25 Apr 2007 : Column 655
House of Lords
Wednesday, 25 April 2007.
The House met at three o’clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of St Albans): the LORD SPEAKER on the Woolsack.
Conventions: Joint Committee Report
Lord Tomlinson asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Whether they have assessed the extent to which the report and recommendations by the Joint Committee on Conventions, Conventions of the United Kingdom Parliament (HL Paper 265, Session 2005-06), endorsed by both Houses of Parliament, are being observed.
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government welcomed the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions when it was published in October last year. Both Houses approved the report unanimously in January. The Government believe that it is too soon after the publication of the report to make any full assessment of the operation of the conventions.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend reflect on why, having voted for the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions and then for an all-appointed second Chamber, your Lordships’ House should be regarded by others as reliable, given that it in quick succession rejected a government Bill at Second Reading and opposed a statutory instrument? Is your Lordships’ House not playing with fire to the potential detriment of its role, as described by the report of the Joint Committee on Conventions?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, naturally, I reflected on the fraud Bill. I looked at the Joint Committee’s report, which said:
“In addition the evidence points to the emergence in recent years of a practice that the House of Lords will usually give a Second Reading to any government Bill, whether based on the manifesto or not. We offer no definition of situations in which an attempt to defeat a Bill at Second Reading might be appropriate”.
So it might be regarded as unusual. I also reflected on the casino order. The report concluded, on the basis of the evidence, that:
“The House of Lords should not regularly reject statutory instruments, but in exceptional circumstances it may be appropriate for it to do so”.
One of the exceptional circumstances is when special attention is drawn to an instrument by the Lords Select Committee on the Merits of Statutory Instruments, so it might be okay. However, I am worried that there was a fatal Motion supported by the Liberal Democrats on 11 December 2006, another one on 9 January 2007, another one on
25 Apr 2007 : Column 656
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that this House should reject a Bill at Second Reading only in the most unusual circumstances and only after a great deal of reflection? Can he confirm that what happened with the jury trials Bill did not break the Salisbury convention in any way and that the excellent Cunningham report did not say that a Second Reading should be given every time a Bill is presented to the House? Furthermore, on the casino vote, was it not the case that the business management between the House of Commons and the House of Lords was not done as wisely as it could have been, with the vote in this House coming before that in another place? Is it not also true that the majority of three would have been reversed if all Members of the government Front Bench had voted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on the first point, I agree on the excellence of the Cunningham committee’s report. I am sorry that my noble friend is not in his place today to be congratulated on it yet again. Secondly, I agree, as I said, that the conventions report allows, in exceptional cases, for there to be a defeat at Second Reading. Whether a defeat is exceptional, in relation to Bills and to statutory instruments, cannot be looked at in isolation; it has to be looked at over a long period. That is why I draw attention to the number of fatal Motions that are currently being proposed. Finally, it could not be said that anyone was acting irresponsibly not to vote at all, let alone not to vote for a fatal Motion, which appeared to be the implication of the noble Lord’s last question.
Lord McNally: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor not find it faintly sad that so distinguished a parliamentarian as the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, should in the autumn of his years see it as his job to play nightclub bouncer to this authoritarian Government? Does the noble and learned Lord not recall that one of the Cunningham report’s key recommendations, without which I would not have signed the report, was that the House of Lords should retain the right to say no? Is he aware that we on these Benches will exercise that right every time civil liberties or good governance are in question?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I would regard the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, as being not in the autumn of his years but in the spring of his years. I thought that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, had signed up to a report that said that there were certain exceptional circumstances at Second Reading and with statutory instruments where it was quite legitimate for this House to say no. I completely agree with that. As I understand it, every time the Liberal Democrats disagree with something on civil liberties grounds, they will regard that—despite what the
25 Apr 2007 : Column 657
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord recognise that the report says that neither House should regularly reject secondary legislation but that it may be appropriate to do so in exceptional circumstances? Surely the test is how often the House has rejected secondary legislation, not how often the Liberal Democrats have put down Motions. We all know that most Liberal Democrat Motions stand no chance of getting passed anyhow.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have always understood that Motions are rejected or not by people either voting against them or in favour of them. The critical step in rejecting things is people voting against them. You cannot distinguish, as the noble Viscount seeks to do, between people voting against a Motion and the Motion being defeated.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords—
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, if it is anticipated that the second Chamber is to be elected in the future, is it not unsurprising that it starts to flex its muscles? On the other hand, if we were to be assured that the second Chamber will be appointed in the future, would it not be more likely to resume its habit of deferring to the authority of the democratically elected House of Commons?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is for others to judge. All that I thought we had agreed to in January was to comply with what was said by the conventions committee of the noble Lord, Lord Cunningham. The House made that commitment in January. I make it clear that I am not saying that the House has broken that—we must look at it over time—but it must be clear that we stand by our commitments.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock: My Lords, is my noble and learned friend aware—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, this Question is good for 30 minutes, but we must move on.
Prisoners: Mental Health
3.08 pm
Baroness Stern asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What plans they have to handle mentally ill people in prison, in light of the Prime Minister’s review of the criminal justice system.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Prime Minister’s review provides a valuable framework, through which we will continue to develop and extend health services
25 Apr 2007 : Column 658
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that encouraging reply. I am sure that she welcomes, as do I, the Government’s commitment to get mentally ill people who should not be in prison out of there, as expressed in a number of recent statements. In the light of these statements, can she confirm that the Government plan to provide another 8,000 prison places, costing £1.5 billion in capital expenditure and more than £3 million a year to run? Why are the Government spending this money on prison places, rather than on places of treatment for the mentally ill people who they agree are wrongly placed in the prison system?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can confirm that we intend to build 8,000 more prison places, but that is not in any way to undermine the efforts we are making for mental health provision. I join the noble Baroness in congratulating the efforts made. She will know that we have made a significant improvement. By next year, we will be spending almost £200 million on health in prisons; and about £20 million is available for mental health in-reach services in each year from 2006-07.
Lord Elton: My Lords, will the Minister tell us how many court diversion schemes are now in operation, and confirm that these are a very good way to ensure that severely mentally disordered people do not arrive in prison at all?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord the exact figure. I will undertake to see whether we can get it. He will know that various areas have various ways of delivering the schemes. I confirm the importance of early identification of mental illness and risk, and diversion, as appropriate, to meet those needs prior to entry into the criminal justice system. We are doing everything possible to ensure that takes place.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, while welcoming the transfer of responsibility for health services from the Prison Service to the NHS, do not the figures on reoffending in the review suggest to the Government that unless and until we separate out those large numbers in the prison system with severe mental illnesses we will not make any impact on them? Does not that underline the point the noble Baroness made; that we need separate specialist treatment because prison officers are not trained to deal around the clock with the large number of people in prison with mental illnesses?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we need to do as much as we can in that regard. Therefore, I am delighted to say that we have made significant improvements. Prison officers are being trained in mental health awareness; and £600,000 has been invested over three years
25 Apr 2007 : Column 659
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is there not a greater problem with the dual problem of mental illness and drug and alcohol addiction?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is a very significant problem. The noble Baroness will know that is the reason we have created specific programmes to deal with both issues. She will be aware that for many the abuse of alcohol and drugs masks an underlying mental illness. Therefore, we have to deal with both issues. We are making real progress, which gives, I know, a number of people in this House a lot of pleasure.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, the Government's review on security, crime and justice, which we welcome, mentions and proposes hybrid prisons and mental health courts. What is a hybrid prison, and what would be the function of a mental health court?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that that was a suggestion in how we better handle the issues of those with mental illness but who are still in need of security. We intend to explore the issue. The noble Baroness will know that it is part of the review, and we will look very hard at it with our mental health colleagues. The real issue is to get the right placements for people, so that any mental illness can be addressed appropriately.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I am sure many here would agree that the word “asylum” needs to be rediscovered in the sense of it being a place of safety, compassion and wholeness. Given the very high proportion of people in prison suffering from identifiable mental illness, can the Minister tell us not only what provision is being made for their timely transfer to more appropriate secure accommodation, but also whether in providing that accommodation the spiritual needs of such patients and prisoners will be taken with the utmost seriousness?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly reassure the right reverend Prelate that spiritual needs are taken with the appropriate degree of seriousness. He will know that we have enhanced our chaplaincy work and are doing outreach work not only in prisons but in the community. Further, I hope the House will be reassured that all prisoners are now assessed at the point of reception into prison, and those at risk of having a mental health issue or a vulnerability to suicide are referred for a mental health assessment. There are also new systems to monitor and support those at risk of harming themselves. Together with the in-reach teams, we have 360 extra staff employed on mental health in-reach provision to ensure that we bear down on that very difficult problem.
25 Apr 2007 : Column 660
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, the Minister referred to the Government's intention to get mental health prisoners into hospital. Can she tell us how many of the severely mentally disordered people in prison are awaiting transfer to a hospital and how long is the average time that prisoners spend waiting to be transferred?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have made significant improvements in that regard. The noble Viscount will know that in 1997, 757 prisoners were transferred from prison under the Mental Health Act and delays were common. We have made significant improvements. In 2006, we moved 961 prisoners. The timing and the numbers have greatly improved, and I should be very happy to provide specific details for the noble Viscount.
Armed Forces: Equipment
3.16 pm
Baroness Sharples asked Her Majesty’s Government:
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, first, I am sure that the whole House will want to join me in offering sincere condolences to the families and friends of Corporal Ben Leaning, Trooper Kristen Turton and Kingsman Alan Joseph Jones, who have died in the past week during operations in Iraq.
As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence has made clear, force protection is our top equipment priority on operations, but operations can never be made risk-free. Our overriding aim is to ensure that the Armed Forces are successful on operations and that they have the equipment to achieve that.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Will he comment on reports that the refurbished fleet of Nimrods in Afghanistan will have the same fuel system as caused the disaster with the loss of 14 personnel last year?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I am not able to comment on that because the board of inquiry into the loss of the Nimrod has not reported; of course, I will be able to once that has taken place.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, in practice, what financial limitations are imposed on the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory in respect of its excellent and valuable work on ballistic protection for armoured vehicles?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, the issue of the development of ballistic protection for armoured vehicles is a top priority for us for research and
25 Apr 2007 : Column 661
Lord Garden: My Lords, we on these Benches join in offering our condolences to the families of the three servicemen.
Presumably, the Fulton inquiry into the hostage-taking by Iran, which is considering equipment, will be able to give some insights into the Question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharples. Yesterday’s Statement did not provide a full set of terms of reference; it described what was going to be looked into. I regret that, but I gather that no more details are to be made available. Can the noble Lord tell us what will be the composition of Lieutenant-General Fulton’s inquiry, just as the Government tell us about the media inquiry? Can he also tell us what progress he is making with forming a group from your Lordships’ House to look at the results of the inquiry in full?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, on the composition of Lieutenant-General Fulton’s inquiry, I am happy to write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library. On the review by this House of the outcome of the inquiry, I would welcome feedback from opposition spokesmen on what they want the composition to be. I am open to suggestions from noble Lords on what they think would be the appropriate composition of that team in the circumstances.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that all transport aircraft operating in and out of airfields in Iraq and Afghanistan are now fitted with appropriate defensive aids?
Lord Drayson: My Lords, I can give the noble and gallant Lord the assurance that he seeks that all the transport aircraft have the appropriate defensive aid suites for the missions on which they are engaged.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, we on these Benches also send our condolences to the families of the soldiers killed. The Secretary of State has said that the full complement of Bulldog armoured vehicles will be in Iraq by May. Is the Minister confident that this will happen?
Lord Drayson: Yes, my Lords, I am confident. The provision of protected patrol vehicles such as Bulldog, Mastiff and Vector is a top priority for me. The progress that we have made—for example, fielding Mastiff from start to finish in under six months—shows the priority that we give to this.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |