Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Amendment of Schedule 1: injunctions to prevent gang-related violence) Order 2014

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 7th July 2014 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us today amends Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act to allow for advocacy in a youth court to be funded by civil legal aid for under-18s in respect of injunctions to prevent gang-related violence. The purpose of this draft order is to maintain the existing availability of civil legal aid for under-18s in respect of advocacy related to injunctions to prevent gang-related violence. An amendment to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is necessary to reflect the change of venue for such injunctions made by the Crime and Courts Act 2013 from the county court to the youth court, which is a specialist type of magistrates’ court.

Before setting out further details about the order and why the Government are taking this action, I will briefly explain some background. Civil legal aid is currently available for injunctions to prevent gang-related violence under Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 by virtue of paragraph 38 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to LASPO. These proceedings are currently heard in a High Court or county court, and Part 3 of Schedule 1 to LASPO, which sets out when advocacy may or may not be funded by civil legal aid, allows for this, subject to a means and merits test. Section 18 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 amends Part 4 of the Police and Crime Act 2009 to provide that, where a respondent is aged under 18, a youth court will have jurisdiction to grant gang-related injunctions. This reflects the Government’s view that a youth court is a more suitable venue for such proceedings involving a child. The youth court is a type of magistrates’ court, designed in a child and youth-sensitive way. However, legal aid for advocacy for proceedings before a magistrates’ court is generally excluded from the scope of the civil legal aid scheme by virtue of Part 3 of Schedule 1 to LASPO.

With that background in mind, I will turn to the reason for the order before us today. The Government recognise that restrictions may be placed upon a person’s liberty as the result of an injunction to prevent gang-related violence. Breach of an injunction can lead to contempt of court proceedings which, for 14 to 17 year-olds, can result in a supervision order or a detention order being made under the Crime and Security Act 2010. The Government therefore consider that legal aid should remain available for advocacy in proceedings in respect of injunctions to prevent gang-related violence for under-18s, notwithstanding the change of venue for these proceedings as a result of the Crime and Courts Act 2013. To maintain the existing availability of civil legal aid, it is necessary to make an order specifying that advocacy for such proceedings is in scope of the civil legal aid scheme set out in LASPO. That is achieved by the order before this Committee today.

I hope that noble Lords will welcome the order. It makes a relatively minor but important change to the civil legal aid scheme which complements the wider changes made by the Crime and Courts Act 2013. I therefore commend the draft order to the Committee and I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, has outlined, Schedule 1 to the LASPO Act sets out the scope of the civil legal aid scheme. It is well documented that the Labour Party, along with many other organisations, opposed what the Government did in respect of civil legal aid when they brought this Act into law. Having said that, from the autumn of this year, proceedings related to gang-related injunctions concerning people under the age of 18 will move to the youth court from the county court. We in the Opposition think that is a sensible move and support the transfer, along with the provision for civil legal aid to be available when the proceedings move, which is what this order seeks to do.

I note from the papers that, as this is regarded as a relatively minor change, no specific consultation was undertaken and no guidance is provided. This is not a policy change and the impact is regarded as minimal, with no major impact on regulating small businesses. However, it is said that the operation and expenditure on legal aid is continually monitored by the department, so perhaps the noble Lord could shed some light on what has happened to date, for the benefit of the Grand Committee. Would he also agree that the effect of these injunctions was extremely important and serious for individuals, both those who are the subject of them and those whom they seek to protect? Does he have information on how effective the injunctions have been to date? If he is not able to provide that information today, will he write to me with further details including any case studies that can highlight the effect to date?

With that, I should say that I am very happy with the order.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. Although it is perfectly true that the party opposite has been opposed to legal aid changes, it does not oppose this order because it does not change the eligibility of legal aid but is concerned only with the venue of these hearings.

The description of the change as “minor” simply refers to the effect in terms of substance, rather than suggesting that the injunctions related to minor matters. They do not. They are a relatively new weapon in the hands of local authorities and the police to try to control gang activity, and particularly to discourage youths from joining gangs. That is sometimes to those particular youths’ benefit. Say older brothers or other members of the community put pressure on them to join a gang; an injunction preventing your doing so is a very good answer, so in a sense it protects individuals from themselves.

There has not as yet been an enormous take-up of the orders. However, they have been operational, particularly in London, the West Midlands, Birmingham, Merseyside and Manchester. As I said, it is very much those on the periphery of gangs whom we are talking about; those at the centre of the gangs tend to attract the attention of the police and may end up being prosecuted for specific offences. The injunctions are important, and although they are not yet widely used we hope that their use will increase, particularly in London, where gangs are so much of a problem, as your Lordships’ House will be well aware.

Although the noble Lord did not specifically ask, I should say that if an injunction is breached it can result in an order for contempt of court, which can conceivably result in a sentence of imprisonment of an individual. I reassure the House that there will then be legal aid in those circumstances, although that will be criminal legal aid rather than civil legal aid, which covers these circumstances.

The change of venue reflects the Government’s view that the youth court is a more suitable place for proceedings that involve a child to be conducted. We therefore believe that this is a reasonable and sensible amendment, which aims to ensure that civil legal aid remains available for advocacy for under-18s in respect of the injunctions to prevent gang-related violence. I hope that noble Lords agree that this is a proportionate and sensible measure.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 30th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, on looking at the Bill for the first time, I think that many Members of your Lordships’ House will have been struck by the wide variety of issues it seeks to cover, not all of which seem to hang together very well. As my noble friend Lord Bach said, it is a bit of a Christmas tree Bill, on which many baubles have been hung, all of different shapes and sizes—and more and more keep getting hung on it. Generally, the Bill appears to the Opposition to be a rushed piece of legislation, and rushed legislation usually means bad legislation. It will require considerable improvement in your Lordships’ House.

I am in complete agreement with the contributions made by a number of noble Lords in today’s debate, including particularly those of my noble friends Lord Beecham, Lady Thornton and Lord Ponsonby and others. There are elements of the Bill we support, parts of it we think need improvement and parts of it we oppose. We support attempts properly to punish offenders. We also support keeping the public safe from the most serious and violent offenders and the provision of open and transparent justice. However, we do not support the watering down of the important constitutional tool of judicial review or the Government’s plans for a secure college.

The first part of the Bill concerning criminal justice matters has provisions we are content to support to keep the public safe. The scheme for extended determinate sentences for additional terrorist offences is such a provision. However, we have concerns about these additions and the changes to the release arrangements for people convicted of serious sexual and violent offences that are highlighted in the Government’s own impact assessment, which states that the sentencing changes will require 1,050 additional prison places, and will increase the workload of the Parole Board with an additional 1,100 hearings per year. Our worry is that the Government are not putting the measures in place to deliver the changes they want to see. These matters will require debate and probing during the Committee stage of the Bill to satisfy your Lordships’ House that the Government have their sums and thinking right.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights made some key observations when looking at the provisions regarding the release and recall of prisoners in Clauses 6 to 13. The committee was right to be unconvinced that the introduction of powers by the negative resolution procedure to enable offenders to be electronically tracked was adequate, and to recommend that the Bill should be amended to make the code subject to some form of parliamentary procedure to ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the adequacy of the relevant safeguards.

Clause 14 regarding the mandatory drug testing of prisoners and the creation of a power for the Secretary of State to specify in secondary legislation drugs that are not controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, for which prisoners can be tested, is a sensible move and should help to deal with drug misuse in prisons.

Clauses 15 and 16 make changes in respect of the use of cautions and stop their use for all indictable-only offences and certain specified either-way offences. Will the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, tell the House in his response why the Government think that the negative resolution procedure is acceptable in respect of the specification of the either-way offences, as I am more of the view that this should be done by the affirmative resolution procedure to give Parliament the opportunity to scrutinise further what is being proposed?

I think that we have all been horrified at reports of the ill treatment, abuse and wilful neglect of vulnerable people who have been entrusted to the care of others. With the provisions listed in Clauses 17 to 22, the Government seek to close the loophole that Professor Don Berwick identified in his review of the events that took place at the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, but they were added late during the passage of the Bill through the Commons and will require considerable probing and testing. I find it odd that these proposals do not extend to volunteers. This, I believe, is a serious omission. You have only to look at the activities and offences committed by Jimmy Savile, while he was acting as a volunteer at a number of NHS and other establishments, to be concerned that these proposals are in themselves inadequate and do not go far enough. I hope that your Lordships will amend the Bill accordingly so that what is agreed will give the maximum protection to vulnerable people in the care of others, be they employees or volunteers.

The murder of a police or prison officer is one of the gravest offences that can be committed and the whole-life tariff in Clause 24 sends a powerful message of how much we value these public servants and place the highest value on their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Blair, made a powerful point when he talked about the role of the courts in handing down sentences for the murder of police or prison officers, and said that Harry Roberts is serving the 48th year of his prison term for murdering police officers.

I am sure that we will return to the issue of possessing a bladed weapon in public or on school premises. We supported the amendment in the Commons, with Back-Bench Conservative MPs, and we will support it in this House as well. It sends out a strong signal that carrying a bladed weapon is serious and has serious consequences if you are caught for a second offence. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, was right when he expressed concern about the reduction of judicial discretion, but I would point out that the proposals we supported for possessing bladed weapons in public places or school premises do have judicial discretion—unlike the proposals that the Liberal Democrats supported in the LASPO Act for the carrying of a knife, which are mandatory.

The proposals for dealing with offences committed by disqualified drivers are well intentioned, but their adoption, as they stand, would be quite confusing. The law at present is inadequate and needs improving. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, can explain how these proposals will fit in with a review of the road traffic sentencing framework that the Government are committed to carrying out in the next few months, because if there is a review, there could possibly be changes. Will those changes require primary or secondary legislation?

The clause in the Bill concerning malicious communications has the support of the Opposition. As technology becomes ever more sophisticated and can be used to threaten people with offensive and distressing material, we agree that the courts should have tough powers at their disposal to deal with offenders. My noble friend Lady Thornton made a powerful argument about what needs to happen in the case of extreme pornography and the proposals from the Government need amendment and revision. I hope that the meeting between my noble friend and the Minister will go some way in that respect.

My noble friends Lord Beecham and Lord Ponsonby, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, highlighted our concerns about the proposals on secure colleges. These proposals in particular need proper pre-legislative scrutiny. The Minister is right to say that we need to be better at rehabilitating young people, but I am not convinced by what I have heard from him so far today. We on these Benches are not convinced that housing 300 children together on one site—potentially miles away from their family, making visiting difficult and expensive—is a good way to provide a proper education and reduce their propensity to reoffend.

We share the concerns expressed by a number of organisations, including the Howard League for Penal Reform and others. The Government will have to provide much more information and set out their proposals more clearly. Issues such as the use of restraint, concerns about the effects on younger children and the problems that girls will confront in this establishment in particular will need thorough examination. I agreed with all the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, about secure colleges, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Moving on, while the section of the Bill on courts and tribunals can be seen as administrative and time-saving measures, we on these Benches have some concerns about the single-magistrate hearings and weakening the principle of justice being seen to be done, and how the system will operate. I look forward to discussing in Committee these further proposals and the ideas from the Magistrates Association that my noble friend Lord Ponsonby referred to. No matter how well intentioned, we have to ensure that we get these right. I am also worried about the proposal for trying to get money out of penniless defendants. As my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said, I have sat as a magistrate for many years. I used to sit on the Coventry Bench when I lived in the city and I can tell your Lordships that imposing fines and court costs that individuals have no hope of ever paying off is a complete waste of time and could actually be damaging.

I am fully in support of people convicted of offences having to pay compensation to victims, fines and court costs, but it must be left to the discretion of the courts to decide what is reasonable and what is not. We have no objection in principle to leapfrog appeals, though it does always follow that every issue of national importance will go straight to the Supreme Court and it may be that in some cases, that will not be the best thing to do. I always thought that the case brought by Lewisham Council and others—and I declare that I am a member of Lewisham Council—about the decision of the NHS to close the A&E at Lewisham Hospital, would end up in the Supreme Court. In the end, having lost in the High Court and the Court of Appeal, the Government decided to draw a line there and instead changed the law to stop other organisations doing what Lewisham Council did.

We generally welcome the proposals to update the jury room process. However, we want to press the Government on what support they intend to give juries, so they can clearly understand their role and what they can and cannot do. Social media have a vast penetration and that will only increase. People can be active on a number of platforms numerous times a day. They may have no idea that they are doing something wrong and that could be a very serious offence.

I have been on a jury only once, and that was about 30 years ago. I do not recall being told very much at all, but there were no mobile phones, e-mail or internet. The noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and many other noble Lords will be much more aware than I am of what is said to juries today. I would hope at a minimum that they can be given clear “dos and don’ts” in writing and a proper briefing from a court official before they enter the courtroom—followed up, if necessary, by the judge at the start of the trial telling them what is and what is not appropriate. We have no objection to raising the age for jury service to 75, and in fact this could be a very positive move. The only thing that I would say is that some account may need to be taken of health issues.

The section that deals with judicial review contains some of the most controversial parts of the Bill and we have serious concerns about these proposals. My noble friend Lord Beecham, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood and Lord Woolf, all skilfully highlighted the concerns of many noble Lords in this House. For the Justice Secretary to describe judicial review as a promotional tool for countless left-wing campaigns is a disgrace. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, repeated the full quote. I accept fully that for the Government, local authorities or other public bodies it can be irritating to have their decisions challenged—but without such provisions, bad decisions can go unchallenged, and that is bad for all of us, for democracy and for civil society.

The noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, made key points when she talked about the use of judicial review, as did my noble friend Lord Bach. It is about holding people to account, and without a written constitution, judicial review is the one important tool for holding the Executive to account. Over the past four years, we have seen cuts to legal aid, limitations on no-win no-fee cases, and threats to the Human Rights Act and the European convention. The proposals here are another attack on the rights of the citizen.

The noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Hunt of Wirral, both referred to the activities of some claims management companies. I have spoken many times in this House about the industry and the problems it can sometimes cause. I am happy to pay tribute also to Kevin Rousell and his claims management team, which does a fantastic job. I should be delighted to put my name to some more amendments that can give him and his team even more power to deal with the problems of this industry.

As I said at the outset, this is a rushed and bad Bill, and we on these Benches will seek to work with others across the House to try to persuade and, if necessary, defeat the Government in the Division Lobbies if they will not listen to reasonable argument. I will draw my remarks to a close and I am sure that we will return to these matters in Committee.

Divorce (Financial Provision) Bill [HL]

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Friday 27th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on bringing forward her Bill and securing a Second Reading so early in the Session. The Bill proposes to repeal Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and replace it with a series of principles that would apply in the determination of applications for financial orders in divorces.

I am not a lawyer, so I have come to the Bill as a lay person. I looked at what marriage is: it is, of course, an agreement by which two people enter into a certain legal relationship with each other and which creates and imposes mutual rights and duties. However, when you look carefully, it is a contract—but a very special contract—that comes into force if special formalities are observed and, apart from death, can be set aside or terminated only by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Of course, people enter into this contract because they love each other and want to be with each other and make a life together as a couple, and possibly have children. As an institution, marriage is something that Members on these Benches fully support. We believe that it is one of the bedrocks of stable relationships and society. We are very proud on these Benches that we introduced civil partnerships for gay people some years ago, and that we fully supported the Government last year, in the previous Session, when they decided the time was right to introduce equal marriage for gay people. We did that because we agreed with the Government that marriage is an important institution and that gay people have the right to be treated exactly the same, enjoying the same benefits and facing the same challenges in the society they are equal members of.

I then looked at divorce and what exactly it means. It is, of course, the termination of marital union, the cancelling and/or reorganising of the legal duties and responsibilities of marriage. I found it interesting that, with amendments over time, we are using an Act, which, although ground-breaking at the time, came on to the statute book 41 years ago. That may not be long in the life of legislation, but divorce is a live issue affecting thousands of people every year, as they go through the process either as divorcing spouses or as their children. I reflected on how different the UK is today from 1973.

On these Benches we welcome the debate and believe it is timely. Changes need to be made in the application of financial orders in divorces. However, I cannot at this stage give the Bill my wholehearted support—but, like the noble Lord, Lord McNally, I give it my qualified support. However, with careful debate, identifying the issues of concern, we could be in a position to agree amendments that would enable us to give it our full support.

The concerns can be outlined as follows. Clause 2 provides that either party subject to proceedings for divorce may apply to a court for an order in relation to matrimonial property, for the payment of a lump sum, for the transfer of property or for a pension-sharing order. Legislating on an approach to the division of assets would certainly provide greater certainty for couples who are separating, but we would want to see clear safeguards to protect the economically weaker spouse.

Clause 3 would make prenuptial and post-nuptial agreements binding on the parties, subject to a number of safeguards, and binding agreements could provide couples deciding to marry with the ability to plan with more certainty. I can see the argument that it would bring into full view the potential costs to each party, that significant money could be saved in lawyer and court costs, and that it could take some of the hostility and bitterness out of the process for both parties. I also understand that in many other jurisdictions prenuptial agreements are very common and that in many cases those same jurisdictions have much lower divorce rates. I think that we would want to carefully examine the proposals and test the competing arguments—that, on the one hand, this would undermine marriage and that, on the other, it would strengthen it.

Clauses 4 and 5 propose that the net value of the matrimonial property is shared fairly between the parties. The proposals seek to limit costly litigation by providing a process for asset division and maintenance. They seek to remove, or certainly limit, the role that the court plays in deciding the appropriate division of assets and maintenance, and they limit the ongoing dependence of either spouse on the other as a means of allowing divorcing couples to establish independent lives as quickly as possible.

Our concerns here are that this appears to be a one-size-fits-all approach and that, if there is no place for individual circumstances to be taken into account, after three years when the welfare state is shrinking, the more vulnerable and economically weaker spouse would be left dependent on a shrinking welfare state. I understand that at present courts are told not to make a divorcing spouse dependent on the state where there are other resources to assist them. However, the case for indefinite maintenance orders needs to be looked at and reformed. Maybe an automatic review after a set period of time would be a better way of achieving the aims of the Bill in this respect.

This Bill seeks to deal with important issues and to find solutions to situations that are far from satisfactory at present. I have attempted to highlight some of the concerns from these Benches. However, I believe that, with the Government being fair and reasonable, the Bill could be significantly improved and make progress through your Lordships’ House. As the Opposition, we are here to play our full role in making those improvements.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I have an interest in this. I am happily married, although I was getting a few funny looks this week from my wife, my noble friend Lady Kennedy, after getting out books on divorce.

In closing, I bring to the attention of the House that, although it is not proposed here, there is nothing in the rules of the House—I have checked this with the Clerk of the Parliaments—to prevent this Bill or any other Private Member’s Bill being committed to a Grand Committee. A few days in Committee in the Moses Room dealing with the issues that have been outlined today, particularly as highlighted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, might have been a better way of proceeding. It might have produced something for Report that the whole House, or at least a substantial majority of the House, would be willing to support.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is right that it is time for Parliament to act on these matters. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, said, action is badly needed and needs to be taken.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is correct to point out that Governments sometimes find issues such as this difficult to deal with. In our recent history, since the Second World War, the Private Member’s Bill has had a very honourable tradition of dealing with these difficult issues, enabling the law to be changed and reformed with government support. However, that requires government support in providing time to work through the issues. We certainly have plenty of time and space in the Moses Room to make this happen if we want to. Before any noble Lord suggests that this Bill would be too controversial to put into Grand Committee, I ask them to reflect on that fact that the Government put the Welfare Reform Bill into Grand Committee. There can be no argument that that Bill raised controversial issues, but the Government saw no reason not to have its Committee stage in the Moses Room.

In conclusion, I again thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing this Bill to the House and I wish her well in her endeavours.

Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have done, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for putting this Question down for debate. He has raised an important issue for your Lordships’ House to debate this afternoon.

Imprisonment for public protection was introduced by the previous Labour Government in 2005. It was designed to ensure that dangerous, violent and sexual offenders stayed in custody for as long as they presented a risk to society. When Labour introduced IPP in 2005, it was for a very good reason: protection of the public, with sentences put in place to keep the most violent, persistent offenders off our streets. If a judge felt that offenders were a risk to society, they could hand down an IPP, which meant that the offenders had to prove to the Parole Board that they were ready to rejoin society by completing rehabilitation programmes. Punishment and reform went hand in hand.

I accept entirely that there were problems with the introduction and in 2008 changes were introduced to deal with some of the issues we have heard about today. Labour made changes to the administration of the scheme and proposed a new “seriousness threshold” that would have to be satisfied before the court could impose the sentence. This was to make sure that the sentence was reserved for very serious and violent offenders—those who are the biggest risk to the public. As a result of these changes, the number of offenders serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection dropped, but serious offenders were released from prison only when it was deemed safe to do so. Evidence shows that there is a low rate of reoffending by prisoners released having served a sentence of imprisonment for public protection.

Instead, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, the Government’s new regime introduces a “two strikes” policy so that a mandatory life sentence will be given to anyone convicted of a second serious sexual or violent crime. Where is the public protection here? Effectively, the policy says, “We won’t make the mistake a second time”. Does the Minister believe that the new complicated system of extensions and parole for different sentences will keep the public safe?

Imprisonment for public protection was criticised for contributing to prison overcrowding, but what will the effect of this new policy be? Does the Minister know? Our prisons have serious problems; overcrowding is a real issue. I share the astonishment of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, at the Justice Secretary seeking to limit prisoners’ access to books, as has recently been announced.

Under this Government, 17 local prisons have been closed, with 5,000 places lost in the prison system in the last year alone, leaving remaining prisons close to bursting point. Does the Minister agree that overcrowding in the prison system—pushed to breaking point by the Justice Secretary, with prison places lost before anything is built to replace them—is making it harder effectively to rehabilitate those still serving a sentence of imprisonment for public protection?

To work effectively, the Government’s new sentencing regime needs investment in the Parole Board. Lack of investment in the Parole Board and the shortage of courses for rehabilitation have caused, and are still causing, a backlog. Without proper investment, the Government’s new plan will face the same problems. What resources are the Government putting in place to ensure that these offenders are properly rehabilitated before they are released back into the community?

We are hearing reports that courses and activities are being cancelled, or that prisoners cannot attend courses, due to there not being enough prison officers to escort prisoners from the wing to the classroom. Now that imprisonment for public protection has been abolished, what is the plan for dealing with prisoners who remain within the system over their tariff? There is not one. The Government’s new policy will not avoid the criticisms levied against the previous system that it seeks to replace. It offers no solution to deal with those prisoners still in the system over their tariff. Let us be clear: the chances of being rehabilitated in prison are now lower than ever.

We cannot have offenders who come out of prison just as or more likely to offend as when they went in. We must also do all we can to make sure that the first crime is the last crime. To make a real difference, rehabilitation requires investment. We need investment in drugs and alcohol programmes and mental health services. We need rehabilitation courses to be available in all prisons and a more effective and joined-up approach to reducing reoffending in the long term.

What is most worrying is that a recent report from the National Audit Office found that fewer sex offender treatment programmes are being provided in prisons. In February this year, the BBC reported that, in 2012-13, there were around 11,000 sex offenders in prison in England and Wales but that only 1,092 treatment programmes were completed, while sex offenders in jails in England now make up 15% of the prison population. There are more sex offenders in prisons, but fewer treatment programmes.

The Government have been playing catch-up ever since they abolished imprisonment for public protection. Serious, violent individuals must not pose a risk to the public and proper due process must be followed before their release. They should be supported by courses and programmes and an effectively resourced Parole Board to allow rehabilitation to take place.

Judges need all the tools at their disposal to sentence people in the right way so that they are punished and reformed. The public will want reassurance that there are enough prison places over the coming years to keep safely behind bars those found guilty of serious crimes and that enough is being done to rehabilitate and reform prisoners to stop them reoffending.

The new regime needs the same investment in parole hearings and rehabilitation courses to make it work as was needed by imprisonment for public protection. There is no solution for thousands of prisoners over their tariff; the same problems remain. This is indicative of the fact that the revolution in rehabilitation promised by the Government in their review is nowhere to be seen. I again thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for bringing this Question before the House.

Claims Management Companies: Unwanted Text Messages

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure that people do not receive unwanted text messages from claims management companies.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government fully support the work of the Information Commissioner’s Office in enforcing the legislation that protects individuals from unsolicited text messages. The Ministry of Justice’s claims management regulation unit is actively working with the commissioner to investigate individual claims management companies receiving leads or claims as a result of unsolicited text messages, and is taking enforcement action as appropriate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the mis-selling of payment protection insurance was an absolute scandal, but the activities of some claims management companies are also a scandal, with unwanted text messages and phone calls. Does the Minister agree that there is a serious problem with this industry? If so, what are the Government going to do about it?

[Lord McNally]

The Government are making sure that there are joined-up investigations, co-operation between the various bodies responsible for various aspects of the industry and carried-through enforcement action. This is feeding through into weeding out the rogue traders and making sure that the consumer has sufficient information to be able to make rational decisions as to whether they use the services offered.

Insurance: Payment Protection Insurance

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 5th March 2012 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to ensure consumers are getting good value for money from companies that are marketing services helping people make payment protection insurance mis-selling claims.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government require claims management companies to follow conduct rules focusing on protecting the consumer. The Ministry of Justice’s Claims Management Regulation Unit will take action against companies which fail to comply.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the noble Lord agree that the mis-selling of payment protection insurance was a scandal? Does he agree that making a claim is relatively straightforward, that you do not need to use a claims management company, and that losing 30 per cent of your compensation in fees and charges is not very good value for money? Would he agree to meet me and consumers’ representatives to discuss how consumers can keep more of their money?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I would be very happy to have such a meeting, and I congratulate the noble Lord on his campaign in this area. It is an area where consumers have not been best served and where they are not aware that there are many simpler ways of reclaiming this money than paying exorbitant fees to claims management companies. I hope that as a department we are on the case but I would gladly meet the noble Lord and colleagues to discuss it further.

Loan Companies: Interest Rates

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they propose to deal with high street lenders who charge excessive rates of interest, particularly to those on the lowest incomes.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox)]

My Lords, the Government recognise that it is often the most vulnerable who have to pay the highest costs when accessing credit. We are commissioning research into the impact of introducing a cap on the total cost of credit that these lenders can charge. We are also looking at the high cost credit market as part of our consumer credit review and we will publish our final response before the end of this year.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for her response. Does she agree that companies which charge 2,000, 3,000 or even 4,000 per cent are legalised loan sharks? Will the Government look at requiring these companies to put a health warning on their advertisements in highly visible, large type explaining clearly the costs of their services and advising people that their local credit union would offer better value for money?

[Baroness Wilcox]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has covered three big items. I know what an expert he is on the last one, so I will leave that for the moment. This Government and the previous Government have looked again and again at capping interest rates, but our worry has always been that that would push people towards illegal money lending. We then do not know when they are in trouble and they can be treated very violently. Even looking to see whether we should be changing this in any way is a new venture for us. The noble Lord is absolutely right in his second point. People should have the right information on which to base their choices.

Personal Injury Lawyers

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 7th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I can see a few more experienced ex-Ministers over there. The Government are sympathetic to the idea of a ban on referral fees, and are looking at how to tackle the issue as part of wider reforms—how we could do so effectively. Perhaps the Opposition have not yet got used to the fact that we are not a knee-jerk reaction Government; we are looking at the problem. The Prime Minister himself has made it very clear that we believe that Lord Justice Jackson has given us the solution to the problem. We are now looking at how to make it most effective.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords—

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords—

Representation of the People (Electoral Registration Data Schemes) Regulations 2011

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2011 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the order and regulations will together provide the legal basis for the electoral registration data-matching trial that my honourable friend the Minister for Political and Constitutional Reform announced in another place on 15 September 2010. These instruments will enable the sharing and matching of specified data between local authority electoral registration officers and public authorities that also hold certain kinds of specified data.

It might assist the Committee if, before going into greater depth about what the instruments will do, I were to supply some context and background to the order and regulations. The view that there is a need for change in our arrangements for electoral registration is, I know, widely shared. It is important that the register is as accurate and as complete as possible. We need to make sure that the system is not vulnerable to fraud, while ensuring at the same time that people are not prevented from registering to vote because the system is too difficult to use or because they are not aware of their rights.

In 2014, the Government plan to introduce individual electoral registration in place of the outdated system of household registration. Alongside that, however, we believe that there are other tools that we may be able to use to tackle under-registration and to ensure that people have every opportunity to register. Data matching is one of them.

Data matching involves comparing the electoral register against other public databases in order to identify people who are currently missing from the register. They can then be contacted by electoral registration officials and offered the opportunity to register if they are eligible to vote. We envisage that through data matching we will also be able to take steps to identify and remove any individuals who are on the register but are not entitled to be.

We believe that data matching has the potential to reduce the incidence of under-registration among specific groups in our society, but we do not yet know enough. We also believe that data matching has the potential to tackle inaccuracy in our electoral registers, but, again, we do not yet know enough. We need to test the effectiveness of data matching in this context and see what kinds of data are most useful in improving the accuracy and completeness of the register. We therefore plan to trial data matching over the next few months in a range of electoral registration areas in England, Wales and Scotland. The instruments before the Committee today will enable that to happen. The results of the trial will be evaluated with the assistance of the Electoral Commission and will help the Government to decide whether to seek to legislate to extend data matching permanently across all local authorities.

The order will enable specified data-holding public authorities, including the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education, to provide electoral registration officers with the data necessary for their planned data-matching schemes. The 22 local authorities planning to take part in the trial are listed in the schedule to the order and we are grateful to them and to the data-holding authorities that will be participating for the work that they are doing.

Members of the Committee may have noticed that there are in fact 23 local authorities in the schedule. This is because Cardiff has unfortunately had to withdraw since the order was laid. I am, however, very happy to confirm that Peterborough, which withdrew prior to the order being debated in another place, has since been able to resolve its problems and will after all be taking part. Cardiff’s withdrawal does not affect the validity of the order, because being included in the schedule does not compel an area to take part. Nor will it affect the validity of the eventual results of the pilot schemes. Even if another one or two of the pilot schemes were to run into unforeseen practical difficulties of the kind recently encountered by Peterborough and Cardiff, there will still be enough of them for the results to be useful.

The order stipulates that before any data can be transferred a written agreement must be in place between the electoral registration officer and the data-holding authority, setting out the requirements as to the processing, transfer, storage, destruction and security of the data concerned. It also sets 1 March 2012 as the date by which each of the schemes must have been evaluated.

For the information of the Committee, let me say that 1 March 2012—not the end of December 2011, as mentioned in the draft agreement attached to the Explanatory Memorandum—will now be the date by which all data created for the purposes of the pilot schemes must be destroyed, except of course where data have been added to the electoral register in the mean time. Since that version of the draft agreement was prepared, the Electoral Commission has told us that it would assist its evaluation of the pilot schemes if the data were still to be available, should the commission need to see it. We agree with the commission, so the final version of the agreement will reflect this change of date.

The regulations complement the order by enabling registration officers to supply a copy of their full register, or an extract from it, to another person for it to be compared with the information that is to be provided under a data-matching scheme. The regulations also provide that a person to whom the copy of the register is passed may not do anything with it for any other purpose or without the registration officer’s consent. This means that registration officers will not be given data relating to everyone in their area. They will receive only targeted information about particular individuals, thus ensuring that unnecessary personal data are not transferred to registration officers and that the data that they receive are provided to them for a reason.

Data-matching schemes may lead to greater accuracy and improved levels of registration in some electoral registration areas and among some groups within the next few months. If so, the schemes may be the key to greater accuracy and improved levels of registration on a much larger scale within the next few years. However, we need to know for certain and we need to be able to produce the evidence. That is why it is so important to put these trials in hand. The order and regulations will enable us to do that and I commend them to the Committee.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I declare that I am an electoral commissioner, having joined the commission on 1 October last year. I fully support the thrust of the commission’s views on these important statutory instruments.

I am sure that all noble Lords want completeness and accuracy of electoral registers. We want confidence in our democracy and our electoral system. We want confidence that you will be able to vote if you want to and if you are eligible. We want confidence in those who have been elected to serve at all levels of government.

It is important that clear and reliable evidence on data matching is produced and that the evidence is robustly assessed. It is particularly important that this assessment is done carefully and represents fully what can be achieved, not least because data matching is envisaged as the primary method of ensuring the continued completeness of individual registration in 2014-15. I should welcome a response from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, on that specific point and on the commission’s concern that the timing of the schemes will coincide with the annual canvass of electors. It is important that there is clarity about the design of the data-matching schemes, so that the impact and any follow-up activity can be demonstrated beyond what the annual canvass activity would normally achieve.

Can the noble Lord give any further information on the agreement to process the data? It is particularly important that personal data are handled carefully and are protected. The commission has specifically recommended that the approach to the delivery of each pilot area should also form part of any written agreement, so that the commission can fully evaluate each scheme.

Finally, the noble Lord will be aware that the commission is required to produce an evaluation report on the operation of the scheme by 1 March 2012. To achieve this, it will be important that EROs are able to provide the commission at agreed intervals during the schemes’ operation with the information needed. Clarity about the design and delivery of each scheme will ensure that the commission is able to undertake its statutory evaluation effectively and that the results can inform future policy development on electoral registration. I am of course happy for the noble Lord to write to me to clarify a number of these points.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, because I know that he shares the commitment that we have on all sides of the House to make the electoral register as comprehensive and accurate as we can.

In the debates earlier this year on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, there was a great deal of discussion about under-registration. That was not the first time that the issue was raised. The noble Lord, Lord Wills, gave a great deal of attention to this in the previous Government. I recall that on a number of occasions in Grand Committee on the Political Parties and Elections Bill we had considerable discussions about the right momentum and the right progress needed to improve the level of registration. On a number of occasions, previous Administrations—like the present Government—have looked at ways in which data matching could assist this purpose.

It is important to note that there was an improvement during the calendar year 2010; in the last few days there have been some interesting improvements, too, which I notice that colleagues on the other side of the House have also seen. The context of that was a very exciting general election at which, for the first time in some people’s political memory, it looked as though the outcome was not certain. In those circumstances, there was an increase, particularly—and this is encouraging—among the younger age group, which notoriously in the recent past has not registered. We should take encouragement from the fact that, if we can make politics more interesting and outcomes more indeterminate, we can increase registration. It is not only a mechanical operation but a political one to get as many of our fellow citizens engaged as possible.

The integrity of the register is a question of making sure that those who should be on are on and that those who should not be on, or are there in duplicate, are not on. Therefore, accuracy and integrity are the same thing.

The PPE Act, as the Bill became, set fair and square registration objectives. They are,

“to secure, so far as reasonably practicable—(a) that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register are registered in it, (b) that persons who are not entitled to be registered in a register are not registered in it, and (c) that none of the information relating to a registered person that appears in a register or other record kept by the officer is false”.

Obviously, the instruments that are before the Committee today seek to build on that responsibility, which lies not only on the Government but on all of us. I appreciate the clarity with which my noble friend introduced the instruments, which I welcome.

Those objectives are clearly uncontroversial and it is a matter of some puzzlement to our fellow citizens that sometimes the electoral register seems to be totally unrelated to the other information that has been gathered on behalf of local or central government. They find it peculiar; they think that we are all the same thing. They think that Parliament and the Government are the same thing, let alone local authorities and other parts of the state system. They think that we are all part of the same bureaucracy. For example, those who are accused of filing a housing benefit form inaccurately will often cite the presence of all members of their household on the electoral register as a necessary and understandable defence. Who can blame them? They think that that is an official document and therefore can be quoted as such.

Those kinds of situations raise the question of whether the flow of information from government departments into councils will be a two-way process. Will it work in both directions? The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions—this is in the order—might give information on the DWP’s database to the electoral registration officer in Blackpool, but will the DWP then use the comparison data to identify potential fraud on its own books? I do not expect my noble friend to answer on behalf of the other department this afternoon, but I think that this is a subject where our fellow citizens would genuinely like to know whether there is an answer.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

24A: Clause 11, page 11, line 5, at end insert—
“( ) a constituency named Ynys Môn comprising the whole of the island of Anglesey”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I will not detain the House long; many distinguished noble Lords will know Wales and the island of Anglesey much better than I do. It is an island constituency which deserves exemption in much the same way as your Lordships agreed to exempt the Isle of Wight recently. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, this is another attempt to except a single constituency; we have already debated a longer list of proposed exemptions. In the case of Anglesey, where geography is concerned, the two road bridges crossing the Menai strait clearly show there is no question of Anglesey being a difficult place to travel to or to travel around for the MP or constituents. We believe that parliamentary constituencies often cross the boundaries of a local authority without taking away all the sense of identity of each community within the constituency. Nor does it take away the ability of an MP to represent various communities with different senses of identity in one constituency.

I understand the noble Lord's motives in moving this amendment, as I do those of other noble Lords who have a particular attachment to a constituency. However, the fact remains the same. If we are to pursue our overall aim of having votes of equal weight we do not want to make the type of exceptions that the noble Lord proposes. I therefore invite him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Lord for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 24A withdrawn.