Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, in order to ensure that terrorist offenders in Scotland serve the appropriate custodial period of sentences for terrorism offences when they are imposed consecutively to other sentences, we introduced several amendments in Committee. Following these changes, we are now making a series of minor, technical amendments to provide further clarification and to ensure that the legislation...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their contributions to this very short debate. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the number of prisoners affected by this in relation to the International Criminal Court. I do not have that information to hand, but I undertake to supply it to the noble Lord. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, raised the lateness in...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010 provides that a commercial organisation is guilty of an offence of failing to prevent bribery if a person associated with the organisation bribes another person, intending to obtain or retain business or an advantage for the company. The offence can only be committed by a corporate body. In respect of the two prosecuting agencies that the Attorney General...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: In moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, I shall speak also to Amendments 67 and 70, also in his name. These amendments are intended to modify Scottish provisions on sentencing with the intention of providing that, throughout the United Kingdom, terrorist offenders serve the appropriate custodial period of sentences for terrorism offences. They are made...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I will undertake to provide that explanation on what are, as all the speakers who have kindly commented on the provisions have remarked, matters of a technical nature. Amendment 66 agreed.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, Amendment 16 would introduce a new clause requiring the Secretary of State to arrange for an independent review of the impact of Clauses 1 to 31 in the first year of the Act coming into force. I must respectfully disagree that this amendment is necessary. As the House has heard in Committee, the Government already have an Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, this amendment would require the Government to report on whether the removal of Parole Board consideration of certain prisoners’ release impacts their behaviour in prison. We return once again to the quite proper desire of the Committee for objective data to allow proper evaluation of the usefulness of measures. The point is an important one, but the Government do not think that a...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their amendments, which bring us to a very important set of issues. I discern that the Committee is united in believing that data is necessary in order that we might, as much as possible, develop and devise schemes by which deradicalisation can be accomplished. The Government do not think that a new strategy for rehabilitation and disengagement...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment 9 in this group. Both are minor technical amendments to Clause 23. Amendment 8 would make a minor amendment to Clause 23, which introduces the terrorism sentence with fixed licence period in Scotland. The amendment would add the sentence of detention without time limit to the “waterfall” list of sentences of imprisonment and detention that a court...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment was to reflect the approach adopted across England and Wales, and Northern Ireland. The “waterfall” approach means that courts can impose the new sentence only where they do not impose, for example, a life sentence or an extended sentence. Within the Scottish sentencing framework, this waterfall includes the sentence of detention without time limit,...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Will the noble Baroness confirm that she is referring to the probation service?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: If I may, I will respond to the noble Baroness’s question in writing.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, it is a privilege to stand and answer points made by the noble Lords who have spoken. I first acknowledge their great experience and wisdom in the field, and the evident compassion that underpinned their observations to the Committee. I know that at least two of them have had the experience that I have of acting for a very young person charged with a crime of the greatest magnitude...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: The Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) do not have a mechanism for recording the profession of defendants and so are unable to provide the data requested. The CPS continue to play an important role in prosecuting professionals, whether they be professionals who have used their position to commit crimes or whether they have enabled others to commit crimes. This includes bank directors,...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: Records held by the Crown Prosecution Service (‘CPS’) indicate that between 2004 – 2021 there have been no criminal charges in relation to offences under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925. The CPS does not hold records of the number of pre-charge case files referred by the police, and information relating to criminal investigations is a matter for the police.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, no recent discussions have taken place on this issue. The civil law of defamation is a devolved issue and the development of the law in this area is a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive. I understand that the Northern Ireland Minister of Finance recently updated the Assembly on this matter. He noted that work is under way to review defamation law, and this will inform...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, I respectfully echo my noble friend’s views on the benefits flowing from the legislation to which he refers. I remind the House that, under the Sewel convention, Parliament remains sovereign. However, the United Kingdom Government will not normally pass primary legislation relating to areas in which a devolved legislature has legislative competence, except with the agreement of...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, the noble Baroness has, to a certain extent, been answered by my answer to my noble friend Lord Lexden. Work on the matter recommenced as of February 2020. As to the statistic which the noble Baroness puts forward on the comparative number of defamation actions, I put the question to officials and am satisfied with the answer that, despite concern that a libel tourism industry might...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, in relation to the matters raised by my noble and learned friend, although extension of the provisions of the Defamation Act 2013 might be desirable, existing common law and statute law in Northern Ireland, informed as it is by human rights considerations, is not so deficient as to curtail freedom of expression and the legitimate criticism of those in authority and in positions of...
Lord Stewart of Dirleton: My Lords, the noble Lord makes useful points in relation to the benefits flowing from this statute. I repeat my previous answer that the law of defamation is a devolved matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am aware that work relating to a Bill of the sort that applies in England and Wales may shortly restart. Indeed, I can advise the noble Lord that similar provisions are currently...