| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
In relation to planning decisions, the Planning Bill will introduce a new single consent regime for nationally significant infrastructure. A key objective of the Planning Bill is to enhance public participation in decisions on major infrastructure. There are clear rights and duties for consultation and participation on the face of the Bill. These include a duty on Ministers to consult on the new national policy statements, and a statutory duty on promoters to consult local authorities and local communities on any potential application. The examination stage for proposals will also be easier and quicker for the public to engage with.
In Question HL3553, Lord Laird asked about various aspects of the right to work. Information on the Government’s realisation of the right to work (Article 6) and the right to fair conditions of employment (Article 7) is set out in their 2007 report under the ICESCR8. In addition, the Employment Bill currently before Parliament reforms the existing law in relation to a range of areas of employment protection.
In relation to equal conditions of work for women and men, a range of legislation founded on the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 prohibits most kinds of discrimination between women and men in the workplace. Noted above, in relation to Question HL3462, were the recent announcements by the Government in relation to laws on equality and discrimination.
Legal migrant workers have the same employment rights and recourses as their UK equivalents. The Government are keen to ensure that migrant workers coming to the UK are aware of their employment rights and responsibilities. We have co-operated with the Portuguese, Polish and Lithuanian Governments on information leaflets for their nationals, which are available from the website of the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (BERR)9. We have also produced a basic, one page Working in the UK: Know your rights and where to get help and advice leaflet available in Bulgarian, English, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish, Romanian and Slovakian.
In relation to rest and leisure, the statutory entitlement to paid leave increased to 4.8 weeks (24 days if you work a five-day week) from 1 October 2007 and will further increase to 5.6 weeks (28 days if you work a five day week) from 1 April 2009, pro-rata for those working part-time.
The Government have embarked on comprehensive reform of state and private pensions. A key objective of pensions reform is to deliver fair outcomes, to
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS194
Finally, in relation to the fair treatment of pregnant women and workers with children, the policy statement Success At Work, published in March 2006 by the then-Department for Trade and Industry, sets out the current provisions for and planned extensions to family leave rights. In addition, in November 2007, the Government commissioned Imelda Walsh to conduct a review to assess how to extend the right to request to parents of older children. Ms Walsh's report10 was published on 15 May 2008 recommending extending the age cut-off to parents of children aged 16 and under. The Government accepted these recommendations and launched a consultation11 on their implementation on 26 August.
In Question HL3554, Lord Laird asked about the right to social security. There is no single right to social security in our domestic law. Entitlement conditions for social security benefits are set out in a large number of statutes. Changes and additions to this body of legislation are frequently made over the course of a Parliament. In making such changes, full consideration is given to any relevant equality and human rights issues that might arise.
In Question HL3555, Lord Laird asked about informal justice mechanisms. The Government are committed to putting victims at the centre of the criminal justice system, and have introduced a restorative justice strategy. Restorative justice is about offenders making amends directly to the people or organisations they have harmed. The Government support restorative justice because it gives victims a greater voice in the criminal justice system, allows victims to receive an explanation and more meaningful reparation from offenders, makes offenders accountable by allowing them to take responsibility for their action, and builds community confidence that offenders are making amends for their wrongdoing.
Lord Laird then asked about the appointments of those involved in the administration of justice; this can include administrative staff in the justice system as well as candidates for judicial office. In relation to the former, all those in the administration of justice in Her Majesty’s Courts Service are recruited or appointed on the basis of a core competence framework which provides fair, consistent and unbiased criteria for choosing who to recruit or appoint. That policy is based on the fundamental principle enshrined in the Civil Service Commissioners' Recruitment Code of selection for appointment on merit on the basis of fair and open competition.
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS195
In relation to judicial office holders, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) is an independent non-departmental public body (NDPB) set up by the Constitutional Reform Act in 2005 to select candidates for judicial office in England and Wales. It does so on merit, through fair and open competition, from the widest range of eligible candidates. The appointment process remains underpinned by the principle of selection on merit. The JAC defines merit on the basis of five core qualities and abilities which it has identified as being needed for judicial office, and on which it consulted widely before commencing operation. The JAC was set up in order to maintain and strengthen judicial independence by taking responsibility for selecting candidates for judicial office out of the hands of the Lord Chancellor and making the appointments process clearer and more accountable.
In Question HL3556, Lord Laird asked whether we will remove civil rights from the ambit of the right to a fair trial. This right, as reflected in Article 6 of the convention rights, says that “in the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law”. The term “civil rights and obligations” has an autonomous meaning in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, reflecting a category of non-criminal proceedings that are covered by Article 6. The Government have no plans to change this.
Lord Laird then asked about the right of appeal to a higher tribunal. Although a right of appeal is not required in most circumstances by Article 6, it is an important part of allowing a person to challenge the outcome of a trial; in particular, it represents a way in which a person may use the Human Rights Act to challenge the conduct or outcome of a trial as incompatible with their convention rights. Article 2 of the Seventh Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights protects the right to appeal specifically in criminal matters, subject to certain exceptions. The Government have previously indicated that they intend to sign and ratify the Seventh Protocol once certain provisions of our domestic law that are incompatible with another of the rights that it protects have been modified.
Taking Lord Laird’s Question about the provision of information on rights in appropriate and accessible language to refer specifically to criminal trials, Article 6(3) of the convention rights states that “everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; ... to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court”. These obligations are reflected in the national agreement on the use of interpreters and translators in investigations and proceedings with the criminal justice system, which is applicable in court proceedings.
On the right to silence, we are satisfied that the law on adverse inferences, as set out in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, contains sufficient safeguards for the defence. The Government therefore have no plans to legislate on the subject.
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS196
On trial by jury, the Government have no intention of making provision for trials on indictment to take place without a jury in any circumstances beyond those for which provision is already made in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004.
The power to compel witnesses rests with the court and is exercisable on the application of either the prosecution or the defence. The relevant legislation is the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965, as amended by the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996, and the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980. The Government have no plans for further legislation in the area.
The admission of evidence is a matter for courts to determine. Courts and tribunals are themselves public authorities under the Human Rights Act, and have the obligation not to act incompatibly with the convention rights. They would therefore consider the overall fairness of a trial when making decisions on the admission of evidence.
In relation to part (h) of Question HL3556, about the availability of interpreters in custody, I refer to my response to part (c) of Question HL3461 on the same subject. Similarly, on part (i) of this Question, I refer to the response to the more extensive Question HL3619 below.
Finally, Lord Laird asked whether the Government will “ensure there are no controls on lawyers”. On the assumption that it is the criminal trial process referred to, the conduct of the trial is again a matter for the court to determine, taking into account the obligation to ensure the trial is fair.
In Question HL3557, Lord Laird asked about humane conditions of detention. The National Offender Management Service (NOMS) is committed to providing decent and humane conditions for all those committed to custody. All accommodation must be certified by the area manager as complying with minimum standards of space, furnishing, heat and light. There are national standards, which are monitored by audit, covering other aspects of decency and humane treatment such as access to showers, sanitation, clean clothing and medical care, provision of meals and regime activity.
Lord Laird specifically asked whether the Government will “ensure there is no deprivation or restriction of any human rights except to the extent demonstrably necessitated by the fact of detention”. The Government accept this principle: as prisons are public authorities for the purposes of the Human Rights Act, they are required to respect the convention rights in-so-far as is compatible with secure detention.
Lord Laird also asked about the provision of information on the reasons for deprivation of liberty. In addition to the response to Question HL3461 above in relation to the communication of reasons for arrest and immigration detention, offenders in prison are sentenced by the courts, which explain the purpose of the sentence. At first reception, prison staff will check that there is authority to detain. During the induction process and beyond, prison staff inform prisoners of how the sentence will be enforced, explain the calculation of the sentence length and the date of earliest release.
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS197
In relation to treatment and support for rehabilitation into society, Her Majesty's Prison Service's (HMPS) statement of purpose includes a commitment to help prisoners lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and after release. In 2007-08, HMPS delivered 6,960 living skills programmes, 1,037 sex offender treatment programmes and 7,412 drug treatment programmes. HMPS works in partnership with the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills and the Learning and Skills Council to provide educational and training opportunities to help prisoners gain employment on release.
In relation to legal and medical assistance, I refer to my response to Lord Laird’s Question HL3461 above. Each prison has one or more chaplains to offer pastoral care and support to prisoners of any faith. Prisoners have 24-hour confidential access to the Samaritans as well as trained prisoner listeners. Prison wing staff, including personal officers, also perform this role for individual prisoners.
£5 million is spent each year to help offenders maintain positive ties with their children and families. We are developing a national framework which will aim to improve support for the families of offenders at all stages, from arrest to end of sentence and beyond, setting expectations of local partners. This will build on the progress prisons have made: most now have a visitor centre outside the gate, providing information and support for families. Over 100 prisons in England and Wales offer supervised play areas for some visits. Special visits are arranged which focus on the needs of the child. There is also provision for mothers to have young children with them in prison, where this is in the interests of the child.
Last year, the Department for Children, Schools and Families and the Ministry of Justice conducted a priority joint review to improve support for the children of offenders. It concluded that parental imprisonment is a valuable opportunity to identify children at risk of poor outcomes and to offer them support. The findings, which were published in parallel with the Think Family: Improving the Life Chances of Families at Risk review, on 10 January 2008, can be found on the website of the Social Exclusion Task Force12.
NOMS is already committed to assisting the reintegration and resettlement of former prisoners. The offender management model provides any prisoner serving 12 months or more with a named offender manager whose remit is to assist their return to the community and to provide continuity of supervision while they are on licence after release. Prisons try to assist as many prisoners as possible to find accommodation and employment on release. In 2007-08, HMPS exceeded its targets for both employment (27.3 per cent against a target of 25 per cent) and accommodation (85.4 per cent against a target of 74 per cent).
Lord Laird’s Question HL3558 asked about the rights of victims and witnesses. Statutory rights for victims, which apply to all victims who make an allegation to the police regardless of any other factor, are provided for under the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime. The code is made under Section 32 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004 and requires criminal justice agencies to provide certain levels of
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS198
In Question HL3617, Lord Laird asked about children and vulnerable adults as witnesses and victims of crime. In their draft legislative programme, the Government have indicated that they plan to legislate during the next Session of Parliament to amend and extend special measures for victims and intimidated witnesses, such as live links and screens round the witness box. The issue of cross-examination of young witnesses was discussed in the consultation paper Improving the Criminal Trial Process for Young Witnesses published in June 2007. The responses to the consultation paper are currently being analysed and a government response will be issued.
In Question HL3618, Lord Laird asked whether we will require full disclosure of the truth relating to relevant crimes or human rights violations. We have no plans to legislate at this time, although the Government are committed to examining the wider issues of handling the past in Northern Ireland.
Lord Laird then asked whether we will ensure necessary care and support is provided in accordance with the needs of victims. I noted the existence of the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in my response to Question HL3558 above. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring victims receive care and support that is tailored to their needs. The code itself requires agencies to provide a range of support, advice and information for victims. In addition, there are other non-statutory means of support for victims. Criminal justice processes have been redefined around the needs of victims, for example through the introduction of the aforementioned 165 joint police and Crown Prosecution Service witness care units, which provide a single point of contact and support for victims and witnesses attending court. Similarly, the Government provide funding to a wide range of voluntary sector organisations supporting victims of crime.
Lord Laird then asked about the investigation of missing persons, which already occurs. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) published in 2005 Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons13. The ACPO defines a missing person as “anyone whose whereabouts is unknown whatever the circumstances of disappearance. They will be considered missing until located and their well-being or otherwise established”. In terms of missing persons investigations, there is a range of national statutory and non-governmental organisations that play a role in the prevention and management of missing persons cases, and a large number of organisations offer assistance in matters relating to missing persons. As well as being the primary investigators of missing persons cases, the police are also the primary co-ordinators of the response from these other agencies.
In relation to the further Questions asked by Lord Laird asked about victims of crime, the Code of Practice for Victims of Crime discussed above sets out the standards of service that victims should receive
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS199
Lord Laird asked further Questions about children in the justice system in Question HL3619.
We believe that the best interests of children are already taken into account. Article 3 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) states that in all actions undertaken in a court of law the best interests of the child are a primary consideration. As the criminal court and the criminal justice system need to take a whole range of factors into account, such as the need to address offending or reoffending behaviour, we believe that achieving this aim acts in the best interest of the young person. It is also the duty of the court to take into account the needs and interests of victims and the wider community as well as those of the offender. Welfare clearly has a key role to play within the sentencing framework and courts already have a duty to have regard to this through Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. We have clarified this by providing a purpose of sentencing for young people which places a duty on the court to have equal regard to:
(a) the principal aim of the youth justice system (prevention of offending or reoffending by young people)(b) the welfare of the young person in accordance with Section 44 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, and(c) the purposes of sentencing.The Government do not intend to change the age of criminal responsibility. The Government believe in relation to England and Wales that commencing criminal responsibility from the age of 10 helps children to develop a sense of personal responsibility for their behaviour. At this age children can generally differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing, and it is not in the interests of justice, victims or the children themselves to prevent offending being challenged through formal criminal justice processes. However, interventions are intended to be rehabilitative rather than punitive, and a significant role of the local multi-agency youth offending teams in England and Wales is to work closely with children beginning to display offending behaviour to prevent it escalating. As part of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 the Government have also introduced a further out-of-court disposal, the youth conditional caution. The aim of the youth conditional caution is to reduce the number of children being taken to court for relatively low-level offences by creating an alternative, robust mechanism for bringing young offenders to account and addressing the causes of their behaviour.
29 Sep 2008 : Column WS200
Further to my response to Question HL3461, the principle that children are detained or imprisoned only as a measure of last resort is already enshrined in law. Section 152(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that “the court must not pass a custodial sentence (which includes custodial sentences for young offenders —section 305 of the 2003 Act and section 76 of the Sentencing Act) unless it is of the opinion that the offence, or the combination of the offence and one or more offences associated with it, was so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence”. We will be supplementing this with an additional requirement for young people set out in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act. This will mean that, when passing a discretionary custodial sentence on an offender under the age of 18, the court must, as well as the obligations set out by Section 152, also include a statement that it is of the opinion that the sentence of a youth rehabilitation order with intensive supervision and surveillance or fostering cannot be justified, and why it is of that opinion.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |