Divorce Law

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Thursday 6th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, the Government look forward to working with my noble friend and many others in your Lordships’ House—we recognise the expertise and experience contained therein. As proposals emerge, we will look for contributions from noble Lords to help us shape them further. I turn to my noble friend’s point about timing and mention the online divorce system that we set up in May 2018. It has had 11,000 applications. People can submit their forms online. It makes it quicker and easier to access justice and, as importantly, it means that the number of mistakes made on the forms is vastly reduced, thereby speeding up the whole process of divorce. I agree with my noble friend that we need to make it quicker, and we are doing something about it.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, is it worth Ministers looking at a Bill which passed both Houses of Parliament 22 years ago to allow for no-fault divorce? No doubt, having been introduced so long ago, the Bill has elements that could be changed—it represents my views at the time—but the essence of the Bill, which passed both Houses of Parliament with considerable majorities, was no-fault divorce.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I recognise the enormous amount of work that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern did on the Family Law Act 1996. It was a ground-breaking piece of legislation that led the way for Parliament to take the principled decision that divorce law could be changed to make it no-fault. However, that legislation was, some would say, overly amended, and in the end it became impracticable. Those provisions were repealed in 2014. However, we will go back to that legislation to see what Parliament agreed then. Society and probably parliamentary views have moved on since then, and I hope that we can craft something proper for the future.

Domestic Gas and Electricity (Tariff Cap) Bill

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe would ensure that the price cap comes to an end in 2020 with no provision to extend it. The Bill allows a temporary and targeted price cap on poor value, standard variable and default tariffs. Fixed tariffs that are not default tariffs will not be affected by the cap as these are where the most competitive rates can be found. The price cap is only necessary to protect consumers on poor value tariffs until the conditions for effective competition are in place.

The Bill has a sunset clause at 2023 and the cap would fall at the end of 2020 if, at that point, the conditions for effective competition are in place; I think that my noble friend wanted a response on that issue. The Bill is constructed in this way because the Government do not want an open-ended intervention, which would not be good for competition and, therefore, consumers.

At this point, I want to address the communication received by many noble Lords about the way the Bill is drafted, potentially preventing the cap from being removed, as the cap itself may have an impact on competition. That point was not lost on the Government when the Bill was drafted, which is why the judgment on removing the price cap, as set out in Clause 7(5), depends on whether,

“the Secretary of State considers that conditions are in place for effective competition for domestic supply contracts”.

In its recent consultation, Ofgem stated:

“We interpret ‘conditions for effective competition’ as meaning that the right market framework is in place for competition to be effective for currently disengaged consumers once the cap is removed”.


In assessing whether the conditions for competition are in place, Ofgem said that it would expect to analyse both the demand side and the supply side of the market, consider whether the market structure will promote good outcomes for disengaged consumers and consider whether there are remaining barriers to engagement. It refers to market conditions, not current market outcomes, for example on the rate of switching.

Coming back to the amendment, it is clear that the Government want the cap to be in place for as short a time as necessary. Ofgem will report on the conditions for effective competition and make a recommendation. Ofgem’s recent consultation points towards a number of factors that might indicate that the conditions for effective competition are in place. On the supply side, these include more innovative business models and the rollout of smart meters. On the demand side, they include making it easier for customers to share their data securely with third parties—meaning that they do not have to look up and enter lots of data on websites when they want to switch—and promoting engagement to help customers identify the best deal. These measures will need time to be established but it is right that we ensure protections are in place until the conditions for effective competition are in place. That is why the Bill enables the price cap to be extended, one year at a time, up to the end of 2023 at the latest.

I am grateful to my noble friend for her amendments. I can confirm that, all being well, the price cap will fall away in 2020—but as we have noted, if all is not well, it will not. With that, I hope that my noble friend is assured and will withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

It seems that the Secretary of State has to make a decision before the end of 2019, in respect of 2020. At that stage, it must be assumed that the price cap will not continue because, unless the Secretary of State continues it, it will stop at the end of that year. There is an extra argument, as it were, to the argument about the cap stopping then: the cap will not be in contemplation in examination of the situation because we will have to assume that it has stopped. Therefore, any effect that it has on reducing competition is out of the equation at that juncture. I hope that noble Lords follow me.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I was doing really well until the last sentence. I tried to follow my noble and learned friend. Of course, there will be a period leading up to the point at which the Secretary of State has to make the decision on whether to keep the cap. At that time, he will look at the information that is available to him and make a judgment on whether the conditions for effective competition are in place.

Freedom of Speech: Hate Crime

Debate between Baroness Vere of Norbiton and Lord Mackay of Clashfern

Wednesday 6th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

I think all noble Lords know the background to where we are today. Twenty years ago this country had a very poor record of dealing with hate crime, and confidence in the criminal justice system among BAME communities was extremely low. We have come a long way. It is important to remember that the definition is used for flagging crimes; when it comes to charging those crimes, they still have to be done within the same legal framework as always.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

I do not think my noble friend has any authority to instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions in any way. However, she could write to ask the DPP whether she agrees with the statement in the Question that the definition is broader than what is in the statute and, only if so, to explain the authority on which that has been issued.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I will happily write to the director to ask those questions. I believe the response will be that it is broader but it is not used for charging; it is used purely for flagging those cases that may be a hate crime. That definition is a very important one.