Stalking Protection Orders

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to encourage police forces in England and Wales to increase the use of stalking protection orders to safeguard the lives of victims, particularly women.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, we expect all police forces to make full use of stalking protection orders and the Safeguarding Minister has written to chief constables whose forces have not applied for many of them to make that clear. The Home Office is working closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s stalking lead to ensure that these orders are being used appropriately and to establish best practice.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, an awful lot of letters must have been written because the orders were introduced in 2020. In that year, while 80,000 stalking offences were reported, only 456 stalking orders were issued. In Wales, 7,000 offences were reported and only five orders were issued. The Government said in 2019 that they

“will publish statutory guidance which will help to ensure consistency in their use.”—[Official Report, 18/1/19; col. 471.]

I suggest that there is no consistency. It is a postcode lottery at the moment, and they are used very rarely. A recent Home Office review stated that there was a “lack of training” and insufficient staff and resources. What are the Government doing to address each of those problems? I am glad that the Government are prioritising violence against women and girls, but there seems to be a lack of prioritisation of offences in relation to stalking.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, on actions in relation to enhancing training, I can advise that in 2019 the College of Policing released a set of new advice products. There is a mandatory course for prison offender managers to complete. Within the Crown Prosecution Service, e-learning modules in stalking, harassment and restraining orders are available. The noble Baroness asked how many letters had been sent, although I acknowledge it was partly rhetorical. All chief constables have been written to and, depending on how they were using SPOs, the tenor of the letters has been either to congratulate or to encourage.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the nature of stalking means that individual incidents may seem innocent enough, but it is when a pattern emerges that they become insidious? Does that not mean that the police need specific training to recognise stalking patterns, and that all police forces should have such training tailored and developed so that victims get the help they deserve?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I agree wholeheartedly with both parts of the noble Lord’s question. I assure him that such training specifically for police—particularly, and importantly, for first responders—is in place so that the real nature of stalking and the tremendous strains and fear it provokes can be identified at the very outset.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, the stalking protection orders are very welcome in all matters for victims, and I am grateful to the Suzy Lamplugh Trust for its briefing. However, I am really concerned, as a former Victims’ Commissioner, that we are seeing murky waters. I appreciate that the Safeguarding Minister has sent a letter, but that is to the heads of all these police forces; it is the policemen on the ground who are not adequately trained and are not supporting victims. I say this as I am dealing with two different areas where insufficiently experienced officers are coming out to deal with the severity of the liquids being thrown. Can the Minister go back to the department and see what is happening on the ground? While you are at the top of the league, the bottom is not giving support to victims. The severity of these stalking offences is very important. I hope we are going to address this in the victims’ Bill in the next parliamentary Session.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for the question. In part, I refer her to the answer I gave to the previous question. The situation is that there is a degree of independence for individual chief constables to prioritise matters within their own jurisdictions, if I may use that expression. We are seeking to emphasise the real importance of this particular area of law and the real harm inflicted upon victims of stalking, so that it percolates down from the chiefs to the foot soldiers.

[The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)]

My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, to make a virtual contribution.

[Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust reports that it repeatedly sees police officers trying to apply for other protections, such as non-molestation orders, instead of stalking protection orders. Given that half of stalking cases are not from domestic abuse settings, if you are being stalked by a stranger or a work colleague—not an ex-partner—non-molestation orders would be of no use. What will the Government do to change this? Otherwise, non-domestic stalking cases will continue to be ignored.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I gratefully acknowledge the noble Baroness’s question and the terms thereof. The Government are aware that there is a bad practice of applying for the wrong order or for running SPOs in tandem with other matters, including prosecutions. These are aspects of the bad practice that we are seeking to advise against. We are also moving forward with those police forces that are doing exceptionally well—I mention Sussex and Nottinghamshire in those contexts. We are working with police and crime commissioners as well, who are also promulgating good practice through their association.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, in addition to the imposition of restrictions, stalking orders can also include positive conditions, such as requiring offenders to seek mental health treatment or enrol in a drug addiction programme. In this way, they can not only address the horrific impact but help to reduce reoffending. Can the Minister say how many of the 456 orders issued in England and Wales over the last year have included any requirement for this kind of treatment or training?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that question. I am aware, of course, that one of the great values of SPOs is that they can impose positive conditions as well as negative ones. I regret to say that I do not have the specific statistic for which the noble Baroness asked, but if she will permit me, I will write to her with that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, by what specific criteria will the Government judge whether their intervention with chief constables on stalking protection orders has been successful or unsuccessful, so that we can hold the Government to account?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

In the first instance, we look at the number of stalking protection orders that are sought and imposed. The figures that I have in relation to their use are encouraging. I can tell the House that 78% of SPO applications in 2021 were granted, compared to only 5% refused, with 17% being dealt with in other ways or withdrawn.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord advise the House on whether the Crown Prosecution Service has any play in this? Obviously, the police increasingly look to the Crown Prosecution Service for advice, and I wonder whether it has any involvement in this type of decision and whether perhaps it should.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The Crown Prosecution Service is involved in training its staff in relation to these matters. Of course, as an independent body, it takes decisions on the prosecution of crime, but in addition the victims of stalking are able to apply, without cost to themselves, for these orders.

[Lord Selkirk of Douglas (Con)]

My Lords, will the Minister accept that his policy to extend it to all police services is very welcome, and that women should be protected at all times against violence or attacks, whatever they may be?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for this point. Tackling violence against women and girls is a priority for the Government. I am sure that the House will agree that that should be the case. My noble friend is correct to say that there is a universal application of such measures. Scotland has its own distinctive regime, but it is one that deals with the same matter as SPOs in England and Wales.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, could I gently take the Minister to task for the accuracy of some of the responses that he has been given in his brief? If training were in place for all first responders, I really do not think we would be seeing the alarming figures that were issued today for Wales, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. These showed that, out of 7,000 alleged stalking offences, only five SPOs were given. The cost of training an officer fully in the complexity of stalking is £75 per police officer. Will the Government—a combination of the Home Office and the NPCC—get on the backs of every chief constable in England and Wales and get something done? A letter from Rachel Maclean is not enough of itself.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

First, I acknowledge the interest and hard work which the noble Lord has devoted to this topic. I fully accept that a single letter from the Safeguarding Minister sitting in the other place will not address these matters per se. The figures the noble Lord quotes to your Lordships are indeed worrying. However, I hope that the answers I have been able to give provide some comfort to the House—the noble Lord is shaking his head—as to the seriousness with which the Government take these matters.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Amendments 157 and 173 are probing amendments to understand the operation of the Bill. We also support the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others have put before the Committee.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in large part concern provisions around the identification of modern slavery and trafficking victims.

First to speak was my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who sought an explanation for Clause 59. The clause places the conclusive grounds threshold of a “balance of probabilities” into legislation. This is in line with the threshold that is currently applied and accepted by the courts and aligns with our current obligations under the treaty to which a number of speakers have referred: the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings —ECAT.

We submit that to remove this provision, as Amendment 156 would, would cause an inconsistent approach towards the two thresholds: the reasonable grounds threshold would be contained within legislation, whereas the conclusive grounds threshold would remain only in guidance. By legislating for both thresholds, decision-makers are able to rely on clear precedent and the process is both certain and ascertainable. This search for clarity will run through and inform the answers I will put before the Committee in this debate.

Amendments 156A and 156B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would amend the test for a reasonable grounds decision in legislation. The matter of whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual is a victim is the appropriate threshold —again, as it mirrors our obligations under ECAT. For those reasons, I cannot accept Amendments 156, 156A and 156B.

I shall expand on matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, touching first on the ability that exists in legislation for people to challenge a decision made. Multiagency assurance panels are required to review all negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority for all cases submitted to the relevant competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not review negative reasonable grounds decisions. The role of multiagency assurance panels and the processes they follow are set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales promulgated under Section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. There is equivalent non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is not found in primary legislation. The guidance states:

“An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may request reconsideration”


of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority

“if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case, or there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with guidance.”

The final conclusive grounds decision remains the responsibility of the competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not have the ability to overturn negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority. The competent authority can be asked to review a case where there is concern that the decision has not been made in line with existing guidance; that, in the view of the multiagency assurance panel, that would add value and clarity but has not been sought; or that the evidence provided and used in the decision-making process was not weighed appropriately and considered. So an element of its ability to reconsider and discretion remains in place.

I think the whole Committee will be aware that understanding of the painful effects of trauma and suffering on individuals and their ability to recollect is developing and has developed considerably over recent years, as a better comprehension of these strains and pressures comes to be understood. That understanding filters into this field, as into others. In particular, I refer your Lordships to understanding in the criminal justice system as to why people may make declarations or give statements that are not in their best interests or that they subsequently seek to go back on.

This topic seems to inform the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lord Deben. Victims may well not want or be able to relive their trauma to state officials. Moulded by forces that those of us who have been happy enough to lead comfortable and sheltered lives can barely comprehend, they may find state officials intimidating.

Will the policy inhibit such people and impact adversely their ability to come forward and speak up? We recognise that some victims of exploitation may be fearful of coming forward to talk to the authorities, including some of the organisations that operate as first responders. That is why a range of organisations operate as first responders, including charities—some of which the Committee has heard about—that work closely with victims and local authorities.

We are keen to ensure that potential victims of trafficking are identified as early as possible and are supporting this with an improved legal aid offer for victims of trafficking with no immigration status within the United Kingdom and subject to immigration removal. This is to ensure that individuals receive the correct support package at the earliest opportunity to address their needs, regardless of when cases are brought, to make sure that those who need protection are afforded it.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister is dealing with these issues with great sensitivity and I welcome the tone of his remarks. He has—I think deliberately—left a number of questions hanging, saying that a lot of work is being done on this and that people are considering these sensitive and detailed questions and looking at them more thoroughly. This all begs the question: who has demanded this change in this legislation at this time, in advance of us having detailed information laid before us?

It seems that we have it the wrong way around. Given that his noble friend said earlier that there will be a Bill specifically to improve the modern-day slavery legislation, why cannot we hold this over until we see more clearly where the information is wrong, where it is right and what the evidence is? Is it not the nature of good government to look and examine the evidence before bringing measures forward? I do not see any evidence that this has happened so far.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I do not wish to appear to give a cursory answer to the noble Lord in a debate of this sensitivity, but my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar committed to write on the data—I am grateful to the noble Lord for nodding his head in recognition. I imagine that the point he seeks to raise will be discussed in any such correspondence. Does that satisfy him at this stage?

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister, but it seems to be the wrong way around. Normally, there is pre-legislative scrutiny of complex and sensitive issues, and this is a classic example where there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny, as there was before the 2015 legislation, in some detail and at some length. Why was it thought that in a Bill dealing specifically, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, with nationality, borders and immigration, we should deal with an issue of this sensitivity? Would it not be better for the Government to withdraw this section of the Bill and come back with comprehensive legislation that we could all support?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I hear the points that the noble Lord makes. With respect, it seems that he moves forward into a question already put to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar when he stood at the Dispatch Box in relation to the earlier matter. As he advised the Committee, the Government are concerned about misuse of the system. Rather than seeking to anticipate data that I confess not to having, with the noble Lord’s permission, I will move on from this point. I am again grateful to him for nodding his head.

I was expanding to the Committee on matters raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We recognise that potential victims may not feel able at an early point to discuss information relevant to these matters bearing on their experience. That is why, in Clause 58, we have included the safeguard of “good reasons”. Each case will be considered carefully, including any reasons for not bringing information earlier, which will enable decision-makers to take trauma into account.

I am sure that I am merely rehearsing matters already within the knowledge of the Committee, but examples of what may constitute good reasons for late disclosure of information include where the victim was still under the coercive control of the trafficker, did not recognise themselves as a victim at that point, or for reasons relating to capacity—intellectual, emotional or age capacity—did not understand the requirement or the proceedings.

We will set out our approach in guidance, giving decision-makers the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall or share or recognise such events. We are concerned that by too prescriptively setting out the parameters of what can constitute good reasons in guidance, we will inhibit the flexibility of decision-makers to take a case-by-case approach, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar sought to emphasise in his submission to the Committee earlier, depending on a person’s specific situation and vulnerabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am anxious not to delay matters but to seek clarification at this stage. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about why the burden of proof has been changed and the fact that, through this higher standard, a number of victims may not enter the system at all. I cannot believe it is the Government’s wish to prevent genuine victims of modern slavery and trafficking to be excluded from the process. My noble and learned friend gave a simple, clear clarification that it was to make the bar the same for both, but the fallout, in the view of legal opinion from practitioners who will be using this on a daily basis, seems to be that we will inadvertently exclude justified victims from the whole process. I cannot believe that this is the Government’s intention, where they are genuine victims.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention, which permits me the opportunity of not only repeating what I said from the Dispatch Box earlier about the importance of decisions being taken on a case-by-case basis, but advising the House—perhaps I should have done so in answering the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—that in addition we are providing enhanced support and training to first responders.

The rationale underpinning the change proposed in relation to burdens of proof is certainly not to seek to exclude persons who ought to receive help and assistance from receiving it. The Government’s wish is that all who are victims should receive assistance and all who are criminal should receive their due punishment.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

If that is the rationale, I do not see why we need the change. I seriously do not understand what possible advantage changing this could be, whereas I perfectly clearly see what the disadvantage is. Although the Minister seeks in the most effective way to present the Government’s case, the word “rationale” is not one I would have used I these circumstances.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My noble friend sends me back to the dictionary. I shall include the use of that word in my reading later, among the other things which I expect I will be asked to reflect on. I think we are—or maybe I am—guilty of mixing up two things. The reason for the change to the test to introduce the balance of probabilities is to align ourselves with our international obligations under ECAT. It is in order to avert any baneful consequences thereof that I made reference to the enhanced support and training which first responders will receive, and to the other measures which I discussed.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I am sorry; I will not interrupt again. I still do not understand the rationale of bringing ourselves into line with our international obligations. We do not break our international obligations by going further than the international obligations, so we are already in line with them; all we are doing is withdrawing to what are, in many of our minds, unsatisfactory international obligations. Without getting into the Brexit issue, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate when he suggested that we thought this was precisely what the Government did not want to do. I happen to want to do it but that is a different thing. I feel rather hit by this in both ways.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The justification is to ensure clarity across the legislation, and I appreciate the comment made by the right reverend Prelate, and rehearsed by my noble friend, about advantages flowing or not from the Brexit process, which so many of your Lordships will have discussed. However, our ability to act differently from our partners across the channel is a valuable one, but what we seek to obtain by this measure is legislative clarity and a consistency in decision-making which will, we hope, benefit victims and develop understanding among all the agencies in this important sector. My noble friend is resuming his mask, and he did say that he would not interrupt again, although I hope that he will not bar himself from further interventions later in the debate.

I turn to Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I thank him for his powerful and compelling opening contribution to this debate and to earlier debates on the topic, and for his work at Nottingham University. I offer the Committee reassurance that we are committed to providing victims with at least a 45-day recovery period, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made, whichever period is the longer. Our position is—I maintain that this does not need to be placed on the face of the Bill, and I return to the earlier discussions with my noble friend Lord Deben—that it would create a misalignment with our international obligations under ECAT.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all of that, and the commitment to 45 days. Why does it say 30 days in the Bill? Have I got that wrong?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

No, I think the noble Lord is correct. It is 30 days for the alignment with ECAT, but the 45 days appears in the guidance, and we commit to providing support over that period: a 45-day recovery period as expressed in the guidance, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

So there is an absolute commitment to 45 days for the gap between reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds, even though legislation which we are going to pass says 30 days?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Lord shrugged his shoulders, but I repeat that the justification for this is to align with our international obligations with our partners in ECAT.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this did not stop us passing the Modern Slavery Act, which was ahead of the rest of the world.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I join the maskless crew? Surely international law, and certainly EU directives, are usually a minimum requirement, so if we wanted 45 days and a European instrument said 30, that is brilliant; it is better. It at least complies, so what is the problem?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I hear from all sides of the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Sorry, I do not mean once again from the Dispatch Box to rain brickbats upon the noble Baroness’s head.

Once again, I am not in a position to answer or explain myself on the basis of views taken by the Climate Change Committee, but in this context alignment with our ECAT partners was considered desirable.

I move on to Clause 60, which sets out the minimum time for the recovery period in line with our international obligations under ECAT. It provides us with the flexibility to set the operational practice as needed in guidance, which is important to reflect the changing needs of victims and the understanding of victims’ needs in a developing area of law.

In practice, in 2020 the average time for a conclusive grounds decision was 339 days. This long period stems from pressures on the system, which we are working to reduce through our transformation project to ensure that victims get certainty more quickly, but it is notably longer than the proposed 45-day minimum.

In light of this explanation and the assurance of continuation of the current support set out in guidance, I hope that noble Lords in the Committee agree that Amendment 157 to Clause 60 is unnecessary. I urge noble Lords to take the view that promotes clarity and to consider that the objective of making sure that we are aligned with our international obligations is such to prompt the noble Lord not to press this amendment.

Amendment 173, again from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to introduce victim navigators for modern slavery and human trafficking victims in every police force in England and Wales. This matter was discussed in the Commons during the passage of the Bill. As was expressed on behalf of the Government, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery have the support they need when engaging with the police and through the criminal justice process.

As to the development that the noble Lord from the Front Bench advised the Committee of—that of victim navigators—we strongly support police forces using these NGO-led support models. Victim navigators are one model within that category. For that reason, we have commissioned independent research of three existing NGO victim support programmes, to help us better to understand what provision is in place and what effective support looks like for these victims. This will help inform advice to forces in the future about best practice and encourage national take-up of the most effective models of support. I also agree with the sentiment behind this proposed new clause that providing support to victims to help them navigate is something that can be studied and will inform advice to forces in future about best practice. We are already working to understand the most effective support measures, and we have made grant funding available to police forces and the GLAA to help identify and fill gaps in support.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his nods of assent and for agreeing that the work already under way should be completed and will help us to develop an understanding of how best we can support victims in engaging with the criminal justice system. It is right that we conduct that evaluation before putting a specific model of support into legislation. That is why I resist this amendment at this time and invite the noble Lord not to press it.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. I thank everyone for their contributions. I think there may be a question outstanding from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as regards children under the age of 18, but I take it as read that anyone aged under 18 would still be referred to the local authorities. I assume that my noble and learned friend will write to us if that is not the case.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that, and I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Baroness for not addressing her question directly. If she is content, I will have that expressed in writing to her.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Certainly.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am obliged.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has endeavoured to be as full as possible in his response to all noble Lords. I express my disappointment that the guidelines are being changed in the way the Government envisage. I am slightly confused, because a lot of the situations for which this Bill makes provision would not have arisen if we had kept our international and European responsibilities under the Dublin convention, whereby we could have returned many asylum seekers to the first country in which they arrived.

It is a regrettable change. I do not think my noble and learned friend disagreed that a number of victims will be omitted from the system as a result. I will consider with others what to do at the next stage, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, again, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I shall speak very briefly. I should say how much I appreciate the contributions made by my noble friend Lord Coaker, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is on the Joint Committee with me, and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her very powerful remarks.

Many years ago—if I may tell a little anecdote—I heard of a certain conversation that took place in the Home Office when an official was told by her boss to justify a certain position. The official said, “But that is indefensible”. Her boss said, “Yes, of course—defending the defensible is easy. You’re paid to defend the indefensible”. I say that as a word of comfort to the Minister, who is defending the indefensible. He knows it, we know it and the officials know it—and I suppose he has to do it, unless he does what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, did and decides to distance himself from it.

I will say this very briefly. I find it hard to remember, and keep needing to remind myself, that we are talking about Part 5 of a Bill about modern slavery. Some of these issues are so remote from the rest of the Bill, as has already been said. The amendments to which I have put my name are concerned about a number of things. One is public safety and security. The amendments seek to get the right balance between public safety and security, which of course is important, and the rights of individuals who seek safety in this country. I contend that the Government, particularly in Clause 62, have got the balance quite wrong.

As the right reverend Prelate has already said, some of the people who are victims of traffickers or slavery are under threat; they are fearful, and the fact is that some of them at least will have been compelled to take up the position that they have taken up. We should respect that. These are frightened and anxious people, who are not secure and who do not know this country at all well. They may have been in this country for some time, or they may not have been, but they do not feel all that secure. We have to be sensitive to their situation, and I contend that what the Government are doing in this section, particularly in Clause 62, is to show insensitivity to some very vulnerable people—which is why I hope they will get rid of this provision, which does not make any sense at all.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in opening from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made a number of points in relation to the position of the Government in relation to the one-nation Conservative tradition, if I may put it like that. I will preface my remarks to the Committee by saying that, just as with our then coalition partners the Conservatives were in the forefront of dealing with the issue of modern slavery, so we were, hundreds of years ago, in dealing with the issue of slavery, as it then stood. Where slavery exists, Conservatives will always be found in the forefront of any attempts to confront it.

In relation to Clause 61, there is currently no policy on whether, or in what circumstances, individuals should or should not receive additional recovery periods under the national referral mechanism. Clause 61 addresses this gap by introducing a power to withhold additional recovery periods where an individual has already benefited from a recovery period and the further reported exploitation happened prior to the previous referral into the national referral mechanism, unless appropriate circumstances are set forth. This is not an attempt to create two tiers, however it may be read; rather, it is an attempt to put into legislation appropriate controls against misuse, where that misuse takes place.

Amendment 158 seeks to remove this power if any of the incidents of exploitation occurred when the individual was under 18 years of age. I seek first to reassure the Committee that the provision may be applied only when the further positive reasonable grounds decision arises from things done wholly before the previous reasonable grounds decision was made. Therefore, this power does not apply in cases of re-trafficking.

From the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, like other noble Lords at an earlier stage, raised the question of why these provisions appear on the face of an immigration Bill. It is because there are overlaps between immigration and modern slavery, which the Bill recognises and seeks to address, but it also goes further in providing clarification on people’s entitlement.

As I said in relation to the previous grouping, and as I am sure we will all have occasion to say again, the complex nature of exploitation, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, identified in his opening speech and at other times in this debate, and the potential resulting safeguarding needs, particularly for children, are recognised by the Government. This clause is designed to allow for discretion in how decision-makers apply the disqualification, ensuring that the welfare of children will be taken into account. This discretion is an important part of our needs-based approach to the provision of support, and in the circumstances there is no need for the carve-out that the amendment proposes.

Moving on to Amendment 159, while we understand the intention behind this amendment, the existing discretionary element strikes the right balance between allowing decision-makers flexibility to grant additional recovery periods and preventing the misuse of the NRM protections to which I referred. Decision-makers will be able to consider the vulnerabilities and circumstances of the individual.

Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to Clause 62, as noble Lords have outlined, ECAT envisages that recovery periods should be withheld on grounds of public order and improper claims. However, ECAT does not include a definition of “public order” and, to date, that omission has hindered our ability to disqualify suitable individuals in practice. The question was posed of whether the provision as it stands might impede operational decisions in relation to prosecution, but I submit that these decisions would be taken at all times in relation to that developing understanding of the pressures and difficulties. I fully appreciate that I am understating those things by using those expressions. Those pressures and difficulties are upon persons who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. In Clause 62, the phrase “bad faith” seems extraordinarily ambiguous. Can he clarify that? What jurisprudence does this phrase come from and on what basis will it be interpreted in the courts?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was proposing to deal later with the expression “bad faith” and its source, but, to help him at this stage, it is not drawn from any comparable legislation, nor from the authority of the courts. We do not hark back to that. Rather, the nature of the problems that must be confronted in relation to this is sufficiently protean and diverse that a need was identified to arrive at a broad expression in the Bill, and “bad faith” was the language selected after consideration among Ministers and officials to represent that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I now realise that he has now moved on from Clause 61 and is talking about Clause 62. I was wondering whether he was going to answer my point about incompatibility with the ECHR memorandum. That says that

“where the person’s previous conclusive grounds decision was negative, the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2) of ECAT.”

However, you are not protecting them from removal in the meantime under Article 61, as far as I can see, so how is the Bill compatible with the ECHR memorandum?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I will seek to get an answer to that question that I can deliver in the course of the debate—doubtless the Committee will remind me if I have not reverted to the noble Baroness by the time I sit down.

Amendments 160 and 162 do not define “exceptional circumstances” or “serious and ongoing” threat in relation to withholding protection from removal. As such, our view is that they would risk undermining the clarity which this clause seeks to provide and would make the power very difficult to use, meaning that potentially dangerous individuals would continue to receive the generous protections afforded by the NRM.

On Amendment 160A, Clause 62 specifies that disqualification applies when in the interests of national security, but it is right that the Government should also be able to withhold protections from individuals who pose a threat to public order more broadly, including where they have been convicted of serious criminal offences or have made a claim in bad faith, to use the expression that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred me to. I say that “bad faith” is appropriate in these circumstances because it is so broad and because it comprises so many aspects.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I want to intervene briefly on the “good faith” and “bad faith” point, in case it is of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. Concepts such as “good faith” and bad faith” are commonly used in civil and commercial matters; we understand that. In contracting matters, it is incumbent on parties to act in good faith, subject to the deal they have done with each other. Why I think the Committee is so concerned about what the Minister called the protean nature of the phrase here is that this is human rights protection, and we cannot afford to be protean or vague in the same way that we can when we are talking about how we enter into a contract. This is life and death.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The point I was seeking to make by that expression is, I think, the same one that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar made earlier, when he spoke about this—it is as familiar to the noble Baroness as a practising barrister as it is to me, and I think it was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have a list that sets out heads A to E, and then counsel attempts to rely on point F which is not otherwise comprehended, or not specifically enumerated but which may be comprehended within the expression “or any other circumstance”, that always—as my noble friend Lord Wolfson said—places counsel at a disadvantage.

On the threats, or potential threats, and the potential scope for abuse which lie within the power of a person seeking to exploit and make a false application under these circumstances, what we are seeking to do is to identify a phrase or term which is sufficiently wide to encompass all those potential points. Noble Lords in the Committee have identified, under reference to the traffickers and criminals whom it is the intention of the entire Committee to thwart, their cunning, resilience and resourcefulness in finding ways to slip between the cracks of aspects of legislation.

Amendment 169 does not provide a definition of “public order”. I reassure the Committee that we adhere to relevant provisions in our international obligations but it is unnecessary to specify that in legislation, and we are satisfied that the current definition of public order complies with ECAT.

My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering proposes that we replace the “bad faith” provision with one of “improper claims”. That proposal can be addressed in conjunction with Amendment 163, which seeks to remove the bad faith provision entirely. Another reason for the expression “bad faith”, and its breadth, is to avoid inadvertently excluding administrative mistakes made when submitting claims, which may be interpreted as falling under “improper claims”. We believe that “bad faith” is the appropriate language.

In answer to submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, under Amendments 169, 161 and 164, which seek to exclude children from this clause, ECAT does not specify an age limit. We deem it important that the United Kingdom maintains the full scope while ensuring that all decisions to withhold the protections of the NRM are balanced against our priority to safeguard children. The proposal set out in these amendments would create, in effect, a two-tiered system that could encourage those looking to misuse the NRM protections to provide falsified information regarding their age. We all sat late enough the other night in relation to the age amendment provisions elsewhere in the Bill for me not to wish to go into that area again, but we are concerned lest the proposals in the amendment provide an opportunity for persons to provide falsified information.

In relation to Amendment 168, the Government are aware that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery may already have been convicted of serious offences or be involved in terrorism-related activity. I make it clear that neither the additional recovery period nor the public order disqualifications can be taken as being a blanket disqualification. Any decisions relating to disqualifications will be taken on an individual basis, taking into account the individual’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. This includes consideration as to the nature of any criminal exploitation that may have been made of them and the need to safeguard individuals. We think it is right that further details of how to apply this discretionary element should be set out in guidance for decision-makers rather than being placed in the Bill. That will give the Government the flexibility to meet the needs of victims and respond to changing patterns of criminal activity that may seek opportunities to misuse the NRM.

We do not consider that Clause 62 will present a barrier to people who have had convictions and prevent them coming forward, because of that discretionary approach and because there will not be a blanket disqualification on the basis of public order. All of us—the whole Committee, I am sure—want victims of modern slavery to continue to come forward for identification and support, irrespective of their personal circumstances or the circumstances in which they came to be exploited. However, we maintain that it is right that the Government can remove individuals who pose a threat to public order from the protections and support that the NRM affords.

Together with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was concerned lest such victims did not come forward if they had criminal convictions. First responders should still always refer victims into the national referral mechanism, in line with modern slavery statutory guidance, even where the individual has had a previous recovery period or has a criminal conviction. Decision-makers trained in the field will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account specific vulnerabilities and the needs of each individual, again on a case-by-case basis.

The recovery period may be withheld following a reasonable grounds decision, and the rights that flow from a conclusive grounds decision may also be withheld at that stage if relevant disqualifications apply. I emphasise that we will carefully consider each individual case to ensure that people who genuinely need protection and support will receive it. I reiterate that it is right that we should be able to withhold rights from individuals where appropriate—for example, from those who pose a national security risk to the United Kingdom.

I return to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The protections of the NRM will be withheld in accordance with Clause 61 only when so to do would be compliant with our international obligations—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I am glad to hear that the Government want to comply with our international obligations—some of us feel that that is not entirely evident from the Bill—but I was asking about compatibility with the European convention against trafficking. Clause 61 allows “a competent authority” to remove someone even when a conclusive grounds decision is pending. I am sorry to repeat myself, but the European Convention on Human Rights memorandum, produced presumably by the Home Office for the Bill, says at paragraph 76.d:

“the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2)”.

That is not what Clause 61 does; it allows the Government to remove the person. They are not “protected from removal” pending a new conclusive grounds decision, so the ECHR memorandum and the Bill are in direct contradiction. Can the Minister take further advice and answer that point? If he cannot do so today, I am sure that he will be able to write to me. I am pretty sure that this was identified by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is why we wanted to change “must” determine the person’s removal to “may”, so that there is wiggle room that might be in compliance with ECAT. On the face of it, I cannot see that this provision is compliant, notwithstanding the assertion in the memorandum that it is.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Baroness graciously affords me the possibility of replying perhaps in more detail and later. Unless I have further information to provide to her, I propose to take that course. I am obliged to her for her consideration.

In relation to how to assess whether a person is involved in terrorism-related activity or is otherwise a national security concern, the Government have extensive experience of assessing these things, together with our operational partners, and using these assessments to inform executive decision-making.

Whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity is a crucial part of consideration for public order disqualification. Amendment 165 would weaken the United Kingdom’s ability to withhold protections from people of terrorism concern, and we therefore consider that it would increase the risk to the national security of the UK.

Regarding Amendment 166, NRM referrals for foreign national offenders and foreign nationals held on remand are rising, with an average of 85 per month for the first five months of 2021, compared to 19 per month in 2018. It is right that foreign nationals who have been convicted of the serious offences referred to in Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 should be included within scope for consideration of the public order disqualification. This ensures that we will have a clear definition provided for in legislation to support decisions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in the interests of time, let me just say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whose amendments I have signed, that I very much support him and the arguments and points that he made so well. We look forward to the Minister’s response. I pay tribute to the doughty work the noble Lord has done over a number of years to try to move the Government in what many of us regard as a simple and sensible way forward. Let us hope.

I shall speak to my Amendment 171AA. Clause 64 provides for limited leave to remain

“if the Secretary of State considers it is necessary for the purpose of (a) assisting the person in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm … (b) enabling the person to seek compensation”—

unless this can be done outside the UK

“or (c) enabling the person to co-operate”

with law enforcement. The standard, however, does not meet the UK’s obligation to children under the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking. Article 14.2 of ECAT specifies that in the case of children, residence permits

“shall be issued in accordance with the best interests of the child.”

Paragraph 186 of the Explanatory Report to ECAT explains that

“the child’s best interests take precedence”.

Amendment 171AA, which is a probing amendment, simply asks why the Government cannot include leave to remain where children are protected and where it is in the best interest of the child.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, in consideration of the flight of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I start by addressing Amendment 171B. ECAT sets clear parameters around when a signatory state is obliged to grant a residence permit to confirmed victims, which is where it considers that the stay is necessary either due to the confirmed victim’s personal situation or for the purpose of their co-operation with the competent authorities in an investigation or criminal proceedings. The Government have gone further than this and provided for a grant of leave not only on both of these bases, but also where it is necessary to enable a confirmed victim to seek compensation in respect of their exploitation.

A temporary leave provision is deliberately designed to allow for leave to be provided for as long as needed, where appropriate. It will be considered on a case-by-case basis and does not set an arbitrary time period. To specify a length of leave does not follow our overall approach of having a truly needs-based approach to addressing victim support. If it is necessary for leave to be granted for longer than 12 months in order to pursue a thorough investigation, or where an individual’s personal circumstances require it, leave can and should be granted.

I turn next to Amendments 169A, 170 and 170A. In Clause 63 we have sought to define the support entitlement during the recovery period for potential victims following a positive reasonable-grounds decision. Amendment 169A, however, would remove clarity on what these terms mean for victims and decision-makers and reduce the effectiveness of the clause in supporting victims. Our approach to the wording of Clause 63 has been chosen specifically to provide more detail on the circumstances in which support is provided, while being in line with our international obligations. Our approach is not to go into detail on the types of support provided for in legislation, as Amendment 170A suggests, but to do this in guidance, the purpose being to ensure flexibility in our approach in future, so this can be tailored to victims’ needs as our understanding of trauma develops. I refer your Lordships to remarks made earlier in the debate that understanding the impact and the effect of trauma on individuals is an ongoing and developing thing.

Further to this, and in response to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive-grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We committed to this in the other place and will consider where and how this commitment is delivered to ensure that it delivers best for victims. More details will be provided in guidance or in future modern slavery legislation, should parliamentary time allow. My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich has been given that assurance by the Home Office Minister. The Home Office and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Williams are keen to continue working with the noble Lord on the implementation of this policy.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 11 January be approved.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 8 February.

Motion agreed.

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2022 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 (Consequential amendments) Regulations 2022.

Relevant document: 27th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, the draft instrument before us makes consequential amendments to primary and secondary legislation relevant to the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020, ahead of its planned commencement on 6 April this year. The purpose of these measures is twofold: first, to introduce a new jurisdiction ground for joint applications for divorce—namely, either applicant’s habitual residence; secondly, to update the terminology relating to divorce proceedings consequential on the language changes made by the aforementioned divorce Act.

I will speak first to the amendments in paragraphs 1, 4, and 8 of the schedule to the regulations pertaining to the introduction of a jurisdiction ground for joint applications for divorce: namely, the habitual residence of either applicant. Jurisdiction grounds, in this context, are the grounds on which a divorce can be applied for and/or granted in the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The ground we are discussing sets out that, provided either applicant is habitually resident in England or Wales, a joint application can be made by both applicants within this jurisdiction.

This instrument amends a number of measures, including the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, the Civil Partnership (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2005 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014. To each of these pieces of legislation, it brings in the same ground to which I have just referred.

An equivalent jurisdiction ground appears in article 3 of EU Regulation 2201/2003, known as Brussels IIa. Until the end of the transition period, the Brussels IIa regulation jurisdiction ground applied to all cases of opposite sex divorce, legal separation and annulment in England and Wales. The United Kingdom is no longer governed by Brussels IIa, which was revoked by Statutory Instrument 519 of 2019. However, the choice was then made to replicate the applicable Brussels IIa jurisdiction grounds into domestic law by amendment to the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973.

All the jurisdiction grounds in article 3 of Brussels IIa were replicated save for the ground that we are now discussing, that of habitual residence in joint applications. The sole reason why this ground was not replicated upon exit from the EU was because at that time it was not possible to make a joint application for divorce in England and Wales. With the commencement of the divorce Act, this will now be an option for the first time, so it would be remiss not to replicate this final ground now that the opportunity presents itself.

The same ground is also being introduced into the following measures: the Civil Partnership (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2005 and the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) (Jurisdiction and Recognition of Judgments) Regulations 2014. This ensures equality in all legislation relating to ending a partnership or marriage, regardless of whether these are between same or opposite sex couples.

The other amendments in this instrument amend language in the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, the Civil Partnership (Registration Provisions) Regulations 2005, the Pension Protection Fund (Provision of Information) Regulations 2005, the Financial Assistance Scheme (Provision of Information and Administration of Payments) Regulations 2005, the Civil Legal Aid (Merits Criteria) Regulations 2013, and the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) Regulations 2013.

The amendments update the terminology in relation to divorce consequential upon the language changes made by the divorce Act. The divorce Act amended terminology in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973—for example, by the replacement of terms such as “decree nisi”, “decree absolute” and “petitioner” with “conditional order”, “final order” and “applicant”. This means that the same terms will now be used in legislation relating to both divorce and dissolution. It simplifies language too, making terms more recognisable and readily accessible to members of the public. This supports the aim of the divorce Act in supporting citizens representing themselves in divorce proceedings. This instrument consequentially replicates those language changes across relevant legislation.

By making the amendments I have outlined today, the intention is that we will standardise and update language across all relevant pieces of legislation and amend jurisdiction grounds to add a specific relevant ground for joint divorce applications. This instrument is consequential on the divorce Act, reflective of the ultimate aims of the divorce Act, to reduce conflict between couples and families. I beg to move.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, we support this instrument. I have just a couple of questions. I am surprised that the question of jurisdiction was not dealt with in the Act itself. Perhaps the Minister has some explanation for that, which I have not perceived.

My second question relates to paragraph 7.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum, which says:

“The Government’s policy intention behind the reformed law”,


which in turn has resulted in the consequential amendments contained in this instrument,

“is that the decision to divorce should be a considered one, and that separating couples should not be put through legal requirements which do not serve their or the state’s interests”.

I find that a bit puzzling, and I wonder whether the Minister can help me with what it is directed to. However, as I say, we support the amendments.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, we, too, support the regulations. The provisions are primarily to reflect the new terminology associated with the reformed divorce, dissolution and separation proceedings in the Act, as well as to add a jurisdictional ground for the newly created joint applications.

The Act has not yet come into effect, but we hope that it will soon and that there is no further delay. I think I heard the Minister confirm that the date will be 6 April 2022—he is nodding, so I take that as an indication that that is correct—which is very pleasing. My party fully supports that Act and the changes to divorce, dissolution and separation that it will introduce. As a result of this Act, it will be much easier for couples to divorce in cases where the relationship has irretrievably broken down.

We hope that this will end some of the adversarial system currently in place. A spouse will no longer be able to object to or oppose a divorce, and couples will no longer have to apportion blame for the breakdown, leading, we hope, to less conflict and acrimony for all involved. A simple statement that the marriage has irretrievably broken down should be sufficient for proceedings to commence. I am very pleased to welcome the measures that the Minister has outlined today.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to participating Peers for their contributions to the debate. The noble Baroness on the Labour Front Bench acknowledged that I had tacitly confirmed that 6 April was the commencement date—so I was able to answer that question without saying anything.

As to the two questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches, I regret to say that I do not have ready answers to either—I beg the Committee’s pardon. I undertake to provide answers in writing to the noble Lord as soon as I am able.

Beyond that, I think I have registered agreement from both noble Lords who spoke that these merely consequential amendments are not contentious and bring about changes to standardise the approach to language and to jurisdiction grounds for divorce—ensuring, I hope, that legislation surrounding divorce is clear, simple and consistent across the board. I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Power of Attorney

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Greengross]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to tackle power of attorney being used as a form of economic abuse that disproportionately affects older people.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, lasting powers of attorney—LPAs—offer vital protections where someone lacks the mental capacity to make their own decisions. While abuse is concerning, thankfully it is rare. Some 5 million LPAs are registered with the Office of the Public Guardian and in the year 2020-21, that office investigated 1,971, taking action in 675 cases. We cannot be complacent with older people at increased risk of abuse and we recently consulted on modernising LPAs to improve safeguards. The response to that consultation is due in the spring.

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, unless stated, there is no obligation to tell family members that a power of attorney has been created and there are no publicly searchable online databases of registered powers of attorney. It can be hard to gain the information from the Office of the Public Guardian concerning powers of attorney in a timely fashion. This facilitates, perhaps, harm and abuse. The charity Hourglass, of which I am patron, supports victims of abuse and last year 144 of its cases reported having a power of attorney in place. What assessments have been made of proposals to introduce a national register of powers of attorney?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by acknowledging, on behalf of the House, the great work that the noble Baroness has carried out in this very important field, not only as patron but as founder of the charity to which she made reference. The OPG is responsible for maintaining the register of LPAs in England and Wales; that is one of its statutory functions. That register can be searched by any member of the public or third party, using a service called OPG100. Additionally, donors and attorneys can provide third parties with access to OPG’s “Use a lasting power of attorney” service, which allows third parties to check instantly the latest information and status of an eligible LPA. Modernising that process presents us with great opportunities, but we must also bear in mind obligations of confidentiality.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I have come across several cases recently where elderly people have been taken advantage of, often by their own relatives, being relieved of thousands of pounds of hard-earned savings as a result of granting power of attorney. As solicitors are involved in this process, is the Minister satisfied that they are sufficiently aware of their duty of care to vulnerable clients during the discussion periods prior to such powers being granted?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the OPG is working with solicitors, other professional bodies and other bodies within the community to make sure that persons considering becoming donors and taking out powers of attorney are aware of these protections.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, as an MP I had the case of an elderly and very wealthy lady afflicted with dementia who was removed from the luxury home that she had chosen and could afford by her attorneys, who were also her heirs. She was put in a much cheaper home in order to protect their inheritance. The lady was so traumatised that she died within weeks. The Office of the Public Guardian could do nothing, because the new home met CQC standards. Is there a way to give it powers and to look at the misuse of the power, rather than just acting in cases of clear illegality?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The OPG currently has powers to make reference to the police, in terms of fraud, to instigate investigations, including using other bodies such as local authorities or the National Health Service. Again, on the reference to the consultation that is to report in the spring, we look to strengthen the ability of the OPG to intervene in such cases.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, could the Minister outline what further measures are contemplated to monitor the misuse of the power of attorney, sometimes by relatives of the person involved?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The noble Baroness poses the question of monitoring the situation. Again, the consultation procedure has been invited to take views as to the use of identification procedures in relation to people becoming attorneys, and there is a range of measures in contemplation to assist banks and other institutions to properly investigate persons taking out such schemes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, the Office of the Public Guardian has changed its processes so that it writes to donors at their home address to inform them that an LPA is being applied for, but in the consultation on modernising the LPA do the Government anticipate that they will need to bring forward new legislation to strengthen the powers of the Office of the Public Guardian to strike out people who hold an LPA who abuse those powers, as outlined in the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, new legislation will be required. To put matters into perspective, in 2021 there were more than 5 million LPAs on the OPG register, and only nine have been removed from the register because of concerns about fraud by false representation during their creation.

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, the Commissioner for Older People can speak on behalf of older victims of economic abuse. The same role exists in Wales, and the Scottish Government have in place a Minister for Equalities and Older People. Can the Minister identify an equivalent here in England, so we can bring these parties all together?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question, and I can answer it by saying that in England it is a function of local government to carry out those tasks.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I too would like to acknowledge the lifetime’s work done by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. There are things we take for granted until we no longer have them: our ability to choose; our ability to make decisions; and our ability to express ourselves. When these abilities fade, we need to have confidence that legal processes will protect our interests. We are all bombarded by attempts at fraud, almost on a daily basis, and more vulnerable people are more vulnerable to those attempts. The Government’s stated aim is to create a lasting power of attorney service for the digital world. My stepfather is 97. He does not live in the digital world. How will his interests be protected?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with everything the noble Lord outlined, and I can assure the House that a paper means of setting up these mechanisms will continue, even after digitisation.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords—I am looking around carefully to make sure it really is my turn—I wonder if the Minister would agree with me that, while we have to be very concerned about the incidents of fraud and the misuse that has just been revealed in the questions he has been asked so far, there is none the less great virtue in lasting powers of attorney. They are very important ways in which all of us can protect ourselves against the things that may happen to us in the future. People should be encouraged to make lasting power of attorney arrangements early enough, while they still have capacity to understand fully what they are committing to, and to inform the people who will be their attorneys how they wish their wishes to be carried out. Would he agree they are not yet encouraged enough?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I do agree with the noble Baroness, and I can advise her that even very recently OPG carried out engagement with specific groups in society identified as being less likely to avail themselves of the protections offered by LPAs—specifically, people from socioeconomic groups and within ethnic minorities who have been identified as less likely to take up these protections, which, I agree with the noble Baroness, are of enormous importance for the whole of society.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, could I ask the Minister about the increase in predatory marriages, whereby fraudsters target elderly people, usually with dementia, in order to swindle them out of their inheritance, usually by getting into marriage when they do not have the capacity, normally, to make such decisions. Could he say what the Ministry of Justice and his department are doing to put registrars on a statutory training course to ensure that, when they are approached by people who want to get married, they have the capacity to do so according to their own free will?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I can say, under reference to the Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, which concerned lasting powers of attorney, that the OPC has, after certain recent cases, instituted increased training schemes within its number and introduced a buddying scheme so junior members of staff can learn from senior members of staff. As to the specific question the noble Baroness poses on predatory marriages, I regret to say it is not within my department, but I will speak to the Minister in charge, and it may well be, if the noble Baroness is willing to wait, that we will express ourselves in writing.

Rape Trials

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase the proportion of rape allegations that go to trial.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, the rape review action plan has committed to transforming the criminal justice system to tackle systemic failures on rape. In that, we demonstrate our commitment to transparency and public accountability throughout. Our aims are to improve victims’ experience of the criminal justice system, to increase the numbers of victims who stay engaged in the process and to build better and stronger cases so that more people are charged and, ultimately, more rapists go to prison.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I will just remind the House how appalling the statistics are: only 1.6% of reported rape allegations result in a court case. As the Minister said, the Government’s response has been to put in place the rape review action plan. On 22 January the CPS published its latest statistics regarding the handling of rape. Five categories of data were published; they showed either a flatlining of the data or a modest improvement. Is the Minister happy with that improvement, or does he think he should put in place some targets?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the data that the noble Lord has placed before the House. I suggest that it is not so much a matter of imposing targets as one of following through on the Government’s approach, which will see an increase in spending over the lifetime of this Parliament and involve more special training for police officers and prosecutors in this area. Finally, although, as I have said, I acknowledge the statistics that the noble Lord has placed before your Lordships, it is important to recognise that the data is necessarily retrospective and relates to times before the Government’s actions, as set out in the action plan, commenced.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that, in the Attorney-General’s regular meetings with the Director of Public Prosecutions, she will hold the director to account for the chilling effect of recent changes in CPS charging guidance in relation to rape? Surely it is in the hands of the DPP that the awful statistics can be improved and victims given a proper hearing.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I can give the noble Lord that assurance. I remind the House that, of course, as the noble Lord is well aware, we are dealing not simply with the role of government but with necessarily independent bodies, upon which our constitution relies—it relies on the independence of the judiciary and of prosecutors—but I can give the noble Lord the assurance that he seeks.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, the End Violence Against Women Coalition reported that, as a result of funding cuts in recent years, two-fifths of police forces in England and Wales no longer have a specialist rape and serious sexual offences unit, thereby losing vital expertise in investigating and prosecuting sexual violence. At a time when rape prosecutions remain at their lowest level on record and rape survivors face some of the longest delays to their cases reaching trial of any victims of crime, are the Government serious about prioritising tackling sexual violence against women and girls?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, this Government are indeed serious about addressing the matters that the noble Baroness has placed before the House. I am able to give the noble Baroness some assurances in relation to figures. We are on track to recruit a further 20,000 police officers by the end of this Parliament. Over 100 prosecutors have undertaken induction training on rape and serious sexual offences—RASSO as it is known—while 674 prosecutors have been trained in a suspect-centred approach; that means focusing the investigation on the suspect and shifting away from the idea that it is the function of the police somehow to challenge the complainer’s account of events. Furthermore, by the end of this financial year, 176 prosecutors will have been trained and skilled in the assessment of the impact of trauma on memory. All these measures will enhance the ability of the system to address these extremely serious crimes.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for acknowledging the issue of resources in relation to sexual offences, in particular, and for the other commitments that he has made, but does he agree that the culture of misogyny in our police service is leading women not to have the confidence they need to come forward? I refer noble Lords to reporting overnight of the case of the Nottingham academic who was strip-searched in police custody in circumstances that can be described only as a sexual assault.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the expression “misogyny”, and the extent, meaning and parameters of that expression, are currently under consideration. Beyond that I do not intend to provide any further answer.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

My Lords, what are the chances of investigating and prosecuting serious sexual offences when 70% of victims are regarded at the time of the attack as vulnerable, sometimes due to alcohol and sometimes to age or mental illness? This means that the prosecution decisions can be quite difficult when the account of the victim is regarded as inconsistent. We never know how juries accept their evidence, and we never have any research into how juries reach their verdicts. I wonder whether this area is something on which the Government would consider instigating proper research to find out what it is that influences a jury. It is not always the things that we believe make a difference.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I can tell the House that there is work currently under way by the Law Commission to address misconceptions in this field. The expression often used is “rape myths”, although I am not sure that I am especially fond of that. I think “misconceptions” better addresses and refers to the topic raised by the noble Lord.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that modern technology has, ironically, made rape a more difficult crime to investigate because it depends on victims having confidence in the process? Many young women are not prepared to allow their cell phones to be seized and trawled through for months on end by the police. What are the Government doing to address this dilemma without compromising justice?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. In relation to the end-to-end review and action plan, which the Government have published, we have set up a means by which people coming forward with complaints of rape can be confident that they will receive mobile telephones, so they will not be deprived of their use or their contacts and data. At the same time, we will be doing our best to strengthen the investigation of crimes so that complainers do not feel that their personal lives are being unduly pried into or that their rights to privacy are disturbed.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, would the Minister like to have another go at answering the question put to him by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, leaving aside the question of misogyny but answering the question about culture?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

The culture of the police is an extremely broad topic. I regret if I seemed to have ducked the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but these are extremely wide issues, which lie beyond the remit of my ability to answer today.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That the Regulations laid before the House on 16 November be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 14 December.

Motion agreed.

Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments (2005 Hague Convention and 2007 Hague Convention) (Amendment) Regulations 2022.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying how much of an honour it is to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord McNicol. This is my maiden outing in this Room; it is a melancholy reflection, given that I took up office more than a year ago, but here I am in the Moses Room for the first time.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

You are welcome.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am obliged. This draft instrument is made under the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020, which I will refer to as the PIL Act. The Act currently gives force of law to these conventions and ensures that they are read together with any reservations and declarations made at the time of approval. It also sets out, in new schedules to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, the text of the conventions. To ensure that the information is complete and readily accessible, this instrument will insert the text of the reservations and declarations alongside the convention texts in new schedules to the 1982 Act.

This draft instrument is technical in nature and does not alter the UK’s status as a party to either the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements or the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance. It also brings into domestic legislation the texts of the UK’s reservations and declarations to those conventions. The UK has participated in the 2005 and 2007 Hague conventions since 2015 and 2014 respectively. Previously, we were bound by the conventions by virtue of our membership of the European Union—a status that continued to apply throughout the transition period in accordance with the withdrawal agreement. In September 2020, the United Kingdom took the necessary steps to join the two conventions as an independent party, as part of preparation for leaving the EU. This included depositing the necessary instruments of accession and ratification.

To be able to make this instrument, the PIL Act requires the Secretary of State to consult with such persons as they think necessary. To meet this requirement, the Ministry of Justice, on behalf of the Secretary of State, consulted key stakeholders in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as legal practitioners, academics and judges specialising in private international law, with whom the Ministry of Justice engages regularly. No objections to this instrument were received. In addition, as this instrument will apply to all UK legal jurisdictions, the consent of Scottish Ministers and the department of the Northern Ireland Executive has been obtained.

When rejoining these conventions as an independent party, the declarations and reservations by which the UK had been bound as a member of the European Union were not amended. This instrument will not make any changes to those reservations and declarations. While the existing reservations and declarations have been retained, this will not prevent the United Kingdom from changing them to either or both these conventions in future or withdrawing reservations to the 2007 Hague Convention if at any time it should to Parliament seem appropriate so to do.

Overall, as I have noted, this instrument is technical in its nature and will not alter the application of the conventions, nor their respective declarations and reservations. None the less, it is important to have the text of these declarations and reservations readily available in domestic legislation and alongside the text of the conventions for ease of reference for practitioners. I hope that the Committee will join me in supporting these regulations.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, in his introduction, the Minister said that that was his maiden speech in the Moses Room. I remember having a discussion upstairs about a year ago on some similar legislation, also to do with reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders—the 2007 Hague Convention, to which I shall refer later in my contribution. As the Minister says, this instrument is technical in nature. We on our side support the Government on it.

The 2005 and 2007 conventions were transferred to domestic law as part of the package of the private international law Act last year; this instrument seems to transfer the definitions within the conventions over to UK law. I open with what may be a simplistic question to the Minister: will the definitions under the 1996 Hague Convention be transferred by secondary legislation in the new year? Is that an additional piece of process that we should expect?

The 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements ensures the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. These clauses are common, particularly in high-value commercial contracts. The UK previously participated in the 2005 convention by virtue of EU membership, as we have heard; the EU ratified the 2005 convention, and it entered into force from 1 October 2015. On 28 September 2020, the UK deposited its instrument of accession to the 2005 convention to ensure that it continues its independent participation in the convention. The Minister set all that out in his introduction to today’s debate.

The 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance provides for rules for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance. Both the 2005 and 2007 conventions ensure legal co-operation across jurisdictions to provide certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. The Labour Party supported the transfer to domestic law of both conventions during the PIL Act 2020, as referred to by the Minister.

Finally, I return to my personal issue—I remember that the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was there last year when I raised it; I see her nodding her head—with my hat on as a family magistrate. One of the most excruciating things that I do in that role is try to enforce the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. The Minister wrote me a letter, which I have in front of me, in which he fairly set out the legal processes whereby reciprocal enforcement should be done. I accept that my assertion—that there are insufficient powers to enforce maintenance orders reciprocally—was wrong.

The point I wanted to make to the noble and learned Lord is that, whether I was right or wrong, it is still an excruciating process. It is very difficult to do. Very often the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders fails. I accept the point that he makes in his letter that it is not because of a lack of powers; maybe it is a lack of administrative will. It is absolutely an excruciating process for me as a magistrate and with the administration process around it. The parties we see in court are often in despair about trying to resolve these issues.

Nevertheless, I understand that we are talking on a more general basis today. I welcome the instrument that the noble and learned Lord has put forward. I am also in direct contact with the relevant Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the family court, so he does not need to introduce me to him. I will fight my own battles on this front.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his contribution. I well remember the opening of my account in the Room upstairs. I also remember the noble Lord’s close questioning, informed, as today, by his valuable experience on the Bench of magistrates in the family area of law, if I might put it like that.

The noble Lord posed a question about the 1996 Hague convention. The United Kingdom joined that instrument in its own right rather than through the European Union, so as I understand it no further action on that convention will be necessary.

I note with concern the noble Lord’s observations concerning the excruciating nature of the treatment of these matters in his capacity as a magistrate. I will do what I can, along with my noble friend Lord Wolfson in the Ministry of Justice, in order to assist.

At this stage, I register my appreciation and that of the Government for the assistance we received from stakeholders who engaged in consultation with us in the preparation of these instruments, and for the co-operation of our colleagues in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive. With that, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sorry to find myself intervening at this point but there is no bigger policy than the right to a fair trial. Of course that goes for complainants—and I agree with much of the thrust of what my noble and learned friend says—but there must also be justice for someone accused of any matter, but particularly such a serious one as a sexual offence. The example given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warranted more of an answer, and one could conceive of others.

I say that while acknowledging that for decades, too much sexual history has been admitted; there is no doubt in my mind about that. That was why Section 41 had to be enacted in the first place. Scholars in this area will be able to look back at the Hansard of the passage of Section 41 and its various iterations at the time. The section was actually more tightly drafted to begin with but noble Lords in this place, including on the Benches behind me, came up with compelling exceptional circumstances where it would do a grave injustice to a defendant for startling similar fact-type evidence not to be admitted.

I understand that even since the passage and enactment of Section 41, a lot of complainants—and, with all respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, quite possibly women in particular—have felt that there has still not been enough sensitivity on the part of certain judges. However, it cannot be right that if I as a complainant, of whatever sex, assert that a particular type of sexual activity is something I would never and could never consent to and have never consented to, and yet I did the day before—how can it be anything but an injustice to the defendant for that not to be admitted? If I am a man and I say I have been raped by another man because I would never have consented to sex with a man, and yet there is ample evidence of a third party saying that there has been consensual sex —that cannot be fair to the man in the dock who says, “Yes, we had consensual sex” and then the complainant, because he is embarrassed due to his family, his faith or whatever reason, now says that it was non-consensual. That cannot be right.

I agree that we must do more so that juries, judges and indeed society do not assume that past sexual history is determinative of consent, but in my view to say that it is always absolutely irrelevant would not comply with Article 6 of the convention and therefore the Human Rights Act. I do not mean to be difficult but I could not possibly have potential injustices of that magnitude on my conscience, and I do not think this Committee could either.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, in replying, I preface my remarks by commenting on points made by noble Lords. The first was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, at the outset, while the Benches opposite were still thrashing out the batting order. If I may summarise the noble Lord’s position, I think it emphasised the importance of judicial discretion. A judge seized fully of the law and of the particular facts and circumstances applying to any case will most often be best placed to decide what should be done. I know that the noble Lord will recognise that my remarks cut both ways, and that he will hold me to them in the course of today’s debate. However, I fully accept what he had to say about the importance of judicial discretion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I also agree absolutely with the principles behind these amendments. It seems as though the Committee has been unanimously supportive up till now.

My question to the Minister is: why have we waited so long for something to happen in the area of inquests? I had hoped that there might be something in what has been rightly described as a Christmas tree Bill to help us along the way, but there is not. It has needed the amendments from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and others, including the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to raise this issue. I was privileged enough to chair a Fabian commission on legal aid, which reported more than four years ago. We considered this urgent—as I think the world did—then and for many years before. At one stage, Hillsborough was a classic example which aroused public interest in this issue.

Is there work being done at the moment within the Minister’s department to look urgently at this issue to see whether some solution cannot be found? Never mind the rest of civil legal aid—though my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti knows I agree with her absolutely on that—is there not something that can be done in this area as a matter of some urgency?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that the Committee will accept my words when I say that the Government are sympathetic to the difficulties facing all bereaved families. At an earlier stage in the consideration of this Bill, my colleague, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar who has ministerial responsibility for this matter, referred to the powerful feelings he had, as a resident of Liverpool, as the Hillsborough tragedy unfolded. For my part, I speak as one who has acted for a relative of someone killed in an accident which was sufficient to warrant the convening of a fatal accident inquiry in relation to the helicopter crash at the Clutha Vaults public house in Glasgow. I was funded by legal aid, and I hope that means I was at least competent, while at all times striving towards the excellence of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The Government believe that bereaved and otherwise affected families should be at the heart of any inquest and inquiry process that follows a disaster.

Amendments 269 to 274 seek to establish an independent public advocate. This is a call to which the Government have been sympathetic, but I echo the reservations expressed, I think by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, as to whether the superstructure envisaged by the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is the appropriate way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have given evidence at numerous criminal trials, in the magistrates’ court and the Crown Court, but the most vicious, adversarial cross-examination was at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian shot and killed by the police following the 7 July 2005 bombings. There is no way that process could have been described as inquisitorial. Indeed, part way through that proceeding, the coroner had to advise the barrister representing the police not to proceed in the way that he had up until that point. While in some cases it may be simply a neutral, inquisitorial search for the truth, that is not how a lot of inquests turn out.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving the Committee the benefit of his experience. Perhaps it is that experience which informed, or helped to inform, the remarks of the Chief Coroner, his honour Justice Thomas Teague, who has said publicly that one of his key objectives in his role is to ensure that the inquisitorial ethos of the inquest process is maintained. I hope that demonstrates a resolve within the system to address the failings or, at best, the over-eagerness, of counsel whose conduct the noble Lord described.

The amendment to increase the scope of legal aid at inquests would run counter to the approach of retaining their inquisitorial character. There is a risk that additional lawyers present at an inquest would not provide an overall improvement for the bereaved, that being something which ought to be a primary consideration, for the reasons expressed by my noble friend Lady Newlove. It is foreseeable—I think this is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst—that the presence of additional lawyers could have the unintended consequence of turning an inquisitorial process into a complex exercise—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do not doubt the sincerity of his concerns about trying to maintain informality in inquisitorial process. However, can it ever be conscionable for an inquest to involve a totally unrepresented core participant or bereaved family in circumstances where those whom the bereaved family suspect of being responsible for their loved one’s death are represented by professional lawyers, counsel and QCs? Can that basic inequality ever be conscionable, not least when we are dealing with lay people, with public concern and with public money that is all going to some parties and not to the bereaved?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her intervention.

I was going on to say that, for bereaved families who need legal help, advice and assistance are always available under the legal aid scheme, subject to the means and merits test. This can help preparation—

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

I take on board what my noble and learned friend says. I come from a victim’s perspective in all this. While it is all rule of law and whatever, victims’ families do not feel any of what my noble and learned friend is saying, because it feels like the professionals are dealing with all the processes. Victims’ families see all these high-end QCs and whether the other person is competent—I think that also gives a two-tier process for the victims’ families. Why should competency be at one end? I take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. The whole point is that they do not get that advice because there is nobody there to advise them.

I have worked with the Chief Coroner. He has no powers to control coroners across the country. Inquests are so poorly funded that there is no advice for victims in all this. We are missing all the pieces of the jigsaw. I say it with no disrespect, but it does not happen on the ground. Families want respect and dignity. All they see is the other side building all the towers, but not for them. They feel irritated, upset and disrespected. Most importantly, they feel that it is all political window-dressing. Once again, the law does not represent the families, who are the ones who are hurt and traumatised.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend’s personal experience and her service as Victims’ Commissioner lend force to her eloquence.

I shall go on to address the funding available for attendance at inquests, but in answer to the points just raised and to reiterate, in the vast majority of inquests the simplicity of the four questions which the coroner is obliged to seek to answer is such that legal representation and legal aid will not be necessary. In circumstances such as those my noble friend described, where there is complexity or where the competing interests are such that lawyers are briefed on behalf of agencies perhaps seeking to lay down defensive positions in the face of future litigation, it is right that there is a mechanism whereby bereaved families or bereaved individuals might be represented.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I thank the Minister for giving way. He said that it is right that families should be represented, but surely he would acknowledge that that has not been the case, as in the case I cited, as well as in many others where families have not been able to be represented.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Newlove, focused on the families being represented and having a voice, but would not the inquisitorial process, which is supposed to arrive at the truth, be improved and more likely to get to the correct conclusion if there was a balance of arms—a balance of forces—as we have been talking about?

I apologise to the Committee: I probably should have declared my position as vice-chair on the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Legal Aid.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Ultimately, my Lords, arrival at the truth is the objective of all legal process in this area, but the inquest convened under the coroner is but a part of that overall inquiry. That the truth is the ultimate objective does not, with respect to the noble Baroness’s point, confirm that in every case there must be legal representation. I maintain that for the vast majority of inquests the questions posed—the circumstances—are not such as to oblige in the interests of justice that there be representation for all parties. The amendment to increase the scope of legal aid at inquests would run counter to that approach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I made a mistake earlier in not referring to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, properly. That was my error; I am sorry for it, and I am sure he will forgive me.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, replies, I should say that I did not make reference specifically to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, in relation to the proposal that he and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, advanced for the funding of representation in these areas. I will undertake to have the department of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar look into the response that was made to the proposal which my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord put forward at that time and see if an answer can be given to the Committee at some appropriate stage as to how that was considered and what conclusions were reached.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am very grateful to everybody who has spoken in the debate. Everybody apart from the Minister supported the principle. There were various specific suggestions as to how the proposal could be improved, which I certainly take on board. As ever, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, put forward an incredibly sensible proposal. Amendment 269 says that if a public authority is designated an “interested person” or a “core participant”, then legal aid should provide funding proportionate to that to the families. I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is saying, “Let the relevant interested party or core participant from the public sector pay for it”, and I would not have any objection to that.

I have to say that the Minister’s response was awful—and this is not in any way intended to be an attack on the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who delivered, as ever, a very careful answer. It was awful because it indicated that the Government are going backwards. It represented a degree of complacency about the problem that was entirely unwarranted. The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, very effectively expressed what the problem was. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, indicated, quite rightly, that this problem has existed for a very long time.

The problem was exemplified by the Hillsborough case. The families, having had a very fair hearing from Lord Justice Taylor in the public inquiry, then attended an inquest, day after day, having to cross the Pennines to get there, where they saw the findings of Lord Justice Taylor, as he then was, eroded by representatives of public authorities able to take advantage of their total inequality of arms, aided and abetted by some elements in the press—not all the press, but some elements—which used the process to denigrate those who had died. It was absolutely appalling.

The issue is not just the suffering of the individuals but the disrepute into which it brings our legal system. If our legal system is unable to come to an appropriate answer because of the inequality of arms—all the public authorities are represented by all the lawyers in the world and the families, who have a cause and are right, cannot get their position across—then what good is our legal system? That is the point that everybody in the debate has been talking about, and the Minister’s answer showed absolutely no appreciation whatever that that is the problem.

We will not have another opportunity to come back with something. Amendment 269 and the schedule to be put in after Schedule 20 deals with it by ensuring that where there is a public authority in the firing line, the families should be represented. I note what the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, says, but all too often long-running problems with particular health bodies never get properly recognised because ultimately the health body is properly represented and the families are not. We will be back. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

In the introduction of my noble friend Lady Kennedy, she asked for the intervention of a number of lawyers—and, my goodness, towards the end of this debate, she got it. We have heard from Lord Bingham and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, the history of how these types of offences against girls have been charged over the last 150 years or more. I hope that has given my noble friend Lady Kennedy—as it has certainly given me—something to ponder. We strongly support both amendments.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for her amendment.

For the victim of a crime to be told that the culprit cannot be prosecuted because a time limit has elapsed would doubtless be the cause of, at the very least, dissatisfaction and, at the very worst, anguish, and may very well lead to a loss of confidence in the criminal justice system. That is why, in respect of offences that are serious enough to be capable of being tried in the Crown Court, such time limits are virtually unknown in our system of criminal law in England and Wales. That differentiates England and Wales from many other jurisdictions, where time limits apply even to the most serious offences.

In England and Wales, the only exceptions are certain customs offences and offences of unlawful but consensual sexual intercourse, which I shall refer to as USI, with a girl aged 13 to 15 years committed before 1 May 2004, when the Sexual Offences Act 2003 came into force. The statute which that Act replaced, the 1956 Act—I extend apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for yet further legal history here—included a requirement that a prosecution for USI with a girl aged between 13 and 15 must be commenced within 12 months of the offence. That requirement was highly unusual even when it was enacted, and it was duly removed by the 2003 Act. I am sure that members of the Committee will echo the words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in relation to the 1956 Act.

That was an anomaly, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and other noble Lords have described it in our discussion today. However, when it was removed in 2003 it was done so only prospectively, from the point when the Act came into force; in relation to offences that would fall to be charged under the 1956 Act, the time limit remained.

As your Lordships are aware and have heard again today, Parliament usually acts on the principle of non-retroactivity. Removing the time limit in circumstances where a prosecution was already time-barred, while it would not have amounted to substantive retroactivity in the sense of criminalising conduct that was not previously unlawful, would have exposed a person to criminal liability where there had been none before. Thus, Parliament’s aversion to retroactive legislation also applies to fundamental procedural preconditions for the bringing of charges against an individual. In relation to that—the point was canvassed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—I make reference to the case before the European Court of Human Rights called Antia and Khupenia v Georgia. Oh, for a Lord Russell of Georgia, that I might be corrected for any mispronunciation of the names of any plaintiffs in that matter.

For that reason, we do not consider it would be right to disregard the time limit in the increasingly rare cases in which it would apply. Since the changes in the 2003 Act were not made retrospective at that time, I submit that it would be difficult to justify now extending them to cases in which prosecution has been time-barred for at least the intervening 17 years—even allowing for the development in our understanding of sexual crime, as referred to by Members of this Committee who contributed to the debate.

I join the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and others in acknowledging the skill and humanity with which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, presented her amendment to the Committee. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing a willingness to meet. I would be delighted to meet her at any time, but I think it would be more convenient for her, for the purposes purely of this amendment, to meet with my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister in charge. I have taken steps by electronic means during the discussion in the Committee to arrange that my noble friend is made aware of her desire to meet, and an appointment will be fixed.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Obviously I will go and read the Georgian case—I will call it “the Georgian case” so as not to repeat my earlier offence in relation to my noble friend—but, before any meeting, I will just say one thing. The Georgian case is now being cited as the reason why the Government will not move in my noble friend’s direction. I repeat my concern that we are currently in breach of the convention on human rights, not in relation to an Article 7 point but in relation to an Article 3 violation in relation to any woman, of whatever age, who now says “My statutory rapist will not be dealt with”. The Georgian case is up against cases such as X in the Netherlands and all the other cases where people were barred from getting redress in the criminal courts. That needs to be considered by the Minister as a senior law officer in Her Majesty’s Government.

If our positions were reversed and I had to face these two potential challenges in the European Court of Human Rights—a man who says “I had the opportunity to run Lord Pannick’s arguments about delay but none the less I was convicted of a historic statutory rape and I say that is a violation of my Article 7 rights” versus a woman who says “My rapist was not dealt with because of this time limitation”—I know which of those challenges I would rather defend as Her Majesty’s Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I acknowledge the long-standing interest and expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in this field. Her words will have been noted by the Bill team listening in on this, and I assure her and the Committee that that matter will be examined.

My intention was to turn now to the terms of Amendment 292C. Again, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Newlove and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for raising this issue in the Committee and, in so doing, raising a matter that, as your Lordships have heard, the Government have acknowledged in the other place to be an important one. The amendment would have the same effect as one tabled during the passage of the Bill through the other place, both in Committee and on Report—that is, to alter the period of six months allowed for bringing

“summary proceedings for an offence of common assault or battery involving domestic abuse”,

as defined by the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, so that it ran not from the commission of the alleged offence but from its being reported to the police within two years. I sense that the Committee will be as one in agreeing that it is essential that victims have confidence in the justice system—confidence that it is a fair, impartial system that will support them when they come forward.

A number of noble Lords who have given their views on this amendment have spoken of the context of domestic violence, in which these matters take place. We know it may take many attempts before victims of domestic abuse finally leave the abusive relationship, and that this may cause delay in reporting crimes to the police. When the Bill was in the other place, we acknowledged the concerns about the possible effect of the six-month time limit for prosecuting summary-only offences—common assault in particular—in domestic abuse cases. Again, there is no disagreement between us about the importance of domestic abuse victims being able, practically, to seek justice. They should not be frustrated in so doing by the standard time limits set by Section 127 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980, should the evidence indicate that this time limit is too short in this context.

We were clear in the other place that this is an issue that must be looked into. The Home Office has been working to obtain data on cases that appear to have been brought to an end through the operation of the current time limit. I am also aware of the media coverage, to which the noble Lords, Lord Russell of Liverpool and Lord Hunt, referred. I note the concern expressed that, for whatever reason, it would appear that matters are being submitted to the press in advance of proper scrutiny by Parliament. Being aware of those concerns, I will relay them to the appropriate quarters.

I can confirm to the Committee today that we agree that there is a problem here and that domestic abuse-related crimes are disproportionately likely to be timed out. The Domestic Abuse Act demonstrated clearly this Government’s determination to address domestic abuse, and throughout its passage we showed our willingness to listen and take additional steps to address this abhorrent crime. It is important that we develop a proportionate response to this issue, so I ask for the patience of the Committee while we complete consideration of the matter and finalise our proposals. As the previous Minister for Safeguarding at the Home Office—now Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice—the Member of Parliament for Louth and Horncastle, Victoria Atkins, has stated, that might include an amendment. We will complete our consideration shortly, and I assure the Committee that we will return with a proposed course of action on Report.

I hope all Members of the House with an interest in this subject, including the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who spoke on it on Second Reading, will be reassured by what I have been able to say. Therefore, on the clear understanding that we agree there is a problem to resolve and that we will be able to return to the issue with our conclusions on Report, I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in today’s debate and supported my Amendment 277 and Amendment 292C in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, and others. I am heartened by the debate. I thank the Minister for his reply; however, I am disappointed that the retrospective argument is the main one being given for not moving ahead to change this legislation. But I am hopeful and grateful for the agreement to meet the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to discuss this issue further before Report. I thank my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti for potentially giving me another reason—Article 3—for this legislative change. I will go and read the case cited around the article and discuss this directly with her to add the argument to my armour.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate and I thank the noble Baroness for moving her amendment; in general terms we support it. The question marks would be about the standards, which she dealt with very fully, whether emergencies could be covered, and the potential costs. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, there needs to be a transition to harmonising and raising standards in general.

I want to pick up a couple of points made by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe expressed surprise that there was not already a common standard and I was surprised as well. He went on to talk about there being written records in courts, but that is not the case in magistrates’ courts; they are not a court of record. As a sitting magistrate, I regularly have interpreters in court. In the 14 years I have been a magistrate I can think of three or four occasions when the magistrate colleagues I have been sitting with have told me that the interpretation was wrong. They knew the language and were able to inform us, and we were able to deal with the situation. But, as other noble Lords have pointed out, that will not always be the case. It is not that unusual for interpretations to be wrong.

I want to make a more serious point, which the noble Lord, Lord Marks, also made, about interpreters overreaching themselves. As I mentioned in an earlier group, I regularly sit in the domestic abuse court and I have done various bits of training on that. One of the points the training makes is that you have to be careful with interpreters and translators when dealing with domestic abuse cases in minority languages. It has been recorded that the interpreters overreach themselves and what the witness or the victim is saying in court will get back to that minority group. It is something that the court needs to be very aware of and handle sensitively to prevent that happening—and it does happen. Nevertheless, in general terms, we support this amendment.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 280 would restrict the Ministry of Justice to appoint in our courts and tribunals only interpreters who are registered on the national register of public service interpreting—the NRPSI—and possess a level 6 diploma in public service interpreting, or who comply with the NRPSI’s rare language status protocols.

The Ministry of Justice commissions the services of interpreters for our courts and tribunals in England and Wales through its contracted service providers, thebigword and Clarion Interpreting. These interpreters are sourced from the Ministry of Justice’s register, which is audited by an independent language service provider, the Language Shop. All interpreters are required to complete a justice system-specific training course before they are permitted to join the register.

The contract has a clearly defined list of qualifications, skills, experience and vetting requirements interpreters must meet, which have been designed to meet the needs of the justice system. It covers a vast range of assignments, from simple telephone interpreting to deal with a user query to the facilitation of interpretation in a complex criminal trial. The qualifications and level of experience required will depend on the complexity of the assignment and the highest complexity level has qualification criteria comparable to those set by the national register of professional service interpreters.

It is in dealing with that vast range that the noble Baroness’s rhetorical analogy broke down. Of course I would expect my heart surgeon to have the relevant qualifications and experience to fulfil that role. At the same time, if my car developed a minor technical fault, I would not necessarily want to pay out for a consultant engineer to fix it, as opposed to taking it to the local garage.

Complaints about the quality of interpretation or the professional conduct of interpreters are carefully monitored and independently assessed by the Language Shop. The complaint rate remains low at less than 1%.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I take it the Minister would accept that legislation could quite easily disapply those regulations in the case of the use of registered interpreters, if that legislation were correctly worded and addressed to do so.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

Hypothetically, yes, but I hesitate to give the noble Lord a definite commitment on that, as my information on these points is substantially in answer to the point raised by the noble Baroness. But, if the noble Lord will permit me, in exploring these important points, I will make sure that the Ministry of Justice writes to him and that there is a meeting with the noble Baroness, as she sought, to discuss with her the future of this amendment. I hope that that answer will satisfy both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord.

Just to continue on that point, it is important to bear in mind that we are reviewing and engaging in consultation with various bodies. But we need to take into account the broad-ranging needs of the Ministry of Justice and to ensure that we have a service appropriate for the wide range of circumstances and the various commissioning bodies to which I have made reference. There are concerns that mandatory NRPSI membership may give unnecessary control over the supply chain, and the police interpretation contract does not require interpreters to be NRPSI registered. We need to complete a full and objective assessment of MoJ needs across the board and not to introduce NRPSI standards when we do not know what impact they might have on the overall justice system.

The Ministry of Justice is looking constantly to improve the service for users and to work collaboratively with interpreter membership organisations and language service providers to ensure that the short, medium and long-term service needs of the criminal justice system are met. Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service is starting up a language services future pipeline working group, which will focus on the issue of securing suitably qualified interpreters in the long term.

I will develop that point. As the single biggest public sector user of language services, we believe it is important for the Government to encourage new entrants into the interpreting profession and to provide them with appropriate opportunities to build up their experience levels and to maintain standards of excellence. We have an independent quality assurance supplier, which has recently developed a subsidised trainee scheme, encouraging qualification in languages that are in high demand in our courts. We will continue to work with it, and with other organisations, to improve our service and to ensure it provides access to suitably qualified interpreters in the future. The arrangements that we have in place are designed specifically to ensure that our courts and tribunals are supported by high-quality language service interpretation that meets the needs of all our court users, both now and in the future.

I turn now to some of the submissions made by your Lordships in Committee. I fully accept the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds on the distinction between translation and interpreting. But on the submission made by the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Hogan-Howe, I return to the point that there is a wide range of functions which interpreting has to carry out. With the greatest of respect, each of those noble Lords answering on this point predicated their submission on the fact that we were talking about translation at the very highest level—at the most important level of translating a potentially complex criminal trial.

In response to point made by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, again I accept that the single function of an interpreter in these circumstances is to act as a conduit by which English may be rendered into a foreign language and the foreign language rendered as accurately as it may be into English in order to assist the court. Again, that is at the very top end of the spectrum. Lower down, in simpler and more straightforward functions that I identified—the most elementary part of the range of needs that I discussed—it may well be that some well-meaning attempt to intervene and to assist, such as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, discussed, might be appropriate. I am thinking of the simple telephone inquiry that I referred to.

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

There are just two points that I would like to have clarified. First, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, proposes a consistent high standard. I was not sure from the Minister’s response what the equivalent is in the contract. I hear that there is one, but I do not know what it is.

The second point is that there might be a spectrum of quality of interpretation. I understand that in a broad sense, but if that was to include the magistrates’ court, there are two issues there. First of all, someone’s liberty is at risk for six months and, in any case, they could be committed to a higher court for a more substantial penalty, should the magistrate decide to do that. Finally, as we have heard only today, if we look at things such as inquests, they can have very substantial consequences both for the people who apply to them and for the people who might be judged by them.

I am not quite sure about either of those points. First of all, what is the standard? Secondly, is it true to say it is always such a wide spread of necessity, given the importance to the victim, the suspect or the witness, in each of these cases?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

As I think I have said, the contract provides that, at the highest level, the standard is commensurate with that of the NRPSI. In answer to the noble Lord’s second point, of course none of that interrupts anything that I have said about the importance of identifying the point at which interpretation facilities suitable for the most complex case is to be found. Simply because a matter is not being tried at the Crown Court does not mean that it would not engage the need for the most detailed, able and comprehensive of interpreting facilities.

In closing, I can, as I said earlier, indicate that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, the Minister dealing with this matter, will meet the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who is proposing the amendment. In the circumstances, I ask her to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his detailed reply and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate and supported the principle, if not every detail, of the amendment. Some very good ideas have emerged; I am particularly taken with that of a transitional period.

A couple of questions were asked. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, referred to family courts. In a family court where an interpreter might be needed at very short notice, it strikes me as even more important, if we are talking about families and children who may be in very vulnerable circumstances, to have an interpreter who is properly qualified. Rustling up somebody at very short notice might not serve the interests of those vulnerable families and children, but I agree that it is a complex situation.

On the point raised by my noble friend about courts sometimes finding it difficult to find interpreters, that is partly to do with the fact that so many interpreters—thousands, I believe—left public service when the MoJ system was contracted out to private companies, because those companies have sustained appallingly low levels of pay and poor conditions. The Minister referred to the need to get new interpreters on board. Yes, of course, that is right, but there are also a lot existing, qualified, experienced interpreters out there who need to be brought back into public service. I believe that if their status was raised and their contribution and professionalism more readily acknowledged by having these minimum standards, which they all complied with, they would be attracted back into public service.

The Minister referred to the fact that the MoJ system is audited by the Language Shop and that complaints were very low. Yes, that is true, but the Language Shop also failed 50% of the interpreters on whom it conducted spot checks, so it is clear that qualifications without experience are not good enough.

I am grateful for the promise of a further meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to discuss the amendment, and I look forward to discussing this issue further on Report. With that in mind, I am happy to withdraw the amendment at this stage.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Stewart of Dirleton Excerpts

Thursday 13th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty as follows: “Most Gracious Sovereign—We, Your Majesty’s most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled, beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the most gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament”.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, it is a privilege and pleasure to open the second day of debate on Her Majesty’s most gracious Speech. I am delighted to be joined by my noble friend Lord True, who I know will do a brilliant job of closing what promises, as ever, to be a debate packed with lively and robust contributions. I look forward greatly to the maiden speeches of my noble friend Lady Fraser of Craigmaddie and the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, and to all the wide-ranging contributions from noble Lords, which I am confident will reflect the breadth and wealth of knowledge and experience represented on all sides of the House.

With our focus on our great union and constitutional affairs, we have the opportunity to explore some of the overarching themes of the gracious Speech, including the proposals to restore tried and tested constitutional arrangements to the Dissolution and calling of this Parliament, and the vital job of protecting our democracy. Before I introduce the specific elements of legislation for our debate, however, I will briefly go back in time to events shortly before the pandemic and provide some vital context, in my view, for today’s discussions.

While the impact of coronavirus has inevitably monopolised the nation’s attention for a little over a year, let us not forget how proceedings in this House and the other place were previously dominated by wrangling over the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union. It was a long, fraught process, not without moments of rancour, yet for those of your Lordships who savour the idiosyncrasies of parliamentary affairs it would be hard to think of a more rewarding period in our recent history. In the context of democracy, though, the referendum vote was the largest democratic exercise ever conducted in the history of this country. The British people voted for change in 2016, and again in the 2019 election to make sure that change was delivered. Now, as we look to recovery and renewal, and to tackling longer-term, cross-cutting challenges such as climate change and the road to net zero, we can enjoy the fruits of our freedom and flexibility outside the European Union’s institutions, the single market and the customs union.

The UK’s independent vaccine programme is leading us out of lockdown. Outside the common agricultural policy, we will reward sustainable farming practices so that, in England, farmers can produce healthy food at a profit without subsidy, while also taking steps to improve the environment, reduce carbon emissions and improve animal health and welfare—win, win and win again. Outside the common fisheries policy, we can revive our coastal communities around the United Kingdom and take steps to improve our marine environment. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the UK secured tariff-free access for fisheries products and a substantial transfer of quota equivalent to 25% of the value of the EU’s historical catch in UK waters, worth £146 million over five years. Last but not least in respect to our Brexit dividend, we can send our money not to Brussels but to the parts of the country where we know it is needed most to help citizens and communities come back from Covid and to improve productivity in all parts of the United Kingdom.

It was evident during the pandemic that the interests of people across the country were best served when we worked together as one United Kingdom. Now that we are turning the corner, the same is true: we are learning from one another to achieve the best outcomes for all the people of our great nation. Now is not the time to stoke old divisions, but to throw ourselves into what unites people across the UK—recovering from the pandemic. People want their politicians focused and working together, improving people’s lives as we engineer a sustainable recovery, building back better, fairer and greener, ensuring communities and businesses have the support they need and making the levelling-up agenda a reality.

The union of the United Kingdom is the most successful political union in history, the foundation on which all our businesses and citizens can thrive and prosper, standing up for, and embodying in its institutions, liberty under the law, respect for all, fair play, free trade, parliamentary democracy and material progress. This Government are committed to protecting and promoting the strengths of this union, building on the hundreds of years of partnership between the regions of our country to ensure that the institutions of the United Kingdom are used in a way that benefits people in every part of our country, from Aberdeen to Aylesbury, Belfast to Brecon. We are committed to strengthening that union and the common prosperity it brings, but even more important than the material wealth that can flow throughout the union is recognising and, where we can, fostering the deeper strength of our partnership. It is a strength that arises out of the millions of relationships that bind together people of good will throughout the union: yes bonds of trade and common endeavour, but more fundamentally yet the ties of affection, of common heritage, of friendship, of love. These ties are countless in number and increasing all the time.

When we work collaboratively as one team UK we are safer, stronger and more prosperous, and far better able to tackle the shared challenges that all parts of the UK face together, from defending our borders and our waters and fighting national cybersecurity threats, to delivering the furlough scheme and ensuring that every part of the United Kingdom has received its fair share of one of the world’s largest and most diverse vaccine portfolios. That is why the Prime Minister has invited the First Ministers of Scotland and of Wales, and the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland, to a summit meeting in the coming weeks to address the shared challenges of recovery from the pandemic. In March, the Government also published a status update on the joint review of intergovernmental relations. The significant progress made has been well received by academics and experts alike, reflecting closely, as it does, the recommendations of my noble friend Lord Dunlop in his excellent report. We are committed to seeing new structures established at the earliest possible opportunity.

In addition to the Government’s £2.9 billion commitment to fund 20 city and growth deals across Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, Brexit means that we can put more money into communities that might hitherto have felt overlooked or left behind. In 2021-22 that means the £4.8 billion levelling-up fund and the £220 million UK community renewal fund being invested in local areas, both of these using the financial assistance power in the United Kingdom Internal Market Act passed last year, ahead of the launch of the UK shared prosperity fund in 2022. Yes, for the first time in decades the Government can provide the kind of direct financial support that people can see and feel transforming their daily lives, regenerating town centres and high streets, improving local transport links and infrastructure, and boosting cultural, sporting and economic development to help level up the whole country. The Government will, of course, continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations, as well as with other public authorities and stakeholders across the country, to ensure that money is targeted to deliver the maximum impact and benefit for all citizens.

I now move on to the constitutional elements of the gracious Speech, providing increased legal, constitutional and political certainty around the process of dissolving Parliament, while providing flexibility for exceptional circumstances. The Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill will deliver the Government’s commitment to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. The Bill makes express provision to revive the royal prerogative powers relating to the dissolution of Parliament. We will return the country to tried and tested constitutional arrangements, where the Prime Minister is able to request a dissolution from the sovereign.

In repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, we will restore the essential link between confidence and dissolution, enabling critical parliamentary votes once more to be designated as matters of confidence. The Government are grateful for the thoughtful and meticulous work of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, the Lords Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on the Fixed-term Parliaments Act in considering how that Act operated and for the scrutiny of the Government’s draft Bill. We have listened to the advice of the Joint Committee, and your Lordships will see that it has informed our approach.

I turn now to the elections Bill, which will deliver the Government’s commitment to protecting our democracy, as promised in the 2019 manifesto. We have a world-leading democratic heritage and the Government have a unique role to play in respecting and sustaining it, ensuring that it continues to flourish. The measures introduced by Her Majesty’s Bill are guided by the Government’s determination to ensure our democracy is secure, fair, modern, inclusive and transparent. These measures seek to encourage participation by British citizens in our elections by increasing transparency, strengthening protections for those who participate, and better supporting voters with a disability to cast their ballot.

Respect for our democracy is also rooted in the public having confidence in our systems and approach. That is why the potential for voter fraud in our current system strikes at a core principle: your vote is yours, and yours alone. Any breach of this is inexcusable, as is any suggestion that voter fraud is a victimless crime. Any instance of, or potential for, electoral malpractice damages the public’s faith in our democracy. Allegations must be taken seriously and acted upon.

The introduction of voter identification, therefore, is the best, common-sense way to prevent voter fraud and strengthen public confidence in the integrity of our elections. This will bring the United Kingdom into line with Northern Ireland, which has required voters to show paper identification since 1985 and photographic identification at polling stations since 2003, without adverse effect on participation. I can absolutely assure the House that everyone eligible to vote will have the opportunity so to do.

The overarching themes set out in Her Majesty’s gracious Speech underpin this Government’s ambition to seize the opportunities arising since leaving the EU as they build a sustainable recovery from Covid. The constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom is vital to the long-term prosperity and security of all its parts, and increases opportunities for everyone to succeed. The steps we are taking to protect our democracy will strengthen our resilience and enhance our reputation and international standing. Over the coming weeks and months, I look forward to debating with your Lordships the many measures I have outlined today.