Criminal Cases Review Commission

Lord Meston Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I will have to write to my noble friend; I do not have those figures in my pack. As I said, the CCRC has a target of completing case reviews in about 85% of cases within 12 months, which it is meeting in 10 months out of 12. I cannot answer my noble friend’s question with an exact figure, but I will write to her.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government agree that the provisional proposals for reform of the tests and processes of the CCRC, indicated recently by the Law Commission, have a lot to commend them? No doubt the Government will say that we should wait for the Law Commission’s final report next year, but meanwhile has any assessment been made of the implications of likely reforms for applications that have previously been rejected by the review commission, which may well require reconsideration? Has any assessment been made of the implications for the workload of the Court of Appeal?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a number of very important questions, which will, of course, be answered by the interim chair when that name is announced. The workload of the Court of Appeal is an important factor in this, and the tests for how those cases are referred up to the Court of Appeal are important as well. As I said earlier, the answer to the question lies in both the Law Commission report and the work of the new interim chair.

Crown Court Criminal Case Backlog

Lord Meston Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the essential causes of the backlog we are debating are clear enough. They are to be found in prevalent austerity measures, underfunding of legal aid, sales of the court estate and underinvestment in the remainder—and what has been described as the unmitigated disaster of the privatisation of the Probation Service. A bad situation was made worse for the courts and their users by the pandemic, some of which I spent in a subterranean Nightingale court. The response of all court staff to the pandemic was impressive and should be acknowledged.

The effects of the backlog are also clear, particularly for victims. The courts have to prioritise some types of case, inevitably to the disadvantage of others. Delays impair the court process: evidence gets mislaid, witnesses disappear or disengage, and juries require specific necessary directions on the effect of passing time on memories of events and on the availability and reliability of witnesses. Of particular concern to family judges are cases in which there are parallel proceedings in a criminal and family court. It used to be possible to defer hearing a family case likely to be determined by the outcome of a criminal case. Delays now mean that that simply cannot be done. The situation is now reversed, with charging decisions often awaiting the decision of a fact-finding hearing in the family court. That produces yet further delay in the criminal case and prolonged uncertainty for the family, and the children in particular.

In the short term, clearly courts and the court estate should be worked to full capacity without artificial and frustrating restrictions on permitted sitting days. That would allow for the use of trial and sentencing blitzes, and more use of part-time judges, including those authorised to sit in retirement. However, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Bellamy, that it is really time to end the fiction that listing is a judicial function.

Longer term, consideration should be given to the Bar Council proposal requiring Crown Court trials to start within six months of the first hearing. In time, this will prove no more unrealistic than the 26 weeks for disposal of public law children’s cases in the family court, to which legal and other professionals have responded resolutely. That should be underpinned by rigorous case management by procedural judges, relieving the full-time judiciary—particularly in smaller court centres—from work which cuts into and holds up listed and ongoing trials.

Time does not permit the consideration of the longer-term suggested solutions eroding jury trials, but we should recall the Lammy review and research that concluded that the one stage in the criminal justice system at which minority groups do not face disproportionality is when a jury reaches a verdict.

Prenuptial Agreements

Lord Meston Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I have practised in family law as a barrister for many years and latterly have worked as a family judge. I do not find it altogether easy to recognise the picture of how the law now works, as portrayed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but never mind; that is a debate for another day.

Given that the median duration of marriages ending in divorce is now just under 13 years, it is a good time to assess the effect on law and practice of the important decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher 15 years ago. Typically, the parties to prenuptial agreements may legitimately wish to ring-fence inherited or previously acquired assets or, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said, wish to ensure provision for children of previous relationships. Not surprisingly, agreements are now said to be popular with the farming community, with their particularly illiquid assets. All who enter into such agreements will naturally wish to avoid the costs and hazards of litigation.

The perception and use of prenuptial agreements have developed remarkably. They were felt by some to devalue a view of marriage for life, distastefully requiring the involvement of lawyers in what was supposed to be the happy period leading up to the marriage ceremony. They used to be seen as required only by wealthy older men after several unsuccessful trips around the matrimonial course, who wanted to protect themselves in case the latest candidate for matrimony turned out to be a gold-digger—at least, from the man’s point of view. They were also seen as disadvantaging women, who were asked to waive some or all of what they might expect to receive if the marriage later ended in divorce, and as allowing parties to contract out of the responsibility to meet each other’s needs.

In a classic American case, the very wealthy husband, 25 years older than the wife, presented her with an agreement only a few hours before the marriage ceremony, and threatened to cancel the marriage if she did not sign. She had sparse knowledge of his finances and did not have any independent advice, only a session with a lawyer selected by the husband. That lawyer, to his credit, advised her not to sign. However, in spite of that advice, she signed the agreement and the marriage went ahead. Thirteen years and two children later, there was a divorce and costly litigation across two state jurisdictions.

The decision of the Supreme Court in Radmacher has reduced the prospect of such a scenario in the United Kingdom. Rushed agreements with limited legal advice and limited disclosure, particularly if they appear unfair and very different from what the court might otherwise order, cannot expect to be upheld, and in reality can be worse than having no agreement at all.

The Law Commission’s later well-researched and reasoned recommendations in 2014 included the crucial requirements for there to be independent legal advice for each party and sufficient financial disclosure, and for the agreement to be completed at least 28 days before the wedding. Although those recommendations are not yet in statute, they undoubtedly already reflect current good practice and have helped to make agreements more popular and effective.

I noted with some surprise the doubt expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, questioning the need for a cooling-off period of 28 days. However, there is a need to protect those who get married in a fever, to quote the old song.

The remaining area of controversy concerns whether and in what circumstances the court might go beyond an agreement, freely and properly entered into, that would otherwise be expected to be binding upon the parties. There is a clear distinction between agreements unfair from the outset and agreements that may later operate unfairly if access to legal remedies is severely restricted. It was recommended by the commission that the court’s jurisdiction to make provision for needs should not be ousted by qualifying agreements, so that no party would be left unjustifiably without resources following separation. To that extent, the mere fact of an agreement cannot make fair what may otherwise appear or become particularly unfair.

The Law Commission said there was little evidence of how agreements operate in practice and that it would be helpful to have more relevant information about how popular they are, how they are treated in litigation and how many cases settle on the basis of agreements. I suggest that it would also be helpful to have reliable overall evidence of the difference between the outcomes that prenups produce and the outcomes that the court would otherwise direct. I suspect that the majority of prenups are not seen by the courts because the couples involved manage to stay married and leave the agreement in a drawer, and that many other agreements are seen by the courts only because the parties simply wish to comply with it by submitting it in support of an agreed order, to reflect what has been agreed.

It is likely that those prenups that are challenged, at least by those with enough money to do so, come before the court only because of inadequate drafting or unforeseen changes in circumstances, or because of an irresistible dispute about jurisdiction if the agreement was made outside England and Wales. However, I seriously question the number of challenges that was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, but statistics will prove one or other of us right or wrong.

Carefully prepared agreements, although unromantic and transactional, can provide couples with a sense of security and certainty, reducing some of the acrimony and expense in the event of later permanent separation, and reducing the temptation to divert or conceal assets ahead of a divorce. Specialist legal practitioners can now help parties to achieve fair, realistic and civilised agreements, capable of later revision, that the courts will uphold. Indeed, if in doubt, the parties can now ask the court for an early decision as to whether the agreement is determinative of their financial affairs.

Nevertheless, there remain parties who sign agreements and marry, having ignored, rejected or not understood good legal advice that they could or would be better off marrying without the agreement. The Law Commission described the argument for autonomy as strong but as raising concerns that some may still enter an agreement unwillingly or with unrealistic optimism. The chances of that are not likely to be much diminished by any legislation. As the right reverend Prelate suggested, contractual autonomy has to be seen in the peculiarly emotional context of these agreements.

It is clearly premature to anticipate a final report by the Law Commission on the much wider question of whether and how substantial reform of financial remedies legislation should be undertaken, and any decision by the Government on that. Paragraph 7.98 of the commission’s recent scoping report suggests that, if there is not to be major change, its recommendations relating to agreements could be implemented straightaway, but, if major changes are expected, the recommendations about agreements will need to be reconsidered. We should be grateful to the noble Baroness for making us think hard about that.

If there are major wholesale changes, many existing agreements could well need postnuptial revision and renegotiation. An important component of any good advice is what a court might do in the absence of a prenup to protect the economically weaker party. Until it is clear what the law is to be in the foreseeable future, it will be hard to give satisfactory advice to those who need it about what might happen at a much later date.

If reforms are undertaken piecemeal, with prenups legislated for in advance of substantive law reforms, there is a risk that some agreements based on the substantive law in force when the agreement was reached would become unfair, and so would either produce an unfair result or have to be renegotiated, if the parties were willing to do so, failing which they might have to go to court. However, I accept that, to some extent, that risk exists irrespective of whether the law relating to prenups is reformed as the noble Baroness has proposed, and irrespective of changes that may be further down the track

Accordingly, meanwhile, until clarity is reached and a decision is made about how we should proceed, I suggest that the approach that has developed following Radmacher now works well, and that the family courts can and should be trusted to continue to deal with individual cases as required.

Humanist Weddings

Lord Meston Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I cannot remember making that commitment, so I will need to write to my noble friend about that matter.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, the House should recognise that the Minister’s answer of “in the coming months” is rather better than we have had before. Humanists and others simply want a marriage ceremony that reflects their beliefs, whether religious or not, and that will be legally recognised without unnecessary obstacles. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are now actively looking at comprehensive reform, in line with the Law Commission’s 2023 recommendations, to help not just humanists but other similarly disadvantaged groups, even if that may take more time than we would want?

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are indeed looking at comprehensive reform. There are many anomalies within our current marriage law and a number of disadvantaged groups. We believe that we need to take our time on this matter to get the answer right, so I thank the noble Lord for his question.

Humanist Marriages

Lord Meston Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

The statistic that the noble Baroness cited is accurate from my experience. Yes, such a change would have a disproportionate benefit for same-sex couples, and that factor should be taken into account in the review.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, rather than an equality impact assessment, what are required are certainty, clarity and essential fairness in the law governing all marriages, religious and non-religious, in line with the recommendations of the Law Commission back in 2022? People now use a variety of ceremonies—religious and non-religious—and should, frankly, be confident of their status at the end of each ceremony. Surely, the Government can direct reforms to meet those requirements.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble Lord. The objective of the Government is to have clarity and fairness in relation to weddings within England and Wales. There were 57 recommendations in a 500-page report from the Law Commission, and the Government need to take their time to consider them all carefully.

Property (Digital Assets etc) Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Second reading committee
Wednesday 6th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we should indeed be grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this Bill. It concerns a topic for which there are mixed messages, as we have already gathered.

Digital assets are now said to be a fundamental part of modern society and economies, yet it is clear that many people continue to regard them with suspicion. They see them as a currency for criminals; as a sophisticated way to launder money or otherwise put funds out of reach in order to evade tax or creditors; or, in the legal area with which I am most familiar, as a way to frustrate claims by estranged spouses and partners. Others regard any investment in digital assets as a peculiarly risky way for fools to be parted from their money, lacking even the colourful excitement of a horse race or tulip fever.

However, it is also clear from the enthusiasm we have heard today that the market in crypto assets is here to stay and grow. Nevertheless, these are programmable assets that remain volatile, illiquid and an intangible species of wealth. They are transferred, stored or traded electronically on what are described as permissionless and public global systems with unregulated intermediaries, which are, as I recently read, detached from traditional geographical boundaries.

It seems that the criminal law is ahead of the civil law in this regard, as was shown by the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act of last year. The law and many non-criminal lawyers have had to get to grips with unfamiliar technological terminology and legal complexities. Bitcoins, altcoins and Bored Apes are beyond the experience and ambitions of many of us; I admit that, before starting work on this Bill, I had never heard of, let alone thought about, reification or rivalrousness. Doubtless others present for this debate talk of little else.

The remarkable feature of the debate is that we are now considering a Bill, as has been said, with just two clauses on less than one page; indeed, the use of the abbreviation “etc” in the short title is hardly justified. It follows, of course, a report by the Law Commission of more than 300 pages and a supplementary report of a further 80 pages. The Law Commission reports on this topic show a breadth and depth of research and analysis based on wide consultation, making its conclusions authoritative and compelling. Of particular help is the way in which those reports expressly consider, balance and address differing and contrary arguments and viewpoints.

The fundamental proposition underlying the Bill is the conclusion of the commission that, in the common law world and elsewhere, there is now a persuasive, clear and well-reasoned body of case law that holds that certain digital assets are capable of being objects of personal property rights; and the further conclusion that the law should focus on the attributes or characteristics of the thing with which it is concerned in a particular case, without rigid application to so-called “third-category things”—legal principles formulated by reference to other things that are capable of being objects of personal property rights.

The Bill itself, admirably drafted with unambiguous brevity, is designed to knock out potential arguments about the essential nature of the property rights relating to digital assets. It is now to be hoped that, as a result, there will be no further doubt that such property rights fall within Article 1 of the first Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; and that, nearer to home, digital assets can be property capable of transfer in matrimonial and family cases before the courts.

I suggest that the points to take away from the Law Commission’s work are these. First, statutory confirmation through the Bill will provide greater and valuable legal certainty for many cases, and will allow the law to develop from a clear foundation and from a considered parliamentary decision that has recognised existing modern realities.

Secondly, the Law Commission has recognised the limits of what it wishes to propose in this area, expressing its confidence in the flexibility and capabilities of the common law and our courts to provide for any necessary further development and definition of boundaries. The commission has not attempted to provide a Bill with greater detail or exhaustive definitions, so avoiding what was once called the vain search for greater certainty; indeed, rather than trying to make the legislation judge-proof, it is expected and intended that the courts will deal with developments as they arise. As the commission stated:

“We also consider that the market will, in general, gravitate towards legal structuring of arrangements where existing legal certainty is high”.


It was therefore suggested that much remaining uncertainty will be transient and will diminish through the operation of markets. There was a welcome conclusion that much of the current law can be applied to provide causes of action and remedies.

Thirdly, the Law Commission supplemented its view of what could be achieved through the courts with the recommendation of the creation of a panel of experts, practitioners, academics and judges to discuss difficult factual and legal issues, particularly relating to control, and to provide guidance, albeit non-binding. It is welcome that this recommendation has been accepted and, as I understand it, is being implemented.

Fourthly, these mechanisms should provide the foundation for the courts to consider both the duties of developers and intermediaries towards users and consumers and potentially complex international jurisdictional questions.

Fifthly, the commission tells us that the large number of crypto-related frauds and scams is likely to serve as a catalyst for further development of the law relating to following and tracing.

Finally, it was hoped that the statutory confirmation of the position would reduce the time spent by the courts on questions of categorisation, allowing them to focus on substantive issues. Certainly, the law reports in this area show how much time and effort have had to be devoted to discussion of the legal status of the assets concerned. This Bill, if enacted, should help to reduce this tendency, although I suspect that the legal profession can still take comfort from the adage that there is always at least 10 years’ work in a new Act of Parliament. Given the position taken by the Law Commission, it is now for Parliament to respect that position and the reasoning behind it.

It is to be hoped that the separate and different action required in Scotland will be encouraged, so far as possible, to align the law in each jurisdiction. More practically, this is not just esoteric law for lawyers; at a practical level, the greatest challenges to the public and their advisers relate to insolvency practice and to those dealing with succession and probate, who have to try to locate, realise and value these assets and any liabilities. Even if the owners of such assets manage to avoid tax and debt, they cannot avoid death. The now well-known case of the Canadian gentleman, Mr Cotten, who died while the sole password holder of an account containing £105 million worth of cryptocurrency, demonstrates the fragility of digital assets on death.

As the Law Society and consumer bodies remind us, not enough people make or update their wills and even fewer prepare a digital inventory or legacy plan or give directions to help their loved ones or personal representatives to identify or access digital accounts. There is a lot of good and necessary advice for those of us who have failed to do so, and I for one am going home to prepare just such an inventory.

Humanist Weddings

Lord Meston Excerpts

Wednesday 16th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I agree with the noble and learned Lord. That is an important factor within the wider consideration of this issue. It is also a factor concerning which groups would be included. His point about focusing on the celebrant rather than the building is fundamental.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, although this Question refers only to humanist weddings, it really does concern the unsatisfactory state of the law on the formation and validity of marriages. The inconsistencies and potential for unfairness have been comprehensively shown by the Law Commission in its report, which I remind the House was produced over two years ago. As to humanist weddings, which are part of the wider problem, there remains the anomalous difference between the law applied in England and Wales and the law in Scotland and other places where humanist marriages are recognised without the need for a separate civil ceremony. Can the Government indicate what work is under way to align and modernise the British law overall? At the very least, surely the Government do not want to become responsible for an exodus of lovelorn humanists to Gretna Green.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for his question, and I agree with his premise that the current state of laws regarding weddings is unsatisfactory. Although the current weddings law is contained within the Marriage Act 1949, the fundamental structure of weddings law dates back to the 18th and 19th centuries. There are profound difficulties, and I acknowledge that point. I am giving a commitment that the Government will look at this in the whole and undertake to come back in due course with rounded recommendations to address these issues.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am simply referring to today’s list, which is what I am working from. If the Minister looks at today’s list, he will see that this group includes, for example, government Amendment 156ZB, which is an amendment to Clause 55, and government Amendments 156ZC, 156ZD, 156ZE and 156ZF. I do not mind at all whether my amendments are in another group, but I do not want to be told later that I have missed my opportunity.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I associate myself with those remarks. I stayed late, expecting to debate the question of the marriage of long-term prisoners, and was a bit concerned to see that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, appeared to be described as “already debated”, which I do not think it can possibly have been.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I will try to help once again, because I have in front of me a copy of the groupings that were sent out. The noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Meston, are absolutely right that some of the consequential government amendments have been put into group 5, but group 6 certainly includes—as we were told by the Government Whips’ Office—Amendment 165ZDA and Amendment 156ZI, which is the prisoner marriage substantive stand-part amendment. If we could proceed, that would be most convenient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not intend to say much, for the very good reason that I do not have to. The arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are overwhelming. I do not want to put the Minister, for whom I have huge respect, on the spot, but I have a suspicion that he has more than a bit of sympathy for the arguments that have been put.

The only point I want to make is this: commentators have said that, when the Minister and the Secretary of State came to their positions, there was likely to be a different attitude towards issues of this kind than there was under some predecessors. The evidence is that that is true, and we have seen examples tonight and this afternoon of the Minister no doubt using his influence in persuading the Secretary of State to have sensible views and change the Bill where it needed to be changed.

This is exactly a case of a clause that is both against the European legislation we have adopted and against all common sense; it should be removed. It would be a real shame if this Bill, which contains some really excellent stuff on both prisoners and victims, has at the tail end of it, as the noble Lord said, this rather ridiculous and very anti-British way of dealing with this issue—so I do ask the Minister to please think again.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I raised questions about Clause 55 and how it might operate in practice at Second Reading that were really not answered. I make no criticism; the Minister had a lot to deal with. I regret not being able to participate in Committee. But I have devoted quite a lot of my professional life to the formation and validity of marriage, and therefore in the context of this Bill I would like to point out that the question of whether and to what extent certain marriages should be restricted or governed by statute faces two underlying problems.

First, it is generally not necessary for anybody otherwise qualified to marry to have any good or creditable reason to do so. I mention that in the context of my noble friend Lord Carter’s suggestion that possibly in these circumstances prison governors should question the motives and have the ability to do so, and that that may be the way through this problem. I have to say that research suggests that the decision to marry is rarely reached on rational grounds—and indeed the same research revealed that 3% of those surveyed did not know why they were getting married at all.

Secondly, and altogether more seriously, there is the fundamental right to marry, stated in Article 12 of the ECHR. That is a right that long predated that convention in this country. However, it was Article 12 that underpinned the Marriage Act 1983, which allowed for marriages of those detained in prison, for essentially pragmatic reasons. It was legislation that did not attract criticism—indeed, only newspaper headlines such as “Get Me to the Jail on Time”. Article 12 also led to the extension of the Marriage (Prohibited Degrees of Relationship) Act 1986, which I had a part in, believe it or not, and which set mankind free to marry their mothers-in-law.

The restrictions proposed in this Bill on specific marriages were understandably prompted by the attention-seeking attempts by particular convicted prisoners to marry—something that many people, no doubt including their victims and their victims’ families, will have found grossly offensive. Nevertheless, the underlying points emphasised by all noble Lords who have spoken so far simply cannot be ignored.

If Article 12 rights are to be curtailed and qualified simply by reference to the nature of the sentence being served or by vague concepts of public interest, the Government really should spell out more clearly the justification for the proposed restrictions and should clearly indicate the circumstances likely to satisfy the Secretary of State that they are “exceptional circumstances”. At Second Reading, I suggested that they might include terminal illness, but I can see that it ought probably to go wider than that. Otherwise, we are simply going to be storing up problems and litigation for the future.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 60, 64 and 70, which echo amendments on support services for victims that I tabled in Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for his responses at that stage and for his kindness in meeting me and representatives of Refuge and Women’s Aid in the interim. In light of those conversations, it is not my intention to press any of these amendments to a Division today. However, I hope that, in this debate and in the Minister’s response to it, we can clarify a little further how His Majesty’s Government will seek to ensure that victims across the country have access to quality support services provided by organisations that hold their confidence and understand their specific circumstances. As we are now on Report, I will not repeat the detailed arguments of Committee, but I think their force still stands.

Amendment 60 places a duty on the Secretary of State to define in statutory guidance

“the full breadth of specialist community-based support domestic abuse services”.

This would ensure that victims receive quality support that meets their needs, and that they are made aware of the variety of community-based support available to them. Victims seek various forms of support, which might include advocacy, outreach, floating support, formal counselling or being part of a support group. All of these have a vital role to play. The guidance could cover the holistic support intersectional advocacy that is often provided by what we call “by and for” services —these are particularly helpful for black and minoritised women—as well as those providing specialist advocacy to deaf and disabled people and LGBT+ victims.

The implementation of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 demonstrates why a clear and precise definition is now critical. Under Part 4 of that Act, a statutory duty was placed on local authorities to fund domestic abuse support in safe accommodation. We found that organisations with a much wider remit than domestic abuse, and often services that had no expertise at all, because they are eligible for refuge funding under the duty, have now moved into that area, entering a sector previously run by specialists who really understood the service users.

What we find when local commissioning bodies rely too much on non-specialist organisations—which can be for financial reasons, or because they are easier to get hold of or to deal with—the result is that victims, particularly those from minority backgrounds or specialised contexts, receive much poorer support, yet these are, of course, often among the most vulnerable in our society. The amendment would simply ensure that commissioning bodies have to pay attention to their needs. Although I am not pushing it to a Division, my question to the Minister is: in the absence of placing a duty on the Secretary of State in the Bill, what assurances can he offer us today that the Government will place appropriate pressure on local commissioning bodies to procure the full range of specialist services from specialist organisations that such victims need?

Amendment 64 would require the Secretary of State to address the funding gaps identified by joint strategic needs assessments and support local authorities, integrated care boards and police and crime commissioners to deliver their duties under the duty to collaborate. The amendment has been framed so as to avoid requiring the Secretary of State to go outside the normal spending review processes, which I hope will give some assurances that this is not about trying to break the bank.

Without sufficient funding, it will not be possible for local commissioners to have regard to their joint assessments when producing strategies and providing services. The gaps in service provision that will likely be identified are already known, and there simply is not the funding available to plug them. Ultimately, the scale of the funding shortfall facing local commissioners —and in turn those specialist services—means that the Government do have a role to play.

Although the Ministry of Justice has committed to increasing funding for victim and witness support services to £147 million per year until 2024-25, this funding is not ring-fenced to domestic abuse services. Of course, existing commitments are simply insufficient to meet the demand around the country. Women’s Aid has found that a minimum of £427 million a year is really needed to fund specialist domestic abuse services in England: £238 million for community-based services and £189 million for refuges. Moreover, specialist services are now feeling the effects of this concerning rise in local authorities issuing Section 114 notices. This is a crisis that will only get worse.

However, I welcome the Minister’s statement in Committee that a ministerially led national oversight forum will be set up to scrutinise the local strategies. This could be the vehicle to identify systemic shortfalls in service provision, and hence to put pressure on commissioning bodies to plug the gaps. It could also provide the evidence to justify more adequate funding settlements, with specific requirements to include specialist community-based services. I would therefore be grateful if he could say a little more about how the ministerial-led forum he has promised will function.

Finally, Amendment 70 would require the Secretary of State to include advice on sustainable, multi-year contracts with statutory guidance. I know that the Government are already committed in principle to multi-year contracts in the victims funding strategy. The problem is that in practice, this is not happening. Refuge monitors all commissioning opportunities nationally, and half of commissioning opportunities are for less than three years. There is no enforceability mechanism for the victims’ funding strategy, and in the absence of that, short-term contracts are prevalent across the specialist domestic abuse sector. Such contracts make recruitment and retention of staff more difficult as services cannot offer fixed-term contracts. That leaves survivors forced to find alternative sources of ongoing support at critical points in their recovery and prevents services being able to take root properly in local communities. This is why I feel that a statutory requirement is necessary.

This amendment is a change from the one I proposed in Committee, where I sought to put the requirement into the Bill. I am glad that the Minister acknowledges the problem and would be grateful if, in responding, he could set out what further action the Government will take to ensure that longer-term contracts for specialist service providers become the norm and not the exception.

Finally, I support other amendments in this group, in particular Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but will leave my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester to speak to that.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak briefly again in relation to the provision of transcripts covered by Amendment 19. I fully understand the point and the force of the amendment and wish to emphasise a point that perhaps the noble Baroness did not. She is not, in fact, talking about transcripts of the whole trial or transcripts of sections of evidence. I could not help suspecting that the costly examples she gave were of much lengthier transcripts than transcripts of the summing-up and sentencing remarks about which she seeks to make provision under this amendment.

To that extent, the noble Baroness may well have undermined her own case, because I suspect that transcripts of the sentencing remarks and summing up are much cheaper, but I cannot give expert evidence on that. Particularly important to some victims is the transcript of the sentencing remarks, because that gives the victim, and those who may advise or support them or provide them with therapy and counselling, an appreciation of what the judge assessed to have been the culpability of the offender and the impact on the victim.

As far as it concerns the provision of a transcript of the summing up and sentencing remarks, I support this amendment. This is subject to the caveat I mentioned at an earlier stage: in the case of sexual offences the distribution of transcripts needs to be subject to safeguards, because otherwise they can and do fall into the wrong hands. From time to time, I have been asked to authorise the distribution of a transcript, and a lot of thought has to go into who can and cannot see them and what happens to them once provided. If they get into the wrong hands, it will do the victim, among others, a great disservice.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 57. Why would I not, since it is a duty to collaborate and co-operate? We like a lot of “C”s in this Bill. I also support what has been said about transcripts. It is so important to have the sentencing remarks, so that further down the line you have the time to read them and digest them. I have some sympathy and understanding of what it feels like.

This amendment is so important to future Victims’ Commissioners. In Committee, I told noble Lords that it was time we gave the Victims’ Commissioner the tools to do the job that Parliament intended. I am not on the state pension yet, but this amendment would mark the coming of age of the role of Victims’ Commissioner. It would require criminal justice agencies listed under the victims’ code to co-operate with commissioners not as a favour or because they happen to get on with them but because they have a statutory duty to do so. This is how it should be.

When I met my noble and learned friend the Minister to discuss this amendment, he told me that commissioners had very different roles, and that the authority given to one commissioner should not automatically be given to others. I do not disagree but—I say this with the greatest respect to him—that is not why I back this amendment. All commissioners rely on the co-operation of government departments and agencies to deliver an outcome. They do not, as a rule, have executive powers invested in them. Whatever the differences in their remits, whether it be victims, domestic abuse, children or modern slavery, the underlying requirement to work collaboratively with key stakeholders remains the same. All commissioners are dependent on the co-operation of others if they are to effect change.

My office was asked to provide examples of where agencies have not co-operated in the past. We duly provided this information. I do not intend to share our examples today, but I believe they made the case for the change that we are calling for. To allay any concerns, we recognise that sometimes data might simply not be available or that there may be very good reasons for not sharing it with us. However, the reasons for withholding information are not always explained to us, and we do not always get the impression that agencies have considered whether they hold other sources of data that might be helpful as a substitute.

In conclusion, when asking my team members for other examples, I was concerned to be told that they generally do not ask for information as they know that it will not be shared with them. That cannot be right. If further Victims’ Commissioners are to be part of the solution in driving change and improvement, they need the support and co-operation of criminal justice colleagues. I await to hear what the Minister will say, but I am tempted to support the amendment if it is put to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. They are underpinned by a simple principle: the best interests of the child. They seek to prevent the subversion of the family court, so that it cannot be used by abusers to extend their influence and control over victims; and to ensure that, as far as possible, children are protected from abuse and trauma.

Whether directly or indirectly, children are victims of domestic abuse in a household. Tragically, they are sometimes victims of abuse at the hands of their own parents. In such circumstances, the normal assumption that their best interests are served through contact with their parent must be reconsidered. This is why we seek to extend Jade’s law so that not just offenders who are convicted of murdering a partner but those convicted of sexually abusing a child in the family will automatically have their parental responsibility suspended on sentencing, rather than placing the burden on the family to go through family court proceedings after the criminal conviction.

It is why we seek to prohibit unsupervised contact for a parent who has perpetrated domestic abuse, sexual violence or child abuse. Too often, “best interests” has been determined as almost synonymous with increased parental contact. In most cases, that may be true, but we need to make sure that the law works when it is not. Sadly, contact does not correlate to care. Unsupervised contact with someone accused of abuse is a serious risk to the well-being and safety of a child.

Other amendments in this group seek to limit the ability of domestic abusers to carry on their abuse by subverting our justice system and using court procedures to harass and control their victims. The proceedings of our courts must be fair, and we must not let them be used as a tool of abuse. To that end, we must also make sure that any expert advice is properly regulated. This was discussed in some detail during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Act. The sorry truth is that we continue to see allegations of so-called parental alienation used routinely by abusers and the so-called experts they produce in the courts to try and discredit children’s testimony and avoid the charges they face. Victims are even encouraged not to disclose domestic abuse as it will only see them cast as unco-operative. This is a deeply alarming situation which poses a real risk for victims and children.

The UN Human Rights Council report Custody, Violence Against Women and Violence Against Children recommends that states legislate to prohibit the use of parental alienation or related pseudo-concepts in family law cases, and the use of so-called experts in parental alienation and related pseudo-concepts. In an early 2023 case involving a regulated psychologist, the President of the Family Division held that it was at Parliament’s discretion whether a tighter regime should be imposed. We should exercise that discretion.

My sense from Committee was that the principles behind the various amendments in this group are widely supported across the House and the differences are largely down to practicalities. It is precisely because of the practicalities that these amendments are needed. Without them the psychological, practical and financial burdens placed on families trying to recover from abuse is very heavy. I shall give just one example. A mother in Cardiff had to spend £30,000 on court costs to remove parental rights from her ex-husband, who was a convicted child sex abuser, to protect her daughter. This is sadly not untypical. In another case I have been told about, a father was found to have used abusive behaviour towards his children and rape their mother. The mother’s court costs were £50,000. Eventually, the father was ordered to pay, but the very prospect of such high sums risks putting children’s safety at an unjust price.

Victims of domestic abuse must be able to have faith that any abuse endured will not be manipulated against them in court. These amendments are firmly in line with the Government’s ambitions for the Bill. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will accept them.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendments 80 and 84. These amendments would extend the provision of Jade’s law in the Bill, which relates to murder and manslaughter cases, and would deprive a convicted offender of parental responsibility. The amendments would extend the provisions to sexual offences against children in the family. A powerful case has been made for this extension. It was recently approved, as has been said, in another Bill before the Commons. The examples provided in the briefing material fully justify this amendment.

If I may be pedantic for a moment, I will point out that in the explanatory statement attached to Amendment 80 there is an incorrect reference to removal of “the presumption of custody”. There is no such presumption, and the concept of custody has not existed since the Children Act 1989, although it persists in soap operas, to the irritation of family lawyers.

This amendment would prohibit the exercise of parental responsibility by convicted offenders in cases of child sexual abuse. Allowing sexual offenders to continue to exercise parental responsibility would be wholly inappropriate. Amendments 80 and 84 are well suited to the structure of the Bill, which provides for an order to be made by the Crown Court and then automatically reviewed by the family court when there is perhaps a fuller picture of the family circumstances and a fuller picture of wider implications.

In many ways, cases of sexual offending are more difficult because, sadly, in cases of murder and manslaughter, both parents are not alive. When both parents are still alive, and when there is the possibility that the offender is not in custody—or not for very long —serious thought needs to be given, after the automatic order in the Crown Court, by the family court. That is why I suggest that these amendments are well suited to the structure of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, we have before us various amendments that deal essentially with family justice. I will deal first with Amendment 91, which proposes that only experts regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council undertake certain psychological assessments. The Government entirely appreciate the aim of this amendment—something needs to be done. This problem probably extends to healthcare generally. In the Ministry of Justice, we have been in discussion with the Department of Health about the term “psychologist”, what it means, whether one should regulate it and so forth. The Government’s position is that only psychologists who are regulated should be undertaking psychological assessments in the family court.

The short point is that this is going to be better dealt with under the Family Procedure Rules than in primary legislation. In particular, in this Bill, for reasons of scope, you can deal with it only in relation to victims of criminal conduct. We need an across-the-board solution, worked out through the Family Procedure Rule Committee, to implement changes that would ensure that, where a psychologist undertakes any psychological assessment in private law children proceedings, they are suitably regulated and that that broader work encapsulates any other problems that arise in relation to unregulated experts. The position of the Lord Chancellor is that this matter should be undertaken now by the Family Procedure Rule Committee—which operates in very close collaboration with practitioners, judges and all those involved in the family law scene—to implement changes, rather than it being done through this primary legislation.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

I fully understand the point that the Minister is making. Can he indicate whether this problem has now been referred to the relevant Family Procedure Rule Committee? If it has, I would hope that it would get urgent and speedy consideration. If it has not, when will it be?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

There have been preliminary discussions with the committee but it has not formally started work. I cannot give the noble Lord a precise date, but I can say that there is a reserve power under Section 78A of the Courts Act 2003 which entitles the Lord Chancellor to require the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the point. In the Government’s submission, that is the way that this should be dealt with, rather than in this necessarily narrow Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy. Government Amendment 90 would require the police to notify schools as soon as possible when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child in their police force area may be a victim of domestic abuse. That means that all children who may be a victim of domestic abuse will receive the necessary support and relevant safeguarding interventions.

Domestic abuse is an abhorrent and sometimes fatal crime, yet it is far too common. It is high volume, high harm and high cost. We fully recognise the devasting impact that it can have on children and young people, which is why we are determined to protect and support better the victims of abuse, including children, and bring perpetrators to justice. The landmark Domestic Abuse Act 2021 acknowledged, for the first time, the appalling damage that domestic abuse can inflict on children and young people and recognised the damage caused to children who see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse.

Recognising children as victims of domestic abuse in their own right is a very important step. It helps to ensure that children themselves remain visible in the multi-agency response to domestic abuse. This government amendment will help us take this work one step further. It will legislate that each chief officer of police across England and Wales must ensure that arrangements are in place to notify schools when they have reasonable grounds to believe that a child may be a victim of domestic abuse.

This amendment places the notification scheme, widely known as Operation Encompass, on a statutory footing. It is already in operation across all 43 police forces in England and Wales on a voluntary basis. By enshrining the scheme in law, we can ensure that it is consistently applied across all forces. This will help improve early intervention and enable the most vulnerable children to be safeguarded from the harms of domestic abuse.

This Government are committed to supporting child victims and protecting them from domestic abuse. The amendment will be key in our efforts to do so. I therefore hope that the House will welcome it, and I beg to move.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 90, which provides for the relaying of information to schools. Schools need accurate and prompt information about what is going on. They need to know, and understand, what is happening, or what is suspected. Therefore, I welcome the amendment. It is almost as important as the information going the other way—that is to say, schools relay information to local authorities and, where appropriate, to the police.

I am afraid to say that there are a few cases I have come across where schools, or individual members of school staff, have been reluctant to get involved in child abuse cases, or where there is suspected child abuse. Albeit this amendment provides for the information to pass the other way—from the authorities to the school—if it serves to do anything it may well encourage the passing of information in both directions.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, we also welcome Amendment 90. I want to add one other issue though. It is very much a one-way system, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has announced, and I ask whether the noble Earl will write to me, the noble Lord, and any noble Lords who speak in this group, to report on the Government’s progress on the recommendations that they have accepted following the independent inquiry into child sex abuse. Recommendation 13 is about the need for mandatory reporting, and the Government said, over a year ago, that there would be a full public consultation beginning with a publication of a call for evidence. I have seen neither, but, more importantly, I want to know when we can—perhaps through this Bill—have something going the other way, as the noble Lord so rightly pointed out.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Meston Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I too have added my name to Amendment 1. The great thing about following my noble friend Lord Russell is that I need to say very little. The beauty of this is its simplicity. We have talked about this again and again, and I thank the Ministers for their hard work and the very collegiate attitude we have had. People have come to an agreement and the Government have given a lot. However, it is so beautifully simple to change “a person” to “any adult or child”. There is a lot of talk about how, if you start doing that, where do you stop? But “any adult or child” is perfect.

[Lord Meston (CB)]

My Lords, we discussed this in Committee. Since then, a decision of the Court of Appeal comprehensively rejected the rather eccentric argument that a child is not a person. In fact, reading that judgment, it is quite clear that there was never any doubt that a child is a person. The Oxford English Dictionary definition, which was quoted, defines a person as:

“An individual human being; a man, woman, or child”.


The purist would say that this amendment is unnecessary, but I suggest thinking about it a little more deeply, and that the arguments we have heard in support of the amendment, which makes it clear that children are individually and separately covered by the Bill, should ultimately carry the day.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, as we begin Report, from these Liberal Democrat Benches I thank the Minister and his fellow Ministers for talking to noble Lords in the short time between Committee and the commencement of Report. We understand that this has been difficult during the Easter Recess, but it has been extremely helpful to hear the Government say where they are and are not prepared to make some progress on closing the gap between themselves and others across this House on this important Bill.

This group, as has already been outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and other noble Lords, relates to the importance of ensuring that child victims are recognised as having different needs and services available to them under the victims’ code and this Bill. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, echoes that made in Committee specifically changing the definition of victim to “any adult or child”.

Amendment 21 and others tabled by the Minister choose a different definition:

“victims who are under the age of 18 or who have protected characteristics”.

I am grateful to the Minister for that addition because, as somebody with a protected characteristic—in my case, a disability—it makes it clear that age alone does not cover some of the particular vulnerabilities faced by those with protected characteristics. In this case I am thinking of those over the age of 18 with an intellectual disability, who may need a heightened level of support under the code. However, there is a broader point that we welcome from these Benches. Under the terms of the Equality Act 2010, those with protected characteristics have enhanced rights in relation to crimes against them, because of their protected characteristics. We welcome that. Can the Minister explain why the government amendments are phrased the way they are and why the Government are therefore still resisting the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell?