European Council: March 2016

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Monday 21st March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I would refute what the noble Baroness the Leader of the House has said about the Budget. All independent commentators say that it will exacerbate intergenerational strife.

In relation to the Statement, I do not think the noble Baroness has answered the question from my noble friend Lady Smith on the number of people who have already been welcomed to this country. I personally welcome the agreement with Turkey, but I am concerned that little or no heed seems to have been given to the situation in Turkey itself in relation to human rights, good governance, free media and the rule of law. Of course I deeply regret the violence that is now taking place in Turkey, but the Turkish Government must always pay heed to their obligations under international law, not just to the refugees, who are hugely important, but also to their own citizens.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness is right. That is why progress will not be made on the part of the deal that includes Turkey’s accession to the EU until Turkey has complied with all the demands laid out for it to meet, and they have been in place for a very long time now. All Europe—including the UK, which has long been a supporter of Turkey’s accession to the EU—recognises that Turkey has a huge amount to do before it would qualify for that membership. On the concerns that the noble Baroness raises about Turkey more generally at this time, yes, there are issues that have been raised, such as freedom of speech or the arresting of journalists, and we have heard about some of them and debated them in this Chamber. Those are all of great concern, but at the same time that does not detract from the generosity that Turkey has shown to the people of Syria. We need Turkey to continue providing that refuge to people. Yes, we need to continue to apply pressure on the matters that concern us regarding human rights, but we must not do so in way that somehow undermines the very positive work that Turkey is doing in support of very desperate people.

Legislative Scrutiny: Digitalisation

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness is right that we should use new technologies where they are relevant to our work and will help us to do it better. We have made quite a bit of progress during this Parliament. Last night I downloaded the House of Lords app on my iPad, which allows us to look at the relevant papers associated with today’s business. On the noble Baroness’s specific proposals for tracking changes, I can inform your Lordships that that facility will be available not in quite the detail that she would like but starting down that track from the beginning of the next Parliament.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I certainly welcome the ideas put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech. Does the Leader agree that one of the most important aims for further digitalisation is increasing transparency and engaging those in the wider world with the excellent work of the House of Lords, including scrutiny of course? I certainly commend the recent report by the Arctic Committee and the way in which it is interactive. Does the noble Baroness also agree that over the course of this Parliament, Twitter has proved a great way of communicating the important job that is done in this House?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Yes, I do agree with the noble Baroness. It is important to distinguish between the use of new technology to engage with the public and the use of technology to help us to do our job better; sometimes they serve different purposes. The arrival of the new digital director for Parliament later this month will, I hope, see all these things taken forward with great speed.

Parliament: Conventions

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Monday 2nd March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My noble friend is always full of creative ideas.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend who suggested that the Government are packing this House; I think they are packing the government Benches. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend about the purpose and function of this place. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider suggesting to the Prime Minister that a constitutional convention should be called. One of the things that it should take into consideration is the purpose and function of this place.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

As the noble Baroness knows from the exchanges that we have had previously, that is not something that the Government are proposing at this time. As far as the Conservative Party within this Government is concerned, there are other things that have a higher priority and do not need a constitutional convention. We want to see those implemented first.

House of Lords: Oral Questions

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I agree that it is those courtesies that distinguish us and contribute substantially to the reputation of this House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have to agree with all noble Lords that common courtesies are of the utmost importance, but the substance of the Question is more important than the way in which we address our colleagues. We are all agreed that debates in this House are at their best and are marked by great depth and seriousness. We have that at Question Time and do that when we scrutinise the Government. But does the noble Baroness share my concern that Ministers in this House too often imitate their colleagues in another place by finding ways to avoid answering Questions? Will she discourage this and also discourage some noble Lords from their use of what I might call planted patsy Questions, which do this House no favours?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

There is a responsibility on all of us participating in Question Time to conduct ourselves in a way that means that the Government are held to account and that information is provided that might otherwise not have been aired in the course of exchanges. I will certainly work hard to ensure that we uphold our responsibilities on the Front Bench in the future.

Implications of Devolution for England

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her response to the Statement. We want to approach this whole issue of devolution in a way that enables us to share some common ground. We were pleased that that was possible in Scotland and that all the pro-union parties worked together. All the parties—the Conservatives, the Lib Dems and the Labour Party—are committed to meet the commitment set out by the Smith commission.

As was made clear in the Statement that I repeated, we were very keen to have the Labour Party contribute to our Command Paper, which we published today, so that we could continue that cross-party approach. Therefore, it is a little surprising that the noble Baroness referred to our “behind closed doors” approach, given that the leadership of the Labour Party were invited to contribute to the process, but so far they have sadly declined to do so. However, that is not the case with many Labour leaders of local authorities in all parts of England. My right honourable friend the Leader of the House of Commons has met Labour leaders of local authorities from Birmingham, Cardiff, Glasgow, Leeds, Manchester, Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield and Liverpool over the past few weeks to talk to them and to hear what they have to say on further devolution within England following the Scottish referendum.

The noble Baroness referred to her party’s proposals to extend greater powers to cities and towns. We have done a tremendous amount during the lifetime of this Parliament to extend greater authority and autonomy to all parts of England. England is far more decentralised now than it has been previously, and is far more decentralised than Scotland and Wales.

The noble Baroness spoke about the McKay commission’s report and its proposals for English votes for English laws. As she rightly said, the McKay commission made several proposals, and the Labour Party is putting forward one of those as its preferred option. That is clearly worthy of consideration. However, since the McKay commission did its work, greater powers have been devolved to Scotland. Therefore, it is our view that we need to consider the current situation, which has led to both parties in the coalition putting forward something which goes beyond what is proposed by the McKay commission.

The noble Baroness mentioned a constitutional convention. The Command Paper sets out the arguments for a constitutional convention and the Government remain open to receiving ideas on it. However, the establishment of a constitutional convention cannot be used as an excuse for delaying what needs to be done now.

The noble Baroness also referred to reforms to the upper House. There was an opportunity earlier on in this Parliament for reforms to the upper House. Members of the opposition party—and, indeed, Members from other Benches in the other House—decided that that Bill should not come forward. Reform of the House of Lords should not be linked to something that is urgent, needs to be done now and addresses a fairness issue to do with English votes for English laws.

No one is arguing that the work of the Smith commission should be delayed for a constitutional convention. No one is suggesting that the work of the Silk commission should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Similarly, a resolution on English votes for English laws cannot be delayed for a constitutional convention. The issue of English votes for English laws must be resolved. There are some options now for resolving it; and it is right that we debate those options.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Could I make it clear that we want the McKay commission’s proposals to be put forward into a constitutional convention? This is not the be-all and end-all, and we see what the noble Baroness and her party are doing as being strictly for political advantage. In terms of the constitutional convention, this is not the long grass. We want a time- limited constitutional convention that would look at all these things, not in a piecemeal way but in a proper and dignified way for the future constitution of our country.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am a little bit baffled. A lot is happening in terms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the Opposition are not arguing that those changes should be delayed for a constitutional convention. Arising from the result of the Scottish referendum is the need for us to address an important issue, which is about English votes for English laws. That can be addressed quickly and there are some options for consideration. It comes off the back of several reports on the issue of English votes for English laws over many years. This is not about ruling out a constitutional convention or any other bigger issues that might arise in due course; but the issue of English votes for English laws needs to be addressed right now. It can be addressed and it should not be delayed.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament Report: Fusilier Lee Rigby

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Tuesday 25th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. Fusilier Lee Rigby served his country with courage. He was a brave soldier and his murder was an appalling act—an atrocity. Our thoughts today are with his family and friends, for whom reading this report will mean the pain of reliving his brutal killing. I also thank the members of the Intelligence and Security Committee for their investigation. It is right that this investigation took place; the report was the most detailed account of the agencies’ work ever published.

The security services and the police play a vital role in keeping us safe, often in challenging circumstances. They do a hugely difficult job of seeking to identify those who pose a risk to our country. We should remember that, while the perpetrators of terror need succeed only once to achieve their dreadful aims, our agencies and others need to be successful every time to keep us secure. In so far as there are criticisms in the ISC’s report, they need to be understood in that light. The ISC’s report outlines in detail how the two men who killed Lee Rigby—Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale—were under investigation at various times before the murder.

We welcome the announcement of additional resources, but will the Leader of the House tell us whether it is simply a question of resources or whether she thinks a better strategy is needed for dealing with those, like Adebolajo, who are recurring subjects of interest on the periphery of several investigations? In addition, the report points to the fact that at times there is a lack of co-ordination between MI5 and the police. Can the noble Baroness outline the steps that will be put in place to strengthen the working relationship between the different agencies—MI5, SIS, GCHQ and the police?

The report also highlights the issue of returning foreign fighters. We will engage constructively with the forthcoming Bill and welcome the decision to reinstate relocation powers, which were removed three years ago. As the Leader of the House said, Michael Adebolajo was arrested, but the report states that his case was not then followed up. This is not simply about the powers but the way in which cases are followed up. Can she assure us that there will be a more systematic and rigorous response to returning foreign fighters, including mandatory referrals to deradicalisation programmes?

The report underlines the fact that these two individuals, and in particular Michael Adebowale, were radicalised over a number of years, including by accessing extremist material online. Thus it makes a compelling case for an expansion of the Prevent programme. The report says:

“The scale of the problem indicates that the Government’s counter-radicalisation programmes are not working”.

Noble Lords will recall that we raised this important issue in the House before. How will the Government ensure that Prevent will receive the priority and resources it needs? Would the noble Baroness agree that we should consider widening the scope of Prevent so that in future people like Michael Adebowale would be included, and to ensure that local communities are engaged in the prevention of radicalisation?

The role of internet companies is clearly of crucial importance. This raises two vital issues: whether the companies have a responsibility to draw authorities’ attention to issues of national security and whether the major US companies regard themselves as compelled to comply with UK warrants legally authorised by Ministers in cases of national security. Can more be done to encourage companies to flag up issues of concern where matters of national security are raised? The report says that companies may sometimes decide to pass on information to the authorities when they close accounts because of links to terrorism, but in this case they did not.

Part of the problem in this area is that there are different practices by different companies and no agreed set of procedures. In the case of images of child abuse, there is a procedure in place for companies to take action and refer abuse allegations to the authorities. There should be much stronger procedures in place and a much stronger responsibility placed on companies when it comes to terrorism as well. Does the Leader of the House agree? Further, can the Leader update the House on work being done to improve our ability to get information, with a warrant, from companies based in the US?

Lastly, on the issue of detention, we welcome the Government’s announcement that oversight will be strengthened but urge them to go further. For some time we have said that the framework of commissioners needs strengthening and this report demonstrates the value of thorough scrutiny and the ability to learn lessons. Can the noble Baroness confirm whether David Anderson’s review also covers strengthening oversight and the role of commissioners?

This report is a stark reminder of the threats we face in keeping our country safe. The murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby was an appalling act of cruelty and depravity. We must learn the right lessons—and that is what the ISC report seeks to do. It does so thoroughly and with diligence. In seeking to put those lessons into practice, the Government will have our full support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for her response and the manner in which she made her remarks on the Statement by the Prime Minister that I repeated. I certainly join her in paying tribute to Lee Rigby’s family and in recognising that this must be a very difficult day for them indeed. I also agree with the noble Baroness about the good work the committee has done in its investigation and the thoroughness of its report. Of course, she is absolutely right to restate that the security services and the police do a very difficult job in keeping us safe. We very much acknowledge that.

On the questions that she asked, first she asked about increased resources and whether the security and intelligence services had sufficient funding. It is worth explaining to the House that funding for the security and intelligence services has increased in cash terms now by 5% compared with 2010 and they had a good funding settlement compared with other departments, including in the 2013 spending round where they saw an increase when other departments saw a reduction in their funding.

The noble Baroness asked about the way in which MI5 and the security services are responding to some of the identified persons who might be described as peripheral risks or operating on the periphery. MI5 responds to this point in its initial response to the report and says how it has already started to take steps to improve in this area. We will come back again with more detail on this in the new year. She also asked about how connections could be improved between the different agencies and the police service. They are continuing to improve all the time and they are working well and seeking always to address any issue that should be strengthened.

The noble Baroness asked about returning foreign fighters and the approach being taken to them. In its report, the committee criticised the way in which the particular person concerned was examined when he returned. The committee is right to say that we should look at this case by case and, indeed, one of the measures being introduced in the new counterterrorism Bill is to make sure that there is an improvement in this area and a more systematic approach.

The noble Baroness also asked about the improved arrangements for deradicalisation. Again, in the new counterterrorism Bill, which will be introduced tomorrow, the measures we have already in place, including those under the Prevent scheme referred to as Channel, will be put on a statutory footing.

As to the noble Baroness’s comments on Prevent funding and on how Prevent operates, it is worth reminding noble Lords that in 2011 this Government asked my noble friend Lord Carlile to carry out a review of Prevent. His conclusion was that Prevent should be split, with the money for integration—the more community-based measures to improve cohesion in communities—moving to DCLG, where that money now sits with the programme for cohesion, and the remainder of the money being specifically focused on guiding people away from extremism and terrorism. The money spent on Prevent has increased from £35 million in 2012 to £40 million in 2014. It is worth adding that in my noble friend Lord Carlile’s report he said there were cases under the previous Prevent regime where groups which we now consider to support an extremist ideology had received funding. Changing the Prevent regime by moving the cohesion aspect of it into DCLG and making Prevent more focused on tackling extremism and preventing terrorism was, we believe, the right approach.

As to the questions that the noble Baroness raised about internet companies, I agree with her that comparisons can be made between the way in which the internet companies have improved the way in which they remove from the internet sites and images that relate to despicable crimes of child abuse. That was at the prompting of government. We think that the same approach needs to be taken by the internet companies towards terrorism. We are very clear that these internet companies have a social responsibility to take the necessary action that should prevent any kind of terrorism activity occurring. We introduced new emergency legislation in the summer, which I referred to in repeating the Prime Minister’s Statement. We are working very hard to ensure that that legislation is properly applied to US companies which operate in the United Kingdom. As I said in the Statement, Sir Nigel Sheinwald is doing much in that area to see that there can be progress. That is something that we will pursue with vigour.

The oversight role of the Government’s adviser on counterterrorism measures, David Anderson QC, is very broad, and he is able to look at the threat response, the capabilities and important safeguards. He has done excellent work so far, and clearly we look forward to him continuing in his role and supporting us and helping us further in the weeks and months ahead.

Scottish Referendum

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Monday 13th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that disillusionment with London and Westminster in particular is a problem that has been thrown up by the referendum and in more recent polls, so why are the Government bent upon having a government Cabinet committee of all-white, all-male privy counsellors as a way of taking devolution forward?

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston)]

I am on it.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg noble Lords’ pardon. Clearly, there is going to be one woman on the committee, which is fantastic; nevertheless, it is a London-based committee. Why can we not now have an agreement in principle from the Government on a constitutional convention to take these things forward rather than the piecemeal way in which the Government are doing things at present?

Leader of the House: Cabinet Membership

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 16th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a number of important points. Clearly he is right to question whether the Leader of the House of Lords is fully equipped to do that job. I am absolutely confident that the Prime Minister has given me the authority I need to represent your Lordships in Cabinet. A few months ago, in answer to a Question on another topic, I said that sometimes I liked to think of myself as an action woman. I like to get things done. I do not need status in order to get things done. I have the authority I need and I shall be judged on the work that I do.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness can get things done. This is not about her status; it is about something much more profound. When I heard about this yesterday, I simply did not believe that it could be true. When it was confirmed later in the day, I was deeply dismayed that the Prime Minister could treat this House with such contempt. The men previously appointed to this post by the Prime Minister sat at the Cabinet table as full members. When it is in government, my own party will reverse this. I shall refer the issue to the Constitution Committee and I hope that it will ask the Prime Minister to give evidence.

I have a number of questions but for the moment I will confine myself to this. Other than for a party chair, what are the precedents for a political party paying part of the salary of a Cabinet Minister? Given that the Leader is the Leader of the whole House and not just of the Conservative Benches, surely this is both improper and unethical.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I would emphasise to the noble Baroness and to all noble Lords that I shall sit around the same Cabinet table and participate fully in its discussions in exactly the same way as all my predecessors did. It will be a great privilege to do so. As to her question about the salary that the post attracts, I can assure the House that careful consideration is being given to the propriety of any arrangement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I believe that, in making his appointments yesterday, the Prime Minister ensured that we have a Government well equipped to serve the people of this country. I have made the point about the status of the Leader of this House. Clearly, I understand the very strong views that have been expressed during the supplementary questions to this Question. However, for my part, I want to focus on how I do my job and what I do.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I realise that a Private Member’s Bill is now due to be introduced, but this is a self-regulating House and there are two or three more noble Lords who wish to put a supplementary question to the Leader of the House. I have the greatest sympathy for the noble Baroness but I ask whether, in this self-regulating House, those Members who still have a question to put to her can do so.

Housing: Accessibility

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 25th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Under the terms of the National Planning Policy Framework, local authorities are required to assess the needs of their population in their approach to planning. The important thing about these regulations is that when they are put in place as part of a requirement for planning approval, the work will be checked properly for the certificate to be applied after the work has been completed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I spoke to my noble friend Lady Wilkins yesterday and I know that she will be delighted by the good wishes from the House. She is very grateful for all the personal messages that she has received and for the support of the officers of the House.

Perhaps I may follow up the question of my noble friend Lady Andrews. Slips and trips when housing is not truly accessible for disabled people ultimately mean a cost for the NHS. Does the Minister agree that one way of easing pressure on the NHS, as well as supporting the well-being of disabled people, would be to have a more robust accident prevention component of the public health agenda, which in turn would help with the housing problems that disabled people face?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The noble Baroness raises a specific point that I will certainly take away and explore further, but I am afraid I am not familiar enough with the detail to respond comprehensively.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, pay huge tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury for what he said in his first speech to the General Synod as head of the church and the Anglican communion about the changing attitude towards gays, the need to fight prejudice against homosexuals and the fact that the church looks, in his words, “out of step”. I am also grateful to him, and the right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Leicester and the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for the way in which they have considered the Bill. I have absolutely no doubt that they will ensure that Church of England schools will teach about same-sex marriages in a factual way, without any prejudice, and that they will naturally also teach about their own views of marriage, as is right and proper. I also know that they are absolutely against any opt-outs. I wholeheartedly agree that marriage is a very good thing for society and that it should be celebrated.

I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the pace of change by both the Church of England and the Catholic Church, with which I had an excellent meeting last week, for which I am grateful. It is true that it will take a while for some people to get their heads around same-sex marriage, but they will, and they will be comfortable with it. I have had several conversations over the weekend with people who have in the past expressed concern but have already changed their views. Both the vote and the debates in this House and the speech by the most reverend Primate have had a real impact on those people.

On the issue at hand, we have said throughout our deliberations on the Bill that, in our view, amendments pertaining to teaching and faith schools are not necessary. Teachers are already able to teach according to their religious tenets. That will not change, nor will the ability of faith schools to operate within the tenets of their faith. Some people, while generally accepting that point, say, “Why not give comfort to those who are concerned by putting something in the Bill?”. I understand that the right reverend Prelate is making a legal point. Others, including those on the Bishops’ Bench, want to ensure that the legal and religious definitions of marriage can be taught alongside one another in an appropriate way. I am well aware and grateful that the Bishops do not agree with those who are seeking “protections”.

I also know that the reasoning behind the amendment is to give space for schools of a religious character to stay within the terms of the statutory framework and to reduce the risk of them declining to teach about the changed legal nature of marriage at all. I warmly welcome the fact that the Church of England is clearly determined to pursue this inclusive approach for its own schools and to commend it to others. Indeed, that is exactly what should happen under the Bill as drafted, when it becomes law.

I realise that the Church of England and many in the Catholic Church would not wish to see any return to those dreadful days of prejudice but, as has been said many times, prejudice still exists. I know strong professional men and women who are still hesitant, even unwilling, to come out at work. As we do not believe that this amendment is necessary, and because we do not want to risk the way in which it could be interpreted by those who are intolerant or homophobic, I regret that we cannot support it. However, as other noble Lords have said, I hope that the Minister, while not accepting the amendment, will be able to give the necessary reassurance and clarity to the Bishops—and all Members of this House—and to those of other faiths.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for the important statement that he issued after Second Reading and to which he referred.

During the past few months, the Secretary of State, my right honourable friend Maria Miller, and I have enjoyed some very constructive, productive and valuable discussions with both the most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate and their officials on a range of matters. Something I valued greatly was having the opportunity to get to know Members on the Bishops’ Benches better than I had done up to that point. Our discussions included their concerns about religious freedom for faith schools, which the right reverend Prelate talked about in moving his amendment, and I am grateful to him for the very careful way that he did so.

In responding to the right reverend Prelate and to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, I start by stressing that schools with a religious character provide an excellent education for their pupils, while reflecting their beliefs across the curriculum, including in sex and relationship education. We really value the work that faith schools do and I would like to make it clear that there is absolutely nothing in this Bill that affects the ability of faith schools to continue to do this in the future.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester has explained that there is a specific concern—echoed by other noble Lords who have contributed tonight—that without this amendment a potential conflict could arise between a school’s duty to teach its faith ethos and its responsibilities under Section 403 of the Education Act. I understand the importance of this issue and I can assure noble Lords that the Government have considered it very carefully. Noble Lords will have heard me say on many occasions during the passage of this Bill that we are considering this area, and we have done so with great care. However, we believe that this provision is unnecessary. Clearly, I need to reassure the House on why we have come to that view.

In schools of a religious character, teachers deal admirably with teaching about marriages that may not be recognised as such according to the tenets of the relevant faith—for example, marriages of divorcees or, for some religions, mixed-faith marriages. In order to take account of this distinction, they already interpret their duties under Section 403 of the Education Act according to their religious tenets. Faith schools must take the guidance into account when developing their policy on sex and relationship education and, in doing so, can also take into account other matters, including in particular relevant religious tenets. This is already recognised by the current legal framework.

I will expand a little on this and I will respond specifically to the question put to me by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford. “Have regard to” means just that. Having regard to a provision does not mean that it must be followed assiduously should there be a good reason for not doing so. This was made clear in the decision of the Privy Council in Barber v Minister of the Environment in 1997. Faith schools must take the guidance into account when developing their policy on sex and relationship education and, in doing so, can also take into account other matters, including in particular relevant religious tenets. A relevant faith tenet is a perfectly sensible reason in this context and one that the current legal framework recognises.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have added my name to manuscript Amendment 84A, tabled by my noble friend Lord Alli, because we believe that this is the most sensible course of action at this stage. Like my noble friend, we want to ensure that there is no discrimination in the Bill and that there are not two tiers of marriage. I, too, am extremely grateful to the Minister for managing to arrange a meeting with the Pensions Minister yesterday.

We have always accepted that there would be some direct cost to private pension schemes. However, £18 million, which is the figure often quoted, is a drop in the ocean for schemes worth an estimated £76.4 billion. The Government have asserted that equalising pensions benefits for civil partners and married couples of the same sex after this Bill could leave the public sector liable for costs of up to £3 billion to £4 billion. However, they have been far more reluctant to explain where those costs might come from.

As my noble friend said, the Government have already acted to equalise survivor benefit entitlements for civil partners with those of widowers for public sector and contracted-out schemes. The £3 billion to £4 billion estimate is based on the assumption that the removal of the legal exemption for civil partners will leave the Government being forced to equalise the entitlements of widowers with widows, thus levelling everyone back to 1978. But why they believe this to be a significant risk remains unclear.

The 1978/1988 distinction between widowers and widows was based on the historic position of women as being largely dependent on their husbands for income. Indeed, the courts have only recently upheld this distinction in the case of R v Iain Cockburn and Secretary of State for Health, where the judge ruled that there was an “objective and reasonable justification” for this because there had been, as the Government argued, a progressive realisation of gender equality and the initial rules had been set up to recognise the weaker economic position of widows.

Without the provision within this Bill, female spouses of same-sex marriages would, we presume, simply be treated as widows for the purposes of survivor benefits and male survivors as widowers. But nothing in my noble friend’s Amendment 84 would affect the historic male/female distinction that the courts have so recently upheld. To argue against this on the basis of retrospectivity is also flawed as the Government violated this principle themselves when levelling civil partners back to the entitlements of widowers, as they quite rightly did for public service pensions and contracted-out schemes.

In some sense, it could be said that by creating a different entitlement for widows and widowers of same-sex marriages from those of opposite-sex couples the Government are actually weakening their case against future challenges to widow/widower distinction. However, despite agreeing with my noble friend that the Government’s argument here is extremely tenuous, we want to offer the Government an opportunity to remove this inequality in the most appropriate way, as noble Lords on the Benches opposite have also said, and that is why I have added my name to the manuscript amendment today.

By voting for Amendment 84A, noble Lords will be saying, “We are not happy about the provisions within the Bill as it stands so we are leaving them there in parenthesis, as it were, for now until the Government have come forward with firm proposals for how to deal with this clear inequality”. It is quite clear to us that, one way or another, the Government will have to sort this out. It is better to do this through a process that they can own rather than be forced by the courts to do it later, as undoubtedly they would have to do.

I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 84A. I realise that the Government may well have to come back with tweaks at Third Reading but we want to right this inequality and this is a very fine way forward. It gives the Government some space to reflect, to look, to review and then come back, using the order-making power, to get rid of this inequality. I trust that the Minister will be able to accept this amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I must first say to my noble friend Lord Elton that I am in charge of many things at the moment, but one thing I am not in charge of is flooding. I would rather not add that to my portfolio for now. Before I respond in detail to the debate, I need to make a correction to the figures previously used by the Government in debates on this issue, about the number of schemes using the Equality Act exception relating to civil partners. The Government had stated that two-thirds of private occupational pension schemes already go further than the 2005 exception. This is incorrect. The correct figure is one-third. However, this does not change the estimated £18 million increase in liabilities that would arise from removing this exception, as that was already based on one-third of schemes.

The pensions system as a whole is full of differences in treatment as a result of changes in society and social attitudes. Such changes are introduced prospectively, so as not to place new unfunded burdens on pension schemes which could not have been taken into consideration in their funding assumptions. The current Equality Act exception, which this Bill also applies to people in same-sex marriages, recognises that pension outcomes in the present always reflect different accruals in the past, and that changes should be forward looking, rather than be retrospective.

Governments of all parties have sought to equalise pensions over time. What they have not done is try to equalise pension outcomes in the present, thereby breaking the link between past accruals and present outcomes. The standard approach is based on the principle that it is not right to impose costs on schemes, meaning they would have to pay out new amounts that were not promised in the past, whatever the exact scale of those costs.

Avoiding imposing retrospective costs on pension schemes is the standard principled approach which has been taken by successive Governments. That is the approach the previous Government took when civil partnerships were introduced in 2005, and when they brought forward the Equality Act in 2010. That is the approach we have taken in this Bill, by aligning the pension position of same-sex married couples with that of civil partners.

This approach means that pension schemes take time to catch up with societal changes, but over time the anomalies reduce and eventually disappear. Making any change to the position set out in the Bill would mean placing retrospective costs on the schemes. The Government understand that the current position is not perfect, but it is based on the principle that we should not seek to impose retrospective costs on private pension schemes—costs that were not planned for when benefits were being accrued.

The noble Lord, Lord Alli, seemed to try to dismiss the arguments that I was going to put forward before I had even had the opportunity to do so, but the Government’s case is quite clear. It is a strong one and I shall go through it properly. The two amendments in this group have different effects, as we have already established. Amendment 84, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, would mean employers having to pay survivor benefits to civil partners in respect of their deceased spouse’s service prior to 2005, when civil partnerships first became possible. This amendment does not meet what I believe the noble Lord is trying to achieve, which is to give parity in provision of survivor benefits between same-sex married couples and opposite-sex married couples.

As well as going against the standard principled approach of avoiding imposing retrospective unfunded burdens, removing the current exception in the Equality Act would potentially lead to a much wider range of discrimination claims against pension schemes. There would be a significant risk of a domino effect, leading to full equalisation of survivor benefits at a significant cost to schemes and the taxpayer. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, said that no public money would be required to make this change. I disagree.

In addition to its impact on private sector schemes, the amendment would also impose a direct cost on public service schemes which would, at least, have to pay survivor benefits to surviving female civil partners based on pre-1988 service. This is because if the amendment were passed, not paying benefits to surviving female civil partners based on pre-1988 service would be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. To remove any such discrimination, public sector schemes would have to equalise pension benefits for surviving female civil partners and same-sex married couples with those for widows which are based on accruals from 1978. At the moment, benefits for those female survivors are currently based on accruals from 1988. Therefore, there is an immediate cost to the taxpayer.

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Monday 8th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the issue pertaining to registrars is not to do with conscience but with the fact that registrars are public servants, and they are upholding the law. In being a registrar they are doing their duty as public servants. Their beliefs are nothing to do with their work as a registrar. This amendment is completely different. It is to do with freedom of belief and freedom of expression, which I believe are a hallmark of democracy. Individuals must be able to reasonably express their views on these issues, as indeed they are.

The amendment put forward by noble Lord, Lord Dear, and the amendment to that amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, are not only unnecessary, but they could dovetail into some concerns expressed earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. He was concerned about having a sort of gold hallmark of marriage, and then a sort of tarnished, baser metal marriage for same-sex couples. We want marriage for same-sex couples and heterosexual couples to have equality of esteem. They must have this. I am therefore against the amendment.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear. In introducing his amendment he reminded us again that we should try to ensure that we are tolerant, generous and courteous, not only in our debates in this House but also in the legislation that we are bringing forward. I argue that we are doing just that. The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, just quoted something I said at an earlier stage. The Government are very clear that the Bill does not only allow same-sex couples to marry; it also protects religious freedom and ensures that no belief that anyone holds now is affected by the introduction of this Bill. As I said at earlier stages, we are clear that the belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman is protected under the Equality Act 2010. It meets the established criteria set out in case law.

The noble Lord, Lord Dear, referred to the case of Grainger plc v Nicholson, which specifically included beliefs worthy of respect in a democratic society. Equally, Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights guarantees that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. This means that everyone has an absolute right to hold any belief. However, of course the right to manifest one’s belief is qualified, and the state can regulate that in certain circumstances where that is necessary for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As I have made clear, it is perfectly possible for somebody to not only have that legitimate belief but also to be free to express that belief. To follow up on the exchange that just took place between my noble friend, Baroness Knight, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the difference is that what is not possible is for somebody to withhold their services because of the belief they hold. There is nothing to stop them from having that belief. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. It states something that is entirely true—that the Bill does nothing to undermine the principle that a belief that marriage is,

“union of one man and one woman for life to the exclusion of all others is a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society”.

Of course it is, and this Bill raises no doubt about it.

As has been pointed out, the view that a marriage of a same-sex couple, like the marriage of an opposite-sex couple, is a valid marriage is also a belief worthy of respect in a democratic society. As was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lord Deben, if we are going to state that the one belief is worthy of respect, we ought to state that both are worthy of respect. As it stands, this amendment suggests that a belief of the kind it covers, concerning marriage between a man and a woman, is in some way superior to a belief that marriage of a same-sex couple exclusively and for life is to be welcomed as an equally valid relationship. Therefore the amendment goes against the entire point of the Bill.

I also caution the House on a further point of principle. We risk getting into rather dangerous territory if we start to set out in statute which beliefs are worthy of respect or protection in law. It may seem easy here, where there is absolutely no doubt that the belief concerned is mainstream and uncontroversial, but it would not be wise for legislation to list beliefs, just as we do not list religions. Otherwise we get into the arena of state-sponsored religions and beliefs. It would also be an impossible task to list all religions and beliefs that are protected, which would cast doubt about whether unlisted beliefs are protected. That point was made in this debate by some noble Lords who are lawyers.

I now touch on Amendments 5 and 6, put forward by my noble friend Lord Cormack. I will go not into detail, because they do not affect the fundamental point I am making, which is that these amendments are unnecessary. They risk creating the suggestion that a belief in the validity of the marriage of same-sex couples is to some extent less worthy than a belief that marriage should be of one man with one woman. As I have explained, it would be most unwise to seek to legislate for what is or is not a belief worthy of respect.

All that said, and just to be absolutely clear, of course none of that means that it is not absolutely legitimate for people to hold the view that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, and for them to be able to express that view. I have stated that many times and I will continue to do so, because it is such an important part of what we are ensuring will remain the case when, as we hope, the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament.

Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Dear—

Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Monday 24th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as my noble friend said, pensions might sound boring but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said, pensions are extremely important to individuals. They do affect quality of life, so this is a very important amendment.

Liberty, to which I am grateful for its excellent briefing on this issue, is surely right in saying:

“This is an unnecessary and counterproductive anomaly in a Bill which otherwise makes landmark progress in equally respecting the rights of gay people”.

The same has been said from all Benches today.

Naturally, I recognise the anomaly that exists between the treatment of pension rights for married and same-sex civil partners. However, this Bill not only continues that discrimination but it takes forward the same distinction to same-sex married couples: in terms of these pension rights, they would be treated differently from opposite-sex married couples. This uneven treatment would, therefore, be continued. As my noble friend cogently argued, this should be an opportunity to get rid of the current anomaly rather than to extend the discrimination.

I was struck by what I thought was an extraordinary answer from the Secretary of State to the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation to compatibility with Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights on this issue. She said that the reason for treating same-sex-marriage couples as civil partners is that they could have the option either of getting married or of forming a civil partnership—and that the legislation therefore treats them equally.

This is sort of true but it goes against the whole ethos of this Bill. As my noble friend said, arguments which are made against this on the principle of retrospection are misplaced. It is clear that actuaries base forecasts on a wide range of assumptions which are not necessarily proved to be correct. In its report on the Bill, the JCHR also noted: that,

“Depending on the provisions of the scheme, pension rights of same sex spouses may not be the same as pension rights of opposite sex spouses, which may give rise to an issue as to whether this is compatible with Article 14 of the ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1”.

It has already been noted that the Government are currently fighting an appeal against the decision to uphold this view in the case of John Walker. However, if legislation is not amended to take account of the Walker judgment and the reliance on the European Court findings, it is likely that further action will be taken by same-sex married partners. One cannot blame them. They will seek similar redress in the courts to ensure that they, too, can access pension rights in an equal way. That would be regrettable.

Of course, I recognise that resolving this anomaly is not without cost but the real frustration is that we do not have the requisite information to debate the issue with knowledge of its full consequences. When responding to a similar amendment moved in the other place, the Minister, Helen Grant, said that,

“we do not believe that it would be right to put on schemes the significant additional and retrospective financial burdens that would arise from removing the Equality Act exception”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/5/13; col. 1144.]

However, how significant those burdens are is unclear. The House of Commons Library estimated that the potential additional cost to private contracted-in schemes would be £18 million. That is a significant figure by anyone’s estimates, but when compared with the total value of assets under management in the pensions industry it amounts to just 0.006%—as was pointed out by Mr Mike Freer on Report in the Commons. I accept that for a handful of small employers or charitable schemes this may have a disproportionate impact. However, the Government have accepted that around two-thirds of schemes already treat opposite-sex marriages and civil partnerships equally. I pay tribute to all those organisations, including the Church of England, which do the right thing.

In evidence submitted to the JCHR, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, Hugh Robertson, stated that,

“We estimate that in total the impact on both contracted-in and contracted-out private sector schemes could amount to as much as £90 million. There would be very substantial costs for public service schemes”.

Will the Minister confirm to the House the costs, additional to the £18 million identified and widely accepted, on which £90 million figure is based, and the costs for public service schemes to which the Secretary of State was referring given the 2005 regulations identified by the Commons Library? On these Benches, we believe that the financial impact of the amendment would be relatively insignificant. However, the Secretary of State is quite clear that there would be a cost. Therefore, I echo the calls from around the Chamber and from the JCHR for the Minister to publish the full evidence on which the Government based their assessment as soon as possible so that we might approach Report armed with the fullest possible view of the consequences of this amendment—an amendment which I fully support.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and all others who contributed to this debate. I understand the strength of feeling behind this amendment and the speeches that have been made. Anticipating this debate, I decided to speak directly to the Pensions Ministers today and so was able to come properly armed with full information.

First, and as I have said in other contexts and in our other debates on the Bill, in making it possible for same-sex couples to marry we have sought to build on existing legislation and not amend the structure of marriage law. The point is that we focused on allowing same-sex couples to marry. In the context of pensions, we are following what already exists for civil partnerships, as has been referred to by several noble Lords in the debate. The introduction of civil partnerships was, as we have acknowledged several times over the last few weeks, a fundamental change in our society. It was a huge step forward. The Act was complex and covered a wide range of different issues. The Labour Government at the time decided to provide this exception for defined benefit pension schemes which are not contracted-out of the state second pension. They clearly did so for a principled reason: Governments do not generally make changes to pension schemes retrospectively. That is the general approach that is taken. That decision was made in 2005 during the passage of that Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, referred to the Equality Act 2010 and suggested that it had then been open to this Government to remove the exception. It is worth reminding the noble Lord and the House that the Equality Act was passed under the previous Government. It was not a Bill that we were still debating and deciding after the election—it predated this Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am here as somebody who celebrates marriage and values the ethos of church schools, but I am also a very strong supporter of same-sex marriage. I have listened carefully to noble Lords’ concerns but I am not persuaded of the need for this amendment. Like the Secretary of State, I would not support a Bill that encroached on religious freedom or on freedom of speech, but this Bill does not do that.

I apologise for not having been here last Wednesday evening. However, of course I read Hansard, and many points similar to those made in the debate last week were made today about teachers. As was said on Wednesday it is clear that teachers will be under a legal duty to teach the fact of the law of the land—that yes, gay couples will be able to get married. However, those selfsame teachers in faith schools will also be able to express their personal views or those of their faith about marriage. Noble Lords have cited the present guidance, which is extremely well balanced.

I was very struck by a speech given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich in the Public Bill Committee on 12 February. I will quote a section of what he said:

“Our own view is that the promotion of marriage is part of sex and relationship education. What Church of England schools are good at doing, because the vast majority of them are community schools, is integrating the convictions of the Church of England with a recognition that the Christian opinions held in that school are not totally recognised within the whole of wider society … There is a balance to be struck, and I think that the Secretary of State for Education was right to say that in teaching there will need to be a recognition that we have a society in which same-sex marriages—assuming the Bill goes through—are possible, and of course the teacher would also indicate why it is that within the majority of Christian traditions such marriages are not celebrated”.—[Official Report, Commons, Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill Committee, 12/2/13; col. 26.]

That right reverend Prelate had it about right.

I noted, as did the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, that in the other place the Minister, Mr Hugh Robertson, undertook to take this issue away and discuss it further with religious groups. I very much look forward to hearing what he will have to say.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, this has been a wide-ranging debate. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, for his introduction of his amendment and for quoting what I said on Second Reading about this Bill being as much about promoting religious freedom as it is about allowing same-sex couples to marry. He was absolutely right about that. I am pleased that he was clear that his amendment is about religious freedom of faith schools. He sought to explain that this particular issue is quite different from the earlier education matters we discussed last week, which focused on the general freedom of any teacher to express a personal view rather than on the teaching of sex and relationship education in religious schools specifically. In responding to this debate, I will repeat several points that I made last week, not least because as the debate has unfolded it has become clear that the way in which the House considers this issue is very much to do with education in a wider context than just about the very narrow issue of religious freedom.

Noble Lords and others have expressed a concern that schools’ freedom to teach their beliefs about marriage according to their religious tenets will be threatened by the effect that Clause 11 will have on the meaning of “marriage” in Section 403 of the Education Act 1996 and guidance made under it by the Secretary of State, to which schools must have regard. As has already been noted, the Government have received representations from religious groups, in particular the Church of England and the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, expressing concern that Clause 11 might affect the ability of faith schools to continue to teach about the importance of marriage for family life and the bringing up of children in line with their religious tenets. This concern was echoed by Muslim leaders in their public letter of 18 May.

The noble Lord, Lord Alli, was the first to raise a point about the origination of Section 403. It is worth saying that it was not in a piece of legislation originally in the 1996 Act. Section 403(1A) was inserted by the Learning and Skills Act 2000. I will begin by explaining that schools with a religious character provide an excellent education for their pupils while reflecting their beliefs across the curriculum, including in sex and relationship education. There is absolutely nothing in this legislation that affects schools’ ability to continue to do this in future.

In schools of a religious character, teachers already deal admirably with teaching about marriages which may not be recognised as such according to the tenets of the relevant faith—for example, marriages of divorcees, or mixed-faith marriages. Last week the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, gave us a great example of how teachers deal with sensitive matters. The noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, reminded us that it is important that teachers must be conscious of pupils whose parents are of the same sex and married when teaching about marriage in the context of sex and relationship education. My noble friend Lord Baker also made a similar point. However, my noble friend Lord Eden reminded us of the rights of parents who are concerned about sex education and its content. I responded to his concern last week in the debate about the policies that are in place to ensure that schools properly consult parents on the content of sex and relationship education.

Last week I forgot to make a point, which is worth making in the context of this debate, that sex and relationship education is compulsory in maintained secondary schools. Primary schools are not required to teach sex and relationship education, further than anything specific in the curriculum for science. It is important that I make that point, because it is sometimes forgotten.

In order for teachers to handle the very sensitive situations in which they often find themselves, they already interpret the Secretary of State’s guidance according to their religious tenets. This will be no different when marriage is extended to same-sex couples by this Bill. If the tenets of a particular religion do not recognise same-sex marriage, they will be able to approach teaching about marriage in exactly the same professional way that they do now. Although teaching will of course need to cover the factual position that marriage under the law of England and Wales can be between both opposite-sex and same-sex couples, faith schools will also be able to explain the relevant tenets of their religion on this matter.

I think it was the exchange between the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, and my noble friends Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Elton, about the Secretary of State ensuring that teaching about marriage is given in accordance with religious tenets. It is important for me to make the point that I fully understand the intentions of the right reverend Prelate in the amendment that he has put forward, but I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that it is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to issue guidance to secure adherence to religious doctrine in teaching. This would amount to inappropriate interference by the state in matters properly for the relevant religious denomination. How faith schools approach such teaching is quite rightly a matter for the schools and faiths themselves.

While I think it is broadly acknowledged that the Secretary of State’s current guidance does not impinge on faith schools’ ability to teach in line with their doctrines, concern has also been expressed that the duty on the Secretary of State might allow future versions of the guidance to preclude religious schools from teaching in accordance with their beliefs. This was a point that my noble friend Lady Cumberlege raised—when the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, referred to my noble friend Lady Knight, my noble friend Lady Cumberlege expressed this point. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, made my response for me by saying that it is clearly not the intention behind this legislation to envisage circumstances in which any Secretary of State might seek to interfere with matters of religious doctrine in the future. We are framing this legislation as things stand at the moment, and there is no way in which we are suggesting that a future Secretary of State might do anything different, but nor can I say from this Dispatch Box that things may not change in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, noted that the second part of the duty in question, which is Section 403 (1A)(b), specifies that the Secretary of State’s guidance must ensure that pupils are,

“protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned”.

Therefore, the existing legislation already makes clear that it is absolutely inappropriate for material to be used that would not have regard for religious faiths. For the Secretary of State to issue guidance specifying that a particular version of marriage be endorsed counter to a school’s ethos, and by extension the religious background of many of its pupils, would not meet this criterion that already exists in legislation. I emphasise that point in response to my noble friend Lady Cumberlege, who expressed concern that the new legislation would somehow remove some protection from schools that are against promoting same-sex couples being able to marry. I want to emphasise that that is absolutely not the case.

This country has a strong tradition of schools with a religious character; they are a valued part of our education system. It would be pointless to maintain a system of designation if such schools were unable to teach in accordance with the tenets of their religion. For this designation to have significance, the school has to deliver what it was set up for. The inherent right of schools to deliver their curriculum and to interpret guidance according to their ethos is evident in their existence as such schools. As I have described previously, such schools do already teach about topics that may be considered sensitive, such as divorce, and they do so without issue.

While the Government are clear that this Bill will not impinge on faith schools’ ability to continue to teach about marriage in line with their religious tenets, I do of course understand that the effect of Clause 11 on Section 403 of the Education Act has led to some concern about this. While we are not convinced that there is a need to change the legislation to clarify the position, we are continuing to discuss this with the churches. As the noble Baronesses, Lady O’Loan and Lady Royall, said, the Government undertook to consider this issue in another place. I can assure noble Lords that I and my colleagues are continuing to examine it in detail.

Crime: Violence Against Women and Girls

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Thursday 8th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have considered what role police and crime commissioners may have in combating violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, police and crime commissioners will be democratically accountable for cutting crime and ensuring that the policing needs of their communities are met. Given the prevalence of violence against women and girls across the UK, we expect PCCs to have a key role in tackling these crimes by setting the strategic direction, determining local budgets and holding their respective chief constables to account for the totality of policing within their force areas.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that Answer. Domestic abuse is still a hidden crime that occurs behind front doors on every street in every town, city and village. Is the Minister aware that every Labour police and crime commissioner who is elected will adopt an excellent five-point plan on women’s safety? While I hear what the noble Baroness says—that the Government expect police and crime commissioners to act on these issues—what will they do to ensure that all such commissioners, of no matter what party, make tackling violence against women and girls a priority?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, we all want to see violence against women and girls stamped out. For the first time ever, victims will have to be listened to before decisions are made about policing priorities in their areas. If noble Lords want to know how big a deal that is for victims of crime, I urge them to read the speech made last Thursday by my noble friend Lady Newlove in the debate about PCCs. Whatever PCCs decide to do locally will be on top of the commitments already made by this Government and in addition to the measures in the organised crime strategy. I point to what has happened in London, where the Mayor of London provides the nearest example of what PCCs will be able to achieve once they are in post. In his first term the mayor increased the number of rape centres from one to four, using some of his own funding, and set up a helpline and a website for victims. It is interesting to note the way in which the local violence against women group has engaged with him in putting together that strategy and holding him to account for delivering it.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 54B, I will speak also to Amendments 54C to 54H, 54P to 54V, 60 and 61. This group of government amendments to Clauses 67 and 77, and the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions in Schedule 7, deals with barring decisions and barred list information.

Clause 67 provides that a person will be barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority from working with children or vulnerable adults only if that person has been, is or might in the future be engaged in regulated activity. As my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon and at all stages of the Bill so far, in seeking to scale back the disclosure and barring scheme, the Government believe that it is disproportionate to bar a person if they have never worked in regulated activity and have no prospect ever of doing so. However, having listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and by organisations such as the NSPCC, we have concluded that where someone has been convicted of a crime on the list of the most serious offences—that is, an offence that leads to an automatic bar without the right to make representations—the Independent Safeguarding Authority should bar that person whether or not they work or intend to work in regulated activity. An automatic bar without representation would apply to convictions for the most serious sexual and violent offences, such as, in the case of the children’s barred list, the rape of a child. In these cases, there are no conceivable mitigating circumstances—that is why representations are not permitted—and there can be no question that the person is a risk to vulnerable groups.

Amendments 54B to 54E give effect to these changes in England and Wales, and Amendments 54P to 54S make similar changes to Schedule 7 in respect of Northern Ireland. Amendment 60 is consequential on Amendments 54B to 54E, and Amendment 61 is consequential on Amendments 54P to 54S. The other amendments in this group concern the provision of information by the Independent Safeguarding Authority to the police. Clause 77(4) states that the Independent Safeguarding Authority must, for one of a number of specified purposes,

“provide to any chief officer of police who has requested it information as to whether a person is barred”.

The current drafting requires the Independent Safeguarding Authority to provide to the police information only about whether a particular person is barred rather than the whole barred list.

The police have indicated that they need this information in real time—for example, if they were to stop someone driving a school minibus and needed to know whether they were barred. In practice, making requests to the Independent Safeguarding Authority on a case-by-case basis would not always provide the police with the information in the necessary timescale. Amendments 54F and 54G therefore provide that the ISA must provide to the police the whole barred list. The police will then be able to put appropriate flags on the PNC, and will have immediate access to barring information when they need it. Amendment 54H ensures that this requirement to supply the whole barred list does not extend to information provided to the prison and probation services. Amendments 54T, 54U and 54V provide for the same arrangement in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. I wholeheartedly welcome this amendment, for which we have been calling since the Bill was first introduced. As my honourable friend the Member for Hull North said in another place:

“There is a very good reason why someone who commits a serious offence is barred from working with children—because they pose a serious risk to children. That should mean that they are automatically barred from working with them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 228.]

I have to say that I was astonished by the Government’s original proposal that a man convicted of raping a child would not automatically be barred from working with children. I am grateful to the Government for listening and introducing this amendment which clearly puts right what was, I believe, a miscalculation of risk.

I have one or two questions for the noble Baroness but I hope not to detain her for long. She will know that the amendment which I tabled in Committee not only reinstated automatic barring but provided for an appeals process for individuals. Do the Government plan to review the existing appeals processes—based on written submission by the individual—to allow for appeals hearings in person, as were provided for by my amendment? How do the Government propose to ensure that there will be a consistent and proportionate approach to enhanced disclosures across all police authorities?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her support for this amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, we have listened carefully and are pleased to table this amendment. The only thing that is perhaps worth making clear is that the absence of an automatic bar does not give anybody an automatic right. We have ensured that anybody who has been convicted of the most serious crime and has no opportunity to make representation is automatically barred. However, this does not mean that those who are not automatically barred have an automatic right—the opposite is not true for them. A proper process will follow.

As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee and plans to review the existing appeals process, we are ensuring that representations can be considered in advance. The change we are making to the barring and vetting process will mean that somebody who is about to be employed in a regulated activity, and is therefore subjected to checks of the kind we are discussing, will receive the certificate and have the opportunity to challenge any information that is on it before it is made available to the employing body. Therefore, the opportunity for that challenge is at the start of the process rather than after a certificate has been issued to a prospective employer or organisation for which somebody might volunteer. Representations can include oral representations—they do not necessarily have to make their appeals or representations in writing—but at the moment we are not planning any further changes to the appeals process.

On the noble Baroness’s final point about the police process, if I understood correctly, the point that she was making was that this system of ensuring availability of the barred list should be consistent across all police authorities. I can confirm that that is the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As he said, it is not a perfect solution to the problems created—it does not address the concern of voluntary organisations up and down the country that individuals with minor and irrelevant criminal histories will be deterred from volunteering by having personally to submit their certificates to organisations, and it could strengthen the concern of groups with a high turnover, such as the care sector, that the bureaucracy caused by eradicating what was a quick and automatic process will mean that key roles are not filled quickly enough. However, I believe that accepting the amendment will provide the best iteration of what will potentially be a messy and bureaucratic process, and I think that the clarification requested by the noble Lord will be important to organisations’ understanding of the process.

I also note with pleasure the Government’s own amendment. I welcome the fact that, again, they have listened to the concerns of this House. However, I fear that the ultimate result of the changes to the process of CRB disclosure will be a system that is more complex for organisations to administer, and I worry that this could have a stifling effect on our voluntary sector.

I understand that two separate costs will be involved in the new portable CRB checks: a cost for initial disclosure and a cost for an ongoing subscription to update and validate the disclosure on a rolling basis. How do the Government propose to ensure that they do not create a two-tier system in which some individuals pay for only initial disclosure and do not access the new portability benefits by paying for a subscription? Will the Government confirm whether volunteers will be charged for the ongoing subscription, and why are they seemingly preventing the portability of checks between work with adults and work with children? It looks as though employers will have to apply separately for CRB checks and barring information, despite the fact that the Government are bringing the two organisations under one roof through the new Disclosure and Barring Service. Is this the case? Perhaps I am mistaken.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for their remarks during this short debate. I start by responding to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about the potential for the new arrangements that we are putting in place to deter people from volunteering or to make the process more complex. I would disagree with that. There is the very clear and simple principle to which I referred a few moments ago that, in putting themselves forward, people will understand that they will be subjected to the necessary checks in order to safeguard young people and vulnerable adults. They will know that they will get the opportunity to see that certificate before it is issued not just to a prospective employer, but perhaps to a small group which is run by people who are volunteers themselves—not a big organisation. I think some people will find comfort in that.

The noble Baroness is right to say that there are some complexities to this wider topic and we have acknowledged that in the course of our debates today. However, we live in a very sophisticated world and I do not think that we should have a system that is not sophisticated enough to ensure that we address those who might put our children at risk. We should also make sure that those who are very able and who would do a really good job working with young children and others are not barred by us having a system that deters them. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from but I disagree.

My noble friend raised some points about the amendment that we are discussing today. I repeat that we are talking about the single certificate and how a body could check that the person it wants to work with it is suitably cleared. I note what he said about volunteers being encouraged to get more involved in civic society. It could be argued that the new system that we are putting in place will make it easier to accommodate that because the online process, and the system of allowing someone to use the portable arrangements, will mean that we are trying to support people doing something and that we are providing a system to make that work effectively.

My noble friend asked again about the guidance that we have referred to already. I absolutely understand the point he is making that the organisations, particularly those that survive on the goodwill of the volunteers who work with them, want clarity in ensuring that they are doing the right thing and know how and when to pursue the checks and how and when to follow them up. I can make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that we will develop the guidance in consultation with the voluntary organisations and the sporting bodies that he has introduced during the passage of the Bill. We will want to outline best practice so that they know when is the right time to pursue an individual and check further for the evidence that they need. For example, if the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the certificate within a prescribed period which we envisage to be 21 days, it would have to wait 21 days before making a representation to the relevant body.

We have listened very carefully to the concerns that were expressed. We want to make sure that the guidance we introduce will provide organisations with the cover that people who are put in positions of responsibility feel that they deserve in order to make sure that they exercise their responsibilities properly. I hope that that provides the assurance that my noble friend seeks.

The noble Baroness asked about costs and charges, and whether volunteers would be charged for updating. I cannot give her a response today, but I will come back to her on that. She asked also about the difference between CRB checks and barring checks. They exist for different purposes. When somebody is employed, about to be employed or is volunteering to do regulatory activity for an organisation, the organisation has a statutory obligation to ensure that an application is made for that person to be checked and for a certificate to be issued. If the activity is unregulated, the organisation can still pursue a check if it wishes. In the process of the application being made, the authorities will determine whether the barring aspect of the check will kick in. It will not be a case of somebody making a specific request for the barring check; it will happen in the course of the process of application. The uncertainty will be taken care of and the decision will be made by those with the necessary information.

I hope that I have answered the concerns and points raised today by noble Lords. I beg to move.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation this evening and for the letter that she kindly sent me following Committee. These are complex issues. I hope that she will forgive me if I am asking questions that she has already answered. Essentially, to introduce a new definition of “vulnerable” complicates the issue in many ways. Although I hear what she says—that this definition is imported from another criminal justice Act—it is not the tried and tested definition of “vulnerable” and it would be far easier if people knew exactly where they stood.

I still have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the new definition. As the noble Baroness said in Committee, I disagreed with the restrictions that the Government placed on the retention of DNA data from those arrested for but not charged with a serious offence. That is a misleading distinction which has serious consequences for victims of crime with historically low charge rates, such as rape. As stated in the letter, the Government recognise that vulnerable members of society should be given special protection in such situations, and new Section 63G aims to provide for the retention of DNA data for those arrested for offences against victims deemed to be vulnerable adults.

At Second Reading in the Commons, the Home Secretary, the right honourable Theresa May, stated, on the conditions where new Section 63F(5) would apply:

“I would expect that application to be made in certain circumstances, such as when the victim has been vulnerable, which may mean there is very good evidence that the individual concerned has committed a crime but the victim is not able or not willing to come forward and see that case through”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 206.]

However, the Government’s proposed amendment to the definition of vulnerable adult recognises only those individuals who are subject to mental or physical impairment as being particularly vulnerable to problems in bringing forward a charge of providing evidence.

In particular, the new definition requires that an individual’s ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired. The definition, particularly with the addition of the qualification “significantly”, adds a large element of discretion, leaving judgment of the vulnerability of the victim up to the discretion of the officer dealing with the case. I am concerned that such a definition is open to wide interpretation, which may mean that vulnerable adults are not given sufficient protection under the Bill.

An individual’s circumstances are a key indicator of their vulnerability, as is recognised by the definition used under Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which lists a number of different circumstances in which an adult should be classed as vulnerable. The proposed new definition also neglects the fact that the type of offence will often determine the particular vulnerability of the individual and lead to problems which may account for the lack of any charge being made.

I note that the noble Baroness says that women who have been subjected to violence are covered under a different clause, although they are not covered by the definition of “vulnerable”. I am glad that that is the case, but it is complicated. They cannot read the Bill and see that they are covered as being vulnerable.

I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there are still questions to be answered. I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer me this evening, but if we could have further discussion about this to sort out some of my remaining concerns I would be extremely grateful.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

On the change of definition of vulnerable adult, as I tried to explain in moving the amendment, it is important that we do not use the definition applied later in the Bill in the context of victims. If we did, we would be at risk of creating the opposite situation from what the noble Baroness wants. Later in the Bill, the definition of “vulnerable adult”, as amended, is intended to define people's vulnerability in terms of the activity in which a person may have to engage with them. As I said, whether it is personal care or whether someone is required to be in close proximity to someone else, we want to define vulnerability as far as whether someone should have the right to access the person.

In this part of the Bill, we are focusing on victims of crime. The fact that we are using a definition that already exists—it predates the definition that the Bill amends later—seems to me a simpler way forward. It is clear which people it is intended to protect. The definition states that it,

“means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.

I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the use of “significantly” and whether or not the definition excludes some people whom she thinks might be captured by the other definition. I disagree. Under the other definition, which is dictated by the nature of the care that people receive, some people who are old may not be in receipt of any specific care that would define them as vulnerable. The fact that they are old would suggest that they are vulnerable in this context, so this definition would capture more people. Also, “otherwise”, at the end of the definition, means that there is discretion for the police in considering who is vulnerable. I would expect the new DNA strategy board to offer guidance to the police on how to consider the definition of vulnerability when they make their application to the biometrics commissioner.

One thing behind the noble Baroness’s concern, which I share, is that in the context of a crime such as rape, and violent crime against somebody, the impact of the crime might make somebody vulnerable. The definition taken from the Domestic Crime, Violence and Victims Act already suggests what the police might consider under the definition of “vulnerable”.

I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. I was very careful to consider the issues that she raised in Committee and I wanted to explore them with officials in great detail before bringing the amendment back to your Lordships today. However, I am as convinced as I can be that this is a clear safeguard. Women in refuges or secure housing are clearly caught by the other limb of the Bill, meaning that they would have been in a refuge centre because somebody known to them had been violent towards them. That is clearly covered by the other part of the Bill and would mean that, if it was anybody known to the victim, that would allow the police to apply for that DNA to be retained.

I am clear that the wording is sufficiently comprehensive to cover what we are trying to achieve, which I outlined in moving the amendment, and at the same time to protect those who are most vulnerable. I shall of course be willing to discuss further with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber any of her concerns, but I felt that it was appropriate for me to move this amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Thursday 12th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, these amendments merely seek to ensure that the process operates as quickly and as efficiently as possible by providing a duty on public authorities to expedite requests through the relevant processes as quickly as possible and within a certain period of time. I believe that they are entirely reasonable and are a matter of enhanced transparency and good governance. My noble friend is right when he says that they could also help to resolve some of the deeper problems that we discussed earlier. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will support these reasonable, clear and sensible amendments which would ensure that the system worked better in favour of public accountability—which is, after all, what the FOI Act was designed to serve.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for explaining his amendments so clearly. I will not attempt to summarise them and take up the Committee’s time unnecessarily. I agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendments in relation to the timeliness of public interest deliberations and internal reviews, which tally with the Information Commissioner’s best practice guidance.

The Government are firmly in favour of public authorities answering requests and internal reviews as quickly as possible. It is not acceptable that they should drag their heels in responding, and any extension to the time limit for responding to FOI requests should be claimed only where absolutely necessary.

The introduction of new statutory deadlines is certainly one potential way of strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, providing that it does not lead to hasty decisions that are not fully informed. Having an absolute limit of 40 days, even in the most complex cases, must raise some concerns about the potential for such an effect. Accordingly, careful consideration of the impact of such changes would be necessary before their introduction, and for that reason I cannot accept these amendments today. However, as I have said when we discussed other amendments, this might form part of the Justice Select Committee’s post-legislative review.

The noble Lord referred to his experiences as Freedom of Information Minister. I would never claim to have held any such senior position anywhere. However, I spent nine years working in the corporate end of the BBC and saw the internal conflicts that sometimes arose between the editorial part of the organisation using the FOI Act to obtain information and its corporate end having to be subject to the same Act. I am aware of the very careful deliberations that are necessary when an information request comes in and the complexities involved in that. It is sometimes necessary to take a bit of time to get to the point where the right decision can be made on releasing information. That said, in that public authority it was my experience that as the organisation got used to the FOI Act, it got quicker at dealing with the requests, the appeals, the internal reviews and so on.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Thursday 15th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, the Committee will be aware that the Government made a remedial order—the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011—earlier this year to replace the stop and search powers in Sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more targeted and proportionate power. That order will cease to have effect when, subject to parliamentary approval, Clause 61 of the Bill comes into effect.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights issued two reports on the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011. It recommended in both reports that the Bill should be amended to clarify that a senior police officer making an authorisation in respect of the new stop and search powers must have a reasonable basis for not only their suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place but also their view that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate to prevent such an act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime and Security responded to the Joint Committee’s second report stating that he would consider whether the Bill should be amended. I can confirm today that the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation, which is implemented by this amendment.

I should stress that Amendment 146 is without prejudice to the construction of “considers” elsewhere in the Terrorism Act 2000. In the particular context of this provision in the Bill, we are merely emphasising—in response to the Joint Committee’s report—the implicit meaning that consideration must be reasonable so that the intended meaning is clear to all, including the courts. We feel this clarification may be helpful given the contrast between “reasonably suspects” in the first part of the test for authorisation and “reasonably considers” in the second.

The amendment to Schedule 6 makes a parallel change to the stop and search powers in Schedule 3 to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, as amended by that schedule. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we welcome the Bill’s provisions in relation to stop and search in general. We also welcome the amendment before us today. Stop and search is an important police tool and was introduced for a very good reason in response to the changing security environment. However, as actions this summer have shown, community cohesion and the effectiveness of policing depend on public confidence. We know, for example, from the interim report of the Independent Riots, Communities and Victims Panel, that stop and search was cited as a major source of discontent with the police. This discontent and concern was widely felt by young black and Asian men specifically. It is absolutely right and proper that this government amendment introduces the concept of reasonableness. I wholeheartedly support the Government in their amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Stowell of Beeston and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, and for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that it demonstrates that there is potential confusion in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness asked about cold cases. I understand the difficulty described by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in saying whether or not a case has been concluded. However, if in subsection (2) we are saying that,

“material may be retained until the conclusion”,

we need to be a little more specific. The noble Lord talked about the practicalities but also the philosophical nature of these issues. Philosophy is a great thing but when it comes to legislation perhaps it needs to be a little more specific.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment. It relates to the briefing from the Information Commissioner that was circulated prior to the Committee stage. He expressed some concern that the reference in Clause 2 to the conclusion of the investigation was too open-ended.

I am sure that we would all wish the police to be able to conclude every investigation swiftly with either a conviction or conclusion that no crime has been committed. But, we would all acknowledge that in reality that is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has explained. There will often be cases when it is impossible to identify a suspect immediately and when evidence must be retained for a significant period in the hope of identifying a suspect in the future. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to cold cases. The case that comes to my mind is the one that has recently been reopened on the murder of Stephen Lawrence.

Evidence, including biometric material, must be retained in these circumstances to enable comparison with the suspect and, for example, to ensure that the suspect’s legal team can examine and probe all the previous police lines of inquiry. If all evidence is not retained in such circumstances, the suspect identified later will be able to argue to the court that the destruction of such material would render it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. In such circumstances, even if Amendment 5 were to be made to the Bill, a chief officer would be unable to certify an investigation as complete, which is I think what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was referring to. In addition, where it is possible for the police to conclude an investigation the introduction of such a certification requirement for all investigations would impose a new bureaucratic process on the police that would be both unnecessary and, when aggregated across the number of investigations conducted, costly. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, makes that quite clear.

For the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept Amendment 5, and I therefore ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, let me try to explain a little further. We are trying to ensure that, when we refer to “vulnerable adult” in the context of those who are the victims of crime, we are clear about the people who have been affected by the crime against them. Later on in the Bill, in a different context, the term “vulnerable adult” is deployed differently, because it relates to regulated activity and what access a person might have in terms of the activity being carried out at that time. The amendment tries to make sure that, in this context, we define “vulnerable adult” as the person who is the victim, rather than trying to define it in terms of what activity might be used against them, which occurs later in the Bill. I might have to write further to the noble Baroness.

Perhaps I may add that those seeking refuge from an abusive relationship would be covered by the third limb of new Section 63G(2); that is, by being associated with the suspect. However, given the nature of the questions that the noble Baroness has asked and the sensitivity of the topic—I would not want to give anybody the wrong impression about it—it would probably be best for me to come back to her in writing.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, before we go to a vote, I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing the amendment and bringing it back on Report. I do not wish to vote against it but I should like further confirmation that the people who should be covered by this definition of “vulnerable adult” are properly considered and covered by it.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think, on reflection, that that would be the right course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.