Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, having listened to other speeches from noble Lords, I realise that the comments that I have prepared are far too mild. I was just going to congratulate everyone who has campaigned and fought for proper provision and thank the Government for working constructively. It is not often that I find myself on the mild end of things. I think that there is now a clear understanding of the need for community services, including supporting survivors of domestic abuse in their own homes. I feel strongly that the abusers should have to leave and not the survivors. The Green group is very supportive of Amendment 85 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I am sure that we will come back to it at another time in another place. In the meantime, well done everyone.

United Kingdom Internal Market Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 2nd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are certainly getting a lot of advice during the passage of this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, they really ought to know that they do not have all the answers. So I do hope that the Minister listens.

The amendments in this group follow perfectly the Government’s announcement that they are putting the trade commission on a statutory footing. If the Government want to run an internal market, surely it is right to create a fully functioning governance body for that purpose. Merely tagging on a few functions to the Competition and Markets Authority shows a weakness of purpose and a lack of understanding of exactly how everything should run. Giving the new office for the internal market the power to investigate distortive and harmful subsidies could have a powerful impact on wiping out the implicit and explicit subsidies for fossil fuels, particularly unconventional oil and gas fracking. These implicit and explicit subsidies include a streamlined planning process and no requirement for the company to make a bond, unlike the landfill industry, equating to the government underwriting of the clean-up of fossil fuel sites in the event of corporate bankruptcy. So once again taxpayers would pay to clean up other people’s mess.

Just to be clear, the journalist at Drill Or Drop? suggests that the OIM can comment on controversial issues such as fracking, which, as we all know, is a dangerous, polluting, expensive, intrusive and—in view of our global need to limit our carbon emissions—unnecessary process. The OIM could give advice contrary to the devolved Administrations’ decisions. Can the Minister tell me if that is true?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I apologise to the Committee and very personally to the noble Lord, Lord Judd, whom I omitted to call before the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. So I call the noble Lord now.

Fatal Accidents Act 1976 (Remedial) Order 2020

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have to declare a personal interest because I have cohabited with somebody for more than 20 years, but I hope never to be eligible to claim this award. I do my best in this House to say “Well done” to the Government when I think they have got something right. It does not happen very often, but when I see something is improving legislation, then I say “Congratulations”, but this statutory instrument is tiny, the bare minimum to address the human rights breach which was identified by the Court of Appeal in the case of Smith. Worse still is the fact that it has taken the Government three whole years to bring these changes to Parliament. That is a three-year gap in which bereaved couples facing a discriminatory system have been left without compensation following the death of their loved ones.

The simple truth is that the Fatal Accidents Act is not fit for the 21st century. It became law more than 40 years ago in 1976, which was a different era of relationships and family values. Today’s remedial order is nothing but a sticking plaster to cover one issue raised by the courts. The Act still refers to and makes a distinction between legitimate and “illegitimate” children. Such wording was probably all right in the 1970s, but even the most senior politicians might be so-called illegitimate children. Nobody mentions that anymore because it is just not relevant. It is the same with the issue we are dealing with today. Statutes should not enforce archaic and, frankly, offensive language and the Government have to amend this. It is true that it needs primary legislation. When we have a quiet spell next year, I hope the Government will bring something back to fix this messy situation.

While I am talking about that, the word “accidents” is no longer valid when we talk about car crashes or traffic incidents. The Metropolitan Police does not use the word “accident” anymore. The whole road safety world abhors it because “accident” presupposes the cause of a collision. It presupposes that it was, “Oops! I shouldn’t have done than”, but there is almost always a real cause, whether it is drugs, drink or inattention. There is a cause, so the word “accident” has to go.

Other issues persist. Why do there have to be two years of cohabitation? What happens if somebody has lived with another person for 729 days, one day short of the two years? A relationship in which people have lived separately for 20 years is just as valuable, and more so, than a relationship in which people have lived together for two years. The Government are saying that a 20-year relationship lived apart is worth £0 on death. As other noble Lords have said, financial compensation is always going to be a crude measure for bereavement and will never come anywhere close to solving the hurt and healing the wounds. This order will ensure that a great many deserving people will get absolutely nothing.

The noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Thomas, have suggested that we go forward with the idea recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and supported by the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers: the Government could open a public consultation on how to reform this clunky and flawed area of law. They could consult on whether something like the Scottish system of allowing courts the discretion to determine who should receive how much would work. Will the Minister take this away and raise it with her department?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

My Lords, the next speaker would have been the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, but he has not been able to join the debate, so I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton.