Future of the Post Office

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I reiterate that we are ambitious for the Post Office. No decision has been taken about any potential closures of any post offices. There is a consultation taking place and we are trying to find a way to keep those post offices open in whatever way we can, whether that is providing different services or under different management. There is a guarantee that in both rural and urban areas a minimum provision of post offices must be provided, and the Post Office has confirmed to us that it will maintain that agreement, so it is a mistake to assume that they will close. I do not think there is any evidence of that at the moment. We are trying to find an alternative way to keep them open.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

In an earlier answer the Minister used the words “including rural areas”, but I ask her to think in terms of “especially rural areas”. The reality is that in many rural areas the banks have closed down; this is certainly true in rural Wales. Some of the most vulnerable people in the community need access to post offices with a whole range of services, not just those available in shops. Will she please give a special place to rural areas in her consideration?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says. I reiterate that we absolutely understand the important role that post offices play in their communities in rural areas. We are aware of the role that they play as community hubs, if nothing else. The Post Office’s proposals are not about changing the access criteria that the Government have set for the Post Office, so those criteria will continue. That will ensure a network of branches across the country, particularly in rural areas.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Monday 18th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, at earlier stages of the Bill, when an amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was debated, the Minister made the point that the amendment as then tabled could constrain the devolved authorities. Will he explain to the House how his amendment has overcome that problem?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, government Motion B follows the debate that we have been having throughout the passage of the Bill on the enforcement of environmental principles. On each occasion, noble Lords have voted on a cross-party basis around the Chamber to send a message that the Government’s proposals are not good enough and do not represent the protections for the environment that we currently enjoy in the EU.

At Third Reading this House supported, with a significant majority, an amendment that set out how current EU rights could be replicated in UK law. I am sorry that the Government did not feel able to support it when it went back to the Commons. They did, however, finally and reluctantly—as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said—come up with their own alternative. It is a step forward, and I am pleased that many of the arguments made by our side of the House, and across the Chamber, have had some impact.

As the Minister will know, the views that we expressed are supported by tens of thousands of individuals, activists and NGOs around the country who have campaigned vigorously on these issues. So we have made progress, but there remains—as my noble friends said—unfinished business. We will continue, therefore, to use every opportunity to achieve what we have been promised. All we are trying to do is replicate what we already have—and to be assured that it will be in place on Brexit day.

At the heart of environmental protection we need a green watchdog, on a statutory footing and independent of government, that can take appropriate enforcement action against Ministers and arm’s-length bodies when they ignore their environmental responsibilities: in other words, a watchdog that replicates the current role of the EU Commission. We also want an obligation on Ministers to act in accordance with the provisions of the Bill, rather than simply to “have regard to” the provisions, which is a much less stringent legal requirement and could lead to considerable legal uncertainty. Finally, we want to ensure that our exit from the EU does not end, by accident or design, in a diminution of rights and powers otherwise enjoyed in the EU.

It is important that these issues are resolved because, as we debated at Third Reading, the Government’s proposed alternative—the environmental principles and governance Bill—will not be available, at the earliest, until after the next Queen’s Speech. For many of us, moreover, the consultation document produced in advance of that Bill is a thin and unpromising start to the promises made by the Secretary of State to deliver a world-leading environmental body, with independent, statutory backing, to hold the Government to account.

I hope, therefore, that the Minister will address our ongoing concerns, despite the progress that has been made. I hope that he will make it clear that what we have before us is a minimum set of proposals and that negotiations will continue on the details. I hope, too, that he fully understands that we are not going away and will press these arguments at every opportunity.

Children and Families Bill

Debate between Lord Wigley and Baroness Jones of Whitchurch

Wednesday 16th October 2013 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, we have Amendments 47, 50 and 52 in this group. I have listened carefully to what the noble and learned Baroness has said in introducing her amendments, and have some sympathy with the points she makes, but we are approaching the issue in a slightly different way.

We accept that mediation is not always appropriate or of sufficient quality but we support the central thesis in Clause 10 that parents should attend mediation before making a court application. We believe that there are clear advantages, particularly to children, in avoiding the adversarial nature of court proceedings wherever possible, but accept that there will be exceptions.

Our first amendment simply adds flexibility to the clause to ensure that where the court considers it unreasonable families are not required to attend mediation, information and assessment meetings. While we believe that mediation, and ADR more generally, can be very useful means of resolving disputes, they are not appropriate in every type of situation—for example, in cases of domestic violence or child abuse. We are therefore proposing amendments for making clearer the process for deciding on exemptions whereby you do not have to be involved in mediation.

This point was picked up in David Norgrove’s family justice review. At the time, he said:

“There would also need to be a range of exemptions for those for whom an application to court was urgent, or for whom dispute resolution services were clearly inappropriate at the outset. The regime would allow for emergency applications to court and the exemptions should be as in the current Pre-Application Protocol”.

When these issues were debated in the Commons, the Minister stated that the Government had invited the Family Procedure Rule Committee to draw up rules specifying areas where exemptions to the proposed procedure would be appropriate, including domestic violence. The Minister also identified at that time other areas where exemptions might be relevant. These included: a need for urgency; where there is a risk to the life, liberty or physical safety of the applicant or their family; when any delay would cause a risk or significant harm to a child; or where a miscarriage of justice might occur. At the time, we welcomed this commitment. However, we requested that the draft rules be made available to Parliament before scrutiny of the Bill is over. We have now received the letter and its attachments from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, which again states that the Family Procedure Rule Committee will be invited to make rules on these matters. Given that we still have not seen the rules, we ask the Minister again: when will these be made available? How can we be expected to judge whether this provision is sufficient to address our concerns in their absence?

Our second two amendments in this group would insert a definition of an “approved mediator” as someone who satisfies defined training and quality standards assurances and would specify that a mediation, information and assessment meeting would always be held with an approved mediator. These amendments originate from concerns expressed to the Justice Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny that the quality of mediators is often far too low. They tie in with the concerns we have just touched upon: that mediators might have to screen for domestic abuse and safeguarding concerns, which require specialist skills. For example, the Children’s Commissioner for England has highlighted research showing that around 50% of all private law cases involve domestic violence or child abuse. For this reason, it is crucial that mediators are trained and skilled in spotting these issues. It is also important that mediators are trained to listen to and draw out the voices of the children and young people involved.

When this was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said that he had asked the president of the Family Division to revise the existing pre-application protocol to make it explicit that family mediators must be approved by the Family Mediation Council. He said that meant that they would also have to adhere to the code of practice of that council. However, we do not believe that the provision in the code of practice is strong enough. We emphasise again that concerns have been raised about the quality of mediators, even working under this code. We would prefer that safeguards be set out in the Bill.

Although we agree with the aim of the clause and welcome the provision as far as it goes, I hope that the Minister will understand our ongoing concerns and agree to give further consideration to incorporating the additional safeguards set out in our amendments.

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 50 and 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes of Stretford, which would ensure that any mediator who is to deal with family disputes through a family mediation, information and assessment meeting—known somewhat inelegantly as a MIAM—would have to be approved and would need to have undergone relevant training and quality assurance. I also signal my support for Amendments 46 to 49 and Amendment 51, as tabled by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, which would remove the introduction of compulsory mediation.

Currently, of course, attendance at a MIAM is voluntary. Solicitors make a referral to a mediator, allowing clients to receive legal advice prior to the mediation process. Since April 2011, parties have been required to send an FM1 form to the court alongside court applications to show that they have considered or attempted mediation. I should also point out that there is currently no regulation of mediators and that many have no formal training, although of course many are also qualified solicitors.

Under Clause 10, attendance at MIAMs will be made compulsory. There is great concern that this may be used to further domestic abuse in certain cases. Since MIAMs will be compulsory, mediators will be given the task of screening for domestic abuse and children’s safeguarding issues, yet without training there can be no knowing whether the skills these mediators possess will be appropriate or adequate to undertake such work. Legal aid will still be available for mediation but since legal aid has been withdrawn for private family law cases, except those involving recent domestic abuse, parties will be entering into the mediation without having received prior legal advice. That puts children and abused adults in a particularly vulnerable position.

Finally, since the majority of parents settle contact arrangements between themselves, the cases which go through to the courts process are by necessity the most complex and the most likely to involve abuse. Forcing parties through mediation in these circumstances would be highly damaging and potentially dangerous. At the very least, accreditation of mediators should be made compulsory. I urge the Minister to accept these amendments.