Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage
Friday 9th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have my name on a number of amendments. I did not know that those rules applied—anyway, they do not.

I have added my name to a number of amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Haslemere, in this group.

In general, I am glad to support many of the amendments on palliative care in this group. The Bill asks us to accept that assisted dying is a medical intervention, albeit an irreversible life-ending one, which is something I am not entirely happy with. It seems obvious to me that there must be guaranteed input from the best-placed medical experts in end-of-life care: that is, palliative care specialists. That is essential for the informed consent of the patient.

I imagine and hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is very sensitive to the importance of palliative care. I know that he is in the much-cited Demos Commission, which I will not bother quoting again, and I am hoping that he has not changed his mind. I think the noble Lord, Lord Carter, made a very important point earlier to the sponsor of the Bill about the number of amendments, for which we have all been chastised and finger-pointed at and tut-tutted at. I kept my patience last night, although my blood pressure did go up.

None the less, I genuinely think that the number of amendments could be really slimmed down if the sponsor of the Bill were to go through, for example, all the amendments on palliative care and say to us, “I accept the principle of this and I will come back with my own amendment” or what have you. We would then not have this issue. We are not an organised political grouping; people table amendments and add their names to them in good faith, which is what I have done, and they then speak in good faith. We are not trying to repeat things for the purpose of delaying the Bill but because we think that it matters and is important. That is what we are doing here.

On this group, and the concept of 10 important themes, we need an assurance that real choices will be offered to a patient with a terminal illness and they will be given the option of a palliative care assessment and, hopefully, then, possibly palliative care. That safeguard would really reassure us, and it is a key theme, and so on. One of the reasons why I say that is, under the Bill, GPs can mention palliative care to a patient. I am a great fan of GPs; they are fantastic generalists who do a good job. But very often they do not have all the expertise of a palliative care specialist in knowing how precisely medical intervention can improve a patient’s condition, or indeed change their will to live.

It is important for the Committee to note that research has shown that those who wish to hasten their own death often change their mind when they receive more information. Palliative care can mean that people who want to die then want to live, and that is important if we are going to talk about choice. It is possible that you might want to die, that you are determined you want to die in assisted death terms, having had your terminal diagnosis. But why is it that you want to die? That is the motivation behind the discussion in this group.

One of the things that happens is that many people are frightened and fearful, and one of the things they are fearful of is pain and terrible symptoms, which by the way are often graphically described by supporters of the Bill, and I think that they can scare people. It is the idea that your pain and symptoms cannot be controlled. When I talk to supporters of the Bill—some of my friends, colleagues and members of the public—they are completely compassionate in talking about how the Bill will help people who are suffering intolerably and in excruciating pain. None of us wishes that on anyone—or, indeed, on ourselves. It is a frightening prospect.

That is actually often a fear and a dread that the right kind of care can mean will not be realised. Patients are understandably frightened of being in that kind of pain, so they need to know that. Toby Porter, the CEO of Hospice UK, summed up the way I feel about this. He said:

“An outcome in which someone chose an assisted death because of a real or imagined fear that they could not get pain relief or other symptom alleviation, or because their family would not get support through their illness, would clearly be a moral and practical disgrace to any country”.


That is absolutely right.

We all know family and friends and so on who have died and who have had terminal illnesses. People will say that morphine is simply not enough to control the pain. That is the kind of thing that I would say, because I know nothing about medicine. So, it is a great relief to discover that palliative medicine resident doctors say that morphine is the tip of the iceberg for pain management. There are countless other options available, but to know this requires training and experience, which I have not got. When you are having a chat in the pub with mates—or indeed, when I was in hospital pumping in the morphine—it is good to know that somebody, somewhere, has got the experience. That is the palliative care specialist and every terminally ill patient should at least be offered the option to go to see one. This is a modest but meaningful addition to the Bill and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in the spirit of listening, accommodating and compromise that we heard about last night, will make changes to the Bill accordingly.

There is also a question for the Government and the Minister here. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, explained this very well. In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, yesterday, it was a shocking revelation that the Minister responsible for palliative care said that the Government would not publish their modern framework until after the Bill had passed through Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens—

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

With respect, he did not say that. The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said it would not be done “in effect”, the implication being—I do not disagree with what the noble Baroness is saying—that the Government have given a date which is beyond when this is expected to be law. The Minister did not say, “We’re waiting until after the Bill”. The crucial words of the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, were “in effect”. He was very careful in what he said.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I had thought I was implying that. I was not trying to imply some conspiratorial holding back; it is just that the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, said this was

“a dangerous reversal of the timetable we require”.—[Official Report, 8/1/26; col. 1416.]

That is the point I was really getting to. That is shocking: not because anyone is malignly behaving in this way but because the Government therefore need to commit to bringing forward that report, so it is available before we reach Report. I urge the Minister to reassure us that that is the case.

I will finish off by saying that the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Silvertown, explained excellently that, for all of the importance of palliative care, hospices and so on, not everyone has equal access to them, which is well documented. I want to see that framework, because this is one of the chilling aspects of the Bill. For those of us who campaign to raise money for hospices, and who are desperately keen that palliative care is well resourced, to hear, as we heard earlier today, from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, who stated baldly and perfectly reasonably that whichever choice we had in the previous group would cost a lot of money, makes me think, “Oh, spend the money somewhere else”.

Drones: High-security Prisons

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

The noble Lord is completely right that the prisons I am visiting now are very different from the prisons I visited 15 or 20 years ago. The buildings are often in decrepit states of repair. We have a lot of new staff who are still learning the skills of being a prison officer and we have an awful lot more to do to ensure that people, when they are in prison, spend their days purposefully, not just sitting in their cells.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can I ask my noble friend about Long Lartin? I am going beyond the Question, but is the safety of the inmates as such today that they are able to exercise in every exercise yard? Long Lartin’s proximity to the countryside and the geography around it allow potential problems from the outside against the inmates. I should like an assurance that that matter has been dealt with since I visited some years ago.

[Lord Timpson (Lab)]

Like the noble Lord, I visited some years ago, so I do not have an exact picture in my mind of the layout of the exercise yards. I can assure him that every male closed prison now has X-ray scanners. In 2003, there were over 1,000 drone sightings. They were up 770% between 2019 and 2023. We have a serious problem but if I know any more details, I will let him know.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Rooker]

109A: After Clause 50, insert the following new Clause—
“Application of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to National Food Crime Unit of Food Standards Agency
In the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, after section 114B, insert—“114C Application to National Food Crime Unit of Food Standards AgencyThe Secretary of State may by regulations apply any provisions of this Act to investigation of offences conducted by officers of the National Food Crime Unit in respect of search and seizure.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to avoid the police having to obtain these powers from a court on behalf of NFCU. The officers dealing with offences could present the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 109A, which proposes a new clause. I freely admit that the content of what I am about to say is really nothing to do with the Bill; the Bill is a vehicle for a change quite unconnected with its main thrust. Oh! You can forget to take your mask off.

During Oral Questions on 22 February, I raised the issue of food-related crime and the resources devoted to it. The then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, pointed out that the Food Standards Agency constituted the National Food Crime Unit in 2014 and that Ministers were in dialogue about increasing its powers. Indeed, in his supplementary answer later he went further and said that

“its investigatory powers could be enhanced and its impact improved. That is the view of the Government, industry and the police, and that is why we are committed to the dialogue, first suggested by the Kenworthy review”.—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. 614.]

The food crime unit’s work is about tackling serious organised or complex cases of food crime. The unit, and indeed the Food Standards Agency—which, of course, is a non-ministerial department—can use the powers of RIPA and CHIS, and the unit can access the police national computer and the automatic number plate recognition system. But in key aspects, the unit cannot get into the serious complex cases without the support of hard-pressed partners in policing and local government.

The police have never taken food crime seriously and admit that it is not a high priority. I first came across food crime when I went into MAFF in 1997. I had the same issue when I arrived at Defra a dozen years later. I am not criticising; this is the reality. It is not counted as proper crime, yet billions of pounds are involved—and what is more, there is the risk to public health. There is an issue there.

Delays owing to competing higher-risk police priorities have proven detrimental to a number of food crime unit investigations. The unit needs the powers to be able to go to the courts rather than have the police doing it once removed. In fact, all the unit needs is access to the powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. There have been some cases in the recent past where the police have been unable, unavailable or reluctant to apply for warrants on behalf of the unit. There have been delays when the food crime unit has had to wait for police officers to become available or when police withdrew support because of other priorities.

The gangmasters authority, among others, has secured these powers. In fact, my amendment is a straight copy of the amendment put into the Police and Criminal Evidence Act on its behalf, so I did not have any trouble drafting anything. Of course, the Public Bill Office was incredibly helpful, but I am just following a process that has happened before.

The lack of these powers is affecting staff in the unit due to it being a real constraint. The officers of the unit, none of whom I have spoken to, are well qualified to present cases directly. They consist of ex-police officers of very senior rank, ex-National Crime Agency officers and ex-police intelligence officers, so they are fully qualified in other circumstances to go to court to get the warrants. We are talking about seizure and search; that is the limit of what is in the amendment. The former chair of the Food Standards Agency, Heather Hancock, has said that the National Food Crime Unit cannot do its job relying on the kindness of the police to lend their powers in important cases.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, for raising this important matter. I acknowledge that there is considerable experience of the Food Standards Agency in your Lordships’ House. We support, in principle, the proposal to increase the investigative powers available to the National Food Crime Unit. The fraud cases of which we have been made aware by the chair of the Food Standards Agency, Professor Susan Jebb—as referred to by the noble Lord—are truly shocking.

Food crime is a very serious issue, with fraud in our food supply chains costing billions of pounds each year. The National Food Crime Unit, which was established to investigate these crimes, should be empowered to tackle them, to improve the response to these cases and to reduce the burden on its colleagues in law enforcement. As such, we are still committed to working with the Food Standards Agency and DHSC, its sponsoring department, on extending certain Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers to the National Food Crime Unit. However, in doing so, we need to work through the implications of this. It may assist the noble Lord if I briefly set out some of the issues we think we would need to explore further.

First, the exercise of any PACE powers by the National Food Crime Unit must be necessary, proportionate and legitimate. As such, it is important that there are suitable governance, accountability, oversight, investigations and complaints arrangements in place, as there are for the police. The National Food Crime Unit is not a statutory body, nor does it have a separate legal identity. Oversight, governance and the complaints processes sit with the Food Standards Agency board, which commissions independent reviews and facilitates a complaints process which ultimately reports to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. There is therefore no formal independent oversight.

There is also a lack of clarity on the necessary protocols when PACE powers would be exercised, including in relation to post-incident procedures on seizure, retention and evaluation of evidence, and the treatment of arrested persons without police presence. These are all issues which, I have no doubt, can be resolved but I am sure noble Lords would agree on the necessity of ensuring that the appropriate accountability and governance arrangements are in place, given that we are dealing with intrusive powers of the state. As such, we do not believe that it would be appropriate to extend the search and seizure powers in PACE to the National Food Crime Unit without further consultation on the issues I have described. I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, misses very much, but that is the answer to his question.

I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that we are committed to taking this work forward with the Food Standards Agency. I do not have a specific answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on where the dialogue is at the moment. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I remind the House that I said that the Food Standards Agency, and therefore the unit, can use the powers of RIPA and the CHIS Act that we passed last year. We are not dealing with some little quango here; this is a government department. If the Government were serious, between February last year and today they would have sorted this out.

I have not campaigned on this. I left it in February and thought, “All I have to do is wait until a vehicle comes along and check if it has been dealt with or not.” The fact is that I am not going to let the Minister get away with it. Someone is going to have to go to the members of the FSA board, and therefore the unit, and say to them, “The Government stopped this change.” When the next big scandal comes along—there are scandals of different scales, and it is nine years since horsemeat so we are due another any time now—no one over there will be able to say, “We were going to do this but Lord Rooker withdrew the amendment.” As such, I am going to test the opinion of the House.

Libel and Defamation Cases: Cost to Public Funds

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Rooker]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the estimated cost to public funds of people based outside the United Kingdom using UK courts to mount libel and defamation cases against (1) people, and (2) publications, based in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, court fees are set to achieve full cost recovery, and thus the cost to public funds of libel claims brought by people from outside the United Kingdom in England and Wales is negligible.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that five Russian billionaires are involved in a strategic lawsuit in London against the journalist Catherine Belton as a result of her book, Putin’s People? Why should Igor Sechin, Roman Abramovich, Mikhail Fridman, Petr Aven and Shalva Chigirinsky be using London lawyers Carter-Ruck, CMS, Harbottle and Lewis and Taylor Wessing to silence a journalist? These grubby law firms should be struck off and the barristers whom they are paying to do this work should be disbarred. Our courts are being abused by these people, and as Nick Cohen said in the Observer, they are making London

“the censorship capital of the world.”

What are the Government doing about the co-ordinated, shameful abuse of our courts, which must have started life in the Kremlin?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, it is not what the Government are doing but what the Government have done. Section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013 provides that if a defendant is domiciled out of the jurisdiction then London can hear the case only if the judge is clear that this is the appropriate forum. That Act also contains defences of truth, honest opinion and public interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Written Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, focused on the cost to public funds, which the Minister fully answered. The Oral Question contains an attack on barristers and solicitors for representing clients. Does the Minister agree that any litigant, whoever they may be and wherever they may come from, is entitled to legal advice and representation, and that it is the job of the judge to decide what the legal rights and wrongs are?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

They have vested interests.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, that is absolutely right. With respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, from a sedentary position, it is not a vested interest point, it is a fundamental principle of the rule of law. A lawyer should not be identified with their client, and perhaps I may say that I would not want to be identified with all my former clients. But they are all entitled to representation in free and fair courts, which is what this country provides.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

Whereas I was very happy to support it—I will be interested to hear other speakers, notably the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who I know has extensive experience, and my noble friend the Minister—perhaps we can look at nuance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said; some way of amending or making sure that, in the instructions to the courts, the presumption that they can disapply is recognised a bit more formally.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, my quick message to Hansard is that they can tear up the note I sent earlier. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, has just made the speech I decided to make having listened to the debate. I do not propose to repeat what he said, save for the fact that the general thrust of his conclusion as a lay person is the same one I have come to. I read the briefings, considered the issue and listened to my noble friend Lord Rosser; I was then surprised when listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. As the debate went on, I started to have second thoughts. This is the benefit of Committee—that is what it is for. The idea can be taken away and reworked.

I will raise one point from one of the briefings, from Support Not Separation and Women Against Rape, which quoted the harm review. They said they found a pattern of bias in the court professionals which gave weight to the views of the child who wanted contact but dismissed the views of the child who did not. That is extremely worrying.

However, having come to the same conclusion as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I will leave it there.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I view this amendment, which is in two parts, with some concern. To a very large extent, I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.

When I was President of the Family Division—and throughout the 35 years I was a family judge—I heard a great many cases which had some element of domestic abuse. I do not like presumptions, if they can be avoided. I remember that, when the amended Section 1(2A) was introduced while I was a Member of this House, I was very dubious about it, because I do not like presumptions. The important point of the Children Act is Section 1, which says that

“the child’s welfare shall be the court’s paramount consideration.”

Any family judge or magistrate has to look at all the circumstances and decide whether it is appropriate, in those circumstances, for both parents to have a relationship with the child after their separation. In normal circumstances, one takes it for granted that both parents will have a relationship, but there will be cases in which there should not be one.

I am not quite so concerned about the first part of Amendment 130, because it says that subsection (2A) shall not apply in situations which have affected the child. Even so, it should be a matter where the welfare of the child is paramount and the judge exercises his or her discretion, having come to a conclusion based on all the facts.

I am particularly opposed to the second part of Amendment 130: the restrictions on Section 9. This is, first, because it does not require domestic abuse to have affected the child. Other points have been made on this by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with which I entirely agree, but I can see circumstances where a child was for one reason or another—possibly at boarding school or away on holiday—not present when there was domestic abuse between the parents, and the child had no knowledge of it. In those circumstances, it would not be inappropriate for the child to have unsupervised contact with a parent who had done absolutely nothing wrong to the child but who may have been involved in a single or unusual circumstance which could be classified as domestic abuse of the other parent.

This draconian proposal that Section 9 be restricted is inappropriate, although I entirely understand and share the concerns about the parents—mothers as well as fathers—who have been given unsupervised contact where there are issues of domestic abuse which are true, where the children are then killed. That is extremely sad; there should be adequate training of all judges and/or magistrates trying family cases. It may be more important to get the Ministry of Justice to discuss with the Judicial College and the President of the Family Division whether the training of judges and magistrates in issues of domestic abuse, to which I shall refer on the next group, should be improved. I will later refer to a useful case in the Court of Appeal which has been discussing this.

I am completely opposed to the second part of Amendment 130. I am sympathetic to what lies behind it, but I believe there should be a broader consideration of whether, where the welfare of the children must be paramount, there should be any presumptions of any sort—but certainly not in the way this has been drafted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I intend to focus mainly on Amendment 133, which is in my name. Like the other amendments in this group, which I support, it is trying to make sure that the courts protect survivors of domestic abuse from further harm. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his support on this amendment and for his leadership on the others, and I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friends Lady Newlove and Lady Bertin for their contributions. I have learned a lot from them.

I approach this debate humbly. I am not a legal expert and I have not had what is called “a lived experience”. My intervention is informed by many cases I have come across, in particular the case of a close friend whose experience at the hands of a judge and experts lacking domestic violence training has been traumatic, painful and unjust. I also want to put on the record the work of the London Victims’ Commissioner’s office and Women's Aid, from whom I have learned an enormous amount.

The Ministry of Justice review into the risk of harm in family court cases involving domestic violence, which concluded in June last year, found serious systemic issues. Despite good intentions, domestic abuse allegations are being overlooked, misunderstood and dismissed. Survivors and their children are being put at risk as a result, something which I have heard about directly from survivors. To quote one survivor who spoke to Women’s Aid and Queen Mary University of London:

“All professional witnesses supported me but despite overwhelming evidence, the judge said that I didn’t fit the profile of domestic violence victims as I wasn’t scared enough. Also I was too educated and knowledgeable to allow DV to happen to me.”


This runs against everything we know about domestic abuse and the damage it does.

I am afraid that underpinning this is a lack of judicial understanding. This is not a criticism of individual judges; they face tremendous challenges, given the complexity of domestic abuse cases and the way that society’s awareness and understanding of domestic abuse has improved in recent years. But, unfortunately, the family courts’ approach to domestic abuse remains much the same as 20 years ago, and the system is stacked against the survivor because of both the pro-contact culture of the courts and the intersecting structural disadvantages women experiencing domestic abuse face within then.

If we want to change the practice and culture of the courts so that they truly put the best interests of the child at heart, they need to work at the cutting edge of our understanding of domestic abuse and its harms, not years behind, and, for that, specialist training is absolutely crucial.

We have already heard several times in Committee about the need for better training. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, discussed judicial training, while Amendment 53 looked at the issue from another angle. Among those calling for improvements from outside are Women’s Aid and the London Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have also recognised the importance of training. The Ministry of Justice review panel recommended

“training for all participants in the family justice system”,

and I was heartened to hear my noble friend Lady Williams agree that judicial training needs to be revisited. I hope that she and my noble friend Lord Wolfson will be receptive to this amendment.

Domestic abuse affects all aspects of a family court case. It shapes how participants present at court, the evidence they give and how they give it, and it is a critical factor in determining the interests at stake and how safe child contact is arranged. However, as is recognised in the Bill, domestic abuse has a wide range of impacts and requires a wide-ranging, intersectional understanding. Mandatory training, delivered by domestic abuse specialists, will ensure that judges at all levels are much better equipped to understand the effects of domestic abuse and how to respond to it. As such, it will support and make possible the implementation of all aspects of the Bill. I note also that similar training is required for sexual violence, although that remains outside the scope of the Bill.

By stipulating that the training should be developed in consultation with the domestic abuse commissioner, we can ensure that it truly teaches current best practice and is aligned with national and specialist efforts to tackle abuse. As our understanding of domestic abuse improves, the courts will not, and should not, be left behind.

My focus so far has been on judicial training, but perhaps the real importance of the amendment is that it goes further than that, extending not just to members of the judiciary but to any Cafcass employees, social workers or appointed experts advising the court. That is why this amendment is so necessary. The Judicial College could offer better training for judges without it, but that is not enough.

Expert witnesses rightly play an important role in advising and guiding the family courts, but of course they do not have a thorough understanding of every field or every issue. Many expert witnesses, whose opinions might be crucial in shaping a court’s decision, are not experts in domestic abuse at all. They are not well placed to advise on whether domestic abuse is taking place or on what its impact might be.

Training which gives a full picture of domestic abuse—the context, the impact and how to respond—is therefore necessary in order that experts in our courts have a full picture of the situations they advise on. It will make them more aware of the risks and more attuned to the harm that could be inflicted. It will help implement the recommendations identified by the Ministry of Justice review, which called for training for all participants, including a cultural change programme and a multidisciplinary approach across all agencies and professionals. The result will be better processes for survivors and, crucially, better outcomes for children.

One survivor who contacted me recently described how Cafcass does not see her as a victim of domestic abuse because there are no broken bones or scars and because she seems like a strong and capable woman. But, as we all know, and as the Bill recognises, domestic abuse takes many more forms than just the worst manifestations of violence. It is no good changing our legislation to reflect that if we do not change practice as well. That requires training, and that is why we need this amendment.

[Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Helic. I will speak to Amendments 131, 132, 133, and 136. I shall not go back to my time in the Commons, when I dealt with some cases in a personal way.

I have had the benefit of a briefing from someone who has sat as a court independent domestic violence adviser and has what I will call direct, hands-on street experience and remains involved in the wider processes. She has worked in the voluntary sector and in law enforcement, so her experience comes from both sides.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler]

Yes, but it is done now in a deliberate attempt to try to prevent us pursuing a very important issue. I suggest to your Lordships that we should be very careful of any attempt to do that, particularly in those circumstances. Look at the wider context. Taken with this House’s effective exclusion from discussions on English votes for English laws, which is now going on—we were not allowed in—and with the Strathclyde review, we will have only ourselves to blame if we fail to note the way the wind is blowing. Please observe the words of Mr Stewart Jackson, the Conservative Member of Parliament for Peterborough, in last week’s debate:

“In conclusion, it is a constitutional outrage that the superannuated, unelected, unaccountable panjandrums in the House of Lords have told us what the elected House should be doing even though we have a settled view on this. They should learn their place. They must be subservient to the elected House, and it is high time that we had House of Lords reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/15; col. 880.]

Amen to the last one. That is what is behind this: it is not to give new influence to this House, but to take away what little influence we have.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I want to ask the noble Lord a practical question. We are discussing a Bill, not an order. The elected House will always have the last say under the Parliament Acts. I ask him to be more practical about this: given that the Commons has sent this back without an in lieu amendment, if this House carries this amendment and it goes back to the Commons, we would be put in the position of not being able to provide another in lieu amendment. Next week we will have the same reason back—financial privilege. What will he do then?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, let us wait and see. If the House of Commons and the Government do not take this House seriously, why are we here? That is the question we have to ask ourselves.

I take up in particular this issue of the elected House having a right to bulldoze through what they think is right for election law. I have been a Member of the other House. I have to tell your Lordships that it is not unknown for Members of Parliament to have a particular interest in the electoral arrangements that got them there. I reject utterly the idea that somehow your Lordships’ House is not allowed to have a view on electoral law. I have been here some time now—more than 10 years. I have been involved in revision of electoral law many times. No Government have ever sought to stop us.

Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 (Criminal Courts Charge) Regulations 2015

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak in this debate, but I have just received an email from a friend who is a magistrate. I shall not say where because these days one cannot do that. It is worth putting on the record. He writes:

“Courts are closing in great numbers with another 90 about to be closed and there will be more after this. Defendants and witnesses now have to travel great distances. Some cannot afford it so plead guilty when they may not be. Also, it has removed the fundamental right of citizens to be tried by their peers as the cost of the criminal court charge is so high and beyond most defendants’ means, so they are pleading guilty. It has removed the need of the CPS to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Not many well-off people appear in court so it is the poorest who are being hit with a double whammy”.

That is the view of a serving magistrate sitting on the Bench today.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, on this subject, I am on the side of the two Jeremys: the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, and Jeremy Bentham. In 1795, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

“The statesman who contributes to put justice out of reach … is an accessary after the fact to every crime”.

For Bentham, such a law tax was a denial of justice. These regulations are a denial of justice, and they are a denial of justice for the two reasons given by the noble Lords, Lord Beecham and Lord Marks. First, because the sums involved—£150 up to £1,200—may well encourage innocent people to plead guilty, and, secondly, because the magistrate or judge has no discretion to vary the charge by reference to the circumstances of the offence or the offender—in particular, the offender’s means.

I will add a further point. There is a much fairer and more lucrative way forward for a Lord Chancellor who wants to help balance the books by imposing a court charge. Let the Lord Chancellor give the judges and magistrates a discretion to charge much higher court fees to defendants who are convicted of serious crimes and who can afford to pay. The drug dealers, the bank robbers and the fraudsters can be charged the true cost of their occupying the courts for weeks in trials that end in convictions if the judge or magistrate in their discretion thinks that it is appropriate to do so. The regulations could then give the courts a proper discretion not to impose on the small fry charges that may well induce guilty pleas from innocent people and may well result in the imposition of orders for payment from people who cannot afford them. If the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, wishes to test the opinion of the House on these regulations, he will certainly have my support in the Division Lobby.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am a complete outsider on this, but I am now confused. The examples that the noble Lord has given I can recall from my own experience, not of judicial review but of group activities—the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, however, said that he would buy 15% to 20%. Now, 15% is six or seven people. That is not a group or a community. Twenty per cent would be five people funding. I am now at a loss. I realise that the Government should put something forward about the level, but I am confused by the idea of lots of people contributing for the community. The noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, “I could buy 15% or 20%”. That is not a group and it is not a community. That is a small tightly knit group of motivated people. So I am confused about which way we are going on this debate.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has, extremely uncharacteristically, if I may say so, missed the point. I am sure that it is my fault. We are talking about group actions that may involve a significant number of people—hundreds or thousands, maybe—to which a few individuals make a large contribution. They are making that contribution, often anonymously, to ensure that the matter is capable of going to judicial review for the reasons I gave earlier. We are not talking about 20% meaning that there are only five people involved in the action. We are talking about 20% of the funding that is collected, although there may be hundreds of people involved in the action.

Probation Services: Privatisation

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

On the original Question to which the Minister just referred—and I have listened with care to his answers—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, made it specifically clear that the starting gun was to be fired on 28 October. It is now 31 October. We are already three days late at the beginning. So what is the answer? When will that date and that target be met?

[Lord McNally]

The Question implies a kind of sprint race where there is the firing of a gun. Some of these things have been in track for months and indeed years, and will continue in progress after October, after next April and after the October after that. We are managing change in a very important sector, whereas the Question implies that public safety must be paramount. The idea that we are somehow firing a gun and everybody rushes off ignores the reality of some careful preparation which is under way.

Coroner Service

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

Indeed, we have been in regular contact with INQUEST and those are exactly the kinds of issues for which we hope the new charter will enable the bereaved to have direct redress if problems arise. Let us be clear: as much as the previous Government, we want an efficient coroner service that allows bereaved people full information about a process which is always going to be stressful. It really is our full intention to try to make this system work along the main lines of the 2009 Act, but without a chief coroner.

[Lord Rooker]

Does the Minister accept that the Question asked by the noble Baroness was a first-class use of Question Time in bringing a long-standing individual grievance to the Floor of Parliament? Without knowing anything about the circumstances, would it not have been appropriate for the Minister at least to have said that he will go away and look into this?

[Lord McNally]

It may have been. I am not so sure that it is a proper use of Question Time to expect the Minister to know about an individual, personal case, which I fully understand for the individuals concerned must be extremely serious. One of the things that I do, as the noble Lord probably did as a Minister, is have a washing-up session after Question Time to see what needs to be followed up. However, I do not intend ever at this Dispatch Box to use personal cases either for attack or defence.