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.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 32 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32A in lieu—

32A: Clause 18, page 18, line 25, at end insert—
“(3A) After section 51 insert—
“51A Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
(1) The Commissioner may request a relevant person to co-operate with the Commissioner in any way that the Commissioner considers necessary for the purposes of the Commissioner’s functions.
(2) A relevant person must comply with a request made to the person under this section, so far as it is appropriate and reasonably practicable for the person to do so.
(3) In this section “relevant person” means a person who is not an individual and is subject to the duty in section 5(A1) of the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 (duty to provide services in accordance with the code issued under section 2 of that Act).””

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

My Lords, with the leave of the House, in moving Motion A I will speak also to Motions B to H.

It is a privilege to bring the Victims and Prisoners Bill back to this House from the other place, whence it has returned in relatively good shape. I am grateful to Members of both Houses for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the Bill, especially on this last stage of its passage. I again thank all the officials at the Ministry of Justice for their hard work on the Bill. The other place has made some amendments, which I will consider in turn. I hope they will not be controversial. I will take them in what seems to me to be a logical order, which is not necessarily the alphabetical order in which they now stand in the Motions.

Lords Amendment 33, which is the subject of Motion B, seeks to require training to be provided to those with obligations under the victims’ code. Of course, agencies should, and do, have training in place to deliver the legislative duty to act in accordance with the code, but that training must be tailored to the specific function that each person is discharging, and agencies are best placed to do that. As it would place an additional burden on the Secretary of State to implement a strategy of training, we consider this amendment would be costly and inefficient. It would not be proper for an amendment from the Lords to place financial burdens on public authorities.

We also consider that the more effective approach, as has been committed by the Government in the other place, is to include a requirement for agencies to report on the adequacy of their code training as part of evidencing delivery of code entitlements. This gives us a route to identify and address ineffective training if it has led to non-compliance with the code. For those reasons, the Government do not support the original Lords Amendment 33.

Lords Amendment 47, which is the subject of Motion E, seeks to establish a firewall and prevent the police sharing data relating to immigration status with Immigration Enforcement. We disagree with this amendment because it would be inappropriate to impose a blanket restriction on the use of personal data in the circumstances to which the amendment relates. It would not prevent the perpetrator informing Immigration Enforcement about the victim’s immigration status, and it would impact on the ability to investigate crimes and support victims.

Leaving those two amendments aside, the Government have today brought forward a number of other amendments in lieu. I turn to Amendment 32, which is the subject of Motion A and concerns the duty to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. We have accepted the principle of the amendment put forward, which would place a duty on relevant authorities to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner when requested. Again, I am pleased to see my noble friend Lady Newlove in her place today. We hear the strength of feeling that a response to the Victims’ Commissioner as they do their important work should not be seen as a favour and that there should be clear, open co-operation as an integral part of enabling the independent scrutiny that victims deserve.

The Government’s Amendment 32A makes a few minor changes to Amendment 32. First, it extends co-operation further than simply assisting the commissioner in monitoring compliance with the victims’ code. Instead, it requires co-operation in relation to any of the Victims’ Commissioner’s functions, including promoting the interests of victims and witnesses. Secondly, it adds important safeguards to make it clear that any co-operation must be not only practical but appropriate. This protects against, for example, potential interference with activities that are rightly independent, such as when exercising prosecutorial discretion. Thirdly, it future-proofs the clause by putting this duty on the agencies that deliver services under the victims’ code, rather than including a specific list of bodies that may become out of date over time.

I turn now to Lords Amendment 35, which is the subject of Motion C. This amendment disapplies Clause 18 in relation to devolved matters in Wales. Only yesterday, I think, I explained the devolution position as regards Wales. We are seeking to amend the measures that relate to the issuing of guidance about victim support roles, which now form Clause 18. Victim support roles operate across different settings, some of which are devolved. The Senedd did not grant legislative consent for this measure as previously drafted. I am therefore putting forward an amendment so that the duty to issue guidance applies to England and reserved matters in Wales only, and have consequently removed the requirement to consult with Welsh Ministers on “any” guidance issued. I am grateful for the constructive discussions that have taken place in relation to the important principles that sit behind this clause, which aims to improve the consistency of support services provided to victims, and am confident that we can continue to work together so that victims have this consistency across England and Wales wherever possible.

I now come to Motion F, which concerns the amendment on the duty of candour. Lords Amendment 54 seeks to place a statutory duty of candour on all public authorities, public servants and officials after a major incident has been declared in writing by the Secretary of State. The Government entirely share the desire to see an end to unacceptable institutional defensiveness, dissembling or what can perhaps be described as an economical approach to the truth. However, we are unable to accept the amendment in its current form as it would not sit neatly on top of the existing frameworks; it is ill suited to replace what already exists, both in the context of major incidents and beyond; it fails to take into account the nuances of different professions in the spheres of the public sector; and it would entail significant legal uncertainty. The area is complex, and we believe that it would be unwise to rush forward with this amendment for these reasons.

Therefore, we have tabled Amendment 54A to require a statutory review to determine whether additional duties of transparency and candour should be imposed on public authorities and public servants in relation to major incidents. This review will need to be completed by the end of the calendar year, and, following the completion of this review, a report will need to be laid before Parliament.

I come to Motion G, which concerns the MAPPA amendments. In effect, government Amendment 99A replies to Lords Amendments 98 and 99, which relate to MAPPA. Amendment 99A would ensure that those convicted of controlling or coercive behaviour who are sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment will be automatically subject to management under the MAPPA arrangements, thereby ensuring that we are effectively managing and targeting the most dangerous domestic abuse offenders.

The previous amendment to the Bill was tabled in the other place to add domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators to those who qualify for automatic MAPPA management. While there is a legal definition of domestic abuse, a domestic abuse crime does not exist with the exception of controlling or coercive behaviour. Therefore, although well intentioned, this amendment would still have required criminal justice agencies to decide on a case-by-case basis whether an offender is eligible for MAPPA management and consequently would not quite have achieved the intention to reduce or eliminate any scope for local discretion.

There are already provisions in place that require offenders on licence to live only at an address approved by probation. All offenders released on licence are further subject to standard conditions, and there are numerous additional licence conditions that can be imposed to address specific risk factors. Those conditions also allow for information to be collected and used to manage the risk. The previous amendment would have added little to public safety but could result in a significant pressure on resources.

Offenders who perpetrate other forms of domestic abuse, such as threats to kill, actual and grievous bodily harm, attempted strangulation, putting people in fear, and stalking, including fear of violence, serious alarm or distress, are already automatically managed under the automatic MAPPA of sentence to 12 months custody or more. Adding the additional offence of controlling and coercive behaviour will ensure that the most harmful domestic abuse offenders will be automatically covered by these arrangements. These changes mean that these offenders will be automatically managed under MAPPA in the same way as those convicted of sexual, violent or terrorist offences. This is crucial, as controlling or coercive behaviour is a known risk factor for domestic homicide. Treating these offenders in the same way as the most violent offenders is critical to improving the safety of domestic abuse victims.

I come, therefore, to Motion H, which I think is the last Motion before the House, which is the home detention curfew amendment. For someone in my position, this is procedurally somewhat difficult to follow, because it involves the Government disagreeing with their own amendment, Amendment 106, in order to reintroduce it with an addition. Amendment 106A is exactly the same as Amendment 106, but Amendment 106B, which is the important amendment, extends the eligibility of the home detention curfew scheme to offenders serving four years or more.

The original aim of the home detention curfew scheme was to help suitable lower-risk offenders who had been in custody to reintegrate into society in a controlled manner. As sentences become longer, it is important that we revisit whether eligibility for HDC continues to allow all those who may be suitable and would benefit from the scheme to be considered, as originally intended. That means looking again at whether offenders who are excluded solely because of sentence length or old curfew breaches, rather than any assessment of risk, should be able to be considered for HDC. Since HDC was introduced, sentences have grown longer and should no longer be the sole determination of whether someone is eligible to be considered for HDC. A four-year sentence length for old curfew breach is not a useful measure of whether an offender is lower-risk and suitable for HDC.

While this amendment increases the number of offenders eligible for HDC, it does not extend the range of offences that make an offender eligible for HDC. All sexual offenders and serious violent offenders are excluded from the scheme, as are those subject to Parole Board release. Those convicted of offences often associated with domestic abuse, such as stalking or harassment, are also excluded. So are many other people, including category A prisoners. There is also a robust risk assessment to ensure that offenders are released only if there is a plan to manage them safely in the community. In every case, that includes a curfew backed up with electronic monitoring.

I think I have covered Motions A to H, and I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the discussions that have taken place in the usual channels to ensure that the calling of the election does not unduly disadvantage victims who have waited for many years for this legislation to be brought forward. We on our side have strived to be collaborative throughout the Bill’s progress and, while we have not been able to achieve everything we would have liked, we acknowledge that the department has been willing to negotiate on some matters and make a number of amendments in lieu.

It is a shame that my noble friend Lady Royall’s amendments on stalking were not successful as part of the negotiating process. On stalking and the eligibility for home detention curfew, I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very interesting point about the CPS charging stalkers with alternative offences as well. As I have said in other debates, I have dealt as a magistrate with stalking matters relatively recently. If lesser charges of harassment can be pressed in the alternative, the court would have better choices to make when determining guilt or otherwise. I thought that that was an interesting point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, did not mention unduly lenient sentencing. While that was not part of the wash-up agreement, the Government nevertheless committed from the Dispatch Box to keep unduly lenient sentencing under review. As far as I can or cannot commit any future Government, I think it is something that any Government would want to keep under review, as the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, is important.

We also welcome the amendment in lieu, Amendment 32A, on the duty for agencies to co-operate with the Victims’ Commissioner. I congratulate her on all her sterling work on this Bill. This does not go quite as far as we asked, but it is an improvement, nevertheless.

The Labour Party remains committed to introducing a statutory duty of candour. It is a shame that the Government have not felt able to go further, but at least there is a review in the Bill.

We are pleased that the infected blood provisions will make it on to the statute book and be commenced at Royal Assent, and we welcome the recent government Statements and hope that compensation will get to people as early as possible.

On IPP, we have tried to work collaboratively across party lines and there is further work to be done. We want to ensure that solutions proposed are robust and assessed with public safety in mind, and we will work at pace, consulting widely on potential ways forward.

We of course welcome the concession on controlling or coercive behaviour and the MAPPA process, in Amendment 99A. It is an important marker, but only part of a bigger picture where violence against women and girls needs to be addressed. There is more work to do, but passing this Bill is an important step towards a new era of transparency and advocacy for victims of crime.

In conclusion, I thank my honourable friend Kevin Brennan for steering Labour’s response to the Bill through the other place and my noble friend Lady Thornton for her support for me during the passage of the Bill. I also thank our advisers, Catherine Johnson and Clare Scally.

Finally, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. I also thank his civil servants, who have been extremely helpful to me and, I know, to many other noble Lords who have taken an interest in this Bill. Turning back to the noble and learned Lord, I know he will say that he works as part of a team, but the team needs a leader and he has been the leader for this Bill in this House—and that has been to the benefit of all noble Lords who have taken an interest in the Bill.

The Bill is an accomplishment. It is only a step in the road, and I hope we can work on the progress that has been made in any future Governments who may be formed.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I will deal briefly with the points made. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the firewall is a difficult one. No doubt it will continue to be discussed in the years ahead. The Government do not feel able to go further at the moment.

On Motion E, which is on the importance of training, I hope we have now put in place something effective, though indirect, to ensure that training will happen properly. That will no doubt be kept under review and be publicly reported in the annual report, so that this House and the other place can monitor how that is going.

On Motion G, which is on MAPPA, I respectfully suggest that the Government’s amendment completes the picture. It includes coercion and controlling behaviour. The point the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made about the importance of the CPS considering exactly what it charges is important, but I stress my own understanding that a risk assessment will take place in every case so that, even if there is not actually a stalking charge, the fact that it is stalking-like behaviour should be properly taken into account in assessing the risk before HDC is used.

On the commitment in relation to unduly lenient sentences, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned, at the time we envisaged that we would include something in the Criminal Justice Bill. Unfortunately, that has not taken place. The Government’s commitment remains as long as the Government are the Government—no doubt a future Government will wish to take that matter forward as well.

Those are my brief comments on the substantive points that have been made, but I will make some very brief concluding remarks as we reach the concluding stages of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. I once again thank all those who have engaged and collaborated throughout the passage of the Bill. I particularly thank my noble friends Lord Howe and Lord Roborough, who, if your Lordships remember, took over the passage of the entire Bill at a certain stage in Committee and have taken on certain sections of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Roborough has done very important work, particularly on MAPPA and related points, but my noble friend Lord Howe, as your Lordships know, has taken on a major role in relation to the infected blood issues. I am very grateful to them.

I am very pleased that the Bill has made it through this process. We have not lost it and I put on record my own thanks to all the officials who contributed to the Bill. They have already been warmly thanked in the other place, but I need particularly to mention Nikki Jones, Katie Morris and Lizzie Bates, who were among the team leaders. I also personally thank the infected blood team at the Cabinet Office.

Since I may not have another opportunity, I will say, personally, what a privilege it has been to deal at this Dispatch Box with the affairs of the Ministry of Justice over the last two years, and how much one appreciates the courtesy, perspicacity and hard work of this House. Members actually listen to the debates and take on board the points made. I think most people understand that we are trying to find solutions to very difficult problems and there are very often several points of view. My overall impression is that, on the whole, the House works very closely and collaboratively. As a newcomer to your Lordships’ House, I may say personally that that is a most impressive situation—possibly unique among legislatures in the western world.

--- Later in debate ---

Motion B

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because it could affect financial arrangements to be made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.

Motion C

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35A to 35C.

35A: Line 3, at end insert “performed— (a) in England, and (b) subject to subsection (1A), in Wales. (1A) Guidance under this section mus35Bnot relate to a matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if it were contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”

--- Later in debate ---

Motion D

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46A.

46A: Line 1, leave out “25” and insert “17”

Motion E

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 47 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 47A.

47A: Because it would be inappropriate to impose a blanket restriction on the use of personal data in the circumstances to which the amendment relates.

Motion F

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 54 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54A in lieu—

54A: Page 37, line 11, at end insert the following new Clause— “Review of duty of candour in relation to major incidents (1) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must, before 1 January 2025, carry out a review to determine the extent to which additional duties of transparency and candour should be imposed on public servants in relation to major incidents. (2) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office may discharge the duty in subsection (1) by arranging for another person to carry out the review. (3) The Secretary of State or the Minister for the Cabinet Office must, as soon as reasonably practicable after the completion of the review— (a) prepare, or arrange for another person to prepare, a report about the review, (b) publish the report, and (c) lay the report before Parliament. (4) In this section, “public servant” means— (a) a public authority within the meaning given by section 29(2)(a) (see section 29(5)); (b) any person exercising the functions of a public authority (including as an employee of a public authority or as a person in the civil service of the State).”

Motion G

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 98 and 99 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 99A in lieu—

99A: Page 50, line 37, at end insert the following new Clause— “Assessing and managing risks posed by controlling or coercive behaviour offenders In section 327 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (section 325: interpretation), in subsection (4A), after paragraph (c) insert— “(ca) an offence under section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015 (controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship);”.”

Motion H

[Lord Bellamy]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 106 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 106A and 106B in lieu—

106A: Clause 48, page 52, line 36, at end insert— “(4) After section 32 insert— “32ZZA Imprisonment or detention for public protection: powers in relation to release of recalled prisoners (1) This section applies where a prisoner to whom section 31A (termination of licences of preventive sentence prisoners) applies—(a) has been released on licence under this Chapter, and (b) is recalled to prison under section 32. (2) The Secretary of State may, at any time after the prisoner is returned to prison, release the prisoner again on licence under this Chapter. (3) The Secretary of State must not release the prisoner under subsection (2) unless satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should remain in prison. (4) Where the prisoner is released under subsection (2), the Secretary of State may determine that, for the purposes of paragraph (c) of section 31A(4H) (automatic licence termination), the prisoner’s licence is to be treated as having remained in force as if it had not been revoked under section 32. (5) The Secretary of State may only make a determination under subsection (4) if the Secretary of State considers that it is in the interests of justice to do so. (6) Where the Secretary of State makes a determination under subsection (4), the Secretary of State must notify the prisoner. (7) In this section, “preventive sentence” means— (a) a sentence of imprisonment or detention in a young offender institution for public protection under section 225 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 219 of the Armed Forces Act 2006), or (b) a sentence of detention for public protection under section 226 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (including one passed as a result of section 221 of the Armed Forces Act 2006).””

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.

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.

Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) (Amendment) Rules 2024

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Friday 24th May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Rules laid before the House on 1 May be approved.

Relevant document: 26th Report from Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, these are the procedural rules to enable the Upper Tribunal to handle the new appeals regime under the Illegal Migration Act 2023. These rules are already in force: this is by nature of a made-affirmative statutory instrument, which has been in force but needs to be renewed unless it sunsets after 40 days.

As your Lordships will probably recall, the suspensive claims, already approved by Parliament in Sections 44 to 49 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, are those cases where it is argued by the appellant that there would be serious and irreversible harm if they were to be removed or that the removal conditions were not met—for example, if they were actually lawfully in this jurisdiction.

Exceptionally, these rules are made by the Lord Chancellor instead of the Tribunal Procedure Committee, but there is very close liaison with the committee. Going forward, that committee will be able to amend or replace these rules as it deems appropriate under its usual procedures. That is all I need to say by way of explanation of this instrument. I commend the rules to the House.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise the controversial background to this SI and the legislation that has really formed a backdrop to many months of deliberations in this Chamber. Nevertheless, this SI, as the noble and learned Lord explained, is already in place, and this is, essentially, a renewal of it. Of course, there needs to be a robust and in-place appeals procedure. On that basis, we are happy to support the SI.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support.

Motion agreed.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

3rd reading
Thursday 23rd May 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

1: After Clause 31, insert the following new Clause—
“Right to erasure of personal data
(1) Article 17 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (right to erasure) is amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3).
(2) In paragraph 1, after point (f) insert—
“(g) the personal data have been processed as a result of an allegation about the data subject—
(i) which was made by a person who is a malicious person in relation to the data subject (whether they became such a person before or after the allegation was made),
(ii) which has been investigated by the controller, and
(iii) in relation to which the controller has decided that no further action is to be taken.”
(3) After paragraph 3 insert—
“4. For the purposes of paragraph (1)(g), a person who has made an allegation about a data subject is a “malicious person” in relation to the data subject if the person—
has been convicted of an offence specified in column 1 of the table in paragraph 5 in relation to which the data subject is a person specified in the corresponding entry in column 2 of that table, or
is subject to a stalking protection order under section 2 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 or section 8 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) made to protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking (see section 2(1)(c) of the 2019 Act and section 8(2)(c) of the 2022 Act).
The table is as follows—

Offence	Data subject
1. An offence under section 2 of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (offence of harassment: England and Wales)	A person mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or 1(1A)(a) of that Act
2. An offence under section 2A, 4 or 4A of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 (other harassment and stalking offences: England and Wales)	The person against whom the offence is committed
3. An offence under section 8 of the Stalking Protection Act 2019 (offence of breaching stalking protection order etc)	A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect from a risk associated with stalking (see section 2(1)(c) of that Act)
4. An offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence specified in entry 1, 2 or 3 of this table	A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the corresponding offence is specified
5. An offence under section 70 of the Army Act 1955 or Air Force Act 1955 as respects which the corresponding civil offence (within the meaning of that Act) is an offence specified in entry 1 or 2 of this table	A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the corresponding civil offence is specified
6. An offence under section 42 of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 as respects which the civil offence (within the meaning of that section) is an offence specified in entry 1 or 2 of this table	A person specified in column 2 of the entry in which the civil offence is specified
7. An offence under section 39 of the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 13) (stalking offences: Scotland)	The person against whom the offence is committed
8. An offence under section 1 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (stalking offences: Northern Ireland)	The person against whom the offence is committed
9. An offence under section 13 of the Protection from Stalking Act (Northern Ireland) 2022 (c. 17 (N.I.)) (offence of breaching order: Northern Ireland)	A person who the stalking protection order was made to protect from a risk associated with stalking (see section 8(2)(c) of that Act)
10. An offence under Article 4 or 6 of the Protection from Harassment (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 (S.I. 1997/1180 (N.I. 9)) (harassment offences: Northern Ireland)	The person against whom the offence is committed”

(4) After section 13 of the Data Protection Act 2018 insert—“13A Meaning of “relevant offence” for purpose of right to erasure(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations amend the table in Article 17(5) of the UK GDPR.(2) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.””Member’s explanatory statementThis clause adds a new ground which data subjects can use to obtain erasure of personal data which has been processed as a result of an allegation about the data subject by a person who has been convicted of a relevant offence or who is subject to a stalking protection order protecting the data subject.

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

My Lords, I have two matters to address. The first matter is the position on devolution. The majority of the measures in Part 1 of the Bill apply to England and Wales. Clause 18, which relates to the issuing of guidance about victim support services, engages the legislative consent process. The Senedd did not grant legislative consent for this measure. Accordingly, the Government will table in the other place an amendment so that this clause applies to England and reserved matters in Wales only, and consequently removes the requirement to consult Welsh Ministers before issuing guidance.

Part 3 of the Bill applies UK-wide, and I can confirm consent has been granted by the Senedd and the Scottish Parliament. However, the process has not yet concluded in Northern Ireland. In the interest of ensuring the legislation is passed and these vital measures come into force across the UK, we will need to proceed to legislate for all, including Northern Ireland.

Part 2 of the Bill applies to England and Wales, and engages the legislative consent process for the appointment of the independent public advocate. The Bill contains a measure which requires the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers before declaring a major incident in Wales and appointing an advocate. The Senedd did not grant consent for this part of the Bill. We continue to believe that this is an appropriate level of involvement for the Welsh Government and that it respects the legislative competence of the Senedd. Having considered the Senedd’s position, the United Kingdom Government have decided that, in this instance and given the context of major incidents, we will proceed without the Senedd’s consent. It would not be acceptable for the independent advocate provisions not to apply in Wales. It is vital that these measures apply to—

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Can the Minister explain why the Senedd is refusing to sign up to this agreement? It might be of interest to the House to know why.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am afraid I am not in a position to say why the Senedd has refused consent; only the Senedd can say. The original issue was whether it should have some kind of veto over the appointment of the independent public advocate, or whether it should simply be consulted. One could infer that it was not satisfied with the requirement to be consulted and wanted a stronger role. That is an inference I draw as I have no inside information on the point. In any event, it is vital, in the Government’s view, that these measures apply to England and Wales to bring the benefit to all victims within England and Wales. So that is the devolution position.

[Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)]

I do not know whether, in this procedure, it is permissible for me to answer the question which the Minister was not in a position to. If I might explain, it was hoped that in the spirit of the United Kingdom you might be able to agree on a lawyer. There are an awful lot of lawyers and normally parties can agree, but, as the Welsh Assembly sees it, for some extraordinary reason the Government refused to do what normal litigants do, which is to agree on a lawyer. It stuck on that point because it thought it showed how unworkable the union is becoming if you cannot even agree on a lawyer.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

Quite frankly, there are lots of lawyers in here. I do not know whether, if we put forward everyone’s name, perhaps the Senedd could agree to someone who is already in the House of Lords.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I think this is not a very useful debate to pursue at this stage of the proceedings. Without going any further, I am under the impression that it is not only the question of agreeing on a lawyer, but whether a standing public advocate should be appointed in the first place. I suggest that is something we should leave aside for today’s purposes.

My second duty is to speak to Amendment 1 in my name on the Marshalled List. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Cotes, and Stella Creasy, a Member of Parliament in the other place, for the amendments they have tabled on this issue, and their engagement with myself and officials in this area. The amendment concerns what to do when there is a malicious complaint to social services and the procedure for removing that complaint, following the conviction of the complainant and the finding that the complaint was malicious.

Amendment 1 will insert into Article 17(1) of the GDPR—in fact, it inserts it into the relevant European directive so we have an unusual example of the UK Government directly amending European legislation—a new Part 2 ground which creates the right for certain victims who are data subjects to request deletion of personal data when the following two circumstances occur: first, when an allegation has been made by a person who has been convicted of relevant criminal offence against the data subject, or the person is subject to a stalking protection order made to protect the data subject from a risk associated with stalking; secondly, following an investigation by the data controller, it has been decided that no further action has to be taken in relation to the allegation.

The relevant criminal offences listed in the amendment are the offences of stalking and harassment against a victim. A power is also taken to update this list by regulations made using the affirmative procedure, should further offences be required to be included in the future. This amendment will provide a specific new ground for victims of stalking and harassment for the deletion of false allegations made about them, and support them to prevent the further distress that retaining this information may cause.

To ensure that the data controller has an important reason to retain the data, the exemptions under Article 17(3) of the UK GDPR will apply. This allows the data controller to refuse the re quest for a limited list of reasons, including whether processing is necessary for compliance with a legal obligation or the performance of a task carried out in the public interest, which could capture refusal for safeguarding reasons. However, data controllers must provide reasons for any refusal and inform data subjects of their right to complain to the Information Commissioner’s Office. We will ensure that guidance, including on child safeguarding, is updated so data controllers understand how the new ground is intended to work. We will also update the victims’ code so that victims are aware of their rights around data erasure.

I therefore commend this amendment to the House, and I hope that what I have said will permit the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, not to press her Amendment 2 on the marshalled list.

[Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak on this very important Bill. I am delighted that it covers so many vital issues and will proceed, we hope, to Royal Assent before Parliament is prorogued.

I shall speak to Amendments 1 and 2. I thank my noble friends the Minister and Lady Barran, and their officials, for their engagement on this matter at some speed. I am delighted that Stella Creasy is here to listen to the debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, my noble friend Lady Finn and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for their support, as well as the Opposition Front Bench.

Politics is the “art of the possible”, as the important quote goes. The Government have now accepted, after resisting for many months, the principle behind Amendment 2, which we repeatedly tabled in this House at various stages of the Bill. As we have heard, the law should be updated to recognise that, in cases of stalking and harassment, one of the things that the stalker or harasser can do to prolong their victim’s agony is to make a false and malicious allegation which stays on the record, and data controllers hide behind their rights in not deleting it even when the allegation has been found to be both false and malicious.

I recognise the progress that has been made in the tabling of Amendment 1. As ever, of course, the devil is in the detail. As my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy has said, there are still grounds under Article 17(3) of the GDPR on which a data controller could refuse to delete the data. I really welcome his clear commitment that there needs to be strong guidance to the ICO and data controllers in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, and also provisions in the victims’ code. The danger with all this is that we still leave the burden on victims to argue for the data to be erased, and the power remains with the data controller. That is what worries me about those exemptions in Article 17(3).

In that guidance, the data controller must be told that they need to set out substantive grounds for refusing any request for erasure of the data. We also hope that the Government will set out scenarios in which those exemptions in Article 17(3), provided for in law, cannot be used in cases where data records have been created as a result of malicious conduct.

Having said all that, I recognise where we are at this time in this Parliament. I will be interested to hear what other noble Lords might say in this short debate and what the Minister might say in summing up. I recognise and thank my noble and learned friend for the progress that he has made on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, there is little I can add. In preparing the guidance, the Government will take into account all the points, particularly those made by my noble friend Lady Morgan. The word “automatic” may be a slightly difficult word in the guidance, but I anticipate that it will be made extremely clear that in these circumstances the data controller would have to provide very clear reasons for not deleting the complaint concerned. I hope that will be covered comprehensively in government guidance, whichever Government are in power.

Amendment 1 agreed.