| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
As noble Lords have already remarked, 3,550 offenders have received an IPP sentence since that became available. Noble Lords have identified some of the real practical challenges that we face as a consequence of some of those sentences. I will come on to those in a moment. I have no doubt that many of those sentences were entirely appropriate, but we know from the comments made by senior judges and others that the framework imposed by the 2003 Act may have restricted judicial discretion unduly and resulted in sentences when a standard determinate sentence might have been fairer and more appropriate.
Noble Lords have already referred to the lowest tariff of 28 days being imposed. I fully accept that it is very difficult to find a rationale for saying, on the one hand, that an offender has committed a crime that is so serious, and that he is so risky, that he could need to be locked up for the remainder of his life; and, on
11 Dec 2007 : Column 200
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, asked whether modelling was done. It was, and it would be fair to say that it was not far out in terms of the overall numbers. I would not underestimate the modelling expertise of the Home Office and now my department, having seen the modelling done by my old department, the Department of Health. These matters are difficult, but I am not unimpressed with the modelling that has been done.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, is the Minister saying that the modelling done by the Home Office, as part of a policy that has completely failed, happens to be rather better than that of any other government department?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not say that at all. I said that modelling can be difficult, and that the actual numbers were not too far out. The short tariffs, which were not expected in the modelling, have caused the problem. I know that my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland discussed this, and responded in good faith in the way that was quoted.
The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Thomas, in particular referred to the cases that my department has lost in the courts. We are now awaiting the results of the appeals. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, did not hold out much hope for the Government, but we will have to wait and see.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister might address this question in the few moments available. If the Government lose the appeals, which must be at least a 50:50 prospect, they will be forced to release prisoners who have reached their tariff period but who have not been assessed by the Parole Board. They will be released simply because they have reached that point in their sentence, whereas those who have been considered by the Parole Board and may have had a decision that is adverse to them—that they should stay in for longer—will be at a much greater disadvantage. What plans do the Government have to deal with this extraordinary position, which is now staring them in the face a few weeks away?
11 Dec 2007 : Column 201
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we are now dealing with a lot of hypotheticals. We will have to see the outcome of the appeal and the nature of the ruling of the Appeal Court: the noble Lord would not expect me to say anything other than that. It is not as though we are putting our heads in the sand and doing nothing. The department is looking at contingency arrangements and operational changes. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has already referred to the interim measure of allocating a further £3 million in the current financial year to help prisons to complete assessments and move offenders on to relevant offending behaviour programmes. Clearly, we are also looking at the detailed operation of IPPs through an internal service review to see how we can streamline the process for assessing and managing IPP offenders.
The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, referred to a 3 per cent reduction in resources over five years. It is not as bad as that. It is a tough settlement—again, I do not seek to hide from that—of minus 1.7 per cent per year over the next three years. Within that, we have to improve the efficiency of the department. My noble friend Lord Carter has put forward some considered proposals about how we can drive more efficiency in the Prison Service.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, for the sake of clarity, I was referring in particular to the services available in the community. Certainly, the Probation Service is looking at cuts of the nature that I quoted, not the Prison Service.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying that, but I have to say that that is on the back of a considerable increase in real terms for the Probation Service since 1997. The figure that I have is a 70 per cent real-terms increase. Notwithstanding that, we clearly face a challenging position. However, we will obviously look at the resources very carefully.
Over that period, we have seen considerable increases in the resources spent on prison healthcare as a result of the transfer of responsibility to the Department of Health and on offender learning. The picture is not wholly bleak. There are examples of real progress within the Prison Service in relation to rehabilitation.
We will of course come soon to legislation. The report of my noble friend Lord Carter has clearly shown the way forward in introducing a minimum tariff of two years. We will introduce legislation to ensure that that happens. That will make a significant contribution to my noble friend’s demand management proposals. I do not accept that this is a question of massaging the figures, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said. The report of my noble friend Lord Carter is quite clear. To meet the challenge of the prison population projections of around 96,000 places required by 2014, he suggests a combination of supply increase and demand management. The IPPs will make a significant contribution to demand management. That is not massaging the figures. It is a very sensible approach in the light of experience. Noble Lords have posed some
11 Dec 2007 : Column 202
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to what he described as unpredicted and unpredictable consequences as a result of the legislative changes. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said that this was unsustainable. The package of measures, the immediate changes to how the IPP system operates and the Carter proposals—which we will seek to put into legislation—will have a significant impact.
The Carter recommendation on a structured sentence framework offers a way of ensuring that there is a strong, transparent relationship between legislative policy, penal policy and resources, without in any way fettering the decisions of judges when they pass individual sentences. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, commented on prisoners with mental health problems. I commend to noble Lords the review that has been jointly commissioned by my department and the Department of Health to look in particular at the problems of offenders with mental health or learning disabilities, to see how, in appropriate cases, they can be diverted from prison to other services, and the barriers to such diversion.
The six happy months we spent debating mental health legislation taught me, if nothing else, the critical importance of dealing with the mental health problems of offenders. I hope that noble Lords, in taking forward what has undoubtedly been an extremely well informed debate tonight, will take the opportunity to contribute to the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley.
I hope that noble Lords will understand from the few minutes that I have had that the Government take this matter seriously. We think it was right to pass legislation on the basis of public protection. Clearly there are some practical issues that we have to face; we are facing up to them. I am grateful to noble Lords for their comments tonight.
Lord Bach: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn until 8.40 pm.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.37to 8.40 pm.]
Climate Change Bill [HL]
The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 10:
(a) as soon as possible after the passing of this Bill, consult the Committee on Climate Change as to whether the percentage specified in section 1(1) should be increased as a consequence of developments in scientific knowledge since June 2000 (the date of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution’s 22nd Report, “Energy—the Changing Climate”), and11 Dec 2007 : Column 203
The noble Earl said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, I wish to move Amendment No. 10. In view of what the Minister said on Amendment No. 7 regarding the Prime Minister’s commitment, I hope that he will be able to accept this very straightforward amendment. I beg to move.
Earl Cathcart: Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 seek to achieve a very similar objective. Amendment No. 11 would set a duty on the committee within six months of its constitution to propose a new 2050 target for approval by Parliament. If it is so approved, the Secretary of State must make an order under Clause 2 to amend the 2050 target.
We believe that setting the target is a scientific problem, or more aptly it is a problem that can be properly assessed only in scientific terms. It should not be a political issue. We discussed setting the target under Amendment No. 7, and what the right answer should be. We have all read about the 80 per cent target and we all know that 60 per cent is not the right answer. As has been mentioned, the Germans have achieved an 80 per cent target. The Norwegians have achieved a 100 per cent target. France has achieved a 75 per cent target. So who is right? I do not have a view on who is right, and I would not even like to stab a guess. I am not a scientist and I have not seen all the evidence. I suspect that some noble Lords might have seen some of it but they certainly will not have seen all the evidence. That is why we think that setting the target is best left to the committee, when it has looked at all the evidence.
When Amendment No. 7 was discussed, the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer, who is not in his place, and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, argued that the target ought to be set by the committee. The noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, said that letting the committee set it would give the committee credibility. I go further: it would give credibility not just to the committee but to the percentage chosen through the fact that it was chosen by an independent committee of experts. If the target were set by the committee, there would be no question of this House picking a percentage out of a hat. We certainly could not then be accused of choosing a figure for political expediency.
This is also a question of public confidence. It is important that the public should have confidence in this and not see it as a political issue. In order for the Bill to be effective, the public will have to make a concerted effort; if they are to be compelled into action, they need to be able to trust that the targets are absolutely authoritative. That will be achieved by having an independent expert body setting the targets. Our amendment will give this task to the committee and it will achieve that.
8.45 pm
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: I am delighted to have the opportunity to join in during the Committee stage, albeit having waited until after dinner to do so. I hope that I can follow my noble friend Lord Rooker in his responsive and discursive style.
11 Dec 2007 : Column 204
I start off by saying that we want to think about these amendments. The Government recognise the significant recent advances in scientific understanding since the 60 per cent target was set, as has been discussed at length today. As the Prime Minister has stated, the evidence now suggests that developed countries may have to reduce their emissions by as much as 80 per cent if we are to have an effective international agreement that will tackle climate change. That is why we have announced that we will ask the Committee on Climate Change to report on whether the 2050 target should be tightened up to 80 per cent.
The Government are committed to ensuring that that review takes place. We have already begun to put the committee’s shadow secretariat in place and to recruit a chair and members of the shadow committee. That means that the committee’s work on reviewing the target can begin quickly, alongside its consideration of the first three budgets. I assure the noble Earl that matters are moving forward with great commitment and speed. Although I do not consider it necessary to make this review a statutory requirement—as the Prime Minister has already announced it, it will take place—I recognise the strength of the arguments put forward this evening and am therefore willing to consider these amendments.
I have a couple of points to make. First, on the question of timing raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, we are currently discussing a realistic timetable and the resources required for this review with the shadow secretariat to the Committee on Climate Change. We are talking about an independent secretariat so it is important that we understand its needs and concerns before discussing in your Lordships’ House what the timetable would look like.
Secondly, I would like to pick up on the question of who takes the decisions. In later debates in Committee, we will be discussing further whether the responsibility for decisions on targets and budgets should rest with the Committee on Climate Change. I understand the points made by the noble Lords opposite—whether responsibility should be with the committee, the Secretary of State or indeed the Prime Minister. We will come on to that. Putting those points aside, the Government are prepared to consider the question of the target being reviewed as a statutory requirement. With that, I hope that the noble Earl will consider withdrawing his amendment.
The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister; I knew that I was pushing at an open door. As she will recall, this was one of our recommendations from the committee—recommendation 8—to which the Government gave a fairly warm response. I knew that the line would come out that it is not necessary to put it in the Bill because the Prime Minister has already announced it. I seem to remember repeating those words from the Dispatch Box many times. However, on this occasion it is worth putting this in the Bill, so we will come back to it another time. I am grateful to
11 Dec 2007 : Column 205
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [Amendment of 2050 target or baseline year]:
[Amendment No. 11A not moved.]
Lord Taylor of Holbeach moved Amendment No. 12:
(a) if a recommendation to make an order under this section is made by the Committee on Climate Change;(b) if the recommendation is approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament;and they must be exercised as soon as practicable after a recommendation is so approved.( ) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after the making of a recommendation by the Committee on Climate Change, lay the order before both Houses of Parliament and table a resolution for its approval.”
The noble Lord said: I am very reassured by the debate that we had on the previous amendment, because this amendment forms part and parcel of the same suite of amendments designed to reinforce the authority of the Committee on Climate Change. We believe in that and we are heartened to find that the Government have a similar objective in mind.
The suite of amendments is designed to limit the power to make an order amending the 2050 target or the baseline year and transfer these powers to the Committee on Climate Change, subject to parliamentary approval. No order could be made without the recommendation of the committee and the approval of both Houses as part of the combination, but it must be made if those conditions are met. If the committee is made subject to the same limitations on the exercise of power, those should be the same as the Secretary of State would enjoy under the Bill. The detailed form of the order would still be left to the Secretary of State, so I hope that noble Lords can see that we are bringing the Committee on Climate Change into the process, with its approval necessary for something to come before us here in Parliament.
This is about transferring power to the committee. A large tenet of our position on the Bill lies in this quarter. All the things that we have mentioned thus far apply to this set of amendments. Additionally, when changes are made to the baseline year or the targets, that would require parliamentary approval. That is a positive addition, because such a proposal would amount to a substantial change to the Bill. We want the Bill to live up to the importance that it deserves and such a change will reflect something dramatic enough to need the scrutiny of Parliament, especially as the outcome of the decision will affect every piece of legislation and policy. It is in the interests of the public and all parliamentarians to have any such change presented openly to both Houses. It is too big a change, with effects that are far too wide-ranging, for it simply to be made through an order.
11 Dec 2007 : Column 206
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |