| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
9 May 2007 : Column 1446
Baroness Tonge: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many poor families in this country are having to pay money back which was given to them as tax credits in error—and, in many cases, under protest—and which they spent in good faith? Does he agree that it is disgraceful that the poorest people in our society are being penalised in that way?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the noble Baroness will recognise that tax credits are designed to assist such groups in our society. She is right to say that there are problems with tax credits, not least because family circumstances change over the year and the Inland Revenue is not always informed of those changes—hence the necessity for elements of payback. We recognise that, for tax credits to be a success, the assessment must be as accurate as possible. We want a reduction in the level of payback, as the noble Baroness said.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker): My Lords, we must move on to the topical Question.
Housing: Home Information Packs
3.29 pm
Baroness Hanham asked Her Majesty’s Government:
What immediate reconsideration they are giving to their policy on home information packs in the light of the 18th report from the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee (HL Paper 92).
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Andrews): My Lords, the Government are grateful to the committee for its consideration of home information pack regulations and the regulations giving effect to the European directive on the energy performance of buildings. We have responded in writing to the chairman of the committee and placed further evidence in the Library of the House to show how home information packs, including energy performance certificates, will benefit people buying or selling a home.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, despite the pages of rebuttal that the department has produced of the report from the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee, does the Minister agree that, in the light of the highly critical report on home improvement packs, which cites comments received from organisations representing key interest groups in the housing market as showing at best scepticism and at worst hostility, the Government’s best plan would be to drop this whole proposal now?
9 May 2007 : Column 1447
Baroness Andrews: No, my Lords, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. We listened to what the committee said in its report and, as I said, we were grateful that we could provide additional and broader evidence to support the case that we have been making all along. Bringing together essential information that consumers need up front at the first point of sale, to help them chose a home, will make the transaction more transparent, more predictable and less stressful. Bringing all that together with the energy performance certificate will make a great positive difference to buying and selling homes.
Lord Soley: My Lords, will my noble friend consider moving towards the position that the Act originally intended? Far from getting rid of the pack, we should move towards greater extension. It is popular with people. As the noble Baroness opposite said, it is not popular with some estate agents and others, but their popularity level is similar to that of politicians and journalists, so perhaps we should not put too much emphasis on that. The issue is this: it is good for the environment, it is good for home owners and the majority of the public seem to want it, so let us move towards it, please.
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords, the evidence from our trials shows that home information packs are thought by sellers to be a good thing. Indeed, the polls suggest powerfully in favour of energy performance certificates: YouGov recently said that 71 per cent of people think that energy information is important and they want more information about how to make their homes warmer while reducing costs. This is popular with consumers and so it should be.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it would be virtually impossible for Parliament to devise a system that is fair to both parties in the context of a real property transaction? One side wishes to have certitude as soon as possible and the other side wishes the matter to be in abeyance until there is an exchange of contracts. The scheme as now devised and considered by Parliament is in fact the worst of all worlds in that it does not require a home conditions report or, indeed, a record of local searches. It is expensive without being satisfying for either party. In the circumstances, should the matter not be prorogued until there is a sufficiency of home inspectors for the matter to be properly supervised?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I understand and respect the noble Lord’s legal experience, but I do not think that the system is particularly equal at the moment: it is weighted against the buyer. The average time taken between offer and exchange is longer than it was in 1998. We have the most opaque system in Europe for determining at what stage documents are being collected and where you are in that process. What is the argument against bringing together useful information that tells you what you are buying at the beginning of the process, so that buyers can have a much more certain account of the choice that they are making?
9 May 2007 : Column 1448
Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, the Law Society, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, Trading Standards and the Consumers’ Association are all saying that these packs should be withdrawn because they will not help consumers. Why does the Minister think that the Government know better than this array of organisations?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, many of the bodies that the noble Baroness cited have been opposed to these changes for a long time. We have listened hard and made changes; for example, the home condition report is now a voluntary element of the pack. We are trialling it to make sure that we understand the impact on the transaction process. We have evidence to suggest that the benefits of bringing together the information that I have described, such as the elusive leases and the energy performance certificates—she will understand how concerned the environmental groups are at the prospect of delay—will make a serious and important difference to the process of buying and selling homes.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, how many more inspectors do we need? How many inspectors are already enrolled?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I can give the House the most recent information because we are in constant touch with the training and assessment centres. That information suggests that nearly 2,000 people have passed their exams and will be accredited shortly, and a further 3,000 are in training. As the increase in demand comes forward, the pool of available assessors will be growing alongside it.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, has the Minister ever considered what happens in France, where conveyancing is far more efficient and far less costly than it is in the United Kingdom?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the noble Viscount makes the case for me.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that she will not listen to the various vested interests that are opposing this measure but will move very quickly to making a home improvement pack obligatory on every house sale?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I did not say “vested interests”; I was careful in my language. We want to make a success of this, and we will listen carefully to what the noble Lord has said.
Business
3.36 pm
Lord Grocott: My Lords, with the leave of the House, we will have two Statements later today. Shortly there will be a Statement on the Ministry of Justice from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and later a Statement on Northern Ireland
9 May 2007 : Column 1449
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip for making that announcement about the Statements. Will he confirm my belief that it is unprecedented that a Statement is about to be made by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor which has already been made in another place? If I am correct that this is a new precedent, is there any reason why Statements should not be made in this House before they have been made in another place?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, the Leader of the Opposition’s memory of this place goes back a lot further than mine. If he is asking me that question, he presumably knows the answer, which is always the wise way to operate.
When you have two Houses starting at different times of the day, the sensible time to take major Statements is at the beginning of business. Had this Statement been on a Monday, a Tuesday or a Thursday, when the Houses start at pretty much the same time, this difficulty would not have arisen. It would have been very odd, however, if a major Statement of this sort had been delayed in the Commons until well into the proceedings; on Wednesdays the Commons start at 11.30 am, so the Statement would have come much later. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we should start a little earlier in the day, I am totally in favour of that.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, with respect to the Chief Whip, he is not quite right. The whole purpose is that the Secretary of State, wherever he is, makes the announcement, and a junior, whichever House he is in, repeats it later. Should that not be what is done?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I do not think there is anything in the proceedings of either House that dictates which Minister shall make which Statement when. I am as much a guardian of the rights of Parliament as anyone, having been on the Back Benches myself for many years, but, with the greatest respect, it is not for Parliament to decide which Minister makes which Statement. There are all sorts of other opportunities open to Members of either House by way of Urgent Questions, Private Notice Questions, topical Questions or other means, but the Government are responsible for which Ministers make the Statements. As we have 100 splendid Ministers, neither House is at any great loss regarding who makes a Statement.
Lord Denham: My Lords, will the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms look into this again? I cannot remember a single occasion on which the Secretary of State has not made the Statement himself first. If this is to be a total one-off, can we make absolutely certain that what happens this afternoon is not regarded as a precedent for future occasions?
9 May 2007 : Column 1450
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I suppose there is a degree of precedent about today, on which the Government should be congratulated. In my knowledge, which goes back around 30 years but admittedly not in this House, I cannot remember it being normal practice that Governments make Statements about the redistribution of ministerial responsibilities. I can remember many occasions when whole departments, such as that of the Secretary of State for Employment, disappeared just like that. There is some precedent in a Statement being made at all. However, I will undertake to the former Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms to do my research and see whether anything on these lines has happened prior to today, but I would not regard it as being of huge constitutional importance.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify whether the Statement that is about to be made is a repeat of the Statement in the other place or is it the original one? If it is the latter, what was the status of the Statement made in the other place?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, my right honourable friend David Hanson, who made the first Statement in the other House, made it plain that the Secretary of State would be making the Statement—we are dancing on a pin head at the moment but I will do my best—when this House sat, which is at three o’clock in the afternoon as opposed to half-past eleven. I repeat that I would love it if we all started at the same time. I would love it if we started earlier. A three o’clock start for a parliament is late indeed and any proposals for change would be welcome.
Ministry of Justice
3.41 pm
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, today the Ministry of Justice comes into existence. Creating the new department is the right thing to do—the next step after a decade of constitutional and criminal justice reform to deliver a world-class justice system that has the protection of the public and the reduction of crime and reoffending at its heart.
The independence of the judiciary is paramount to the success of any justice system and vital to the well-being of our nation. I will, as will my successors, continue to uphold this independence, as is my constitutional and statutory duty.
The Ministry of Justice deals with all criminal justice issues in conjunction with other criminal justice system Ministers. The Ministry of Justice and the Home Office are engaged in combating crime and protecting the public. The two departments—along with the office of the Attorney-General—will continue to work closely together to deliver this. Appropriate working arrangements will be put in place at official level to ensure this happens, particularly on criminal law and sentencing policy, where the relationship between the three departments will be vital.
9 May 2007 : Column 1451
In addition, the Prime Minister has announced the creation of a new Cabinet committee on crime and criminal justice policy, which he will chair and on which the Home Secretary, the Attorney-General and I will sit. The Ministry of Justice has responsibility for the family and civil justice systems, human rights, freedom of information, data protection, constitutional issues and electoral matters—all items which remain of vital importance. In this first Statement from the Ministry of Justice I want to address and set out our approach to penal policy. Copies of Penal Policy—A Background Paper are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.
The Government have made significant progress in tackling crime since 1997. Over the past decade, according to the British Crime Survey, crime has fallen by 35 per cent. Offences brought to justice are up by nearly 40 per cent since 2002. Ineffective trials have more than halved in the Crown Court since 1997. Fine collection is at 91 per cent, up from 74 per cent in 2003-04.
The Government have continued throughout to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of victims and the community as a whole. The creation of the Ministry of Justice offers a significant opportunity to build on this success, with the following three-part programme.
First, we will continue to protect the public by ensuring we provide prison places for those who the courts determine need custody. This Government have already built 20,000 new prison places over the past 10 years—an increase of 33 per cent—built faster than ever before. Eight thousand further places will be built by 2012. We want to examine how to modernise the estate to provide more cost-effective facilities which are better equipped to reduce reoffending. We also want to identify whether the resources in our current estate can be used to finance new accommodation, be that new state-of-the-art prisons or smaller local provision for women and young offenders. I have asked my noble friend Lord Carter of Coles to provide an assessment of the plans for the 8,000 prison places and the longer-term issues affecting the estate, including the inter-relationship between prisons and the rest of the Ministry of Justice estate, to ensure that we have a coherent strategy.
Our prison-building programme will therefore continue to ensure that we have capacity to lock the most dangerous prisoners away for as long as they are dangerous and enable sentencers to send people into custody wherever they think this is required. The new indeterminate sentence for public protection is now in place, ensuring that the most dangerous prisoners are released only when it is safe to do so. More than 2,200 of these sentences have been issued so far.
The Government have always recognised that prison must be used for those who need it, and that sentences should be designed to reduce reoffending. However, over decades we have learnt that short custodial sentences are not effective in reducing reoffending. That is why we want to see greater use made of the best community sentences, where
9 May 2007 : Column 1452
Sentencing policy must support the use of our resources in such a way as to best protect the public, punish offenders and reduce reoffending. Prison should be used to protect the public to the extent and for the purposes necessary to deliver on the statutory aims of sentencing and in accordance with the Criminal Justice Act 2003, with alternatives to custody used when they are more effective in reducing reoffending and providing payback to the community.
We will ask the Sentencing Guidelines Council to review whether its guidelines fully reflect the principles set out in the 2003 Act. We will also ask it to look at its processes to ensure that it can operate in the way that it considers best enables it effectively to produce such guidelines as are necessary.
We will ensure that where serious and dangerous offenders breach their licence conditions, the punishment is a swift return to custody, for as long as is necessary. We will propose new arrangements for non-dangerous prisoners to be recalled to prison for 28 days. We will also propose that suspended sentence orders should apply to more serious offences, as we originally intended when they were created in 2003, not to summary ones.
Secondly, we need to increase confidence in community sentences, to support their greater use where they are more effective in reducing reoffending. Offenders will be required to undertake programmes to stop them reoffending, training to equip them with the skills to get into work, and carry out unpaid work in their local community, organised by the best available providers, whether in the public, private or third sectors. They will be subject to packages to restrict their liberty and movements, make them face up to the consequences of their actions and pay back the communities they have harmed.
The individual being punished, the community and the sentencer all have to understand that if the penalty is breached, punishment will follow, with custody if necessary. We will ensure that prison places are available for this purpose.
Thirdly, we renew our commitment to delivering in line with the vision set out in the Carter report of December 2003, including end-to-end offender management and public service reform. There is excellence in the public, private and voluntary sectors in the delivery of prison and probation services, and we want to build on this to reduce reoffending further. In particular, this means commissioning the most effective interventions which will best support the management and rehabilitation of offenders and making use of the fullest range of providers.
We have put in place the framework, the people, the programmes and the knowledge to make a massive difference to the way in which we deal with crime and protect the public in this country. We must make sure that this investment pays off. Above all, that means the right punishment, for the right length of time, for as long as necessary, with the right interventions and the right level of supervision for each offence.
9 May 2007 : Column 1453
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |