Prison and Probation Service

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I also express my appreciation for the outstanding speech of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and thank him for introducing this debate.

I propose to address only one point, already raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath: the question of recalls to custody. Let us concentrate on that for a moment. In the past four years, recalls to custody of prisoners released under licence have more than doubled. As has already been pointed out, in the last year there were 51,000 recalls to prison; that exceeds the number of persons sentenced by the courts to prison, which was 47,000. For the first time, recalls now are greater than persons going to prison in the first place. A recall rate of 50,000 represents a rate of about one in five of those under supervision. As the charity Nacro points out, in 2017 the rate was about one in 13. Have we seen an increase in risk in the last 10 years? What is going on here? There is no evidence of increase in risk, but now, according to Nacro, for every 10 beds freed up by the release of a prisoner, nine are refilled by recalls to custody. This highly regrettable situation threatens seriously to undermine the Government’s early-release scheme. As has already been pointed out by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, what is the point of early release if it is followed by a recall?

Clearly, the present situation also greatly complicates the management of prisoners within the prison system. As already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster, it is costing the prison service around £750 million a year—surely money better spent on supporting prisoners on licence in the community. But the most devastating effect recall can have is on the prisoner concerned, including perhaps the loss of employment, loss of accommodation and, most importantly, destruction of any progress there may have been towards rehabilitation. This total interruption of the process of rehabilitation was rightly emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, and by all noble Lords who have so far spoken.

Those of us who have been around for a while will remember that 20 or 30 years ago, in admittedly very different circumstances, the culture of the Probation Service was that recall was a last resort. Indeed, it could be regarded as a sign of professional failure to have to recall someone who was under one’s own supervision. Today, for whatever reason, the culture seems to have swung 180 degrees in the other direction: recall has become the first resort, not the last.

I fully accept that the problem is very difficult, but there are only three possibilities. The first is that the prisoner was not properly prepared for release, was not properly looked after once released, or that post-release support was inadequate. An important case in point is if the prisoner is recalled because of homelessness, a point already raised by noble Lords. That seems to be a major factor. According to Nacro, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Foster of Bath, last year 15,000 released prisoners were homeless on the day of release. What hope have we got? What hope do they have of remaining out of the prison sphere? So, lack of preparation or lack of support for prisoners in the community is the first thing.

The second possibility is that the licence conditions are too tough, inappropriate or not tailored to the needs of the prisoner concerned. Are we holding prisoners to licence conditions they are not capable of achieving—that are too heavy, that are not properly designed—given the lack of support, the mental health problems and the drug problems? These were emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke. In all these circumstances, the Chief Inspector of Probation has criticised “excessive licence conditions”, imposing on people obligations they cannot meet. Both those points amount to setting prisoners up to fail. What chance have they got if they are not properly prepared and the licence conditions are too onerous?

The third possibility, however, is risk aversion in the Probation Service. It is right to bear in mind that the service has, over the years, lost many experienced staff, is understaffed and is managing huge caseloads in very difficult conditions. Some 73% of recalls are for breach of licence conditions. There is widespread concern that those recalls are often triggered by minor or trivial breaches of licence conditions. Recalls should be primarily for reasons of public safety and not for minor breaches of licence conditions. There should be stronger rules and clearer guidance on this point. I ask the Minister: is the dramatic increase in recalls in recent years a matter of concern for the Government? What are the reasons for that increase, and what are the Government doing to tackle those underlying causes?

Finally, I add my own welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Leveson of Liverpool, to whose maiden speech we are much looking forward.

Public Office (Accountability) Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st September 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I too warmly welcome the Bill and pay tribute to all those who fought so hard to achieve it. If I may immediately pick up the point just made so forcefully by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford: how are we going to make the change envisaged by the Bill effective? It is undoubtedly necessary, but not yet in itself sufficient. Although this is indeed a milestone, we are not yet at the destination that everybody wishes to see of deep cultural change. How are we going to get there? I would like to confine myself to just two aspects of this challenge: one is public inquiries and the other is how to make the duty of candour effective.

Astonishingly, we have no fewer than 26 public inquiries currently going on in this country. But as the Institute for Government report of December 2025 pointed out, that system of public inquiries is itself suffering from “systemic problems”, including cost, delay and failure to deliver change. As your Lordships’ own Statutory Inquiries Committee reported in 2024, in particular there is a failure to follow up on public inquiry recommendations, and that means that avoidable mistakes are constantly repeated. Therefore, I agree with the Institute for Government, which suggests that this Bill is a first step in the reform of our public inquiry system. There should be a clear system of consistently following up on inquiry recommendations, including by a committee of both Houses—or, failing that, a committee of this House—so that everyone is clear what steps are being taken to avert future tragedy. In particular, if recommendations are not implemented, why not?

I turn to the second aspect: how do we make the duty of candour effective? It is all very well to pass a Bill and to threaten a criminal prosecution, but how are we actually going to change the culture? In the debate in the other House, the right honourable Sir Jeremy Hunt lamented that he himself introduced into the NHS a duty of candour more than 10 years ago. He pointed out that that change in itself has had very little effect: we have still seen a series of national health scandals, with the Nottingham maternity scandal being only one of a number of examples. Similarly, there is already a statutory duty of candour on the police, but incidents such as the recent Maccabi incident in Birmingham do not suggest that that duty of candour is yet particularly effective. As the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, pointed out, just having codes is not enough; we already have plenty of codes. What are we going to do about this?

I suggest that changing the culture will be a matter of leadership, as many of your Lordships have pointed out, but it will not be easy, in particular—as the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, reminded us—as we are dealing with the complexities of human nature. Loyalty to one’s institution, hope, fear of losing one’s job, and the inability to accept that one is oneself at fault are all factors that play into the problem we are addressing.

I have no immediate answer, just one or two questions. Should we build into the system not only the threat of a criminal prosecution but some better reward and recognition that integrity, truthfulness and honesty are very much the right thing to do, so people start to think that they will get the pat on the back, as it were, and public approbation? As well as a duty of candour, a duty of praise, if you like, is the other side of the coin. Does our own system discourage candour? Has our culture of blame gone too far? Is our system too adversarial? Are we trying to pillory people when we should be trying to learn lessons for the future? All these are very important questions.

I fear that a criminal prosecution, or some criminal prosecutions, may indeed be necessary in order to make the point. Just passing the Bill, in itself, while very necessary, will not quite get us there; a great deal of thought needs to go into how we manage the psychology of this situation. I suggest that, to ensure that the Bill actually brings about change, and to monitor progress, a committee of this House should undertake post-legislative scrutiny not more than three years after Royal Assent, so that we get a good view of what is going on and we continue to chase and pursue the very important change that is necessary. This is a very good Bill, but whether it turns out to be a great Bill depends on the follow-through in which the Government and Parliament, and in particular this House, have a crucial role to play.

Holding the Line Against Tyranny and Anarchy (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the matters we debate today are both sombre and urgent. They are sombre because, as the committee’s report highlights, the challenges faced by the rule of law in contemporary society are very grave. To give only one example, the then Lord Chancellor said in evidence to us that the justice system

“is not worthy of the name ‘justice’”—

surely a breathtaking condemnation of the present state of affairs. They are urgent not least because the evidence to the committee suggested widespread public disillusion with the surely basic idea that the laws that protect us all will actually be enforced and evenly applied.

Today I will highlight the rule of law as experienced by the ordinary citizen in daily life. As the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to whose chairmanship I pay my personal tribute, has indicated, the “rule of law” as a phrase does not just mean protection against the arbitrary power of the state, vital though that is; it is essential to the everyday functioning of a peaceful and orderly society. Every citizen is expected to obey the law, and the counterpart—the compact, the bargain, that underpins the whole of society—is that those who do not obey the law must be held to account. But, as others have said, if that does not happen and laws can be broken with impunity, public confidence in the very idea of a society governed by the rule of law is weakened, leading ultimately to the anarchy referred to in the title of the committee’s report.

As the committee highlighted, the widespread public perception that laws against, for example, shop theft, car theft, phone theft, house burglary and fare dodging are broken with impunity is a major, insidious and, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, gradual threat to the rule of law. One could add, for example, fly-tipping, the pollution of the rivers, dodgy vape shops, online fraud, and so on, not to mention the daily spectacle of people smugglers operating with apparent impunity, as the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, rightly emphasised.

Even more important is the principle that the law must be enforced equally and fairly. If the law is perceived to be enforced unequally, that compounds the problem. In particular, as the committee points out, perceptions of bias and discrimination within the police, even if unfounded in fact, corrode public confidence in the rule of law. If we add to these matters the delays in the criminal courts, the delays in the civil justice system and the numerous difficulties of access to justice summarised in chapter 6 of the committee’s report, one can understand the current disillusion of the general public with law enforcement and the effectiveness of our legal system.

I am reminded of those opening scenes in “Measure for Measure”, when, in ancient Vienna, law and order has broken down and, in Shakespeare’s words,

“liberty plucks justice by the nose”.

Angelo is sent by the Duke to restore order, and he cries:

“We must not make a scarecrow of the law”.


It is a vivid image of a legal system that is allowed to become tattered, lopsided and ineffective.

We are not yet, thankfully, at that point. I certainly agree with the noble Lords, Lord Foulkes and Lord Waldegrave, and others, that our system is not broken. But one cannot thrust under the carpet or ignore some of the matters and threats which I have mentioned. In these circumstances, all those in politics and public life should treat the threats to the rule of law that are the subject of this debate with the utmost seriousness. Politically, justice and the rule of law have all too often been an afterthought, coming behind health, welfare, education and so on. But, in truth, the rule of law is the keystone on which everything else depends. Nurturing and protecting that keystone is a matter of the highest importance, not only morally but politically.

Earlier today, as others have already said most movingly, we paid tribute to the life of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who embodied in his office of Lord Chancellor and in his person the authority and dignity of the rule of law. Let us try to live up to the example of Lord Mackay and once again place the rule of law, a healthy justice system, fair and effective law enforcement and access to justice at the core and centre of our public life, with all the resources and attention to excellence that is required. Let us never make a scarecrow of the law.

King’s Speech

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, when we think about the justice system, let us not forget Cinderella—the family courts. It is not entirely bad news; there is some good news on this front. Exceptionally in this debate, I congratulate, if I may, the Minister, and indeed her predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, on the Government’s recent commitment to complete the rollout of what is now called the child-focused model in private law disputes concerning children. Previously known as the pathfinder scheme, and initiated by the previous Government, this new approach introduces a problem-solving, multi-agency approach in private family law cases concerning children in place of the traditional adversarial model. Recently described by the retiring President of the Family Division as one of the most important developments in family law over the past 30 years, this new approach has been shown to reduce backlogs, shorten proceedings, save costs, reduce stress and, most importantly, enhance the voice of the child in these often-traumatic cases.

But there is, as always, a “but”. I appreciate that the most difficult thing in government is to extract from the machine a commitment to achieve a certain policy aim by a certain date—in other words, to set a deadline. Has anybody ever succeeded in getting the Government to set a definite deadline by which a commitment will be delivered? None the less, my plea today to the Minister—and through her to the Lord Chancellor and the Government—is to set a deadline for the completion of the rollout of the child-focused model in the family courts. Please give the children, stuck through no fault of their own for months and sometimes years on end in the family courts, the priority they so plainly deserve.

This is a success story. It is a partial answer to those who believe that nothing works. Good public sector reform can be achieved, but the drive has to come from Ministers. I respectfully suggest that the end of 2027 for the complete introduction of child-focused family courts across the country, including London, would be a proper deadline. We are not yet even half way there. We have made good progress—and great credit to everyone concerned—but let us press on with this most important project.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Longfield, on an outstanding maiden speech and welcome her again to this House. Indeed, I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for leading this debate. In response to his invitation, I briefly say that in my view we have two fundamental problems with the court system. First, there are not enough criminal lawyers to go around—whether it is CPS, prosecution or defence. Secondly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, also said, there are many inefficiencies in the court system. If we can tackle those, we may not need radical reform.

I will take four points very briefly. Despite the recent increase in sitting days, I understand that in 2025, Snaresbrook Crown Court will still be unable to use more than 15 out of 20 courts: in other words, 25% below capacity. Isleworth Crown Court reportedly closed five courts last month, and, according to today’s Times, last Friday, only eight out of 20 courts at the Old Bailey were working. At present, the court backlog is an emergency. There is no justification in such an emergency for allowing outdated accounting rules to restrict court sittings.

On the question of costs, the court system has high fixed costs—buildings, permanent judges, staff, and so forth. But the marginal costs are relatively low: a part-time recorder’s fee is £800 a day. So, 10 recorders, sitting remotely, could do at least 50 extra court cases or directions hearings a day for less than £10,000. It is basic economics that, with high fixed costs and low marginal costs, the correct economic response is to maximise throughput—to reduce unit costs. But the present restrictions lead absurdly to the opposite result: higher unit costs per court disposal. That is not an efficient system.

More fundamentally, under the Courts Act 2003 and the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, the Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to ensure an “efficient and effective system” of courts and tribunals. Under Section 17 of the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 the Lord Chancellor takes a formal oath,

“to ensure the provision of resources for the efficient and effective support of the courts”.

That is an absolute obligation, not subject to Treasury whim or political change in the wind. So, would the Minister accept that, by virtue of those statutes, resources must be ring-fenced from spending cuts and funded properly?

Lastly, given the astonishing figure from the NAO that 27% of court trials are ineffective, as already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, does the Minister agree that although listing is traditionally regarded as “a judicial function”, the general efficiency of listing practices, as distinct from decisions on individual cases, is a legitimate subject of public debate and scrutiny by Parliament?

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

3rd reading
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

I am sorry if I am taking a little time; I hear the Deputy Chief Whip. But it is important that we should look to the future and realise that this Bill is unfinished business.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I simply associate myself, on behalf of these Benches and as the previous sponsor of this Bill in the previous Government, with the thanks that have been given to the entire team, not only to the special committee and its chair but to the civil servants who have supported the work. I thank the Government and the Minister himself, who worked very hard in the special committee, collaborated very closely with the previous Government and myself and has, as has been said, managed to bring the Bill forward again with remarkable speed. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, said, of course there is always unfinished business and we must look to the future, but we now have an extremely good base on which to do so.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I continue to be glad that this Bill has the support of so many noble, and noble and learned, Lords. As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has now enjoyed robust review and precise revision and I hope it will have swift passage through the House of Commons.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beith, for noting that we are the only two noble Lords without direct experience who took part in both this Bill and the previous Bill; he was right in saying that. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and I was remiss in not thanking Joey Topping for clerking the previous Committee stage. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, for his best wishes for the Bill.

I will address the substance of what my noble friend Lord Hacking said on arbitral corruption. Of course, we take this very seriously. We believe that it would not be appropriate to use the Bill to address these matters. However, the arbitral sector is reviewing how corruption can be better identified and dealt with. The Government will continue to support this work and push for the adoption of best practices as they are developed. I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 11th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, your Lordships will recall that on 27 March this year, when I was then the Minister in charge of the Bill, I said that I had written to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the ICC, the LCIA, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association, GAFTA, the Law Society and the Bar Council to ask them

“what measures they have in place to mitigate the risk of corruption in arbitration, whether more should be done in the sector to mitigate corruption in arbitration”,

and any suggestions they had as to

“the best way to proceed and how the Ministry … could support the sector’s efforts”.—[Official Report, 27/3/24; col. 12.]

Before I had a chance to review or indeed see any of those replies, Parliament was dissolved, so I still do not know what the replies were. I understand from the Minister in a call this morning that there is some glitch in relation to the convention about what documents an incoming Government could see if those documents arose under the previous Government. I would have thought that this was an area where continuity between the Governments, transparency and a common approach were essential and necessary. I very much hope that in the meantime, any technical glitch about the change of Government should not interfere with the tackling of this problem.

As has been pointed out, the Minister in his letter of 15 August summarised the responses in some detail, but the question remains, as has been raised by two noble Lords—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, and the noble Lord, Lord Beith—as to whether those responses should be made public, with the co-operation, of course, of the institutions concerned, from the point of view of establishing and reinforcing the reputation of the City of London and, in particular, reassuring those who wish to arbitrate in this country that the question of corruption is being addressed.

It is true that the ICC is conducting an international review of the approach to arbitration in this sector, but that review is not due to report until the end of 2025. It seems to me that there is an argument for the present Government—the Minister—to go back to the persons to whom I wrote and ask them whether they would be prepared to make public their responses, with a view to reassuring and continuing to protect the reputation of the City of London.

That said, although I think we are all with the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, in spirit, amendment to the Bill is probably not the best way to proceed at this stage. As I indicated when I was myself the Minister, I would not support an amendment to the Bill to deal with this particular matter, but I invite the Minister to give us an assurance that the Government will continue to monitor the issue, to keep in touch with the relevant arbitral institutions in London, and take such steps as the Government think fit to ensure that the arbitration scene in London is as free from corruption as can conceivably be achieved. Nothing less will do. At the same time, I also invite him to perhaps revisit the question of publishing the responses, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, have just invited him to do.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the wonderful words of the three noble and learned Lords and I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, but when I was reading theology, my then—wonderful—professor of theology said that the only way you know whether you have resolved a theological conundrum is to try to find some practical solution to your particular difficulty.

My greatest concern with the amendment is this. It talks about safeguarding the arbitration proceedings against fraud and corruption. Probably Queen Elizabeth I would have said to such a suggestion what she said to the troops at Tilbury:

“I have no desire to make windows into men’s souls”.


How do you safeguard proceedings against corruption? Corruption is in the hearts and minds of people. How do you do it? I cannot find a real, practical solution. Therefore, on those grounds, although the amendment is well intentioned, I think the burden it would put on the proceedings of arbitration is far too great, so please may we not have a desire to make windows in people’s hearts.

Arbitration Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, again I take this opportunity to welcome and congratulate the Minister on his appointment, since this is the first time that we have faced each other across the Chamber at the Dispatch Box, and our roles are now reversed. I thank him particularly for his courtesy and common sense in the previous Parliament and I am sure that that those qualities will serve the ministry and this country in very good stead in the years ahead. It is a marvellous appointment and I congratulate him.

His Majesty’s loyal Opposition support the Bill and I thank the Government for bringing it forward so quickly and expeditiously when it was so unfortunately lost as a result of the Dissolution of the last Parliament. I also take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the result we have achieved, particularly the Law Commission team and all those who gave evidence to our Special Public Bill Committee. It has been a notable example of co-operation in achieving the result that we now have.

As the Minister has indicated, although this is formally the Second Reading, it is in effect the Third Reading or perhaps even the fourth reading, since many of these issues have been much gone over and the Bill is in effect in exactly the same form that I would have had the honour to present to this House at Third Reading had the election not intervened, in particular in relation to the insertion of new Section 6A(3), which affects investor protection-type arbitrations. I would have moved that wording at Third Reading as a government amendment—it was consulted on and I approved the wording—so I am delighted to be able to support not only that clause but the Bill as a whole. Indeed, I could do no other, since the previous Government worked very hard—in close collaboration with the then Opposition and with all stakeholders—to arrive at the result that we have now arrived at.

On the Bill itself, I will ask the Minister one question about the background that I have just mentioned. I think our procedures looked somewhat absurd in the eyes of the world when we lost the Bill when we did. Can the Minister say whether the Government in due course would be prepared to co-operate with all parties across both Houses to consider the procedures and rules for carryover between Parliaments, so that we avoid similar situations arising in the future, at least in relation to Bills that are uncontentious and apolitical? I am sure the Minister would be prepared to take that under advisement, but I look forward to his reply on that issue.

On the Bill itself, this is a very technical area, and there will always be certain what ifs, or questions that the Bill does not address. The Minister has indeed mentioned one such area in relation to the situation that may arise if there is in fact no choice of seat in the relevant arbitration agreement. The position of His Majesty’s Opposition is that one cannot cover everything in a Bill of this kind, and we should have absolute confidence in our excellent judges, who are well equipped to deal with any remaining lacunae there may be. As at present advised, we support the Government’s view that has just been expressed on that particular issue—there may be others—that we would welcome possibly a further comment in the Explanatory Notes but are entirely content to rely on the Commercial Court to sort out any questions that may remain. That is indeed what judges are for.

In our view, the Bill has, for one reason or another, been delayed long enough, and should now reach the statute book as early as possible. However, there is one point that has been drawn to my attention. It was drawn to my attention only today and relates to Clause 13, which relates to the situation where one needs the “leave of the court” to appeal on a certain issue. It apparently relates or could relate to a case called Inco Europe v First Choice. As I understand it, the issue is related to the question of whether the “leave of the court” means the court of first instance and/or includes or should refer to leave from the Court of Appeal. The normal situation is that you apply for leave from the court trying the case; if you do not get it there, you ask the Court of Appeal for leave. The question is whether the Inco Europe decision—a decision of this House sitting in its judicial capacity some years ago—is fully reflected in Clause 13. I simply leave that question with the Minister; I have no idea myself what the answer is, but that is a point that has been raised with me.

In relation to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, also referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on corruption, I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his contribution today, his continuing interest in the issue of corruption and indeed his contribution to our Special Public Bill Committee. It was a great pleasure to have the opportunity to work with him, and he is by far the most experienced Member of this House on a number of these issues. At this stage, to take the point raised by the noble Lord himself, the position of the Opposition would be that it is now important that the Bill reaches the statute book. We would therefore hesitate to support further delay or dealing with the issues of corruption in this particular Bill. There are a number of important, albeit fairly technical, improvements made by the Bill, and it is quite important that those reach the statute book as soon as may be.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beith, has already said, the issue of corruption was raised before. I believe the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR has commissioned a task force to explore the issues of corruption, and in my previous capacity, I also wrote to the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, the ICC, the LCIA, the London Maritime Arbitrators Association and GAFTA, asking for their views on the issue of corruption and the Government should take this forward. I ask the Minister what replies he has had to those letters I authorised and personally wrote, and if and when the Government are able to come to a view on how we should take forward this important issue of corruption. As the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, has rightly emphasised, we cannot leave things where they are.

Coroners (Suspension of Requirement for Jury at Inquest: Coronavirus) Regulations 2024

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 2 May be approved.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, this instrument is an important part of the Government’s ongoing support for coroners’ services in their continuing recovery from the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. It extends for a further two years the disapplication of the statutory requirement for any inquest into a death involving Covid-19 to be held with a jury.

As noble Lords will recall, the Coronavirus Act 2020 removed the requirement for juries in coroner cases in many—indeed, at the time almost all—circumstances, following which the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022 provided that juries should not automatically have to be empanelled in cases involving a Covid-19 death. That provision was extendable, and the present regulations seek to extend that exception for a further two years.

I have three points to make. First, it is entirely open to any coroner to empanel a jury if he thinks fit; it does not prevent there being a jury but simply gives the coroner discretion, rather than automatically having to have a jury. Secondly, there is, as I have just said, a sunset provision as the extension is limited to two years. Thirdly, this measure helps reduce the delays that I am sorry to say are still besetting coroner services and the system of coronial inquests. I understand, on the basis of a comment from the senior coroner in the north-west of England, that for each day of a listing for an inquest without a jury, it takes a week’s listing with a jury. So, to empanel a jury automatically in all these cases, irrespective of whether you need a jury, is, in the Government’s view, somewhat excessive provided that the coroner also always has the power to empanel a jury if he wishes to.

The Government are concerned about the impact of inquest backlogs, particularly on bereaved families, and feel that this measure, if the House agrees it, will support coroners in their continuing efforts to reduce those backlogs and promote the Government’s objective of putting the bereaved at the heart of the coronial process. Of course, in high-profile cases it always remains possible and open to the coroner to empanel a jury. For those reasons, I commend the regulations to the House.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister one question in relation to something he just said about the families and the fact that coroners will have discretion. If, for whatever reason, a family wishes a coroner’s procedure to proceed with a jury, what weight would a coroner place upon that in deciding in his or her discretion whether to empanel one?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I cannot answer for individual coroners, but I would venture to suppose that such a circumstance would have great weight with most coroners.

[Lord Sandhurst (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations. It is very important that backlogs are reduced. It is very damaging to the families and, very often, to the witnesses who may have been involved in a very serious matter that has caused them grief even if they are not a direct victim. The sooner these things are resolved, the better. It is important also that, where a jury is properly required, it is not passed to one side simply for administrative convenience.

I also take this opportunity to remind the House that, as of this date, coroners are still the responsibility of local authorities. That does not lead to efficiency or proper funding and resources. I hope that it will not be too long, as senior coroners in the past have urged, before the coronial system is put on a proper national basis within the courts service.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we support this SI. We thank the noble and learned Lord for everything he has said and recognise the point he made that the coroner will still have discretion, rather than there being a requirement to empanel a jury for hearings.

I want to make a slightly different point to the other noble Lords. Everyone has quite rightly said how backlogs affect families of those involved; that, of course, is true. But there is another, positive reason for continuing with the current arrangements, albeit on a temporary basis, and that is the quality of the decision-making itself. For any witnesses who are having to wait longer, there will inevitably be a degradation in their memory. For that reason—not just the very laudable reason of trying to reduce difficulties for families—the outcomes will be better through reducing the whole coronial process of reviewing these decisions.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I understand that guidance from the Chief Coroner explains that great weight should be given in particular to the wishes of the family. I accept, as others have said, that there are very serious delays in the coronial system. The example given by the noble Baroness sounds like a highly regrettable situation and I will ask my officials to look further into it.

I venture to say that the coronial system, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has just observed, is ripe for a fairly thorough review. This division between local authority responsibility and judicial responsibility is probably not the most efficient or sensible arrangement. That is something we should do, both from the point of view of families going through a very traumatic situation of bereavement—it is very serious when things such as those mentioned by the noble Baroness happen. The point about witnesses is also a very fair and important one. This is ongoing work to tackle the delays in the coronial system and its general efficiency.

Motion agreed.

Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 29 April be approved.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations form part of the implementing framework for the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters 2019. The purpose of the convention is to establish a set of rules about whether a civil or commercial judgment made in a court of one country may be recognised and enforced in another. Without such a uniform scheme, each country’s domestic rules determine whether a foreign judgment will be recognised and enforced. This can cause uncertainty and a range of challenges for effective cross-border recognition and enforcement.

Following unanimous support in response to the government consultation, I signed the Hague convention 2019 on behalf of the United Kingdom in the Hague on 12 January this year. Once in force, the convention will apply between the United Kingdom and the existing parties, which include not only the EU but a range of other countries including Ukraine and Uruguay. The legislation now before the House is instrumental and necessary for the UK to proceed to ratification of the convention, which will proceed in due course once these regulations have been approved. Parallel processes will be in train in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Joining Hague 2019 will provide greater clarity and confidence for businesses and individuals in their disputes, reduce costs, encourage international trade and enhance access to justice. It will also provide greater predictability as to whether a UK judgment can be enforced abroad, encourage businesses to choose the UK’s world-class courts for international litigation in line with convention provisions and further increase the attractiveness of the UK for international dispute resolution. The convention will come into force for the UK just over a year after ratification, so we will be one of the early adopters of the convention and continue to be a leader in private international law. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this instrument. It is a singular achievement that we have done this. To an extent, it will remedy the EU’s refusal to allow us to accede to the Lugano Convention. As the Minister said, it is extremely important in making sure that litigants who come to this country know that their judgements will now be much more easily enforceable. I add that the Arbitration Bill which was before this House would have achieved exactly the same objectives. It is extremely important to the international position of London as an arbitration and litigation centre that we keep our law up to date.

I thank all noble Lords—the Minister, in particular, as well as the Whips and the Government Chief Whip, the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and their Chief Whip, and others on their Front-Bench team—and others in the other place for all they did to try to get the Law Commission Bill into the wash-up. A lot of loud noise was made, but it did not succeed.

I want to look forward and say that it is critical that overseas litigants who might choose London to have their disputes arbitrated, whether in contracts now or for the future, realise that this is, I hope, but a temporary hiccup and that we will find the means, with the co-operation of the Government and the Opposition, whichever roles they may be playing, and with the welcome support of those on the Liberal Benches, to go forward without having to go through it all over again. The Bill was agreed. There is one small amendment to be made to clarify something, but I hope we can get it on to the statute book as early as possible. It is a Bill that would help this country make money, and that, I am sure everybody agrees, is an imperative.

I thank the Minister enormously for what he has done while he has been in his position. As a Minister in the Ministry of Justice, he has laboured mightily on many matters, but I thank him in particular for what he has done to ensure that London stays at the forefront in the highly competitive world of dispute resolution in court and in arbitration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we on our side support the statutory instrument and recognise and endorse everything the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, said regarding the importance of recognising the Hague convention and being one of the first adopters of the new convention and, as the noble and learned Lord explained, the ratification process and the importance of the UK maintaining its status as a world leader in its courts system.

I agree with what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, about the Arbitration Bill. I well remember the Second Reading debate in the Moses Room, where the Back Bench was replete with retired Supreme Court judges—which, as the only non-lawyer taking part in that debate, was a very instructive process for me.

Every noble Lord who has spoken has really made the same point about the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill and the Arbitration Bill. All I can say is that, from my side, I also did what I could to try to get these Bills to be recognised, but, as the Bills started in the Lords, that was a problem. I recognise what the noble Lord, Lord Marks, says about improving the wash-up procedure, because these are not politically contested Bills yet they are very important for UK plc. In the future, I will very much do what I can to make sure that my political party, whatever its position, will do everything it can to get these Bills on the statute book as quickly as possible.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I particularly thank those who have been kind enough to express personal regards in remarks about me—to which I would respond only that no one operates individually and I have a wonderful team in my private office. I have magnificent officials in the Department of Justice. I have very strong ministerial colleagues both in this House and in the other place. We work as a team and it is that team that keeps us, as it were, in orbit and it is to them that one owes the warm thanks of this House.

The main point made by all noble Lords is to express unanimous disappointment, regret and frustration at the loss of the Arbitration Bill and the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill. I can only agree with those sentiments and express the profound hope for both those measures, particularly the Arbitration Bill, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, where so much work was done was done by the special committee, at Second Reading and elsewhere that it would be an enormous regret and a very serious black mark on our processes if all that had to be done again.

I very much hope that, whatever Government is in power, that Bill, in particular, is brought back as soon as possible and that we are not defeated or held up in any way by inflexible and archaic procedures. The same applies with equal force to the litigation funders Bill. With those brief comments, I commend the regulations.

Motion agreed.