Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, to avoid any later confusion or doubt, I should explain that, on behalf of the unavoidably absent noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, I will be speaking to her Amendment 284 on the mandatory reporting duty. It is in a slightly different context, as it is not in the context of grooming gangs. I will not develop it at this stage but wait until that group is reached.

[Baroness Walmsley (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 247B, from the noble Baroness, Lady Maclean of Redditch, seeks to advance and pre-empt the start of the work of the independent commission on grooming gangs. I would say to the noble Baroness that this process must be done properly rather than speedily, so that we can learn lessons for the future from what has happened.

To save the Minister the trouble, I will read to the noble Baroness a few morsels from the Government’s Statement, repeated here on 4 September, with which I agree:

“I know that everyone in the House and beyond wants to see the inquiry begin its work at the earliest opportunity. Colleagues will know that that requires the appointment of a chair and the agreement of terms of reference … Meaningful engagement with victims and survivors is paramount … this process must be done properly and thoroughly … three chairs were appointed and subsequently withdrew, from July 2014 onwards, prior to the eventual appointment of Professor Alexis Jay in 2016”


as the chair of IICSA—that shows how difficult it can be to get the right person—

“In line with the Inquiries Act 2025, the appointed chair will play a central role in shaping the commission’s terms of reference. These will be published and subject to consultation with stakeholders, including victims and survivors … The inquiry will begin by identifying priority areas for review … Where appropriate, the inquiry will issue recommendations at both local and national levels”.


Finally, the Minister said,

“we are determined to ensure that every survivor of grooming gangs gets the support and justice they deserve; that every perpetrator is put behind bars; that every case, historic or current, has been properly investigated; and that every person or institution who looked the other way is held accountable, as that is a stain on our society that should be finally removed for good”.—[Official Report, Commons, 2/9/25; col. 162-63]

I agree with every word of that, and I hope all noble Lords do.

The Minister repeated some of those points only today, at Oral Questions. I wonder what it is that the noble Baroness does not agree with. I hope I can assume that we all have the same objective of obtaining justice for victims, and learning valuable lessons and doing it right, rather than soon.

Amendments 271B and 271C relate to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. I worked for many weeks on that Act, and I think it was comprehensive and carefully drafted in laying out the offences. I believe that there is—I have taken very senior legal advice on this—a danger in describing offences in too much minute detail. I hope the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, will agree that it can make it more difficult to secure a conviction where a conviction should be secured, because additional elements need to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. That could open defences which are not overall justified. I also cannot see how changing terminology would add to justice, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggests.

On Amendments 271D and 271E, from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, I refer him to other parts of the Statement repeated on 4 September. I am sure the Minister will assure him in response that the Government have outlined all the work that has already been started much earlier this year to investigate historical child abuse investigation failings. I will leave it to the Minister to do that.

I welcome the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about the system of mandatory reporting that we are offered in the Bill as it stands; it is simply not good enough, and we will come to a very wide debate about that in group 8. I hope that she will then add her support to amendments to improve that system tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, as well as my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Featherstone and Lord Clement-Jones, and me.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Meston]

272: Clause 72, page 90, line 20, leave out “, they are given reason to suspect” and insert “and Wales, they know or suspect, or have reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting,”
Member’s explanatory statement
The purpose of this amendment is to align the wording with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering as stated in section 330(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the scope of the duty to cover Wales in addition to England.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson cannot be here and has asked me to speak to her amendments in this group, 12 in number, to which I had already added my name in support. I pay tribute to her dedicated campaigning on what we will now debate. All her amendments concern and seek to reinforce the Government’s decision to legislate for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse in a wide range of contexts.

My noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson’s amendments are based on her earlier Private Member’s Bill and echo amendments by her to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which was debated in June. I recall that in that debate the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to a need for a clear and comprehensive system of mandatory reporting. Following the work of IICSA, which highlighted the widespread and endemic nature of child sexual abuse, the Government’s decision to put forward the duty set out in Chapter 2 is welcome and should be supported—but I would say, only as far as it goes.

The main point of difference is that whereas the Bill does not expressly provide for sanctions for non-compliance with the duty, many of us wish the duty to be underpinned by criminal sanctions, as IICSA recommended. Quite simply, a lesser sanction such as a possible referral to a professional regulator or to the Disclosure and Barring Service is not enough to enforce the new and important duty. We will get to this shortly with Amendment 280.

Before we move on, I would like to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was quite correct to emphasise the wide range of situations in which abuse can occur. It is not just child grooming gangs, well-known celebrity abuse cases or cases involving institutions such as churches or schools; the reality is that the majority of child sexual abuse occurs in domestic and family situations. It is therefore welcome that this Bill will potentially cover such a wide range of scenarios.

As someone who spent much of his working life dealing with child abuse cases, I suggest that these basic points should inform the debate on this part of the Bill and the amendments to it. First, safeguarding children should be seen as the responsibility of everyone. I quote my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson:

“A well-designed mandatory reporting law is a key component of an effective safeguarding system”.—[Official Report, 17/1/25; col. 1382.]


I would add that a positive duty to report, with sanctions, is the only certain way of ensuring that steps will be promptly taken to investigate and prevent abuse when it is revealed or suspected.

Secondly, and fundamentally, doing nothing when suspicions of abuse are aroused should not be seen as an option. A failure to report is a culpable failure to protect, and it is a failure to prevent harm to the child concerned and to other children at risk. Thirdly, a child who has the courage to disclose abuse needs to be reassured that his or her anxieties will be quickly and properly dealt with. Fourthly, a strong mandatory law will convey to potential perpetrators that abuse will not be tolerated. Finally, difficult cases concerning historic sexual abuse, whether one likes that term or not, arise in all jurisdictional areas. These require courts to deal with alleged abuse that may have been undetected and/or unreported for many years. A later group of amendments will consider these. In the context of this group, I suggest that a duty to report suspicions of abuse as soon as possible should reduce the number of such historic cases, with all their evidential and emotional complexities.

I turn to the individual amendments. Amendment 272 aims to align the wording of the Bill with that of the equivalent duty to report money laundering in Section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and to extend the duty to cover Wales as well as England. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, makes the point that for the past 23 years the country has protected money in ways in which it has not yet protected children. I have compared other formulations of positive duties elsewhere—for example, in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Female Genital Mutilation Act—and submit that what the amendment here proposes is clearer and more incisive than the wording in the Bill.

Amendment 274 would ensure that any report goes to the local authority that has the duty to protect the child, investigating the child’s circumstances and putting in place therapeutic treatment as well as protective measures. The local authority already has a duty to work with the police and to pass reports on to them if there is evidence of an offence. Amendment 275 is consequential.

Amendment 276 would ensure that a report is made in cases of suspected offences occurring outside England and Wales. Amendment 277 seeks to align the duty with existing statutory guidance, which expects a report to be made as soon as practicable. If there is a risk to the life or safety of a relevant child, the guidance expects the report to be expedited rather than delayed in order to enable fast consideration of necessary intervention.

Amendment 278 would remove the scope for people not to report when they believe that someone else will do so. Experience shows—certainly this is my own experience—that that is just one of the many ways in which people with knowledge or suspicion of abuse will convince themselves that it is all right to do nothing, and to hope that the problem will go away.

Amendment 279 is intended to make it clear that the management and proprietors of a setting have the duty to report suspected abuse—for example, when suspicions are reported to management by other staff. It should not be a prerequisite to have had any direct contact with the child, nor should it be an excuse that they did not have any direct contact with the child. It is not the responsibility or function of management to consider the merits of the complaint; they have a straightforward responsibility to report concerns.

Amendment 280 would make failure to report a criminal offence, and this is perhaps the central amendment as far as we are concerned. The IICSA report made a balanced and carefully considered recommendation that it should be, providing for defences as indicated in the amendment. I suggest that criminalising a failure to report is justified in helping to reduce a significant risk of substantial harm to children. Paragraph 116 of the IICSA report states:

“Where an individual to whom mandatory reporting laws apply has witnessed or received a disclosure of child sexual abuse, it should be a criminal offence to fail to report that to the relevant local authority or police force. Such a failure would amount to a deliberate decision not to pass on information about child sexual abuse to those authorities empowered to protect children from harm and to prevent future abuse by investigating and prosecuting it when it occurs. For those who work with children or are in a position of trust to fail to facilitate that is inexcusable, and the sanction for such an omission should be commensurate”.


Amendment 281 seeks to define “operators of a setting” in cases of private and corporate ownership, and Amendment 284 would clarify and describe the wide range of settings in which relevant activities covered by Clause 72 might occur. These are not exclusive lists, and I hope the Committee will recognise the wide extent of the activities that need to be covered. For example, the amendment refers outside mainstream religious organisations, to

“other organisations holding non-religious worldviews”.

That echoes cases I have dealt with involving sects and cults that are closed and secretive, and insist on loyalty.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Kennedy of Cradley) (Lab)]

Before we move on, I clarify that the lead amendment in this group, Amendment 271F, was not moved so we have moved on to Amendment 272, which has been proposed as the lead amendment, and the group will continue as normal.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

Thank you for that. I was slightly confused, because the first amendment in the group was not moved.

[Baroness Featherstone (LD)]

My Lords, this follows on very well because I will speak to Amendment 283 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, which would insert after Clause 72 the offence of intentionally concealing child sex abuse.

There is a real problem—and it is an omission from the Bill—because leadership and supervisory roles are completely excluded from the reporting duty. The duty applies only to individuals in contact with children, but we in this House and elsewhere all know that it is not just the social workers, the medics or the police who have direct contact with the child who know that there is sexual abuse at play. It is often the leaders, the CEOs, the chairs of boards, the staff who are too scared to mention it in case of reputational damage, and those in command who suppress incidents of child sexual abuse. This confines mandated reporters to only those who have regular unsupervised contact, creating a critical gap in the Bill.

It would be absolutely unforgivable to let this Bill to protect children go through with such a glaring gap in their protection. Furthermore, there are no criminal penalties proposed for failure to report, and without sanction it lacks teeth. An additional problem is that in two of the industrial-scale institutions of child sexual abuse that we have witnessed—the health service and religious institutions—confidentiality is a kind of get-out clause. We need to overcome that.

The UK Government launched the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, which was explicitly tasked with uncovering the systemic failures that allowed such abuse to flourish untrammelled. The key recommendation was that the UK must introduce a mandatory reporting law for child sexual abuse. We welcome that this is now happening, but noble Lords have all encountered or understood that, very often, the protection of an institution, a company or an entity silences many who work in that institution but know what is going on, and that takes priority. That silence—actually silencing staff or members—is commonplace.

Look at the obvious ones, such as the Catholic Church. Across multiple countries, investigations found that Church leaders reassigned accused priests, maintained secret files and prioritised avoiding scandal over reporting allegations. Church of England independent reviews found that senior clergy discouraged reporting and protected accused individuals to avoid damaging the institution’s standing. In the health service, the BBC exposure of Jimmy Savile’s years of abuse demonstrated beyond belief how many people knew but said nothing. Internal discussions showed that investigations were discouraged or blocked due to concerns about reputation, and Savile’s celebrity and connections. In private schools and boarding schools, multiple inquiries documented quiet dismissals of staff and minimised complaints to preserve reputation, funding and donor relationships. It happens in sports clubs and organisations. Various youth sports organisations protected coaches, dismissed complaints and pressurised victims to stay quiet to maintain prestige. So often companies and institutions are too big to fail. They use threats or non-disclosure agreements and so on to cover up misdeeds in fear of reputational damage. This is intentional, and that is why this amendment would put a criminal offence of intentionally concealing knowledge of child sex abuse on to the statute book.

I have personal knowledge of such a case. In this instance, it was child abuse rather than child sexual abuse. Great Ormond Street, our national treasure, suppressed a report, the Sibert-Hodes report, that it had commissioned. It showed the hospital to have responsibility for the failing clinic where baby P, Peter Connelly, was taken multiple times with multiple injuries and subsequently died, and where it had employed an underqualified doctor who failed. In that clinic there were three other doctors, none of whom was present. Two were on gardening leave and the other had left.

Cover-ups are happening all the time. The Bill is an opportunity to stop this practice, where NDAs, threats and gardening leave are all used to prevent exposure. I believe this follows on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, is trying to do with her amendment; it would expand it. I hope and trust that the Government understand the importance of these amendments and move urgently to fill the gaping hole in this legislation as proposed.

While I am on my feet, I will speak to Amendment 287 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell, about training for those subject to the mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse. I am indebted to the NSPCC for its help on this vital aspect of this new duty. In this amendment we are seeking to make mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse a reality, because without training—proper training, probably expensive training—it will not happen as intended in the Bill. It is vital that all those responsible for reporting under the new duty be trained effectively so that they feel supported and able, and are effectively trained to a high standard on their obligations.

The new mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse has the potential to ensure that anyone working or volunteering with children knows that the sexual abuse of children cannot be tolerated or ignored. It will be illegal to tolerate or ignore it, and proper implementation must be embedded from the very start. Those who are responsible for reporting child sexual abuse must be properly trained to know what, how and where to report. The onus for ensuring this cannot rely solely on individual organisations. If this duty is to have a widespread impact, we need cross-sector, cross-government buy-in so that all reporters, no matter what organisation, community or area they come from, are empowered to protect children.

That is why this amendment is so vital: to ensure effective training for all mandated reporters within the mandatory reporting duty. Recognising, reporting and, crucially, responding to child sexual abuse is not easy or straightforward, because we know that disclosures from children do not usually happen in one conversation. They can happen in many forms, verbally or non-verbally, and emerge over a long period of time. They will often be the result of consistent and skilled engagement from a trusted adult that helps the child feel safe and ready to share their experiences.

Reporters may also struggle to decipher whether what they have seen is indeed child sexual abuse—such as if they came across child sexual abuse material online but were unsure of the age of the victim—particularly if they are not already trained to identify recognised signs and indicators of abuse. Their responsibility to the child cannot stop at disclosure or witnessing abuse. It is vital that any child who discloses their experience of abuse is met with an effective response.

We know that there is already a significant need for greater training and support for skilled professionals to improve their response to child sexual abuse, as detailed in the recent reports from the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel and the review into child exploitation of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. This is a gap in our child protection system that must be closed to better protect children, and this duty provides us with both the impetus and the opportunity to do so by taking a whole-system approach to embedding the duty. Therefore, those who are responsible for reporting on abuse and disclosures such as these must be trained not only in how to identify what child sexual abuse is, what a disclosure is and where to report it, but also in how to provide vital support to a child all the way through to after the report has been made and beyond.

This duty will apply not only to safeguarding professionals but to volunteers, sports coaches, youth club leaders and faith leaders, to name but a few. We cannot assume that all mandated reporters will already have the necessary understanding of child protection required to carry out their responsibilities under this really serious duty. This is essential, not only on the practical level of understanding the duty itself but, arguably more importantly, in providing this sensitive support to children in a way that does not put them at risk. My amendment seeks to ensure that an understanding of child protection is intrinsic to the duty, guaranteeing that all those with responsibility as a mandated reporter receive, at a minimum, initial and ongoing training—essential elements of their new responsibilities.

In conclusion, from how to recognise signs and indicators to judging when reporting should be delayed for the safety of the child, reporters must be supported. Otherwise, we risk putting children in danger of being harmed by the reporting process, in addition to the hurt they have already received. By baking this guarantee into primary legislation, the Government can be confident that their duty will be implemented and regulated consistently across different sectors. It would also reassure reporters that they will not face sanctions because the organisation they work or volunteer for cannot afford to resource and train them appropriately. We owe it to all the victims and survivors who have bravely called for a mandatory reporting duty over so many years to ensure that it is done properly.

--- Later in debate ---

I suspect our debate today will not have resolved the long-standing disagreements over the duty’s design. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for moving the amendments. We have had a lot of discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, both on her original Bill and on her amendments and outside the Committee, and I have discussed that in wide terms. We will reflect on all the debates and discussions that have been had today. I believe that the Government have a duty to get this right, and, as we plan ahead for implementation, I will be happy to arrange further meetings with any noble Lord or noble Baroness who has spoken today to ensure we are not losing sight of the valuable questions raised in this debate. But I cannot accept the amendments today, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, will withdraw his amendment. Obviously, we may return to this on Report, and the door is open to have further discussions on these matters.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, it is now appropriate for me to beg leave to withdraw Amendment 272, reserving our right to return to it, and others not moved, after proper discussion with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, when she has seen our debate—and read and marked my homework.

Amendment 272 withdrawn.

Crime and Policing Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 22 and to Amendment 1. I believe that we need to look at the current rules as they stand and have a review of those rules, their effectiveness and who they fall upon. As someone who has been a youth worker for over three decades now, I have seen large parts of poorer communities, black and white, end up in very serious legal entanglements just because of what somebody else has subjectively decided was a piece of anti-social behaviour which has then led to some kind of legal sanction. These respect orders seem like a very fast track too. Many people’s behaviour is not what I would call traditional, is not recognised, and therefore these orders would become a real danger to them; there is a real danger that they have done something that was anti-social and all of a sudden, they are facing a criminal sanction.

Notwithstanding what the last speaker said—that the court would then go back and test and would have to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, above the civil court’s level of proof—it would be too late for many young people, because it would have blighted them. Many young people act out once they realise they are in trouble, because they are afraid. If we are going to put someone through that mechanism, we had better make sure that they actually have a question to answer before we posit a question that leads them to end up in some kind of legal entanglement.

Another thing to consider is that, if we change the age of criminal consent, we have to be careful that we do not expose young people to gang grooming. If a gang is able to say that, under a certain age, you will not be legally held to account for your crimes, they will use that as a rallying cry, as a recruitment cry. Currently, most children of 10 years of age understand the risk they would be taking. If we remove that, we could be exposing those children inadvertently to high levels of gang membership, because they will be told, “You cannot be prosecuted, because you cannot be held responsible”. I really think that bears looking at.

All that said, my Amendment 22 is a very small amendment, but I believe it is very important. We all know that anti-social behaviour can be an absolute blight on a whole community’s life. It is often the beginning, the prelude, to a very large and long criminal career, so if we can nip it in the bud early, that is very important. When it comes to where people live, the ripple effect from small amounts of anti-social behaviour can affect hundreds, so I welcome the Bill’s aim to tackle anti-social behaviour in the UK, especially around housing developments. I think that is a very good thing to do. However, I am concerned that the Bill in its current form fails to extend the new powers to all housing providers. Currently, the Bill provides for social housing inconsistently. This does not appear to be a purposeful exclusion; rather, the Bill uses the definition of “housing provider” from the crime and policing Act 2014, a definition that talks about not-for-profit housing providers.

As the Bill is currently worded, institutional housing providers are not covered by these rules. I think it is very important that they are, because it is a huge sector, projected to grow to very large proportions in future, and it looks after the same vulnerable communities as any other housing provider. That is the important thing here. Whether they are institutionally funded or not is actually irrelevant; it is about who is their client group. Their client group is some of the most vulnerable communities in this country, which many of our RSLs are very good at catering for, but because they are dealing with the same client group, because the young people and older people in their purview are exposed to exactly the same situations, they should have exactly the same powers to help people.

We are talking about the ability to defend people’s life chances, because we can make where they are living safe. It can be dealt with properly. I have worked on many housing estates; I was born and raised on one myself. Anti-social behaviour that cannot be addressed by the landlord is an absolute blight on people’s lives, so we are just asking for that small wording to be changed. It would be a very small but very powerful change. I believe that it is not a purposeful exclusion; it is just because we are using the definition from 2014.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I too agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, and I have added my name to his Amendment 12 to ask the Government to amplify the basis upon which exclusion orders might be made and the quality of the evidence required. An order excluding someone from his or her home has always to be seen as a last resort —in this context, when other less drastic restraints have not worked or are clearly not likely to work. I therefore hope that the Government can clarify the likely scenarios and the criteria that will apply when exclusion orders are sought and granted.

As I understand it, under the Bill, the application will be based on the risk assessment to be carried out under new Section J1, supplemented by guidance yet to come. The Bill does not expressly say, as far as I can see, that the risk assessment should be included with the application to be made to the court, or that it should be served on the respondent where possible. Both requirements should surely be explicit, not implicit. I suggest also that at least the risk assessment should be expected to summarise the behaviour and attitude of the respondent giving rise to the risk of harm, and specifically to the need to evict him or her from their home. In addition, and by analogy with the family jurisdiction, with which I am more familiar, it should actually state the effects of making or not making the order on other known occupants of the home, including relevant children.

Finally, the assessment, I suggest, should set out clearly the reasons to believe that making an exclusion order will actually reduce the perceived risks. Experience shows—certainly, my experience shows—that in some cases, making such an order may do no more than move the problem on somewhere else.

[Lord Hacking (Lab)]

My Lords, I echo a lot of the concerns that have been expressed so far in this debate. The scrutiny of the Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is something that I hope we will all take very careful note of.

I particularly support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti in her first intervention. She is very experienced in social matters from her days in Liberty, and she rightly warns us that there will be a lot of problems if respect orders are brought in as they are legislated. Incidentally, respect orders cover 11 pages of the Bill, a Bill that I, for legislative complaints, described at Second Reading as “a monster”. I shall not describe these 11 pages on respect orders as being a monster, because I think the Government have been trying very hard to get it right, but they have not so far done so, and therefore the sensible thing—and this is not to criticise the Government—is for there to be a pause, and for these new respect orders not to be brought in as such in the Bill but only after we have been able to review the entirety of these orders, anti-social orders and orders to protect citizens from being badly disturbed living in their homes or walking the streets.

I urge my noble friend the Minister to move with caution and to accept that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is not a destructive amendment but a sensible amendment to achieve the one thing that we should be achieving in the Bill, which is to get it right, as right as we possibly can.

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I am one of the two survivors of the Committee on Medical Ethics that reported in 1994, consequent on the case of Anthony Bland. Since then, my views have changed, assisted by the report from the Nuffield Council on Bioethics. While some arguments for and against the Bill are finely balanced, it now seems to me that the balance comes down in its favour, and I support it.

The status quo is unacceptable. At present, it is possible irrationally to refuse life-saving treatment, but not possible to pursue an independent, rational request for life-ending treatment. At present, the law allows suicide but can criminalise any compassionate loved ones from whom the person may want or need help. The law cannot be left as it is: discriminating in favour of those who still have the physical ability and finance to travel abroad unaided, while allowing other unregulated, covert and sometimes drastic practices to continue. Opponents of the Bill must consider how much of the existing status quo they wish to continue.

I do not accept the more extreme objections to the Bill. The legislation is indeed not rushed; the topic has been extensively considered in and out of Parliament for years. Ironically, the first Bill rejected by this House in 1936 is said to have failed because the safeguards were too cumbersome. I do not accept speculative, overstated, slippery slope arguments. Good legislation can and should provide firm footholds on any perceived slope through unambiguous drafting, clear and specific safeguards and guidelines—including active oversight—and proper exploration of realistic alternative medical options, including palliative care. Parliament can and should retain control of the focus and clear confines of the new law, and the courts and the Government can be expected to make clear that any further permitted extension of such law should be for Parliament and require primary legislation.

The risk and sources of possible improper pressure by unscrupulous partners or relatives can be discerned and addressed by appropriate regulation and procedures, and by informed assessment of the family’s structure and dynamics and the financial implications. The proposed multidisciplinary panel should have an inquisitorial approach to collect and test the necessary evidence and, where necessary, make factual decisions.

Further consideration should be given to requiring earlier notification to family and carers, and encouraging their participation, if wanted, and requiring disclosure of testamentary arrangements. I would like to see a wider role for the independent advocate, authoritative guidance for vital assessment of capacity and possible protection of anonymity. This Bill was improved in another place; it can be further improved here.

Finally, I would suggest that perhaps the worst possible outcome would be differing laws in different jurisdictional parts of the British Isles.

Domestic Abuse: Victims and Survivors

Lord Meston Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the Government’s aim to halve violence against women and girls in a decade, target perpetrators and address the root causes of abuse and violence is clearly ambitious. It is perhaps less ambitious than the elimination of domestic violence, referred to in the Motion before us.

Statistics do not suggest either aim to be possible. The World Health Organization reports domestic violence to be the largest cause of morbidity in women aged 19 to 44—more than wars, cancer or motor accidents. Domestic abuse used to be seen as essentially a private problem, except in extreme cases. Changed perceptions and the Human Rights Act have given the state responsibilities for positive, preventive and protective action, now reinforced by the Istanbul convention, signed in 2012 and eventually ratified in 2022. That is a convention based on realities rather than on abstract rights.

Domestic abuse persists and will continue to do so, but having worked in family law for a long time I want to emphasise some significant improvements: first, the changes in terminology that have already been referred to. The 2021 Act provides a wide and useful definition of domestic abuse, including psychological, emotional and economic abuse, and it is not confined to what happens in a home, if there is one. But the word “domestic” remains fundamental, emphasising the need to protect homes as places of security and safety, and not as places of dangerous misery.

The recognition of controlling or coercive behaviour has served to focus the attention of the courts and professionals on patterns of behaviour rather than individual incidents. There is now a much better understanding of the impact on victims, in terms of social and familial isolation and loss of self-esteem, particularly in households and relationships in which violence and abuse have become normalised.

However, many perpetrators of abuse, lacking empathy and insight, all too easily move on to other harmful relationships. The family courts see this time and again. Sadly, Sarah’s law and Clare’s law are seldom used by those who most need them.

There are positive indications, however. The police have become more responsive and better at recognising domestic abuse. Refuges remain vital in giving at least temporary safety and enabling women to move on. IDVAs are an invaluable addition to the practical support available; funding for them should be assured. Cafcass officers are now subject to a new Cafcass domestic abuse practice policy, based on hearing victims clearly and taking concerns seriously.

I do not wish to take any more time defending the role of the family courts, but we have to resolve conflicting claims of ulterior motives. There is now a very valuable Family Justice Council document giving welcome and important guidance, giving greater weight to domestic abuse allegations and to suggestions of potential alienation.

Istanbul Convention: Article 59

Lord Meston Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord has powerfully mentioned. As I have indicated, a review is being undertaken by my honourable friend the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls, Jess Phillips, in the House of Commons. That review will be completed in short order, I hope, and I will be able to report its outcome back to this House in due course. I fully understand the passion with which the noble Lord speaks.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, it is well known that uncertainty about immigration status can be exploited by those wanting to continue to restrict and control a partner or former partner, so it is welcome that we now have some clarification about our compliance with the obligations under Article 59. The article is not open to abuse or misuse: it is confined by its terms to those in particularly difficult circumstances. In view of what the Minister has said, can he also confirm what will happen when the reservation, which was originally time limited, and I think remains so, expires?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The question of the expiry of Article 59 is part of the review. I find myself in the difficult position of repeating myself: a review is being undertaken and its outcome will be reported back to this House in due course, and a decision will be taken by the Government to maintain the previous Government’s reservation or change it. I am not in a position today to inform the House of the outcome of that review.

King’s Speech

Lord Meston Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, having been a family judge for some years, I welcome the opportunity to endorse what was just said about deprivation of liberty orders concerning children. I have had to make such orders myself, and they are very worrying. What is required is further inquiry into how that jurisdiction works.

I turn to the main topic of the debate. In the latter part of the last Parliament, useful work was done to produce what is now the Victims and Prisoners Act—the framework on which the new Government can build, and now have the time to do so. The greatest disservice to victims is caused by delays in getting their cases to and through the courts. There is no time now to analyse the reason for such delays—the backlogs, and what has become a chronic inability to catch up—but I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, said, when he provided an impressive warm-up act for his own maiden speech. I urge the Government to take note of the Bar Council’s recent Manifesto for Justice, which proposes a requirement for Crown Court trials to start

“within six months of the first hearing”.

Surely that can and should be properly seen as an attainable target.

Avoidable delays cause most distress and strain in cases of sexual assault. Rape cases have a high rate of not-guilty pleas, requiring jury trials. The Government’s plan for designated rape courts is welcome, but it is unclear whether those specialist courts will be additional to, or simply part of, existing court capacity. Few court buildings have spare space suitable to the requirements of sensitive rape trials, in which defendants and witnesses have to be isolated and separated. Will these courts be confined to rape cases, or will other serious sexual offences be similarly dealt with there? This is an important part of the Government’s stated ambition to curtail violence against women and girls. Without a restoration of confidence in the processes facing victims, allegations will continue to be unreported. Ultimately, the measure of the success or failure of the Government’s plans will be how many victims of such offences would still say in future that they would not again participate in the criminal process.

The crisis of overcrowding in prisons that has prompted the need for early release, as well as a welcome promise to reinvigorate the probation service, has already been spoken to at some length. Therefore, I will not say more about it, other than to add that sentencing decisions, which can be difficult enough, should be governed by established and considered principles—with guidelines developed to ensure consistency and public confidence—rather than by the fluctuating size of the prison estate.

As is well known, and as the Lancet recently reported:

“People with mental health disorders are disproportionately represented in prison populations and are more likely to have poor physical health and social outcomes after prison”.


It is therefore crucial, to prevent reoffending and recidivism, that proper measures exist to prepare prisoners for release and to support them after release, at the very least in their first few weeks outside. It serves nobody if the first person to meet a newly released prisoner is his or her former drug dealer.

In that regard, we should commend and reinforce the work done by organisations such as the St Giles Trust and Unlock, which help those with criminal records lead stable lives; I was pleased to hear what the Minister said about that. On a separate note, I would inquire how the Government propose to revisit the problem of convicted criminals who resist, sometimes physically, attending court for sentencing. The last thing victims need or want is disruption of a sentencing hearing by a defiant defendant trying to attract attention. The imposition of an additional penalty for those facing long sentences will be no more than a token gesture; perhaps, therefore, the best answer for such conduct is to have some impact on parole.

I will not proceed to speak about family law, which I know most about, other than to say that I endorse most of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy. However, I hope he would accept that the judiciary do their best to keep costs down.

I hope that the change in government will see an end to ill-considered attempts to curtail and disapply the Human Rights Act and the regard to be had for the European Convention on Human Rights. It has served us well in raising standards within the legal system and beyond, and should not be diluted.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Well said.