Contribution
My Lords, I wish I could offer every Member of the Committee who is still here an espresso at this point. Instead, I will try to be short and lively.
This amendment is the only amendment that I have tabled to a Bill that I broadly support, for reasons that need little explanation at this point, but Amendment 140 in my name—by the way, I also support Amendment 147 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Foster of Bath and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames—has been on my conscience. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for signing it. Of course, she was the first and distinguished chair of your Lordships’ Justice and Home and Affairs Committee.
This amendment concerns a provision in the Bail Act 1976 that, to my shame, I was unaware of until relatively few weeks ago, notwithstanding working in this area of law and policy for over 30 years. It really is on my conscience, and I think it should be on the conscience of the Government and the Committee. The provision states that vulnerable people may be remanded in custody for their own protection, even when they are charged with non-custodial offences. I would like to know from my noble friend the Minister’s reply, among other things, how this is conscionable and how it squares with the Government’s commitment to Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which sets very tight criteria for detaining people.
I was extremely grateful, as always, for a conversation about this with my noble friend the Minister and his officials two weeks ago. However, as a former government lawyer, I am always concerned about the danger of resistance to amendments because they “weren’t invented here”. I plead with my noble friend and other Members of the Committee to engage with a scandal. It is not a scandal on the scale of IPP. I did not speak in that debate to spare the Committee’s time, but I associate myself with all those who spoke on the IPP amendment. This is not indefinite detention, with all the lost hope, but it is about detaining vulnerable people who should not be detained for their own protection on remand in the criminal justice system.
I am advised by a coalition of NGOs—noble Lords in the Committee will have received their joint briefing—and Justice in particular. I am grateful to Emma Snell, a brilliant young lawyer at Justice, who has educated me about this provision. The coalition is broad; it includes Nacro, Inquest, the Centre for Women’s Justice, the Prison Reform Trust, the Howard League and so on.
Most of the people who appear to be detained for their own protection, including when charged with a non-custodial offence, are being detained because they have an acute mental health crisis, are suffering from addiction or are homeless. Some of them are at risk from others; that could be reprisals in the community or it could be from criminal gangs, and so on. However, none of that is justification for taking someone’s liberty, as opposed to keeping them safe and helping them. This is not something that we would do to witnesses. We would surely put a witness in a safe house rather than detain them for their own protection. I am incredibly concerned that we persist with this.
Furthermore, the Labour Party spoke against this in opposition only a couple of years ago, and it has been criticised by all the experts in the sector: the independent non-governmental bodies, the chief inspectors, et cetera. To my mind, it is unconscionable that we should detain somebody for their vulnerability and not for a danger that they pose to others. The classic and other grounds for remanding in custody, rather than on bail, are, “You will reoffend”, or, “You will interfere with witnesses”, and so on, but the idea that you should be detained for your own protection or, in the case of children, for your welfare is something that needs to be addressed.
To be fair to the Government, they are already proposing in the Mental Health Bill that this should not be on mental health grounds alone. That is progress, necessary and to be commended. But necessary is not sufficient, because there are other vulnerable people who will not be diagnosed as being vulnerable because of a mental health condition. That could include vulnerable women, homeless people and people who fear reprisals from criminal gangs. They should be made safe, and there are provisions to make them safe in other ways. I think the Committee would want to move away from the idea that we as a political community and a society can only care for and protect people through detention and coercion, and certainly the Bill, in its general thrust, is attempting to do that. I beg to move.