Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 5 September be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 3 November.
Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2022.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move that the Committee do consider this statutory instrument to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The effect would be to enable any current or potential sponsor on the Homes for Ukraine scheme in England and Wales to be eligible for the highest level of criminal record check undertaken by the Disclosure and Barring Service. This is known as an “enhanced criminal record certificate with barred list” check and would be carried out by local authorities responsible for approving sponsors. As your Lordships know, such a high-level check reveals any criminal convictions that would otherwise be spent under the 1974 Act and any barring order preventing the person concerned working with children or vulnerable persons.
Your Lordships will be aware that Homes for Ukraine is a sponsorship scheme in which individuals in the UK offer up their homes to Ukrainians fleeing the war. Since its launch in March, more than 100,000 Ukrainians have arrived in the UK as part of the scheme. I pay tribute to the families and individuals who have offered up their homes to those fleeing the war. However, it is right that we make sure that adequate safeguards are in place to ensure the safety of those arriving from Ukraine. Without this amendment, certain enhanced DBS checks would not be possible.
In practical terms, two scenarios are particularly relevant to the proposed amendment. The first is a process called domestic rematching, where the original match arranged by the sponsor and beneficiary breaks down, is deemed unsuitable or expires. When this happens, the local authority may rematch the beneficiary with a new sponsor. In these circumstances, the guests can find an alternative host who would be willing to take them in that further rematch, arranging it either themselves or through the council or a third party.
When arranging the original match when the refugee first arrived, the original sponsor would have gone through the equivalent of an enhanced DBS check as part of the visa process. But if there is a change of sponsor after the visa has been granted, when the refugee is already here, under the existing law all the local authority can do is carry out a basic DBS check on the new sponsor. That basic check would not reveal any spent convictions or any barring order. Given the vulnerability of many of these refugees, the Government consider that a power to carry out an enhanced DBS check is appropriate for all sponsors, particularly to deal with the rematch situation.
The second situation the Government have identified where higher-level DBS checks are necessary is for unaccompanied children who are not travelling with, or to join, a legal parent or guardian in the UK. In July the Government expanded the Homes for Ukraine scheme to enable children to come to the UK without a parent or legal guardian to stay with a sponsor who, except in exceptional circumstances, should be personally known to the parent or legal guardian. Under current regulations, the higher-level DBS checks can be carried out on most Homes for Ukraine sponsors for these children. However, at present only the basic DBS check can be carried out on the sponsor or members of the sponsor’s household if they have a family relationship with the child.
However, the concept of a family relationship is somewhat vague and sometimes these family ties can be quite loose. For example, a parent in Ukraine may be entrusting a child to an extended family member with whom they do not have any close or recent relationship. An aunt may have a partner in the house who is completely unknown to the parent or guardian in Ukraine. In the Government’s view, the vulnerability of these children, unaccompanied by their parents or a guardian, means that enhanced checks on all adults in the sponsor household, whether related to the child or not, are a sensible precaution.
I emphasise that this is a power to carry out the checks. A spent conviction revealed through an enhanced check will not necessarily prevent an individual becoming a sponsor, but it will give the local authority access to a fuller range of information, strengthen safeguarding arrangements and be a proportional response to the unique circumstances of the scheme.
On a more technical level, changes are necessary to two legislative regimes to bring about these enhancements. The first is the one we are considering today, this amendment to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975. The other is an amendment to the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) Regulations 2002 and 2009 to enable access to the records held by the police. The relevant changes to the Police Act requirements have already been made by a statutory instrument laid by negative resolution by the Home Office, which came into force on 13 October last. The order before your Lordships today requires an affirmative resolution of both Houses and was approved by the other place last Wednesday, 26 October. Similar changes were made in Northern Ireland on 3 October, and the Scottish Government have also amended their legislation. Your Lordships’ approval is, as it were, the last piece of the jigsaw.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support for this amendment. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on his question about the cost of a DBS check, my information is that a basic check costs £18 and an enhanced check costs £38. The Government’s view is that that can be absorbed within the resources already made available to local authorities.
The points the noble Lord made on the comprehensiveness of the systems available to make sure that children are safe, do not disappear and can be traced are primarily for the Home Office. I venture to say that the Government have them well in mind and will do our very best to ensure that the points rightfully made by the noble Lord are fully taken into account in the administration of the Homes for Ukraine scheme. I thank the noble Lord for his comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked various questions. On his first point about spent convictions, there is of course always a tension as to where you draw the line between the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the vulnerable. When I said that this was a power, I meant to convey that, having carried out these checks, the local authority does not have to refuse the sponsor. It could say, “This was 15 years ago, it wasn’t very serious and he’s been a perfectly good citizen ever since, so we’re not going to take that into account”. This simply gives them the opportunity to have the information; that is the essential point.
On the various loopholes and questions, again, they are primarily for the Home Office, so I will make my response subject to further guidance from the Home Office and correct it if I get it wrong. My understanding is that hosts are expected to inform the local council when the refugees arrive and leave so that there is full information constantly available. Whether that always happens may be another question but, as far I know, the obligation is there; I will correct my statement if it turns out to be incomplete or wrong.
As far as the multi-occupancy of a house is concerned—this was another perfectly legitimate question—I am not in a position to answer on that, but I take it that the local authority should carry out these checks on an appropriately wide basis. If it is the case that the refugee or child in question is in the relevant household, everyone in that household must be checked. What the household is and who is in it is no doubt a question of fact to be addressed, but the Government certainly support the suggestion from the noble Lord that a check should be carried out on as wide a basis as is necessary to ensure the safeguarding of the refugees in question.
I hope that I have addressed at least the main questions that have been raised. I thank your Lordships for their support.
Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]
Lord Bellamy ExcerptsFriday 28th October 2022
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 View all Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL] 2022-23 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, may I also congratulate and thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for again providing the opportunity to debate this important and sensitive issue and for his strenuous and tenacious efforts to improve the Bill to meet the points made in previous debates? In fact, the Bill is now wider than it was before in that it extends to all suicides, instead of just those related to gambling. This is an extremely important area and the Government very much share the thoughts expressed this morning on the importance of gathering quality information on the circumstances that can lead to a suicide.
There were a number of extremely moving contributions this morning. I make particular mention of the need for better data on assisted suicides, the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. I also mention her points about gambling addiction, and those made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. However, despite these efforts, the Government are not yet in a position to support the Bill, essentially for three reasons which I will briefly set out. The central question is the one raised just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, which is whether the coronal system is the right way forward for this exercise. The Government do not support the Bill for three reasons.
First, the Bill is not an appropriate extension of the coroner’s jurisdiction. The coroner is there to decide when, where and how somebody died: whether it is accidental death, suicide, natural causes, unlawful killing, open verdict or whatever. To go further and ask why somebody died is to move from the objective to the difficult, subjective, extremely complex, often speculative and very often deeply mysterious question of why somebody chose to take their own life. That would be a major and obligatory extension of the scope of the investigation. It is not a complete answer to say that it would be separate from the verdict and after the verdict, because they still have to do the investigation.
We cannot rely on the information available to different coroners’ courts or different inquests being complete; we cannot rely on it being consistent; and it is likely to be fraught with emotion and subjective feelings. To investigate these things may well cause extra distress to the families involved and to the privacy of the family, and may in that sense be counterproductive. It would certainly require considerable extra resources and extra time for a system that is already resource-stretched. It is difficult enough, especially post pandemic, for the coronal system to do its existing job, let alone have this extremely extensive and potentially very difficult new burden imposed on it. In the Government’s view there are significant downsides to the Bill, however laudable the objective. We entirely agree that the objective is laudable, and the right reverend Prelate is to be congratulated on putting the Bill forward, but the question is whether it is the right way forward. The main argument being relied on, it seems to us, is that it is essential to have better data about suicides.
The second reason for the Government’s position is that our view is that this, as a system, is most unlikely to be able to produce statistical information that is significantly complete, comprehensive or consistent across jurisdictions to be useful for the purposes of setting policy or for the purposes of the ONS to publish reliable, objective information where we are necessarily dealing with subjective, sometimes speculative and sometimes completely unknown reasons as to why somebody killed themself. However laudable it is, we do not accept that the coronal system is the best way forward for collecting more data on the reasons for suicide.
The third reason, which has been mentioned indirectly several times this morning, is that we already have, in effect, a system for publicising and drawing attention to difficult cases, through the establishment of the system for prevention of future death reports: it is already there, essentially. Particular mention has been made of the PFD report into the sad death of Molly Russell, who died from an act of self-harm due to the negative effect of online content. Mention has also been made of the tragic death of Jack Ritchie, a young man who took his life following problems with gambling. In those cases, through the existing system, the coroner could draw attention to the circumstances. We already have a working system, so is it really justified to impose the further obligation, in all cases, to go in sufficient detail into the question of why? The Government’s position is that the prevention of future death report system is working well, that it produces the information, and that it would be disproportionate and potentially counterproductive to take the Bill further.
More generally, the Government are committed to expanding and transforming mental health services in England. As the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, mentioned, we have already had a call for evidence on the longer-term priorities for mental health, well-being and suicide prevention. That call for evidence closed on 7 July. I was asked when we are planning to publish our plan, and she raised two other points in reference to the comments of Minister Keegan and what progress we have made in real-time suicide monitoring in various contexts. I am not able to give detailed information this morning, but I will write as soon as I can, because this is an important question that the Government take extremely seriously.
For those three principal reasons—the extreme difficulty of investigating the why in every case under the compulsory requirements in the Bill; the difficulty, even if we did investigate it, of knowing whether the information is reliable for statistical purposes; and the existing prevention of future death reports, which fill that gap—the Government oppose the Bill. Finally, I support the comment made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, to the effect that it would be constitutionally inappropriate for the Secretary of State to give directions to independent judicial officers such as coroners. That point, in my respectful submission, is entirely right and is a further but subsidiary reason for opposing the Bill.
Prisoners: Indeterminate Sentences for Public Protection
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Moylan
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for resentencing prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s long-held view is that retrospectively altering imprisonment for public protection sentences would lead to an unacceptable risk to public safety. However, the Justice Select Committee of the other place has now published its report on the IPP sentence, which recommends bringing forward legislation to resentence all those offenders who continue to serve an IPP sentence. The Government will consider carefully all the recommendations in the report, including that one, and respond by 28 November.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that Answer. In addition to having resentencing at the core of its recommendations, the Justice Select Committee also draws attention to the fact that, according to MoJ figures, it is expected that as many as 2,600 IPP prisoners currently on licence in the community will be recalled over the next four years—on present experience, the majority without having committed a further offence. Does my noble and learned friend accept that these numbers will put an unacceptable strain on the prison estate, that everything should be done to avoid that situation eventuating, and that it is incumbent on His Majesty’s Government to strengthen the probation service to ensure that it does not come about?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, first, I make clear that the Government very much welcome the Select Committee report, which is a powerful document and makes for sober reading. On my noble friend’s question, the Government’s view is that public protection must come first. Secondly, it is not necessarily the case that this number of recalls will actually occur. Thirdly, and importantly, the Select Committee discusses the need for further resources to the probation service, particularly to supervise prisoners released on licence. The Government will look very closely into further resources for the probation service in that regard.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, another day, another Justice Secretary—bedevilling any coherence and continuity in policy. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that putting in place the expert panel suggested by the Justice Select Committee would be a first step, even if the Government do not accept resentencing? It would allow them to look at the action plan and the important issue the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, just raised of those on licence who find themselves back in prison for the most trivial offence.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, as I just said, the Government will consider all the recommendations in the report. I should like to make clear that recall does not necessarily happen for trivial reasons. There are quite severe tests to be met for a recall. As far as the resentencing exercise and the panel itself are concerned, the Government will consider all the suggestions in the report, including those suggestions, and report back to the Justice Select Committee by the end of November.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, MPs and noble Lords from all parts of both Houses have welcomed the excellent Neill report, and we are looking forward to the government response on 28 November with bated breath. I appreciate that the Minister might be unwilling to be drawn on the contents of the Government’s response today, but will he at least agree with me that it is high time that this terrible wrong done to these indeterminate sentence prisoners is righted?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
As I said, the Government’s view is that, despite the intractability of the problem, public protection must come first. That is the position we have taken over the years. Without at all prejudging the Government’s position, I shall say a word about the suggested resentencing exercise. The only reason these offenders are detained is the Parole Board’s decision that they are unsafe to be released. That is the situation with which we are faced. If we talk about resentencing in that context, many of the prisoners have already exceeded their original tariff. I simply ask your Lordships to reflect that to resentence for the actual offence may not be a particularly fruitful exercise, because the tariff has already expired. Is it that what we are really considering is a reassessment of the risk to public safety? That is an assessment that the Parole Board is already carrying out. So where does all that take one? I simply leave that question rhetorically for your Lordships.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it is certainly true that this is a difficult issue and it is difficult for the Government to manage the risk of IPP prisoners. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the Minister talked about extra resources for the probation service. I should like to press him a little on that. Does he accept that with the high recall rates of IPP prisoners out on licence, there should be special training for probation officers dealing with these former prisoners out on licence to prevent them either reoffending or breaking their licence conditions?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made a very similar and powerful point in the recent debate on the probation services and the support they can give these prisoners in the community. The Government will look very closely at that, as they will all the issues raised in the report.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, as it happens, I was confirming in His Majesty’s Prison Holme House on Monday. One of the people I confirmed was an IPP prisoner. We talked about the desperate impact on family and children of the uncertainty that he has faced. He had been recalled, not for having committed an offence but for breaking conditions. It is very complicated. In looking at this, will His Majesty’s Government look at the impact on children and family and the support from not just the probation service but other organisations, such as, in the north-east, Nepacs and Junction 42?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the Government will of course consider those considerations along with all the others raised in the report.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, 10 years ago, the discredited ISPP scheme was abolished—alas, prospectively only. In the previous seven years, 8,711 people had been sentenced to that regime and almost all remain so. Almost exactly one-third of that number are in prison today, half of that third because they have never yet been released and half because they have been recalled. The rest are subject to and under threat of recall, living a nightmare life. How many of the 8,711 have finally managed to be discharged from this regime by having their licences discharged by definition 10 years or more after their initial release?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I will provide the noble and learned Lord with the figures shortly. It is quite a complicated question—more complicated than it seems. I simply remind the House that, as a result of the new arrangements introduced in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, there is now an automatic annual referral to the Parole Board for consideration for release for these prisoners. The ability to terminate their licence after the 10 years is now baked into the system.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response today. I thought it was right, proper and considered. I particularly welcome his emphasis on the primary purpose behind this: public protection. On the one hand, there are no doubt many tragic cases of people who have suffered from elongated imprisonment. On the other, there are many terrible cases of victims who have suffered. On the question of the pressure on the estate, could the Minister find a way of looking at why we are still sending people, including women, to prison for minor offences such as petty debts? That was supposed to be the counterbalance to the introduction of IPP in the first place, but it has never been operationally implemented.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his question. The Government will look at all those aspects. I echo that, in the debate the other day, if I read the transcript correctly, the word “victim” hardly figured. It is the Government’s duty to protect victims. We are dealing with very serious violent and sexual offences, so this is a very difficult question.
Parole Board (Amendment) Rules 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion, which I support. She made a powerful case. I will not repeat the points she made but, in opening, I put six questions to the Minister.
First, why was removing probation recommendations not included in the root and branch review and why was there no prior consultation with all the stakeholders before the changes were implemented? Secondly, on the removal of probation recommendations, what impact assessments have been carried out regarding black, Asian and minority ethnic prisoners and IPP prisoners?
Thirdly, the National Association of Probation Officers is concerned that removing professional recommendations in parole will lead to inappropriate releases and the non-release of those who otherwise may have been granted parole. Therefore, what impact assessment has been carried out on this issue, and did the Government seek the views of the Parole Board itself about having to make release decisions without expert witness recommendations?
Fourthly, under the changes, what protections are in place for probation staff who are required to attend a public parole hearing? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, and the noble Baroness that these hearings should be public, but the question is specifically about the protection of parole officers—and, potentially, expert witnesses—when they are taking part in these hearings.
Fifthly, how many responses were there to the root-and-branch review, and how many of those were in favour of the public parole hearings? I echo the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about whether anyone at all supported the Government’s proposals.
Sixthly, will the Government withdraw these changes if the judicial review finds against them?
In July’s Justice Questions in the other place, Kate Green MP challenged Dominic Raab on the proposed changes. He argued that
“there is a risk that separate reports, whether from psychiatrists or probation officers and those who manage risk, may give conflicting recommendations.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/22; col. 711.]
Sonia Flynn, the chief probation officer, added in September’s committee session that differing recommendations would seem
“quite confusing, given that we are one HMPPS”,
and that the new change
“kind of tidies”
that up. That was the justification.
I must say that I find that explanation very surprising. I am absolutely sure that Parole Board members are well used to assessing conflicting sources of information; it is what people who sit as judges, or in a quasi-judicial capacity, do all the time. In other contexts, such as criminal courts or family courts, it is absolutely routine to get recommendations from probation officers—or in the context of family courts, recommendations from experts—which can indeed be contradictory. That is what the judges or magistrates do when they decide the merits of a case.
I hope that the Minister, who is exceptionally experienced, will bring an open mind to this situation. There have been a lot of changes on the Government and Treasury Benches over the last few months—or days. He is in a position where he can bring an open mind to this, and I hope that he will respond to the noble Baroness’s regret Motion in that spirit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, and in particular to the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, for tabling this regret Motion.
The principal concern is that the recent changes to the Parole Board Rules prevent prison and probation staff making specific recommendations in the reports that they give the Parole Board. It is said that this has implications for the sentence progression of individuals subject to parole review, and complaint is made that this was done through the negative procedure without consultation. What we are not considering today are other changes, such as changes relating to the move from closed to open prisons, which are, strictly speaking, not the subject of today’s regret Motion.
I will provide some background. The Parole Board of England and Wales is an arm’s-length body which, as has been pointed out, performs a judicial, or at least quasi-judicial, function. It is required by statute to decide whether prisoners serving eligible sentences can be safely released into the community—that is the board’s decision. The statutory test requires that the board must direct release if it is
“satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the person should be confined.”
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
Is it still open for any expert to give a recommendation if they so choose?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My understanding is that they are not to make recommendations. They can make their risk assessments and say whether there is a valid release plan; they can do all of those things. They can say this man or woman poses no risk to the public, or does pose a risk, or whatever it is, but they cannot express an opinion on the very question that the Parole Board is required to answer: whether the prisoner should be released. This is essentially a change that brings the decision on release back to where it belongs: the Parole Board, not the expert.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
Is not the noble and learned Lord confusing two quite different things? The expert does not give an opinion on whether the person should be released, as the noble and learned Lord suggested has been the case; the expert gives his opinion on whether it is safe for the person to be released. That is quite different. Can the noble and learned Lord, with all of his expertise, think of another form of expert evidence in which the expert is not permitted to give his opinion on the key matter under consideration?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I respectfully submit that we are dealing with angels dancing on pins here. What is intended by this change is to make it clear that the responsibility for the decision rests squarely with the Parole Board, and to avoid the risk, however remote, that the expert report tends to usurp the role of the decision-maker, running the risk of them delegating their decision to the expert. This amendment brings the Parole Board process in line with the rest of the justice system. I respectfully refer your Lordships to the evidence of Professor Stephen Shute to the Science and Technology Committee of the other place on 7 September. He made this very point, saying that it is for the Parole Board to make the decision, rather than run the risk of the matter being left in the hands of the expert.
Analogy has been rightly drawn with what happens elsewhere in the justice system; for example, in relation to pre-sentence reports in the criminal process. One does not find the probation officer saying that the court should impose a community sentence. One asks the probation officer to assess whether the offender is suitable for a community sentence. This change will align the practice of the Parole Board more closely with the rest of the justice system.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Not realising that this was a high tea, rather than a dinner break, I confess that much to my regret I was not here at the start of the debate. Why, if this is designed to stop these individual experts pre-empting the Parole Board’s decision, is it left to the Secretary of State to be allowed to do so with his single view?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
If I may respectfully point this out to the noble and learned Lord, the Secretary of State with his single view does not pre-empt the decision of the Parole Board. He presents a single view to the Parole Board.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Why is that any different from the same operation being done by those who have been contributing to the background?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
In a sense, this is an inter partes procedure, with the Secretary of State on one hand and the prisoner on the other. The Secretary of State, like a party, is putting his view to the board. That is the single view that, in my submission, he is entitled to put.
While I am on the single view, this is likely to refer simply to the very top tier of cases, probably 150 to 200 cases a year out of the many thousands that the Parole Board deals with. It refers to very dangerous, highly sensitive cases of prisoners involving murder, serious violence and so forth. In those cases, it is thought right that the Secretary of State, through his representative before the Parole Board, should be able to present a single overarching view. That is a sensible approach which avoids confusion and uncertainty.
Nothing in any of these reforms prevents or limits the ability of the Parole Board to make the right decision or the ability of the relevant members of staff, whether psychologists, probation officers or whatever, to make the risk assessments or to put in whatever observations they wish within the assessment that they are required to make, except to make the relevant recommendation.
It is not a change that should in any way undermine the system. HMPPS staff will continue to provide reports to the Parole Board. Their reports will still contain the same detailed evidence and assessment of risk as before. The only omission will be a recommendation on what decision the report writer thinks the Parole Board should make. Far from undermining the Parole Board, the intention of these reforms is to draw a sharp distinction between the roles of those who provide evidence and those whose duty it is to assess the evidence and reach a decision. That is the essential background.
Lord Garnier (Con)
Does my noble and learned friend think it appropriate that a political Minister should be the conveyor of a single view—the only view—on a matter for quasi-judicial discussion?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Secretary of State has an overriding duty to protect the public. In that context, as the guardian of the safety of the public, he is entitled to present his view to the Parole Board, which then decides.
On the second point made by the noble Baroness in relation to the implications for the progression of offenders, the Government’s position is that there is no change. The rules by which prisoners progress through the system and their opportunity for release will continue to be assessed by the Parole Board, as they are at the moment.
On this occasion, I will not go into the open prison/closed prison issue, because that is not the subject of what we are discussing today. On the point we are discussing, this change in the rules about the recommendations, it is a very limited change and is fully in accordance with general principle. HMPPS will continue to provide comprehensive evidence to the Parole Board and factual evidence for the assessment of risk, as before.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I am really rather surprised at what the Minister says. I have sat in courts for many years. To suggest that an expert cannot give an opinion as to what should be the outcome is something I find contrary to everything I remember from my experience, which admittedly was a long time ago.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, with respect, I have always understood it to be the case—I hope I have not got this wrong—that an expert should not normally give his opinion on the very issue on which the court is required to decide. The scope of the expert’s opinion is to provide the court with the factual details. It is the duty of the expert not to say whether X or Y is guilty or not guilty but to provide the court with the facts on which that decision is taken. At least, that is common practice.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
In the jurisdiction in which the Minister is so expert, namely competition law—as he knows, I have sat with him in the Competition Appeal Tribunal—economists and other experts giving evidence before the Competition Appeal Tribunal do give an opinion as to whether the practice under consideration is competitive or anti-competitive.
I pull the Minister back to a previous point. Time and again, those of us who have been in criminal courts for a long time have heard judges say to a probation officer, for example, “If I pass a non-custodial sentence, do you think he would comply with orders A, B and C?”. That is an opinion on exactly the issue under consideration. I am completely befuddled by that part of the argument and so, I think, are many noble friends and colleagues.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Perhaps I ought to try to bring this somewhat tetchy debate to a close. The Parole Board is required to decide that it should direct release if it is satisfied that the detention is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. The provision we are discussing makes it clear that the expert should not pronounce on the prisoner’s suitability for release. In other words, the expert should not pronounce on the principal matter on which the Parole Board is being asked to decide. Subject to that, all the other material that was there before will continue to be there.
Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, when I had the great honour to be introduced in this House on 14 June this year, little did I imagine that mine would be the very last Letters Patent to be issued by Her late Majesty in connection with a government appointment. Two more distinguished Cross-Benchers—more distinguished than I—were created in June and July, but I believe that I am the most junior Member of this House to make my humble tribute.
Like some others of your Lordships, I have a clear memory of the day that Her late Majesty came to the Throne. When my father picked me up, aged five, from school to say that the King had died, it was clear that he was very deeply affected, even in those days of the stiff upper lip. For that generation, the premature death of their shy but steadfast sovereign who had led them through so much was perhaps even more dreadful. At least we now know how they must have felt. With her adored father as a central inspiration, Her late Majesty was able to build much more widely on his example.
Much has rightly been made of the Commonwealth and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has just referred to, Her Majesty made her famous declaration in 1947 where she pledged her service. It is perhaps worth noting that what she pledged to serve was “our … imperial family”. At that time, on her 21st birthday, only four countries of the then empire—the old dominions—were de facto, if not technically de jure, independent, although India and Pakistan achieved dominion status very shortly thereafter. What we have since seen, as has been mentioned already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, is a transformation utterly unique in history from an imperial family to a family of 56 independent nations in voluntary association not only with the former imperial power but with each other and their former imperial sovereign.
As during her reign the imperial power waned and eventually vanished altogether, together with the imperial idea, so Her Majesty’s moral stature rose in almost inverse proportion. That tells us something about the nature of true power and the strength of eternal human value. While some regimes may prefer grandiose display, Her Majesty very much had the common touch. Almost everyone she ever met, and many who she never met, from whatever station in life, instinctively felt that she was on their side.
For me and, I would hope, most of this nation, the self-deprecating, understated humour of the marmalade sandwich is surely the most powerful statement of human values, even if a subtle statement, that any monarch could ever make. Her whole life represented an effective answer to aggression and intolerance everywhere. I am sure that His Majesty the King will follow that example. Long live the King.
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I apologise for rising out of order—forgive me—and I also apologise for not being here yesterday, but I have read in Hansard so many moving speeches, and have heard so many today. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said yesterday, it is difficult to know what to add. I simply want to pay my own tribute to a remarkable lady who I have known since I was quite young. I am old enough to remember watching from a balcony at Apsley House the passage of the Coronation procession.
My family have the honour and legal obligation of presenting a tricoloured flag to the sovereign at Windsor Castle on or before 18 June—Waterloo Day—in every year. It has therefore been my incredible privilege, on eight occasions since the death of my father, to present the flag to Her Majesty. The last time, in June, she was as alert, funny and informed as ever, so it was really a shock to me and my family that she died so suddenly on Thursday. I pay tribute to her incredible kindness, simplicity, humanity and humour, and her interest in everything. I feel so fortunate to have known her.
I was very struck yesterday to receive from the mayor of our local town in southern Spain a letter sending condolences to the Royal Family and the British people, in translation describing the Queen as a lady of global importance, not just for the United Kingdom but for the whole of Europe. This is from a village in the hills in Andalucía; her impact was indeed universal.
Her Majesty would have been so pleased to know that she was to be succeeded by someone with such qualities and interests as our new King. May she rest in peace—and we now say, as so many have, God save the King, and may he also have a long life.
European Court of Human Rights
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of the work of the European Court of Human Rights.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, successive Governments have long expressed concerns about the effectiveness of the Court of Human Rights and its ability to manage a significant case load, but we welcome the important and ongoing efforts made since the entry into force of protocol 14 to the convention in 2010 and the further reforms which followed the Interlaken declaration and the UK-led Brighton conference. These have helped to ensure that the court focuses on the highest priority cases before it.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I can understand why the Minister is in a bit of limbo at the moment, given what is happening beyond this Chamber, but I remind him that on three occasions at that Dispatch Box he said not only that will we remain a member of the European Court of Human Rights but that we will continue to play a leading role, yet outside this Chamber, when he was making those statements, Liz Truss and Suella Braverman, who are going to have quite an influence over the next few months, said they wanted to withdraw. So what is the Government’s position now in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights? Will the noble and learned Lord have courage, particularly following the excellent report of the Law Society today, and reaffirm our position that we will remain in the European Convention on Human Rights?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
While I am on my feet—in view of the political situation, I fully understand why noble Lords want to have a little bit of amusement at my expense—I take this opportunity to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who has posed this Question, for his work at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. That Assembly plays a very important role in the convention, and the UK plays a very important part in the Assembly. I particularly commend the noble Lord for his work on sport and human rights and his recent report looking at the protection of underage players against risks of abuse and other matters. I thank the noble Lord for his Question.
Lord Beith (LD)
Will the Minister confirm that the Government intend to use the Bill introduced in the other House to limit the ability of citizens to use the convention on human rights to safeguard their position against an over-mighty state? Does that not sit very oddly with the victor of the Conservative Party leadership contest quite often asserting her dislike of an over-mighty state? Is this not one of the main protections against it?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
It is a protection and will remain a protection. The rights in the convention will continue to be respected and enforced by the courts of the United Kingdom as before.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that, if we were to withdraw from the convention, we would have to withdraw from the Council of Europe and global Britain would be even less global?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am afraid your Lordship’s question does not arise, since we are not withdrawing from the convention or indeed from the Council of Europe.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the Brighton declaration, which was agreed by all state parties to the convention in 2012 under the UK chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, was a clear demonstration of our leadership of that organisation. That declaration set out plans to both reform the convention and improve the effectiveness of the Strasbourg court. Is my noble and learned friend the Minister able to update us as to how the Government are building on that legacy?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We remain a leading force for human rights in the Council of Europe; I will give two examples in response to my noble friend’s question. We are supporting the development of a binding convention to protect the profession of lawyer and the right to practise the profession without prejudice or restraint, and we advocated among other member states for greater awareness of the convention rights among all state parties. This led to a new recommendation in September 2021 on the dissemination of the convention and other relevant texts. In addition, we will shortly participate in the Council of Europe’s Steering Committee for Human Rights, which will start a review of the system for the selection and election of judges to that court.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, on 14 July in response to the Human Rights Act debate tabled by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, the Minister said he had plans to visit each of the devolved legislatures shortly to narrow the differences between the UK Government and those legislatures. Has he had those meetings, and how did they go in terms of narrowing the differences?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, the position is that those meetings have not yet taken place. It proved quite difficult to arrange them in the Recess and in the light of the impending change of government. I am due to see the Welsh Government on the 19th of this month, and provisional dates for Scotland and Northern Ireland have been arranged for before the end of September.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Can my noble and learned friend confirm that, when Her Majesty’s Government have knowledge of a case that is relevant, any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have is automatically offered, rather than partially offered or perhaps sometimes no evidence offered at all?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am sorry, but I am not sure I entirely follow my noble friend’s question.
Lord Naseby (Con)
I am seeking clarification that Her Majesty’s Government, when they know there is a case that is relevant to a citizen or party in the UK, automatically bring forth any evidence that Her Majesty’s Government have.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I think the answer to that question is in the affirmative. The UK Government follow carefully any case that concerns UK citizens under the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Does the Minister, as a jurist of some distinction, agree that dialogue between domestic courts and international ones is incredibly important, and that is what is enshrined in the Human Rights Act?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness; I entirely agree with the importance of dialogue.
Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)
My Lords, is this not the time for people to come together instead of separating from each other, especially when we see what is happening in Ukraine and so on? This is our opportunity to unite people, not divide them. I hope the new Cabinet and the new Prime Minister will bear that in mind.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Strasbourg court in Al-Skeini v United Kingdom made a fundamental and damaging error and acted inconsistently with the Vienna convention in holding that the procedural duty under Article 2 of the convention has extraterritorial effect? Has that not damaged the court’s standing in this country and abroad?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, I think it is fair to say that the Al-Skeini judgment has raised various problems, and part of the Bill that will shortly be before your Lordships is intended to deal with the question of the extraterritorial ambit of the convention.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)
My Lords, on the day of the publication of the Bill of Rights Bill, the Minister, writing for ConservativeHome, described it as a “modern framework” for human rights. In Clause 24(3), the Bill instructs judges not to have regard to any interim measure issued by the European Court of Human Rights. Would the Minister like to explain to President Zelensky how that is consistent with a modern framework when, in the case of Ukraine v Russia, he successfully gained an interim measure against Russia in the European Court of Human Rights to constrain it from using military force against civilians?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The position of interim measures under the convention, and in the jurisprudence of the European Court and its rules of procedure, is a matter of great delicacy that at the moment is in effect being scrutinised in the Rwanda proceedings currently before the High Court in this country. I think it inappropriate to go further, but the provision in the Bill to which the noble Lord has referred is, in the Government’s view, entirely in accordance with the convention.
Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Regulations laid before the House on 27 June be approved.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 July.
Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bellamy
That the Grand Committee do consider the Remote Observation and Recording (Courts and Tribunals) Regulations 2022.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
My Lords, the statutory instrument before us regulates the remote observation of court and tribunal proceedings across our justice system. Essentially, this instrument builds on the very positive experience of remote observation during the pandemic and extends and makes permanent powers that were originally contained in the emergency coronavirus legislation.
The instrument was made using the “made affirmative” procedure on 28 June 2022. It is fair to point out that the scrutiny committee of this House has been somewhat critical of the use of the “made affirmative” procedure in this case, as distinct from the normal draft affirmative procedure. My understanding of what has happened is that the enabling legislation, which is the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, was already delayed in Parliament. The department felt that we should move away from the emergency legislation as soon as possible. The emergency legislation then in force in any event did not cover certain tribunals, including employment tribunals, the Court of Protection and certain other jurisdictions, so the decision was made to press on using the “made affirmative” procedure. None the less, the comments of the scrutiny committee have been duly noted and I have reminded the department of the importance of ensuring full parliamentary scrutiny of all legislation, including legislation such as this.
The Committee will be aware that, at the outset of the pandemic, our courts and tribunals moved swiftly to holding hearings remotely using audio and video technology. I can take this opportunity to pay tribute to HMCTS for its work in enabling that to happen and the principle of open justice to be maintained.
The legislation permitting remote observation was very well received, especially by court reporters, legal bloggers and others who do valiant work in reporting what happens in our justice system. It allowed the courts to offer, in effect, the digital equivalent of the public gallery.
The Government have therefore taken the decision to make remote observation a permanent feature of our justice system and expand it to all our courts and tribunals, save for the Supreme Court and certain devolved courts and tribunals, and to any type of hearing, whether remote, in person or hybrid. The order is made, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice and the Senior President of Tribunals, by the Lord Chancellor.
The overall aim is to strengthen the transparency, openness and accessibility of the justice system. It is hoped that it will also have the incidental effect of strengthening the sometimes struggling profession of court reporting by providing modern, digital solutions, although public galleries of course continue to be available.
Various safeguards are contained in the enabling legislation which prevent participants making unauthorised recordings or transmissions of the proceedings. It is important to note that at the heart of the provisions is the principle of judicial discretion. It will be for judges, magistrates, coroners and tribunal members to decide on a case-by-case basis whether to provide transmissions of proceedings to members of the press and public.
This does not enable indiscriminate broadcasting or live streaming of proceedings, although that occurs in certain jurisdictions, such as the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. It enables transmissions of proceedings to be made to individuals who have requested access and have identified themselves to the court or, in certain circumstances, to designated live-streaming premises. There is no obligation on judges to allow transmissions to be made to remote observers during a traditional in-person hearing, but it is hoped and assumed that this technology will greatly facilitate access to justice for many. Around 7,000 hearings a week now rely on audio and video technology. That is one of the reasons why this statutory instrument was brought forward as early as it was. The Government seek to strengthen and support the principle of open justice and to increase the accessibility and transparency of our justice system as part of our wider programme of modernising that system.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am sure this instrument will be widely welcomed. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, this builds on experience, which it is good to do, in two beneficial ways: it is making a temporary arrangement permanent and it is spreading the technological discretion right across the whole system, which is a very good idea. One does not want gaps in an exercise of this kind.
I have a point to raise on the detail of Regulations 3 and 4, simply to try to understand how this system will work. As the noble and learned Lord has explained, this will be an exercise of a discretion. Regulation 3 gives two very sensible matters on which the court must be satisfied, particularly sub-paragraph (b) on technological arrangements and so on, before the discretion is exercised. I have no problems with that, because it is very obvious that this needs to be done. I imagine that, if the court is being invited to exercise a discretion, it would be up to the advocate asking for it to provide the material the court needs to be satisfied with the points set out in Regulation 3.
Regulation 4 is trickier. It is a list of very sensible points which we are told the court must take into account. This is another example of something that has been happening over the years; in the Judicial Review and Courts Bill in particular, there was a list of things that the court must take into account, which caused some concern—some said the word “must” was wrong because it opened the door to criticism of the court if it perhaps failed to take something into account that it should have done. That problem lurks under Regulation 4. How will one be satisfied that the court has taken all these points into account without the court going through the entire list and saying that it has looked at sub-paragraphs (a) to (f)? Have the Government any thoughts on how this will work in practice? Is it simply to be assumed when the court exercises discretion that it has done this, or should it be transparent and laid out in some kind of understandable practice that these points will all be addressed and that the public will be told why and how the court has been satisfied on them?
I raise this not to tease the noble and learned Lord; it is just that somebody, somewhere, might start complaining that, let us say, sub-paragraph (a) has not been taken into account because the magistrate or the judge did not say so. One needs to be a bit careful with these lists to be sure how the thing will actually work in practice. I simply throw that out for the noble and learned Lord to consider. Maybe a definitive answer cannot be given today, but somebody needs to think about it, and maybe guidance needs to be given to those who are exercising the discretion so that they do not fall into a trap.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, we support these provisions. They will replace and extend the temporary emergency provisions included in the Coronavirus Act 2020 which allow for certain proceedings to be observed remotely and recorded. We believe in the principle of open justice and think this goes a step towards that and should be welcomed for that reason. However, we are aware that sometimes legal proceedings are very sensitive and painful, and attending a court or tribunal can be a difficult experience for people. For that reason, decisions regarding which types of proceedings should be broadcast or available to different people to observe should not be taken lightly. I am very aware that different jurisdictions will have different considerations in that respect.
Just for the record, I sit as a magistrate in the family, youth and adult jurisdictions, and I sat all the way through the coronavirus pandemic. I started off in the family jurisdiction doing court hearings by BT MeetMe and we graduated to MS Teams. We were making extremely difficult decisions which we felt we had no alternative but to make because of the circumstances which we found ourselves working in as a court.
Of course I agree with the objectives behind this statutory instrument, but I wanted to make one substantive point on the level of technology in these courts. It is highly variable between jurisdictions. When one is dealing with litigants in person, it is not unusual for them to be trying to do things on their mobile phones. Sometimes they have poor signal and all sorts of handicaps if they are trying to take part in court proceedings remotely. In my experience, when a court is 100% remote —that is, everybody is remote—it can be made to work. However, it is more difficult when it is hybrid—when some parties are in the room and others are not. Whether it is fair to go ahead with a hearing is ultimately a matter for judicial discretion, but certainly in my experience, hybrid hearings in various jurisdictions can be detrimental to people who are not physically in the room, and the court needs to be aware of that when it is deciding whether to go ahead with a case. Nevertheless, having said that, we welcome this statutory instrument and we will be happy to support it when it is put to a vote.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
My Lords, thank you. On the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, I am not sure that I have an answer off the cuff that I am able to give, and I entirely understand the point he makes as to the difference between “must” and “may” or similar expressions. I think the presumption, which I do not have the confidence to reproduce in Latin but which is to the general effect that everything is presumed to be regular unless the contrary is shown, would kick in here, and it would be a matter for the Lord Chief Justice to decide whether some further guidance is made necessary. I hope that those two points will at least accommodate the observation of the noble and learned Lord. However, the overall point is understood.
European Convention on Human Rights
Lord Bellamy Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Bellamy) (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government are committed to remaining a state party to the European Convention on Human Rights and protecting all the rights set out in the convention.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, when the European Court of Human Rights halted the deportation of migrants to Rwanda, the Prime Minister and some of his government colleagues began considering withdrawing the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights. The convention is a major contributor to peace and democracy, and we cannot afford not to be part of it. However, if the Government will insist on pushing ahead with this reckless decision—and we have not had a denial from some of the candidates in the leadership race—is the Minister confident that such a move will not negatively impact the rights of vulnerable groups in the United Kingdom?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
Her Majesty’s Government, with respect, are not pushing ahead with any reckless decision. The policy of the Government is to remain within the convention on human rights; speculation to the contrary is quite unfounded.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has been asked this Question many times and has said that it is the Government’s policy to remain inside the ECHR. However, scepticism and questions persist because a senior government Minister, the Attorney-General, has a number of times over the last week said that she wants to withdraw from the ECHR. What conversations has the Minister had with the Attorney-General in the last few days to resolve this?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I have had no conversations with the Attorney-General, and what the Attorney-General says or may have said in her capacity as a leadership contender is neither here nor there—as an unsuccessful leadership contender, I hasten to add. We need to get this straight. Unless we can define the boundaries of the debate we are about to have, we will be in a very unsatisfactory place. We are talking about the mechanisms of the convention—we are not talking about whether we should be in the convention or not. I remind the House that the UK has the best record of all member states within the convention; we are a party to, I think, seven United Nations conventions on human rights; we are very active in the Council of Europe in a number of respects; we fully support the ICC in its reaction to the Russian invasion of Ukraine; and there is no question of this fine tradition being mitigated, let alone abandoned.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister is quite right that we need to be clear but unfortunately, only two of the five remaining candidates for the Tory leadership have been clear that they would not leave the convention. Liz Truss, who is still in the Government, has said that she would be prepared to leave the ECHR. Rishi Sunak and Kemi Badenoch have failed to clarify their positions. Can the Minister be confident about the position of the Government from September, when he even has present Cabinet Ministers who do not agree with him?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The Government have set out their position in the manifesto upon which they were elected. There is no change to that manifesto.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I, for one, am very grateful to the Minister for the clarity of his Answer. However, I am concerned that the more popular of the two candidates in the Conservative race for the premiership who have committed to staying in the ECHR has been subject to an absolutely disgraceful campaign of smearing in the right-wing press. Can the Minister give some fatherly advice to these candidates that when they launch Islamophobic and misogynistic attacks on each other, and when they attack human rights, it is bad for his party and for the country?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I am not in a position to give fatherly advice to anybody. The Government do not support misogynistic or Islamophobic attacks on anyone. I have set out as clearly as I can the Government’s policy, and I shall doggedly pursue that policy unless and until instructed to the contrary.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it must be obvious that our suspicion stems from having had a lot of legislation come through this House that has shown no concern for human rights or political freedoms, which is what the ECHR is all about. How can we be sure about the next Prime Minister—a Tory party Prime Minister from the collection of leadership candidates that we are all horrified about?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The aim of the proposed legislation is to restore public confidence in the UK judiciary, to improve democratic accountability, to strengthen the right to free speech, to preserve the right to jury trial and to better protect journalists’ sources. I defy anyone in this House to vote against those objectives.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the trade and co-operation agreement which this country has with the European Union is contingent, from the European Union’s point of view, on our remaining in the convention on human rights? Can he give us the names of countries which have withdrawn from that convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The noble Lord is correct that there are references to the European Convention on Human Rights in the trade and co-operation agreement. We are not withdrawing from the convention—I do not know how many times I must say it before people understand the Government’s position. Since we are not withdrawing, the question of who has withdrawn or been expelled does not arise.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the European convention should be regarded as particularly precious by Conservatives, given the part that Winston Churchill and Lord Kilmuir played in devising it?
Lord Watts (Lab)
What do the Government mean by “mechanisms”? It seems to add something to the Minister’s answer that he is not categorically ruling out changes. What are those mechanisms?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
The provisions in the Bill are designed, in the words of Clause 1(2), to clarify and rebalance. The relevant mechanisms are to make clear the respective roles of the UK judiciary and the Strasbourg court, of the judiciary and Parliament, and of rights on the one hand and responsibilities on the other. Those are the mechanisms which I hope we will debate in detail in due course.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I recognise and acknowledge that the Minister has indicated that there will be no withdrawal from the ECHR. However, can he give an assurance to your Lordships’ House today that he, along with other Ministers, will work to ensure that we remain within the ECHR, because any withdrawal from it would be a flagrant undermining of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, which is hardwired into the ECHR?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I will happily give the noble Baroness that assurance, and I assure your Lordships that I will work with any or all of you to ensure that this Bill meets such concerns as you may have, in so far as it is within my power to do so.
Baroness Wheatcroft (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is reassuringly adamant in his commitment to the convention. Can he assure the House about how he defends the export of asylum seekers to Rwanda in the face of the convention?
Lord Bellamy (Con)
We are entirely satisfied that the Government’s policy on asylum seekers is in compliance with the convention. In this context, I do not think that I can add to that answer.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, it is right to look at the draft put forward by the Lord Chancellor, which makes it absolutely plain that the intention of the Government in that document is that we stay in the European Convention on Human Rights. The preciousness of that is absolutely clear, and I feel certain that a Conservative Government—and, I believe, a Labour Government—are unlikely to move away from it.
Lord Bellamy (Con)
I respectfully agree, and I am particularly delighted to pay my personal respects to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern following one of his last interventions in this House.