Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill

My Lords, unfortunately I saw the groupings list yesterday too late, because of the memorable events surrounding the Diamond Jubilee, to be able to do anything about the fact that this amendment had been grouped with those we discussed earlier about restorative justice. I beg the leave of the House to move this amendment at this late hour. Currently, the Ministry of Justice is embarked on what the Secretary of State has called the ““rehabilitation revolution””. Many of us who have been trying for years to suggest ways in which the criminal justice system could better protect the public by reducing the reconviction rate have welcomed this initiative and seen this Bill as an opportunity to help the process by moving amendments, many based on practical experience, which could improve the revolution's chance of success. So far, however, I have to admit to a double disappointment. The first was that ““rehabilitation”” disappeared from the original Title. The second was that so many of our suggestions have been resisted and dismissed out of hand, including my proposal that the original Title should be restored. Since Committee, two things have happened. First, I have been thinking through the relevance of ““desistance””, which means abstention from crime by those who previously had engaged in a sustained pattern of offending. I know it is said that the most effective crime-fighting tool is a 30th birthday, but that is not to be taken as justification for doing nothing about rehabilitation until that day. Research with successful desisters shows that they believe that particular staff members who identify what they could do are more valuable than any particular intervention, which demonstrates the importance of motivating and supporting prison and probation staffs and private and voluntary sector organisations that work at the rehabilitation of offenders. Secondly, I have reflected on the wise pragmatism of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, regarding my suggestion that ““punishment”” be replaced by ““rehabilitation””. I fully understand that the Minister is under strict riding instructions from No. 10 Downing Street and, while I regret those instructions and think that they demonstrate surrender to the popular press rather than clear thinking, as a soldier I understand how chains of command operate. If you think that an order is wrong, you salute, get on with it, and can complain about why it was wrong after trying to carry it out. Many of the clauses in Part 3 of the Bill—as well as the purpose of many of the amendments we have discussed—are about rehabilitation. Punishment by the courts—the only punishment allowed in a civilised criminal justice system—is covered in the clauses about sentencing. Surely the titles of Bills should explain what they are about. Although the Bill is a hotchpotch of subjects—as the past few hours have shown—at its heart is the rehabilitation revolution, at whose heart are people who presume that it is their business to protect the public by encouraging desistance. To do this effectively, they must not only be resourced but believe that they are carrying out the wish of the Government. I and others have often quoted the words of Winston Churchill about the way any country treats its crime and punishment being the true test of its civilisation. I do not want to lose that soubriquet, and I want those responsible for the management of offenders to be rightly motivated. I was brought up to believe that there is no such word as ““can't””, in which spirit—and accepting the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, in Committee—I ask the Minister to ask his political masters to think again, and restore some of our lost faith by adding the words ““and Rehabilitation”” to the Title of the Bill that returns from this House to the other place. I beg to move.