Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Wednesday 5th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an absolute privilege to sit through the three hours of this debate. I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, for speaking in the gap and giving us the benefit of her pre-eminent expertise in these matters in this country. Once more, this is an example of the quality of contributions that can be made in a Chamber of this kind, for which we can all be incredibly grateful. I also join all noble Lords in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hunt, and marvelling at such a spectacular maiden speech. I think she described your Lordships’ House at its best as demonstrating courtesy, consideration and a determination to do the right thing. All of this could be said of the noble Baroness, both in her former career and in what will no doubt be a wonderful career as a legislator in your Lordships’ House.

I also take great pleasure in welcoming this Bill, as the Opposition did when it was first introduced in the other place. I thank the Minister for returning with the Bill and the way in which he spoke about it, with great humility and reason. Both have been features of the debate in general. However, I have occasionally worried that some of your Lordships have thought of this Bill as a deliberate or perhaps accidental slight on marriage, or a measure which seeks to undermine or trivialise marriage, or facilitate divorce for those who do not take their obligations, promises, covenants and faith seriously. I think that is a misunderstanding of the legislation as it is and as it is intended.

It was WH Auden who famously and rather beautifully compared the law to love in the poem “Law Like Love”. It might be a beautiful poem, but none the less, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to legislate for love. What we attempt to do instead is legislate to protect people. I understand that law has a moral content and that we are concerned about sending signals to people through the law, but the primary, practical purpose of legislation is to protect people. That means protecting people when they get things wrong, screw up and break their covenants, or when the act of faith was in error or made in good faith but things went wrong. It seems to me that no-fault divorce is a no-brainer, for all the reasons eloquently set out in this debate. Unhappy, miserable and traumatic though it is—the great leveller of misery across society—divorce is neither a crime nor a civil wrong. It is a trauma and a very unhappy thing and we should not prolong the agony.

Divorce is neither a crime nor a civil wrong, yet within it, crimes and wrongs take place. We should act to protect people from those crimes and wrongs, particularly the vulnerable and victims of domestic abuse. I have noticed that in the many submissions that we have all received in relation to this Bill, the bulk of those working with vulnerable women and victims of domestic abuse, in particular, seem to support this legislation. That is to be taken seriously, and certainly as seriously as any poll based on percentages of the population as a whole. I am prepared to accept that many, or perhaps the majority of, people believe that there is fault in divorce, but that is because there was fault in their divorces. We can recognise fault without it being enshrined in law in a very unproductive way, prolonging the agony or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said, picking over the carcass of a marriage. I noticed that in some noble Lords’ remarks, there was a reference to broken homes. But homes are broken within marriages, as well as by divorce. Locking people into a legal relationship when they do not want to be there is not a practical or sensible legislative policy.

I was particularly charmed, as I often am, by the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Listening to him, one can well imagine why he has had such a happy union for 62 years—yet there was no hubris, just humanity, compassion, reason and practicality about how to protect people, rather than promote a morality that does not always succeed in practice. There is a difference between the world as we want it to be and the world as it is; between humans as we want them to be and humans as they, sadly, too often are. For the most part the law should deal with the latter, particularly with that aim of protecting people.

I broadly and warmly support the Bill but in relation to some people’s concerns about the vulnerable, and whether it might undermine rather than protect them, I would predictably remind your Lordships of the cuts in the justice system and how those have affected family law, in particular. There is especially the fact that since 2013, legal aid has been removed from divorce cases. That is a terrible mistake if one is trying to protect abandoned people and children, and be equitable in relation to resources and so on. I really urge the Minister to reflect on that as much as he can, and speak to his colleagues about whether, in this new moment when people want to support the vulnerable and hold people to their obligations, it can be fair or right that those who cannot afford a lawyer will not get the protection of the law. That is whether it is in relation to pensions or access to their children, or to the other horrible things that people argue about at this traumatic time in their lives. We can craft the most perfect divorce legislation but it will be a dead letter—a sealed book—if people do not have access to early and consistent advice and representation, so that everyone can benefit from the kind of wisdom and expertise we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, this evening. That must be the right thing.

As I said, I have been particularly moved by the charities and NGOs which work with the vulnerable and support this legislation. They know what they are doing; they deal with these people at the sharp end. In addressing other concerns, can the Minister say something about what the Government plan by way of additional support, beyond this legislation, in public education, advice and so on for people going through these most difficult times? It should be not just legal support but counselling, too, and not just counselling in crisis but—as once more recommended by the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton—much earlier in life. There should be guidance and education about the inner self, and about what a relationship of such gravity looks like; what it means and what it takes. It may not be that divorce is too easy. It may be that marriage is taken by some too young, too lightly and with the wrong person. That might be a better target for action than trying to lock people into an already broken home.

There are so many other pressures on families in breakdown, as described once more by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, such as inadequate finance or social housing. All sorts of other social infrastructure are needed to back up the unit of the family. The family is a vital building-block in society but there is such a thing as society outside the family, and families need support.

On the concerns expressed by noble Lords who were less than supportive of the Bill, I think that many of these things can be looked at outside the legislation. I share some of the concerns expressed about online divorce procedure in particular. In responding to this debate, perhaps the Minister might comment on the Law Society’s recommendation in particular, given that there are risks associated with online divorce procedures as opposed to divorce of the more conventional kind. I am concerned about relying on online legal provision rather than advice, representation, judgment and so on.

Generally speaking, it is a great pleasure to be on the same side as the noble and learned Lord the Minister for once—perhaps for the first time, I do not know, but maybe and hopefully not for the last—and to have heard the general humanity, humility and often wisdom and experience that your Lordships have brought to this debate. I commend the Bill as a start, as a part of the kind of process that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, welcomed and advised. I hope that we can, if necessary, improve the Bill but do so in a cross-party, non-party and constructive spirit.

Streatham Incident

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that Statement—a difficult duty in very difficult times. I join him in his tribute to our emergency and health services, and in his sympathies with those recovering from this terrible incident.

I hope the Minister will be able to acknowledge the pre-eminence of resources to deal with the threat that we face. He mentioned a number of responses that the Government are considering and/or planning, but resources are required to do anything significant in this area, whether in relation to the prison system, which is under strain, as has been discussed in your Lordships’ House over many years, in relation to the probation service, which is designated with engaging with people who have been convicted, or in relation to precursor terrorism offences or other offences. This also applies, of course, to policing and to our agencies. Nothing that any Government of any persuasion may legislate for can be achieved to “keep our people safe” without putting significant resources into a system that has been under pressure for some time.

In relation to the privatisation of prisons and probation, the issue is not just about resources but about accountability and the importance of those elected to govern—who have, of late, been given a significant mandate—taking ultimate responsibility for that primary duty. I am sure that Members of your Lordships’ House noticed, as I did, the Minister’s comments on sentencing. Few could have a principled difficulty with the idea that those sentenced for terrorist offences should not be released automatically without the input of a decision-maker such as the Parole Board. That, of course, involves significant resources, not just for the Parole Board itself but for those who must engage—by not just isolation but engagement—within the prison system, to make rehabilitation a real possibility; currently, too many of our prisoners are radicalised not on the streets of this country but in the prison system itself.

I also noticed in the Statement more than a hint that the sentencing legislation to come, perhaps on an emergency basis, might well be retrospective in its effect. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to comment a little further on the legal dangers of embarking upon extending the incarceration, or changing the sentence, of people who have already been sentenced. This a very serious principle, under not only human rights law but the common law of this country. Can the Minister give us some comfort, or at least some further explanation, as to why it is necessary to prioritise retrospective legislation—if I have that right—or to extend the sentences of people already convicted, sentenced and incarcerated?

There was also a hint in the Statement—understandably so—about people who will come to the end of their sentence one day or, indeed, as those of us who have dealt with these matters before will know, about people who have never actually been convicted of anything. I would sound a note of caution about a well-trodden and dangerous road that has been embarked upon in the past, in this jurisdiction and elsewhere, of restrictions on liberty, or punishment, or preventative measures, without charge or trial. Such measures bring dangers not just to the rule of law but to counterterror efforts themselves. I ask noble Lords who are just as experienced as I am—or more so—in these matters to consider the dangers of such a path. Have we not learned the dangers of injustices and perceived injustices that recruit and radicalise more people than they ever deter?

The Minister was quite right to express caution about commenting too much on this individual case, which must of course still be subject to intense examination and review. I hope that, in time, your Lordships’ House will be provided with a fuller and more thoughtful review and consideration of what happened in this case, so that there might be some learning in relation to all the matters we have discussed, including how this young man went down the path he did, and how he was engaged with in his younger life, including within the prison system. This is not to detract from the heroic efforts and courage shown by those who put their lives on the line over the weekend, or members of the public who, as always in this great capital of this great country, responded with stoicism, courage and unity.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This was a very serious incident; our thoughts are with the victims. It could have been much worse but for the rapid action of police officers. We should also recognise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, did, the contribution of members of the public who came to the aid of the injured.

This terrorist was released by an automatic process which falls short of what we need to do to protect the public. We agree that, in future, release of those convicted of terrorist offences before the end of their sentence should require an assessment by the Parole Board, which will need the resources to do this. The Government have given some indication that they may give these. However, that is necessarily quite a limited thing, which will not in the end make a fundamental difference to the fact that most of these people will eventually come out of prison—a point which I will come to in a moment. If, for example, we have a terrorist conviction for possessing or distributing literature, the amount by which the sentence would be extended, from half to two-thirds, would be small as a proportion of a shorter sentence. In presenting this matter to the public, we should be clear about its limits. Is the Minister telling us—this is the point about retrospection that the noble Baroness referred to—that existing sentenced prisoners currently able to get release on licence at the halfway point will have their custody extended to two-thirds even if they are given a positive review in the Parole Board assessment? That seems to be not only retrospection but punishing prisoners for what others have done while they are inside.

The key point is that most of those we sentence for terrorist offences will eventually be released, so we have to deal with the risks. We need more resources to go into deradicalisation programmes in prisons, using any available expertise from other countries which have also been on this path. We need far more staff in our prisons, trained to deal with these prisoners. I do not think many people in the prison system would recognise the rosy picture tucked away in the Statement of life in our prisons. They house far more prisoners than they are built or staffed to hold, mainly because of longer sentences for a range of non-terrorist offences, which make prisons virtually unmanageable. We need rigorous management of terrorist prisoners, who all too often become members of a radical subculture in prison, which provides recruitment and training for terrorism and inspires the worst kind of fanaticism. When these prisoners are released, we need to be sure that they are supervised by properly financed probation services, police monitoring and, where justified, close surveillance and the involvement of the security services. We look forward to the Jonathan Hall review of multiagency co-operation, which is essential to dealing with this problem.

Finally, this House will want to look carefully at the legislation referred to in the Statement, because it touches on some important civil liberties issues. We must not let the terrorists destroy liberties which we all prize.

Release of Prisoners (Alteration of Relevant Proportion of Sentence) Order 2019

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, I have always been a fairly hard-nosed enforcer in terms of policing and thought that punishment was really important as part of a sentence. However, I am not sure that I support these measures. With around 85,000 people in prison, there are far too many already.

Prison broadly fails. Having 85,000 in prison is at least one mark of success of the criminal justice system. It is often complained that the police arrest no one, the Crown prosecutors charge no one, the courts find no one guilty and even if they do, they never put them in prison. Well, 85,000 people got there somehow, and they have been increasing in large numbers over the last 30 years, so I think that, by one measure, we ought to have confidence that the criminal justice system can work.

But I am afraid that the prison system is failing. It has failed because the proportion of people who commit offences within two years of release is well over 80%. It is the least effective form of preventing recidivism of all the forms we know, and it is the most expensive. Of those who go into prison, two-thirds have a drug habit, but by the time they leave 80% do. One of the most secure places in the country cannot stop drugs getting in, it appears.

My brief final thoughts are these. It seems to me that if we are to take this measure—and I understand why there is some intuitive support—then there have to be some of the counterbalancing measures that some noble Lords have discussed. First, we have to look at sentencing guidelines. These have always drifted upwards. I cannot remember the last announcement from the Government that said, “This prison sentence is far too long, and it is about time we reduced it.”

Secondly, the only people who think that prison is a pleasant place are people who have never visited one. Whether it is four, six or eight years is almost immaterial, but there needs to be honesty in sentencing. What happens now is that people are announced to be going to prison for 14 years when what is meant is that you are going for seven and, in the event that you misbehave in prison, you will stay for 14. It is far better to be honest and transparent in those announcements.

Thirdly, I would invest in technology post release, such as the sobriety scheme we discussed briefly yesterday that monitors people’s alcohol intake, their drug intake and sometimes, perhaps, if they have a mental illness, whether they have taken their medication. These are things that really can have an impact on release.

Finally—and this may seem to be an abstract point, but I think it is really important—one reason we are having so many difficulties, I am afraid, in controlling our prison population is to do with the corruption of some of the staff. I do not say that they are all corrupt, because that would be very unfair, but I am afraid that the Prison Service lacks a prison investigation command. The last Prisons Minister did instigate a prisons intelligence system to look at corruption, but it is no good having intelligence that no one is going to investigate. Many of our prisons sit in rural areas with our smallest forces, and they do not regard it as a priority to look at prison staff corruption and see whether there is a criminal act taking place. I urge the Government to look at that seriously.

Perhaps if we were able, even if we were to extend the period before a licence is considered, to reduce the overall prison population by changes in sentencing, the savings we would make could be invested in some of the things we have all talked about today. It would be wise to make sure that we are safer in the future and that we have a more liberal approach to the detaining of people who are, at the end of the day, convicted of serious offences.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I can be short, as a small mercy to the Minister, because so much has been said with such force in this debate. As was alluded to earlier, there is so much said about the democratic deficit of an unelected second Chamber, but the one thing we might occasionally say in return is that this is a place where it is possible to have a thoughtful, rational, dispassionate and at times passionate debate about law and order, including what works and might work, including rehabilitation and some of the other concerns that have been so well expressed today. It is invidious to pick out a particular speech, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, will have to forgive me: he will not thank me for saying that he was perhaps the greatest Conservative Justice Secretary or Home Secretary that we never had.

I can adopt a lot of what has been said, with perhaps one slight distinction. If this were proper populism, why would the dial be moved from the 50% point to the two-thirds point? Will that really satisfy any proper populist instinct in the population? If this is really about chasing headlines, the difference between automatic release at the 50% point and the two-thirds point will not work for very long. If this were to be a proper “hang ’em, flog ’em, throw away the key” kind of policy, or if it were about what was once called honesty or transparency in sentencing, why have automatic release at all?

The Minister quite rightly addressed the value of early release in allowing a period of supervision in the community. I suggest that it also incentivises good behaviour in prison and engagement with regimes that can help cut reoffending post sentence. But that kind of incentive is achieved by a discretionary release, not by automatic release.

As always, I have the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, ringing in my ears, as they are designed to do. He quite rightly pointed out that Governments of both persuasions have at times conducted an arms race on law and order, including sentencing. One of the consequences is that you have long sentences to chase the headlines and then automatic release because of overstuffed prisons. That is a ratchet which both sides in politics have contributed to in recent years, and it is not desirable going forward.

If this were proper populism, it would be about complete transparency and no early release. If it were more enlightened, it would be about discretionary release for more serious offenders; however, again, you would then need resources for the Parole Board—or whoever the decision-maker would be—to determine on a case-by-case basis whether people are safe for release.

I have caught the eye of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. She and I know from other debates and tragic cases the dangers of releasing dangerous people early in terms of the ramifications for subsequent victims and so on. It is not wrong of the public to be concerned about that. Building public confidence in sentencing is not populist per se, if we build that confidence properly by reducing reoffending. We have heard from all sides of this House how this measure is not likely to reduce offending.

The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said that he takes issue with debates about austerity. Fair enough. We do not need to do that in this debate, because on the Government’s own case this measure will, I think, cost £680 million. The question in my mind is whether this is the best way to spend that £680 million to protect people, look after victims and make the country a little safer.

I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but we should consider this given the current state of the criminal justice system—and not just the prisons. I know that the contribution on this of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, was slightly light-hearted; we do not really measure the success of the criminal justice system by how many people are in prison, not least when rape victims are feeling so let down at the moment and we have, I think, the worst conviction rates on record. I ask myself what £680 million could have done if directed towards rape investigation and prosecution in particular, given how difficult they are.

I do not want to pretend that this is the most fundamental principle being breached by this instrument because, as I say, whether it is automatic early release at 50% or 75% of your sentence, this is just a wasted opportunity. It does not seem at the moment to sit in a broader context of an enlightened approach to these matters.

For reasons that I consider deeply painful and unfortunate, this Government now have a really huge opportunity, if they choose to take it, to turn down the ratchet on law and order. They do not need to play to this imaginary or real gallery. They have an opportunity for some considerable time to change the debate on law and order. That is not to deny public concern about crime but to meet that concern properly, not with a headline or by moving the dial on automatic early release from the halfway point to the two-thirds point but to investigate and work to reduce reoffending, including by investing in community orders and so on and so forth.

This order is therefore a wasted opportunity. I hope that the Minister will not consider it an irritation or an impertinence that some remarks have been made robustly; I do not believe it is because anyone believes that a populist heart beats inside him but because this House, of all places in public debate, cares very much about trying to change the discourse and policy in law and order and about doing something positive with the platform that we have.

Prosecutions and Sentencing

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. Does he agree that it is time to invest more in the justice system as a whole? Might he also agree that when Governments seek to encourage respect for the law in the country, they should begin by respecting the law themselves?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, this Government do respect the law. In addition, this Government understand the law and the distinctions that lie between matters of politics and matters of law. In some areas that is not properly understood. Of course, there is always room for further investment in the justice system, but the Government face an issue of priorities. The question of further investment must be balanced by other demands on government.

Criminal Justice System: Women

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, not just for all his work and his two incredibly impressive reports but for bringing this important debate to your Lordships’ House. I also thank all noble Lords who stayed; I hope they found their reward in the temperate climate in the Chamber, both literal and metaphorical, compared to the climate elsewhere.

In recent months, we have discussed many times the crisis in our criminal justice system and our prisons. It is a crisis of attitude, history and, fundamentally, funding. Women are its greatest victims, whether they are victims in the sense that people normally understand—victims of crime—or whether they are prisoners who are victims, as so many noble Lords suggested so eloquently in this debate. Human beings do not come in hermetically sealed categories of good and bad or perpetrator and victim. Many women who find themselves in prison, if not the majority, are victims of all kinds of abuse as well.

As I listened carefully to some wonderful speeches today, I was consistently reminded of the principle of non-discrimination which, for the most part, finds its place in our law as a result of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was particularly reminded of a now famous case from 2000 against the state of Greece, called Thlimmenos v Greece, if anyone is interested or particularly wonkish about these things. It explains that discrimination does not always mean treating like cases differently; sometimes, it is equally discriminatory not to treat people who have different circumstances and lives differently. It is discriminatory not to recognise the different journey, circumstances, incapacities or problems of a category of people. Too many people, including sometimes very clever people in our public life, think that if there is no sign up saying, “You’re not welcome”, or if you got the vote, then it is all done. It is not. Discrimination in our world, even in 21st-century Britain, is much deeper, subtler and more endemic than that.

I felt that this understanding was very much present in so many of your Lordships’ speeches, including those from my noble friends Lord Parekh and Lady Uddin, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Rochester, the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and, predictably, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, brought his unrivalled experience in these matters, and the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, addressed the additional intersectional problems of BAME women.

We have to understand that the system is already in crisis for everyone, but the problem is multiplied and exacerbated for women and they require particular attention and help. As so many people have described so forensically, women in prison are more likely to have experienced abuse as children, or domestic abuse, even to the point of coercion leading to the offence that leads to incarceration. They are more likely to be homeless before custody and to suffer from substance abuse or mental health issues. Tragically, of course, so many leave custody to go straight on to the street once more. There were so many helpful recommendations from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, but the point about addressing homelessness immediately on release seems such phenomenal good sense. It is an acute issue, and surely the Minister and his colleagues will look at it with some urgency.

Crucially, as came out in so many of noble Lords’ speeches, a woman in prison is more likely to have committed a non-violent offence driven by poverty and for material gain, and to be serving probably a pointless short sentence. Your Lordships also pointed out the disastrous effect of incarceration on these women and their children—because so many of them have children. It leads to intergenerational problems including criminality, but also to problems in wider society, because these women are not rehabilitated under these short sentences in particular, so the effects are even worse.

What is to be done? Your Lordships have been very gracious in the way they have conducted the debate, but your Lordships’ House has been addressing these matters with that degree of care and temperance for many years. I look around this Chamber at so many experts who have been so gracious about making these observations again and again to Governments of both persuasions, it has to be said, but those arguments fall on deaf ears.

Of course we need more resources, not just in the system but before it, because the criminal justice system has been treated as a dustbin for humanity. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, who coined the idea of needing more social workers, not just more prison officers. Why leave everything until it is almost too late when it comes to intervening in the most vulnerable people’s chaotic lives?

We need a probation service and probation disposals that truly inspire the confidence of the electorate and wider society, so that it is possible to make these disposals and not have to resort to ridiculous short-term sentences that clearly are not working. I thought that there was much in the suggestion that there should be mandatory pre-sentence reports before any woman is sent to prison, but perhaps we ought to go further. I took on board my noble friend Lord Ponsonby’s point that there has to be an ultimate sanction for non-compliance with probation and so on. However, it is high time for consultation and a Green Paper on a legislative presumption against these short sentences. That is what my honourable friend the shadow Justice Secretary has indeed promised.

We need to change the culture of prison itself. Again, that takes funding, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Parekh. Prisons are very masculine environments. They have been modelled on very traditional lines. That applies even to women’s prisons. We need to look at the different suggestions for keeping women’s family ties, even if they have to be in prison for more serious sentences. I was attracted to the suggestion of a women’s justice board to take these issues forward. In the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, I will certainly take that back to my colleagues.

There should be more women judges all the way through the system, including up at the top in the senior judiciary. I personally think that if that is not happening quickly enough, it is time to look at affirmative action in the judiciary. It is a question of not just expertise and life experience but legitimacy in the wider population, at a time when the judiciary is often under attack, as is the rule of law itself.

This is the last day of the last term. I wish all noble Lords well for a peaceful and well-earned break, though one which I suspect will not be without certain anxieties. We approach this recess with a new Foreign Secretary who has repeatedly suggested that feminism is bigotry. We have a new Home Secretary who has spoken in support of the death penalty. However, I believe in rehabilitation. That rehabilitation requires hard work and good counsel. I hope that the Minister, with all our support, is able to provide more of that in the autumn.

Crown Prosecution Service: Rape and Sexual Offences

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of delays in processing rape cases by the Crown Prosecution Service; and what steps they are taking to review the Crown Prosecution Service’s Rape and Sexual Offences guidance.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am so grateful to your Lordships’ House for considering my Question on a burning hot day when so much attention is understandably elsewhere—I am grateful for the chill in your Lordships’ Chamber—but if the business of leadership and government is not to protect the most vulnerable among us, I honestly do not know why we are here.

Left or right, north or south, on the planet, let alone in our country, there is no democracy without the rule of law, and one of the indicators of that fundamental bedrock breaking down is when in any society, the most serious crimes, such as rape, may be perpetrated with increasing impunity. More than 98% of reported rapes will never even result in a criminal charge. Recent government figures show all prosecutions at their lowest levels since 1970, and prosecutions for sex offences have fallen by one-third between 2017 and 2018. Our underfunded criminal justice system is in a crisis of resources and morale, and never is this more alarmingly evidenced than by its handling of sexual violence. It has emerged that one-third of police files are being sent back for more information. A blame game seems to have developed between prosecutors and their colleagues in uniform. There is nothing like finger-pointing to demonstrate overworked people close to their wits’ end. Recent information disclosed by the Attorney-General’s Office shows a shocking increase of more than 140% in the time taken to charge suspects in rape cases. In an Answer to a Written Parliamentary Question from Her Majesty’s Opposition, the Government revealed that the average number of days from complaint until charge has risen from 32 in 2010-11 to 78 in 2017-18.

There are other serious problems with the way rape cases are handled. In my opinion the so-called “digital strip searching” of survivors’ mobile phones is probably unlawful. Consent for such an intrusion into private life in exchange for access to justice, in the absence of primary legislation, cannot surely be in accordance with the law or comply with the right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the human rights convention or the right to a fair trial under Article 6.

The prospective Prime Minister has in the past spoken in favour of the human rights convention. In 2016, he is reported to have said, “Keep the European Convention, it’s a fine thing ... We wrote it”. If we wrote it, Mr Johnson, let us keep it and abide by it in thought, word and deed. I am sure that—despite all the temptations—your Lordships’ House looks forward to the reaffirmation of that position today.

I pay tribute to the distinguished outgoing Victims’ Commissioner, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and I welcome the new one. I also commend the broad coalition of campaign groups for bringing the issue of the controversial digital processing notices, introduced for police in England and Wales earlier this year, to the fore today. Women—the overwhelming majority of rape victims—are already discriminated against in the system. A trawl through their intimate data only reinforces the idea and the feeling that they are the ones in the dock. That is the practical effect of the purported “consent form”.

When Ms Sirin Kale at VICE magazine contacted me a little while ago to tell me that rape victims with cases going through the courts are told not to tell therapists about their assaults, I could barely believe that this was true. The suggestion that victims should avoid vital therapy for fear of prejudicing trials is as cruel as it is clumsy. The poorly drafted CPS guidance appears to be at least 17 years old. Have there really been no developments in professional thinking about trauma, treatment and memory since then, or could it be that a system without funding for treatment is desperate enough to rely on the flimsiest excuse for not providing it?

To suggest that a rape victim be denied counselling or therapy for perhaps months and months while awaiting trial is as ridiculous as denying the victim of any other form of violence vital medical treatment for their physical wounds. In some cases, it might be even worse. I quote a survivor who cannot be named for legal reasons: “You are allowed limited pre-trial counselling but you aren’t allowed to discuss anything that is in your police notes, which is obviously what happened to you. The defence can request your notes, then some parts of what you said can be used against you or the therapist can be seen to be guiding you over what happened or what to say if it does go to court. I think therapy would have massively helped me—so many people credit counselling and therapy as being life-changing and it’s really frustrating for me that I felt like I desperately needed it and I haven’t been able to have that”. I commend VICE magazine for its investigation into the treatment of rape complainants in our country. Non-partisan ethical journalism still lives.

The End Violence Against Women Coalition has begun legal action against the authorities, claiming that the CPS has covertly changed its practice in relation to decision-making on rape cases and that this has contributed to a dramatic fall in the number being charged. The coalition has warned that cases with “extra vulnerabilities” such as child sexual exploitation and those where a woman might make allegations against a former partner are most likely to be dropped, due to the difficulties therein.

Because of the obliteration of civil legal aid since the coalition Government’s disastrous LASPO reforms, victims’ groups are having to crowdfund on the internet to seek legal redress—this in a legal system that was once the envy of the world. It is still a great legal system in that international oligarchs will come here for Rolls-Royce arbitration and justice against each other, but it is more like a soup kitchen for the most vulnerable.

I welcome that the Government under the outgoing Prime Minister agreed to review the treatment of rape complainants, but victims will need assurance that this will be meaningful. Surely a Government of any stripe should consult and value the expertise of judges, lawyers, mental health professionals, women’s organisations and survivor groups who have been fighting these burning injustices for some time. This system failure is a shameful breach of survivors’ human rights. Victims should never be required to make the false choice between justice and survival.

Therefore, I hope that we can all urge the incoming Prime Minister to make the rule of law and the rights of the most vulnerable among us an absolute priority if we are to hold the bare bones of our democratic society together in the difficult months ahead.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As far as I am concerned, neither the DPP nor the CPS would endorse the implied threat that, if there was a reason for not signing a consent form for the disclosure of digital material, they would simply refuse to contemplate a charge on a case such as this, or indeed in any other case. I believe that the problem stems from the use of language, and that such terms as “digital strip search” merely seek to underline how it is possible for parties to misunderstand the scope of the inquiry that is being carried out here. What has to be emphasised is the need to secure justice for the complainant and for the accused.

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

On that point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, could the Minister tell the House what the legal foundation for this form is? Does it have foundation in any statute? I think we can all agree that it at least to some extent creates an interference with privacy rights; if it does so, where is the foundation that makes it in accordance with law? If it is consent, and therefore not based on any statutory foundation, is that consent real if complainants fear that their case will not be taken forward?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

In so far as I follow what the noble Baroness is saying, it requires first of all a balance between rights that arise under the European Convention on Human Rights—the right under Article 6 to a fair trial and the right under Article 8 to privacy—and the need to ensure that any intrusion into these matters is in the public interest and can be properly justified. As to the specific foundation for the consent form, in carrying through a prosecution it is necessary for reasonable and appropriate inquiries to be carried out in the public interest. A consent form is therefore produced for the complainant to consider signing. The situation is this: the complainant may refuse to sign that consent form, but in those circumstances that might well intrude upon the ability of the police properly to investigate a particular complaint.

Probation Reform

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Thursday 16th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am incredibly grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a welcome U-turn on a disastrous probation policy—but what a mess, what an absolute mess. I feel the need to probe the underlying thinking a little further to ensure that lessons are truly being learned in the Government. Those of us on these Benches have real constitutional concerns, and concerns about accountability for public safety in relation to privatising the criminal justice system.

Today’s U-turn, a necessary first step to cleaning up the probation mess, comes only after hundreds of millions of pounds have been squandered propping up failing private companies, and public safety has been put directly at risk as a result. So I must probe the Minister on the thinking for the future and the proportion of these funds that are to be preferred towards private companies as opposed to voluntary bodies and social enterprises. This is crucial to understanding whether failing outsourcing giants, such as G4S and Sodexo, are going to be offered a way back into the probation system.

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. All of us think that it has been a long time coming and it is right that we should broadly welcome the thrust of the Government’s intention to reorganise this service.

I take our share of the blame as part of the coalition Government, during which we supported some of the reforms of the National Probation Service in 2014. Some of the principles of these reforms were very sound when they were introduced. It was right that supervision was available for at least the first year when inmates leave prison. It was important to provide through-the-gate services, so that people can have a place to live as well as continuity of training and treatment between prison and the community. To do all this, it was vital that voluntary organisations working in the criminal justice field were fully involved.

Mr Grayling has bungled and underfunded contracts so badly that his reforms failed to achieve these objectives. No wonder it is estimated that these botched reforms have cost the taxpayer more than £500 million, according to the National Audit Office. He is the most unfortunate Minister whose record is dismal, and it is a surprise that he has lasted so long, even at the Department for Transport at this stage.

We need some guarantees to ensure that the probation service is not let down again. Who is examining the existing case load of probation officers? What further resources are available to make them more effective? Is there any way of tying probation resources to the rise in the number of prisoners in our establishments? Is there some way of ensuring that more incarceration of prisoners will effectively mean more work for the probation service? A good many well-trained but disillusioned probation officers have left the service in the last few years. What is being done to bring them back into probation work?

The Minister has just announced a new targeted innovation fund. What share will voluntary organisations have in such funds in order to make the probation service more effective? The new targeted innovation fund ought to make sure that such organisations are not locked out. Of course reforms are necessary, but we should never lose sight of the fact that when the state incarcerates prisoners, it takes full responsibility for each individual. We would do well, in very difficult times, to say to ourselves that if we lose that responsibility we will lose control of our criminal justice system.

Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I think it very appropriate that the Ministry of Justice should decide as a principle as far as possible to preserve the existing rules as they currently apply in the UK immediately after exit day. The purpose is,

“to provide maximum certainty and stability for businesses and individuals”.

However, I am concerned about the impact on business, even though the impact assessment does not throw up anything in particular. I am always very conscious of the strength of Hong Kong, which built its reputation and financial power on the fact that it uses English common law as the basis of its legal system. That means that contracts are readily made and understood, which has been of great economic benefit to Hong Kong. I notice that the impact assessment refers to the,

“strong international reputation as a centre of legal excellence”,

that this country currently enjoys. Anyone connected with the law knows that our legal profession has a great reputation, English law is frequently the preferred law and English courts are used even though a particular dispute has nothing to do with England, so this is a very profitable part of the legal world.

I shall take as an example one matter referred to in paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which refers to,

“the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising from infringements of unitary EU intellectual property rights … Trade Marks … Design Rights and … Plant Variety Rights. These unitary EU IP rights will no longer apply in the UK … and UK courts will no longer hear proceedings relating to such rights after exit day”.

It seems to me that there is a whole area of law which may be cut out from the jurisdiction of English courts and the services of English lawyers.

That is compounded by the fact that these regulations remove the ability of UK courts to refer questions of interpretation of the 1980 Rome convention to the Court of Justice of the European Union—to my mind, that is a significant restriction—just as the interpretation of retained EU law generally cannot be decided by that court. We are going from a well understood legal system to something that is much more limited than we have been used to.

On the broad basis, however, the fact that the rights are generally retained is to be welcomed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in an attempt once more to be succinct, I can echo the point that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, was making. The concerns from this side are essentially about regulatory diversion. I do not think anybody is going to object to these regulations; the concern is with ongoing regulatory divergence and its potential impact, whether it is on unfair competition cases or IP cases and so on. Perhaps the Minister might consider briefly that risk of regulatory divergence in his reply.

In relation to insurance, the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Government engaged with representatives of the insurance industry”,


in relation to “insurance risks”. Can the Minister outline the types of risks identified in that engagement? We are told that banks and insurers are shifting hundreds of billions of pounds in assets out of the UK ahead of exit day to keep their contracts and policies within the EU area. We have learned that Aviva, Britain’s second largest insurer, will transfer around £9 billion in assets to a new Irish company, for example. Does the Minister agree with having that sort of risk to our economy? Does this reflect the concern about different outcomes that could result from insurance contract cases being resolved differently in our courts and those of our EU partners in the future?

As I say, my general proposition is on the risks of regulatory divergence, but one can hardly object to the instrument itself.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness for their observations. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, there will no longer be scope for a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union over the construction or interpretation of the convention. Given that the convention has been there since 1980, that may already have happened but we cannot say that it would never have happened again. But I say to the noble Lord—and I address this to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti as well—that, although there is no longer a basis for a reference by a UK court to the Court of Justice, the UK courts may of course have regard to the decisions of the Court of Justice going forward. Quite sensibly, they would have regard to decisions that bore upon the interpretation of the convention, or of Rome I and II as well. That would be of relevance to the incorporation in domestic law of provisions which had their genesis in those European Union provisions.

The immediate matter of insurance is quite narrow and concerns one of the limited derogations from the freedom to choose your own law, as it were. There is a limitation about choice of law where an insurance contract contains provision to cover risks located in the European Union. Essentially, there cannot be an insurance contract that covers risks in an EU member state where the law of Russia is chosen as the relevant law for resolving the contract. The difficulty faced in drafting these regulations was that the reference under the derogation was to a risk in an EU member state. We were going to be concerned not only with a risk in an EU member state but with a risk in the United Kingdom. This is why we have had to move from reference to “member state” to “relevant state”, which is, in turn, defined by reference to member states and the United Kingdom. It is a fairly narrow move, which I do not believe is, of itself, going to impact on the choice or application of law with regard to the type of contract to any material extent. I do not see how it would impact on the transfer of assets such as was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. This is not what this regulation is addressing.

I acknowledge that, if we leave the European Union without a deal—which is not this Government’s preferred option—there will be issues for banks, insurance companies and others with regard to their future arrangements in the European Union. No one would take away from that. That said, this is essentially implementing an existing scheme with just those changes necessary to make sure it operates in domestic law. I do not believe this is going to take away from the attractiveness of English law—or, indeed, Scots law—as a system for the resolution of commercial disputes. English law in particular remains the lingua franca for charter parties, major commercial contracts and so on. Because of the flexibility of common law, it will continue to be used for this reason. I do not see that this is going to result in any major change. No doubt there are options when it comes to choosing a common law system—such as the law of Hong Kong, Singapore or New York, for example. That already exists and we deal with it.

Noting all the observations that have been made, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Criminal Justice (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in all sorts of matters, particularly perhaps in matters Brexit, it is not as fashionable as we might like either to be succinct or fair to one’s opponents. So as not to exacerbate the Alice in Wonderland world described by noble Lords, I would say that the Minister is in an unenviable situation. Surely we all know that the problems are not with this draft instrument but with any possibility of exiting the European Union without a deal. It would be a disaster in all sorts of areas—trade and other aspects of co-operation—but in the context of criminal justice co-operation, we all ought to acknowledge that the idea of no deal is particularly disastrous and dangerous for people in this country and in the European Union, especially for victims of violent crime and survivors of domestic abuse.

Having said that at the outset, I invite the noble and learned Lord the Minister to agree and to do his best with particular questions about the various areas of policy and co-operation covered here. We acknowledge that it is not about the instrument. We are in an unenviable position. The clock is ticking down and we seem to be no closer to a final scheme for what criminal justice co-operation will be. The problem is that the political declaration is vague on matters of security and justice co-operation. As we have heard from noble Lords, access to Europol and European criminal records is essential, as is access to the extensive database system. Perhaps we can all agree on this. I am sure that, in due course, the Minister will do so as well and he will suggest that this instrument and its provisions are not an ideal alternative to having a proper scheme for co-operation after Brexit.

If the Minister is able to do so, I wonder if he might discuss what the total cost to the UK authorities might be from not having, for example, access to the system of formal communication in relation to compensation for victims of violent crime. The Explanatory Memorandum makes a lot of store about the total number of requests in each relevant case. Can he assist on the total amount of compensation that has resulted in the past three years in relation to this request? Thare might give more of a sense of the importance and severity of the matters we are dealing with.

In relation to European protection orders, paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum states,

“the UK will no longer be able to issue requests to other EU Member States and expect them to be acted upon”.

This is predominantly about domestic violence. Can the Minister confirm that this change could make life less safe for the survivors of domestic abuse after exit day? Could the Minister perhaps articulate how travel restrictions would be placed on the perpetrators of domestic abuse in such a scenario—for example, on a man who is an EU citizen with a woman victim who is a UK citizen—without an EPO? Similarly, on financial penalties, does the Minister have any idea what the potential cost would be to the UK authorities for losing access to the framework?

In all this, I am making the point that it is not really fair to impugn the instrument itself but, as there are people beyond this Room who are still advocating a no-deal Brexit, it is none the less important to try to get the Minister’s thoughts on some of these matters.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am obliged to noble Lords for their contributions. I begin by observing that my noble friend Lord Deben has misunderstood the purpose of these regulations. They are not concerned with the transfer of data or information or with access to it; they are concerned with what the courts do with it once they have it. I will elaborate on that in a moment.

In light of the observations that have been made, particularly by the noble Lords, Lord Thomas and Lord Thomas—this is a bit like a rugby commentary featuring Joneses, but I will not go there—and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, I shall take each of the five relevant regulations’ directives in turn, pick up each of the points that have been raised and then come back to the issue of data and how that is being addressed.

The first is the victims of crime compensation directive. Let us be clear: in the event of a no-deal exit—I am not seeking or advocating that; I am dealing with the situation that arises in that eventuality, as the noble Baroness observed—any EU citizen who is the victim of a violent crime in the UK will still be able to proceed to make an application under the UK scheme in respect of a violent criminal act in the UK. Conversely, even though we no longer have the relevant directive in place, where a UK citizen suffers such an act in a member state that has ratified the European Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes, which is the preceding European Council convention, they will also be able to access compensation, and there are 18 EU members that are signatories to that convention. In addition, there are some member states that are not signatories to the convention but whose criminal compensation schemes admit of applications just like the UK’s for any citizen who suffers that violent criminal conduct within their country. There are at least two which fall into that category; I believe that they are Ireland and Latvia. There are in fact a total of 20 existing EU member states where it will be possible to continue applying for compensation under these schemes.

To follow up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the intention is that the CICA will support victims in accessing compensation from those countries where an application can be made—in other words, it will do essentially what it does at present, which is to assist the victim in directing how and where the application should be made in the circumstances. I readily accept that that is not a complete answer to the existing scheme; it is deficient to the extent that at least seven existing EU member states will not facilitate such an application. That said, it is important to put this into context. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, not every application has been notified to the CICA in the UK. In so far as it is notified, though, we are aware that in the past year, 2017-2018 to the end of February, there were 59 requests for assistance, 29 notified unsuccessful applications and only two notified successful applications. I readily accede that not all those who made an application notified that fact and not all those who made a successful application notified that, so the data is limited. As a consequence we do not know the sums that were awarded in these cases because there is no requirement for notification. It is a limited compass and what will be in its place is not as good as what exists at present. Nobody is pretending otherwise, but it is appropriate that we put the statute book into proper form in order that people are not confused when they come to determine what their rights are in this context.

Turning to the European protection order and the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, it is simply not possible to operate that scheme if we leave without a deal because under the terms of the relevant provision only the court of a member state can make a request and under the scheme it can make a request only to the court of another EU member state. In the event that we receive an application before exit, we will process it because it will have been competently made by the other member state and we will be receiving it at a time when we are a member state, but after exit we cannot make such orders because they will not be accepted as competent by the EU 27 states, and we cannot expect to receive any because they cannot competently make such a request of the United Kingdom once it ceases to be a member state. To put this into context, I should emphasise that this order is very rarely used. Four EPOs have been issued by the English and Welsh courts and the Northern Ireland authorities since this provision was implemented in 2015, and only two of those were recognised by the receiving EU state over a period of four years. In the same period, six EPOs were received by the courts from other member states of which four were recognised and two were declined, so we are talking about tiny numbers in this context.

On the European supervision order, I would, with respect, seek to correct the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. The supervision order is directed to pre-criminal trial matters such as bail. It does not apply to any post-criminal trial order of the court. The reference to supervision is perhaps a little misleading in that context. It deals essentially with a situation in which somebody is placed on bail under bail conditions and the relevant supervision order can be enforced in another EU member state with the result that a citizen of an EU member state who is subject to bail may move into another EU member state without breaching the relevant conditions of their bail order. That is essentially what it deals with. It has again been very rarely used since implementation in 2015. The number we had received at the time the regulations were laid was four since 2015. Interestingly, a further six have emerged since the regulations were laid, I think five of which have come from Cyprus. I do not know whether they all pertain to the same group, but the numbers are very small. In turn, the courts in England and Wales have issued two such supervision orders, but neither is extant. They have both expired because the relevant parties have been discharged or have gone through the criminal trial process. We do not anticipate that this will have any major impact.

The financial penalties order came into force in 2012, since which time we have received about 3,759 requests for enforcement of civil penalties, most of them from the Netherlands, and we have issued about 3,400 requests for the recovery of financial penalties, most of them to Poland.

We have one point to bear in mind. Where we issue a request for a financial penalty to be recovered, we do not get the money. It is retained by the EU member state that makes the recovery. To that extent we do not get a financial benefit, but where we do benefit is in the event that we are requested to recover a financial penalty; we can then retain it. The sums involved are relatively modest. The average fine is in the region of £300 based on figures collected in 2015. If that is applied to the number of requests we are getting, we are still talking about a sum of approximately £100,000. However, I emphasise that these estimates are approximate. As I say, it is not a case of us recovering the money that has been imposed by a UK court for reasons best known to the European authorities, I am sure; rather, the proceeds go to the jurisdiction that actually recovers the funds in the event that they do so.

Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Baroness Chakrabarti Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble and learned friend answers that difficult question, I wonder whether he can help the House on a general question about judicial pensions and eligibility. Judges must now retire at the age of 70; there is strong feeling abroad that this often wastes judicial talent. In other fields, people often peak at 70 so a retirement age of 75 may be far more suitable, given that the same retirement age applies to magistrates, jurors and other people given the task of determining matters of justice.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, in a crowded and noisy political landscape, it is easy to overlook the importance of protecting our judiciary and making adequate pensions provisions for our people. Forgive me for suggesting this, but this House is perhaps uniquely qualified to value the importance of both.

I begin by politely disagreeing with the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Adonis a moment ago. I have no concerns about the Supreme Court’s ability to deal with any disputes relating to judicial pensions. Of course, the Opposition do not seek to divide the House on the interim provision set out by the Minister but I want to take this opportunity to urge him not to kick the can down the road into next year and beyond. It is concerning that the Government have recently had a number of disputes of this kind with judges, including the defeat referred to earlier. I agree with a number of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about the importance of a confident and, frankly, happy judiciary to which we can adequately recruit to protect our reputation as a rule-of-law nation, whether we are inside or outside the EU. We need to boost our judiciary’s morale now and for some years to come.

I agree with the one-year extension of this scheme but concerns over judicial pensions need to be considered in the broader context of the austerity measures that hit the Ministry of Justice particularly hard, including budget cuts of a third since 2010. Savings made in the revised pensions schemes are just one area where spending has been seriously squeezed. Devastating reductions to the court estate, further proposals for the relocation of case management functions, listings and scheduling, new off-site service centres and service centres supervised by authorised staff, not judges, are some of the issues we discussed last year in the context of the then courts and tribunals Bill.

We on these Benches are concerned about the judgment to which the Minister referred. A finding against the Government relating to unlawful age discrimination is very concerning. Going forward, I urge the Government, in as friendly a manner as possible, to consider the acute shortage of High Court judges. As I imagine many people in the Chamber will be aware, senior lawyers and practitioners are not putting themselves forward for High Court appointment—including some highly qualified people who would be keen to complete their prestigious careers in what is a vital public service in this country. Too many positions have been left vacant for years with the very slight prospect of them being filled in the next few years. Time and again one hears that this recruitment crisis is in no small way affected by the change in judicial pensions.

We must ensure confidence in our legal system, perhaps more than ever in the times we are all attempting to navigate now. We need our judicial Benches—the entire judiciary, whether tribunal panel members, chairs, district judges, county court judges or circuit judges—to be made up of exceptional individuals. Those stressful and expert roles need to be properly remunerated for that to continue. I urge the Minister and the rest of the Government to sit down promptly with judges and have a serious discussion about how to fund that vital part of our constitution going forward, and how to boost morale and recruitment to our judiciary. With that plea to the Government, there will be no objection from these Benches to this interim measure.

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak but perhaps I should. I declare an interest as having been Lord Chief Justice when the shocking new arrangements for the judicial pension were imposed on the judiciary unilaterally by the Government. There was consultation—of the kind that enables the Government to do exactly what they like—but it was imposed on the judiciary. There was a unilateral change to the pension arrangements under which a significant proportion of the judiciary were working if they were below a certain age and had not given so many years’ service. The basis on which they joined the judiciary, which was clearly understood, was changed. That represented a betrayal. It greatly damaged confidence in the whole idea of a successful practitioner—a barrister or solicitor—seeking judicial appointment. If the Government could unilaterally change the arrangements, there was no point. We still suffer the consequences of that. There is nothing wrong with the present measure we are considering, but the consequences of what happened between 2010 and 2014 are with us still.

If I may answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, about the arrangements that are currently before and have been before the courts, the judges trying those cases are not those who will have been affected by these dramatic changes. The various matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, are well known. There is no point using this opportunity to stand on a hobby-horse to repeat them, but they do not go away. That is an issue the ministry has to grapple with as soon as practicable.