Inquiries Act 2005

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Baroness Hamwee

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Government agreed to accept 20 out of the 33 recommendations from his report. The issue about the central inquiries unit is an important one. The role of such a unit would be limited once the inquiry is established, and we believe that departments are much better placed to understand the operational issues relating to their policy areas. That is why the Home Office has its own unit, which functions very well—it set up four inquiries in a short period of time. However, since the noble Lord’s report, the Cabinet Office has strengthened the support it provides to inquiries, and there is a cross-Whitehall inquiries group which contains all the teams from the different departments to discuss learning and ways forward.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the National Audit Office tells us:

“Since 2014, the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice have committed to various actions to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of inquiries … None of these commitments have been fulfilled. For example, they have not acted on recommendations to share best practice … or update and publish guidance … There is no overall oversight across government for monitoring and tracking”.


The NAO also reminds us that,

“the government has spent at least £239 million on the 26 inquiries which have concluded since 2005”.

Given that expenditure, is this failure of departments to follow through good enough?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I take issue with what the noble Baroness has said. It is not true that the Government do not follow through on lessons learned from previous inquiries. Indeed, the Cabinet Office has produced guidelines. They remain in draft form at the moment because they are being updated from lessons learned and the findings from the National Audit Office report. I have looked at the guidelines and I have to say, they seem very thorough. This was following consultation with stakeholders from previous inquiries. Governments will own the inquiries they sponsor, but they will have to follow that guidance, which will be finalised in very short order and published.

Slavery and Human Trafficking Statements

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Baroness Hamwee

Monday 16th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I do not think it would be wise to say when the review will take place. As we have said, the legislation in its early stages. We have to get to a situation where we believe that those who are not complying are doing so for a reason other than that they simply do not know about their obligations.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has talked about the provisions in the legislation as if most of them are mandatory, but in fact, very few actually are. First, will the Government work towards toughening up the legislation? Secondly, since, as she rightly acknowledges, this is such an important issue of transparency and accountability, are the Government considering applying rules regarding transparency in supply chains to their own procurement?

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

Obviously, it would be unwise for me to discuss future legislation, but that is a very important point about government supply chains and the Government are committed to working with their suppliers to improve the action that we can all take together. For example, all government departments require would-be suppliers to tell them whether they are compliant with the transparency requirement in the Modern Slavery Act. The Home Office, FCO, BEIS and the Crown Commercial Service are all piloting a new detailed questionnaire to get more information about our supply chains. This will help us to identify the risks.

Criminal Finances Bill

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Baroness Hamwee

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 3rd April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, which allows us to discuss the Government’s guidance on the new corporate offences in Part 3 of the Bill. Part 3 creates two new offences for relevant bodies that fail to prevent the criminal facilitation of tax evasion. It also provides a defence for a body to show that it has put in place reasonable prevention procedures designed to prevent such criminal facilitation.

The Government produced guidance on the offences, and the related defence, in 2015 and conducted a full public consultation on it. Much of the guidance focuses on the operation of the defence and helps to inform businesses’ understanding of how to determine what prevention procedures are reasonable in their circumstances. The guidance has been discussed extensively with a wide range of businesses and organisations both within the UK and overseas. Following the consultation, the updated guidance was published last year.

In addition to the government guidance, officials have been working with a number of representative bodies to support them in producing their own sector-specific guidance, which can be endorsed by the Chancellor if it is clearly in keeping with the overarching government guidance. The Chancellor’s endorsement of external guidance will provide a hallmark of quality for individual businesses to identify good practice for their sector.

The government guidance makes it clear that it is just that: guidance. It does not set out a tick-box exercise of mandatory requirements for businesses but rather six principles to help each business decide what prevention procedures, if any, are reasonable for them in their individual circumstances.

The government guidance makes it clear that, for each business, there may be a number of appropriate approaches for them to take and that departure from suggested procedures will not mean that an organisation does not have reasonable prevention procedures. Likewise, different organisations may implement the same or similar procedures differently due to their individual circumstances. For example, what is reasonable for a large, multinational financial institution will be different from what is reasonable for a small, domestic retail business.

Conversely, while departing from the guidance will not mean that a relevant body does not have reasonable prevention procedures, nor does complying with the guidance necessarily guarantee that prevention procedures are reasonable. The guidance is not intended to be a safe harbour.

The new offences also provide a defence for a business where it was reasonable for it to have no procedures in place. A business can therefore avail itself of the defence without having followed the Government’s guidance if it was reasonable for it to have no procedures in place; for example, because the risks it faced were so remote that it would be unduly burdensome for it to put in place prevention procedures.

I hope that noble Lords will therefore agree that it is not necessary, and may impose undue burden, to force businesses to have regard to the government guidance. Those businesses which need to put in place prevention procedures and which seek to be compliant will likely already have regard to the government guidance. This has been demonstrated by the excellent engagement from many sectors on the development of the guidance. Accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, understood my thinking exactly, although I wonder whether it would be helpful to this House to use a procedure which is often used in the Commons to explain that one is probing to try to understand whatever is proposed and the thrust of a particular amendment—I was probing, as I had indicated to the Bill team.

I had not expected that answer, but I now understand the range of things which can happen under this clause. One is accustomed to phrases such as “for different purposes and for different persons”, which is what I think we are being asked to read into this provision. I note that the Minister said that guidance,

“can be endorsed by the Chancellor”—

I was not sure what route that was taking me down. I am grateful to noble Lords for indulging me. I, for one, now understand better what is proposed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Preventing and Combating Violence Against Women and Domestic Violence (Ratification of Convention) Bill

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Baroness Hamwee

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 10th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House that if there are to be interruptions they should be kept very brief.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am grateful for that intervention. I was about to say that one often hears, “It does not happen here”. The lack of understanding that what is happening is a crime is, sadly, shared among those who experience that crime.

I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which in 2015 undertook an inquiry to examine progress towards ratification. The noble Baroness referred to that. Its report told your Lordships that,

“the Convention would have a strong indirect effect on the UK legal system”,

firstly in that it,

“could be cited by the UK courts as persuasive authority”,

and secondly through the role of the European Court of Human Rights, given that the Government are bound by its judgment and, therefore,

“the terms of the Convention could have a strong indirect effect on the UK legal system”.

The report also commented on some of the evidence that the committee had obtained. Witnesses had told the committee that ratification would,

“help the UK’s position internationally in tackling violence against women and girls and would encourage other countries to follow suit”.

The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales said that ratification would emphasise the state’s positive duty and it would,

“provide a further basis in law for those who wish to persuade the state to provide adequate and meaningful resources to construct an effective mechanism to protect women from gender violence and harm”.

That raises the question of whether there is a resource issue behind this which may not have been acknowledged in the same way as the concerns about the devolved institutions. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there is no resource component precluding ratification. The evidence from the Minister to the Committee referred to ratification being a matter for the devolved Administrations. Let us not seek to avoid any responsibility ourselves in that area. The Government’s response to the JCHR’s report emphasised their commitment to the convention but referred again to the devolved Administrations.

We have heard about the international context but, as we have also heard, this is not just a third-world issue. Real commitment would put all the mechanisms in place. It would be a considerable achievement of Her Majesty’s Government both to be able to ratify the convention and actually to ratify it. It would be a solid expression of our commitment to preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. It would put the country’s legislation where its mouth is. According to the JCHR, the UK is in a good position to ratify. The then Home Secretary showed her personal commitment and only a single legislative change is required.

Last year, the JCHR visited Strasbourg. I recall a member of the Council of Europe strongly emphasising the importance of the UK’s example. The context was different—we were talking about compliance with the judgment of the court on a different issue—but the message was the same: the example set by a country which is respected and whose respect needs to be maintained. We support the Bill from these Benches.