Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for his persistence on this matter. As he said, it is the third iteration of this Bill. I think it has been improved and has, if nothing else, it has prompted the full engagement of the Government on this matter. As we will hear from the Minister, and as far as I am aware, the Government are taking on board the points that the right reverend Prelate is making, but maybe not in the form of this Bill. Nevertheless, that is progress. In a sense, it shows the power of Private Members’ Bills, even when they do not ultimately succeed in themselves, because they are part of a process.

I also urge the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans to continue his campaign. Gambling is a source of addiction. He has mentioned the 400 suicides each year related to gambling, particularly among young men, and I remember him making that point in previous debates. This is a very important area. The coronial system may be one part of the solution, but I hope to hear from the Minister that there is a wider consideration of how to reduce gambling-related suicides, which are a scourge on our society.

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

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for, again, providing a valuable opportunity for the House to debate this deeply sensitive issue. I also respectfully commend his tireless commitment to highlighting the need for a better understanding of the factors that may contribute to a person’s tragic decision to take their own life and to, in his words, collect “better stats” on this issue in the gambling context. The Government fully recognise the importance of gathering better information on these factors. I thank the right reverend Prelate for the changes that have been brought forward to the Bill, and all noble Lords who have spoken on this hugely important issue.

However, the Government believe that this measure is not quite the right way to tackle these important issues, and I shall briefly explain why. This Bill would require a coroner to record an opinion as to the relevant factors in the case of a death by suicide. That would radically change the nature of the coronial investigation and the nature of an inquest. The scope of a coroner’s inquest is to determine who has died and how, when and where they died. The key issue is how—the issue is not why. It is focused on the physical means of death and whether the verdict should be suicide, accidental death, unlawful killing and so forth. The legislation is quite clear that it does not extend to determining the much deeper issue of why somebody died, which may well be a very mysterious and complicated issue, and could date back to some childhood trauma. For that reason, the Government do not feel it is right to extend the coroner’s jurisdiction in this way. The Bill, as presently drafted, would extend to all inquests, whether gambling-related or not.

We already have, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, a mechanism within the coronial system where, if they think fit, coroners can draw attention to particular circumstances in particular cases—the system known as the “prevention of future death” report. That is an option the coroner can pursue; it is entirely up to them, if they feel there are particular circumstances that they wish to make more widely known so that preventive action can be taken in other cases. It is perfectly clear from past case law, and a recent case in the High Court—Dillon against the assistant coroner for Rutland in north Leicestershire—that this is entirely a matter for the coroner, and their principal duty is to determine who has died and how, when and where they died. It is also true that the investigation of relevant factors could be a very difficult job in an inquest, and possibly quite distressing for family members. For those reasons, the Government are not able to support this Bill.

However, there are a range of initiatives that are being put in place to deliver on the Government’s commitment to understand better the circumstances that lead to self-harm and suicide and to support effective interventions. In relation to gambling addiction, which is of particular significance to the right reverend Prelate, the Government have recently published a comprehensive package of measures and the gambling White Paper, including a statutory levy to fund enhanced research, education and treatment. More generally, the Government have committed, through the NHS, to a long-term plan to expanding and transforming mental health services in England to support local suicide prevention plans and develop suicide bereavement services. The 2021 fifth progress report on the national suicide prevention strategy is now being supplemented by a new national suicide prevention strategy to be announced by the Department of Health and Social Care later this week. There is more I could say about our commitment to taking forward and improving effective surveillance and prevention, but I hope that I have given the House at least some indication of the important the Government attach to this vital issue.

This House is in the course of debating the Online Safety Bill, which was referred to in the debate we have just had and, in that context, there will be a further opportunity to revisit the issues that have been canvassed today in a general sense. I reiterate the Government’s gratitude to the right reverend Prelate for this debate today. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions on this difficult matter.

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

I give my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and the Minister. Protocol prevents me from engaging with any of the points the Minister made, but I thank him for the careful consideration he has given. Our discussions will go on as we look to the future. Meanwhile, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

Powers of Attorney Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the Government wholeheartedly support the Bill, and I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for setting out so eloquently and clearly its content and purpose. So clearly has he set out the Bill that I do not think I need repeat what it says, save to say that there are essentially four main aspects in relation to LPAs. It simplifies and digitises the process; it requires identity checks on the donor; it has a better procedure for objection involving, for example, local authorities, the police and other interested parties; and it provides that only the donor can register. I think those are the main points but, thanks to that very clear explanation, your Lordships are already fully seized of the content of the Bill and I will say no more about it.

I add the Government’s thanks to Mr Stephen Metcalfe for his great and persistent work in another place to bring this most important Bill to its present fruition. I hope he will accept our thanks and compliments for that very important work.

It is sometimes forgotten by the general public, I think, that both Houses of Parliament do important, detailed work on very detailed points. It is not a great political circus; we are working hard on matters of detail that affect people’s lives. As has been said, with over 6 million LPAs, increasing at the rate of a million a year, this really does affect people’s lives. For that reason, we are particularly grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and others who have spoken in favour of this Bill.

I will deal with a number of the points raised in this debate. First, I stress that, although the process will be primarily electronic and will facilitate access to powers of attorney by other parties when the need arises—for example, a bank—if an attorney needs to activate the LPA, there will also be a paper channel so that those who do not have the internet or are not equipped to operate it can do so. It will be a fully flexible system so that donors, attorneys and others involved will be able to use whichever channel best suits their needs, be that digital or paper.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

If there is a discrepancy between a paper copy and a digital copy, am I right in thinking that it will be up to the court to decide which of the two versions is correct?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as far as I know, the noble Lord is entirely correct in his assumption. If I am, or he is, wrong, I will write accordingly to clarify that point. It will ultimately be for a judicial process—possibly for the Office of the Public Guardian, initially, and then for a judicial process—to determine which of the two conflicting versions is the “authentic” version.

This change, by reducing the laborious and very time-consuming verification of paper documents, will, or should, over time release resources for the Office of the Public Guardian to investigate and pursue cases that look dubious or are attempted frauds, or which raise other difficulties. So we see this as not only benefiting the donors and attorneys but removing burdens on the Office of the Public Guardian and allowing that very responsible organisation to reinvest its resources in enforcement or investigation, or in improving safeguards as necessary. So, for the reasons that have been given, the Government welcome this Bill very sincerely.

I will briefly address the points raised by other noble Lords. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, the Government fully support the work of the Court of Protection, and the judges of that court do magnificent work under very difficult circumstances. Of course, this is part of the wider digitalisation of the civil justice system, which the Government are also supporting and, if I may say so, making quite good progress on under the remarkable leadership of Sir Geoffrey Vos, the Master of the Rolls, who is very focused on digitalisation and the future of the justice system in that respect. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said, we always have to find a balance in these systems between protection of the vulnerable and facilitating the processes. That, I hope, is the balance that has been struck under this Bill.

On the points rightly raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, the Government welcome the mention of health and welfare LPA. That is sometimes forgotten as a part of the machinery, but it is important; one never quite knows when one is going to lose one’s health and welfare, or to need an attorney to look after one from that point of view.

Living wills, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, is under separate legislation and is a separate issue. The point about the wet signature holding everything up and leading to people not knowing quite what the patient’s wishes are is an important one. The Government will certainly note the points that have been made today and continue to reflect on them.

On the points raised by the Law Society about the certificate provider and whether we have sufficient checks in that respect, the department is considering those and in due course will make proposals about the best way of achieving that. There could well be changes to the certificate itself, the forms used and the supporting guidance. I am not sure that legislation will be necessary, but we could tighten up the existing procedures, or at least review carefully whether they are sufficient, and test any potential changes with stakeholders and users to ensure that they achieve the core aims we need to achieve.

Scotland has been mentioned. The Scottish Government have given a legislative consent Motion. The UK Government felt that one was not needed, but at least there is one so that point does not arise.

Concern has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland that powers of attorney granted in Scotland are not always readily recognised in England and Wales. The Government’s view is that that is primarily a question of raising awareness. There is no legal reason why a Scottish power of attorney cannot be recognised in England and Wales, as far as I am aware, so it is primarily a question of raising awareness and making sure that the relevant professionals are more familiar with the status of Scottish powers of attorney than may apparently be the case.

The noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, noted the interest of licensed conveyancers in relation to Clause 2. I can confirm on behalf of the Government that the Bill is not intended to interfere with the previous or indeed ongoing practice of organisations such as the Land Registry accepting copies of powers of attorney from licensed conveyancers. So the licensed conveyancer will send in the documents that are necessary, which may well include a copy of the power of attorney. That is a long-standing practice that has given rise to no difficulty, and nothing in the Bill is intended to change that practice.

There is a second important aspect to the Bill, which is to enable chartered legal executives to certify copies of a power of attorney. That is not only correct in itself but is part of the Government’s general policy of facilitating CILEX members to carry out tasks and functions that other legal professionals, solicitors and barristers can carry out. Only yesterday, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, will remember, the Grand Committee passed statutory instruments enhancing the number of judicial appointments that CILEX members can aspire to. Together with this provision, that is also part of the Government’s overall policy of widening the pool of qualified lawyers so there is absolute availability of qualified lawyers.

I think I have covered the points that were raised. It only remains for me to reiterate the Government’s support for the Bill and to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, in particular and other noble Lords who have spoken today.

Public Advocate Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I first echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and associate myself with his commendation of the persistence, determination and integrity with which the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has introduced this Bill and has for many years pursued his commitment to the creation of a public advocate, engaging with the Government and colleagues on this issue over a prolonged period. Indeed, in that connection, I commend how the noble Lord, Lord Wills, other noble Lords and those in the other place have worked to support the Hillsborough families in their long campaign for justice.

It is imperative that lessons are learned from the experiences that the Hillsborough families have gone through. The Government are not saying that we could not have another Hillsborough; I think it most unlikely, but we have to assume that things will happen in the future. Therefore, we have to learn the lessons from the Hillsborough experience, including from the two earlier public inquiries and the long process by which we have, finally, nearly reached the end of that particular investigative process.

We have to think hard about the points that have rightly been made on transparency, which is often the key issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, just said, the cover-up is the crucial difficulty and, very often, the major obstacle to getting at the truth, learning lessons and, most importantly, finding closure for the families. Transparency is extraordinarily important and giving victims and the bereaved agency is equally, if not more, important. Here you have families, ordinary people, living their lives. What on earth do they do? How do they get organised? Who is to speak for them? How do they respond to great tragedies? Of course, this is about not only Hillsborough but Grenfell, the Manchester Arena bombing and other instances of that kind.

That is why the Government are introducing a proposal to set up an independent public advocate structure. There is no disagreement about the end; the disagreement is about the means to do it. I am not sure that today is the day to prejudge the debate that we will have on the Victims and Prisoners Bill, but the Government are clearly listening to all the points that have been made today to see how this can, mostly, work to best advantage.

For the record, I shall briefly set out the role of the independent public advocate as envisaged in the Bill. First, it is to provide practical support for victims, enabling them to understand their rights and signposting them to support services. Secondly, it is to give them a voice: in other words, to give them the agency they need by advocating on their behalf—this is, after all, an advocate, someone who speaks on their behalf. As the Government see it, one function of such an advocate will be to insist on the maximum amount of transparency achievable in the circumstances. It seems an obvious role for such an advocate to give a voice to the wider communities.

It is envisaged that there will be a permanent full-time staff; it is not envisaged that there will be a single person who is “the public advocate”. There will be a panel of persons who will be called upon from time to time, ad hoc, when these tragedies arise to play that role. The public advocate will also be acting in the wider interests of the public, because they are, after all, the public advocate; they will act in the interests of victims, the bereaved and the wider public on all those matters. That is the outline of the Bill, and I am sure when we come to debate the Victims and Prisoners Bill in more detail, there will be amendments and matters for further debate that we can go into in great detail.

As far as the current Bill, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is concerned, it is a remarkable effort. However, to put it briefly, there are three areas where the Government are unconvinced. The first is the way that the data controller powers are supposed to work and whether that would add another layer of complexity to what is already a very complex process of helping bereaved families and getting to the bottom of the story. If one takes, for example, what might be regarded as model inquiries—the Grenfell inquiry conducted by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and the recent Manchester Arena inquiry—they have both worked extremely well and one would not want to overcomplicate this process and give rise to unforeseen conflicts with existing investigative authorities.

The second area is the trigger process the Bill envisages, which is to find 51% of the representatives of the deceased and injured. That is quite a difficult process, in the Government’s view. It may be more efficient, as the present Bill provides, to allow the Secretary of State to proactively engage, appoint an IPA and start supporting victims and getting everything organised as soon as possible.

A third major area of not exactly disagreement but differing views, at the moment, is whether there should be a single permanent person—like the DPP; “I am the Public Advocate”—or whether you need a secretariat that is always there but a panel of people to draw upon, depending on the nature of the inquiry. You might not necessarily need a lawyer; you might need somebody with medical qualifications or specialist qualifications of another sort. All those are issues that need to be explored in more detail.

The Government’s present view is that the proposed IPA will have a more tailored and a more agile response to these specific kinds of major incidents and will allow us to draw on a register of on-call advocates with a range of different experience and expertise.

As I said, as far as the end goal is concerned, there is very little between us. It is simply a question of discussing the means in more detail, which I hope we will do and which I look forward with great interest to doing in the course of considering the Victims and Prisoners Bill.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been a short debate, but I hope it has been another stage in making a profound difference to the lives of those who, in the future, may be involved in public tragedies, which, as the Minister said, are inevitable. I also hope it will make a difference to those who, out of a clear blue sky, find their lives transformed by a terrible public tragedy.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for his powerful expression of the need for transparency and better support for the bereaved. I am grateful, as I always am, for the support of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, who reminded us all from direct personal experience that these are human beings at the centre of this. We have to remember that it is people such as his friend whom we have to try to support through this process.

I am also grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful, sympathetic approach to the issues raised by the Bill. I am encouraged—I hope I am not being misled—that he talks about focusing on the means rather than the end, on which we are all agreed. I find it most encouraging because it suggests that the Government’s mind is still open on the important points we have discussed. I hope I am not wrong in interpreting his remarks in that way.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I have to say that I give no commitment of any kind. I would not want anyone to read between the lines. All I am saying is that the Government will listen very carefully to the points being made.

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Minister; I would not dream of expecting him to make any commitments today, but I am grateful for his willingness to listen, because it suggests a willingness to accept amendments that go in a slightly different direction. He rightly points out that this is not the time to debate the Victims and Prisoners Bill, but I draw his attention to his remarks about the complexity of the processes in my Bill. I will not die in a ditch over the drafting of my original Bill; I said seven years ago and am happy to repeat now that I am perfectly willing to accept that it is flawed and needs improvement in many detailed ways. It has never been my intention that it should proceed verbatim, as it were.

However, I worry that, underlying his remarks, he may think there is something innovative about a lot of this, as his remarks about the data controller suggested. I therefore draw his attention to the fact that there are two existing, very successful models that my Bill draws on and which are at its heart. I urge the Government to examine them. The first is the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation; if the Government look again at the remit for that institution, it is very analogous to what is envisaged in my Bill. I urge them to think about adopting this proposal in the Victims and Prisoners Bill, in line with that.

The Minister talked about the complexity of the data controller’s role. It is not actually complex at all; it is literally on the model I initially devised for the Hillsborough Independent Panel—my second example—which everybody agrees was a tremendous success. However, its success was not due to the conception; the primary reason for its success was the extraordinary chairmanship of the right reverend Bishop of Liverpool and all its members bringing specific expertise. I also pay tribute to the Home Office official who provided the secretariat for that panel; it was outstanding work that showed just how wonderful our Civil Service can be. At a time when it is regularly traduced as “The Blob” and all the rest of it, one should look at the work of Home Office officials such as them and just be grateful that they work in public service.

There are existing successful models which this institution in my Bill is based on. I hope that, as we move forward in a co-operative, cross-party way—we have done so until now and I very much hope we can continue in that frame of mind—the Government will bear those models in mind. I look forward to exploring all these issues in due course as the Victims and Prisoners Bill comes before your Lordships’ House. In the meantime, I remain very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and to the Minister, and I ask that your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading.

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023.

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

My Lords, this order amends the Judicial Appointments Order 2008, which made chartered legal executives eligible for some judicial offices using powers under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The order before us in effect adds three judicial offices for which members of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives become eligible. Those three offices are that of recorder, judge of the Upper Tribunal and deputy judge of the Upper Tribunal. The purpose of the order is twofold: first, to widen the pool of people who are eligible to apply for these important judicial roles and, secondly, to further encourage diversity in the judiciary. The 2008 order made CILEX fellows eligible for various judicial offices such as district judge and judge of the First-tier Tribunal, and this draft order adds three offices to the list in that order.

Perhaps I could say a little bit at this stage about judicial diversity, which is a central part of understanding this order. Since 2013, the Lord Chancellor has had a statutory duty to encourage judicial diversity. The Judicial Diversity Forum has worked since 2015 to improve judicial diversity. There has been progress. Last year, 50% of newly appointed judges, taking the judiciary as a whole, were women, and 14% were from ethnic minorities. We know that we have a long way to go, however, and there is certainly less diversity in the senior judiciary.

CILEX offers an important route to increasing judicial diversity. It is interesting to note that 77% of CILEX fellows are women. Additionally, CILEX provides a non-graduate route to becoming a lawyer; it can and does attract candidates from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, with considerable benefits for social mobility.

The important change in this order is another step towards it being a lawyer’s merit, rather than their particular method of obtaining their legal qualification, that determines suitability for judicial appointment.

As for the offices with which the order is concerned, it is already the case that a CILEX fellow can become a circuit judge if they have held office as a district judge for three years. Our position is that there is no substantial reason why they should not become recorders, which is an equivalent fee-paid role. The cadre of recorders is not currently as diverse as the Government would wish: only 28% of recorders are women and just 7% are from non-barrister backgrounds. It is important to encourage greater diversity in appointments to that office. As far as the judges of the Upper Tribunal are concerned, CILEX members can already be judges of the First-tier Tribunal, and that would normally entitle someone to be considered for the office of judge of the Upper Tribunal. That addition remedies a small anomaly in this area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a non-controversial instrument and we, the Opposition, support it. I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the priorities, particularly the priority to encourage diversity. He said that about 50% of newly recruited judges are women, and 14% are from ethnic minorities.

I want to drill down a little on that latter figure. My understanding is that the ethnic minorities are not evenly spread: some ethnic minority groups are far worse represented than others. From my perception as a magistrate, black men are about the worst represented in the magistracy, and I suspect that it may well be the same for the judges. It has to be said that we see a larger proportion of black men in our courts as defendants, so this is a concerning situation. It emphasises the importance of encouraging diversity and actively recruiting among certain ethnic minority groups to try to improve that situation.

The Minister made another point about people from non-graduate backgrounds applying for judicial appointments and said that they can work their way through CILEX to become a judge, as he showed. As he knows, I sit as a magistrate, and I remember that when I was first sitting as a magistrate, we still had a few magistrates’ clerks who were non-graduates. I understand that this is still possible, although it is quite unusual these days. Certainly all the legal advisers I have spoken to think it is something that should be kept as a route for people to work their way up through to becoming a legal adviser and then on to becoming a judge if that were possible. I do not know whether the route up through the magistrates’ clerk’s career, if I can put it like that, is something else that would be covered by this or is already covered within these provisions. I look forward to the Minister’s answer to that point. I think it is a good thing to maintain non-graduate routes potentially to the very top as there are in other professions.

It would be useful if the Minister set out what he sees as the next step for further encouraging diversity and widening opportunity. What more does he hope to do in his current role to promote those desirable objectives?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I understand—and I will correct the position in writing if I am wrong—that CILEX members can already be appointed as legal advisers. Speaking for myself, I would certainly support the idea that we should preserve non-graduate routes from the “lowest” position right through to the highest. I think that is essential so that everyone can work their way up without necessarily having to spend enormous sums of money on obtaining very expensive legal qualifications, in some ways, top-heavy legal qualifications, as is currently sometimes the position. The noble Lord’s point on that is very well taken, and the Government must certainly bear it in mind.

As to judicial diversity in general, the judicial diversity forum works on this. There is a programme known as PAGE which supports potential judicial applicants from underrepresented groups. I understand that, by December last year, 667 lawyers had participated in workshops run through that programme. The MoJ is providing considerable amounts of funding and there is in additional £200,000 for 2023 for the targeted outreach programme—TOP—managed by the Judicial Appointment Commission to support diverse candidates towards more senior roles. By December 2022, 229 candidates had had one-to-one advice from a senior team with expert knowledge of the selection process to improve their chances. Forty people who participated in the PAGE programme have subsequently become judges. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord said, that in terms of ethnic minorities the position is somewhat unbalanced and there are fewer black participants than the Government would wish, but it is the case that black PAGE participants who have applied to be judges have been appointed at a rate more than double that of the wider pool of black candidates over the past three years, so there is some evidence of success in this programme, which needs to be fully reinforced.

The Government are very conscious of the situation to which the noble Lord refers and will continue to work on improving that matter, as well as on encouraging female candidates from ethnic minorities. That is another very important element of outreach and is emphasised in the TO programme run by the Judicial Appointments Commission. This is ongoing work and I hope the Government will never take their foot off the pedal in this regard. I commend the order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Judicial Pensions (Remediable Service etc.) Regulations 2023.

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

My Lords, I apologise for the fact that these regulations comprise 44 pages of the densest technical complexity one could imagine. I will try to explain them as simply as possible. Essentially, they provide for technical aspects of what is known as the McCloud remedy—McCloud being a legal ruling by the Court of Appeal in 2015 which found certain reforms to public sector pensions to be discriminatory on the grounds of age. These regulations remedy that ruling for the judicial sector.

It is a little complicated because, prior to 2015, various pension schemes applied to the judiciary. There was one under the Judicial Pensions Act 1981, another under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 and a third for fee-paid judicial offices. In 2015, the Government introduced extensive reforms to public service pension schemes, following a report by the Independent Public Service Pensions Commission. Following those reforms, the Government introduced the Judicial Pensions Regulations 2015, which provided that older members aged 55 or over were exempt from the various reforms and remained in their legacy schemes. Essentially, McCloud was a challenge by younger judges who said, “The older members are all right but we are disadvantaged”. The Court of Appeal held in 2018 that the 2015 reforms were discriminatory on the grounds of age. In July 2019, the Government accepted that judgment and took steps to address the difference.

These regulations are the result of those steps, which have been consulted on widely. Essentially, the affected judicial persons or their dependents, as the case may be, will be offered a retrospective choice between continuing to belong to their legacy scheme or moving to the 2015 scheme for the period between 2015 and 31 March 2022. Since 31 March 2022, everyone has been moved on to yet another scheme, the judicial pension scheme 2022. That is the only scheme available currently, but this deals retrospectively with the period from 2015.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I have only one question for the Minister: are there going to be further SIs on this matter? I remember debating previous SIs on the McCloud remedy, if I can put it like that, and the various things that need to be put in place. As the Minister said, it is extremely complicated. I have an expert behind me—my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton—although he is not taking part in this debate. My real question is: are there going to be further SIs on this matter?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am happy to answer the noble Lord’s question in the negative: as far as I know, this is the last SI for the judiciary. The McCloud remedy is still to come in other parts of the public sector. This is the first of the McCloud SIs, I think, and we will gradually work through the public sector. The noble Lord and I have laboured on previous occasions through the detail of this dense matter, but I am happy to say that those particular labours seem to be coming to an end at this point.

Motion agreed.

Miscarriages of Justice

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Woodley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to prevent miscarriages of justice.

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

My Lords, miscarriages of justice occur relatively rarely within our justice system. In criminal cases, the Criminal Cases Review Commission will investigate possible miscarriages of justice and, if necessary, refer the case to the Court of Appeal. The Government have recently increased legal aid for such cases. The Law Commission is also currently conducting an independent and wide-ranging review of our appeals system to ensure that it is operating effectively.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, I appreciate the Minister’s Answer, but honestly, I am increasingly concerned that, whether through joint enterprise, guilt-by-association sentences or IPP sentences abolished a decade ago but not retrospectively, there are still thousands of prisoners who are rotting away with little or no hope of finding justice. It seems to be going nowhere. So, what is the Minister doing to correct these obvious miscarriages of justice, particularly as the Government have already accepted, at least on joint enterprise, that BAME groups are disproportionately affected?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, first, on joint enterprise, it is a long-standing principle of the criminal law that persons who go together to commit a crime are jointly liable, irrespective of whoever threw the brick or fired the shot. There is a great deal of jurisprudence on this subject, and it is true that there is some concern that the existing case law does operate in a harsh way on certain young black boys and men. The CPS, to which I would like to pay tribute, is engaged in a six-month pilot, which started in February 2023, to review joint enterprise cases in several CPS areas. It has also established a joint enterprise national scrutiny panel to review the interim findings of the pilot and several finalised joint enterprise cases. At the end of September this year, the results of that review will be published. This, I understand, will also be considered in relation to the Law Commission’s investigation into the appeals process.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister assure the House that the Criminal Cases Review Commission, under its excellent new chair Helen Pitcher, will be given sufficient funding efficiently to ensure that miscarriages of justice are dealt with in a timely way? Also, will he consider allowing Professor Cheryl Thomas, who is the leading researcher into juries, to carry out more in-depth research into how juries actually reach their verdicts, in order that prosecutors can be better informed about how to prepare their cases?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the functioning of the Criminal Cases Review Commission—its resources, its governance and the test it applies—will be considered in the context of the Law Commission’s current review. The Government would like to thank the Westminster Commission in particular, in which my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier and the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, participated, for its work on that. It is of interest, and the Government look forward to hearing the Law Commission’s response to these difficult matters.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, a grave injustice, which should have been rectified years ago but continues to this day, is the failure to end imprisonment of the nearly 3,000 IPP prisoners. Following on from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Woodley, the number of such prisoners being recalled has now overtaken those being released. The Justice Secretary himself recently described imprisonment for public protection as

“a stain on our justice system”.

The Conservative chair of the Justice Committee recommends resentencing as the only way to end this. Will the Minister look favourably at amendments to this effect when they are considered during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on IPP prisoners, the Government have responded to the Select Committee report by promulgating a very detailed action plan alongside a review by the Chief Inspector of Probation of the criteria and operation of the processes of recall. The Government will further consider the matter during the passage of the Victims and Prisoners Bill. This is very difficult because, unlike cases of people who are unfairly convicted, these persons have been fairly convicted; the only reason they are in prison is that the Parole Board does not consider them safe to release.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister, whose department is seized of the work on the welfare of jurors, who are exposed to traumatic evidence in that peculiar environment where they are cut off from their daily routines and support structures because we do not want them harmed. However, in the context of this Question, could he raise this issue up the list of priorities? We do not want a juror to be so traumatised—I think that contempt of court rules allow them to reveal this —that they begin to question their capacity to deliberate, and then have a question mark over the verdict for that reason.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My noble friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is essential to our system that jurors be properly looked after, and the Government will continue to consider the points raised in her question.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that the easiest way for the Government to reduce miscarriages of justice is to reduce the courts’ backlog? One of the biggest sources of injustice is people—potential appellants—simply dropping out of the system because it is slow and complex and there is a long wait. This is within the Government’s powers to invest in; it is a direct way of reducing miscarriages of justice and is for the benefit of both victims and appellants.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, with respect, the Government do not entirely agree with the analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that there is a connection between miscarriages of justices and delays in the court system. The Government are doing their very best to reduce those delays, which no one wants. They are partly caused by the longer-term overhang of Covid and are particularly and more recently caused by the barristers’ strike. The Government are doing their very best to reduce those backlogs by introducing further judges and adding resources wherever they can.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, I recently read the Lammy review. It states that 41% of black defendants who pleaded not guilty opted for their cases to be heard

“in Crown Courts … compared to 31% of white defendants. This means they lose the possibility of reduced sentences and it raises questions about trust in the system”.

It also states that

“for every 100 white women”

given a custodial sentence for drug offences, “227 black women” were given a custodial sentence for the same offence. Is that acceptable to the Government?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Discrimination in the criminal justice system is not acceptable to the Government. The Government are conscious that there are concerns about the way that ethnic minority persons are treated within the system and are determined to ensure that those problems are ameliorated and addressed in the longer run.

[Baroness Deech (CB)]

My Lords, what justice can there be in retaining on the statute book sections of a statute of 1861, whereby a mother can be sent to prison for procuring an abortion? Surely it is time that we consider the lack of benefit to society, to her family and indeed to all women in retaining such an outdated and barbaric method of punishment.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, all women have access to safe and legal abortions on the NHS up to 24 weeks of pregnancy. It is not appropriate for the Government to comment on any particular case, although your Lordships will no doubt be aware of the case to which the noble Baroness is referring. This is a contentious issue and the Government maintain a neutral position on possible changes to the relevant criminal law.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, and I need to declare my interest as chief executive of Cerebral Palsy Scotland, but I am very concerned by the case of Auriol Grey, a woman from Peterborough with cerebral palsy and potentially other disabilities, who has received a custodial sentence and been refused leave to appeal. Notwithstanding any of that, could the Minister please explain how the judiciary takes advice? Which disability organisations does it take advice from when ruling on cases of people with disabilities?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the relevant judges will decide cases depending on the evidence in that case. There is very substantial judicial training—probably more than there has ever been—on all kinds of issues, including the issues to which the noble Baroness refers.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Wednesday 14th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 24 April be approved.

Relevant document: 38th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 13 June.

Motion agreed.

Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023.

Relevant document: 38th 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 has considered the statutory instrument to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (Exceptions) Order 1975 to add four occupations: chartered management accountants, fire and rescue authority employees, justice system intermediaries, as defined, and notaries public of England and Wales.

As your Lordships know, the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 governs the disclosure of cautions and convictions for most employment purposes. Under the Act, most convictions become spent following a specified period, which supports the rehabilitation of offenders, helping them to put their past behind them.

The exceptions order lists the categories of jobs where those protections are lifted so that individuals, if asked, are required to disclose spent convictions. There are certain jobs where more complete or relevant disclosure of an individual’s criminal record may be appropriate, particularly when we are dealing with financial matters, professional persons, vulnerable persons or young persons, among others. There is clearly a balance to be struck here between the rehabilitation of the offender and the protection of the public.

The order proposes to add four occupations to the exceptions order. First, it adds members of the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants—CIMA. This is related to the functions that they carry out, which are fundamentally based on trust and present a particular opportunity to cause harm to the public through abusing that trust. The order already includes most accountants but, for historical reasons, it does not yet include CIMA, whose members carry out very similar functions to those already carried out by chartered accountants. The addition has been requested by the institute itself and it already exists in Scotland, so in the Government’s view, it is entirely in line with the policy and intent behind the order in question.

The second category being added is employees of the fire and rescue service, where, in the Government’s view, there exists a clear case for change. The Independent Culture Review of London Fire Brigade contains some troubling findings, and recent reviews into fire and police culture have also revealed certain failings. That has been confirmed by a report by His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services. It is important that we vet people we employ in our public services. Firefighters in particular come into contact with the public in certain circumstances, so it is right that they should be included.

The addition is particularly sought by the National Fire Chiefs Council, representatives of which, I gather, are present today. It asked that this change be made. In the Government’s view, this supports the ongoing reform of the fire and rescue service from a cultural and safety point of view, bearing in mind that firefighters in particular often attend schools or vulnerable persons’ homes and incidents or accidents as first responders, exercising statutory powers and helping to safeguard others. Therefore, it is only right that the fire and rescue service should be included. We hope that this will protect and enhance the reputation of our fire and rescue service employees, who are deeply trusted: we admire their courage and dedication to duty. In the Government’s view, this will enhance the trust that they must enjoy to carry out their roles effectively.

The third category being added is justice system intermediaries, whose role is essentially to enable communications with vulnerable witnesses and parties in police inquiries and court and tribunal proceedings, particularly those who assist the Ministry of Justice in the witness intermediary scheme or are appointed as intermediary advisers. Their participation is generally to help witnesses who are, for example, under 18 or suffering from some mental or physical disorder or impairment. These intermediaries are clearly in a position to have unsupervised access to vulnerable adults. In the context of their duties, they may have unsupervised access to children under the age of 18, and the role can involve discussions with vulnerable people concerning highly personal or sensitive matters, such as domestic or sexual abuse. The inclusion of such persons in this list will add to the safeguarding of the vulnerable people concerned and place the intermediary in a position of increased responsibility for the welfare of the vulnerable people. Again, that will increase trust in the system.

The fourth category being added is notaries. This is a quite different category. A notary—or notary public, to give the technical term—is a specialised lawyer who has undertaken further legal education and examination, and is typically responsible for certifying and authorising certain documents, particularly those relating to property deeds and other financial transactions, and to foreign court proceedings, foreign qualifications and the like. For those who enjoy the byways of history, notaries are still regulated by the Faculty Office of the Archbishop of Canterbury. Although most notaries are solicitors, they do not have to be. They attest the authenticity of documents, certify documents, take affidavits and swear oaths.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Opposition support this draft order. Supporting ex-offenders into employment is something that we must all endeavour to be better at, especially given the central role employment can play in preventing future offending. It is vital that our criminal records system does not unnecessarily trap people in the past when they are committed to reform and have stayed out of the offending cycle and rebuilt their career. However, the overriding concern when legislating in this area must always be the protection of the public.

The exemptions included in the 1975 order strike that proportionate balance because those areas of work, such as working with vulnerable individuals or potentially sensitive information, require a high degree of trust. We are satisfied that the proposed extensions to the 1975 order can be introduced while maintaining that vital proportionate balance. Given the culture that we have seen across some of our fire and rescue authorities, and the police, we must ensure that people are properly safeguarded. I am glad that representatives of the fire authorities are here today.

Justice system intermediaries have very high levels of responsibility for the vulnerable individuals they assist, including children, and they sometimes have unsupervised access to them. Notaries also frequently deal with vulnerable people and highly sensitive information, and it is right that individuals who undertake such work are subject to additional DBS scrutiny.

The relevant organisations are producing guidance to ensure that a proportionate approach is taken with regard to the disclosure of criminal records in these additional areas, to ensure that equality and individual privacy are upheld alongside public protection. What plans, if any, do the Government have to review this guidance to ensure that it is indeed proportionate, as the Minister emphasised, and drafted in line with the anticipated need of those professions, as recommended by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee?

Can the Minister share whether the draft order represents the extent of his department’s current intentions to change the criminal records system? Will he also inform us whether he has had any recent meetings with the organisation #FairChecks, or whether the Government have any plans further to reform in relation to its campaign about offences committed in childhood?

When preparing for this short debate, I reflected on my experience with the DBS system. As somebody who has worked all their life in private industry, I have never been checked in the DBS system. I have recruited many people and been recruited, I have been a company director and various other things, and I have never been checked. However, I have been checked by the DBS system as a magistrate and as a coach for my son’s sports clubs to make sure that I am a fit and proper person to carry out that coaching role. However, I have never had to jump that particular hurdle in my working life.

As the Minister said, this is a very live issue when one deals with youths, as I do as a magistrate. It is not unusual for me to have a youth in front of me who says that he aspires to being a football coach. Of course, if you are a football coach you will be coaching youths, which requires the highest level of DBS check. It is not necessarily a bar, but it is the highest level. When I sentence youths, I want to encourage them to go on to fulfil their ambition, if it is to be a football coach. While on the one hand we support these enhanced safeguards, I hope they will not be a bar on people fulfilling their ambitions. The fear is that these enhanced checks will act as a disincentive for people to go ahead and apply for certain types of roles, such as the example I gave.

I hope the Minister can expand a little further on what the Ministry of Justice is seeking to do with a wider review of the whole DBS system, and how it could be thorough on the one hand but on the other proportionate to the aspirations of people who seek to get a job as a firefighter, as in his example, or, as in my example, a youth who wants to be a football coach. The system is very cumbersome. The effect of that is that it discourages people checking and putting their names forward. I hope the Minister can expand a little further on the work the Ministry of Justice is doing to look at the whole criminal records review process.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his contribution and for the support he offers to this statutory instrument. I will respond to his two main questions. First, on the guidance, officials from the Ministry of Justice, with the help of officials from the Disclosure and Barring Service, are working closely with representatives from these professions to develop and update their guidance to ensure that it is proportionate and fair. As far as I know, that is an ongoing process and a matter for ongoing review to make sure this scheme works proportionately.

As far as other plans are concerned, as I understand it—having regard to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and a recent judgment of the Supreme Court—the intention is to remove the disclosure of certain youth cautions, warnings and reprimands from the system altogether so that there is less clutter, if I can use that shorthand, in the system. There is also something called the multiple conviction rule, which I think necessitated disclosure when there was more than a single conviction. This will, I hope, reduce the likelihood of protection of the public unduly interfering with the important objective of rehabilitation; that is the intention, at least.

We have to find a balance. We are doing our best, particularly in the youth area. I am conscious of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about those who aspire to be a football manager and so forth. We really do not want, if we can possibly avoid it, to put obstacles in their way from when they got into trouble at 15, 16 or 17 when they are now 27 and settled down. We do not want the earlier criminal record to be a blight on their lives. We have to strike the right balance.

Work on this is ongoing. My good friend in the other place, the right honourable Edward Argar, is meeting criminal justice charities on 13 June—tomorrow, I think. It may even be today; I have slightly lost track of what day it is at the moment. They will discuss further reform of the criminal records system to see whether we can simplify it and tip it a little more in favour of youth, in particular, to ensure that the rehabilitation objective is properly followed.

That is the most I am able to say this afternoon. I am sure that there are further instalments to come in this important story. Unless noble Lords have any other questions, I commend this instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

At the heart of this, because there is no case-by-case assessment, under Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 we very much run the risk—if the situation is not inevitable —of individuals who have a quite legitimate case for the granting of asylum being returned to dangerous situations. As such, there are very real concerns across the Committee about that.

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

My Lords, with permission, I will first respond to the first point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and confirm that the Government’s Front Bench was as surprised by the report in the Daily Telegraph as everybody else.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Can I just confirm that the Minister means the Lords Front Bench?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

Yes, the Lords Front Bench—this Front Bench. I cannot speak for other colleagues, but I can assure the Committee that no one is attempting to intimidate this House. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is misreported in the Daily Telegraph—it is not the first time the press has misreported a politician—and the Government fully recognise the role that this House has to play in scrutinising the legislation. The Government’s duty, if I may say so, is to listen, reflect on what is said and respond as they think fit, depending on the strength of the points made and the Government’s general policy. I emphasise that there is no question but that this legislative process should be followed duly and properly throughout.

That said, and in relation to following established due process, as it were, we debated Clauses 5 and 6 in detail in Committee on Monday. With your Lordships’ permission, I will not repeat what I have already said in that respect and refer your Lordships to the record in Hansard. To the extent that some points have been repeated, I refer to what was said in the last debate.

If I may also respectfully say so, on various other points that have been raised—for example, in relation to Clause 2, to trafficking, to unaccompanied children and to agreements with third countries and so on— I will not go over the ground that has already been covered or is to be covered in debates on other clauses. These are matters that we are debating on another occasion—the legal rights and remedies, for example—so for today’s purposes I will concentrate on Clauses 5 and 6.

I should perhaps once again go over the ground of what Clauses 5 and 6 actually say. If I am right and your Lordships accept the analysis, I venture to suggest that at least a considerable part of your Lordships’ concerns may be reduced or laid to rest.

In simple terms, Clause 5 deals with two different groups. The first group are nationals, including persons holding an identity document, of the European countries listed in new Section 80AA of the 2002 Act, which are the EU member states plus Switzerland and Albania. If a national of one of those countries makes an asylum or human rights claim, they may none the less be removed unless there are exceptional circumstances. The exceptional circumstances, which again were referred to today by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, are defined in Clause 5(5). This part of the Bill is essentially the same as the structure that has stood for many years, including when we were part of the EU, with the addition of Switzerland and Albania. These are safe countries and, in the Government’s view, no reasonable objection can be made in relation to this group.

Now we have the second group, who are nationals of all other countries: those outside the European countries defined in new Section 80AA. What is the position in relation to those nationals? The first point to make is that if the migrant is a national of another country—with all respect to the Republic of Ghana, the Republic of Uganda or India, let us take Nigeria—and they make an asylum or human rights claim, for example because of a risk of persecution for their sexual orientation, they cannot be sent back to that country. That is clear from Clause 5(8), so a lot of the concerns expressed about persons being sent back to these countries will relate to nationals of those countries who do not want to be sent back to them. Unless others correct me, if they make a protection—that is to say, an asylum or human rights—claim, they cannot be sent back as nationals to those countries where they fear persecution. That is a very considerable safeguard.

Where can they be sent back to? They can be sent back only to another Schedule 1 country, but subject to very important conditions. The most important condition in this context is that set out in Clause 5(3)(d): only if there is reason to believe that they would be admitted to that country. In other words, it depends on whether we have an agreement with that country to take them back. That is not at present the case, except in relation to Rwanda, but it may in future be the case in relation to other countries.

To take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to whether such future agreements would be—forgive me, it was the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—subject to parliamentary scrutiny, that is a matter for the future. I cannot commit the Government on that here at the Dispatch Box. However, I think your Lordships can be reassured that the availability of all kinds of remedies and the force of public opinion in this country would necessarily require a very full debate to take place before we made an agreement with another country. There is the constitutional safeguard of the constitution of public debate in that regard.

There is no indication that the countries mentioned in this debate—very understandably, Nigeria, Ghana, Uganda and even India—are likely to be, in any foreseeable future, places to which the relevant migrants could be sent. If we were ever to reach an agreement with another country, the Secretary of State has powers in Clause 6, in particular Clause 6(3), to exclude from that agreement persons of particular sexual orientations or with particular protected characteristics set out in that clause. That is a further protection against the fears noble Lords have expressed.

If all of that were to fail, it remains the case that the individual affected could make his suspensive harm application on the basis that he would suffer irreversible serious harm in that context. I think I can legitimately offer noble Lords reassurance that a great deal of the fears understandably expressed in your Lordships’ Committee rest on a particular view of the Bill that is not entirely correct.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—it was implicit in most of the other comments—what Schedule 1 is for. I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, asked what the rationale of Schedule 1 is. The answer is that Schedule 1 is a reproduction, an amalgamation and a restatement of all the existing legislation from 2002 onwards, in which various countries over the years have been added as safe countries. For example, in 2005 the Labour Government added India on the basis that it was, in general, a safe country.

This also enables me to deal with the “in general” point, which has stood as a statutory point for the last 20 years at least. It might not be entirely within the active career of the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Kerr, but it has been on the statute book for 20 years. It has not so far given rise to any particular difficulties. That is the background to what we are considering.

In the future, it might be appropriate to keep Schedule 1 updated; it might be necessary to make changes from time to time. Let us cross those particular bridges when we get to them. At the moment, there is no practical possibility of Uganda, for example, accepting migrants who arrive in Dover into Uganda. It might be, to take a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, that the existence of Schedule 1 or the failure to amend it, might be challenged in judicial review. If I may respectfully say so, it would be a somewhat adventurous case to compel a Minister to legislate or to amend primary legislation, but let us again cross those bridges when we get to them.

I hope that I have not taken up undue time and have covered most of the questions that I was asked. I am sure that I shall be reminded if I have not done so; I will do my best to answer them, if anyone reminds me.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

The Minister kindly said that, if he had not answered anything, he would do so. Would he please write to me about which countries practise female genital mutilation, criminalise homo- sexuality and criminalise humanism?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question, but I cannot answer it today at the Dispatch Box. My respectful reply is that this issue does not arise for the reasons I have given. The Bill does not envisage, at the moment, returning people to such countries. The general position is that we can continue discussing the provisions on legal requirements, trafficking, unaccompanied children and so forth, but this part of the Bill is an essential part of the Bill. I therefore beg to move—

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

I am most grateful to the Minister and have great respect for his legal analysis. However, I will correct him on the point I made about judicial review. I was not saying that a judicial review could be taken in which the order would be for the Minister to amend the law. The Minister cannot amend the law; we in this Parliament amend the law. The application would be for a judicial review of the refusal of the Minister to take steps to amend the law. That is quite a different matter, and I do not apprehend any difficulty in making such an application for judicial review.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, if I misunderstood his point. I respectfully continue to beg to differ as to both the likelihood of such judicial proceedings or the relevance of such judicial proceedings to today’s stand part debate. So, if your Lordships permit me, I beg to move—

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. I ask, gently, whether my noble and learned friend the Minister would not agree that it is worth reminding ourselves that some of these countries—indeed, all those we talked about in the last hour—are Commonwealth countries, including Uganda, India and Ghana. It is worth remembering that Rwanda is not only a Commonwealth country but the current chair-in-office of the Commonwealth, so, surely, that must count for something.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I entirely accept the point my noble friend makes and thank him for it.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord is so reassuring, and his manner is so friendly, that one is tempted to believe that this might all be as good as he says. On the two-part process, he says that the list sets out possible destinations, but that the Secretary of State would make a judgment about the individual and whether the individual should not be sent to a particular country for reasons particular to the individual. If it were the noble and learned Lord making these decisions, I would be very reassured; unfortunately, it is the Home Secretary.

I am sorry to press the Minister but he has not really answered my question. He says that the list is based on history, but in the past we have not sent people compulsorily to go through an asylum process in another country—so there is something new here. Further, we have not been sending people to countries where there is no asylum process but we are insisting that they must seek asylum there. I do not think the noble and learned Lord has addressed that point.

I would also be grateful if the Minister would construe for us the language in the first paragraph of Clause 6, which addresses “in general” and “a part”. I have not heard his answer to my question as to why it is all right that a country should not in general contravene the human rights convention—implying that if in particular it does, we do not care—and, secondly, why it refers to part of a country or territory. I do not understand how we can get an international agreement with a counterpart. If I am a negotiator, how do I persuade him to accept that there are parts of his country that are unsafe and parts of his country that are safe? Surely the agreement has to be with the other country in respect of the full territory of the other country, not in respect of part of the territory.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the latter point, I repeat the point I made on Monday that this is precautionary. There is no reason to deprive oneself of the possibility of providing for “a part”. With an enormous country such as India, it may be that up in Nagaland or somewhere there are some disturbances, but that does not prevent us saying that India is a safe country. That is the Government’s answer to the first point.

Our answer to the second point is that the words “in general” have—I am open to correction and I will correct myself if I am wrong—stood for 20 years on the statute book without difficulty and do not preclude, in an individual case, an application being made to oppose removal on the grounds of irreparable harm. It is the combination of a general view that the country is safe with the possibility of individual protection. Those are essentially the answers I gave on Monday.

I entirely accept the noble Lord’s point that this is new, but, for the reasons I have tried to explain, it is a workable and, I submit, balanced approach to a very difficult problem which the Bill is trying to solve.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, the Committee is very grateful to the Minister. I want to be absolutely certain that I have understood his case, because this is so important. My understanding is that he is reassuring the Committee on the basis that, first, nobody is going to be sent to the country that they fear in the first place—they are not going to be sent back directly to the country that they have escaped from and which they say was originally persecuting them—and, secondly, they can be sent only if there is a deal with a country. So maybe this is all going to be rhetoric in the end: we are going to tell the British people that we are stopping the boats, and we are going to warehouse more and more people under this whole edifice because there will be a duty under Clause 2 to remove people to places where they are irremovable to because there is no deal. Thirdly, the Minister points to the little chinks in the scheme whereby somebody might make some kind of exceptional non-suspensive claim. That is what I understand to be the three parts of his case.

On sending people to third countries that are unsafe because they are gay or because there is some other reason why that individual person would be at risk, it matters not that they would be unsafe in a third country or unsafe in a first country. In relation to the other little nudges and winks that he offers us—that this is perhaps fiction because in the end we do not have deals with a lot of these countries—that might be some comfort to people coming, and maybe even to those smuggling them, but it is certainly no comfort to the British people on the cost or on the toxicity of the debate we are having about stopping the boats, when actually the boats are not likely to be stopped.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is a question of judgment. The Government’s judgment is that this legislation will go a long way towards reducing the terrible risks that people and unaccompanied children are facing in crossing the channel in difficult circumstances, and will destabilise the business model of the people smugglers. Those are surely legitimate objects for any Government to pursue.

The noble Baroness’s analysis is essentially correct: if I am a national of a particular state and I make an asylum claim or human rights claim then I cannot be sent back to that country; I could be sent back to a country with which—she puts it somewhat colloquially, and I would not quite use these words—we have a deal. The country with which we have a migration partnership at the moment is Rwanda, so that is still a possibility, subject to the individual in that case being able to make an application for either a factual suspensive application or an application based on imminent and foreseeable and serious harm. That is how it works, and that is how the Government see it.

While I am on my feet, I will address the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about whether the threat of deterrents supersedes individual human rights. For the reasons I have given, our answer is that there is no question of superseding individual human rights due to the protections I have just explained. Refoulement is covered by the existing agreement with Rwanda, and I am sure it will be covered in future agreements.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I wonder if an answer could be given to the question from the Minister’s colleague on the Benches behind him, who asked about Commonwealth countries. Would the Minister agree that many of the Commonwealth countries have laws which criminalise homosexuality? Indeed, Uganda has just passed legislation which says that the death penalty can be used in relation to homosexuality, and in India there are currently a lot of issues and questions about the treatment of Muslims there. There might be very real issues even when it comes to Commonwealth countries.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness says, there might indeed be issues. Their legislation is a matter for them. The fact that they are members of the Commonwealth which upholds, or seeks to uphold, barest basic standards is a relevant background consideration, as the noble Lord pointed out.

For the reasons I have given, as best I can, the protections in the Bill are adequate to deal with the problems that have been raised. I respectfully say that Clauses 5 and 6 and Schedule 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for his thorough response, and to those who have spoken.

I looked at the reference to the Commonwealth when the Bill and the schedule were published. It is worth noting that 76% of Commonwealth countries are not considered by this Government to be safe, because 76% of the Commonwealth is not in the schedule. That is not us questioning it; that is the Government making their own decision.

The Minister, in his typically emollient way, suggested that we do not really understand these clauses and that if we did we should not be concerned because, as he put it, the legislation will have no practical operability. We are in a situation where the Home Office is doing the reverse of virtue signalling, which is to try to create, as my noble friend Lord Paddick indicated, the most punitive and threatening environment, of which the justice department will have to pick up the pieces. The Minister has been at pains to point out that there are many elements which would mean that there is no practical operability, but we are being asked to legislate for this, and on the basis of a lack of agreements.

On Monday, the Minister said to me:

“I suppose that the direct answer is that one would have to negotiate an appropriate agreement with the country concerned”.—[Official Report, 5/7/23; col. 1229.]


As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and others indicated, the Government have not done so, but they are still asking us to legislate. The Minister said that, when we are negotiating some of these agreements in the future, there would be a “force of public opinion” on the agreements and debate. But on the only one that we have, with Rwanda, there was no debate or consultation. We were surprised by it. It was not a treaty that was ratified by Parliament; it was an MoU. The International Agreements Committee forced a debate on the MoU in this House, in which noble Lords took part, and the committee raised the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about refoulement. Unfortunately, this is the pattern of the Government.

On Monday, the Minister was not even able to confirm to me—he said he would write to me and I am grateful for that—that there are child facilities in the Rwanda agreement, because it was not designed for that in the first place. That addresses the point that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, indicated with regards to those who are children. I referenced 73 children, up to 2022, who would be in the situation of being referred to protection and then on their 18th birthday would receive, under the Bill, a third-country notice, and they would have no idea what that country would be.

European Court of Human Rights: Rule 39

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 6th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

In memory of my late noble and learned friend Lord Morris, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

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

My Lords, if I may, I associate myself with the tribute to the late Lord Morris.

The Government recognise that interim measures can be an important mechanism for securing individuals’ convention rights in exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, the Government want the interim measures process to achieve a better balance between transparency, fairness and the proper administration of justice. Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have had constructive discussions with the Strasbourg court about reform. The court’s regular internal review of procedures began to look at the interim measures procedures in November 2022.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, I am grateful to the Minister for his Answer. Does he agree with me that the current group of interim measures against the Russian Federation precluding the execution of prisoners of war is very important, and that, notwithstanding Russia’s current status outside the Council of Europe, anyone who thinks about ignoring those interim measures should think again? In the spirit of reciprocity, notwithstanding the discussions about process, will the Minister also think again about legislating to allow British Ministers to ignore interim measures from the Court of Human Rights?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, if I may take the last question first, that issue will be explored in more detail in Committee when we get to Clause 53 of the Illegal Migration Bill. I remind the House that the Rule 39 power is a very important power, particularly in relation to the circumstances affecting Russia. However, it raises at least five quite difficult legal questions. First, what is the basis of the legal power? Secondly, what is the procedure with which the power is exercised? Thirdly, what is the competence, in the civil sense of the term, of the single judge? Fourthly, what is the effect in domestic law of such an order? Fifthly, what constitutes a breach of the order? None the less, the Government’s focus is on constructive and helpful discussions with the Strasbourg court on improving the process.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that in principle, an interim order should be made only after a hearing at which both parties are present and can make their case? If, in exceptional cases, an interim order is made on an ex parte basis, does he agree that the return date should be a swift one and that both parties should then be able to make their representations to the judge?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I agree in principle with the comments made by my noble friend.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Government play fast and loose with the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act. This has not inhibited them in invoking Article 8 of the ECHR—the right to private and family life—in their application for judicial review against the Covid inquiry. Article 8, as well as judicial review, has been demonised by successive Tory Governments—I seem to recall something about a cat, from Theresa May when she was Home Secretary. Will the Government make it a hat-trick of hypocrisy by seeking interim measures under Rule 39 from the Strasbourg court if they do not get satisfaction domestically over that Covid inquiry JR?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

With respect to the noble Baroness, that question does not arise. The Government have no intention of going to Strasbourg on that issue. Article 8 is a very important part of the convention, which is also part of domestic law through the Human Rights Act. The subject of today’s question is the Rule 39 power, which is quite a difficult question.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, with his usual reasonableness, the Minister appears to accept that such emergency and interim measures are not uncommon in international legal matters. He confirmed that the difference this time is that a group of right-wing people, led by the Home Secretary, take issue with one decision by a judge seeking to protect the human rights of other individuals.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, interim measures play a very important part in the international jurisdiction. I respectfully point out that as far as I know, the process by which the Strasbourg court grants interim measures is different from that of the International Court of Justice, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, all of which provide for a proper hearing, a return date, and reasoned judgments—which are sadly lacking at the moment in the Strasbourg process in some cases.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right to point out that there are important jurisdictional questions regarding the Rule 39 injunctions. However, focusing on the process, is it not a real problem that these orders are made by an unnamed judge? The state has little opportunity to make representations either before or after the order is made. As my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, the return date can be a long time in the future. The process surely needs reform. Does the Minister therefore agree that the Government are right to be engaging with the Strasbourg court to improve the processes of that court?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Wolfson, particularly where the interim measures order, in the circumstances that he relates, overrides three reasoned judgments by the domestic court at first instance, the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court. None the less, the Prime Minister is fully engaged and discussed this very question in Reykjavík recently with the president of the Strasbourg court.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)]

My Lords, I have asked the Minister about the difficulty that we lose credibility if we do not engage with the use of this particular interim measure order. It has been so useful, for example in relation to Russia, because interim measures have already got in under the wire and now, of course, Russia has been expelled from the Council of Europe. Does the Minister agree that, eventually, when people are brought before the International Criminal Court, the fact that Russia has failed to abide by those interim measures will be evidence of their culpability in war crimes?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I have already agreed on Russia. I emphasise that the Government’s approach to this is to engage very closely, respectfully and constructively with the Strasbourg authorities and the court’s working party, which is considering this very question.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that interpretation of a treaty is informed not just by the court that is set up to adjudicate on it, but by state practice? The member Governments of the Council of Europe, including our own, have repeatedly confirmed the binding nature of interim measures under Rule 39—in the Committee of Ministers, and in the Izmir and Brighton declarations. Is the Minister proud of the United Kingdom’s record of compliance with interim measures, particularly in comparison to some founding members of the European Union?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

On the latter point, I do not presume to cast any kind of judgment on or make any comparison between the United Kingdom and other contracting states. On the general point about acceptance in practice of the position of interim measures under the convention, there are two legal views.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, the context of this Question requires consideration of more than one case. Between 2020 and 2022, of the 161 applications for interim measures against the UK Government, only 12 were granted by the European Court of Human Rights. Secondly, the Minister’s responses thus far indicate that the Government no longer stand by Clause 24 of the Bill of Rights Bill, which, if enacted, requires courts to ignore interim measures. Until now, we have been told that that is an expression of the Government’s manifesto commitment to reform the Human Rights Act.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, on the first aspect, if I may speak on behalf of the United Kingdom and all Governments, the Government have a commendable record on interim measures. I fully agree that you cannot judge the underlying legal and practical questions by just one case. On the issue of the Bill of Rights Bill, I think the focus should now be on Clause 53 of the Illegal Migration Bill, which I am sure we will discuss in great detail in Committee.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, it is most important that we maintain a good relationship with the European Court of Human Rights. The context of this Question follows the decision of the judges in this jurisdiction about the flights to Rwanda. An anonymous judge then gave a ruling that, on the face of it, was not entirely compliant with natural justice. However, is it not right to say that the Home Secretary entirely accepted that ruling? There was no question of ignoring it. The Government have proceeded by trying to improve the process in a way that is more satisfactory and complies with most people’s notions of how interim relief ought to be obtained.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I respectfully agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks.