Sentencing Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 25th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I cannot think of anybody in the House less fitted to impersonate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, it is my duty to make some remarks. The consensus in favour of the Bill is admirable. It is extremely weighty in terms of the judicial expertise of the House, and therefore I have no hesitation whatever in supporting it. As the Minister said, the law must be accessible and under- standable, and if it is felt not to be sufficiently accessible and understandable by people who have practised the law, that alone is a justification for the Bill.

On the alarming point about the high number of sentences which higher courts find to have been illegal, it is not absolutely clear to me from reading that piece of work how far that is to do with the law being inaccessible and how far it is to do with the misapplication of the law. It looks as if a large proportion of those cases, if not almost all of them, would have occurred even under this legislation. However, it may be that having everything codified in one place will improve things; it is very hard to argue against that principle, and I do not seek to do so.

However, I regard the Bill as a serious wasted opportunity. While the lack of accessibility and codification of sentencing law might be an issue, and I accept that therefore this Bill should proceed, by far the bigger issue in respect of sentencing is the positive content of sentencing law itself, which to my mind is not fit for purpose. We have seen the prison population in Britain treble in the last 40 years—it is now by far the largest in Europe, per capita as well as absolutely. However, longer prison terms, almost all for non-violent offenders, have neither made Britain safer nor reduced crime or the fear of crime. They also stand in very stark and striking contrast to most of the rest of Europe, which has much smaller prison populations, much shorter prison terms, and much more effective alternatives to custodial sentences. It seems that the Bill essentially fiddles while the big issue is unaddressed. We should be seeking to review, modernise and learn from best practice in other civilised countries on the content of sentencing legislation; how it is actually written in the law books is a very secondary consideration.

When we last debated the Bill—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, this is déjà vu all over again—I found myself in striking agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, from the Conservative Benches, on this issue. He made an impassioned speech about the evils of over-long sentences and creating a culture in prisons which is, frankly, deplorable and probably also against the European Convention on Human Rights. The conclusion that we both reached is that the huge judicial expertise which this House contains might be well utilised in a Select Committee to look not just at the codification of sentencing law but at its actual content. Because we are not, I am glad to say, a populist House, we would be capable of bringing our expertise to bear on this issue and we might then get a genuinely worthwhile reform, which would correct the move towards ever-longer sentences and an ever-larger prison population, and in consequence towards what I regard as a much less civilised society.

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

Lord Adonis Excerpts

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

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords, this government amendment seeks to allow certain provisions of the Bill to be extended to the Isle of Man through what is commonly known as a permissive extent clause. This is a well-established method of enabling UK legislation to be extended to the overseas territories and Crown dependencies.

I should clarify that the amendment was explicitly requested by the Isle of Man Government due to the legislative pressures that Tynwald, the island’s parliament, currently faces. I want to be clear with noble Lords that I am moving the amendment to allow debate and to put on record the request from the Isle of Man Government. I recognise that some noble Lords expressed concerns in the earlier parts of this Committee stage about both the scope and purpose of Clause 2, to which this amendment relates. I will therefore seek to withdraw the amendment once noble Lords have had an opportunity to speak to it.

Returning to the detail of the amendment, this permissive extent clause provides for the addition of a narrow delegated power that, when activated, will allow certain provisions of the Bill to apply in the Isle of Man. The power is exercisable by an Order in Council, which can be made at a time agreed between the UK Government and the Isle of Man Government.

Once made, the Order in Council would extend the Clause 2(1) power to the appropriate authority on the Isle of Man. This would enable the Isle of Man to make its own regulations to implement international agreements on private international law. This power could be used only to implement agreements that the United Kingdom has extended to apply in the Isle of Man, which means that both the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man would be able to operate the agreement between their own jurisdictions and the other contracting parties.

In addition, the amendment would enable the Isle of Man to implement an arrangement to apply the terms of a private international law agreement, subject to necessary modifications, between the Isle of Man and the United Kingdom. Clause 2(3) already provides this power to the United Kingdom. The amendment will enable that power to be extended to the Isle of Man to give it the power to do the same, alleviating the need for it to enact its own primary legislation to implement such an arrangement. Of course, in both cases, the arrangement will be about operating a private international law agreement that the United Kingdom has joined, as anything else would fall outside the scope of the power.

The amendment would not affect the United Kingdom directly. It would require the Queen to approve an Order in Council at a meeting of the Privy Council and would allow the Isle of Man also to make use of this important legislation. Should there be any effect on the UK, it is likely that any agreed arrangement relating to applying private international law agreements between the UK and the Isle of Man could be implemented efficiently both here and in that dependency by mutual agreement.

As I have already stated, this measure is limited to the Isle of Man simply because it issued a formal request for the Bill to include this permissive extent clause. We have engaged with the other Crown dependencies and overseas territories on the Bill; they have not requested that this provision be extended to them. In these circumstances, I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

I have an obvious question relating to what the noble and learned Lord said. Why does he think that the Isle of Man wants this power but other Crown dependencies do not?

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I have always understood that the Isle of Man is different and that special provision therefore needs to be made for it, particularly at its request. Long ago, when I was Lord Advocate, I was called to defend an action of the UK Government, which had imposed restrictions on fishing in the waters surrounding the Isle of Man that were different from the common fisheries policy. I was constrained to argue that the Isle of Man was not subject to the common fisheries policy, since it was different from the United Kingdom. I regret to say that the Isle of Man was not sufficiently different for me to succeed.

I support the amendment as something that is utterly important for the Isle of Man and perfectly in order.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of the amendments put forward, in the event that such amendments become necessary. I will speak first to Amendment 19.

Private international law, by its very nature, is concerned generally with private individuals and private law. It seems to me, therefore, that if there are circumstances where the ordinary powers of the courts—for example, powers relating to injunctive or contempt proceedings—are insufficient, Parliament ought to have the opportunity of considering whether, in such circumstances, a criminal sanction should be imposed.

As to Amendment 20, it is fair to say that, from my own experience—save as is illustrated by what has happened on this Bill—the Ministry of Justice is fairly good at consulting widely. However, my experience of other ministries is, I regret to say, not as favourable. Therefore, I think it right that, in the event that these provisions become necessary, there be an express obligation, set out in some detail, in relation to consultation.

This has two purposes. First, it makes certain that each department has to think carefully as to whether there is a provision in the agreement it has made, and then set about a proper consultation. Secondly, it is always of value in international obligations to be able to say that the particular obligation concerned, in so far as it affects domestic law, has to be approved by Parliament. One notes that, quite often, this is a matter used by the United States with quite considerable effect. It seems to me that, at this stage, we do not have sufficient experience of knowing how effective CRaG will be.

We have to be very cautious these days in circumstances where framework legislation is now becoming so extensive. If we are to have much more framework legislation—and it looks as if we are going that way—we really have to look much more at our own procedures for considering regulations made under such framework legislation, which this is, in effect.

In the event that it is necessary to have an amendment of this kind, I therefore warmly support that put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton.

[Lord Adonis]

Virtually every speaker in the debate has supported what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said. The obvious question to the Advocate-General is this: will he reconsider this matter before Report?

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Lords Chamber

All this is fine as far as it goes within the terms of the Bill itself. However, as I said at Second Reading, although Members of Parliament, Members of your Lordships’ House and others outside Parliament and politics have campaigned for the Bill with the best of motives, it is, in my judgment, a Bill that will disappoint. I listened with care to what was said at Second Reading in your Lordships’ House, having read the debates in the other place. I do not wish to be offensive, but mostly I heard and read enthusiastic applause. What Marie McCourt and the public at large need is a law that is clear, that deters and that bites. Such a law can be based only in a specific criminal offence of non-disclosure, tried not by a court-like body, but in public, by a judge, in an actual court, with suitable sentencing powers. Until we get to that point, while appreciating what the supporters of these amendments are getting at, I suggest that we let this Bill, imperfect as it is, pass unamended.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, there is clearly great public concern underlying this Bill. However, as he did in a very persuasive speech at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has just asked whether it will make any difference whatever. The more speeches one hears, the less convinced one becomes that this is in fact going to change anything. What it does is put the discretion that currently exists, and the facts that currently have to be taken account of by the Parole Board, on a statutory footing. However, it has not been made clear at any stage why putting these on a statutory footing will make any difference to the current arrangement, where it is required to take account of these factors anyway.

In his persuasive speech at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, argued that non-disclosure of a body should itself be an offence which could lengthen a sentence. However, the response from the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General raised as many questions as it answered. He said that the sentencing judge will

“take account of the non-disclosure when deciding on the length of the tariff”.—[Official Report, 28/4/20; col. 214.]

Therefore, it is a factor at the moment, but it is also a factor in respect of the Parole Board. To a lay observer such as me, that leaves us in the somewhat confusing position of not knowing where the penalty lies. Does it lie at both ends? Is a longer sentence imposed because of non-disclosure, and because it is a factor in respect of the Parole Board, or not? I would be grateful if the Minister could address that further.

Underlying all this, completely understandably, is massive public concern, which focuses particularly on especially gruesome cases. My noble friend Lord Blunkett said that, in the past, decisions on such cases have been made by the Home Secretary, reflecting—to be direct about it—public sentiment, which tended to go with those crimes that got the most media coverage at the time they were committed. Now, this discretion lies with the Parole Board, but the big problem is that the Parole Board is not really accountable to anyone at all. I welcome the Minister’s point about the role of the courts themselves, because the judge is formally required to consider factors when imposing a sentence. As we explore how we give effect to the real intention of the Bill, I wonder whether there might be some role for the courts—a judge—to take the final decision on whether a prisoner should be released in these circumstances.

[Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)]

My Lords, having not been able to take part in Second Reading, I welcome the chance to take part in today’s debate. I appreciate that we are now in Committee and therefore I will keep my comments brief.

I hope that the Bill will not disappoint, for I think it achieves something of immeasurable value. To all who have lost a loved one and who wait, day by day, if not hour by hour, to be reunited with them, it says that their son, daughter, mother or brother has not been, and will not be, forgotten. It gives victims dignity and it reassures their families that they are not alone in their quest to lay their loved one to rest. This might seem small comfort, but, in the circumstances, it is an important message to relay.

The families’ needs are paramount, and I fear that, despite the best of intentions, Amendment 1 could end up causing further distress. Irrespective of the fact that a “no body, no parole” rule does not allow for potential miscarriages of justice, should it be open to legal challenge, families may find that their suffering is in fact made worse over time. Given that they have already suffered in ways we cannot possibly imagine, I know that this is something we would all wish to avoid.

More generally, I hope noble Lords will not mind if I take this opportunity to welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the statutory obligation for the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of children featured in the taking and/or making of indecent images. I declare my interests as set out in the register as someone who works with the victims of child sexual abuse as part of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I work on the Truth Project, which runs parallel to the inquiry and was set up so that victims could come forward and tell their stories—so that after years, very often decades, of not being listened to, they could finally be heard. While their experiences are, of course, different, the effects of abuse are all too often the same: lack of self-worth, guilt that this was somehow their fault, lives gone unfulfilled and people’s futures fundamentally changed through no fault of their own.

I would argue that, as a society, we are still coming to terms with the reality of child sexual abuse, so I welcome that the Bill acknowledges the very real harm that these indecent images can do. That is a big step forward and another way in which the Bill offers crucial support for victims and their families. I thank noble Lords for allowing me to make these extra comments. I hope that we will pass the Bill unamended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis]

No, I simply wished to observe that we could not hear a word that the Minister was saying the first time around, but he was extremely clear the second time and I thought he gave a very effective response.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to reply to the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

As the process of time at which the second assessment has to be made is very different to the original assessment by the trial judge, for which the prisoner will have been punished, it seems that this is pre-eminently a matter for the Parole Board having regard to all the factors that were before the judge, and all the evidence and other factors that are before it. In reviewing decisions of the Parole Board, my experience has been generally that it sets about matters of this kind with great care and takes into account all the evidence. I would leave the discretion to the Parole Board, subject to making it very clear what is put forward in the proposed amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I do not think that any further amendments to the Bill are required.

[Lord Adonis]

I have nothing to add on this group.

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

I have listened to what has been said in the debate so far with considerable interest. I am afraid that I was unable to attend Second Reading, but I have read the transcript of it with particular interest, and I am bound to say that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had to say then was particularly important. I have been helped in my consideration by what has been said in the debate today.

We start off with the fact that anybody who knows victims who have been put in the position of those who were the sponsors of the legislation which we are now considering knows that what they had to go through because they were not able to find out what happened to their deceased relative causes the greatest anguish. They certainly deserve to be protected from suffering any more anguish than is absolutely necessary. The question before us is: what is the best way to achieve the redress to which they are entitled, bearing in mind the practicalities of our criminal justice system?

I was also very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, and his reference to a Newton hearing. That deserves important attention, because it is a way of achieving the best possible result when this sort of problem has to be considered. The prisoner should know that if he is voluntarily failing to disclose information that he has, there is a risk that he will suffer a substantial increase in the period for which he is detained. That is the most likely thing to produce the result that anyone must hope for. And if that be so, the question is: what is the best way to achieve this in a just manner? It has to be done in a just manner, because if it is not, there is a danger of making the prisoner, quite undeservedly, the subject of some concern and sympathy.

That brings me to the Newton hearing, because I believe this is best left in the hands of the trial judge. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said the same thing—indeed, so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The judge has been listening to the trial and he knows the facts of the trial, so for him to deal with it is ideal. Otherwise there can be difficulty. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said about the sort of problem that could arise indicates why it could be important for the judge to deal with it. If he told the defendant that he was going to deal with it, there could be a Newton hearing in public, in which the victims would see that the matter had been investigated properly, and have the judge’s knowing response to what was causing them concern.

If at the end of the trial there were any reason for a prisoner to say, “I can’t recall”, or “I can’t give you information because I didn’t deal with what happened at that stage”, people would hear it, and hear the prisoner being questioned and cross-examined about it. The relatives of the deceased, too, would hear that process being conducted, so they would know that it had been fully investigated. If, as I believe would happen in most circumstances, the judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was erecting a smokescreen to try to hide what he was doing, which was so malicious, the judge would find the matter, and in due course it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, be taken into account by the Parole Board.

It has been suggested that that should be done much nearer the time of the questioning being considered by the Parole Board—but I suggest that a better time would be not later in the day, when all sorts of other matters can arise to muddy the water, but immediately after the trial. The record on Newton hearings is very good; they have resolved problems where facts have needed to be resolved, and that is a process which can be conducted fairly.

It is also important that the situation should be one where justice has been done. If it is done in the way that would be carried out at a Newton hearing, that would be achieved. Although the amendments put forward so far may not satisfactorily deal with the situation, I suggest that there is plenty of time before the Bill becomes law to achieve what is suggested in the amendment I am addressing, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I suggest that is the sensible thing. One of the advantages of a Newton hearing is that the procedure which takes place is short and curtailed at the end of the trial.

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

Lord Adonis Excerpts

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

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, as I understand it, the amendments in this group have two aims: to curb the overbroad power to implement relevant international agreements by regulation, and to signal in primary legislation that there is no objection to giving the force of law to the Lugano convention. I support the first, which is furthered by other groups of amendments, and am sympathetic to the second. However, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Mance at Second Reading on the interrelationship between Lugano and the 2019 Hague Convention, there seems to be a question of whether we should sign up immediately to Lugano, even if the EU gives its consent, which is perhaps not a given. I would welcome the Minister’s considered comments on that.

It was good to hear the Minister say at Second Reading that the United Kingdom, should we become a party to Lugano, could drive for its amendment so as to incorporate into it the material improvements that as an EU member state we did so much to help deliver in the form of the recast Brussels regulation. Speaking as a practitioner—I declare an interest as a practising barrister—and as a former member of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, with some awareness in both capacities of the defects of the Lugano convention, I suggest that we not only could do so but should do so.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer seem utterly compelling and are supported not only by every speaker in this debate so far but also by the Constitution Committee, chaired, as he said, by my noble friend Lady Taylor.

My aim in speaking is not to contribute to the specific discussion on the amendment, though I think it is overwhelming, but to comment on the Virtual Proceedings, because understanding what happens in this Committee will be hugely important to how we take forward both the Virtual Proceedings and hybrid proceedings afterwards. I hope that I can be permitted to comment on what is happening, as I will at later stages of our discussions, because this will be so important to the Procedure Committee in deciding how to take forward our proceedings hereafter. Of course, the noble Lords and the officials doing that will read the record; it is important to have in Hansard what is happening at these key stages.

I want to make three points that have occurred to me already. First, it is not clear to people taking part in these proceedings who exactly is in the Committee. At the moment I can see only a handful of faces. After the Deputy Speaker calls people to speak, they suddenly appear from nowhere on my screen. It is very pleasant to see them appearing but it is not at all clear who will appear next. I cannot see the Minister at all; I assume that he is in the Committee, but that is not evident on the screen. My second key point is that is it a bit haphazard as to whether people can be followed, depending on the quality of audio and visual equipment.

Thirdly, I flag up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about Report. My understanding is that it will be possible to table amendments exactly as tabled in Committee on Report, because we cannot vote in Committee—a hugely important point. In the discussion in the Chamber last week about how Report would be handled, the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition gave an almost categorical undertaking that we would not have Report until we had a hybrid House, so that it is possible for Members to participate in the Chamber and we can have the usual cut and thrust that we have in the Chamber, particularly when we are dealing with legislation and technical points.

I simply make the point that, from my observation of proceedings so far, it is essential that Report takes place in the Chamber and we should not have Report for this highly important Bill until it is possible to have the hybrid proceedings in operation.

[Lord Mance (CB)]

My Lords, I support the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. At Second Reading, I described this Bill as, by its own lights, a sensible measure, but said that its lights were rather dimmer than the halogen welcome given to it by the Explanatory Notes. I took some issue with Clause 2. The reality is that we are grasping in the half-light for whatever instruments we can find to replace the full toolkit of the Brussels regulations—including I and II, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred—which were in existence when we were members of the EU. This has been apparent ever since the House of Lords European Union Committee’s 17th Report of Session 2016-17, Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses?

In some areas, such as divorce jurisdiction, there seems to be simply no substitute in sight. In others, Clause 1 identifies three limited instruments, each in its own right very sensible. The second, the Hague choice of court convention, would protect the exclusive choice of court clauses in favour of UK courts, which are so important to the United Kingdom’s financial and business markets. The protection would be increased if the UK also signed up to the 2019 Hague Convention, which my noble friend Lord Anderson referred to and the Explanatory Notes mention as a possibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

On that point, of course I accept that Lugano does not go as far as Brussels Ia and IIa—Brussels restated. We are all well aware of that. As regards the interplay between Lugano and the Hague Convention 2019, one has to bear in mind that Hague has not been signed or acceded to by the EU. We do not know if or when it may intend to do so. Indeed, it is noteworthy that it took the EU 10 years to sign and accede to the Hague Convention 2005. On the other hand, Lugano is there and available as a convention. A number of noble and learned Lords have acknowledged its importance in the context of private international law. Therefore, it is appropriate that we proceed with Lugano at this stage.

[Lord Adonis]

I took the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lord Foulkes to mean that he did not recognise the constitutional doctrine that international treaties could take effect in UK law only by primary legislation. I took him to speak of “recent precedents”. Can he tell the Committee what those recent precedents are?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I mentioned them earlier in my observations with regard to the 1920 and 1933 Acts, which, by Order in Council—not even a statutory instrument—can draw these matters down into domestic law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

My Lords, I will make two preliminary points. The first echoes what has been said in many of our proceedings so far this afternoon. Perhaps not surprisingly, as a member of the Constitution Committee, I do not think that Clause 2 should be in the Bill, for all the reasons already outlined both in committee reports and by a number of your Lordships in debates on earlier groups. I have not yet been persuaded or heard any argument to the contrary, so my primary position is that Clause 2 should not be there.

The second point is that, where these amendments relate to jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it is a question not of whether it should be done but of how. In his response to the first group of amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave some good reasons why, as a matter of public policy, there should be certainty in the arrangements, for argument’s sake, for enforcing a Scottish court’s order in England, as there would be for enforcing an English court’s orders in France. Therefore, it is a question not of whether there is merit in having some kind of intra-UK arrangements but rather of how it should be done.

During Second Reading I reflected briefly on this and referred to the briefing from the Bar Council. It is perhaps worth going back to it and reminding ourselves what it said in relation to the provisions in Schedule 6:

“The question, however, whether to apply an international convention’s rules between parts of the United Kingdom is often a very difficult one. Where it is to be applied, extensive amendments to that convention are often appropriate, (an example being the provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which apply a substantially modified form of the European Union rules to intra-United Kingdom cases). The Bar Council is concerned that schedule 6 does not provide sufficient safeguards in this respect and considers that it should be amended to provide the requisite clarification.”


I endorse that. It is not a question about whether it should be done. We have heard that, for example, in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 there were requirements to amend or change the rules for intra-UK cases.

It is also important to note that we are giving powers to the national authorities—not just the United Kingdom Parliament but to Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers. As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected if I have not noticed something —these regulations would be brought in without any consultation between the different Administrations. There is no doubt that private international law is a devolved matter as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned, but negotiating international treaties does not affect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and it seems to make some sense that there should be some negotiation, or at least consultation and discussion among the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, before regulations are brought forward. As far as I can see, neither Clause 2(2) nor Schedule 6 makes any provision for that.

My position is that it is not a question about whether it is right and proper that there should be intra-UK arrangements but rather that what is proposed in the Bill does not provide adequate safeguards about how that should be done.

[Lord Adonis]

I have nothing to add to this discussion.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, the question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness is about how legislation should be made regulating implementation between jurisdictions within the UK and between the UK and other relevant territories. It seems to me that Clause 2(2) and (3) and Schedule 6 infringe the principles of devolution, particularly in the lack of provision for consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland, as he pointed out. They also infringe the autonomy of the other relevant territories. For those reasons it seems to me that, in addition to the general reasons about the width of Clause 2 and the points already made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, we will support amendments such as these on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

is very welcome in its reference to consent. When I made contributions on the withdrawal Bill I tried frequently to introduce the word “consent” without any success, so to see that word here is music to my ears. One must be thankful for small mercies. However, I cannot help thinking that Clause 2(7)(b)(ii) should not be in the Bill at all. If it is to be kept in, I would be grateful if the Minister would say, first, why mention is made here of the Secretary of State at all; secondly, how that is compatible with the provisions of the Scotland Act; and, thirdly, why the expression “Minister of the Crown” is not being used here instead.

[Lord Adonis]

I have nothing to add on this group.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I am of course speaking as a Welshman. We have a very limited interest in the provisions being discussed, but I have some questions. Since the time of Henry VIII, who has a great deal to answer for, the jurisdiction of England and Wales has been merged. Only in very recent years has there been a suggestion that Wales should have its separate jurisdiction. We are one of the three jurisdictions that will be subject to the Bill’s provisions; we go along with England. I would like to know whether there is any prospect of consultation with Welsh Ministers about what provisions are being brought into effect, because private international law covers such a wide range of things. It has particular relevance to family life in Wales as much as anywhere else. Will there be any consultation? If so, what will it be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, I have nothing to add to the points succinctly made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.

[Lord Adonis]

I have nothing to add.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton]

I have nothing to add.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, this matter has been so fully covered by the speeches already made that I have little to add other than my full support for what has been said. I hope very much that we may be able to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, before the Minister speaks.

I do, however, wish to emphasise two points. First, I refer to what I said in support of Amendments 7 and 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. The lack of clarity about whether it is the Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State who are to exercise the powers referred to in Clause 2(1) and Clause 2 (2) is surely an indication, among others, that this Bill is seeking to do too much. The umbrella phrase “any international agreement”—I stress the word “any”—indicates that it is intended to catch a wide variety of international transactions and model laws relating to private international law. At present, with the possible exception of Lugano, we have very little idea of what they might be. It seems likely, however, that they will not be many. The pressure on Parliament, if we were to proceed by way of public Bills and not statutory instruments, would be quite limited. It is therefore hard to see why we are having to go down this road at all.

Secondly, there is no sunset clause in the Bill. I could understand it, although I would not like it, if the Bill were designed to deal only with measures that needed to be enforced before the end of the implementation period or shortly afterwards. But without such a clause, the Bill is entirely open-ended; committing all international agreements and model laws to the statutory instruments procedure, as a permanent feature of our laws whatever they may be, seems to me to be a hostage to fortune.

[Lord Adonis]

It is very clear that the Committee is overwhelmingly against the Government on Clause 2, although we hope that the Minister will reflect further before Report. Assuming that the Government stick to Clause 2 on Report, it is clear that the House will want to debate it further and, probably, divide on it.

I turn to the procedural issues that are raised thereby. First, although we pay tribute to the officials and the remarkable technical team who have managed our proceedings—and done so, I would say, to the efficiency limits of the technology available—our reflection on the last few hours is that it has been patchy at best. We have not been able to hear in this debate from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, one of our most distinguished Members, and I could barely hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, another of our distinguished colleagues, when he was speaking earlier. I do not think we would find it acceptable in any other circumstances to proceed to a vote or a decision of the House while key Members were being silenced and were unable to participate in the debate.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred earlier to the interchange between Members, which of course is necessarily reduced when we are online, but perhaps I may also draw attention to something that has become very clear in this debate. We need to separate the ability to vote online from the process of debate that leads to votes. Clearly, we cannot have a Report stage until it is possible to have a reliable system of voting online. I hope that our colleagues on the Procedure Committee—I think that my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who is here, is one, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—will bring to the attention of the committee an issue that has become very clear in this debate: the big divorce between the ability to participate online, which is extremely restricted, and the engagement of the House as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

As regards the UK-US negotiations, I say only that I am not in a position to comment on how far they have gone, or on whether they have engaged the issue of private international law at all.

[Lord Adonis]

Perhaps I may add to my earlier contribution to the Committee, since it looks as if we will vote on this issue on Report. We are all agreed that it is a hugely important constitutional issue.

The House of Commons, which has been conducting its first online votes this afternoon, has descended into complete chaos on its latest vote. I can report to the Committee that on what was, I think, the third vote it held—after its Members had had an opportunity to get to know the system—there were 22 Tory rebels, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, who accidentally voted the wrong way. The Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, pointed out that some MPs are struggling with the new electronic voting system but, she added, there was no need to rerun the vote because there was a majority of 51 for the Government.

I will point out two things for the benefit of our colleagues on the Procedure Committee. First, there is no natural government majority in the House of Lords, so how are we to know whether people have voted the wrong way accidentally? The constitution of our country could be rewritten because people did not understand the system of voting. Secondly, although I have the highest regard for all our colleagues in the House, if Members of the House of Commons are struggling with the new electronic voting system, it is fair to say that some colleagues in our House may also struggle with that new system.

I see not just a flashing orange light but a flashing red light about moving to electronic voting at any early stage in our proceeding, and certainly on a matter as grave and serious as this. If this were to be our first vote and it descended into chaos, as in the House of Commons, nobody could say that we were not warned.

Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 28th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, we all share the distress of the victims of the appalling crimes which have given rise to this Bill, and I associate myself with all the remarks that have been made in that regard. However, the key speech of this debate was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, about how much the approach taken in the Bill changes things in practice. As he rightly said, all the Bill does is impose a statutory duty in place of the current requirement on the Parole Board to consider these matters in any event.

That being the case, will the Advocate-General tell us what difference in practice the Bill will make to the operation of the system? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, made the point very well that, given the public importance of these issues and the huge emotive and personal importance to the relatives of the victims, having a process in open court and creating a new statutory offence seems a more logical and justifiable way forward.

Perhaps I could ask a related question. Since it appears that this Bill does not change the way the Parole Board operates, might it be possible for relatives of the victims in question to address the Parole Board? Given that in the Bill Parliament is seeking to highlight one particular factor among others which the Parole Board must consider when deciding on release and the significance of that factor, might victims be allowed to address the Parole Board directly? Can the Minister say whether that was considered by the Government—and, if it was considered, why it has not been allowed?

Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [HL] (Law Commission Bill)

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Hansard)
Tuesday 11th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to join in congratulating the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett. She made what has been, in my time in the House, the briefest but most authoritative maiden speech. I can see why she has such an impressive record as a judge. We are extremely fortunate to have her in the House for the future.

Clearly, the arguments for this Bill are overwhelming. They have been made by the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and all other noble Lords who have spoken. We look to the Minister to facilitate the passage of this Bill so that we can get on with the substantive Bill. It says something about the complexities that we are dealing with that it takes a prior Bill to get to the consolidation Bill to bring about the reforms that we want. This further demonstrates the need for these pieces of legislation. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that in a sample of sentences, 36% were found to be unlawful, which is truly shocking. As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hallett, said, for a nation that prides itself and exhibits itself to the world in respect of the rule of law and setting high standards, that is not acceptable.

I hesitated to speak, because these points are agreed among us, and because this is a debate dominated by very experienced judges and lawyers. However, fortified by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, who took us into courts martial in the 18th century, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, who talked about the wider principles of sentences and outcomes, I will make a few wider remarks. To the lay person coming into this field, the fundamental issue is not the operation of the law—although clearly that needs to be improved—but the outcomes. To anybody looking at this from the outside, the fact that in the last 40 years the prison population has doubled, the average length of sentences has significantly increased, and concern about crime and recidivism has not improved in society, proves that we are out of step. I hesitate to say it in this company, but Scandinavia and other countries have lessons to teach us on how to manage crime in society. We are way out of step with those societies in the numbers that we incarcerate and the lengths of sentences. The question must be asked—and if not in this debate, there needs to be an appropriate time—what are we going to do about it? Are we going to let this continue?

I look at most of the things we did when I was a member of the same Government as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer with great pride. In most areas of public policy, we left things better at the end than at the start, but I do not look back with any pride at the fact that we had a larger prison population at the end of our time than the beginning, nor that we had a criminal justice system that evidently was not working better. My noble friend recited a long list of statutes which have been passed, making the point that the law on sentencing has changed virtually annually in the last 30 years. What struck me as I listened to the debate and read the material relevant to it was that very few of those statutes have taken a wide-ranging and comprehensive view of sentencing. All of them, except perhaps the Criminal Justice Act 2003, have been incremental reforms to sentencing, in response to issues of public concern and often not dealt with in the best context. They have not been properly co-ordinated and have added to the complexity of the statute book, which the noble and learned Baroness referred to. They have all had the effect of ratcheting up, bit by bit, the prison population and the length of sentences.

The question I wish to put into the debate—I came here partly to form views as to how we might tackle the problem—is: how are we going to address this wider issue? The noble Lord, Lord Bates, did it by reference to wider moral principles, which I fully respect, and he referred to Michael Gove’s speech. However, we are legislators—we should obviously be guided by moral principles but we also need to have regard to how we can change the law—and we need an opportunity to get to grips with the issue of sentencing and its relationship to crime and public confidence in a comprehensive way. I am not sure how we can do it—clearly, this Bill is not the appropriate vehicle—but we need a process which gives a comprehensive view of sentencing at large.

I thought I had an answer as I listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, referring to the committee he chairs. That committee is not directly relevant to this issue but it prompted the thought in my mind that, as we are currently looking for new subjects for Select Committees of the House—ad hoc committees—to examine, it would be fit and proper for the issue of sentencing at large to be examined comprehensively by a Select Committee of this House. Perhaps the noble and learned Baroness, in the new duties she is going to undertake in this House, could play a prominent part in that, given that she has more experience in this field than anyone.

We have a duty to society at large to undertake this exercise at some point. It may be that doing it in parallel with the sentencing code being put on a statutory basis in the legislation that follows this would be an opportunity to do so. There is certainly no body in Parliament or the country that is more fit to undertake this exercise. I put the thought to the Minister and other noble and noble and learned Lords that the time has come for us to seek to address what should happen to sentencing policy and to give our advice to Parliament and the public at large.

The facts are stark: we have a prison population that has doubled, we are seriously out of step with international opinion and best practice, and the prison estate is in a scandalous state. Given the reports of the prison inspectorate that come forward month after month, if any other field of public service—I have significant experience of education but one could look at any of the others—was addressing reports of this kind, we would close down those institutions immediately. Obviously, we cannot close down prisons because we have to have places where we can incarcerate criminals. However, the time may have come when we need to take a comprehensive view of this issue and a Select Committee of this House might be the way to take it forward.

Northern Ireland (Executive Formation) Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 15th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

The noble Lord chided the number of lawyers taking part in this debate. I have certainly practised law, but, if I may say so, and with great respect, what he has just said shows how little he understands the law of which he has complained.

To turn back to the thread of what I was going to say, I have spent 34 of the past 36 years of my life as a Member of one and then the other of these two Houses of Parliament. I listened to the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Anderson with great attention. I must tell him that I am extremely reluctant to vote for his amendment because, as a parliamentarian of 34 years, I do not like to see the rules of the two Houses of one of the most distinguished Parliaments in the world used as part of a parlour game—as devices.

But then I listened to the noble Lord, Lord True, and, with great respect to him, I realised that the true democrats in this debate are the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Newby, and the noble Viscount Lord Hailsham, who tabled this amendment. My reluctance is overcome by my wishing, as they do, to sustain the law and sustain—I use that word advisedly because I am not ashamed of using it—the traditions and democratic role of this Parliament, including the role played by your Lordships’ House.

I fear that what is being advised to the Committee by the noble Lord, Lord True, and what appears to be in the mind of Boris Johnson, is to drive a carthorse through parliamentary procedure and simply leaves the debris as an acceptable part of what occurs. It shows that they do not understand the fundamental constitutional nature of the referendum and the process that followed it. It was not the duty of this Parliament simply to leave the European Union just like that. It was the responsibility of this Parliament, having been advised by the population in the referendum to attempt to leave the European Union in a way that did not destroy the economy or the political structure of this country. In my view, that requires the attention of Parliament to the very end, not the frustration of the law.

If I have to, I will reluctantly vote for the amendment, but it could all be resolved so simply. All Mr Johnson has to do is to pick up the telephone—with a witness or maybe several witnesses present, I hasten to add—and say to the noble Lord on the Front Bench, “I have been very badly misunderstood. I give a clear undertaking that I will not prorogue Parliament so as to frustrate the very purpose for which it exists”. Then I would not have to vote reluctantly for something that I do not really like.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the critical issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would not answer in my noble friend’s question, is whether he actually favours Prorogation. It is important that we get to the substance of the issue, which is very clear. Is it a responsible or legal act, in the view of the two Houses of Parliament, to ban Parliament from meeting to discuss the affairs of the nation in September and October? That has never happened before. The noble Lord, Lord True, said that there have been Prorogations in October. But there is a long-established convention to this effect. Prorogations are for a few days before the new Session of Parliament. The Library has produced a note that lists them all. They are of five days, six days or three days. In one case, it overlapped with the Whitsun Recess and was for 20 days. They have been of 12 days, seven days and three days—always for the purpose of preparing for a new Session of Parliament.

The noble Lord referred to the supposed controversy of 1948. There was no controversy in 1948. The two Prorogations to create the additional Session required by the Parliament Act 1911 lasted one day each. There was no controversy about the Prorogation. Of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said, there was controversy about the nationalisation of iron and steel. That was because the Conservatives did not want it and Labour did. It had been in the Labour manifesto and Labour sought to implement it. But there was no controversy about the terms of the Parliament Act 1911.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, laid much emphasis on motive. The motive was to prevent the House of Lords blocking the nationalisation.

[Lord Adonis]

The motive was to pass a new Parliament Act amending the Parliament Act 1911 under its own provisions. An absolutely legal procedure was followed. It was pursued on the instruction, no less, of a huge majority in the House of Commons because it followed the 1945 election.

All these points are entirely spurious. The issue that the Committee needs to address is whether it is acceptable for Parliament to be banned by the Government from meeting in October when there are urgent affairs of state to be debated; namely, Britain’s membership of the European Union and what policies will be pursued in that regard. I am absolutely amazed that any parliamentarians think it appropriate to ban Parliament from meeting as a way of overriding what might be the will of Parliament if it does meet.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

The noble Lord is talking nonsense. I do not believe that Prorogation is an issue. He is quite right when he says that Parliament can change the law, but I do not believe there is either a majority or the time to change the law before 31 October. In doing so, many people would lose their seats, just as he failed to win his in the recent election because of his position.

[Lord Adonis]

That is a very silly debating point if I may say so. The key issue is that he said that he did not think Parliament meeting in September and October was a concern. In that case, what on earth are we arguing about anyway? The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is seeking to establish in law that Parliament must meet in September and October. If the noble Lord agrees with that, why on earth are we having this argument in the first place?

The only other point that needs to be made—Boris Johnson is clearly considering this, otherwise these stories would not be running and we would not be in this situation—is that it would be a grave constitutional crisis if a Government were to ban Parliament from meeting for two months, for the whole of September and October. That is what would be involved. There is no modern precedent for that happening and no precedent in the past century for Parliament not meeting in October.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Unless he calls a general election.

[Lord Adonis]

I think my noble friend is referring to 1974. I have looked that up. Parliament met at the end of October 1974, having had the election. There is no precedent for Parliament not meeting in October. There is no precedent in Britain for a controversial use—a use that would not be generally accepted by most parliamentarians—of the prerogative of Prorogation since 1831, when William IV prorogued Parliament at the request of Earl Grey to prevent the frustration of a Dissolution, which was so radically different a case from the one we have today that it is not comparable. The only case that I can see in any of the Dominions that corresponds to the situation we face now is from Canada in 2008. The then Canadian Prime Minister advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. All I can say, having looked at the circumstances of that case, is that it was bitterly controversial. The Governor General thought long and hard about whether to accede to the advice of the Prime Minister. It was immediately after a general election, when the circumstances were very different. If Boris Johnson is thinking of dragging Her Majesty into a controversy as deep as would be involved in banning Parliament from meeting in October, he will be doing a massive disservice not only to Parliament but to all our institutions of state. I hope he does not go there.

[Lord Goldsmith (Lab)]

My Lords, I think it is fair to say that this has been a robust debate. Obviously, I support the amendment to which my name has been added and oppose Amendment 7A, proposed by the noble Lords, Lord True and Lord Forsyth, which would wreck that amendment.

I will deal with the arguments that have been raised against this amendment. I shall start with the first of them, which is that it is inappropriate in the context of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that the question of what parliamentary oversight and intervention are possible in relation to Northern Ireland is of the greatest importance. The Bill as it stands proposes, rightly, that reports will be published about the progress towards the formation of an Executive in Northern Ireland. Should Parliament not be there to receive those reports, to debate them, to consider them and to make recommendations on them, that would be the consequence of stopping Parliament sitting during that period.

I note that David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, said only the other day:

“We have lacked that ministerial voice in Whitehall that has championed the cause of Northern Ireland”.


So to find that Parliament was not sitting just at the time when the issues with which this Bill is concerned were coming up would be a great tragedy. So it is very much an issue which Northern Ireland should be concerned about.

But of course it is broader than that. The debate has made that very clear. The argument that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, started with must be right. If what we are talking about is the possibility that Parliament will be banned from meeting and expressing views during the critical period when we are leaving the European Union—I accept of course that the Bill says what the date is, but it is open to Parliament to do something else if it chooses to do so—to say that Parliament should not be there at that stage is a constitutional impropriety and would be a great assault on our current constitution.

It is said, and it is argued by the opponents of this amendment, that it is there to frustrate the will of the people in relation to leaving. Well, it cannot do that. Nobody suggests that it can do that. As one of those who signed the amendment, I do not suggest that it does that. What it would do is make sure that Parliament was there at the time that decisions were being made so that we did not have a situation where at the time of one of the greatest decisions this country has made in recent times there was simply an Executive and no Parliament to oversee or control them. That would be the greatest assault on the constitutional traditions of which I am so proud, as are so many Members of this House.

As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, knows, I admire his debating skills and his opinions, but he has not responded to the question put by my noble friend. I hope that when the Minister gets to his feet he may be able to give a clear answer on whether in fact this can all be brought to an end by a statement that there is no risk and that there will be no Prorogation. Unfortunately I expect that that is outside his power—and I see he is nodding. I suspected that was the case, and we all know why that is so. That would be an end to this debate. As it is, with that uncertainty as to whether Parliament will be allowed to sit during that critical period, we have to do something to allow an opinion to be expressed about that. The gambit would not be doing this; the gambit would be making sure that Parliament was not there at a time of crucial national emergency. That would be the constitutional gambit.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord True, on a speech that succeeded in insulting everybody in this House: the Liberal Democrats for not being the party that supported leaving, obviously my Front Bench and me—I fully expected that—his former leader, Sir John Major, for what he said, and others as well, including his current leader, as I have just been reminded. But be that as it may; he is entitled to do that and to take those views. But what he said in attacking the judiciary and the rule of law was completely off target. I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on this. The judiciary is indeed unelected. I remember losing an important case in the House of Lords—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, may have been on the other side; he is nodding both enthusiastically and with a smile on his face, so I would guess that he enjoyed the victory—precisely because the House of Lords said in answer to my arguments, “No, we are not unelected. We are there to carry into effect the law, even though that is something that the Government do not want to happen at this particular time”.

Having had the privilege of serving in that role, I know what the rule of law means. You have to defend things in front of an independent and sometimes critical judiciary. Sometimes you persuade the judges and sometimes you do not. However, it is absolutely critical to our democracy that they remain and are not attacked in any way.

Where does that leave us? I was struck by the remark by the noble Lord, Lord True, that the judiciary were not elected, so should not have a say. Of course, the people who are elected are in the other place. We are talking about making sure that those in the elected place are there to express the views that their constituents—the people of this country—believe are right. That is what should happen. This debate can be put to an end by whoever becomes the leader of the Conservative Party in the coming days making it clear that that will not happen—but until then, I respectfully say that this Committee should take the step of following the House of Commons by saying, “We should pass this amendment to make sure that Parliament is there and doing its job when Brexit comes around”.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Adonis]

9: Clause 3, page 2, line 21, at end insert—
“( ) The report under subsection (1) must include a report on the improvement of higher education provision in Northern Ireland and the establishment of a university whose principal campus is in Derry/Londonderry.”

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, a few moments ago, the noble Lord, Lord Empey, said that the great and the good had fled the Chamber. I leave him to speak for the great but, as far as the good are concerned, there is no purer good in society than education, including higher education. The issue I bring before the House is the state of higher education in Northern Ireland. It is in a very unsatisfactory condition. This would not normally be a matter that detains this House, because the Northern Ireland Assembly would be sitting and the Executive would be coming forward with proposals, but it is now two and a half years since the Executive met. Two and a half years is a large part of the time that pupils are educated for. Two and a half cohorts of students had the opportunity, or lack of it, to go to university, so I make no apology for raising the issue in this House. Each year that we delay dealing with higher education provision in Northern Ireland is a year that many thousands of young people are denied the opportunities they should have. It is right that, in the absence of an Assembly and Executive in Northern Ireland, Parliament directs its attention to this issue.

The issue is simple. There is an inadequate number of higher education places in Northern Ireland. This is a long-standing issue, but it has been getting progressively worse as education participation has risen across the United Kingdom. There are 50% more undergraduate places per capita in England than there are in Northern Ireland, and one-third of all students who have a Northern Ireland residence are studying outside Northern Ireland at the moment.

I have had the pleasure of going to Northern Ireland a great deal recently and talking to young people. Apart from Brexit, which I have mostly been going to discuss, the issue they raise with me all the time is inadequate university provision. There are not enough university places and people are put off going to university because they are unable to go locally. Most people, particularly the most able students, feel they need to leave Northern Ireland to get a higher education.

This general problem is in crisis in Derry, because there is no university with a dedicated campus there. There is one campus of the University of Ulster, the Magee campus, which has a historic mission and has existed in Derry for a century and a half. But it has a tiny number of places and is not being expanded as it should. I have gone through towns and cities of a comparable size across the United Kingdom, and not detected one anywhere with fewer higher education places than Derry. It is true that some other towns and cities of a comparable size in England, Scotland and Wales do not have a dedicated university, but even where they do not, they have campuses of other universities which provide far more places than in the case of Derry.

I was initially surprised by this because I am not versed in the history of Northern Ireland, but as I got into it, a very sorry story was revealed. In the 1960s, the Lockwood commission was engaged in deeply controversial issues as to where the second university in Northern Ireland beyond Queen’s University Belfast should be located. I am afraid that it was a straightforwardly sectarian division of opinion. One part of the community wanted—

[Lord Kilclooney (CB)]

I was a Minister in Northern Ireland during the period. The committee was headed by Lockwood, who was an English academic. He produced a report on a second university for Northern Ireland; he recommended not Londonderry but Coleraine. Runner-up to Coleraine was the city of Armagh. It was not a sectarian decision; it was made by an impartial English academic. It is slanderous to suggest that he was sectarian.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, the statement just made by the noble Lord would be deeply contested within Northern Ireland. One has only to look at the literature and the debate there. I respect the noble Lord’s point of view, but it is deeply contested.

As the noble Lord said, the decision was taken to locate the second university instead in Coleraine, a small town. The decision of the Lockwood committee was to close the Magee campus, but the then Northern Ireland Government thought that it would be a step too far. There was a modest increase in the number of places at the Magee campus, but no major new departments were located there—on the contrary, there was a reduction in their number. This has been a long-running issue since.

When I went to Derry, the business community and young people said to me that the single decision which would do more than anything to boost the economic and social life of that city would be the location of a dedicated university, for which there is masses of space, alongside an expansion of the number of places in the city by the University of Ulster.

These decisions are simply not being taken, but it is worse than that: the decision on the table to locate in Derry medical places at the University of Ulster has now been entirely stalled by the absence of an Executive and an Assembly. There are no medical places in Northern Ireland outside Queen’s University Belfast. The great city of Derry has no capacity to train doctors or medical staff to degree level, because there is no provision at the Magee campus of the University of Ulster.

The story becomes worse than that when one delves into the situation. A decision has been taken to expand the University of Ulster, which has campuses across Northern Ireland, but the greater part of the expansion is taking place not in Derry but in Belfast, with a hugely expensive relocation of the Jordanstown campus to the city centre—it is costing more than £200 million.

I raise these issues which are not being debated and discussed in Northern Ireland because there is no Assembly and no Executive. They are of huge concern.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I declare an interest: I taught in the University of Ulster. I hesitate to interrupt, but one reason for the Jordanstown campus being relocated to Belfast is that the building infrastructure is not capable of being sustained and is not safe.

[Lord Adonis]

There may be very good reasons for such decisions being taken, my Lords, but that does affect the fact that there is no increase in the number of places in Derry. The focus of the University of Ulster is not in Derry. Its headquarters are in Coleraine. The big expansion in which it is engaged is in Belfast. Belfast is the only place in Northern Ireland that has an adequate number of higher education places. This issue is being systematically unaddressed.

As I have said, in the normal course of events, this matter should be addressed by the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly; it is not. It is tragic for Northern Ireland that it is not. Each year where it fails to be addressed means that more young people have opportunities denied to them. It is therefore essential that this Parliament addresses the issue, particularly in the context of the economic and social situation in the city of Derry, which I think most noble Lords would agree is deplorable at the moment.

Derry has the highest unemployment rate in Northern Ireland and the lowest employment rate. Indeed, it has the highest unemployment rate of any city in the United Kingdom. When I met leaders of the business community in Derry, they said that the single decision that could do more than anything to boost job creation, confidence and the location of new businesses in Derry would be the building of a dedicated university in that city. So I think it is right that we address this issue. For as long as there is no Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, this is going to be a burning issue of concern in Northern Ireland.

I look forward to the Minister’s assurance on two points if direct rule is going to continue for any length of time—and despite the assurances given earlier today, it looks perfectly possible that it may continue for some substantial period. First, will the Government unblock the decision about the creation of medical places in the University of Ulster’s Magee campus in Derry? Could that not be taken forward next year? What is stopping that decision? Secondly, if direct rule continues beyond September, as appears likely, will the Government give an assurance that they will look at the expansion of university places in Northern Ireland as an issue of urgency, so that more young people do not have opportunities denied to them? I beg to move.

[Lord Empey]

My Lords, I was the Minister responsible for further and higher education for some three and a half years and I had to deal with what is now Ulster University at some length. I visited Londonderry on a number of occasions. The Magee College was formerly sponsored by the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. Ultimately, it became a campus of the University of Ulster, as it was then called. Various pressure groups were formed, including one called U for D—University for Derry—a group of local businesspeople and others who were trying to promote a more substantial campus on the site. The university authorities talked to my department and we looked at sites and various options. However, a whole range of other factors has to be taken into account.

Northern Ireland has had the highest participation rates in university education by people from disadvantaged backgrounds—in excess of 41%, the highest in the United Kingdom. However, we must remember that a very significant number of students are not able to obtain their education, simply because of the curricular availability in two universities in one Province, and a number of people will inevitably move to other locations for higher education. That is not necessarily a bad thing: people need to broaden their horizons and they cannot all be kept locally. I believe it is important to bear that in mind, but for a population of our size to have multiple universities covering the spectrum that is needed in the current circumstances is a very big ask.

The other thing to remember is that the council and authorities of the university came to me with their own plans. I went to visit the Jordanstown campus and as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said, it was absolutely clear from all the professional advice we received that the buildings were in such a condition that it was not economically feasible to modernise them. They were built in the 1960s, they were out of date and the reports were very clear that it was not possible or economically feasible to rebuild or modify them on that site. Consequently, the university decided that it wanted to push itself into the Belfast region: we are talking about a distance of eight or nine miles further towards the city centre of Belfast. My department supported it in doing that, but it was its decision, not ours—it was not forced. The council of the university and the vice-chancellor said, “This is what we want you to do for us”. We gave them the first tranche of money to start the work on their campus in York Street in Belfast, which is now in an advanced stage of construction.

To deal with the particular issue in Londonderry, there is substance to what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, says. I strongly support, as I know my colleagues in the Assembly do, the proposal for medical students to be taught up there, because there is a shortage of medical staff throughout the health system in Northern Ireland. I have referred to it many times in this Chamber and we will be doing so later, so I totally support it.

There are funding constraints, as is always the case. I also point out that it is not simply about higher education. We have rebuilt the further education estate throughout Northern Ireland—it has been a herculean task. That was ongoing, and we must remember that not everything can be confined to higher education: we have apprenticeships, and a whole range of other areas to cover. If we had more money, I suppose that we could do more things, but we must remember that we cannot determine precisely where a student will go. We kept our fees suppressed, not at the £9,000 level that they are in England; they are probably approaching £4,000 at the moment. That was a deliberate decision to try to make higher education more attainable and affordable.

I support the fundamental point that the noble Lord makes about doing more up there to broaden the range of courses that can be taken. I did support it, I think that there is widespread support in the Northern Ireland Assembly for putting the medical students up to Londonderry, and I would support it. He must remember that there is a supply and demand issue here. The number of students who could be generated in the immediate vicinity of the city of Londonderry is limited, and not all students want to go to university in their own backyard. Young people want to explore, go further and see different things.

We must also analyse potential demand. That is a primary job of the university. It must determine where it is getting its students from. It was made very clear to us what it wanted to do. It said: we want to rebuild our Jordanstown campus and put it in the centre of Belfast. Will you support us or not? It was not a question of Londonderry versus Belfast—that option was not open. It had made its decision. I believe that it should now proceed to support the opening of the medical facility in Londonderry. I would support that—it makes sense, it gives the city a bit of a push—but we must bear in mind that decisions on these matters were taken by the university itself, not by the Government.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Empey, in their support for the proposed medical school in Derry, which appears to have complete cross-party support. If the Northern Ireland Assembly were up and running, from everything I have heard and seen, it would be progressing as of now. It is the lack of an Assembly that is the block. When I raised this previously, the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, said that the Londonderry city deal might contribute to it, but the question is whether that is completed or whether an element of government ministerial input is still required to enable full delivery to take place.

This is just another example—the noble Lord, Lord Empey, probably has a list as long as both his arms—of where problems arise. As I said, I have visited the Magee campus. It was an interesting visit given all the things they are doing there, including impressive work on artificial intelligence. As far as the university is concerned, the building is available, it is anxious to move forward and it is frustrated not because of a lack of support—or even, in principle, because of a lack of money—but because of exactly the reason we are stuck here: the lack of decision-making capacity in Northern Ireland.

Can the Minister tell us anything encouraging as to whether steps can be taken that do not immediately depend on the re-establishment of the Assembly or, alternatively, add another bit of pressure to re-establish the Assembly?

[Lord Adonis]

I greatly appreciate what the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Empey, have said in respect of the medical school, but does he accept that the issue goes much wider than that? The number of university places in Derry has declined since 2014 from 4,658 to 4,313. That is the lowest figure by far in any of the 15 towns and cities across the island of Ireland that have higher education provision. Does he agree that there is no reason whatever why Derry should be so disadvantaged in the provision of higher education places?

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised important issues and I am grateful to him for doing so. I appreciate having again a short debate with him on higher education matters, here on a very specific issue. I recall from previous debates that the noble Lord has visited Northern Ireland, so it acts as a bit of a link when he raises these matters today.

Higher education, and indeed education services as a whole in Northern Ireland, have been raised in various debates in the House over the past two years. It is clear that education is an important area that needs strategic decisions on future reform. That is vital to ensuring that all children and young people in Northern Ireland have the opportunity to fulfil their full potential. On the issue of establishing a university in Derry, I am aware that the city and the wider north-west has a pool of talent to be nurtured, and I know of the excellent University of Ulster Magee campus in Derry city centre. I am also aware, as I believe are a number of noble Lords, of plans potentially to establish a medical school in Derry, as mentioned today. I am keeping a close eye on the progress of this proposal in the context of delivering the Government’s commitment to a Derry and Strabane city deal. However, while I know that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, knows this, measures to improve higher education, such as to invest in a new medical school or university anywhere in Northern Ireland, are devolved matters. It is this Government’s fervent hope that Northern Ireland’s political leaders can see their way to agreeing to restore the devolved institutions so that locally accountable leaders can take the strategic policy decisions needed to make progress. The noble Lord, Lord Murphy, has spoken eloquently on these points. Perhaps I may reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State is making every effort to ensure that the ongoing talks process is a success.

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, made a point about there being not enough university places in Northern Ireland, a point of which I think the Committee has taken full note. I am grateful for the views put forward about the situation on the ground by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. That has been helpful to the Committee. Higher education provision is crucial to ensuring that we have the skills for the future and opportunities for our young people. They should have the choice to study at universities across to UK.

As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, pointed out, there are two universities in Northern Ireland: Queen’s and Ulster. Ulster University has several campuses, including the Magee campus where a range of courses are offered, including in professions such as law and accountancy. As mentioned, Queen’s University runs a medical school, and discussions on a medical school at Magee are ongoing.

Decisions on places are a matter for the government department in Northern Ireland. As this is a devolved matter, I will not purport to be able to significantly enlighten the Committee on the substance of the important issue that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has raised. But in light of its importance—here I am for once on the same side of the fence as the noble Lord, Lord Adonis—I am happy to accept the amendment and to commit to reporting on progress on the issue.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, that is an extremely constructive response on the part of the Minister, and I welcome it. It is a significant step forward and gives us the opportunity, on the basis of a good, factual account of the situation, to debate the future in autumn in the event that there is not an Assembly and Executive. If there is, that report will no doubt be useful for them too. However, may I just clarify a point of some significance? In the event that there is not an Executive or Assembly in the autumn, under this Bill and the continuation of these powers do the Government have the power to proceed with the establishment of the medical campus in Derry on their own account?

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My understanding is that they do not, but I will write to the noble Lord to clarify that matter.

[Lord Adonis]

I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could do that. In the light of the assurance he has given, I do not feel the need to prolong the debate any further. I beg to move.

Amendment 9 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Deben]

Of all the parties in the country quoting public opinion polls, I should have thought that the Liberal Democrats should be particularly careful. I am not prepared to take public opinion polls—although I would point out to her that nearly 70% of the women of Northern Ireland and more than 65% of all people in Northern Ireland say that this should not be something that the United Kingdom Parliament decides.

So we can all bandy polls, but 2016 is a much more recent democratic decision than the democratic decisions that we have made. We are simply suggesting that, in order for the people of Northern Ireland not to feel that we are dictating to them in areas that are specifically their own, we should have proper discussion and proper concern for their views—and if that is not a Liberal view, I cannot think what is.

[Lord Adonis]

Before the noble Lord sits down, he is an extremely reasonable person, but surely he is missing the fundamental issue: for how long can people be denied fundamental rights simply because there is not an Assembly sitting in Northern Ireland? Of course, we agree with him about the virtues of devolution, but for how long can people be denied those rights simply because it is not sitting? It is two and a half years so far and the clock is ticking. Most reasonable people would think we are reaching the point where Parliament has to intervene if the devolved institutions are not there and working.

[Lord Deben]

I say to the noble Lord: that is in fact what is in the amendment. It enables that consideration to be done; it enables that conciliation to be done in the sense of giving people the chance to say what they think. There is a date on it and I remind him that I said in my own speech, as elegantly and delicately as I could, to the Government that I was not sure that the kind of oomph that we ought to have behind the attempts at the restoration of normalcy in Northern Ireland was there and I hoped that it would no longer look as if it was lacking. So I am not sure that we are very far removed. We are talking about making a decision but with the full respect of the people of Northern Ireland, either through their devolved Assembly or, if they do not have a devolved Assembly, through a form of discussion and understanding which means that people feel it is their decision and not ours.

Northern Ireland (Extension of Period for Executive Formation) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the issues raised in this order are serious and indeed grave. It will not have escaped the House’s attention that there is no representative from Northern Ireland in the Chamber, as far as I can see—which rather brings home the gravity of the situation we are talking about and the need to get the devolved institutions working. Clearly it is not satisfactory that these issues should be determined in the absence not only of one part of the community of Northern Ireland, which alas is always the case in this House and in the other place, but frequently in the absence of any representatives from Northern Ireland at all.

In respect of the way forward, those of us who do not follow the politics of Northern Ireland day by day were under the impression several months ago that the Government were making progress in agreeing with the parties in Northern Ireland for there to be a mediator. However, nothing appears to have happened since. I am sure that a lot has happened behind the scenes, but certainly nothing has happened in public. Can the Minister give Parliament some encouragement that this might happen? He will have heard clearly a real sense of concern around the House that weeks will turn into months and years, the status quo in Northern Ireland will remain that of no Executive and no sitting Assembly, and obviously there will come a point where the situation simply breaks down.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister may feel that there is an element of Groundhog Day about this debate—but that was a comedy and this situation is becoming increasingly tragic. I echo all the speeches expressing concern about the lack of progress. We need, through the Minister, to press the Secretary of State for some more positive signs of action and creative, imaginative thinking. Neither the Government nor this Parliament have any real credibility as honest brokers in this situation. The Government, as has been said, are perceived, frankly, to be under the thumb of the DUP. Everybody knows that when one deals with the DUP, they do nothing without exacting a price, whether it is visible or invisible. As the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, whether or not anything is happening, the perception is that it is—and indeed, looking at the practice, it would not be surprising for people to have that perception.

As has also been said, this Parliament has little credibility, because the majority of the parties in Northern Ireland are not represented here. This also makes the possibility of direct rule almost unthinkable. How can Ministers accountable only to this Parliament be at all credible as brokers of direct rule on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland when the people of Northern Ireland have very little representative voice?

Judicial Pensions and Fee-Paid Judges’ Pension Schemes (Amendment) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his careful exposition of the scheme and for the quotations from the report, which the Lord Chancellor made to Parliament, detailing the consultation. We cannot consider this interim proposal—this carry-over proposal—without reflecting that it is part of a complex situation with judicial pensions which causes a great deal of anxiety. Whenever you inquire of those involved in carrying out recruitment to the judiciary or of those who are applying, a number of issues are mentioned, such as the state of the court estate, but pensions come up every time, because of the bizarre and convoluted nature of the system which has resulted from the changes that have been described. The changes produce really bizarre situations where relatively junior members of the Bench find themselves with greater entitlements than those who have served for a number of years. One of the results of this is a deterrence to recruitment. In some cases, there is an incentive for retirement because some are better off retiring than remaining in the scheme.

In extending the present contribution rate for the next year, a number of things have to happen, including litigation. One can only express the hope that pensions cease to be a disincentive to recruitment, because the recruitment problems of the judiciary affect the ability of citizens of this country to obtain timely justice—quality is maintained, but timeliness can become a problem. They also affect the substantial export earnings of our courts and of the legal services which surround them. They are therefore pretty important. As I said, you cannot get into any discussion about judicial recruitment without the pensions issue arising. It would be good if the Government could sort that out.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, is it correct, from my scanning of the web as to what the dispute before the Court of Appeal, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, is about, that the taxpayer could potentially face a bill of upwards of £750 million if this case is lost? It seems to me to be an extremely high figure. I assume it is a calculation to do with the massive additions to pensions that would be required if all judges got the transitional relief which, at the moment, is only going to be afforded to a small proportion.

My second question makes an obvious point for somebody who is not a lawyer or a judge. Am I right in assuming that the judges who will sit on this case are adjudicating on their own pensions? In no other walk of life would that be considered a satisfactory arrangement. Will the noble and learned Lord tell us whether that is the case? If it is the case, what is the protection against judges simply, to be blunt, ruling in their own self-interest?

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, before my noble and learned friend answers that difficult question, I wonder whether he can help the House on a general question about judicial pensions and eligibility. Judges must now retire at the age of 70; there is strong feeling abroad that this often wastes judicial talent. In other fields, people often peak at 70 so a retirement age of 75 may be far more suitable, given that the same retirement age applies to magistrates, jurors and other people given the task of determining matters of justice.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, I am obliged for the contributions that have been made. I note the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I acknowledge that pension issues have created very real issues about recruitment, particularly to the High Court Bench. That is something of which we are conscious and have in mind and under consideration going forward. The whole question of the terms and conditions on which we seek to appoint the judiciary is critical, and I acknowledge the need to ensure that we maintain a judiciary whose expertise and integrity are regarded as pre-eminent. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, touched on the value—if you can put it that way—of legal services in an export sense. It is estimated to be in the region of £4.5 billion, so it is a significant matter in that context alone; but of course, it has a much wider resonance and importance than that.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, observed, those hearing this matter in the Supreme Court are not impacted by the transitional provisions we are concerned with in the McCloud case and the related Miller case, which is still to be heard. In any event, I remind the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, of the judicial oath and the confidence maintained in the integrity of our judiciary, which is entirely justified.

Regarding the potential cost of the McCloud decision, it is a matter of speculation. It does not refer just to judicial pensions; it is also relevant to firefighters.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I am an avid reader of the Law Society Gazette, which says that £750 million has been provided for in the department’s own accounts as an insurance against the loss of this case. Is that correct?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am not in a position to comment on that figure, but if the noble Lord is concerned about it, I will write to him after seeing what the position is in the accounts, as I do not have them to hand.

The issue of the age of retirement has been debated, and we are conscious of it. Many noble and learned Lords who find themselves retired from the Bench are able to make a convincing contribution to the affairs of this House for many years after their retirement, and it seems in one sense unfortunate that we cannot harness that expertise on the Bench as well as off it.

This is a purely interim measure, pending the final valuation which will follow the decision in McCloud, and we will therefore be taking forward the question of contributions as soon as that valuation process is completed. There is a wider interest—expressed, for example by the noble Lord, Lord Beith—in the whole question of these pension reforms, and it is underlined by the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. We have a scheme, we are implementing it and taking it forward, but this is an interim measure to maintain contributions, not to increase them.

Motion agreed.

Cross-Border Mediation (EU Directive) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Government—in the event that we have a withdrawal agreement—will enter into negotiations on our future relationship with the EU, and that will include a desire to ensure that we have addressed the full panoply of judicial co-operation issues that exist at the present time. We cannot say unilaterally that we will secure all of those, but clearly we have an interest in carrying on that negotiation. That is why, at the end of any implementation period, it may be that we can simply revoke these instruments without them ever having to be applied.

The instrument relates to mediation, which is, as noble Lords will be aware, a structured process whereby the parties to a dispute attempt on a voluntary basis to reach an agreement to settle their dispute with the assistance of a mediator, but without a court needing to rule on the dispute. In the civil and commercial fields, such a dispute covers a wide range of contractual and other issues, but also touches on family issues such as access to children.

In 2008, the European Council agreed what it termed a “cross-border mediation directive” which sought to harmonise certain aspects of mediation in relation to EU member states’ cross-border disputes. I should note that the directive does not apply to Denmark, so when I refer to “member states” in this context, I am not including Denmark, which has an opt-out under Protocol 22 of the Lisbon treaty. The aim of the mediation directive is to promote the use of mediation in such cross-border disputes. An EU cross-border dispute can be one between parties who are domiciled, or habitually resident, in two or more different member states, or it can be a dispute where judicial or arbitration proceedings are started in a member state other than the one where the parties are living or domiciled.

The United Kingdom then enacted domestic legislation which gave effect to certain aspects of the mediation directive. I say “certain aspects” because, in many areas—such as ensuring the quality of mediation, and information about mediation for the public—our existing arrangements already met the requirements or standards set out in the 2008 directive. However, in order to implement the directive, the UK had to introduce some new rules for EU cross-border mediations involving UK parties. These new rules first specified that if a time limit, or limitation period, in domestic law during which a claim could be brought in a court or tribunal expires during the mediation process, the parties can still seek a remedy through the courts or tribunals should the mediation not be successful. Secondly, the new rules defined the rights of a mediator, or someone involved in the administration of mediation, to resist giving evidence in civil or judicial proceedings arising from information disclosed during mediation. Various changes were also made to court rules to supplement these changes and to implement the requirements of the mediation directive relating to the enforceability of agreements resulting from mediation.

Under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, the legislation implementing the mediation directive is retained EU law upon the United Kingdom’s exit from the EU. However, should the UK leave the EU without an agreement on civil judicial co-operation, the reciprocity on which the directive relies would be lost. So, even if we were to continue to apply the enhanced EU rules to EU cross-border disputes, we would be unable to ensure that the remaining EU member states applied the rules of the directive to cross-border disputes involving parties based in the United Kingdom, or to judicial proceedings or arbitration taking place in the United Kingdom.

Accordingly, and in line with the Government’s general approach to civil judicial co-operation in the event of no deal, this instrument will repeal, subject to transitional provisions, the legislation that gives effect to the mediation directive’s rules on confidentiality and extension of limitation periods. It amends the relevant retained EU law in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, and in Scotland in so far as it relates to reserved matters. Separate instruments will amend the related court rules in England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Other legislation implementing the directive is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Government, and I understand that they have decided to bring forward their own legislation in this area.

This instrument is necessary to fix the statute book in the event of a no-deal exit. We have assessed its impact and have published an impact assessment. By repealing the domestic legislation which gave effect to the mediation directive, we will ensure clarity in the law applying to mediations between UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in EU member states. We will also avoid a situation where mediations of an EU cross-border dispute conducted in the UK are subject to different—and arguably more favourable—rules on confidentiality or limitation than other UK mediations.

As I indicated earlier, the instrument will change the rules applying only to what are currently EU cross-border mediations, and then only in two respects: time limits and confidentiality. On time limits, claimants involved in such mediations who no longer have the benefit of an extended limitation period would, if they wanted more time to allow for mediation to take place, have to make an application to the court to stay proceedings and would have to pay a fee. We are unable to assess how many cases this would affect. Limitation periods can extend from three years, to six years, to 10 years in some instances, and can either bar a case from being brought or extinguish the claim in its entirety. They are extensive periods in any event, but they may be impacted by these changes

Overall, the instrument will ensure that, post exit, UK-EU mediations are treated consistently under the law with mediations between UK domiciled or habitually resident parties, or UK parties and parties domiciled or habitually resident in non-EU third countries.

I have set out to deal with the issue of EU cross-border mediations because, without a deal in place on 29 March 2019, such mediations involving UK-domiciled parties would no longer be subject to the mediation directive rules in EU member states. The regulations now moved will fix deficiencies and ensure that both the courts and UK citizens have clear and effective rules to follow in such circumstances.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

One of the most difficult issues that we grappled with during the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill was child abductions and disputes about child custody. I assume that this affects that issue; can the Minister tell us how? The single most disturbing aspect that came out of that is that it might be harder to deal with cross-border issues of child abduction after Brexit. I am keen to understand whether this maintains the status quo as far as possible. Does this mean that effective remedies will be available to the court to deal rapidly with issues of child abduction?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

First, this instrument is not concerned with the role of the court: it is concerned with the role of mediation outside the court. Secondly, it is not usual to discover mediation as a form of resolving a child abduction case. The very nature of an abduction is such that the parties are not amenable to agreeing a voluntary mediation to resolve the matter. We have already made provision for civil orders in relation to child abduction.

With regard to criminal orders, it is impossible to replicate the existing provisions of EU law because, under the relevant provisions of EU law, an EU court would not recognise an order from a UK court in any event, and therefore it would give false hope to a party to grant them an order that was not enforceable. Overall, therefore, my answer to the noble Lord is that mediation does not impact directly on the sort of issue that has been raised. We recognise the importance of trying to ensure, as far as possible, that there are means of enforcing child abduction orders. The only qualification if we leave without a deal is that there would be no right of the originating court to make an order that trumps the order of the court in the country to which the child has been abducted. That is simply because in the absence of reciprocity, it is not possible to make such an order enforceable. Otherwise, my understanding is that we will be able to proceed.