Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Amendments 44A and 44B not moved.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

I must inform the House that if Amendment 45 is agreed, I will be unable to call Amendment 46 due to pre-emption.

Power of Attorney

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the Office of the Public Guardian has changed its processes so that it writes to donors at their home address to inform them that an LPA is being applied for, but in the consultation on modernising the LPA do the Government anticipate that they will need to bring forward new legislation to strengthen the powers of the Office of the Public Guardian to strike out people who hold an LPA who abuse those powers, as outlined in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, new legislation will be required. To put matters into perspective, in 2021 there were more than 5 million LPAs on the OPG register, and only nine have been removed from the register because of concerns about fraud by false representation during their creation.

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put made that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee: this Committee cannot divide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, for drawing my attention to the impressive eighth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which he is a member, and the Minister’s reply.

Any expertise I acquired in the course of my academic education in Cambridge has, I fear, slipped away. I am glad that, as a law officer, I was not particularly troubled by questions of private international law, in stark contrast to public international issues such as advising on Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, the United Nations and elsewhere. My remarks are addressed to Amendment 16 but equally apply to a lot of issues I would have raised on the stand part debate, and therefore I may be excused from repeating them when we come to that issue as the same questions arise.

Having examined the evidence in the two documents, surely the preferred course is a matter of judgment. I leave on one side the hugely impressive technical arguments we have heard during this debate. The issue is this: does one depart from the practice of 100 years of the need for primary legislation to implement a treaty or does one bow to the urgency and the apparent narrow window to implement the application of the Lugano convention before the end of the transition period? Other examples have been cited, but I do not expect that they have the same urgency as that.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, mentioned the hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee, which I used to chair, in which some rather fundamental concerns were raised about Lugano in the course of the evidence, particularly regarding family matters.

The Minister believes that proceeding by statutory instrument is necessary to implement agreements in a timely manner. That is the issue he puts before us today. The question that concerns me is, while there might be a discrete argument for dealing with issues in the way proposed during the transition period, has it occurred to Her Majesty’s Government that it might be more acceptable to put forward a much narrower clause to deal with a specific mischief such as Lugano? I agree with the spirit of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.

It would be better if we had something much narrower to deal with the specific issue than the rather wide power that is now being granted to the Government. That certainly would have the attraction of being more proportionate. Failing that, my submission would be to delete Clause 2 altogether. That really would meet the harm that has been ventilated so ably in the course the debate.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, does not wish to contribute at this point. I therefore move on to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance.

[Lord Mance]

My Lords, as has been pointed out, these amendments illustrate the width of the delegated power proposed. They really matter only if Amendments 1, 4 and 5 fail and Clause 2 remains in the Bill unaltered. I basically agree with all my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said and will add some comments on only some of the amendments.

On Amendment 10—replacing “includes” with “means”—Clauses 2(7) contains a quite exhaustive definition. “Includes” suggests that it is not exhaustive and that there are further things to be covered. To suggest that the definition is only partial in that way is a recipe for future doubt and argument.

Amendment 2 aims to rephrase the power

“so far as relating to private international law”

to read so far as

“that agreement exclusively relates to”

private international law. In his letter responding to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, pointed out that the Warsaw convention, governing the responsibility of international aviation carriers, and the CMR convention —he described it as the Geneva convention, but it is better known as the CMR convention—governing the liability of international road carriers each contain an individual provision relating to private international law. He went on to say that

“importantly, only those individual provisions could have been implemented under the clause 2 power in the Bill.”

That statement illustrates the reason for this amendment, because if that is how this Bill is or may be interpreted, it certainly needs amendment. It is wholly inappropriate to use this Bill to cherry pick a provision about jurisdiction, for example, or recognition of judgments out of a composite scheme, and to suggest that the Bill enables such a provision to be enacted without any context.

Take either convention. The jurisdiction provisions—who can be sued and where—make sense only in the light of the provisions regarding who can claim and who is liable. To require a consignor or consignee of goods, whether by air or by road, to sue in a particular country without incorporating the provisions that create the cause of action, and provide against whom the cause of action is, would be completely to misunderstand the scheme of such conventions. They are conceived as a composite package. Take the CMR convention—the acronym is French, but it deals with transport. The concept of a contract for the carriage of goods by road is fundamental to the operation of that convention, but it is an artificial one which may be satisfied by status and activities, such as taking over goods and the consignment note, rather than on ordinary contractual principles. If you incorporated the jurisdictional provisions, you would not incorporate the liability provisions—the two do not make sense separated.

The insertion of the words “exclusively relates to” in Clause 2(1) would ensure that it is only pure private international law agreement matters that can attract the use of the general delegated power, if that remains at all in Clause 2.

Turning to Amendment 3, I declare a potential interest as a practising arbitrator, in view of the definition in the Bill of private international law to include recognition and enforcement of an “arbitral award”.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, for information, Amendment 3 is in the next group of amendments. In this group we have Amendments 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16. I hope that that is helpful.

[Lord Mance]

Yes, it is very helpful. Have I started addressing Amendment 3 by mistake? I certainly did not intend to. I want to address Amendment 11, which seeks to include the words “or arbitral award” in the definition of private international law.

As I said, I declare an interest as an arbitrator. Perhaps I might mention that, although I may not speak on this, I chair the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law, which is referred to later, in proposed Amendment 20. I assure the Committee that that committee had nothing to do with that amendment.

To go back to arbitral awards, the recognition of arbitration clauses and the enforcement of arbitral awards are matters governed by special international agreements, most notably the highly successful 1958 New York convention and the 1966 International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes convention, also known as the World Bank convention. The current Brussels regime, the Lugano convention, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Hague Convention are all extremely careful to exclude arbitration expressly. But this definition for some reason includes it. One of the virtues of the 2012 recast of Brussels 1 was to reinforce that exclusion still further. London is a world centre of arbitration, and there would be concern about any suggested intervention by delegated legislation.

The inclusion of a reference to an “arbitral award” is therefore inappropriate and will arouse concern. It will also raise the further question: if arbitral awards are within private international law, what about international agreements on the jurisdiction of arbitrators? Is the word “jurisdiction” in Clause 2(7)(a) to be interpreted as enabling delegated legislation about arbitral jurisdiction?

The response at Second Reading from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was not comforting. He said:

“We do not intend to intrude wholesale on the New York convention or other aspects of arbitration, but it might be that there will be bilateral or multilateral … issues where a party wishes to refer to arbitration … we will want to have the power to proceed with such an agreement.”—[Official Report, 17/3/20; col. 1451.]


On the face of it, that suggests that, so far as the Government have any clear conception of why these words are there, they would cover jurisdictional issues—in other words, issues about where a party wishes to refer to arbitration and not just the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. That is an unwise and unnecessary indication of possible future interference by international agreement and delegated legislation in one of this country’s more successful export activities.

Surely the better approach is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If, at the international level, the New York or ICSID convention is supplemented, their domestic implementation should be by primary legislation, as it currently is under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.

Finally, on Amendment 16, I endorse what has been said by my noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Admirable though they may be, model laws do not have the same status as international agreements and frequently need close attention before domestic implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has made a number of extremely telling and important points. We are clearly in a situation where we must ensure either that we have an entirely reliable voting system in the upper Chamber, or alternatively a clear and telling government majority. I suspect that it is more likely that we will seek to secure the former.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

My Lords, I shall now put the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill; all microphones will be opened until I give the result. As many as are of that opinion shall say “Content”.

[Noble Lords]

Content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

To the contrary, “Not content”.

[Noble Lords]

Not content.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, it takes unanimity to amend the Bill. If a single voice says “Content”, the clause stands part. The Contents have it.

Clause 2 agreed.

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Virtual Committee to adjourn.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

My Lords, the Virtual Committee stands adjourned.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 3rd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Deech]

I have not withdrawn Amendment 20 yet.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

For the convenience of the House, when the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness is called, she may then have the opportunity to speak to it.

Amendments 8 and 9 not moved.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has made an obviously reasonable and appropriate case for the propriety of the Government consulting with Ministers in the devolved Assemblies. That is not only good politics, it is good manners, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord who will be replying on behalf of the Government will readily accept that that is appropriate. I hope, therefore, that he will be willing to accept Amendment 23.

Amendment 45 is an amendment to a clause that is in any case otiose, so I do not think it is necessary for the Government to accept it, but again I hope that the Minister will affirm that of course the Government will want to follow the usual conventions and established procedures for legislative consent.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to speak to three of the amendments in this group. Yesterday I spoke in support of Amendment 15, and those remarks are relevant to Amendment 18 so I will not repeat them. It is important to ensure that our concerns about the Bill are recognised. One is that, as currently written, the Bill can be interpreted as not respecting the union, which becomes extremely important constitutionally.

Amendment 23 relates to Clause 26 and the potential role of the courts, other than the Supreme Court, in the future. The difficulty arises in having due regard to the devolved Administrations, as my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd has outlined. Legislation that has already been passed by the Senedd, the Welsh Assembly Government, reflects European rulings. If those rulings are changed in the future, the Assembly will have to address the changes. The difficulty, of course, is that if it has not been consulted on all the changes to the way appeals can be made, it could find itself in an extremely difficult position.

This amendment, like the others that we have tabled, is therefore designed to prevent avoidable problems emerging in the future. I cannot see that anything in our amendments would undermine the Government’s ability to move forward with their withdrawal Bill, but they would make sure that the legislative powers already held by the Senedd and the Welsh Government are respected.

Our amendment to Clause 38 is necessary because, as written, it fails to refer to the Sewel convention and therefore risks undermining the devolution settlements. If the Government do not wish to accept the amendment, one could suggest another way forward by deleting the entire clause, although I suspect that they are less minded to do that than to insert something short to respect the devolved settlements.

I also signal my support for Amendment 29 in the group, because again it aims to safeguard the devolution settlements from unilateral amendment by Ministers of the Crown. Although the conduct of international negotiations is a reserved matter, which everyone respects, the amendment would ensure that the impact on the devolution settlements are recognised and would give the devolved institutions the responsibility to make arrangements to implement international agreements as they go forward.

Essentially, we are asking to be consulted and to be kept in the loop. We are not asking for a veto, but our amendments ask for the devolution settlement to be respected, as it works at the moment with an intact union.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, my name is also attached to Amendments 18, 23 and 45. I am very pleased to support the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay.

The issues at question are issues of trust between the devolved Governments and the Government of the United Kingdom. Nobody is arguing that the devolved Governments have power over international treaties—of course they do not; they are reserved powers. None the less, what will be undertaken in those treaties will almost certainly have a very direct effect on matters that are devolved, some of them fully, to the National Assembly for Wales, and likewise to Scotland and Northern Ireland in slightly different ways.

To that extent, there have been occasions when the UK Government has been well represented in negotiations in Brussels by Ministers from the Government of Wales. It is perfectly right that they should be there on matters such as the sheepmeat regime or when questions of smaller languages are debated. When such matters arise, as is likely, in the context of any ongoing treaties or new treaties that will emerge, it is vital that the confidence of the Welsh Government and the National Assembly, and likewise that of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is taken fully into account.

The real danger is that things happen by default. The UK Government, with all the good will in the world, might think that issues do not arise without having talked about them. There needs to be some system to avoid unnecessary tension and rows between the various Governments within the United Kingdom.

I did not participate in the debate last night, but I read with considerable interest the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank. He said:

“This debate has taken a turn that I had not anticipated—the notion that a power is now being granted to the Government to undo that which has been set before: if you like, the magisterium of the law which sets up the elements of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. That is not the purpose of this rule.”


He goes on to say that he would be happy to make a note available

“to all noble Lords who are interested in this, so they can see where we believe this power will be required”.—[Official Report, 14/1/20; col. 639.]

The point is that if the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, has recognised that there is a need for greater clarification than is provided in the Bill, surely with the Bill still going to Parliament there is an opportunity to table amendments, such as the ones proposed in this group, to safeguard the position. It is not enough to have a sentence in Hansard. That obviously helps to clarify the position, but there needs to be something more cast-iron than that.

This is not a party-political issue, it is a matter of getting means of sensible co-operation into the Bill. If the Government cannot accept the amendments now, I very much hope that between now and Report they will consider these issues and try to bring in some form of wording that gives an assurance in the Bill along the lines that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, suggested last night.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendment 5 in my name. It is a tidying-up procedure which corrects and clarifies the statutory instrument powers. To be clear, the procedures for victims’ payments and same-sex marriage remain as the House agreed on Report, which is via the negative procedure. The abortion regulations will now be made by affirmative procedure, rather than by negative procedure, and, to avoid any doubt, this amendment states that:

“In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned … no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or … adjourned for more than four days”,


so that should we be adjourned part-way through a consultation period, the clock would stop ticking, and start again when we officially resume.

The other important thing is to explain the last part of this amendment, which states that if regulations cease to have effect as a result of proposed new subsection (4), that does not affect anything previously done under them, or the making of new regulations. I shall give an example of that to clarify it. If in relation to the abortion issue that we discussed, a statutory instrument is introduced, and after that date a GP prescribes misoprostol for an abortion, they would be protected doing so during the consultation period. However, if at the end of the 28 days that statutory instrument falls, they would not be covered in prescribing on day 29, and it would not be retrospective either.

It is important to be clear, because this has been such a charged debate. I too thank everyone, particularly the Minister, for having been extraordinarily available at all times of the day and into the night for discussion and consultation. He has really tried to resolve these complex issues.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, given the hour, I thank all those who have taken part, especially those who have worked so hard on these critical amendments. It was indeed a mutual process, with the Minister, of getting us to the point where we now have a Bill that looks much more fit for purpose than when it came to us, which is precisely what we are here to do. We must thank the staff for facilitating; we apologise for keeping them all up. We have done a job of work and people can say that the issues have been thoroughly and properly debated. I also reinforce my thanks and appreciation to the Minister for what he has done and the way he does it, which is much appreciated.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

5: After Clause 10, insert the following new Clause—
“Regulations: procedure
(1) Regulations under section 8, 9 or 10 are to be made by statutory instrument. (2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 8 or 10 is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations under section 9 must be laid before Parliament after being made.(4) Regulations contained in an instrument laid under subsection (3) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made unless, during that period, the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 28 days mentioned in subsection (4), no account is to be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which both Houses are adjourned for more than four days.(6) If regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (4), that does not affect—(a) anything previously done under them, or(b) the making of new regulations.”

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 17th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)]

My Lords, I think the House knows that I was the person who piloted the Abortion Act 1967 through the other place. I begin by thanking the Government, and this Minister in particular, for their readiness to respect the overwhelming vote in the House of Commons recently to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line. I was slightly puzzled by the fact that although the Government made the commitment to put right what they saw as deficiencies in the drafting in the Commons, that has not happened, and we have no government amendments before us today. Perhaps the Minister will explain why that is so. I am assuming that we will now go forward and that after the consultation there will be effective introduction of a statutory instrument. Presumably that is what the Government have in mind to change the law in Northern Ireland.

It is worth reminding the House that the 1967 legislation started in 1966, here in the House of Lords. I drew a place in the ballot for Private Members’ Bills and picked up the Bill that had already been passed in this House—it was this House that pioneered the legislation, not the House of Commons. Although we made substantial changes to the Bill, it started here and it is worth reminding ourselves of that. I shall quote something that I have quoted very often. Dr John Marks, when he retired as the secretary to the British Medical Association in 1992 after 40 years, said:

“Looking back over these forty years, it seems to me that the event which has had the most beneficial effect on public health during that period was the passage of the Abortion Act”.


That is a remarkable thing for a senior medic to say, but it is a tribute to this House that that happened.

Three things have changed substantially since the 1967 legislation, which I want to draw to the attention of the House. The first is that in 1967, in terms of the European Union, we were the pioneers in legislating for abortion. Other countries had not done it. One outcome was that, immediately after our law was passed, we started to get some traffic from other European countries. People were coming into Britain and Britain was being portrayed as the abortion capital of Europe. The press was full of stories about taxis at Heathrow Airport bringing women here. This was a great embarrassment to the Government at the time and, frankly, an embarrassment to me as the author of the legislation, but that is what happened. What has changed since 1967 is that the rest of Europe has changed its legislation and has in fact gone ahead of the 1967 legislation. Most European countries have based their law on it being a woman’s right to choose up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy. That is very different from the Abortion Act 1967.

I want to stress that a very important document that influenced me and a lot of people at the time was the Church of England report Abortion—an Ethical Discussion, by far the best treatise on the morality of abortion that I have ever read. It influenced my own church, the Church of Scotland and the Methodist Church and I think it influenced opinion in European countries as well. Most of their legislation is based on the belief or doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church put forward right up until the late 19th century, which said that the soul entered the body at the time of animation or quickening. That was the fundamental reason that the European countries introduced this law making a distinction between abortion up to the 12th or 13th week of pregnancy and thereafter. It is very different from the Abortion Act 1967, but it is a fundamental change. Now, of course, the latest country to join in is the Republic of Ireland, so Northern Ireland stands out quite distinctly as having no abortion at all compared not just to the rest of the UK but to the rest of Europe.

The second thing that has changed since 1967 is the composition of the House of Commons. It is very difficult for us to remember that back in 1966-67, when we were debating this legislation, there were only a couple of dozen women MPs in the Commons. One of them was the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, who was in her place earlier today. She gave great support to the legislation, but there were only a couple of dozen women. Now there are a couple of hundred women, and that is why we have had this overwhelming vote in favour of changing the law in Northern Ireland. I pay tribute to the women MPs—Stella Creasy, Diana Johnson, Sarah Wollaston and Rupa Huq in particular—who have promoted this cause. It is a fundamental change since 1967.

The third change since 1967, perhaps the most significant, is the fact that in 1967 we were legislating on the only method of abortion, which was surgery. Now, of course, we have the two abortion pills and that has made fundamental difference to how abortion is treated. In Northern Ireland, because of the lack of law, we have had changes in the administration, first in Scotland and then in England and Wales, allowing women from Northern Ireland to come and use the NHS facilities on this side of the Irish Sea. More than 1,000 did so last year but, frankly, this is not satisfactory. We cannot expect every woman who requires or wants to consider an abortion to have the time and the money to travel across the Irish Sea to use facilities in Scotland or England and Wales, but 1,000 have done so. The fact that these pills are available on the internet but, as has been said, at some risk given the state of the law, has led to an appalling situation where people in Northern Ireland can buy the pills on the internet and run the risk of running counter to the law on abortion in Northern Ireland, which is the Offences against the Person Act 1861. That is why we are right to consider making this change now.

All the medical bodies support the change, including the Royal College of Obstetricians, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives. In recent weeks we have listened time and again to the fact that the people and politicians of Northern Ireland do not wish to see a statutory trade barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and they are surely right about that. However, what we have at the moment is a statutory social barrier down the middle of the Irish Sea, and that is why we are right to remove it.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I have amendments in this group. I tabled a manuscript amendment, which I think, in light of the Minister’s comments, is probably not necessary. I did it because the sense from the Committee was that Northern Ireland should come into line with the rest of the UK and we should be dealing with a level playing field.

I did it also because the CEDAW recommendations go a little further than the current Abortion Act 1967, in which abortion is limited to up to 23 weeks and six days. After that, there is a requirement to report if an abortion has been undertaken for severe foetal abnormality, reported on the form HSA4, stating the grounds and the diagnosis, because that falls outside the remit of the current Act. I did it with the consultation listed, because I am aware that the medical workforce in Northern Ireland is already in a pretty critical state and anything that jeopardises doctors going into general practice and risks people not remaining in general practice further imperils the overall healthcare of the population there. I hope that people bear that in mind in terms of the time required for consultation.

I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for having spent a lot of time discussing this with me. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, who is not in her place. There has been a lot of discussion about this. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, with whom I have also had discussions. It is a credit to all of them that we have been able to have very open discussions about these complex issues.

I had a conversation with the president of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, who said that I may quote her today. She has been involved in education programmes to help doctors and midwives understand. She pointed out that they need time, but that attitudes change when people understand how to implement and put the needs of the woman first. She would like the CEDAW changes to come in, because she and her college are in favour of them. However, the House needs to be aware that those changes go further than the current Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Steel, spoke so elegantly just now and on many occasions over the years.

Suicide Act 1961: Prosecutions

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Thursday 23rd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I can give the right reverend Prelate that assurance. Indeed, we have had recent contact with some organisations representing the very parties to which he refers. They will be given an equal opportunity to express their views on this difficult matter.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government accept the evidence from jurisdictions that have changed the law? A recent paper from Holland shows that a majority of Dutch physicians feel pressure when dealing with requests for euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide, and their confidential survey shows a mismatch of many thousands more between euthanasias and assisted suicides and the reported figures. In Belgium there are estimates that up to 50% may not be reported. It is on the basis of the danger to those who can be pressurised that many people feel that a change in the law is too dangerous to contemplate.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Baroness makes a very clear point with reference to the findings in Holland and Belgium. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians have come out with diverse views on this issue, which raises challenges for the medical profession in general.

Prisoners: Acquired Brain Injuries

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I cannot say that it begs the question of whether they should be there at all, given that the nature of their offences may vary quite widely. But clearly, the findings of the Disabilities Trust are extremely disturbing and give cause for concern. That is why we have made them the subject of a review.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of the National Mental Capacity Forum. Do the Government recognise that many people have had head injuries in their pre-offending behaviour? They are in touch with social workers, yet poor social work training does not include functional assessment of them. Ordinary assessments of capacity do not pick up the functional impairment that results in their later offending behaviour.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Excerpts

Report: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

The main purpose of Amendment 92A is to strengthen the position of the Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations in relation to the creation of UK frameworks.

The amendment is by no means complete and may lack some technical finesse, which the Government could put right in the other place if they were to accept this proposal. It does, however, propose practical ways around the devolution deadlock. We must remember that, at least in the Scottish situation, the court has yet to come to its conclusion, and if it finds in favour of the Scottish Government, the Scottish continuity Bill could remain a block to progress on implementing this measure. The amendment proposes an alternative to the restrictions placed on the devolved Parliaments through Clause 11 and by the Government’s amendments to Clause 11. It proposes that we go beyond mere consultation rights for the devolved nations. I accept that this Bill might well not be the legislative vehicle we would choose to use to formalise such an important intergovernmental mechanism in law, but I want to draw the Government’s attention to the alternatives to Clause 11 as amended.

The JMC already brings together representatives of the Governments of the United Kingdom, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to discuss matters of common interest. However, at present the JMC has no power. It has no legislative underpinning. It is simply a discussion forum, for consultation and voluntary co-ordination. I remind noble Lords that no minutes are taken. It is an essentially informal arrangement. It meets on an ad hoc basis. There was no meeting last year for over six months. In the context of the European negotiations, that is totally inadequate.

As an alternative to Clause 11 to decide on areas which will require UK frameworks—a facility which the Government may well find they need—as things stand, the JMC is not fit for purpose. Strengthened and bolstered, however, it could provide a way of allaying the critics of Clause 11. It could provide a way of collaboratively deciding on areas that will require temporary legislative restrictions on devolved competences, including on England, which is not currently the case in the Bill—an omission which has already rung some alarm bells in Cardiff and Edinburgh.

This is not a new phenomenon. Dr Jo Hunt and Rachel Minto of the Wales Governance Centre have written extensively about the need for robust intergovernmental structures if the UK constitution is to operate effectively into the future. To achieve this, the JMC should be put on a statutory basis, with clear powers, membership and voting rights. This would replace the current—typically British—constitutional arrangement based on gradually evolving informal understandings.

The JMC should require majority voting. Having four members—appointed by the UK Government, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—would imply the need for an affirmative vote of three members, or two out of three if the Northern Ireland Executive is suspended, or if one abstains. This in turn implies that the UK Government would need to secure support from most of the devolved authorities in order to achieve a decision in favour of their proposals. They would no longer be able simply to consult and then overrule them. The JMC would then effectively become a council of Ministers for the UK’s own internal market.

Some colleagues may have noticed that when the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee visited Holyrood on Monday, Richard Leonard, leader of the Scottish Labour Party, William Rennie, leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, and the Green co-convener, Patrick Harvie, all expressed their objection to Clause 11 as it stands. William Rennie in fact alluded to needing a level playing field across the UK for the withdrawal Bill. He said:

“Westminster having the final say isn’t sufficient. There needs to be some kind of mechanism, perhaps around qualified majority voting of some sort”.


This concept is gaining ground and it might just result in consent.

This is a tool the Government need to get out of the predicament in which they find themselves. Even if it cannot be included in the Bill now, I hope the Government will look seriously at finding a greater role for the JMC and at some way of giving it a legislative underpinning. I beg to move.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, in my own profession when you make a mistake you stop, reflect and rectify. Fortunately, we have seen that happen with Clause 11 and I take this opportunity, having not spoken previously, to commend all players who have renegotiated the amendments that we have agreed to this evening. I pay particular tribute not only to Mark Drakeford but to Carwyn Jones, who has had a role in all this—much more quietly than Mark Drakeford, who has fronted it—and all the civil servants who have supported this process. I have certainly appreciated the interventions from the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, who has kept me up to date with some of the progress.

This amendment, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, takes us to the next stage because when you are in a completely new situation, you have to do the best you can. You have to learn from past mistakes and find a new way forward. We are facing a completely new, evolving situation. There really need to be new working arrangements between the devolved nations and Westminster, and they have to be on a much more level playing field than before. I can see that the way this amendment has been drafted is not for the Bill and I would not expect the Government to accept it. However, I hope that the principle of having a different framework whereby these discussions happen will be accepted and taken forwards. I also hope that, however the terms of reference for this group are written, they will be open for discussion and come out of discussion with all the nations involved, rather than being centrally generated and offered as something to be signed up to. There really is a need for ownership going forwards.

On rectifying what has happened as we enter the new partnership, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke about previously, I thought it was telling that in the previous debate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, mentioned money. One way the Government might like to help re-establish some of the working practices is to build on the debate we had the other day about the Swansea barrage, consider asking the National Assembly for Wales what it would like to do, and help it achieve whatever it feels is best for jobs and the future energy supply of Wales.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and I agree with everything that she said. In the previous debate, I quoted paragraph 7.a. of the Memorandum on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill and the Establishment of Common Frameworks. I will repeat it because it is worth repeating. It says:

“Building on the ‘Deep Dive’ process, which has been a collaborative effort between the governments, discussions will take place between the governments to seek to agree the scope and content of regulations. This process will continue to report”,


into the JMC on EU Negotiations. This amendment, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, allows us to discuss the very important issue of how those discussions are to take place, what decisions are to be taken and how they are to be taken over the formation of the UK framework agreements.