. Labour looks forward to reading the equality scheme this new organisation will put forward, so my second question for the Minister is: can he give assurances that this secondary legislation confirms the Government’s commitment to the IMA, and that they will not use their powers in the withdrawal agreement Act to transfer its functions to another public authority? This question was also raised by my noble friend Lord Wood.

Thirdly, can the Minister give an update on the formation of the IMA? Has it been affected by coronavirus? I, too, saw the adverts on the internet and can see that recruitment is under way, but it would be useful for me and, I suspect, other Members of the House, to get an update from the Minister.

This legislation gives the IMA the statutory foundation it needs to function as a UK-wide body. Labour welcomes it and hopes it represents another step in the formation of the IMA as the truly independent and effective body it needs to be.

At the beginning of this debate my noble friend Lord Hain raised the disturbing case of the denial of rights to victims injured through no fault of their own in the Troubles in Northern Ireland. He was supported by the noble Lords, Lord Bruce and Lord Empey. My noble friend tells me that he has been pursuing this matter for about nine months and, as he said, he has every intention of hounding the Government until he gets a fair result for the victims. I have known my noble friend for more than 30 years and I have no doubt that he will be good to his word and that the Government will eventually be forced to ensure that victims are fairly treated.