Rape: Prosecutions and Support
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Donaghy
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they intend to take (1) to increase the number of rape prosecutions, and (2) to provide more support for women and men affected by rape.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the 2021 End-to-End Rape Review Action Plan committed us to double the number of adult rape cases reaching court by the end of this Parliament, back to 2016 levels. We have since seen an increase in both prosecutions and convictions. Actions taken include establishing the criminal justice dashboard; funding Operation Soteria, making police investigation suspect-focused; providing the rape and sexual abuse support fund; launching a 24/7 rape and sexual abuse support line; and completing the rollout of pre-recorded cross-examination, so that victims no longer must face the courtroom but can be cross-examined beforehand.
Baroness Donaghy (Lab)
I thank the Minister, but under this Government, conviction rates for rape have reached historic lows, with only 1.3% of recorded rapes resulting in a charge. MoJ data from June of this year showed that 28% of 53,000 outstanding Crown Court cases were for alleged sexual offences, with up to five years before anything reaches the court. Some 65% of cases analysed in London last year ended in victim withdrawal, revealing a lack of high-quality victim care in the justice system. What other plans do the Government have to improve this shocking situation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, first and with respect, we are making progress on this matter. Your Lordships will perhaps recall that, after 2016 and the Allan case, where a prosecution collapsed for lack of disclosure, prosecutions for rape fell until 2019. Then we had the pandemic. That is why the Government are now committed to returning to 2016 levels.
I will give one example of progress. In 2016, a total of 766 rape cases per quarter were referred by the police to the CPS. In Q2 2022, we had 901 such referrals, up on 2019 by 97% and even up on 2016 by 18%. Many other examples can be seen on the criminal justice system delivery data dashboard at justice.gov.uk, to which I respectfully refer your Lordships. You can see the progress we are making on every offence, across every region of the country. That is a considerable achievement and I commend it to your Lordships. In response to the noble Baroness, I do not doubt that difficulties remain, but we are making progress.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, an accusation of rape is a very serious matter for both the victim and the accused. I have repeatedly asked for a breakdown of figures for rape cases where the defence is consent and where there is a failure to convict—a situation of which I have long experience. Will the Minister go back to the Attorney-General, who supervises the CPS, to ask why these figures cannot be provided? This may be the heart of the problem.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will certainly do my best to accommodate the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, many victims of rape are reluctant to follow through on prosecutions because they need medical and other care, and they want to be believed. A report from over 20 years ago by a policeman whom we may know, one Brian Paddick, and the academic Betsy Stanko, led to the establishment of sexual assault referral centres across England. But this year, an NHS survey found that 72% of victims are unaware that this support is available. If more victims knew about and used these centres, would more successful prosecutions not follow?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government are making every effort to increase support for victims of rape and sexual assault. We now have a 24/7 helpline, as I said, have increased recruitment of ISVAs—independent sexual violence advisers—and the rape support fund is £21 million this year. So I hope we will be able to address the point the noble Baroness raised, of which I take good note.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister assure me that the number of women who are not able to communicate, as English is not their first language, is also collected in the data that my noble friend mentioned? How are we monitoring whether women from communities that cannot communicate fully in English are fully supported by the systems?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I take good note of my noble friend’s question and will do my best to assure her that those pressing needs are dealt with.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, some police officers spend more time considering the credibility of the victim than the rape allegation made. They unreasonably snoop through women’s mobile phone messages and emails, downloading their entire history. Perhaps they think they can get away with it. Will the Government implement the recommendation made by Vera Baird, the former Victims’ Commissioner, to provide legal aid solicitors to rape victims, who can challenge unreasonable demands made by the police?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
A legal aid solicitor ought to be able to challenge unreasonable demands by the police under the existing regime. However, I refer this House to Operation Soteria, which is directed to the very point that the noble Baroness makes about the focus on the victim rather than the suspect. It started as a pilot with Avon and Somerset Police, is gradually being rolled out nationally to 19 police forces, and should turn the approach around so that it focuses on the suspect, not the victim.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, many noble Lords have mentioned victims. When might we find the long- promised victims Bill coming forward? What is the Minister’s view on the Labour Party’s policy to make violence against women and girls a serious crime in legislation?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government hope to bring forward the victims Bill as soon as possible but have no present plans to change the legislation on violence against women or, indeed, anybody else.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, many women are facing a crisis of trust and confidence in the criminal justice system at the moment. I appreciate that the Minister is relatively new to this arena. However, there are people who believe that rape has effectively been decriminalised in our jurisdiction. That is a very serious matter. Would he consider meeting me, perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—who is not in her place—other interested Members of your Lordships’ House and victims’ groups, including the Centre for Women’s Justice, to hear their experience before taking this work further forward?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I would certainly be prepared to meet the noble Baroness and others and, on that occasion, take everyone through the steps that we are taking to combat this problem.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, in January this year, the Ministry of Justice said in answer to a Parliamentary Question from the shadow Attorney-General, Emily Thornberry, that the typical delay between an offence of alleged rape occurring and the completion of the resulting criminal trial was 1,000 days. That is a shocking statistic. What is the Ministry of Justice doing about this?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
There are several steps. There is the reference from the police to the CPS, the CPS charging decision, the CPS bringing a case, the delay in the court and so forth. Delays in the court are still a problem and have unfortunately been made worse by the barristers’ strike. Other delays have been reduced. All I can say to the noble Lord is that we are working as hard as we can to address this problem.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I am concerned that the Minister’s ambition seems to be to get back to the figures from 2016. Those who work with children, young women and women who have been abused, sexually and in other ways, know that the numbers misrepresented the problem that was out there even in 2016. A recent report from Agenda looks particularly at young women. It is searing about the experiences across the board, particularly in ethnic minorities. Unless support is there earlier, those young women and other women will not get near justice. The Government really need to take that into account.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government are working as hard as they can. This is a top priority, and I take good note of the noble Baroness’s remarks.
Humanist Marriages
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Bakewell on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Law Commission recently published its report on reforming wedding law in England and Wales. We must consider the 57 recommendations in full. It is important that we balance the needs and interests of all groups, religious and non-religious, and very carefully consider the implications of changing the law. I hope to be able to publish our initial response in the first part of next year.
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply but I must say that I am a little disappointed by it. The Law Commission, to which he referred, took no position on this question. It did not make a recommendation one way or the other. That is because this is a political decision. What is preventing the Government from going ahead and laying an order under the 2013 Act, getting it done now, and stopping once and for all the discrimination against humanists in this area?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, in a nutshell, the Government’s position is that to lay an order under the 2013 Act solely in favour of humanists would discriminate against other groups—Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and so forth—in permitting them to have a particular form of marriage not available to other groups. The Government’s position is that we must go forward together and solve the whole problem. I will elaborate in a moment on what the problem is.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, we need to get a move on here. As one who believes very fervently in Christian marriage but even more in the institution of marriage, I ask: how can it be sensible to allow a wedding to take place in a registry office but not to allow humanists, who have their own ethics, to have a proper marriage ceremony? We need to get a move on. We had an almost identical Answer last time. Let us have a better one next time.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Law Commission, in a very detailed and well-argued report, took the view that we should proceed as a country to solve the whole problem across all faiths at the same time and not favour a particular group. That is the Government’s position, and we will publish our position shortly.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, it will be 10 years next year since I tabled an amendment to the 2013 Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill about humanist marriages. In response to it, the Government tabled their own amendment enabling Ministers to make this tiny change—we are talking about two words—adding “and humanists” to Quakers and Jews. It seems highly unlikely that any legislation will pass following the Law Commission’s report before the next election. Therefore, will the Minister meet me to discuss how, 10 years on, this tiny adjustment can be made to the law through a ministerial order to end this discrimination once and for all?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am happy to meet the noble Baroness, but I doubt whether I shall be able to give her the assurance that she asks for. This is a quite difficult problem. We have to solve it across the board without discrimination either in favour of or against any faith group or non-faith group. We have to deal with the civil preliminaries for marriage, who is to be authorised, what is the regime for authorisation and, in particular, the problems raised by the All-Party Parliamentary Humanist Group itself in relation to the Law Commission’s report.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, why is it that Scotland and Wales have managed to have humanist weddings in their law? If I sound frustrated it is because I was part of the move in which, with enormous cross-party support, this House agreed an amendment to the equal marriage Bill which would allow humanist weddings. That has not been implemented by successive Conservative Governments. There must be a reason why that is the case, because it is not complicated or discriminatory. It is actually very straightforward. If and when my son wants to get married and wants a humanist wedding, he has to go to Scotland or Wales. That seems very unfair indeed.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Law Commission recommended reform. That has already taken place in other jurisdictions. We are working on exactly how the reform should take place in this country as fast as we can.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, those of us on this Bench in principle have no problem at all with humanist weddings. Does the Minister agree that the best way forward is the one that has been alluded to already, which is that it could be achieved most easily by following the historical precedent established with Jewish and Quaker weddings rather than adopting the overtly complex recommendations of the Law Commission’s report?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government have to consider in detail the Law Commission report, its undoubted strengths and the various points that have been made about it, not least by humanists. We will publish our position as soon as we can in the new year.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, is the problem that the humanists are not religious? Every other religion has been treated kindly and LGBTQ marriages can take place. Just the humanists in England are discriminated against. Is the Church of England so upset about humanists that it will not let humanists get married?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as far as I know, this problem is not a matter for the Church of England. The Government’s view is that as a country we should proceed across the board to solve and update our law of marriage all at the same time.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, in Scotland, where humanist marriage is legal, as has been mentioned, there are more humanist marriages than Christian ones and marriage is more popular than ever. David Cameron supported gay marriage because he believed that marriage is a good thing and that everyone should be able to marry. Do this Government believe that marriage is a good thing? If so, why will they not allow humanists to legally marry?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
This Government strongly support the institution of marriage. I am probably boring your Lordships by repeating myself: the Government think the whole problem should be solved across the board at the same time, not just with one group—the humanists.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a Methodist minister nearing 50 years since I was ordained and someone who enjoys the fellowship of humanist celebrants in funeral services in crematoria across the city. I declare to the Minister my total bewilderment at the nature of this discussion. It would enrich us all if people, according to conscience and practice, could marry in the way asked for in this Question. Can he understand the predicament of those of us of religious persuasion—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have also spoken from faith positions—in that it would be an addition to the richness and value of the ceremonies we produce? Can the Government explain why they cannot understand this?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
With respect, I very much hope that the Government understand what the problem is. As the Government see it, we should have a regime for marriage in this country in which the civil preliminaries are common to all marriages, the persons who conduct marriages are authorised under one regime, we define what belief systems we will accept as people capable of authorising marriages, and we exclude extremists, cults and so forth. These are not straightforward questions. It is a very simple and, if I may say so, not complete answer to say that it is easy to do it for the humanists. We want to make sure that, for example, a marriage of a Muslim at home—which might not be a lawful marriage at the moment—is now taken forward and that we create a situation in which that becomes a lawful marriage and we have proper officiants, rules and regulations that regulate it all. That is the Government’s position.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I supported the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to the same-sex marriage Bill of 2013. The Minister probably feels rather beaten up by Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House, but we remember what Ministers said then. The provision that was arranged was deliberately simple to enable this to happen. I am sure the House would welcome other faiths being drawn into it, but this is long overdue. Please can he go away and look back at the history of the passage of that Act?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will of course go back and look at the history. I am equipped with elderly but serviceable shin-pads and am quite used to having my shins thoroughly kicked when necessary, but in this case the Government feel that the country as a whole must go forward together and not favour a particular group.
Lammy Review
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(1 year, 12 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards implementing the Lammy Review, published on 8 September 2017.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Lammy Review, which the Government warmly welcomed, made 35 recommendations and the Government undertook actions in respect of 33 of them; only two others relating to the judiciary were left on one side. We have now completed 29 out of the 33, and outstanding actions continue in respect of the remaining four. Since the Lammy Review in 2017, our work has evolved considerably and the Government’s Inclusive Britain strategy, published in March this year, is central to this work.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
I thank the Minister for that Answer. Despite it being pledged in the Conservative manifesto, we have heard no more about the royal commission on the criminal justice system. Might the Minister be able to say, first, when we will hear more and, secondly, whether racial disparities will be prioritised by that commission?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I am not in a position to help the right reverend Prelate on the question of the royal commission on the criminal justice system. However, I can say that we are making considerable progress in matters relating to racial discrimination, which is the subject of this Question.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, a key recommendation of the Lammy Review was to set a clear national target to achieve a representative judiciary by 2025. The review identified low recommendation rates for black and ethnic minority candidates as a challenge to judicial diversity, suggesting a skewed appointments system. We are now five years through the eight-year target period. The 2022 statistics, published in July, show slow progress for Asian candidates, but none at all for black and other ethnic minority candidates since 2014. Recommendation rates for black and ethnic minority candidates across the board remained far lower than for white candidates. What do the Government plan to do to address this striking lack of progress in a vital area?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, much effort is being devoted to this problem through the Judicial Diversity Forum. The judicial diversity and inclusion strategy for 2020 to 2025 aims to increase the pool of candidates and attract the best talent. Actions for 2022 include continued MoJ funding for the pre-application judicial educational—PAJE—programme to support lawyers from underrepresented groups to prepare themselves for the judicial application process. There is also a Judicial Appointments Commission—JAC—outreach programme to encourage and prepare applicants for more senior appointments, and a “becoming a judge” scheme especially for ethnic minority solicitors interested in the judiciary. A joint judicial and MoJ programme is in train to improve diversity among magistrates, with an applicant-tracking system to identify ethnic minority candidates. Other professional bodies are also pursuing complementary strategies. In that connection, I pay particular tribute to the Law Society, whose past president, Stephanie Boyce, and present president, Lubna Shuja, are both from ethnic minorities.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, the Prison Reform Trust also conducted research on black and Asian women and found that, although they faced similar experiences to white women in the criminal justice system, they are more likely to receive custodial sentences and more severe sentences for comparable crimes. The research also found that their offending is rooted in domestic abuse. What action are the Government taking to address the specific biases experienced by ethnic minority women; for example, are judges provided with bias and domestic abuse training, is it sufficient, and do they receive refresher courses?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, certainly, judges are provided with domestic abuse training. The Equal Treatment Bench Book places particular emphasis on avoiding bias in sentencing and related outcomes. The judiciary, whose task it is to ensure absolute absence of bias, is well appraised of this problem and working on it.
Baroness Berridge (Con)
My Lords, I am currently serving on the Joint Committee scrutinising the draft Mental Health Bill. The Lammy Review made it clear that black and minority ethnic prisoners are more likely to have undiagnosed mental health issues, learning disabilities or autism. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that the scheme of court liaison mental health practitioners being in all courts when people appear in front of them for the first time is going to be rolled out? Will priority be given to youth courts, as it is quite common for young offenders under 21 to have a patchy record in school, which is obviously one of the main places they would be diagnosed as having a learning disability or being autistic?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I can give my noble friend the assurance that she seeks. Through the community sentence treatment requirements programme we are working with health agencies to improve access to mental health services for those who need them. In particular, liaison and diversion services are funded by the NHS and should now be present in all police custody suites and magistrates’ courts to provide early intervention for vulnerable people, acting as a point of referral and providing a prompt response to concerns raised by police, probation or youth offending teams. I hope that has addressed the question asked.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to the right reverend Prelate, the Minister said that there had been progress regarding disproportionality. He went on to give the noble Lord, Lord Marks, an example of trying to get a better balance of judges and magistrates. I might characterise those as inputs, but what about the outputs? What about disproportionality in stop and search, in charging, and in ethnic minorities in prison places? What progress has been made on that front?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, stop and search is a matter primarily for the Home Office and the police, but I know that there is special training for police services in relation to this, including better use of body-worn cameras and other action taken to ensure that stop and search is less of a problem than it has been hitherto. In relation to charging, the Lammy report found no discrimination by the CPS in charging decisions, but there is ongoing academic work to establish exactly what the position is as far as the CPS is concerned.
As far as other matters are concerned, this is very much a matter of trust in the system between the ethnic minority and those who are dealing with that person. One of the things in train in the police station is a trial of an opt-in system when legal advice is available. As noble Lords know, free legal advice is available to everyone in the police station. The take-up by ethnic minorities is not very great, because it has to be asked for, but if it is given automatically and the person has to opt out of it, that could make quite a difference in building trust. That is an important initiative currently in train that I hope will bear fruit in due course.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, returning to the sensitive but vital subject of judicial diversity, it has long been understood that, in order to do its job, our highest court must have at least one senior justice from Northern Ireland and one from Scotland. Yet, to my understanding, not once have we ever had a black or brown senior justice as a Law Lord or, latterly, in our Supreme Court, notwithstanding the Privy Council, Commonwealth and Empire heritage. Is that really acceptable? Is it not time to experiment with time-limited affirmative action?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
That is a matter for the Judicial Appointments Commission. I cannot challenge the facts that the noble Baroness presents. This is certainly an area on which continued work is necessary.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, one of the Lammy report’s recommendations was the development of performance indicators for the Prison Service. Have these been developed? If so, can they be made public so that we can see whether progress has been made against those indicators?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Performance indicators in the Prison Service are one of the recommendations that it has not been possible to take forward yet. It is quite difficult to do as it is difficult to devise these indicators. What I can say about the Prison Service is that we are making a strenuous effort to recruit more ethnic minority staff, who, in due course, will work their way up through the system and become more senior. On the latest figures, we are up to about 16%, which is a significant improvement on where we were.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee do consider this statutory instrument to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The effect would be to enable any current or potential sponsor on the Homes for Ukraine scheme in England and Wales to be eligible for the highest level of criminal record check undertaken by the Disclosure and Barring Service. This is known as an “enhanced criminal record certificate with barred list” check and would be carried out by local authorities responsible for approving sponsors. As your Lordships know, such a high-level check reveals any criminal convictions that would otherwise be spent under the 1974 Act and any barring order preventing the person concerned working with children or vulnerable persons.
Your Lordships will be aware that Homes for Ukraine is a sponsorship scheme in which individuals in the UK offer up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war. Since its launch in March, more than 100,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK as part of the scheme. I pay tribute to the families and individuals who have offered up their homes to those fleeing the war. However, it is right that we make sure that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the safety of those arriving from Ukraine. Without this amendment, certain enhanced DBS checks would not be possible.
In practical terms, two scenarios are particularly relevant to the proposed amendment. The first is a process called domestic rematching, where the original match arranged by the sponsor and beneficiary breaks down, is deemed unsuitable or expires. When this happens, the local authority may rematch the beneficiary with a new sponsor. In these circumstances, the guests can find an alternative host who would be willing to take them in that further rematch, arranging it either themselves or through the council or a third party.
When arranging the original match when the refugee first arrived, the original sponsor would have gone through the equivalent of an enhanced DBS check as part of the visa process. But if there is a change of sponsor after the visa has been granted, when the refugee is already here, under the existing law all the local authority can do is carry out a basic DBS check on the new sponsor. That basic check would not reveal any spent convictions or any barring order. Given the vulnerability of many of these refugees, the Government consider that a power to carry out an enhanced DBS check is appropriate for all sponsors, particularly to deal with the rematch situation.
The second situation the Government have identified where higher-level DBS checks are necessary is for unaccompanied children who are not travelling with, or to join, a legal parent or guardian in the UK. In July the Government expanded the Homes for Ukraine scheme to enable children to come to the UK without a parent or legal guardian to stay with a sponsor who, except in exceptional circumstances, should be personally known to the parent or legal guardian. Under current regulations, the higher-level DBS checks can be carried out on most Homes for Ukraine sponsors for these children. However, at present only the basic DBS check can be carried out on the sponsor or members of the sponsor’s household if they have a family relationship with the child.
However, the concept of a family relationship is somewhat vague and sometimes these family ties can be quite loose. For example, a parent in Ukraine may be entrusting a child to an extended family member with whom they do not have any close or recent relationship. An aunt may have a partner in the house who is completely unknown to the parent or guardian in Ukraine. In the Government’s view, the vulnerability of these children, unaccompanied by their parents or a guardian, means that enhanced checks on all adults in the sponsor household, whether related to the child or not, are a sensible precaution.
I emphasise that this is a power to carry out the checks. A spent conviction revealed through an enhanced check will not necessarily prevent an individual becoming a sponsor, but it will give the local authority access to a fuller range of information, strengthen safeguarding arrangements and be a proportional response to the unique circumstances of the scheme.
On a more technical level, changes are necessary to two legislative regimes to bring about these enhancements. The first is the one we are considering today, this amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The other is an amendment to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 and 2009 to enable access to the records held by the police. The relevant changes to the Police Act requirements have already been made by a statutory instrument laid by negative resolution by the Home Office, which came into force on 13 October last. The order before your Lordships today requires an affirmative resolution of both Houses and was approved by the other place last Wednesday, 26 October. Similar changes were made in Northern Ireland on 3 October, and the Scottish Government have also amended their legislation. Your Lordships’ approval is, as it were, the last piece of the jigsaw.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for this amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on his question about the cost of a DBS check, my information is that a basic check costs £18 and an enhanced check costs £38. The Government’s view is that that can be absorbed within the resources already made available to local authorities.
The points the noble Lord made on the comprehensiveness of the systems available to make sure that children are safe, do not disappear and can be traced are primarily for the Home Office. I venture to say that the Government have them well in mind and will do our very best to ensure that the points rightfully made by the noble Lord are fully taken into account in the administration of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I thank the noble Lord for his comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked various questions. On his first point about spent convictions, there is of course always a tension as to where you draw the line between the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the vulnerable. When I said that this was a power, I meant to convey that, having carried out these checks, the local authority does not have to refuse the sponsor. It could say, “This was 15 years ago, it wasn’t very serious and he’s been a perfectly good citizen ever since, so we’re not going to take that into account”. This simply gives them the opportunity to have the information; that is the essential point.
On the various loopholes and questions, again, they are primarily for the Home Office, so I will make my response subject to further guidance from the Home Office and correct it if I get it wrong. My understanding is that hosts are expected to inform the local council when the refugees arrive and leave so that there is full information constantly available. Whether that always happens may be another question but, as far I know, the obligation is there; I will correct my statement if it turns out to be incomplete or wrong.
As far as the multi-occupancy of a house is concerned—this was another perfectly legitimate question—I am not in a position to answer on that, but I take it that the local authority should carry out these checks on an appropriately wide basis. If it is the case that the refugee or child in question is in the relevant household, everyone in that household must be checked. What the household is and who is in it is no doubt a question of fact to be addressed, but the Government certainly support the suggestion from the noble Lord that a check should be carried out on as wide a basis as is necessary to ensure the safeguarding of the refugees in question.
I hope that I have addressed at least the main questions that have been raised. I thank your Lordships for their support.
Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsFriday 28th October 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, may I also congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for again providing the opportunity to debate this important and sensitive issue and for his strenuous and tenacious efforts to improve the Bill to meet the points made in previous debates? In fact, the Bill is now wider than it was before in that it extends to all suicides, instead of just those related to gambling. This is an extremely important area and the Government very much share the thoughts expressed this morning on the importance of gathering quality information on the circumstances that can lead to a suicide.
There were a number of extremely moving contributions this morning. I make particular mention of the need for better data on assisted suicides, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. I also mention her points about gambling addiction, and those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. However, despite these efforts, the Government are not yet in a position to support the Bill, essentially for three reasons which I will briefly set out. The central question is the one raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which is whether the coronal system is the right way forward for this exercise. The Government do not support the Bill for three reasons.
First, the Bill is not an appropriate extension of the coroner’s jurisdiction. The coroner is there to decide when, where and how somebody died: whether it is accidental death, suicide, natural causes, unlawful killing, open verdict or whatever. To go further and ask why somebody died is to move from the objective to the difficult, subjective, extremely complex, often speculative and very often deeply mysterious question of why somebody chose to take their own life. That would be a major and obligatory extension of the scope of the investigation. It is not a complete answer to say that it would be separate from the verdict and after the verdict, because they still have to do the investigation.
We cannot rely on the information available to different coroners’ courts or different inquests being complete; we cannot rely on it being consistent; and it is likely to be fraught with emotion and subjective feelings. To investigate these things may well cause extra distress to the families involved and to the privacy of the family, and may in that sense be counterproductive. It would certainly require considerable extra resources and extra time for a system that is already resource-stretched. It is difficult enough, especially post pandemic, for the coronal system to do its existing job, let alone have this extremely extensive and potentially very difficult new burden imposed on it. In the Government’s view there are significant downsides to the Bill, however laudable the objective. We entirely agree that the objective is laudable, and the right reverend Prelate is to be congratulated on putting the Bill forward, but the question is whether it is the right way forward. The main argument being relied on, it seems to us, is that it is essential to have better data about suicides.
The second reason for the Government’s position is that our view is that this, as a system, is most unlikely to be able to produce statistical information that is significantly complete, comprehensive or consistent across jurisdictions to be useful for the purposes of setting policy or for the purposes of the ONS to publish reliable, objective information where we are necessarily dealing with subjective, sometimes speculative and sometimes completely unknown reasons as to why somebody killed themself. However laudable it is, we do not accept that the coronal system is the best way forward for collecting more data on the reasons for suicide.
The third reason, which has been mentioned indirectly several times this morning, is that we already have, in effect, a system for publicising and drawing attention to difficult cases, through the establishment of the system for prevention of future death reports: it is already there, essentially. Particular mention has been made of the PFD report into the sad death of Molly Russell, who died from an act of self-harm due to the negative effect of online content. Mention has also been made of the tragic death of Jack Ritchie, a young man who took his life following problems with gambling. In those cases, through the existing system, the coroner could draw attention to the circumstances. We already have a working system, so is it really justified to impose the further obligation, in all cases, to go in sufficient detail into the question of why? The Government’s position is that the prevention of future death report system is working well, that it produces the information, and that it would be disproportionate and potentially counterproductive to take the Bill further.
More generally, the Government are committed to expanding and transforming mental health services in England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, we have already had a call for evidence on the longer-term priorities for mental health, well-being and suicide prevention. That call for evidence closed on 7 July. I was asked when we are planning to publish our plan, and she raised two other points in reference to the comments of Minister Keegan and what progress we have made in real-time suicide monitoring in various contexts. I am not able to give detailed information this morning, but I will write as soon as I can, because this is an important question that the Government take extremely seriously.
For those three principal reasons—the extreme difficulty of investigating the why in every case under the compulsory requirements in the Bill; the difficulty, even if we did investigate it, of knowing whether the information is reliable for statistical purposes; and the existing prevention of future death reports, which fill that gap—the Government oppose the Bill. Finally, I support the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to the effect that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to give directions to independent judicial officers such as coroners. That point, in my respectful submission, is entirely right and is a further but subsidiary reason for opposing the Bill.
Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for resentencing prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s long-held view is that retrospectively altering imprisonment for public protection sentences would lead to an unacceptable risk to public safety. However, the Justice Select Committee of the other place has now published its report on the IPP sentence, which recommends bringing forward legislation to resentence all those offenders who continue to serve an IPP sentence. The Government will consider carefully all the recommendations in the report, including that one, and respond by 28 November.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. In addition to having resentencing at the core of its recommendations, the Justice Select Committee also draws attention to the fact that, according to MoJ figures, it is expected that as many as 2,600 IPP prisoners currently on licence in the community will be recalled over the next four years—on present experience, the majority without having committed a further offence. Does my noble and learned friend accept that these numbers will put an unacceptable strain on the prison estate, that everything should be done to avoid that situation eventuating, and that it is incumbent on His Majesty’s Government to strengthen the probation service to ensure that it does not come about?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, first, I make clear that the Government very much welcome the Select Committee report, which is a powerful document and makes for sober reading. On my noble friend’s question, the Government’s view is that public protection must come first. Secondly, it is not necessarily the case that this number of recalls will actually occur. Thirdly, and importantly, the Select Committee discusses the need for further resources to the probation service, particularly to supervise prisoners released on licence. The Government will look very closely into further resources for the probation service in that regard.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, another day, another Justice Secretary—bedevilling any coherence and continuity in policy. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that putting in place the expert panel suggested by the Justice Select Committee would be a first step, even if the Government do not accept resentencing? It would allow them to look at the action plan and the important issue the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just raised of those on licence who find themselves back in prison for the most trivial offence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as I just said, the Government will consider all the recommendations in the report. I should like to make clear that recall does not necessarily happen for trivial reasons. There are quite severe tests to be met for a recall. As far as the resentencing exercise and the panel itself are concerned, the Government will consider all the suggestions in the report, including those suggestions, and report back to the Justice Select Committee by the end of November.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, MPs and noble Lords from all parts of both Houses have welcomed the excellent Neill report, and we are looking forward to the government response on 28 November with bated breath. I appreciate that the Minister might be unwilling to be drawn on the contents of the Government’s response today, but will he at least agree with me that it is high time that this terrible wrong done to these indeterminate sentence prisoners is righted?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As I said, the Government’s view is that, despite the intractability of the problem, public protection must come first. That is the position we have taken over the years. Without at all prejudging the Government’s position, I shall say a word about the suggested resentencing exercise. The only reason these offenders are detained is the Parole Board’s decision that they are unsafe to be released. That is the situation with which we are faced. If we talk about resentencing in that context, many of the prisoners have already exceeded their original tariff. I simply ask your Lordships to reflect that to resentence for the actual offence may not be a particularly fruitful exercise, because the tariff has already expired. Is it that what we are really considering is a reassessment of the risk to public safety? That is an assessment that the Parole Board is already carrying out. So where does all that take one? I simply leave that question rhetorically for your Lordships.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it is certainly true that this is a difficult issue and it is difficult for the Government to manage the risk of IPP prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Minister talked about extra resources for the probation service. I should like to press him a little on that. Does he accept that with the high recall rates of IPP prisoners out on licence, there should be special training for probation officers dealing with these former prisoners out on licence to prevent them either reoffending or breaking their licence conditions?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very similar and powerful point in the recent debate on the probation services and the support they can give these prisoners in the community. The Government will look very closely at that, as they will all the issues raised in the report.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, as it happens, I was confirming in His Majesty’s Prison Holme House on Monday. One of the people I confirmed was an IPP prisoner. We talked about the desperate impact on family and children of the uncertainty that he has faced. He had been recalled, not for having committed an offence but for breaking conditions. It is very complicated. In looking at this, will His Majesty’s Government look at the impact on children and family and the support from not just the probation service but other organisations, such as, in the north-east, Nepacs and Junction 42?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government will of course consider those considerations along with all the others raised in the report.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, 10 years ago, the discredited ISPP scheme was abolished—alas, prospectively only. In the previous seven years, 8,711 people had been sentenced to that regime and almost all remain so. Almost exactly one-third of that number are in prison today, half of that third because they have never yet been released and half because they have been recalled. The rest are subject to and under threat of recall, living a nightmare life. How many of the 8,711 have finally managed to be discharged from this regime by having their licences discharged by definition 10 years or more after their initial release?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I will provide the noble and learned Lord with the figures shortly. It is quite a complicated question—more complicated than it seems. I simply remind the House that, as a result of the new arrangements introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, there is now an automatic annual referral to the Parole Board for consideration for release for these prisoners. The ability to terminate their licence after the 10 years is now baked into the system.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response today. I thought it was right, proper and considered. I particularly welcome his emphasis on the primary purpose behind this: public protection. On the one hand, there are no doubt many tragic cases of people who have suffered from elongated imprisonment. On the other, there are many terrible cases of victims who have suffered. On the question of the pressure on the estate, could the Minister find a way of looking at why we are still sending people, including women, to prison for minor offences such as petty debts? That was supposed to be the counterbalance to the introduction of IPP in the first place, but it has never been operationally implemented.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government will look at all those aspects. I echo that, in the debate the other day, if I read the transcript correctly, the word “victim” hardly figured. It is the Government’s duty to protect victims. We are dealing with very serious violent and sexual offences, so this is a very difficult question.
Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion, which I support. She made a powerful case. I will not repeat the points she made but, in opening, I put six questions to the Minister.
First, why was removing probation recommendations not included in the root and branch review and why was there no prior consultation with all the stakeholders before the changes were implemented? Secondly, on the removal of probation recommendations, what impact assessments have been carried out regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP prisoners?
Thirdly, the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Therefore, what impact assessment has been carried out on this issue, and did the Government seek the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?
Fourthly, under the changes, what protections are in place for probation staff who are required to attend a public parole hearing? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness that these hearings should be public, but the question is specifically about the protection of parole officers—and, potentially, expert witnesses—when they are taking part in these hearings.
Fifthly, how many responses were there to the root-and-branch review, and how many of those were in favour of the public parole hearings? I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether anyone at all supported the Government’s proposals.
Sixthly, will the Government withdraw these changes if the judicial review finds against them?
In July’s Justice Questions in the other place, Kate Green MP challenged Dominic Raab on the proposed changes. He argued that
“there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/22; col. 711.]
Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, added in September’s committee session that differing recommendations would seem
“quite confusing, given that we are one HMPPS”,
and that the new change
“kind of tidies”
that up. That was the justification.
I must say that I find that explanation very surprising. I am absolutely sure that Parole Board members are well used to assessing conflicting sources of information; it is what people who sit as judges, or in a quasi-judicial capacity, do all the time. In other contexts, such as criminal courts or family courts, it is absolutely routine to get recommendations from probation officers—or in the context of family courts, recommendations from experts—which can indeed be contradictory. That is what the judges or magistrates do when they decide the merits of a case.
I hope that the Minister, who is exceptionally experienced, will bring an open mind to this situation. There have been a lot of changes on the Government and Treasury Benches over the last few months—or days. He is in a position where he can bring an open mind to this, and I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness’s regret Motion in that spirit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion.
The principal concern is that the recent changes to the Parole Board Rules prevent prison and probation staff making specific recommendations in the reports that they give the Parole Board. It is said that this has implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to parole review, and complaint is made that this was done through the negative procedure without consultation. What we are not considering today are other changes, such as changes relating to the move from closed to open prisons, which are, strictly speaking, not the subject of today’s regret Motion.
I will provide some background. The Parole Board of England and Wales is an arm’s-length body which, as has been pointed out, performs a judicial, or at least quasi-judicial, function. It is required by statute to decide whether prisoners serving eligible sentences can be safely released into the community—that is the board’s decision. The statutory test requires that the board must direct release if it is
“satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Is it still open for any expert to give a recommendation if they so choose?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My understanding is that they are not to make recommendations. They can make their risk assessments and say whether there is a valid release plan; they can do all of those things. They can say this man or woman poses no risk to the public, or does pose a risk, or whatever it is, but they cannot express an opinion on the very question that the Parole Board is required to answer: whether the prisoner should be released. This is essentially a change that brings the decision on release back to where it belongs: the Parole Board, not the expert.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Is not the noble and learned Lord confusing two quite different things? The expert does not give an opinion on whether the person should be released, as the noble and learned Lord suggested has been the case; the expert gives his opinion on whether it is safe for the person to be released. That is quite different. Can the noble and learned Lord, with all of his expertise, think of another form of expert evidence in which the expert is not permitted to give his opinion on the key matter under consideration?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully submit that we are dealing with angels dancing on pins here. What is intended by this change is to make it clear that the responsibility for the decision rests squarely with the Parole Board, and to avoid the risk, however remote, that the expert report tends to usurp the role of the decision-maker, running the risk of them delegating their decision to the expert. This amendment brings the Parole Board process in line with the rest of the justice system. I respectfully refer your Lordships to the evidence of Professor Stephen Shute to the Science and Technology Committee of the other place on 7 September. He made this very point, saying that it is for the Parole Board to make the decision, rather than run the risk of the matter being left in the hands of the expert.
Analogy has been rightly drawn with what happens elsewhere in the justice system; for example, in relation to pre-sentence reports in the criminal process. One does not find the probation officer saying that the court should impose a community sentence. One asks the probation officer to assess whether the offender is suitable for a community sentence. This change will align the practice of the Parole Board more closely with the rest of the justice system.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Not realising that this was a high tea, rather than a dinner break, I confess that much to my regret I was not here at the start of the debate. Why, if this is designed to stop these individual experts pre-empting the Parole Board’s decision, is it left to the Secretary of State to be allowed to do so with his single view?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may respectfully point this out to the noble and learned Lord, the Secretary of State with his single view does not pre-empt the decision of the Parole Board. He presents a single view to the Parole Board.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Why is that any different from the same operation being done by those who have been contributing to the background?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
In a sense, this is an inter partes procedure, with the Secretary of State on one hand and the prisoner on the other. The Secretary of State, like a party, is putting his view to the board. That is the single view that, in my submission, he is entitled to put.
While I am on the single view, this is likely to refer simply to the very top tier of cases, probably 150 to 200 cases a year out of the many thousands that the Parole Board deals with. It refers to very dangerous, highly sensitive cases of prisoners involving murder, serious violence and so forth. In those cases, it is thought right that the Secretary of State, through his representative before the Parole Board, should be able to present a single overarching view. That is a sensible approach which avoids confusion and uncertainty.
Nothing in any of these reforms prevents or limits the ability of the Parole Board to make the right decision or the ability of the relevant members of staff, whether psychologists, probation officers or whatever, to make the risk assessments or to put in whatever observations they wish within the assessment that they are required to make, except to make the relevant recommendation.
It is not a change that should in any way undermine the system. HMPPS staff will continue to provide reports to the Parole Board. Their reports will still contain the same detailed evidence and assessment of risk as before. The only omission will be a recommendation on what decision the report writer thinks the Parole Board should make. Far from undermining the Parole Board, the intention of these reforms is to draw a sharp distinction between the roles of those who provide evidence and those whose duty it is to assess the evidence and reach a decision. That is the essential background.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does my noble and learned friend think it appropriate that a political Minister should be the conveyor of a single view—the only view—on a matter for quasi-judicial discussion?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Secretary of State has an overriding duty to protect the public. In that context, as the guardian of the safety of the public, he is entitled to present his view to the Parole Board, which then decides.
On the second point made by the noble Baroness in relation to the implications for the progression of offenders, the Government’s position is that there is no change. The rules by which prisoners progress through the system and their opportunity for release will continue to be assessed by the Parole Board, as they are at the moment.
On this occasion, I will not go into the open prison/closed prison issue, because that is not the subject of what we are discussing today. On the point we are discussing, this change in the rules about the recommendations, it is a very limited change and is fully in accordance with general principle. HMPPS will continue to provide comprehensive evidence to the Parole Board and factual evidence for the assessment of risk, as before.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I am really rather surprised at what the Minister says. I have sat in courts for many years. To suggest that an expert cannot give an opinion as to what should be the outcome is something I find contrary to everything I remember from my experience, which admittedly was a long time ago.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, with respect, I have always understood it to be the case—I hope I have not got this wrong—that an expert should not normally give his opinion on the very issue on which the court is required to decide. The scope of the expert’s opinion is to provide the court with the factual details. It is the duty of the expert not to say whether X or Y is guilty or not guilty but to provide the court with the facts on which that decision is taken. At least, that is common practice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
In the jurisdiction in which the Minister is so expert, namely competition law—as he knows, I have sat with him in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—economists and other experts giving evidence before the Competition Appeal Tribunal do give an opinion as to whether the practice under consideration is competitive or anti-competitive.
I pull the Minister back to a previous point. Time and again, those of us who have been in criminal courts for a long time have heard judges say to a probation officer, for example, “If I pass a non-custodial sentence, do you think he would comply with orders A, B and C?”. That is an opinion on exactly the issue under consideration. I am completely befuddled by that part of the argument and so, I think, are many noble friends and colleagues.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Perhaps I ought to try to bring this somewhat tetchy debate to a close. The Parole Board is required to decide that it should direct release if it is satisfied that the detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. The provision we are discussing makes it clear that the expert should not pronounce on the prisoner’s suitability for release. In other words, the expert should not pronounce on the principal matter on which the Parole Board is being asked to decide. Subject to that, all the other material that was there before will continue to be there.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, when I had the great honour to be introduced in this House on 14 June this year, little did I imagine that mine would be the very last Letters Patent to be issued by Her late Majesty in connection with a government appointment. Two more distinguished Cross-Benchers—more distinguished than I—were created in June and July, but I believe that I am the most junior Member of this House to make my humble tribute.
Like some others of your Lordships, I have a clear memory of the day that Her late Majesty came to the Throne. When my father picked me up, aged five, from school to say that the King had died, it was clear that he was very deeply affected, even in those days of the stiff upper lip. For that generation, the premature death of their shy but steadfast sovereign who had led them through so much was perhaps even more dreadful. At least we now know how they must have felt. With her adored father as a central inspiration, Her late Majesty was able to build much more widely on his example.
Much has rightly been made of the Commonwealth and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just referred to, Her Majesty made her famous declaration in 1947 where she pledged her service. It is perhaps worth noting that what she pledged to serve was “our … imperial family”. At that time, on her 21st birthday, only four countries of the then empire—the old dominions—were de facto, if not technically de jure, independent, although India and Pakistan achieved dominion status very shortly thereafter. What we have since seen, as has been mentioned already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is a transformation utterly unique in history from an imperial family to a family of 56 independent nations in voluntary association not only with the former imperial power but with each other and their former imperial sovereign.
As during her reign the imperial power waned and eventually vanished altogether, together with the imperial idea, so Her Majesty’s moral stature rose in almost inverse proportion. That tells us something about the nature of true power and the strength of eternal human value. While some regimes may prefer grandiose display, Her Majesty very much had the common touch. Almost everyone she ever met, and many who she never met, from whatever station in life, instinctively felt that she was on their side.
For me and, I would hope, most of this nation, the self-deprecating, understated humour of the marmalade sandwich is surely the most powerful statement of human values, even if a subtle statement, that any monarch could ever make. Her whole life represented an effective answer to aggression and intolerance everywhere. I am sure that His Majesty the King will follow that example. Long live the King.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for rising out of order—forgive me—and I also apologise for not being here yesterday, but I have read in Hansard so many moving speeches, and have heard so many today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said yesterday, it is difficult to know what to add. I simply want to pay my own tribute to a remarkable lady who I have known since I was quite young. I am old enough to remember watching from a balcony at Apsley House the passage of the Coronation procession.
My family have the honour and legal obligation of presenting a tricoloured flag to the sovereign at Windsor Castle on or before 18 June—Waterloo Day—in every year. It has therefore been my incredible privilege, on eight occasions since the death of my father, to present the flag to Her Majesty. The last time, in June, she was as alert, funny and informed as ever, so it was really a shock to me and my family that she died so suddenly on Thursday. I pay tribute to her incredible kindness, simplicity, humanity and humour, and her interest in everything. I feel so fortunate to have known her.
I was very struck yesterday to receive from the mayor of our local town in southern Spain a letter sending condolences to the Royal Family and the British people, in translation describing the Queen as a lady of global importance, not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe. This is from a village in the hills in Andalucía; her impact was indeed universal.
Her Majesty would have been so pleased to know that she was to be succeeded by someone with such qualities and interests as our new King. May she rest in peace—and we now say, as so many have, God save the King, and may he also have a long life.
European Court of Human Rights
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the work of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, successive Governments have long expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the Court of Human Rights and its ability to manage a significant case load, but we welcome the important and ongoing efforts made since the entry into force of protocol 14 to the convention in 2010 and the further reforms which followed the Interlaken declaration and the UK-led Brighton conference. These have helped to ensure that the court focuses on the highest priority cases before it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I can understand why the Minister is in a bit of limbo at the moment, given what is happening beyond this Chamber, but I remind him that on three occasions at that Dispatch Box he said not only that will we remain a member of the European Court of Human Rights but that we will continue to play a leading role, yet outside this Chamber, when he was making those statements, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman, who are going to have quite an influence over the next few months, said they wanted to withdraw. So what is the Government’s position now in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights? Will the noble and learned Lord have courage, particularly following the excellent report of the Law Society today, and reaffirm our position that we will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
While I am on my feet—in view of the political situation, I fully understand why noble Lords want to have a little bit of amusement at my expense—I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who has posed this Question, for his work at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That Assembly plays a very important role in the convention, and the UK plays a very important part in the Assembly. I particularly commend the noble Lord for his work on sport and human rights and his recent report looking at the protection of underage players against risks of abuse and other matters. I thank the noble Lord for his Question.
Lord Beith (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to use the Bill introduced in the other House to limit the ability of citizens to use the convention on human rights to safeguard their position against an over-mighty state? Does that not sit very oddly with the victor of the Conservative Party leadership contest quite often asserting her dislike of an over-mighty state? Is this not one of the main protections against it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is a protection and will remain a protection. The rights in the convention will continue to be respected and enforced by the courts of the United Kingdom as before.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, if we were to withdraw from the convention, we would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe and global Britain would be even less global?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am afraid your Lordship’s question does not arise, since we are not withdrawing from the convention or indeed from the Council of Europe.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Brighton declaration, which was agreed by all state parties to the convention in 2012 under the UK chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, was a clear demonstration of our leadership of that organisation. That declaration set out plans to both reform the convention and improve the effectiveness of the Strasbourg court. Is my noble and learned friend the Minister able to update us as to how the Government are building on that legacy?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We remain a leading force for human rights in the Council of Europe; I will give two examples in response to my noble friend’s question. We are supporting the development of a binding convention to protect the profession of lawyer and the right to practise the profession without prejudice or restraint, and we advocated among other member states for greater awareness of the convention rights among all state parties. This led to a new recommendation in September 2021 on the dissemination of the convention and other relevant texts. In addition, we will shortly participate in the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights, which will start a review of the system for the selection and election of judges to that court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on 14 July in response to the Human Rights Act debate tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Minister said he had plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly to narrow the differences between the UK Government and those legislatures. Has he had those meetings, and how did they go in terms of narrowing the differences?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the position is that those meetings have not yet taken place. It proved quite difficult to arrange them in the Recess and in the light of the impending change of government. I am due to see the Welsh Government on the 19th of this month, and provisional dates for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been arranged for before the end of September.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble and learned friend confirm that, when Her Majesty’s Government have knowledge of a case that is relevant, any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have is automatically offered, rather than partially offered or perhaps sometimes no evidence offered at all?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry, but I am not sure I entirely follow my noble friend’s question.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I am seeking clarification that Her Majesty’s Government, when they know there is a case that is relevant to a citizen or party in the UK, automatically bring forth any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think the answer to that question is in the affirmative. The UK Government follow carefully any case that concerns UK citizens under the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does the Minister, as a jurist of some distinction, agree that dialogue between domestic courts and international ones is incredibly important, and that is what is enshrined in the Human Rights Act?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness; I entirely agree with the importance of dialogue.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is this not the time for people to come together instead of separating from each other, especially when we see what is happening in Ukraine and so on? This is our opportunity to unite people, not divide them. I hope the new Cabinet and the new Prime Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Strasbourg court in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom made a fundamental and damaging error and acted inconsistently with the Vienna convention in holding that the procedural duty under Article 2 of the convention has extraterritorial effect? Has that not damaged the court’s standing in this country and abroad?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the Al-Skeini judgment has raised various problems, and part of the Bill that will shortly be before your Lordships is intended to deal with the question of the extraterritorial ambit of the convention.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the day of the publication of the Bill of Rights Bill, the Minister, writing for ConservativeHome, described it as a “modern framework” for human rights. In Clause 24(3), the Bill instructs judges not to have regard to any interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Would the Minister like to explain to President Zelensky how that is consistent with a modern framework when, in the case of Ukraine v Russia, he successfully gained an interim measure against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights to constrain it from using military force against civilians?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The position of interim measures under the convention, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court and its rules of procedure, is a matter of great delicacy that at the moment is in effect being scrutinised in the Rwanda proceedings currently before the High Court in this country. I think it inappropriate to go further, but the provision in the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred is, in the Government’s view, entirely in accordance with the convention.