Lords Chamber

Thursday 27th February 2025

(began 2 months ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
11:09
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Evans of Guisborough and Baroness Mattinson
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well , , Officer , Officer of , Officer of our , Officer of our most , Officer of our most excellent order of the British Empire.

To the state, degree, style, dignity, title state, degree, style, dignity, title To have To have and To have and to To have and to hold To have and to hold unto To have and to hold unto her To have and to hold unto her for To have and to hold unto her for her life. Willing and by these presence granting for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom amongst the Barons.

In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the Third day of February in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's sign-manual.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Deborah, Baroness Mattinson, do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Hear!

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles Charles III, Charles III, by Charles III, by the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Charles III, by the grace Charles III, by the grace of Charles III, by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of Britain and Northern Ireland and of our other realms and territories King, Head of the Commonwealth, King, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, to all Lords Spiritual and Temporal and all other our subjects whatsoever to whom these present shall come greeting. these present shall come greeting. Know ye that we of our especial grace, certain knowledge and mere motion in pursuance of the Life Peerages Act 1958 and of all other powers in that behalf us enabling do by these presence advance, create and prefer our trusty and well To To the To the state, To the state, degree, To the state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Evans of Guisborough.

And for us, our heirs and successors, do appoint, give and grant unto him the said name, state, degree, style, dignity, title and honour of Baron Evans of Guisborough to have and to hold unto him for his life. Willing and by these presence granting for us, our heirs and successors that he may have, hold and possess a seat, place and voice in the Parliaments and Public Assemblies and Councils of us, our heirs and successors, within our United Kingdom amongst the Barons.

And also that he may enjoy and use all the rights, privileges, preeminences, immunities and advantages to the degree of a Baron, duly and of right belonging, which Barons of our United Kingdom have heretofore used and enjoyed or as they do at present use and enjoy. In witness whereof we have caused these our letters to be made patent, witness ourself at Westminster in the afternoon of the sixth day of February in the third year of our reign. By warrant under the King's

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I, Roger, Lord Evans of Guisborough do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, Charles, his heirs and successors, ALL: ALL: Hear, ALL: Hear, hear.
11:19
None Portrait Oral questions: Reintroduction of beavers in England
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My My Lords, My Lords, first My Lords, first oral

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, first oral question, Baroness Bennett.
11:19
11:20
11:20
11:21
11:21
11:22
11:22
11:23
11:25
11:25
11:25
11:26
11:27
11:27
11:27
11:28
11:28
11:29
11:30
None Portrait Oral questions: Ensuring that rents in the private rented sector are affordable
-

It is called Question Time for a reason. Want questions so the Minister can answer. Minister can answer.
11:30
11:30
11:31
11:32
11:33
11:33
11:34
11:35
11:35
11:36
11:36
11:36
11:37
11:38
11:38
11:38
11:39
11:39
11:39
11:40
11:41
11:42
11:43
11:43
11:44
11:44
11:45
11:45
11:46
11:46
11:47
11:48
11:48
11:49
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:50
11:51
11:52
11:53
11:54
11:54
11:55
11:55
11:56
11:57
11:57
11:58
11:58
11:59
12:00
12:00
12:00
12:01
12:01
12:01
12:02
12:03
12:03
Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, I'd like to statement. The Government's announcement in relation to breakfast clubs obviously builds on the approach of the previous government, with the breakfast programme that ran from 2018 and as we know, the vast majority of schools have breakfast clubs. Some are free and others charge a very low fee. While I understand and absolutely respect that the Government is following through on its manifesto commitment to deliver breakfast clubs in primary schools, I wondered if the noble Baroness the Minister could clarify for the house what will happen to the breakfast clubs in secondary schools that were previously funded by the previous administration when that funding ends? Similarly, of course, the statement talks about the growth in healthcare provision and very significant funding that is going into that which also builds on previous Conservative government policy.

Turning to the specifics of the scheme, the noble Baroness the Minister will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report last year calculated that the 300 million -- £350 million announced last year would only fund the food element in all primary schools but element in all primary schools but as she knows, the Children's well- being Bill clarified that. What discussions are being hard with schools as to how to cover any shortfall? -- had. She will also have seen the report yesterday from the BBC of a small primary school in Lancashire that was part of the 750 school pilot phase which felt it wasn't able to continue because in their case funding did not cover their costs and there has obviously been some wider commentary on this issue.

I just wondered whether the issue. I just wondered whether the noble lady can shed light on whether there is truth in the rumours that some schools were invited to take part in the pilot but were unable to and if so, what the reasons for that were. Also, could she confirm what percentage of schools in the new scheme have now breakfast club provision before this? I've also tried to work out the Secretary of State's statement that the scheme will save the family's £450 a year.

My maths is not my strongest suit. May be the noble Lady can help me. The government, as I understand, is funding 60p per child and 78p per those children in receipt of pupil premium. £450 a year on my maths is about £2.30 per school day per child or equally, if you put it the other way, the 350 million spread across primary school children is about £70 a year. Could Noble Lady set out what assumptions the government is making that are behind the statement of the £450 per year saving to families.

And finally, I wondered what assumptions government is making about the uptake of the scheme. There already exist a range of breakfast clubs without additional childcare, and the government has said it aims to learn from the pilot. Event that the vast majority of schools already have breakfast clubs -- breakfast club provision, I'm unclear what the government needs to learn from this pilot as opposed to what has gone before. All of this matters, of course, because the government choice is to fund breakfast for all children in primary school, including those where their parents are happy to pay for that breakfast and could do so without financial difficulty, and I think it would be helpful for the House if the noble Lady could explain why.
12:08
Lord Addington Portrait Lord Addington (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I do thank the Minister for bringing this to the floor of the House. The main thrust of my own party is that we would have rather had this put into town -- lunchtime. The reason being is because from the information I have received, about 40% of children who are eligible for this take it up. And anybody who has dealt with any child or indeed rush-hour traffic knows they are going to have more trouble getting people to school early in the day to get the breakfast than you would do at lunchtime when everybody is there.

Now, that is a fundamental flaw in this system about getting the nutrition in. The second one here is quite simply what is in one of these breakfast. Now, if it is a sugar laden breakfast cereal, you've got the equivalent of a Turkish whistler in the morning. Preserve on a bit of white bread. You will fill somebody up but what is the nutritional guarantee. Lunchtime we have more experience in. It is easier to balance a meal and get better bang for your buck.

Also, we have the idea of the fact that people are used to eating that meal at lunchtime. It's going to be slightly easier to get acceptance. If you're going to do this, what are the steps you going to take to ensure it reaches more people? If you are going to put this money in, what is the benefit? I had prepared a slightly less extensive list of other questions, which the noble Baroness got two in front of me. I won't repeat them.

The fact to look at is getting the best nutritional outcomes for the school population. I think we are entitled to have that discussion. discussion.
12:10
Baroness Smith of Malvern Portrait Baroness Smith of Malvern, Minister of State (Education) (Labour)
-
-
Well, can I thank Noble Lords for their response to the statement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State where she spelt out very clearly the delivery plan for the government's commitment to delivering on its pledge to provide delivering on its pledge to provide breakfast clubs for every state school with primary aged children. Let's just reflect on what that means for the children. Evidence shows that where schools run breakfast clubs, they report improvements to people's behaviour, attendance and grades.

We want every school, child and family to have the chance of those benefits. I think that is where the scheme in response to the Noble Lady builds on. In some ways, it is fundamentally larger and more significant than the national breakfast club programme, which has previously been running where I know there will have been so enormously good work pupils will have benefited. But it isn't universal, it isn't open to every child, it isn't open to every school and it is not necessarily free. And that is the difference.

That is the difference in the proposals this government is putting forward that are being tested and will be evaluated and developed through the early adopter scheme that the Secretary of State announced earlier this week. We have 750 schools chosen from a whole range of different sizes, regions, levels of deprivation. We will have the opportunity to test that. On the point about the continuation of the National Breakfast Club Programme, we will continue that until March 2026 for all those involved.

After that, we will make decisions based on the Spending Review that, of course, is coming soon. The funding made available in the early adopter scheme is not just for food. It is, in fact, of course, for delivery, staff and for food. In actual fact, comparing with the previous scheme, an average school would receive 24,000 as part of this scheme. £21,000 more than they would have received as part of the national breakfast club programme. We can see there the scale of the ambition of this breakfast clubs policy.

On the case reported on the BBC, I can assure the Noble Lady that the BBC have now changed that story because it was, in fact, wrong. There are 750 schools that have accepted and will be part of the early adopter scheme. There are very small -- scheme. There are very small -- there are a small number who the Department is discussion with about the details of those arrangements and making sure that they are able to continue.

But the vast, vast majority of those schools have taken up this important opportunity and I think we will learn a lot from their experience about how we can ensure the national rollout. On the £450 figure, of course, not only are children being provided with breakfast, but they are also being provided with 30 minutes of free childcare as part of the Breakfast Scheme. A calculation of the value of 30 minutes free childcare, five days a week, gives us a figure of up to £450 that could potentially be saved by parents.

I have to say that at a time when parents are facing considerable cost of living pressures, I'm sure that this is something that will be widely adopted and welcomed by parents. The noble Lord Addington argued that this should be something that is happening at lunchtime as opposed to at breakfast time. Of course, the government already spends rightly a considerable amount of money on free school meals for those who are eligible, but what is being provided here is something that is universal for all children and free at the beginning of the day.

I had some sympathy with his picture of the parent in the morning, struggling to get themselves and their children organised, to get themselves to work and children to school. I have to say, I thought that struggle would be made easier by the idea that your child being flung out of the car just before school starts to start the day in search of some disarray without having had a proper breakfast, without having had the time to settle into the school day in a way that is likely to make them calmer, and more able to learn.

The idea here is very much not only are we providing children with a breakfast but we are also providing them with that camera start to the day, and we are providing their families with an additional 30 minutes of childcare first thing in the morning -- calm. And the point he raised about the quality of the food, of course that is important. Actually, it isn't true that school food standards only apply at lunchtime. They also apply to what will be served in breakfast clubs and that will ensure that there is the quality of food available for those children.

Breakfast clubs will ensure that every child, no matter the circumstances, can achieve their full potential by providing that supportive start to the day. I hope Noble Lords will feel able to celebrate and support it and that we are all able to learn from the early adopters how we can make this policy adopters how we can make this policy

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I welcome the sentiment but I am sure the Minister would agree that sure the Minister would agree that should be properly evaluated. It would be very helpful if she could would be very helpful if she could tell the House what monitoring will tell the House what monitoring will this consist of? There is scepticism
12:17
12:18
12:19
12:19
12:20
12:21
12:22
12:23
12:23
12:25
12:26
12:27
12:29
12:29
12:30
12:30
12:31
12:32
12:33
12:33
12:34
12:35
12:35
12:36
12:37
12:37
12:38
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
Motion for debate. The progress of the Post Office Horizon

**** Possible New Speaker ****

compensation scheme. Lord Beamish. Can I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Compensation Advisory Board. Can I Compensation Advisory Board. Can I also say I'm looking forward to the also say I'm looking forward to the maiden speeches of noble Lords who I worked alongside for many years. Along with my good friend, and I call him a good friend, I have been call him a good friend, I have been involved in the campaign for postmasters for over 15 years.

I hope that our efforts have paid some contribution, little contribution, to exposing this scandal. The main efforts, though, need to be put and recognise as the efforts on behalf of the scandal of Alan Bates and the sub postmasters. They have ensured that we've got to where we are today when the truth is finally coming out about what went on around the Horizon scandal. I first became involved with this because in 2009 when I was a member of Parliament for North Durham.

A constituent of mine, Tom Brown, came to see me. He was an upstanding, hard-working postmaster who received awards from the post office for fighting off an armed robber at his post office, who was accused of stealing £84,000. Tom had raised with the post office the issue around the Horizon system but was completely ignored. Until auditors arrived to close his post office down and subsequently take him to court for stealing £84,000. In that two-year process, Tom was made bankrupt and ironically, on the morning of the case in Newcastle Crown Court, the post office said they had no evidence to put forward.

It was too late for Tom by then. His life had been ruined. Tom gave evidence to the public enquiry but sadly passed away last year before its conclusion. I've got to say that Tom is one of too many who have passed away, never to see that justice which they deserved. Now, the Post-Office Horizon issue has been talked of as a scandal but I would argue that it is worth then that. -- Worse than that. It is an example of when the state with all its powers not only goes unchecked but leads to collusion and also the fact that it is a position whereby it can bury the truth.

Even at the expense of individuals who are hard-working, upright citizens going to prison. Over the years, myself and other parliamentarians, from both houses, who have been involved in this campaign have been lied to. Certainly, when you talk to the campaigners and the sub-postmasters, they felt frustrated over the years. They were not only ignored but lied to as well. I think without Alan Bates and the campaigners who took this case to court, I'm not sure the truth would have actually emerged.

Because even when the case took place in 2017, the post office and the state were still prepared to spend £100 million of taxpayers money to try and bury the truth, to try and make sure that the truth did not come out. Credit to the campaign and their financial backers and Lord Justice Fraser who did get to the bottom of the case. But, again, they had to settle the case because the Post-Office put forward as tsunami Post-Office put forward as tsunami of cash to try to stop the process.

The dam did burst in that case in terms of making sure that evidence that had been hidden for many years but known to many of us who were involved in the campaign did see the light of day. And then, remarkably, the ITV drama on the Post Office did bring it to a wider audience. The subsequent enquiry has now shown an even deeper spotlight on the truth and can I say I look forward to its findings -- shone. And can I pay tribute to those who worked on it.

The government today have paid out £633 million to victims of the Horizon Competition cup scheme. We Horizon Competition cup scheme. We have four schemes. Now, would you start, if you are starting afresh, with four schemes? I will see clearly not. The claimants have found it frustrating and overly bureaucratic in the way that the schemes have operated. On the advisory board, we have sought to try and ensure that there is fairness across the three -- four schemes and that we have system were individuals get some independent, legal advice but also that at the end of the process, they have the process and claims look that independently because the victims rightly don't trust the Post Offers.

That's because it was run by the Post-Office. There was a clear attempt to try and settle many claims as quickly as possible to ensure that the post office didn't have to come to government for more money. We on the advisory board recommended that there should be an independent process at the end for claimants to be able to have their cases reviewed because there is clear evidence that there are individuals who have accepted settlements without legal advice, which I would argue were under If you want to know by the distrust the post office there was a previous scheme, predating Wrightson.

I saw a postmaster who said they were a victim of the Horizon scheme but when I checked the dates, it did not surprise me and I thought it was surely a Horizon case and then we found that there was a previous version called Capture which has thrown up other issues including over 200 individuals who have been prosecuted or had their latest ruined because of that and there was an independent full report and they have now agreed on compensation for the individual.

I think it shows the the individual. I think it shows the culture of not coming forward at the Post Office and you would think they might have looked at the system but we have had to drag out from them kicking and screaming any information that is needed. This comes to the plot point that we have to put in place. Would you start the scheme with the current complex system? No, we would not. We need a body set up to look at how we will pay compensation to victims of mis- pay compensation to victims of mis- justice.

This scandal was not caused by mistake nostalgia, but was a conspiracy, coverup, from devolved government, it involved ministers, the post office, Fujitsu. Fujitsu were the main culprits and were always told that the system was infallible and you could not access it remotely and supposedly advise the fault of the postmaster when the upper issues but it is clear that they could have removed access to it. If you look at the judgement of Lord Fraser in the case, it is clear that could happen.

It also found, with regard to it being a perfect system, in that judgement, the 25 issues were unknown for yours. In 2001, Fujitsu paid £130,000 for a data breach. -- £150,000. It is worse than that. They covered up the fact the system was full of bugs and could be accessed remotely but they also took part in active investigation of sub- postmasters and provided data to support prosecutions known as ARQ data which was never even checked.

If you look at the case, not only did Logan give testimony against -- in northern gave text me against postmasters but the data was not checked. In 2006, and Chambers, a Fujitsu employee, raised this and spoke about there being no checks. -- Anne. That was completely ignored by Fujitsu. Does that put the question of what they were doing? We know there is no when we look at the Testament of Paul Patterson, the director of Fujitsu UK, this had been admitted to.

Likewise, the senior vice President admitted it when he wrote to the Select Committee in 2020. Why was this not raised, these red flags, within Fujitsu themselves, about this? At the inquiry and Select Committee, Mr Patterson said he apologised to sub- postmasters and would make a contribution to the victims. There has been no money paid today to victims from Fujitsu and this is a company that is still making multi-million pound profits from contracts.

This is available and if people read 'Computer Weekly', figures showed that it could be over £0.5 billion in new contracts and they said they would not bid for any new contracts but they are extending existing contracts at the same time as the taxpayer is paying out over £700 million to victims on compensation and many victims are still waiting. I think Fujitsu are hiding behind the public inquiry. They know that the evidence is there. They are is not even a review of findings become that we do not.

I would argue they should make payment of at least £800 million now to cover the costs for victims and there must be major changes. Unless there are, when the process of bidding for new contracts start, I would suggest they should be barred from taking part if major changes not taking place. That would be a tragedy for the people who work for Fujitsu and not good for relations between the UK and Japan. The point raised a few weeks ago with Mr Suzuki, the Japanese ambassador for London, I understand the Minister is going to Japan and I suggest you meet with someone from Fujitsu to press the case to make proper compensation, even if it is an interim basis.

In conclusion, this is, I think, a scandal, yes. It is a we cannot allow. We must put things in place that avoid it again and also cheesy culture of organisations and in terms of. -- And change the culture of organisations in terms of how we address this. We need a new system which does not mean we need a inquiry each time that we must strengthen whistleblowing and the government must look at how executives are appointed to these outside bodies who clearly do not raise questions.

Finally, Fujitsu needs to pay up and we must ensure they do not take money from the UK taxpayer while making no financial contribution to the scandal. Tom Brown gave evidence to the public inquiry and was asked what he wanted from the inquiry. He said he wanted

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the truth. That is what we owe Tom Andy victims. The question is that the emotion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. I declare my interest as part of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I declare my interest as part of the advisory board and chairman of the advisory panel. I would like to the advisory panel. I would like to congratulate my good friend, the congratulate my good friend, the noble Lord, and securing the debate. He had been with me every step of the way in his vigorous campaigning the way in his vigorous campaigning on behalf of the sub- postmasters.
12:55
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom Portrait Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Conservative)
-
-
It is at least partly due to him that we are where we are now and getting sombre and discovering the Capture issue is thanks to him. We are getting somewhere but are not are getting somewhere but are not far enough along. I will come to far enough along. I will come to that. Before that, IOC I'm looking forward to the midnight beaches of Baroness Elliott and Lord Farmer. -- IOC I'm looking forward to the maiden speeches.

We want to welcome them to the battle. They are are no party politics in this. All of the parties were to blame and we must parties were to blame and we must work hard together to achieve an improvement and hold those who were responsible for this mess to account. We must have a better set of institutions to try to ensure this does not happen again. The debate is about competition and it specifically draws attention to the role of Fujitsu.

Before that, one important matter I would ask the government to consider. I would like to welcome the Minister back to her place without a stick and I hope she is well on her way to recovery. That important matter is that politicians failed in initial attempts to get this matter sorted out. That was through politics. I failed at even the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, failed. It was the courageous litigation officer Alan -- litigation of Sir Alan Bates that got us where we are and following that report, it would be impossible that report, it would be impossible for Sir Alan to raise such litigation funding.

It will be a meeting with the Attorney-General next week to discuss their spot I raise it now to flag the importance raise it now to flag the importance and relevance. I am grateful to the fascinating and helpful briefings on the topic which can be found on the. Let's not forget what Fujitsu did. The company that produced Horizon, ICL, which was bought by Fujitsu, provided a computer program with the Post Office that was flawed.

During the contract negotiation, they were determined to win the tender and decided to have as little negotiation as possible in order to improve the chances of receiving the award. Fujitsu had a duty under the contract to provide information that was full and accurate and they did help the Post Office prosecute sub- postmasters but with evidence that was false and knowing of the issues with the Horizon system, they denied them to the courts. Moreover, they had a large operation, altering the accounts of the sub- postmasters without your knowledge they told everyone they could not alter the accounts despite carrying out an extensive operation doing precisely that.

Fujitsu did much more than stand idly by while the malicious prosecution of sub- postmasters to please. They were willing participants in the ghastly affair. If they were not accompanied by an individual, they would be facing the US, possibly decades in prison. -- facing years. They are accompanied the government has become an acceptably dependent on and each time the government extends a contract, they should ask themselves if this was prisoner Mr Smith in the if this was prisoner Mr Smith in the cell block J4, would I give them a contract worth tens of millions of pounds? What are Fujitsu doing about this? What compensation has been offered? Nothing.

They have accepted the moral obligation but the taxpayer is forking out hundreds of millions of pounds, now. There must be an interim payment from Fujitsu now. Lord Beamish suggested £300 million, £700 million would be less than 50% of the cost the taxpayer is currently estimated to be. If they do not do that, why should the government offer them further extensions of existing contracts, even less allowing them to bid for new contracts? That is Fujitsu. I told your Lordships a couple of weeks ago I asked the inquiry to include auditors in the scope of the inquiry but the chair decided it would extend the length of the inquiry disproportionately.

It is certified that the audited accounts represent a true and fair view of the financial state of the Post Office, missing a liability of £1.78 billion. What on earth were they billion. What on earth were they doing? In 2003-04, they decided to audit out of a total of 12,000 Horizon terminals in the thousand branches, not 10%, 1200,. Not 1%, 120, which would not have been When the chief operating officer of the post office was asked, do you consider it was a satisfactory way for the board to satisfy itself of the accuracy of the company accounts.

The answer to, it was very limited. 1/12,000 branches. On 5 June of last year Alice Perkins told the public inquiry of a meeting she had with Mr Grant, the partner of Ernst & Young, 20 became chair of the post office. He told, with Fujitsu, post office driver very hard bargain on price but they took back on quality assurance. So he knew that the quality of what Fujitsu was providing was suspect. Where does that appear in the post office audited accounts? As the noble Lord Lord Harris would say, spoiler alert, it doesn't.

Mr Grant also told her, Horizon is a real risk for us. Does it capture data accurately? Cases of fraud, the suspects suggest it's a system's problem. Alice Perkins said in her evidence, that Horizon Mac is a real risk for us, meant that Horizon was a real risk not to the post office a real risk not to the post office but Johnston -- Ernst and Young. That does not appear in audited accounts. As James Christie said, the Horizon system has never featured as a risk in any annual report.

It surfaced only indirectly in the 2019 report but as a litigation risk which was incorrectly thought to be mitigated by contesting the litigation that took place. We know how that ended up. Even that risk had vanished in the 2020 report. In a management letter to the post office, I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Sikka for drawing my attention to it, Ernst & Young wrote " we were unable to identify an internal control with the third-party service provider, that is Fujitsu, to authorise fixes and maintenance changes prior to development for the scope applications stop at this horizon.

And if there was no internal control, what were the external auditors doing about it? Nothing. How were the owners, the taxpayers, and to know this was going on if the auditors weren't telling them? And how other sub- postmasters, those being made bankrupt, meant to defend themselves. If the public enquiry will not hold the auditors to account is a task that must for first to the financial reporting Council and ultimately for government, the government needs to drive this. Because it's not, should not be down to the advisory board, this part-time group, to be driving

**** Possible New Speaker ****

this forward. We need action now. My Lords, I look forward to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I look forward to the two maiden speeches. I'm a relative Johnny come lately to the scandal, there are a number of people who did there are a number of people who did -- deserve thanks and regards, first of all the sub-postmasters and their of all the sub-postmasters and their families who have suffered terribly from the incompetence and arrogance from the incompetence and arrogance of the post office. Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot have also been the case for a long time and I thoroughly applaud their work and I thank Lord Beamish for instigating this debate.

And they have made excellent speeches. ITV played a big role in reaching a wide and outraged audience with its admirable hit series, Mr Bates vs The Post Office. There are lawyers such as Neil Hudgell battling for postmasters, among journalists, I'm a single out Nick Wallace. It was his radio four series 5 years ago that alerted me of, although he had been working on the issue for a decade previously, when he was a presenter of BBC radio sorry. An article on him three years ago described what happened.

It was a tweak that any journalist might have ignored. It came from a taxi owner asking if he could pitch to the local radio station tax account. The vendor was the husband of somebody thrown into prison on her son's 10th birthday while pregnant for supposedly stealing 74,000. Defender insisted not only his wife was innocent but it was the post office computer at fault. It was November 2010. The rest as they say is history. Very painful one. So Alan Bates, brilliantly played by Toby Jones on TV 's famous programme, Lee Castleton is another well-known name, and he treated the other day, why is it so difficult to be open, fair and quick? It is disgusting that Betty Brown, at 92, is still waiting for the return of her money.

Just pay her what she is owed. Someone else replied, still can't help but feel they are still putting two fingers up to us. Financial Times reports that indeed, many victims are still locked in a glacial aquatic process of offers and appeals that could end up back in the courts. 72% of the budget for redress is -- a still not been paid. The worst problems are in the Horizon shortfall scheme which many speak about. Tony Downey is a former sub-postmaster caught up in this terribly injustice together with his wife and business partner.

He has been granted only 20% of the claim. Has written to the chairman of the enquiry and is allowing me to quote from his letter. "The post office agree we pay the shortfalls, they agree they made us both bankrupted with their action and they agree this made me sick, and unable to work since. They agreed at the meeting that the. Cell of the property was related to horizon. However they will not pay me the lost income as in other schemes.

They will not pay the bankruptcy or costs for my wife and business
13:08
Baroness Ludford Portrait Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
partner. They will not pay the full amount of -- for the claim. This of amount of -- for the claim. This of the loss of the property, which was the family home I think. Tony the family home I think. Tony Downey, another wronged postmaster, and journalist Nick Wallace, have drawn attention to the curious drawn attention to the curious feature of the way the Horizon shortfall scheme is being administered by the post office, administered by the post office, which might help explain the reason that claimant sub-postmasters with that claimant sub-postmasters with compact cases are receiving offers way below their claims.

This is at the HSS assessors seem to be working to settle, have said they are working to guidelines. Different from the published principles. And are indeed refusing to share them with the claimant's lawyers. One claimant is commenting that, we guess they include every get out clause possible. It bears quoting fully, "the post office approach to HSS claims on the basis of breach of contract and assessing damages had the contract been validly terminated. We fundamentally oppose that basis cut creation which is at odds with the principles that are widely published in relation to the HSS and therefore the narrow contractual approach taken by the post office does not satisfy the test presented in the principles document.

The document to which you refer, appears to be fundamentally different to that widely published ones and seems to be separate guidance used by the panel and has never seen the light of day publicly. So how can we postmaster be on an equal footing in this claims process when you refuse to disclose guidelines used by the panel is back this would not be an acceptable situation in any other claims or legal process in this country. " He's absolutely right that this approach which effectively only gives sub-postmaster redundancy money is not at all the same as the money is not at all the same as the post office's published HSS principal document whereby " the object of the assessment will be to put the postmaster into the position that the postmaster would have been in but for the horizon shortfall".

For Tony Dowdy, this is the difference between getting redundancy money amounting to 2 years or so, income, and being fully compensated for inability to work since a nervous breakdown in 2007 after being suspended, audited twice, the lead in order to get reinstated, having to sell the business at a loss, both he and his wife having to declare bankruptcy and losing their home. He says "we had gone from owning a mortgage free property now worth £100,000, successful business and savings, to having nothing and the scheme is unable to put us anywhere near the position we should have been".

Enquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams wrote in his July Enquiry chairman Sir Wyn Williams wrote in his July 2023 first interim report that " it would be tempting for some to be sceptical about whether full and fair compensation can be achieved. A commitment to provide compensation which is full and fair is not the traditional stance taken by the defendant in our adversarial system of civil litigation. What is the government going to do to oblige the post office to follow the published principles on consequential loss, not revert to being a traditional adversarial fondant ".

Can that noble minister ensure that not only the post office office secret guidance which are not in accord with the published principles are made available to all claimants and indeed everyone else, but they stop using them. Business and Trade Committee reported on January 1 on redress for the Horizon scandal, government response is not available yesterday first thing this morning, I imagine the noble Lord the Minister can assure us it is imminent. By Michael glacial the deadline is tomorrow at the latest.

-- By my calculation. You will have read the recommendations, one of which is a post office should be removed from administering any of the schemes. They say, and I strongly agree, post office acted as judge, jury and executioner when pursuing sub-postmasters and that now it should not be decided on what financial gas is owed to victims of its own scandal macro financial its own scandal macro financial -- Financial redress. Have not got time to discuss the other recommendations but I would point out the present reality is that not only do payments have to fill out a compact form with no legal support, they face a scenario of snakes and ladders.

This is described in a letter that a former sub-postmaster wrote yesterday to inquiry chairman, he made it public, so I can quote from it. Describing how the claimant faces "the risk that should she pursue a claim above the fixed sum, she could be offered less and then have to enter the long drawnout dispute processes that could continue for years. There's also no guarantee she will get close to the fixed sum let alone the sum claimed. All this must be done without any legal advice, unless the individual is willing to pay for their own representation which is out of reach for most people.

" Mr head says, claimants should be able to receive these awards in any of the schemes and then the fixed award and then be invited to raise a further claim for the remainder of the claim, should there be sufficient evidence to do so and a likely chance of success, without any risk. How does the noble Lady the Minister react to that suggestion and can she tell us if the department is going to take over the post office scheme? I will briefly conclude by quoting from former Prime Minister Theresa May's book, an interesting and heartfelt book entitled the abuse of power.

She describes many examples, these are hers was, she describes examples of injustice against ordinary people, perpetrated by the powerful and mighty with "often a sense that protection of the institution is more important than fairness, justice or seeking the truth ". That is what we have seen with the post office. She concludes, "we need to reconsider who we are as a country and the urgent need of those in authority to ensure that they are putting the country and the people
13:15
Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay Portrait Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Labour)
-
-
It It is It is an It is an almost It is an almost privilege It is an almost privilege to It is an almost privilege to write about my maiden speech in this about my maiden speech in this place. I want to start by thanking Black Rod, her staff, the doorkeepers, police and all of the staff of this House for their warm welcome and support in my first few weeks here. And particularly for their help, towards my family and friends on the day of my introduction.

There was rather a introduction. There was rather a large number of them. I would also like to thank my supporters, my noble friend, Baroness Armstrong, one of my closest friends in politics and life, whose advice and guidance, over many decades has been and continues to be vital to me. Also, my noble friend Baroness Smith of Basildon, who has given me time, advice and guidance, over the last few weeks. Today, I want to give some background as to who I am, where I come from and what motivates me.

And the areas I feel I have the most to contribute in this place. I was born in my parents home, a council house, in the village of Whitburn, the place I live today. And have never lived more than 2 miles from it my entire life. My roots are very strong. I am very much a northern woman, who will stand up for the North at every opportunity I can. My dad Harold worked as a blacksmith striker, a local colliery and my mother, Laura, looked after the family and did all the cleaning jobs to make ends meet.

In my experience that is the hardest work anyone can do. She was a very strong northern woman and an enormous influence on me. My brother Dennis, almost 15 years older than me was an electrician at the colliery and my sister Joan, 10 years older than me, was still at school, when I was born. It is no, no underestimation to say that I was a little bit of a surprise to my family, when I arrived. And I was delighted that my sister Joan was able to attend my introduction with her husband Derek, as sadly there is only Joan and I left from that family group.

Growing up in the community of my village, it was a very tight community and still is. Neighbours were like a family and everyone looked out for each other. Most people did not have a lot of money, most men looked either at the local pits, or the shipyards. But everyone believed in hard work, taking care of your family and your neighbours and wanting the best for everyone. And the warmest aspiration for their children. Although they would not have described it as that.

My family were not political, although they were very interested in current affairs. We watched the news, read lots of newspapers and discussed the issues of the day. I got caught in a politics that during the year-long miners strike of 1980. When, whatever the merits, or otherwise of that strike, as a young woman, coming from generations of miners, on both sides of my family, I felt the Government of the day was tackling my way of life and the community came from.

I could not stand back and let that happen. I had to take a stand and make my voice heard, in trying to defend. So I joined the Labour Party. I did not know at that time, but that decision was the influence of the part of my life, that my life took, in a way I would never have imagined, or even thought possible all those years ago. I have had the privilege of working for my party as a regional organiser, my trade union the GMB, for a charity and then had the honour of being a member of parliament, for the constituency of Sunderland Central, for 14 years.

My family is at the centre of my life. I have four children, Rebecca, Myles, George and Helena, all of whom attended my introduction. Along with the five of my eight grandchildren. As well as my grandchildren. As well as my wonderful husband Andrew. They are at the centre of everything I do and it is fair to say I could not do what I do, without their support. My community, might strong sense of the working class values. My family and my passion for the North are the things that drive me and make me want to make a difference and contribute to public life.

The areas, over the years, that I have developed an interest and expertise in our, all things connected to digital, culture, media and sport. Having had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee and the other place for nine years. My interest in the Middle East and my involvement, for several years as the co-chair of a Britain Palestine All-Party Parliamentary Group and my passion for promoting the North of England, its potential and its continuing regeneration. I was pleased that my noble friend, Lord Beamish, someone I have worked with in different roles, for more than 30 years to stop there is a theme here from the north of England, where we all know each other.

Move this debate on the progress of perhaps a lack of progress on the Horizon compensation scheme today. More than a decade ago, two constituents came to see me at a surgery about the Horizon scandal. It was one of those moments in my time as a member of Parliament, when I was absolutely flabbergasted at the horror of what I learnt had happened to my constituents. The female constituents had an exemplary work life in banking, before she decided to take on sub- post office.

The couple had lived in a comfortable detached house in a very nice part of Sunderland that they had worked all of their life, hard to buy. When the Horizon system that showed they owed hundreds of thousands of pounds, missing, they had to sell their home. And use of the proceeds of that sale and all of their savings, in order to pay that money back, to the post office. To avoid prosecution and most likely prison. This was wrong. It should not have happened, but sadly their story has some of the stories that have already been talked about today.

Just one of hundreds of cases. The victims of the Horizon scandal have waited far too long to get meaningful compensation. And even those that have been described as having some compensation it has not been adequate. Horizon system was introduced, I think in 1999. The problem was known about actually before that. It is now time that Fujitsu play their part and step up to the play and pay some compensation. And I urge all of those involved in this are to move as quickly as is practically possible and pay all of the victims of this scandal, that money is that they so deserve.

My Lords, I look forward to participating and making informed contributions in the future, in your Lordships' House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great privilege to pay
13:23
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick Portrait Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is a great privilege to pay tribute to Baroness Elliott, for her wonderfully warm and family loving wonderfully warm and family loving speech. And for naming her children and her family in such an affectionate and supportive way. She won't know it, but we are both Sunderland lovers. Maybe that is the reason I was selected to pay tribute for her wonderful and seriously gratifyingly positive maiden speech. I'm wearing the tie of Sunderland football club.

She won't know, but I have attended at the Stadium of light on six occasions and at the Academy of light on four occasions. Taken there by the owners of Sunderland, in order to see the great playing card of so many, Jermain Defoe. The rumour had a shirt with number 14, which is my number and the signatures of all of the players of Sunderland football club. I was delighted and honoured to attend so many times, in her home town and in her constituency.

Many of the tributes that are owed to her, her deep love as a governor of schools and her passionate campaigning on the issue of asthma, affecting so many. We either know ourselves, or feel ourselves. In this House I know she will bring enormous expertise and the punch that an elected member, now is here in the upper house can do from having heard the painful rhetoric of constituents, especially on this issue we are discussing today. One issue we are discussing today. One , a very slim research.

So much is a wonderfully written about Baroness Elliott. I discovered we also share the fact that she voted against all Brexit measures in the House of Commons and I voted against them all here in the House of Lords. We both realise what another injustice was being imposed upon us, by a miscreant government at the time. On that, her great policy wisdom is well noted and I'm sure the whole House here, will look forward to ongoing strength and position and her commitment. I welcome her to the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

House of Lords. This debate, essentially, is

**** Possible New Speaker ****

This debate, essentially, is about compensation matters. We attended to interpret compensation attended to interpret compensation as a meaning and money. Let me pay tribute to both Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot for arduous, persistent fight, on the behalf of persistent fight, on the behalf of those, that many of us only became intimately aware of, because of Alan Bates and the ITV documentary. It Bates and the ITV documentary. It really hitters in the eyes, when we watched, let alone when we listened to the BBC's own a documentary.

We became aware of the drama and the documentary telling us about something that was happening below our noses. So close that we should have a smelted earlier, but we just didn't. There was scheming. By the post office and also by Fujitsu. I have been looking at this through a slightly different lens. It is a lens which many of us will note matters to me enormously. 193 that matters to me enormously. 193 that in the act, the offences act, this past year, which annulled the prosecutions of the postmasters.

And using these words, already quoted, "Some were convicted and imprisoned. " Some were made bankrupt, malicious allegations held against them. Some lost their homes, summer suffered a mental or physical health problems. Some were harried, as thieves by their local communities. Summer suffered breakdowns, in relationships with their partners, children or other family and friends. Several died, by suicide. There is another actor in this horror, besides the post office and Fujitsu. It is the courts. I realise, by flagging this and that I am treading on a very delicate territory.

But I have to wonder when there were 700 convictions, in the cases provided by the Post Office and a further 283 sub-postmasters prosecuted by others, including the CRC, totalling just short of 1,000 prosecutions. I'm not sure of the exact number that went to prison and maybe that is a question for the Minister. Could the Minister tell the House, in her reply how many went to prison, as a result of this crass injustice. But it raises the crass injustice.

But it raises the very ugly case, that potentially, potentially a thousand courts, heard a thousand cases and thought it was OK. At what point did the justice system, or the Ministry of Justice, all the Law Society ask what the hell is going on? Why is every court so disconnected from every other one. And if the judges didn't ask what? Another one? I've read about this, I saw this, there was a note about this. If clerks didn't bring this to their attention, what is the role of judges? Judges are meant to be highly intelligent, impartial, adjudicators, of the law.

And the principles of the law. Those principles include intelligent, evidence-based prosecutions. Not just taking by swallowing, what has been brought by an Institute of the state, notably the Post Office, backed up by its deceitful accompanying company, who simply wanted to bury the detail. So, to ask the difficult question of the Minister, was the wool pulled over the eyes of the judges? And what assessment has the, either committee made, or is the government making, or is at the Ministry of Justice making, of the wrongs done by the courts? Because I believe that it is not just a matter of what needs to be paid out, in compensation and that is clearly the real cause of this debate, but that is a somewhat flagging.

To whom it should the apologies come. I would like to see handwritten apologies from every judge, to every prosecuted individual. Especially those who went to prison. Face to face meetings that accept that there was a deceit and multiple levels. Of this procedure. We won't have honest justice if there isn't honest apology, recognition and accountability. And that lies on the courts, as well as at the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has failed. And on the Crown prosecution I realise this sensitive thing to ask, because we have a tradition in ask, because we have a tradition in Britain that we don't question the judges.

When there was a question raised in the other place just recently, by the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the Opposition, about a deportation issue, and therefore an allocation of refugee status based on falsified information, immediately following, because there was a criticism of the decision of the court, somebody representing the courts to happen said, don't question our decisions. But isn't this exactly what this is about? How can there be a thousand cases with not a single judge saying, excuse me, throw it out.

I'm sufficiently aware of so many people's cases that I know of cases, where the courts, the Old Bailey, the High Court, the judge has decided on day one or day to all week one of the case that there is no substantial evidence from the prosecution, and included the case, release the individual. Why did that not happen here? I am asking a sensitive and important question. I'm asking the Minister for whom I realise this isn't her area. However, to communicate to her colleagues in the Ministry of Justice that they ought to wake up to our so-called supremely effective independent judicial system, and ask the hard questions of the intelligence and agility of the courts and judges to deal with cases courts and judges to deal with cases of such mode -- minute relation.

I spend a lot of time in the prisons and I was in one yesterday morning, speaking with a man of a 32 year sentence. He has attempted on five occasions to have the criminal cases review commission says his case based on falsified forensic data. They refused to do so. But the CCRC have just lost its chair because of course it's been a flapping leak useless institution. And needs to be completely renewed. From top to bottom. It's another part of the system of injustice emboldened by the state because we will not ask the hard questions.

Andrew Marr concerned, we all heard the case two years ago, released finally after 70 years of falsified rape case. When he was innocent, still now awaiting the compensation agreed by the High the compensation agreed by the High If we think about how to improve financial compensation, think about the issue. We need to recognise that honour and dignity and respect for those falsely prosecuted and those of especially imprisoned, and those who lost homes, property, savings and work, requires those who did that injustice to them to look them in the eyes and admit they were wrong.

Only then can we restore

**** Possible New Speaker ****

transparency and honour to our justice system and bring dignity to the postmasters. Can I pay tribute to the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Beamish, not only for Lord Lord Beamish, not only for securing this debate but for all that he has done. If I may also pay tribute to noble friend Lord tribute to noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I guess in modern parlance you are both superheroes. parlance you are both superheroes. This is not a matter of financial redress. It's about the lives of
13:36
Lord Polak Portrait Lord Polak (Conservative)
-
-
real people, as we have heard. You have suffered through the failures of a system that has wronged them for far too long. One such person, Children Children unimaginable Children unimaginable amount Children unimaginable amount of Children unimaginable amount of strain. She is one of far too many, and I share with you today because of the specific personal emotional toll it has had on her life. Rita and her husband Kevin run their business together in my hometown of Liverpool.

I'm Northern, too, but north-west, not north-east. For many years, there post office was more than just a livelihood. It was their life. It was the future. It was the pension. At this future was truly pension. At this future was truly taken away from them. Rita's claim for compensation was submitted to months ago, January 2025, and while she was expecting an offer within the 40 working days depleted, that deadline is fast approaching. In fact, it's tomorrow. And that marks the exploration of this deadline.

And to date, she has received no offer, and nothing further has been said aside from a request for said aside from a request for said aside from a request for Kevin's earnings, a query that has only added further stress to an already harrowing situation. Her claim includes loss of earnings for her husband as he worked in the post office alongside her. She remains perplexed by the request, she paid her husband a salary for the work he did in the business and yet the authorities continue to ask for further documentation for process that Rita and Kevin have found incredibly painful.

So Rita has been waiting for 15 years since she was first wrongly convicted in 2010 and despite repeated assurances that the claims process would be expedited, she remains in the dark about the timeline for resolution. For her, and for countless others in similar position, this has been a crippling experience. The emotional and financial struggles have only deepened over the years and Rita became a pensioner for years ago. Yet she is now living off the state pension which is simply not enough to cover her living expenses, let alone the debt she incurred with the loss of her business.

Rita and her family are struggling to make ends meet stop she had always planned as a business woman that her business would provide financial security in her retirement. But since the scandal took it all away, she has been unable to invest in her pension or secure a proper future for herself and her husband. While her two children are doing the best to support their parents, they are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with the pressure of daily living costs.

Rita's anxiety, stress levels have soared, while her weight has plummeted, as a result of this prolonged ordeal. The health, physical and mental has suffered immensely. She shared this week she feels overwhelmed the uncertainty of it all. Constantly wondering how much longer she must wait and what the outcome will be when it finally arrives. The emotional toll is staggering. For years, she has lived in fear of a future, unable to plan for anything. Uncertain if she would have received the compensation she so desperately needs and deserves.

Talking to Rita earlier this week, her distress was palpable. She spoke about her 70th birthday celebration in January and, an event that allowed her to reflect on happy times briefly. Rita and Kevin had to leave their home in Liverpool and now live in Stoke-on-Trent, and on her 70th birthday, including the Argus service, gathered to celebrate at the local cricket club. A rare moment of joy amidst long years of pain. Yet even in that moment of happiness, Rita could not escape the overwhelming sadness of what had been lost, including her proximity to her family.

There post office, her livelihood. Her future. Her dignity, have all been taken from her. And the compensation she so desperately needs is still pending. As of now, Rita has received nothing since the interim payment in December 2022 and it did not begin to cover, as we know, the damages caused by the closure of her business. Rita is remaining in limbo business. Rita is remaining in limbo waiting. This is why I urge the government to act swiftly and decisively.

This is not about statistics or balance sheets. It's about real people. Whose lives have been shattered. Behind every claims are people like Rita who have endured unimaginable hardship and financial ruin, and emotional turmoil. Rita, like so many others, have suffered more than enough. She deserves justice. She deserves impersonation. And she deserves it, now. Every day that passes, without reservation, prolong the suffering for those who already have lost so much. We cannot and should not allow bureaucracy and delays to stand in the way of what's right.

Given Fujitsu's acknowledged role and its stated moral obligation to contribute to compensation, can the Minister explain why such substantial contracts have been spoken to today remain in place and why many of them were awarded after 2019, and what assurances can the government provide that no further public money will be awarded to them unless it has fully met its financial obligations to the victims of this devastating miscarriage of justice? And can the Minister also confirm that employees and suppliers are paid monthly and regularly by Fujitsu, and start, in stark contrast to Rita and her colleagues that rather being paid are being hit mediated.

The government must provide clear and transparent communications to claimants about process and ensuring they know what to expect and how long they will have to wait. And if I may, I want to agree with Lord Beamish about Fujitsu when he suggested about the 300 million, I think it was upped by my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot. I would argue right now they should pay exactly the equal to what the taxpayer has paid, so it's a lot of money but they should be paying it.

I would also like the government to do more to support those who are struggling with the emotional and financial strain of this scandal. Providing them with the tools and resources they need to move their lives forward. As I said at the begin, this is not just about the money. It's about rebuilding lives. That have been torn apart. People like Rita who at 70 years old should be enjoying retirement with her family. Yet instead, finds herself battling anxiety, financial hardship and the linking effects of a fight she should never have had to endure -- lingering.

Her family is doing all they can but why should they have to do? Why should any victim of the scandal have to rely on loved ones to survive when it was the failures of others who put them in this position? The government must step up. Not just with words, and sympathy, but concrete measures that provide real immediate relief for the victims. Rita and countless others like her have been writing far too long. For justice. I stand here today not as a member of this House, but as a human being.

Imploring the government to take immediate action to right this wrong. We cannot continue to allow these victims to suffer. We must act and we must act now.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord Beamish for to the noble Lord Beamish for initiating today's debate. And give my warm congratulations to noble
13:44
Lord Barber of Ainsdale Portrait Lord Barber of Ainsdale (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Elliott for her absolutely excellent maiden speech. I feel very privileged to join this House, and acutely conscious of how much I have to learn of its conventions and procedures. Fortunately have the guidance and wisdom of the noble Lord monks and the noble Baroness O'Grady who both supported me in my introduction to the House. John has been a mental and close friend from a, ever since I worked through the door as of the TUC headquarters -- a mentors.

In 1975. Quite a long time ago. France's, who succeeded me in the position of TUC General Secretary, has demonstrated ever since that her talent and integrity wholly justified my confidence that the TUC's leadership would be in great hands on my departure -- Francis. I'm also delighted that another very close colleague, noble Baroness Qadri, has also joined us in this House. She will give great Ainsdale, now in my formal title is an area in the town of Southport which has suffered so greatly in the wake of those terrible events some months ago.

I applaud the spirit of the Southport people. Their response to that outrage. Throughout my childhood in Ainsdale, my dad worked childhood in Ainsdale, my dad worked as a bricklayer instructor, in a local approved school. The tamperproof school of course was at the language of the times. Now I guess it would be called a young offenders institution. We actually had a house in the grounds of the school. Perhaps I am the first noble Lord to have been brought up in such an institution.

Or looking around all the benches, perhaps not. I sometimes saw my dad defuse us a difficult situation with angry young men about to kick off, using patience, calmness and reason, sometimes humour too. As I discovered both in the TUC and during my time as a chair of ACAS, these can be important factors, in the resolution of any difficult conflict. I have tried to learn from all my experience, as I have made my way through life.

After leaving school, I served for a year as a volunteer teacher in Ghana, through the BSO, voluntary service, overseas program. This began to open my eyes to the vast diversity of life experience, across the planet we share. At the end of my degree course at city University I spent a year as President of the students union, able to observe and play a part in senior governance structures. A year followed, working for an industrial training board. Before I saw an advert for a job at the TUC.

The advert told very little about the vacancy to be filled. It was only after I reached the interview that I discovered they were particularly looking for someone to do research and briefing on industrial training policy. My experience at the ITB, I think got me the job. I was there for the next 37 years. Serendipity. Now, today's debate is of course an opportunity to highlight again the terrible injustice, suffered by a blameless group of workers, inflicted by an irresponsible and over mighty employer.

Which appeared to feel that they could act with impunity. Fair compensation is a long overdue and this scandal, to my mind, reinforces the message, that trade unions are as vitally needed today as ever to provide effective representation, for people at work and to hold employers to account. The half a century since my entry to the TUC has seen remarkable changes in the world of work and of trade unionism. The mid-1970s saw the agreement between the Labour government of the day and the TUC of what was termed a social contract.

That saw the level of inflation in the economy, reduced from around the economy, reduced from around 24%, in 1975, to 8%, by 1978. That was a staggering achievement. It appears a largely forgotten now. The so-called Winter of Discontent, followed the breakdown of that agreement. And history, of course, is written by the victors. That was followed by a long period of the demonisation of trade unionists to even terms, at one point, as at the enemy, within.

With workers at GCHQ, government communication headquarters, even at being told that being a union member was not consistent with loyalty to the nation. Now the Labour government of 1997 righted that wrong, at GCHQ and made other progressive changes. Trade union recognition rights were underpinned by law. The minimum wage lifted, living standards for the lowest paid. The UK rejoined the European mainstream, in rights and protections for people at work. So, from which the previous government had opted the UK out. But despite those achievements, there are long- term trends that have still left working people, relatively poorer.

In simple terms, inequality has grown. As the coverage of collective bargaining and effective workplace representation has been weakened. A rebalancing is a long, long overdue. Now, good employers have nothing to fear from this. The story of trade unionism is often told by reflecting on the major disputes. And I understand why the drama of such events appeals to news editors. But of course, for most of trade unionists, the real story is of agreements being made. With good employment relations are being a crucial part of the mix, in building competitive and successful organisations.

Change is so much better managed, with understanding and consent. One letter I received, as a TUC general secretary, reflected that reality in a graphic way. It came from a 12 individuals, who had together, through an educational program established by their trade union. And that the TUC's union initiative, in a partnership, with their employer and a local college, to deliver basic literacy and numeracy skills. They told me that the experience of the skills gained had completely transformed their lives.

To their benefit of course, but also to the benefit of their employer. A win benefit of their employer. A win win, if ever there was one. Crucially, those individuals would never have had the confidence to get involved, if the invitation had just come from their employer, or the local college. It was only the support of the union that persuaded them to risk re-entering a classroom, in which they had always previously felt a failure. The letter to me, thanking a trade unionism, for making that difference, finished by saying that it was the first letter, any of them had ever sent, in their lives.

That was truly humbling. At its peak, union with helping over 1/4 of a million people, a year, back into learning. And I hope our new government will restore the support government will restore the support that made that possible. During my time at the TUC, I also served on the court of the directors of the Bank of England, and the dedicated leadership of the Noble Lord King of Lothbury. That brought me up close to the global financial crisis of 2,000 and, 2009, with all the terrifying risks to the fabric of our financial system.

Since leaving the TUC I have been fortunate to serve on the boards of Transport for London, the financial services culture board and Openreach, each with hugely important public interest permissions. And from each other which I have learnt a great deal. I was proud to chair ACAS, for six years, it does such important work, often behind the scenes, in resolving so many difficult disputes. My time as a trustee of the Mountview Academy of Theatre arts has also been a delight, dedicated as it is to opening up the hugely successful education and professional training it provides to young people, from all backgrounds, so delivering opportunities to make the careers that their talent deserves.

Now, as I embark on this new chapter, I am sure that I will again have an opportunity to learn many new lessons, from noble Lords and ladies, in all parts of the House. And from the dedicated staff, who have all given me such a warm and kind welcome, for which I want to thank them are most sincerely. I look forward to this next phase of my lifelong learning journey.
13:55
Lord Monks Portrait Lord Monks (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, it is a real pleasure for me to follow that excellent and inspiring speech, by Mike noble friends and my fellow Lancastrian, the northern bit at the moment. I will join in with that. Lord Barber comes, as he says, from Ainsdale, an area with famous golf courses. Where I think it can be said he had a misspent youth. Very good goal for when his new in the permits it. --

**** Possible New Speaker ****

New ni permits it. Represents a reunion for both of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Represents a reunion for both of us. Because we've been friends and colleagues for about 50 years, 30 of those spent at the TUC. We rarely fell out,, maybe football from time fell out,, maybe football from time to time. A fan of Everton, which I to time. A fan of Everton, which I never understood. I was extremely pleased to see Brendan succeed to me, all those years ago as a CUC general secretary. And for him then to flourish in that particular role.

And with this wide regard and respect, which is reflected in the different things he has done in his career. His determination, calmness, courtesy have long been a hallmarks and I'm sure it will be widely perceived within this House, when you get to know him a little better. And the range of tough jobs that he has done and turned to him for help in tricky situations is very impressive. You are looking at a stellar career that spans the private, public and voluntary sectors.

That first speech was excellent and the House can look forward to many more, from Mike noble friends, as we do from Baroness Elliott. Who gave a very warm speech I thought, which will have gone down even well with the non-Sunderland supporters. Turning now, perhaps to the subject of the day, the Horizon scandal is perhaps the worst of British scandal, in my lifetime. As here we had a respected, prestigious public body, persecuting many innocent victims, in what ultimately was a futile attempt at a cover-up.

It went on for years, it is still goes on. People have lost their livelihood, their savings and in some cases the freedom of their lives. The pressure they have been put under. And all down to a dodgy, faulty computer system and an unwillingness to admit system and an unwillingness to admit a big mistake has been made. As I said it is not over yet, compensation schemes are in place, but criticised for being too slow, Fujitsu are still dragging their feet and actually not paying up.

The point that has been pursued by Lord Arbuthnot and others about the Ernst & Young role and all of the auditors are white washing of the accounts at the post office have reminded me of the post office have reminded me of what happens in the wake of the Enron scandal, which was a scandal of a similar scale, in some respects. Where it was actually the auditors who paid a very heavy price. You remember Mark and Andersson. That was the end of Arthur Andersen at that time.

I'm not saying the Ernst & Young are in that position, but they need to come clean and make some contribution to what is going on, because they share the guilt, in my opinion about what is being going on. We need, generally to finish this saga and put it behind us. I just want to ask the Minister, a couple of things, really, is that the government yet drawn any conclusions from the initial reaction to the Green Paper on the future of the Post Office? And how this can be used to ensure that none of these things that have been happening, these terrible things that the been happening can happen again.

I recognise that the government's contribution to deliver compensation and we all, by the way, paid tribute today to the doughty campaigners, Sir Alan Bates and his colleagues, as well as colleagues, like Lord Beamish and Lord Arbuthnot, who brought all of this to light. I add my tribute to them, as this House think has done it many times, for the role that they have played in a bin instead fast and determined to see these enormous determined to see these enormous They were a product of a damage culture, with the emphasis of being defensive, opposition to anybody who looks like a whistleblower, and feeling post office Mac was that victim rather than it was causing victims.

It was deep-rooted and I'm interested in what can be done to make sure that this culture is completely eradicated, because many of the people still there, will remain there I guess, they have not done any criminal wrongs individually, even if the corporate story is so bad. So what can be done to make sure the culture is repaired, changed, and we get post office which was laughed and respected, forward competence and openness, but at the moment is being reviled by significant section of our community.

A final point I want to touch on, my Lords, is can the Minister today tell us anything about how many convictions have been quashed and how many have received their due compensation? Including in relation to captcha, the luminary scheme that was around earlier than this horizon particular system. Let's see a determined effort to close this shameful chapter in the history of the Post Office. It's long overdue that we do and as a nation we can put it behind us.
14:02
Earl of Erroll Portrait The Earl of Erroll (Crossbench)
-
-
My Lords, I must thank noble Lord Lord Beamish very much for bringing forward this debate because it has worried me for a long time and I can remember the great campaign by the noble Lord order but not physically and others, in the Commons, and for some of us here, we knew we were getting nowhere and we were labelled as nutters and after a while we wanted to get on with other things that were important. Just had to give up. I'm delighted he never did.

And finally we're getting there. As the noble Lord Lord Beamish said, the problems did start years ago with the ICL captcha system and the path project to computerised P computerised, and it started going on early on because I can remember Parliamentary visit down to ICL, and among other things, horizon, I don't know what it was called then, showed us the thing and said, sadly it doesn't work and we are going to knock it on the head. Well, soon after that, Fujitsu took over and suddenly it appeared in the Post Office I was very surprised when this new Horizon system appeared because a couple of years earlier I knew it was not working.

A lot of people were taken off the pathway project and therefore then worked on the millennium bug in order to make sure that the take the country down, and it didn't. Very often, it infuriates me when people say, the millennium bug, so much money wasted on it. Actually it wasn't. The reason thing didn't go on is that people pre-emptively sorted out the software and so things didn't happen, go wrong at midnight. Actually in a way it's a lesson, you need to have lots of good failures To To lots To lots of To lots of errors, To lots of errors, a To lots of errors, a lot To lots of errors, a lot of To lots of errors, a lot of time trying to sort them out, very often I believe not really working.

There's another problem in the system which you do get in large organisations, you get it everywhere, which is confirmation bias. For a long time the security side of the Post Office was showed that with the amount of cash sloshing around, there must be some postmasters out there who are pocketing some of it. So when the Horizon system said yes they are, they said there, we are proven right. And so they are going to believe Horizon was right and not the others.

This is the problem with large organisations. You get these attitudes in there. They don't show forwards very easily. So Fujitsu knew the software problems. And told They are a PFI contract and therefore they have a duty of plant confidentiality, are not allowed to talk anywhere outside so therefore none of this is meant to leak. The Post Office were being told the, and also by others, maybe they were corrupt but they didn't think about it very hard or were investigated properly. Auditors are all very well but if they are investigating stuff they don't know and understand, it's quite tricky because they don't know what they're looking at.

And the other thing I should think this is my theory, having dealt with software in the past, I've noticed that the large auditing companies don't understand cash-based accounting. They work on other accounting. You have little accounts, you have control accounts between your sales and accounts and your main nominal account, for pushing things in and they can tamper with them. And you can't on cash basis accounts because the other side of your central banking which has got, which tells you where the money is, in the cash system is the individual postmasters account.

If you tamper with one it tampers with the other. The people doing the tempering problem realised that but won't listen to so you have the big problem of not understanding and certainly I have discovered the auditors don't understand cash accounts. I have this trouble in other small businesses. So it's a ring of failures of understanding, listening, looking at the problem roughly. And it's sad. I do think though that the problem really lies in the 100 people telling lies somewhere down the line.

And those lies must have surfaced in some of the evidence given to the courts. There must have been people giving evidence to the course or briefing the lawyers who were not telling the truth. In which case they are guilty of perjury. The only way of stopping this in the future is to prosecute some people for perjury. There must be somebody in the Post Office, I don't know what happened, but I don't see why we can't investigate and look at who briefed who with what, in order to conceal the truth.

We should look also at how good the expert witnesses. I don't know who the court is relying on, in the early days physically now being told the systems worked. And so you have got to be very careful, we have had problems with expert witnesses in other areas as well. I do think the courts need to start thinking about it. Another point to make, barristers and expert witnesses oh their first duty to the courts, not to the clients. And I do think sometimes our legal profession should think about that.

Quite fiercely. That's how you get the huge miscarriages of doshas. The largely aquatic organisations often like to conceal things that don't go right. Years ago I remember trying to get large part of, I bet not say who, on organisation to adopt software which was good at tracking all the stuff, who had done what and what went wrong, everything like what went wrong, everything like that. Oh no, we can't have that. The first rule is that if you first you don't succeed, you have tried.

Enough of this cynicism. The sad thing about it is, what happened to the postmasters and mysteries. It was dreadful. A lot of people colluded to hide it. Personally I would like to see some heads rolled. Fujitsu made a lot of money out of the contract, so don't see why it shouldn't up the anti towards it. I think the Post Office has to as well, they are hugely responsible for the whole thing. They only duty of care to the postmasters and of care to the postmasters and postmistress.

-- They only duty of care. I would like to see some heads roll for lying to the court. It worries me when our court system is not working like that.
14:10
Lord Sikka Portrait Lord Sikka (Labour)
-
-
I thank the noble Lord Beamish for securing this debate. And I also congratulate the noble Lord a noble Lady for their wonderful maiden speeches and look forward to working with them. Survivors of the Post Office scandal have already suffered enough. The slowness and adversarial nature of the compensation schemes is simply adding another layer to the cruelty they have already suffered. So I have a number of questions for the Minister. Can the Minister explain why some claims are being minimised to as little as 5% what they have been fully prepared by financial assessors? Why aren't the claimants being asked repeatedly Have Have to Have to wait Have to wait for Have to wait for their Have to wait for their first Have to wait for their first offer before qualifying for any help? Can the Minister explain why 92-year-old Betty Brown is still waiting for compensation after the Minister pledged that he would find a solution six weeks ago? My Lords, we are seeing scandals within scandals.

There is the tragic case of Mrs, a There is the tragic case of Mrs, a woman who I met last December at a seminar. Under pressure from the Post Office in 2005 her husband committed suicide. No wrongdoing was subsequently established. In summer 2020, she applied for compensation under the age assistance scheme, in November 2023, her application was refused. Because the company through which her husband contracted for his Post Office had actually gone into liquidation.

And her losses in the Post Office 's view didn't for within the terms of the shortfall compensation scheme. Can I urge the Minister to meet this lady and examine this case in detail? Because justice must be seen to be done. As has already been mentioned, the cost of compensation must not. Only on the public purse. So can the Minister explain what claims have been made against the directors and officers insurance taken out by the Post Office.

And then there is the question about Fujitsu. It played an active part in prosecution of innocent postmasters and perverted the course of justice. But it hasn't returned even a penny of the fees that it collected over the years from the Post Office. Even worse, the company is currently bidding for a new £370 million government contract and it is confident that it would be able to renew its contract with HMRC, which was worth £240 million when last signed in 2020. Can the Minister explain why Fujitsu continues to be indulged and why despite massive evidence it has not been prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and why has it not been forced to make any contribution, it should really bear as has already been said at least 50% of all the compensation which is to be paid.

-- It should bear. Has the government had any conversation with Fujitsu about funding lost chances, that is a charity set up to assist children whose parents were impacted by the Post Office scandal. From September 2024 report, we know that horizon's predecessor, the captcha system, which was operated from 1992 to 1999, was also flawed. from 1992 to 1999, was also flawed. And government is committed to redressing the affected postmasters. The point here is that ants and young were the external auditors of Post Office from 1986 to 2018 -- Ernst and Young.

The entire period of the captcha and horizon scandals. The publicly available evidence shows that the firm knew the floors. It could not have carried out effective evaluation of internal controls and satisfied itself of the Post Office 's accounting records. All that it directors were able to prepare true and fair statutory financial statements. Auditors did not qualify the Post Office accounts which did not contain any provisions for contingent liabilities arising from long for prosecutions, which are now falling on the public purse.

On 11th February, 2025, in reply to a call from the noble Lord are but not for an enquiry into the conduct of Ernst & Young, Baroness Gustafsson told the House " I look forward to ultimately hearing the outcome from FRC". Implying that the regulator is looking at it. Can the Minister tell the House whether the government has formally asked for financial reporting Council to investigate accountants in involved with the Post Office? When was the request as you made? What is the scope of that request? And stand young were auditors for the whole duration of the captcha and horizon scandals -- Ernst and Young.

Therefore all of those audits need to be re-examined by an enquiry. As the government asked the FRC to look at the conduct of delight? And Price I I wish I wish now I wish now to I wish now to ask I wish now to ask some I wish now to ask some questions about the 61 or more prosecutions of postmasters by DWP, for alleged frauds, none of which has actually been quashed. These prosecutions took place, mostly between the year 2,000 and 2006.

The government's position is that these were not connected with the failings of the Horizon system. Well, they certainly took place, when there was a conspiracy of silence and cover-up, by the Post Office, the state and government officials. To accuse someone of fraud there is a presupposition that the underlying accounting records are 100% correct. We know that Horizon capture manual accounting systems used before that, all of these systems were flawed. We know that sub-postmasters were given a minimal accounting training.

So the question for the Minister is, what did the DWP actually used as a benchmark, in order to say that somebody committed fraud and how did it know that that benchmark was actually reliable? I have not seen any evidence to support that. The cases were handled by DWP solicitors who would then instruct counsel to who would then instruct counsel to represent the DWP at court. Too many sub-postmasters are facing the full might after state, without any legal aid or advice to plead guilty, to a fraud, which they insist they never actually committed.

Sadly, many have since passed away. Their families have long sought to clear their names. Since the date after convictions, since the date of these are DWP convictions, court transcripts and bundles of evidence relating to those convictions have been destroyed. DWP has been able to provide any transcript to back up its consistency that this was correct. How sound could these convictions have been? We have to remember before the 2019 a High Court case, other Alan Bates versus the post.

The rest, as they say is history. We need an independent inquiry. I pursued this with the Minister on 24 July and the Minister's reply, if I may read out, it said, "On the individuals and the question on whether there should be an independent inquiry, we believe that the best way to deal with this issue now is through the current arrangements, being set up, rather than by having another third party involved. I am sure that all these matters will be taken into account and meet your recommendations.

The problem here is a Sir Wyn Williams did not consider the DW prosecution to be part of his remit. I'm sure the Minister is committed to securing justice for all and I would encourage her now to revisit this issue and commission and inquiry. We can only win justice and that is highly desirable.
14:20
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I congratulate Lord Beamish for securing this timely debate and I echo credit to the postmasters for the decades along a search for justice. My noble friend Lady Ludford highlighted Nick Wallace who is reporting over decades, expose what is happening to many of the public. I also want to pay tribute to many solicitors and barristers who worked with the victims, over the years as well, long before they were listened to 2. It is a pleasure to follow Lord Sikka, who highlighted the delays and attempts to minimise compensation, despite agreed routes to compensation.

This is a key issue and he is right that this is a further scandals within scandals. I also want to congratulate the two new peers on their maiden speeches. Lady Elliot of Whitburn they talked about the lack of progress of the compensation scheme. She is right and even though there is some progress we have -- as we have heard in this excellent debate, there are certainly problems and particularly snaillike reviews of complex cases in particular. Lord Barber of Ainsdale brings his wealth of experience in the trade union movement and supporting a miscarriage of justice.

He highlighted how, with absolute impunity employs could mistreat staff. He has been and I'm sure will continue to be an exceptional advocate for workers in the trade union movement. I also agree about skills. As a former director of USI, I work closely with the union then. I believe they are transformational and I hope that work can be resurrected. From these ventures we welcome both new peers and look forward to their contributions to your Lordships' House. My Lords, just over a year ago, the country was reeling from the exceptional ITV drama, I miss brought to the -- Mr Bates vs the Post Office.

Earlier on we focused on this debate, taking some of the other issue specifically to Fujitsu. Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Beamish whose constituents have been effective have a lead the campaign for many years inside Parliament on these issues. And continue to lead the debate. The speeches were once again a clear and progress, but on the remaining issues facing postmasters. In a February 2024, the Treasury supplementary estimate outlined the money set aside for the glow scheme and separately the value of provisions relating to the post office and indeed some other legal costs.

I looked at the Treasury supplementary estimates, for the budget, to last year. The numbers has slightly changed. Without wanting to question the Minister about exact sums, it would be useful to note 6 months on whether those estimates still hold or in light of compensation agreements we are going to have to expect further rightful compensation. Lord Arbuthnot and Lord Sikka raised the key and central issues of the Ernst & Young's audience practices. I hope that the inquiry report laid bare these failures and their practices, clean bills of hell, because they just didn't query items.

When it spoke of the Enron scandal and the role of auditors there. Cultural organisations where things go so badly wrong. Al Errol spoke about the shortcomings of two of cash accounting. My question to the Minister is what is at the government doing to ensure that organisations, whether private publicly funded understand the role of auditors and make sure they have people able to assist them and in particular the audit profession reviews what it does. We had a very helpful briefing from protect the whistleblowing charity who raised a particularly interesting point in relation to the post office contractors, the sub-postmasters who blew the whistle on the horizon scandal.

They would not have enjoyed legal protections because they are self-employed. The government uses powers to extend legal protections to self-employed contractors, as well. The small number of postmasters who were not cleared under the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Act bill has come up from a number of speakers today. In May last year, the Royal Society gave parliamentarians a briefing when we were considering that Bill, setting out the reasons that some were not included. Judicial reasoning, they would have been convicted of something else.

I remain particularly concerned about this. If the evidence for the other items was also coming from the post office and Fujitsu, why is there evidence, in those cases, suddenly valid? I do hope that this will be reviewed, particularly by the Criminal Justice System and the judiciary themselves. Because as the Law Society commented, actually it is difficult for Parliament to exist on things with the justice system. Can the Minister say how the appeal cases of those of you, cancellation for wrongful convictions is proceeding.

Doubt is being given to the substantial evidence provided, by the Post Office and Fujitsu in those convictions. There has also been a summer mention, as has elsewhere Parliament over the last year about the capture scheme, Lord Beamish said that there are certainly problems. I'm grateful that he highlighted the issues in the first place. All Errol outlines some of the technical problems with capture stop who amongst us doesn't remember dodgy phone lines, transmitting data in the '80s and 90s.

I certainly do. It is really important to see whether there are miscarriages of justice through the scheme. One of the points I kept raising, from this time last year, onwards, as we were discussing the post office arise in scheme, was what will happen when it is realised that the capture scheme victims, also deserve to have their convictions overturned. I asked then, whether or not it would be possible to amend, by regulation, the post office Horizon offences act, rather than have to start with the new legislation.

It would be dreadful to have to start all over again. I wonder if the Minister can update the House on that and also on the issues relating to the capture scheme and what the Government plans to do. We saw what was published last autumn, but it is really important we do get a speedy responses on this particular issue. Sitting behind all of this, My Lords is Fujitsu. Lord Beamish is right to highlight Fujitsu's consistent life so many years and that it was not possible to adjust horizon which Of postmasters.

Only through seeing Fujitsu staff, on the witness stand, at the inquiry, having to admit that they regularly change data, did we realise the scale of what had been happening. I echo Lord Beamish's concerns about Fujitsu silence and it continues to be important that they have not yet announced how much they will contribute to the compensation. But above all, why did the last government, after they realise what was happening and indeed the new government leave and continue to consider Fujitsu for new contracts.

Mike noble friends, Lady Ludford highlighted the omissions from Horizon's shortfall scheme and actually how the amount being used by some of the assessors, which seems to be a very concerning. I have heard these two. Can the have heard these two. Can the Minister say polack's example of the struggles, this isn't a technical issue, it is not done and dusted and it is still affecting postmasters lives, today. Lady Ludford also made the point that the post office should not be responsible for negotiating with the victims.

This also applies, by the way to other enquiries, where government department staff are often operating the compensation scheme. The Infected Blood Compensation Scheme is at least arms length, from government and therefore separate from the institutions responsible. So can I ask the Minister to having a review to see whether this might be a model for the future. One thing we do not want to see is a repeat of the long years of mistrust and problems with compensation, the speed it is being awarded at and indeed the detail of what is being awarded.
14:29
Earl of Effingham Portrait The Earl of Effingham (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the noble Lord, Lord Beamish for securing it. I greatly enjoyed hearing the noble Baroness, Lady Elliott's maiden speech and I very much look forward to hearing her contributions on it standing up for the North. We do have an opportunity to create a genuine Northern Powerhouse Rail and it would be brilliant to achieve that. It was also extremely interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Barber's maiden speech, from Ghana, ACAS, TfL, Everton Football Club, Mountview Academy, to the TUC, bringing together more than 5.5 million working people.

The noble Lord said he is looking forward to learning from his noble friends. I think your Lordships' House is equally looking forward to hearing equally looking forward to hearing It would be remiss of me not to pay a special tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot and rather than my words, please let me quote some of the many articles which highlight his amazing contribution, which resulted in a justice for postmasters. And I quote, " One of the figures who comes out of the post office scandal, with universal and unequivocal pulleys is a Lord Arbuthnot.

His actions, with purpose and forethought, that he stuck with, through the process, show the instinct and intelligence to approach this carefully and allow all sides of the opportunity to show their character, before committing to the cause, with the fire and brimstone. " And we should all be incredibly grateful that both he and the noble Lord, Lord Beamish did commit to the cause with fire and brimstone, because this was unfortunately one of the gravest miscarriages of justice in recent times. The scandal that saw honest hard-working individuals our local postmasters, wrongly accused, prosecuted and in some cases are prosecuted and in some cases are The Post Office is a pillar The Post Office is a pillar of The Post Office is a pillar of our communities and has long been a trusted institution.

But between 1999 and 2015, hundreds of postmasters faced devastating consequences due to the faults in the Horizon IT system, supplied by international which was fully incorporated into Fujitsu. These errors falsely suggested financial shortfalls, wrongful prosecutions and untold suffering. So my first question to that noble Baroness the Minister, is what measures will His Majesty's Government implement to prevent such a miscarriage of justice from occurring again in the future? The government has acknowledged this injustice and works to provide compensation with the Post Office horizon Compensation Bill being introduced to ensure victims receive full and fair will address.

And as of 31st January being introduced to ensure victims receive full and fair will address. And as of 31 January 2025, approximately £606-£3 million has been paid across multiple schemes which is part of a total £1.8 billion set aside for compensation costs. But despite these efforts, we must ask, is justice being delivered swiftly enough? The noble Baroness Lady Ludford and my noble friend Lord Polak mentioned legal complexity and speed of claims. And the business and Select Committee recently raised serious concerns about the pace and complexity of the compensation process.

While payments have increased, delays persist. The committee's report describes the process as akin to a second trial for victims. Postmasters should not have to navigate overly bureaucratic systems to receive what is rightfully theirs after what they have already been put through. The committee has stated that while redress schemes are moving faster, they are still not fast enough. So we have to ask the noble Baroness the Minister, what specific measures can be taken to accelerate these compensation payments? The recommendations put forth by the committee must also be seriously considered.

We must remove the Post Office administering any redress schemes. We must offer upfront legal advice to claimants, and we must introduced strict timelines to expedite claims. And furthermore His Majesty Official Opposition believes an independent adjudicator should oversee the process to ensure fairness with legal costs being scrutinised to prevent further exploitation of the victims. My Lords, as mentioned by the noble Lord Lord Beamish, the noble Lord Lord Arbuthnot, the noble Baroness Lady Elliott, the noble Lord Lord Hastings, noble Lord Lord Polak, and the noble Baroness Lady Brinton, Fujitsu cannot evade accountability.

The company must take financial responsibility for its role in this disaster. As the enquiry nears its conclusion, it's imperative that Fujitsu contributes meaningfully to the compensation efforts. Justice demands nothing less. The National Federation of SubPostmasters has raised concerns that progress on addressing the scandal has only been expedited due to public scrutiny and the ingoing enquiry. What will happen once the inquiry concludes, sickly regarding Fujitsu. They have suggested that Fujitsu may be delaying action in the hope of minimising its culpability and avoiding public scrutiny over its financial responsibility.

As the inquiry nears its conclusion, it is imperative that the company contribute meaningfully to the compensation efforts, so we need to ask what conversations is His Majesty's Government having with the Board of Directors at Fujitsu? My Lords, it is not just financial compensation that must be addressed. As has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Polak, the emotional racking of lives caused by this travesty must also be looked at. So we would like to know how His Majesty's Government will support effective postmasters beyond financial compensation to help them rebuild their lives.

Achieving justice for the victims of this scandal and ensuring that it never happens again must be the government fourth priority. When we talk about compensation, we have to remember that the lives of the postmasters and their families. In this scandal have been changed forever. They have faced financial ruin. Untold personal distress. And a loss of reputation that no amount of financial compensation can ever restore. It is of paramount importance that we recognise we have a clear more duty to write those wrongs with the best of ability.

His Majesty government must set out a plan to how they will notify eligible postmasters of compensation and we have to ask what steps will they take to ensure affected individuals are reached? And finally, please allow me to quote the noble Baroness lady fruit, a hugely respected veteran of both the other place and your Lordship's House -- Baroness LEA default. He spoke with great authority when she challenged His Majesty's Government in a similar topic and the same applies here for all of the postmasters who deserve compensation.

And I quote " the government machine needs to get more of a move on than it usually does in these matters. Will the noble Baroness the Minister take up as her motto, quite often heard in the streets, when do we want it, we wanted now, please.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly I would like to
14:38
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, firstly I would like to welcome my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale and my noble friend lady of Ainsdale and my noble friend lady Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay. And congratulate them on their maiden speech is. I'm sure this House would agree that they both bring a wealth of experience, particularly when speaking up for working people, and I look forward to working closely with them as they navigate their way through our shared UK growth missions. And my noble friend Baroness Elliott will be, I'm sure the House agrees, and important Northern voice in this chamber.

And I'm sure the House will also agree that we will all benefit from the noble Lord Lord Barber's experience and arbitration and conciliation. We have a lot to learn from him. I'm pleased to respond for the government and I thank noble Lord for bringing forward this motion and allowing us to debate this very important issue. I do pay tribute to the noble Lord Lord Beamish's work alongside Lord Arbuthnot as member of the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board, they have helped guide and shape the government's work in this area.

And like or -- like Lord Beamish I would like to pay tribute to Alan Bates who took the case to court and finally shut polite on the whole of the role of the Post Office in deliberately hiding the truth. And I also agree the noble Lady Baroness that certain members of the press, ITV have been mentioned, but particularly Nick Wallace played an important role in the first shining a light on this in a very dogged and determined way and brought it certainly to my attention for the first time.

I welcome this opportunity to provide an update on the progress of the horizon redress schemes, and also to discuss the contribution of food at -- Fujitsu to the cost of that scandal. It was one of the worst miscarriages of justice in this country's history. People's lives were scarred by it and it is in great importance to the new government. The number of noble Lord a very moving examples of the individuals impacted by this scandal. In their lives being torn apart as a, including Lord Polak, Lord Beamish and my noble friend Baroness Elliott.

Of course, we recognise the devastating impact that the Post Office's actions had on many postmasters lives, their families and their communities. The government remains focused in our efforts to ensure that all postmasters receive full, fair and swift redress for the terrible ordeals which they have been unjustly subject to. This is why the government has to decide around 1.8 early in pounds for redress for the 2024 /25 financial year onwards, for those postmasters affected by this previous miscarriage of justice.

This is in addition to around 200 million already paid to victims in the previous years. This is not a ceiling but an estimate. I will now turn to the progress of the redress schemes. My department published monthly updates on progress. Since the end of June last year, the total amount of redress paid to victims of the horizon scandal have more than doubled. 1409. Victims have settled their claims, approximately 662 million has been paid to 4,300 claimants.

My Lords, as we have identified there are four separate redress schemes and this is by no means ideal, but for the reasons as means ideal, but for the reasons as I think noble Lord is no historical. And I will describe separately the progress of each scheme. Starting with the horizon shortfall scheme, which covers postmasters who are not part of the Group Litigation Order do not have a criminal conviction was its run by Post Office Ltd with funding oversight and governance provided by the Department for and trade.

Approximately 350 million has been paid under the scheme. But it has delivered redress to slowly. For two reasons. Firstly the scheme received many more applications than were originally anticipated. 700, sorry, 7,000 and counting rather than a few hundred. Second, amounts are decided by a panel independent of the Post Office. This is intended to ensure fairness but makes the process slower. Combined with the huge volume of cases this has caused real problems. In March In March 2024, the Minister for postal affairs announced an optional fixed some of £75,000 to those applicants who did not wish to complete a full claim.

This has greatly accelerated progress, as well as providing speedy redress for those who accepted the offer, it is substantially shortened the queue for everyone else. The government for everyone else. The government The The material The material I The material I have The material I have seen The material I have seen seems The material I have seen seems to give credible backing. There are those who are as she sang, they're working on a contractual basis, not a consequential loss basis which is entirely different.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I hear what she is saying and hopes she has evidence she can share hopes she has evidence she can share with us. I'm not dismissing what she has said, if she has that evidence of course we will look into it because it's important that justice because it's important that justice is done. In the light of these concerns, the Minister announced in September that the government is setting up an appeal process for those postmasters who are unhappy those postmasters who are unhappy with the full assessment of their claims as recommended by the Horizon Compensation Advisory Board.

And we Compensation Advisory Board. And we expect to receive the first appeals in the spring. The government have committed to covering the reasonable costs of postmasters obtaining legal advice at each stage of the appeals. The government is also actively looking at other ways in which the pace of redress can be sped up and have been supported by recommendations from the advisory board and claimants lawyers in this board and claimants lawyers in this Post office prosecutions of the postmasters were perhaps the most reprehensible part of the scandal.

Hundred and 11 of these unfortunate for individuals have them overturned by the courts. A conviction scheme to ensure that people get their rear redress for malicious prosecution and redress. Millions of pounds has been paid under the scheme. So far 82 of 111 exonerated people have submitted full and final games for redress. In response 73 redress offers have been made in 66 accepted and paid. This scheme provides the option of an upfront for insuring us with redress is provided to those victims who do not wish to submit a full claim.

This is larger than the fixed offer in the HSS, reflecting the greater harm done to those who were convicted. As of 3 January, 58 people have chosen to accept that My Lords, the House will report widespread concern that people convicted, as a result of the scandal were not being exonerated by the courts. Often because the evidence had gone, or because they could not face a further legal fight. These people were therefore exonerated on Hamas, in Parliament in May of last year.

As of 7 February, 557 individuals, in England and Wales have been sent a letter informing them that at least one conviction, that they have had at least one conviction quashed by the act, devolved Administrations, in Scotland and Northern Ireland are running parallel exercises. In July last year, the government launched the horizon redress scheme to address the suffering of these people. I am pleased to report it has made excellent progress. Under the scheme eligible applicants are entitled to an interim payment of £200,000.

They can then opt to have their claims individually assessed or take a fixed offer of £600,000. The noble Lady Baroness Ludford said that 72% of the people, in this redress scheme have not yet been redress scheme have not yet been paid. But I would say that most of the, sorry most of the costs of redress relates to those rightly overturned by Parliament. No full claims have yet been received from those individuals. The government is not going to slow down redress when people get the full claims, we aim to make an offer within 40 working days in a 90% of all cases.

As of the As of 31 January, 383 initial interim claims had been received, of which 364 had been paid. 208 have been paid, offers or accepting payment. The target is for first offers are to be provided in response, 90% of all claims within response, 90% of all claims within 14 working days. A total of a hundred and 56 million, including interim payments has been paid to eligible claimants, under the scheme. BBC news recently said two more claimant had received their £600,000 claims.

It is very good to hear those individual cases of justice being done. Even if it initially took far too long. This brings us to the scheme, the group litigation scheme. The court order case separated in last year's ITV drama provided redress, which proved to be unequal and unfair, compared to that provided by the HSS. The GLOs scheme is intended to put that right. The scheme is delivered by the Department for Business and Trade, rather than the post office.

Last year, Sir Alan Bay to express concern that the scheme was not delivering fast enough. The Government agreed that the problem was that we were not receiving the full claims. However, these concerns have now been eased, of the 492 eligible postmasters, the department has received 408 completed claims from postmasters, eligible for the scheme. When it does receive claims, the department acts quickly. It aims to make offers in a 90% of cases, within 14 working days of receiving a completed claim.

And as of 31 January, 89% of offers were made within that target period. If any postmaster cannot resolve their redress, through such bilateral discussions, they can go to the scheme's independent panel. So far only five cases have required help from the panel. By contrast, 257 cases have been agreed, between the department and the postmaster, even in response to the first offer, or a subsequent challenge. This demonstrates that the department is making fair offers. A total of 128 million, including interim payments has been paid to post office under the gelo scheme.

And the government expects to have paid redress to the great majority of the GLO claimants by 2025. Mike noble friend Lord seeker raised the question about the DWP convictions. And I can assure my noble friend, that the Minister for transformation is looking into this. A review is being established. I hope to provide more information about that. My noble friend also raised questions about the last, lost chances to charity and a meeting has been arranged between them and my colleague Minister, Thomas.

My Lords, we have been talking about the hires and redress schemes. Also pointed out, the predecessor scheme known as the capture scheme also involves areas and bugs which affected some postmasters. We pay tribute to the tireless advocacy on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Beamish. In response, the Minister announced on 17 December last year that the government will be providing full and fair redress to those postmasters who were victims of errors and bugs in the capture program. The government will continue to discuss this work with my noble friend, Lord Beamish and will return to the House in the spring with an update.

If I now move on to Fujitsu. Fujitsu, Horizon software, the heart of the scandal, the sorry tale of its introduction has been fully explored by Sir Wyn Mears public inquiry. The government of course welcomes the moral obligation to contribute to the cost of the scandal. It continues to talk regularly to Fujitsu about this. The post office Minister will be meeting with Fujitsu CEO, Europe CEO shortly. The noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot asked if Fujitsu were in jail, would he be giving them the millions that we are currently giving them.

And it is true that Fujitsu of course have done wrong doing. We, at the moment and don't know whether it is criminal. Deciding on that, before reviewing evidence is part of what is and has caused a scandal. We should not repeat it. From their apology, Fujitsu recognise that they have a civil liability and this will be dealt with, through financial contributions, which they have promised. The noble Lord, local Lord Arbuthnot and my noble friend, Lord Monks, noble Lord and Baroness Brinton, others I think raised the issue of the Post Office auditors.

Noble Lords have referred the performance of post office auditors of the financial reporting conditions. My department also has spoken to them. They are the right people to consider this. And the government should not second-guess them. But going back to the issue of Fujitsu's contribution, that cannot be determined until we have the report, which will set out the full facts of what has happened. A number of noble Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, Lord Beamish, Lord Sikka have raised the question about the potential of an interim contribution, from Fujitsu.

I would say it is too soon to decide on Fujitsu's final contribution, to the cost of the scandal, but I do agree with noble Lord that an interim contribution would be very welcome. And a very appropriate, in the circumstances. Given that the nature of the discussions that will need to take place on Fujitsu's contributions. The government won't be giving a running commentary on them, but I can promise we will keep the House informed of progress at appropriate moments. The Horizon system is still unfortunately in place.

The new version was introduced in the late 2010's,, which at the High Court accepted with relatively robust. It is nonetheless a very in need of replacement. There can be no overnight fix for this lack of investment. We are working with the post office to secure a new system which is fit for purpose and which will not involve the Fujitsu. In the meantime, unfortunately, the post office is still dependent on the Horizon system branches. I understand that the widespread desire to see Fujitsu out of the post office picture immediately.

But the only way to achieve this would be to shut down every local post office and deny citizens of the vital services which they provide. We do not think we can do that, so Fujitsu must, for the time being remain. The Post Office has extended the contract until March 2006, but is looking to reduce their input as soon as possible -- March 2026. Recognising that the responsibility for the scandal, Fujitsu have voluntarily paused bidding for the new government contract. However the Post Office is not the only area where government needs help, which is only practical from Fujitsu.

While we agree with Fujitsu's decision not to bid for government contracts in general, there will be situations, in contracts, where they do need to be extended or new ones be done. Generally or in connection with existing services. We of course understand why that is undesirable. But, it is only being done because, at the moment there are no viable alternatives. There have been allegations in the media, seeking and receiving contracts, beyond those limits. I assure the House that this is not the case.

The Crown representative and his team at the Cabinet office, who are overseeing all of the government's dealings with Fujitsu are keeping a close watch on the situation. I agree with all noble Lords, individuals and companies responsible for the horizon scandal must be held to account. The Metropolitan police are keeping a close eye on the Williams inquiry and how the number of staff working on this. The noble Lord, asked about law processes. Their involvement. The solicitors regulation authority have said that they have more than 20 live investigations, internet solicitors, relating to the scandal.

There are other channels of accountability too. And all of these need to be investigated in due course. My noble friend, Lord Monks, raised the question of the whole scale culture change needed at the Post Office. My noble friend a Lord Sikka raised specific questions about the culpability of the directors. This will all be covered in Sir William's report, which will establish what happened, what went wrong and why. Going forward, Lord Beamish raised the question about an independent body... body...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I apologise to the Minister. I know she has a lot of questions to answer. No doubt she will send detailed replies. Just two matters. One was at the case of a 92-year-old One was at the case of a 92-year-old Betty Brown, who despite promises from the Minister six weeks ago still is waiting for her still is waiting for her compensation. Secondly I said would the Minister meet me and let Mrs the Minister meet me and let Mrs Gary, and Jack Hun Sen who have been Gary, and Jack Hun Sen who have been refused any compensation.

Her husband committed suicide under pressure from Post Office allegations. Would she be good enough to metres, please?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I was going to go on to say that a number of noble Lords have asked a number of noble Lords have asked very specific questions and I will of course write. I just want to deal very, very quickly with the idea very, very quickly with the idea that there should be an independent that there should be an independent body for redress in the future. That is certainly something we are looking at in the future and that is looking at in the future and that is a very helpful suggestion that has come forward.

I think from the come forward. I think from the horizon, advisory Board. Horizon was a terrible scandal. It is right that we should continue to keep it in our minds, through debates like this. The government is determined to learn the lessons from it, which is why it's report will be so important, to deliver a full and fair compensation as quickly as possible to those postmasters who were so unjustly used. I thank noble Lords for this, what I think has Lords for this, what I think has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Lourdes. I am grateful

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you, Lourdes. I am grateful for the contribution today from noble Lords. We have had an important debate. The important
15:01
Lord Beamish Portrait Lord Beamish (Labour)
-
-
important debate. The important thing in the scandal I have recognised over the low -- Over the years, that people don't forget the gravity of what we are facing. In terms of contributions, I would like to pick up one point that Lord Hastings made, and that is the issues around the judiciary. The Minister's reply talked about solicitors, but I think the noble Lord and myself, I would agree with him, we talk about the judiciary as an institution. Because when the last government overturned the convictions, there was a huge cry from the judicial establishment.

How terrible it was that this took terrible it was that this took place. But, you should read some of the transcripts of the court cases and the role of judges. The one that sticks in my mind is actually his case, the capture case. Where her crustaceans that capture was the problem is completely ignored and thrown out by the judge, who was not even to hear the consideration. So, although there is cases being taken against solicitors, I think the judiciary need to have a look at their role in this, because there is no way this could have happened without very few enquiring minds to ask.

And I would ask the Department of Justice to perhaps look at that. I think in terms of the role of auditors, that is unfinished business. And I am sorry, I don't accept it good enough for the government to say it is down to the regulator to look at that. And it is a point that kept being asked over the years by many sub-postmasters, what happened to their money? They didn't know where the money was in the system, even though signed off.

Paying others millions of pounds for their advice. Now, I understand the government's position, in terms of others wanting to wait for the Sir Wyn Williams report to be published, but I think it is being used as an excuse. Most of the information is out there now. Certainly in Fujitsu's case, it is therefore they have admitted to their role in this. I do welcome the Minister's support for my suggestion that Fujitsu should support and pay interim payment. And I just hope that when the Minister Thomas does meet Fujitsu, he makes that strongly, but can I urge when the Secretary of State visits Japan next month that he doesn't raise that directly with the board in Tokyo.

At the end of the day, I think the contributor today, which I think got to the heart of it, was Lord Hollick's point, it was a human story. We have all got those coming if you have met many of the victims, you can replicate those human stories. At the end of the day, this is about individuals who, again, were hard- working, solid citizens. They were pillars of their local community and were absolutely devastated and ruined by these acts against them.

I think in closing, what I would say is this. Compensation is important, changing systems is important, but we should all remember, at the end of the day, when the state gets things wrong, it is the citizens, the personal individuals referred to, like Rita, the Lord Hollick referred to, have gone through hell

**** Possible New Speaker ****

for the last few decades, it is those people we should be thinking about. The question is this motion be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is this motion be agreed to. As many as are of that agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", control opinion, say, "Content", control contentment. We will wait for -- The contentment. We will wait for -- The contents have it. We will wait to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Question Question for Question for short Question for short debate. Progress to reduce the number of
15:05
None Portrait Short debate: Reducing the number of British citizens being held by the Iranian regime
-

Progress to reduce the number of British citizens held by the radian regime.
15:05
Lord Bishop of Chelmsford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford (Bishops)
-
-
My Lords, I'm grateful to be allocated for this time, to be allocated for this debate, and I look forward to the range of contributions, as well as the response from the noble Lord, the Minister. I must first declare my personal interest in the subject. I come originally from Iran, I was born in the beautiful and historic city of Esther Han and I left with the family, after the a revolution of the small church community we were part of and in particular, the attempt on my father's life and the murder of my 24-year-old brother.

As I have said before in this chamber, none of this has left me with ill will towards my homeland. But rather a profound sense of sadness at its current plight. I retain a deep love for Iran, its beauty and its ancient civilisation. And I have great respect for my fellow countryfolk. Many of whom suffer in an increasingly tolerable -- Intolerable situation or find themselves part of the growing diaspora community. I hope one day to travel back to Iran myself. But for now, this is not possible, because of the current regime.

Many in Iran feel trapped. They are desperately seeking political change but they face stark choices. Submit to the unbearable strictures imposed on everyday life. Attempts to leave. Or risk the realities of brutal and crushing suppression. The situation is intolerable, under a regime that has persecuted, imprisoned, has persecuted, imprisoned, tortured, and killed so many people. Noble Lords will be aware of the plight of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. I am sure His Majesty's government is doing all they can to secure their release.

And as this is an extremely sensitive situation, I will refrain from commenting on their particular case further. Other than to say my thoughts and prayers are with the foremans and their family at this time. Unfortunately the Forms -- The Performance are not the first to be held captive in Iran and I am sure they will not be the last. While the advice is clear, I ask the Minister, is there anything more that can be done to communicate this advice to those working in the travel sector.

So that they can advise prospective travellers of the very real risks. I also respectfully ask the Minister if he is willing to acknowledge the reality that these detainees are, to all intents and purposes, hostages. Let us call this situation out for what it is. Other countries, such as France, are willing to do so and I cannot help thinking that the more that European, and indeed other countries, speak, as well as act, with one of, the greater the pressure on Iran to change its approach.

There are many foreign or dual nationals languishing in Iran's jails. Typically arrested on spurious allegations and denied access to a fair and free trial. Contrary to international law. There have been least 66 foreign individuals detained, held hostage, by Iranian authorities, since 2010. 16 of whom have had either British or dual nationality. Highly unjust detention of Nazanin Zaghari- Ratcliffe was testament to Iran's disregard for human rights and except for the callous and cruel way which the regime continues to treat foreigners as well as its own citizens.

Tenacity, honesty, devotion and dignity, from Richard Ratcliff's fight for his wife's relief, and from Nazanin herself since her return for and I pay tribute to them both and thank them for their friendship. As much as I welcomed HMG's efforts in that case, the long and painful process illustrated that securing the release of nationals or dual nationals is never straightforward. Religious minorities as well are systematically persecuted in Iran. And religious freedom is severely curtailed for everyone, except Persian speaking shears.

Having said that, basic civil and political restrictions impact the vast majority of the population. The questions of who have converted from Islam are among the most vulnerable to prosecution. They are regularly arrested and can face lengthy imprisonment on bogus charges when acting against national-security. I'm also acutely aware that the now tiny Anglican community in Iran has still not been allowed to reopen their church buildings since they were closed during the pandemic. The pressure and the uncertainty about their future grows daily, even as numbers continue to dwindle.

While this is not just a debate about religious freedom, it is incumbent on all of us to stand up, speak out, and defend the freedom of religion or belief wherever we can. This freedom is essential for all individuals and societies to flourish and it is the cornerstone on which all human rights are supported. So, in a dangerous world, Iran presents a threat from many angles. Threats that reach out across the globe and affect British national security. The longer the regime stays in power, the longer they can carry on suppressing their own people and being a destabilising presence in the Middle East and more widely.

I urge the government to work as much as it can in harmony with other nations who also have hostages held in Iran. To campaign for the release of all foreign and dual nationals currently in the House that HMG will do everything they can to make sure they are represented at the Foremans upcoming trial. The right of any government under international law, but one which Iran has been known to deny. I'm very grateful indeed to be able to highlight this case today and tonight of all those experiencing oppression in Iran.

I pray for the release of all British and the dual nationals who have arbitrarily been arrested in Iran and for all of those who are suffering oppression because of the regime. And I pray as well for better days ahead, for Iran and for Iranians.
15:13
Baroness Northover Portrait Baroness Northover (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I thank The Right Reverend Prelate for securing this debate and for her introduction to it. And she has of course very personal knowledge, as she said, of this regime. As she notes, I knew her brother when we were both students together, and I remember still his return to Iran, thinking he was safe. It was with a sinking heart I learnt about these new cases in Iran. The battles we have had over Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, wrongly detained over so many years, seemed to go on forever.

I am sure that she and her family thought the same. It is very clear that Iran was using her as a pawn, hostage, to secure what they wished. And the same was clearly true of Anoosheh Ashoori. As was also the case with citizens in other countries. And as the noble Lady has said, those in Iran are themselves under great Iran are themselves under great pressure. We are very glad that the dual nationals were finally released, but they lost years of their lives.

We were always told publicity did not help, and to leave this to the diplomats, but it was Richard Ratcliff's efforts that brought his wife home. It seems that we do not know how many British nationals, including dual nationals, are being detained in Iran. However, as the noble Lady has said, there may have been over 60 foreign and dual nationals detained there since 2010. 16 of whom apparently either had British or dual British nationality. And could the noble Lord update us on the numbers of British citizens they believe are currently detained there.

The Iranians standardly accuse those they have detained of spying. Now we have the cases of Craig and Lindsay Foreman. Tourists who trusted they could safely explore the wonders of Iran on their journey to Australia. The FCDO rightly advises against such travel but one supposes people may think they are just ordinary citizens. The Iranians are friendly people, socially they will be of no interest to the country's leaders. But innocent citizens can still be seen as useful pawns to such a regime.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention has considered several cases in recent years. Identifying " Systemic arbitrary detention in Iran" As describing this as a serious violation of We know that Iran has been under serious pressure in the current conflict as have their proxies in neighbouring areas, seizing innocent citizens of other countries may seem to them an easy way of securing leverage. Can I ask the noble Lord the Minister for not date on the Canadian led initiative, which we have discussed before, which he was involved in discussing, which seeks to tackle such hostagetaking by regimes.

I note this has now been endorsed by 80 countries but what actions are recommended and what strategies are proposed? There is always the tension, ransom is paid in whatever way can encourage the further taking of hostages. Other countries, though, go about the release of their citizens differently from the approach of the UK. When we were talking about this case, as the noble Lord the Minister will doubtless remember, there was discussion of the use of sanctions against individuals who have played a part in her detention.

Without going into particular sanctions, is this a route he still regards with favour? We knew that the revolution regard withdrew the taking of hostages. As the cases dragged on in Iran, the foreign affairs select committee enquired in 2023 into such hostagetaking. They criticised the then government for being too slow then government for being too slow or entirely unwilling to call out countries hostagetaking. They recommended the appointment of a directive for arbitrary and complex detentions to advocate for detainees and their families.

Other than government rejected this proposal. However, the new government in its manifesto stated that it would strengthen support for British nationals abroad. They also promised to introduce a new legal right to consular assistance in the cases of rights violations, something which has been advocated for. The noble Lord tell us when this will be introduced? In November last year, the Foreign Secretary said he hoped to announce the appointment of a special envoy for complex detention cases. However, he could not give a date for this.

Several months on, will the noble Lord the Minister facing this debate now announce this? Clearly, in the latest case, because these are not dual nationals, the UK should be better able to get consular access, something which Iran denies to deal -- dual nationals. We are in a world where the allies on whom we thought we could rely are now aligned with those we identify as a threat to global stability. It's a topsy-turvy world. Perhaps, that is to warm a description.

As international order is under threat, our citizens, as well as the national citizens of Iran that we've heard about are potentially at greater risk. I look forward to the noble Lord the Minister's response to how the new

**** Possible New Speaker ****

government is addressing this. I'd like to thank my noble friend, Right Reverend Prelate,
15:20
Lord Bishop of St Albans Portrait The Lord Bishop of St Albans (Bishops)
-
-
friend, Right Reverend Prelate, Archbishop of Chelmsford, for tabling this debate and for the sensitive way in which he has introduced it. I'd like to send my best wishes and prayers and my thanks to the Minister and all those officials were working so hard behind the scenes on this matter. I extend my thanks also to the ambassador in Tehran and all those working at the embassy. I'm sure they are doing all they can to resolve this desperately sad situation.

Picking up on some of the comments that the noble Baroness has just made, I welcome the government's plan to create a For further support for British nationals detained overseas. I look forward to hearing further details on this. I wonder as well if I could ask the noble of the Minister when the government intends to introduce that legal right that has already been referred to to consular access promised in the Labour Party manifesto. I believe that would be an important and crucial step in strengthening our potential.

My colleague knows better than me the suffering of those under the Iran regime. In 2024, there were at least 901 executions, including 40 in a single week in December. There has been an increased number of women who have been executed. The use of the death penalty and politically motivated executions are truly harrowing. I recently raised with His Majesty's Government the cases of six Iranian men accused of armed rebellion against the state, all of whom have been sent since -- sentenced to death.

I also urge the Minister and his colleagues to do all they can to intervene in the cases where there is imminent risk of execution. Broader issues of nuclear weapons and armament are not my areas of expertise at all but what I've seen recently with regard to China support for Iran has cost me deep concern. An increasingly desperate Iranian regime is an increasingly dangerous one. Is facing civil unrest on home to feed has bowler and setbacks because of Israel -- has bowler -- -- Hezbollah.

I fully appreciate that the noble Lord the Minister might not be able to comment on some of the details on -- of future sanctions or the foreman's case. I understand that. I'm grateful for all he is doing. I'd like to conclude by urging we continue to do all we can as a nation to stand up for both international human rights around the world.
15:23
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I congratulate the Bishop of Chelmsford for securing this debate and for her clear exposition of the problem facing British nationals in Iran. It's a pleasure to follow the Bishop of Saint Albans who has slightly broadened the debate but it is actually relevant that he did so. The Bishop of Chelmsford spoke movingly of her own family's experience and her brother's death and having to flee the regime in Iran. That regime has doubled down on its infamous and bloody approach to human rights.

As chair of the Human Rights Committee, I attended last week the opening meeting of the UN Human Rights Committee. On the following day, the annual Geneva summit on human rights and democracy where we heard about many appalling practices of the Iranian government and heard a moving testimony of the sister someone sentenced to death for posting lies on Instagram. He called out corruption by local called out corruption by local officials. She cited 150 Iranians shot during the November demonstrations and thousands imprisoned like her brother and sentenced to death.

We also heard of 15 being sentenced to death and executed which is clearly illegal under international law. I start with this example to reinforce the point that Iranian treatment of British nationals is not out of character with their barbaric human rights record. It is clear from evidence over the years that their behaviour of arresting foreign nationals and accusing them of spying is a standard tool for state kidnapping of foreigners to be able to use them to black other countries. -- Blackmail other countries.

Most recent detention of Craig and Nardin -- Nancy Foreman is the most recent example. Was appreciating that the foreign office has advised against travelling to Iran because of British and British Iranian nationals are at significant risk of arrest, questioning or detention, can the Minister say what high-level representations are being high-level representations are being made to help these two people swiftly so that their detention is brief? And this is because we know that in recent years, Iran has arrested dozens of Iranians with dual nationality or foreign permanent residency, mostly on spying and national security charges, of whom at least 15 have had links to the UK.

They include others already spoken about. As Lady Northover has said, Richard Radcliffe's campaign was absolutely outstanding despite government and knows -- advice not to say anything. -- Advice not to say anything. She was released after years of isolation. It's now clear that Iran used this to the average for the debt for an order of tanks that was cancelled shortly after the 1979 Islamic revolution. Then foreign secretary in 2022, Liz Truss, confirmed that the debt issue had been resolved after highly complex negotiations.

She said then that the money could only be used for humanitarian goods purposes. Can the Minister confirm whether this has actually happened? Another English National remains in prison after spurious convictions. In his case, he was arrested in 2020 and remains in solitary confinement in valuation -- in violation with torture and ill-treatment. -- In violation of human rights with torture and ill- The different approach that the UK takes in these cases, compared to the UK, Canada, friends and others.

UK and US national was first arrested in 2019 and jailed. He was born in London and holds both British and US citizenship. He is the founder of the Persian Wildlife Heritage Foundation. He was released Heritage Foundation. He was released in March 2022 was then rearrested. Public pressure from the campaign group Bring Our Family's Home ensured that US negotiators were able to have him released as part of the US Iranian police remand prisoner release scheme. -- US Iranian prisoner release scheme.

Can the Minister say if the new government is going to review this practice? Finally, what pressure is the government putting on the Iranian government both via the UN but also directly to stop these abhorrent practices of kidnapping individuals, not just against British nationals but also to Iranian citizens as well?
15:29
Lord Purvis of Tweed Portrait Lord Purvis of Tweed (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
It's a real pleasure to follow my noble friend in a debate where only bishops and liberals have spoken so far. A measure of that's happened in my 12 years your. Therefore, it has a very high quality debate. In my humble opinion. Can I commend the Right Reverend Prelate for bringing this debate to us? I had the pleasure to be in the other place during her maiden speech when she spoke about her family background but also the contemporary situation with Iran and it it is absolutely right that this remains part of our proceedings and is on the top of our mind because with the tumultuous events happening in the world, we should not forget that there are, as she put it, places where people are imprisoned politically and literally in a regime that denies the basic human right that we take for granted in this country.

I command recommend Baroness Brinton on her work. -- I commend Baroness Brinton on her commend Baroness Brinton on her work. They will know there are people around the world were listening to the struggle and who are watching the regime and ultimately will take actions and therefore it is right that the Minister has been asked a number of questions about what actions the questions about what actions the The Bishop was right to refer to the extreme use of the death penalty.

There is opposition to the death penalty but the extreme nature of it should focus on democratic parliaments around the world. For those who are unable to defend themselves in the very judicial process. We have also debated on a process. We have also debated on a number of occasions align involvement of Iran in the near neighbourhood, more recently in the red Sea, Middle East but also North Africa, and initially very close to my heart, within Sudan. And we see on a daily basis the regime seeking to destabilise and fear denominations.

Turning back to the domestic situation within Iran, as has been mentioned in all of the contributions, the profoundly moving work of Richard Ratcliff, in support of Nazanin, I think has been an inspiration for anyone who has had the privilege of meeting them. And I did, with their daughter, who was getting to know her mother again, and it was on a very human scale. One of the consequences of Nazanin's attention was the fact it was a detention of a mother of a very young child.

One thing that struck me was after she was detained in 2016, there had been six foreign secretaries who had had her file on their desk and it was the difference of approach that ministerial level, which I think is led to a bit of a consensus, I hope that there should be a more systematic way that we approach those who are being denied the very basic access of services. Therefore, we support the government in its work to have an envoy for the complex cases, but also for there to be statutory underpinning for the right of access, whether human rights violations.

So I will, as others, ask the Minister to confirm that progress is being made. And what timeframe we will see legislation brought forward, so we can properly debated and ultimately supported. -- Support it. There are other measures the government can take, it is not just actions on the human rights aspect, but I debated, as the noble Lord house, around the sanctions regime. We have communicate our sanctions approach, a countrywide ability to have sanctions which are flexible and can sanctions which are flexible and can be activated immediately.

If Canada and the European Union do it. That is a point raised to me so far, that we should be working with our allies, with regard to putting more pressure on the Iranian regime. Especially when it comes to the flawed judicial processes that are abused by political regime when those individuals are detained. There are some areas where the UK could move more in regards to the judiciary in Iran. The debate we had in January last year, I asked the previous government to move in this I note that the United States, both under the Biden administration and Trumpet demonstration are seeking to exert pressure, I hope the United Kingdom will follow in that regard.

Finally, I wish to put on record, the fact that because of the influence of Iran, because of those individuals who are struggling, there are two aspects of both the previous government's policy of this government's policy. I hope that we can reflect on. There appears to be no safe and legal routes for young Iranian women if they are seeking refuge from persecution and come to the United Kingdom. We know the Iranian diaspora in the United Kingdom is a very strong and welcoming and stable, so therefore anyone persecuted in Iran would be able to seek shelter in the United Kingdom, but there is no safe and legal roof I hope the Minister might reconsider this and speak to ministers and the Home Office.

It would make a meaningful difference and provide hope for many individuals who seek the United Kingdom as potentially an area of refuge. And finally, for all of those programs that are currently scored as official development systems in the near neighbourhood countries, which are defending human rights, depending those that have been persecuted -- Defending. Promoting democracy, forsaking resilience and interference, for the very programs that we want to see in place, because they are about security for the United Kingdom.

They are now going to be slashed. I hope, for the very least, those programs, which are about National Security Act pro-democracy, we can at least protect. -- About national-security and pro-democracy.
15:36
Earl of Courtown Portrait The Earl of Courtown (Conservative)
-
-
Banuls, I would like to thank The Right Reverend Prelate for bringing this important and timely debate and also joining in other noble Lords for congratulating her on her speech, so informative, personal comments only different ways. -- In a many different ways. First and foremost, we must remember it is our duty as a nation and society to safeguard the freedoms, safety and well-being is of our citizens, wherever they may be in the world. In recent years, my Lords, Iran has arrested dozens of Iranians with dual nationality or foreign personal residency, on spying national- security charges.

At least 15 have had links to the United Kingdom. However, the most recent detentions are particularly concerning. My Lords, the Iranian regime has, as we are all too aware, a long-standing history of violating human rights. The imprisonment of British citizens is a blatant example of such behaviour. These individuals are often detained while politically motivated charges, subjected to appalling conditions and are denied their basic rights. Such actions, my Lords, must not be tolerated and we must act with urgency and secure their release.

My Lords, while we cannot ignore the broader geopolitical context, the challenges pose, for example, by Iran's nuclear ambitions, its role in destabilising the Middle East, and its continued support of militant groups across the region, we must be resolute in our commitment to ensuring the Of our systems. We must also recognise this issue is not just about diplomacy. It is about standing firm on our values. As a nation, my Lords, we believe in the principles of justice, freedom, human dignity.

When British citizens are wrongly detained by a foreign government, especially one that continues to undermine basic human rights, it is our duty to do everything we can to secure their release. My Lords, we must also ask ourselves whether stronger or more assertive actions are needed to send a clear message to Teheran that an arbitrary detention of British citizens will not be tolerated. If we are to ensure that those detained are returned to their families, we must consider all avenues.

My Lords, the government must continue to press for the release of these citizens. And we as a parliament must stand united in this call for justice. My Lords, the United Kingdom has long been champion of the rule of law and the rights of individuals across the world. And it is incumbent on us to ensure those principles are upheld at every opportunity. I was wondering if the noble Lord, the minister, could provide an update on the specific diplomatic steps the government is currently taking to secure the release of British citizens detained by the Iranian regime.

And also, as The Right Reverend Prelate mentioned, issues relating to human mentioned, issues relating to human rights in the area. What additional measures considering to strengthen international pressure on Iran, to adhere to basic human rights standards and release those held unjustly. My Lords, the baroness also mentioned, as other noble Lords did, access, control and access, and a look forward to hearing an update from the Minister on that issue. In addition, how is this Majesty's government working with international partners to prevent the detention of British citizens by hostile regimes and are there opportunities for greater cooperation to address the issue in the future.

My Lords, this has been a really interesting debate and I am really glad we are taking part in it, but I look forward in particular for hearing the response from the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

noble Lord, the Minister. My Lords, can I also say how grateful I am to The Right Reverend Prelate, the Bishop of transport, for securing this debate and for her personal reflections on her personal reflections on her birthplace. I was also, I would like birthplace. I was also, I would like to say, moved by her contribution on Desert Island, which also reflected some of those issues about what a wonderful country Iran is. And wonderful country Iran is. And sadly, been distorted by its current sadly, been distorted by its current government.

I'm grateful to all the contributions of all noble Lords. Many of whom acknowledge this area, as the Baroness Northover said, the campaigns of Richard Ratcliffe, to ensure Nazanin's release. I will try to respond to all the points made. As all the noble Lords are aware, Iran has a long history of seeking to exploit the detention of British and other foreign nationals. The regime's actions sit of course in a wider set of maligned behaviours.
15:42
15:42
15:42
Lord Collins of Highbury Portrait Lord Collins of Highbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office) (Labour)
-
-
Not least its continuing to oppress women's and girls and human rights defenders, and religious and ethnic minorities for the religious minorities, including boreholes, Christians, and Muslims, suffer Christians, and Muslims, suffer discrimination in law and practice. This includes, nations and access to education, employment, child adoption, political office, and places of worship. And the community places of worship. And the community continues to face arbitrary arrests, land exposed creation, and denial to burial rights. And face shocking sentencing and ongoing incarceration for the act of their faith.

Iran must allow every individual their right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. And with its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Since October 2022 we have sanctioned 94 individuals and entities for their human rights violations. Including decision- makers, to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, decision-makers responsible for Iran's oppressive laws and political and security officials involved in a crackdown on protesters. And of course, the United Kingdom's dedicated Special Envoy for freedom and individual belief, David Smith, has worked to promote tolerance and mutual promote tolerance and mutual respect.

Members, noble Lords have raised the horrific consistently high rate of executions which is, of course, a deliberate attempt to instil fear and stifle dissent. And of course, the United Kingdom is opposed to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle and we make very clear representations on that. And as I said, the UK has 450 sanctions in place, including designations against the Islamic Revolutionary guards and those responsible for the Iran's attack on Israel in October. On travel to Iran.

Travellers are of course at significant risk of arrest and detention in Iran, and since 22, we have used our public travel advice to advise against any travel there. Having a British passport or connections to the United Kingdom can be reason enough for the Iranian authorities to detain someone. And the Foreign Office actively promotes its free travel advice service to travellers and industry alike. And I understand travels a 28 million times a year. But we can look to see it is seen as widely as possible.

Abernathy paid tribute to The Right Reverend Prelate for the care which he has approached the subject of detention cases. They are among the most difficult, complex and sensitive handled by our officials. And of course they are enormously distressing for the families detain. For reasons that will be obvious to those familiar with the Iranian regime's behaviour, I cannot make detailed comments on individual cases. Nor can I actually sort of refer to the numbers that may be out there at the moment.

Many of the individuals involved do not want publicity but I understand, and if noble Lords wish to speak to me privately, I will try and reassure them of what we are trying to do. But I will reassure The Right Reverend Prelate that the British embassy in Taiwan is in contact with the Iranian Ministry of foreign enough about the recent case. And we will continue to raise this directly with the Iranian authorities. A specialist team from the FC DO are in frequent contact with the family providing regular updates and advice, and this case will continue advice, and this case will continue The government is committed to strengthening support for British nationals abroad.

We will introduce a new right to consular assistance in cases of human rights violations and we will soon point an envoy for the most complex detention cases. But to reassure the noble Lords, work is underway on both and we will come forward with details fairly soon. But also let me reassure Baroness Brinton as well, we are working very closely with our partners, international partners to tackle unfair detentions. And as the Baroness Northover mentioned, we signed the Canadian Declaration against Arbitrary Detention in 2021, helping protect the citizens of all countries who live and work abroad.

This is, of course, also an issue of interest and importance and I certainly welcome the creation in 2024 of the all-party Parliamentary group on arbitrary detention and hostage affairs and I will certainly work closely with them to ensure we can keep them to date with our focus. Can I just say to the noble Lord Lord Purvis, I hear what he says about overseas development assistance and certainly, let me reassure him that our first priority is security and it is the security of this nation that we have to make some difficult decisions this week.

But those decisions won't deflect from how we actually allocate and ensure that whatever assistance we give to those neighbouring countries is properly maintained. The Prime Minister also made it clear, particularly about Sudan, that will be a priority for the United Kingdom. Can I conclude by assuring

**** Possible New Speaker ****

a noble Lords that... Are very sorry to interrupt you

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are very sorry to interrupt you and I'm very grateful for giving and I'm very grateful for giving way. -- I am very sorry to interrupt way. -- I am very sorry to interrupt With regards to hostagetaking, there are other European countries were willing to do that.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

willing to do that. What I don't want to do is be drawn by using language to be considered to be referring to specific cases, I want to avoid doing that at this moment in time. I think what we are very clear in signing the Declaration, the Canadian Declaration, we are very clear about this, the growth of this policy of state detention for those sorts of purposes. Can I just conclude that supporting British nationals detained in Iran will remain an absolute priority for this government, alongside advising against travel to Iran to prevent such incidents, we will continue to strengthen our consular support globally.

And most importantly, we will work together with our international partners to build and sustain the international consensus against the use of detainees as leveraged for other purposes. -- As leveraged.
15:50
15:50
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
I am often taken aside by elderly peers as they are reluctant to marry long-term partners for fear of loss of assets. One might be surprised at the energy of the beating hearts. One should not be because the Office for National Statistics has shown that the number of so-called silver splitters, that is the first is over 65, has increased by 75% in the last 25 years and lorries are advising them to make prenuptial agreements, more commonly known as pinups.

Those who have been through a divorce ones do not want to experience the financial consequences a second time. Others decide not to remarry. Judging by the number of letters I get from members of the public were the possible issue of reform is reported, they are well aware of an intensely anxious and upset by financial provision law. That is the law about splitting assets on divorce. I've never received a letter in support of the existing law on this topic. A prenup is an agreement made between couples either before or during the manage -- marriage or civil partnership which govern the way in which their assets are to be divided in case of a divorce.

Many foreign jurisdictions expect couples to enter into such binding arrangements. They are not legally binding in England or Wales, although the Supreme Court ruled that they should be upheld if fair and freely entered into. There popular here with couples with inherited wealth or wealth acquired before marriage, couples who have children from previous relationships, foreign couples, same-sex couples and young career people who have built up assets before they marry. Various studies have tried to estimate the number of couples who do make prenup's, albeit, as I said, was no guarantee that they will be respected by the court.

The estimates vary from 13 to 38%. Pinups have become more common in the last few years. They no longer feel unromantic, unusual or just for the rich. They do not predispose to divorce, an argument used in the past. Indeed, the divorce rate is lower than ours in countries where pinups are more common. This should provide for the support of children. All of this applies equally to post nuptial agreement, that is agreements entered into during an ongoing marriage.

Couples believe these to be binding. So, what is the problem that requires reform? In summary, the Supreme Court judgement opened the door to challenges to those agreements by requiring them to be fair, a concept that lies in the fairly -- eyes of the beholding judge. This means that access judicial discretion has undermined their usefulness and has led to constant challenges to the validity of agreements which the couple, having had legal advice at the outset, believed were valid. Until advised that it might be worth attacking them when the breakup occurs in one of them wants a larger award than that provided for in the prenup.

There are many examples. The prenup. There are many examples. The case called KA and MA ended up with the wife getting 1.3 million to meet her housing costs on top of what she already agreed, with 300 to meet her housing costs on top of what she already agreed, with 300,000 and -- in legal costs. In another case, the ex-husband signed a prenup with his wife. She was the heir to the Avon cosmetics fortune. Nevertheless, he was still awarded 1.3 million for a house and allowance for the rest of his life.

In part because his legal advice was suspect. They met when he worked as the concierge at a hotel in New York and later he was employed at a well-known London hotel at which I have stayed but these things don't happen to me. It is this doubt about the enforceability that is wrecking the usefulness of prenup. What is fair and what are the needs that some and what are the needs that some judges hold must nevertheless be? Judges still insist on applying their own vision of what is fair and exercising the much criticised set of factors in section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act.

I discretion that we know is to be the source of the problems in financial provision law. A problem in today's divorce law is how to define the needs of the divorce spouse, usually from the wife's perspective and who should meet those needs. That is why that word needs clarification. Judges have given so many different interpretations that we don't have a workable standard, not even under the guidance of the Family Judges Council. Some judges are more parsimonious than others.

They all agree on the need of for housing where there are children. What is fair and whether that standard should be applied to a freely entered prenup as the fully different issue. So we come to reform. The Law Commission has done detailed and profound work in this field, as I shall describe in which I support. All the other organisations, nearly all, in the family law field have come out in favour of statutory enactment of the enforceability of prenup's.

It's even been suggested that we should follow the example of some other countries and accept expect engaged couples to see a lawyer and choose -- and expect engaged couples to see a lawyer and choose the option. Such discussion would be less intricate and cheaper than what they spend on an average wedding. I have on several occasions taken a bill through this house. The Divorce Financial Provisions bill in which I suggested that prenup's should be as binding as any other contract, provided there was no dress, provided the couple had legal advice before signing and full disclosure.

But the government has failed to act on this, has ignored the Low Commission's recommendations to put pinups on a statutory basis. Think how much money and how much court time would be saved if the tens of thousands of prenup's that are challenged now could be presumptively binding. Think how much court time and money could be saved if couples could avoid all the fees in general waiting times and aggravation of fighting in court over their assets on divorce if the law was reformed.

Many couples title before a court hearing, it is true. But they will have started proceedings and that too is expenditure that we could avoid. Recent court statistics show that the court process can take from six the court process can take from six to 12 months and there were 44,000 + financial provision applications and they are up by 7%. Tens of thousands of cases might never have to come near court. Millions would be saved if the government would reform the law.

In 2014, the Law Commission's report on matrimonial property needs and agreements recommended that prenup's should be put on a statutory footing and should be made by deed no less than 28 days before the marriage after legal advice and with disclosure. In my view, it was unfortunate that there was a potentially destructive discretionary element in this proposal. Namely that the parties could not by agreement opt out of meeting financial needs and defined. Indeed, with advances in AI, it's been suggested by the pre-eminent family judge, Sir Nicholas Mostyn, that the time will soon be with us when AI can produce an agreement that would be bound to be upheld as valid because AI will know what was meant by needs and that would satisfy a judge.

This country is lagging behind in achieving that cost saving certainty. Scotland and New Zealand, for example, have legislated for binding prenup's and legislated for binding prenup's and The Law Commission presented a draft bill and that bill is oven ready, as we say, needing only heating up to the right degree by this government. Not only is the bill ready, in December 2024, the Law Commission reported again and recommended the statutory enactment of a prenup's law. It is 16 years since the fundamental decision, it is 10 years since the Law Commission prepared the ground for statutory reform, and we are decades behind most of the countries.

Wasting money and court time, upsetting couples, legitimate expectations of certainty. If the bill were enacted, it would persuade bill were enacted, it would persuade older couples to take the plunge. I envisage a queue of weddings to take place in St Mary's Undercroft, it would bring us into line. With Australia, and the New Zealand at The Hague Convention on Law. It would respect autonomy and freedom of contract, that our government has said no more that it is considering the reform as part of a wider consideration of family law reform.

Governments have failed to take up reform, because they are unable to address the issues of principle about who maintains who to what level, how long, and the effect of social changes. And the lawyers who act are the highest earners on divorce, with the honourable exception of the noble Lady, Baroness Shackleton. They may well feel a loss of business. Although I am sure the wealthiest couples will always have complex arrangements that will require legal advice. On the other end of the scale, most couples do not get any legal aid for divorce and are left without the knowledge and framework that they need at their most emotional time of their lives.

A straightforward law on prenup's would be of immense value to them. Prenups are popular and harmless. They are protective. A escape from the bad uninformed financial provision law. And represent freedom of choice and contract. Why can't we legislate for them now? What has held them up is the ill founded belief that all of financial provision law must be reviewed and amended the same time. This is simply not the case. Prenups are a freestanding area, and even if wholesale reform is delayed, enacting prenups would enable couples to avoid the uncertainty, expense, and bitterness of the current law, and indeed of any future law to come.

I mentioned future law because the Law Commission's reported last December was only a scoping report. They put forward for models of reform. And unfortunately, scoping gives the government an excuse to do nothing. And I wish the Law Commission had been allowed to get on with a wholesale reform of financial provision law, which is now over 50 years old. And it's costing the state and couples so much expense and aggravation. I hope it would be brushed under the carpet.

It could take a long time to occur. Baroness Shackleton and I were promised a review of financial provision law. Within three years of the 2020 divorce bill. And we draft amendments in alliance of that promise which has not been fulfilled. The current financial provision law, by which I mean all of it, not just prenup scan is so uncertain and unpredictable, but it could be well said it is in breach of law. I urge the government to get on with reforming it, taking up the challenge of the latest Law Commission report.

But in the meantime, Will the Minister get on with putting prenups on a statutory basis? The bill is already, there is no reasonable opposition. We need to get on with this. And not wait for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Which is wholesale reform of our antiquated financial provision law. My Lords, I beg to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

move. The question is that this motion
16:05
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia Portrait Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Conservative)
-
-
be agreed to.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is great pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, it is great pleasure and privilege to follow the Baroness Willis debate, and I thank very much for bringing it to the house's attention. Firstly, I must declare attention. Firstly, I must declare my interest in this register. I am a solicitor of 45 qualifications, specialising in family law. I wish specialising in family law. I wish to make it absolutely clear that nothing that I say in this speech nothing that I say in this speech reflects any of my current matters before the courts.

Indeed, it could not, because before the end of this legal year, I have a five case being argued involving prenuptial contracts. Two in High Court, to an arbitration, and one in the Court of Appeal. Some are being argued, but it is not appropriate in full, and others where it is appropriate to do so. I'm also a patron of the Marriage Foundation. The origins of prenuptial contracts not being enforceable stems from the notion that it was unconscionable to contemplate the breakdown of a contract which is intended to last for life.

That is possibly the reason why the words prenuptial contracts are not specifically addressed, in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, as amended. The only reference to marital contracts in that, as the court has discretion to override any contract before, during or after marriage. When at the Matrimonial Causes Act was enacted, divorce was considered unusual and applied to few. Now, regrettably, there is hardly a family in the land that is not, in some shape or form, had to face the reality that many marriages do not last forever.

That far-reaching changes for social norm over the years offer themselves simply a deficient base to call for firm law. Indeed, as a former High Court family judge said in his address to a family law conference in 2013, when the MCA was 40 years old, since family law is intended to regulate family life, as it is lived now, and not in the distant path -- Pass, the division law is no longer, I suggest, fit for purpose. It was designed in a wholly different area, to do with a wholly different society, and way of life.

The Matrimonial Causes Act act 1973, with all its layers of growth, needs to be humanely killed off and given a decent burial. And the heroic efforts of the Supreme Court to maintain the life-support system needs to stop. The actors quite simply had its day. That speech was made in 2013. The following year, two changes were made, which are worth taking note of. The first was the appeal system from a High Court judge to the Court of Appeal was altered.

As the refusal of leave, quite frequency from a single family judge was the end of the road. Prior to that, there was the ability to appeal against the refusal to leave, and to be heard quite frequently by a nonfamily judge. The Supreme Court, which is largely composed of nonfamily judges, where the life- support systems of the act. But getting there now was almost impossible. As family judges in the Court of Appeal are marking their own homework. And that is not capable of challenge.

The second was the Law Commission's report, referred to matrimonial property, needs and agreements. Where they made recommendations for the introduction of binding prenuptial agreements, referred to as qualifying up to agreements. These would be enforceable contracts but would not be subject to the scrutiny of court, which would require certain procedural safeguards be met, and which, importantly, could not be used to contract out an obligation to meet financial needs. The 2014 report was commissioned as a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's play in Radmacher v Granatino, a case I am all-too- familiar having been on the losing side.

For Parliament to legislate in respect of these contracts. The implementation of guidance by Parliament, in respect of nodule -- Prenuptial agreements, we are back with the discretion of tribunal. The clear message of Granatino prenuptial contracts is that they should be enforceable, unless it would be unfair for them not to be. That leaves the fairness to a trial judge, which is totally discretionary. No prenuptial contract is able to prohibit children's maintenance, that the court has an overriding jurisdiction over, which cannot be ousted.

As a consequence of Granatino, there are many, many more prenuptial agreements in circulation, all stacking up. When the divorce occurs, for an increasing number of cases awaiting adjudication. Hence my five cases mentioned earlier. The very reason for entering a prenuptial contract is removed. A marriage is the same as the length it takes to adjudicate the financial relief and divorce. People are entitled to know how the judges are going to exercise a discretion. The Law Commission provides enormous help in this respect.

And their recommendations should be enacted. The uncertainty of outcome would be reduced and be already -- And the already overburdened courts would be relieved of some work. The idea of prenuptial contracts only favouring the rich is not accurate. When an individual or a person of significant wealth is intending to get married, and asks how their assets could be protected, the correct answer is by not marrying. The financially weaker parties then left with no rights whatsoever, except when there are children of the family, when claimed under schedule one of the Children Act is all available to them.

However, the law of enforceability of prenuptial contracts being more certain, there is a greater incentive to enter into marriage. And where my other hat as patron of the Marriage Foundation, it is in the interest of society that people are encouraged to get married in circumstances where evidence points to the fact that marriage relationships are more likely to be duo for the benefit of any children. But if the parties were mere cohabitees. In other countries, it is commonplace in marriage for nodule contracts to be entered into.

Typically community property, or separation of property. The courts are now having to grapple with the enforceability of these contracts. Rather than being distracted by the temptation to consider overall reform, of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, I would like them in a please do concentrate on the reasons why the government cannot deal with the isolated stand-alone area of the law, which, as the baroness says, is often ready. It is akin to having a leaky roof, dripping water down the walls.

And not having the roof fixed until you decide what colour to paint the walls. Eventually, the delay will cause the roof to collapse, with all the collateral damage that that causes. The development of ancillary relief is complex, and there are no easy answers. As the most recent Law Commission paper has set out. Every government seems to encourage alternative dispute resolutions, however, these don't work with the law itself is uncertain. Every government shies away from grappling with this issue.

I have received significant support in my mission to make the law clearer for most mediators. Most notably, Helen Adam who intended a panel convened by Siobhan Bailey, to consider the Siobhan Bailey, to consider the Helen, in exasperation, recently sent me a message, after conducting a remediation, she said her client's parents and three young children to solicitors for advice, where they were given entirely different advice and so were unable to settle in mediation. Those parents face the prospect of further costs, stress, in their legal proceedings ahead.

None of which is in the interest of their young children. She says this happens all too regularly. In her last play, she writes need to get the press involved to get a Bates versus the post office type documentary to bring the scandalous legal situation into the public domain. Delay is in nobody's interest, least of all the children of the family, with the previous government sought to expedite the dissolution of marriage by no-fault divorce, without the promised follow-up of enacting any reform ineffective financial relief.

Until the money is sought out, -- Sorted out the parents are not free to move forward. When prenuptial, or certain, they would have more success dealing with these. This rings me to my last point. Which is the purposes of Parliament. I fully endorse the honourable lady Chief Justice's protection. They can only enforce the existing law. At the appeal process is what protects litigants. When Parliament is invited, as it was in Granatino by the Supreme Court to legislate, and 14 years later, nothing has happened.

We have to look to ourselves in shame. I can conclude with to please. Firstly, please can the government address the matter But that should not be pushed off into the long grass for too long either. Secondly, until this is resolved, these can the government reinstate the appeal process? This would make the system more accessible.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble
16:17
Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham Portrait The Lord Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing this debate and motion today and raising such and motion today and raising such fundamentally important issues which she set out so clearly. I also acknowledge with respect the very considerable wisdom and insight of Baroness Shackleton on these matters. It has been my privilege to prepare many couples for marriage over the years. It is a hopeful time when couples seek to express And looking to the future, whatever it may hold.

I believe it would be detrimental for all parties if prenuptial agreements were to become a normal part of preparing for marriage, whether religious or not. I entirely acknowledge the arguments in favour of these agreements, namely the clarity they provide in financial matters, especially where there are pre-existing children and their role in reducing litigation upon divorce. But I want to urge the house to reflect upon their broader implications, for the institution of marriage. It's gift to wider society and the potential consequences for the financially weaker parties.

Historically, marriage has been regarded as more than just a contractual arrangement between two individuals. If we were to put marriage agreements into statute, it would appear as if we might sing to couples they should include in their preparations a plan also for their divorce. Furthermore, while advocates argue that prenuptial agreements encourage fairness and discourage litigation, we must be mindful of the power imbalances that may arise. Emotional, psychological and, of course, financial. The reality is that such agreements often favour the wealthier party leaving the financially weaker spouse, often women, at a disadvantage.

When there is some sort of pressure to marry, individuals may agree to terms which are significantly unfair or that fail to consider future circumstances, such as career sacrifices, child rearing responsibilities, unexpected financial hardships, it windfalls. -- Or even unexpected windfalls. I believe that we should ensure that any financial agreement is equitable, rather than being banned by contracts which no longer reflect the realities of the marriage or divorce. For this reason of the model set out by the Law Commission in December 2024, I would favour that which ratifies, sorry, codify is case law while retaining further judicial discretion.

While it's true that currents -- courts have set in cases of significant inequality, the remains a risk that increasing normalisation may lead to undue pressure on prospective spouses to sign away their rights without fully comprehending the longer term, more serious consequences. For example, many prenuptial agreements incorporate acknowledgements that each party is content with the financial information that has been provided and does not wish to ask further questions before signing. I'm sure it is likely at times that one partner may be anxious about asking further questions in a way that may imply a lack of trust and so risk undermining the relationship at the time when the focus on preparing for marriage is very much orientated towards a joyful expectation.

Marriage is not merely an economic transaction. It is, above all, a covenant. Something good, something beautiful, and we must ensure that our legal framework continues to foster the values of partnership and protection for the vulnerable. And whatever our views across this house, I hope we can also acknowledge the value of good preparation for marriage, drawing on a very large range of excellent resources and support that is available and that includes support offered by organisations such as offered by organisations such as Care For the Family.

This is one of the charities that has dedicated itself to supporting particularly churches across the country as they offer support to those preparing for marriage, whether they are part of the church or not. And in addition to that go on offering sources to support relationships at later stages of family life and in parenting. Challenges inevitably arise and strain on relationships increases. Members of this house value the work that is done by many individuals and organisations and faith-based communities to support preparing for marriage.

I therefore, in conclusion, urge the house to approach the matter of nuptial agreements with some caution, ensuring that any legal recognition that they receive does not come at the cost of transparent fairness, justice and the true spirit of marriage, as a most ancient and sacred institution given by God that at its best benefits the whole of society.
16:24
Baroness Butler-Sloss Portrait Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Am a former family judge who tried a Am a former family judge who tried a lot of cases. I have to say to the noble Lady Baroness Shackleton that I'm one of two Court of Appeal judges who managed to persuade them there should be leave to appeal in family cases. But my experience in family cases. But my experience in the past was that Court of Appeal family judge is fairly regularly disagreed with the High Court judges, so it isn't a question of marking your own work.

It was marking the work of somebody else on the same subject. Therefore, with a great deal of experience. I'm very much in support of the idea of prenup's becoming part of legislation and I'm delighted the noble Lady has brought this debate. I think it's useful that we should discuss it and it will be, I hope, some degree of pressure on the government to start thinking seriously about doing something useful. I entirely agree with the suggestion that there is no reason why this part, relatively simple, couldn't become part of the law without waiting for a much more complex situation in relation to the rest of family financial affairs, which as has already been sent, can be very complicated.

I do, however, have a couple of concerns. I respectfully disagree with the Right Reverend Prelate on the idea that there shouldn't be legislation but there shouldn't be legislation but he has made a significant -- significantly important point. There are two issues about which I am concerned. Of prenup's became part of the law without a degree of discretion by the court. -- If Perhaps, as a judge, I have more faith in the judiciary than either of them do. Doesn't entirely surprise me.

But the two issues are surprise me. But the two issues are these. First, the points well made by -- the point so well made by the Right Reverend Prelate is the point by which agreement is made. Has to be transparency. There has to be putting on the table what you have putting on the table what you have and what you don't have because debts could be, and I have to say from cases I tried, equally important as assets. You do need to know before you enter an agreement what the state of affairs of both the intending spouses are.

If one side doesn't come clean, if it becomes obvious on the divorce that there has been nondisclosure and a serious lack of transparency, and I'm not talking about £10,000 or something like that, I'm talking about millions or in a family who don't have much money, the fact one has money stowed away somewhere, which has only just come to light. That situation seems to me that the judge must have discretion to put the matter right but I would not see that discretion is being applied in a case where the judge has -- is satisfied that the prenup that was entered into without both sides understanding entered into and with sufficient transparency to be fair at the moment of the agreement.

As has been said, it is a contract. It has to be a contract that has in the extremely unfair circumstances, can be put right because one of the two spaces has not played fair. So I'm not looking at fairness generally, I'm looking at fairness and a lack of transparency. The second point that I'm concerned about is at the moment of divorce or generally just after. There are circumstances which change dramatically, and that was my experience when I tried cases were a couple started marriage in a particular situation and at the point of divorce, one of the partners, one of the spouses has had an extreme change of circumstance.

I'm looking at illness. You may have a prenup ulcers both of them have jobs, relatively equal incomes and neither of them has much in the way neither of them has much in the way of assets, but you get to a .40 years later were one of them has multiple sclerosis is unable to work. Are you to say at that moment that the prenup should apply? I happen to be one of those and I can see a situation where if my husband was ill and we had agreed that we both started with relatively similar incomes, that if I was making much more money and becoming a senior judge, he got some very serious illness and couldn't work, would it be fair that he should not get a penny because that is what we had agreed at the moment of our marriage? I find there has to be, in my view, some possibility for this to be looked at.

I also look at the other view were if they had reasonable assets when they were married and one of them went bankrupt. There are extreme situations so really what I'm asking for, that the judge should have a residual discretion to deal with those two instances. The moment of going into the agreement and the moment when the agreement comes into force. I therefore don't entirely agree with the noble Lady or indeed Baroness Shackleton and wanting a prenup never to be changed.

But I do see the idea that the majority of people who enter into such a prenup, that should be the beginning and the end of what their financial affairs end of what their financial affairs
16:30
Lord Faulks Portrait Lord Faulks (Non-affiliated)
-
-
May I first of all congratulate the noble Lady, Baroness Deech, for securing this debate and her persistence on this issue, in the face of government inactivity. I am also very privileged to follow the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-Sloss, with her immense experience of these cases. I should declare an interest, as a practising barrister. Although not one primer really concerned with family law, one that has a forthcoming case which concerns a prenuptial agreement, entered into by a husband or wife, the issue being whether not the parties are to be bound by that agreement.

And the burden of what I wish to say is it is high time Parliament intervened. The result of intervention should be there will be fewer cases, such as the one that I have just referred to and there is evidence referred to by the noble Baroness, Baroness Shackleton, the courts are being increasingly troubled, by one party or another in a marriage, does not wish to be bound by a prenup, claiming either they did not enter the agreement freely, or that the circumstances have changed since the marriage, making it inequitable, to rely on the agreement.

The law in relation to what used to be called ancillary relief on divorce gives the course very wide discretion. But because it no clear guidelines as to how to apply that discussion. The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 simply lists the vast number of factors that have to be taken into consideration. The result has been that the courts themselves have developed the law. Whilst it has avoided some cases reaching court that it might otherwise have done, it leaves a considerable degree of uncertainty as to the outcome of proceedings that might be contested.

I have a very large volume from the Law Commission. A scoping paper referred to by a number of noble referred to by a number of noble Lords already. The Law Commission produced a very clear and helpful summary of issues, as one would expect. I did not come to any firm conclusions as to what the appropriate legislative response to the uncertainty created by this wide discretion should be. The Law Commission, however, in relation to prenuptial agreements has made some very clear suggestions for reform.

For a prenup to be a " Qualifying prenuptial agreement" It should be valid on ordinary principles, should be entered into by way of deed, as they should be disclosure of material financial information on both sides and both sides should have independent legal advice. There is additional proposal that such an agreement would not qualify, if it was made less than 2821 days before the marriage ceremony. I agree with all the other proposals. I am slightly doubtful about the 28 days cooling off, but that is through the course and passage of any bill throughout Parliament.

Why has there been no response what is now a series of quite old recommendations by the Law Commission? In 2014, then relevant minister Simon Hughes said there was insufficient time because they were to be a general election in 2015. I was a minister in the MoJ at the time although not one with responsibility for this particular area of the law. But I do remember answering a question in your Lordships house, and giving a similar answer to the one Simon Hughes are given.

The answer given on the other hand by the noble Lord, Lord Bellamy, to a similar query in 2022, was that the government was considering the matter " In the context of a wider review". In the meantime, as we have heard, the courts have taken some significant steps to clarify the position in Radmacher v Granatino. Decided by a majority of eight-one, and I quote one particular passage which summarises their view. " It would be summarises their view. " It would be natural to infer that parties who entered into a free ante-nuptial agreement to which English law is likely to be applied intent that affect should be given to it." The dissenting voice was the former Lord, Baroness Hale.

She seemed to be concerned understandably that there seemed to be a possibility of change of rules post-marriage which would mean the agreement was unfair. And I note the comments made by the noble and learned Lady but less loss -- Lady Butler-Sloss, about a very significant change in circumstances. As I apprehend, this is not meant to be a general discussion, but a discretion in very exceptional circumstances. The risk of having no discretion at all means we are back at square one.

So if there is to be that discretion, I respectfully suggest it be severely circumscribed and limited. My submission to the government is a time for action has come. We are still 4.5 years away from a general election. There is from a general election. There is plenty of time for this. I understand law is not always high upon a list of priorities for government trying to make a significant change in this country but surely the time has come to respond.

The Minister may not be a particular expert in this field. Although, of course, he has great expertise in other fields. But I would ask him to take back to the Department the concern that has been expressed already in this debate, and I expect come in speeches after mine. And his colleagues promised reform in this area as soon as possible. And Lord Bellamy Patrick response, that reform should be part of a " Wider picture" Is not a response I suggest this government should take.

It is very tempting to say whether you address to changes of financial provision on divorce, you want to tackle the issues in one go. But I think in light of the ambivalence contained in the suggestion of the scoping report, about more generally legislating, it would be most unwise simply to wait and produce legislation that covers all the uncertainty. Much more sensible, I suggest, to grapple with this relatively simple change to the law. Which would make it consistent with the law in continental Europe. I think probably in Scotland.

I think it would also largely reflect the desires of those who consider entering into a prenup. It is of course worth reminding noble Lords that it is not compulsory, would not be compulsory to enter into a prenup. But where parties have significant assets and are concerned about the future, particularly in the case of second marriages as the noble Lady Baroness Deech says, the absence of legislation runs the risk of dissuading people from getting married at all. Not all of them of course are in your Lordships house.

But public policy, when I last looked, remains firmly in favour of marriage. It even finds reflection marriage. It even finds reflection on the European, the Convention on human. Irish the government, the time has come for action.
16:38
Lord Farmer Portrait Lord Farmer (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, i.e. To thank Baroness

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, i.e. To thank Baroness Deech for bringing this important debate to government in the early stages of the government, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, just pointed out. She has got 4 1/2 years to go. As my noble friend, Lady Shackleton, pointed out. This is a matter which is always put into the long grass. And it is therefore a long grass. And it is therefore a good time to be brought out of the good time to be brought out of the long grass.

Making recommendations in 2014 which they are currently reviewing, but calls to make public raft of prenuptial agreements binding were made long before then, including by noble and learned Lords in this House. So, it is hard to be optimistic about change, but as a nonlawyer, I want to take a slightly different tack. As an aside, I am in very good company and have empathy for another nonlawyer, the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, who was preparing to respond to many legal eminences.

My Lords, this government has said that for them to act, any measures have one or more of their five missions. My argument is making romantic relationships a little less romantic meets the opportunity mission test. Binding prenuptial agreements would, albeit indirectly, boost opportunity for children to do better. That is quite a leap, so I will elaborate. So to strengthen marriage by making it more intentional and less risky and thereby hopefully helping to increase marriage rates throughout society forced according to Louise Perry, more marriage would be better for women as well.

As they are the vulnerable party in our informal hookup culture where unplanned pregnancy means they are often left literally holding the baby. Crucially, more marriage means more children benefit from the stability that the commitment in marriage brings to family life. The parents are considerably less likely to experience their relationship breakdown. This was emphasised by the Centre for social Justice in its 2005 family law review. A starting point, unusually but importantly, was that any reform of family law needed to support families stability, and address the prevailing culture of family breakdown, then and now.

This is the underlying social emergency, at the root of, and driving so many, other social issues. 44% of children do not grow up with both their parents. Children who into a family breakdown are around twice as likely to experience homelessness, alcoholism, mental health issues, to get into trouble with the police or spend time in prison. Underachieving education, not live with the other parent of their children, and become teenage parents themselves. Marriage does make a difference. The millennium cohort study found that 88% of married parents were still together when their child was five years old, compared to only 67% of parents who were cohabiting when their child was born.

More starkly, more children born to cohabiting parents are almost 3 times more likely not to be living with both their parents when five years old, compared to children born to married parents. Attributing this difference if you to marriage, is other factors that make people more likely to form lasting relationships, such as high level of income or education. But low-income married couples are significantly more stable than low- income cohabitees. Our relationships are structured -- How relationships are structured matters.

My Lords, anthropologically speaking, the whole effort of getting married, the ritual itself, the decision to commit and the explicit public nature of that commitment, and even the financial investment in marking that change of relationship status and role qualitatively different from the slide into cohabitation that is very common. Psychologists, such as professors Scott Stanley and Galina Rhodes at the University of Denver extensively studied how sliding into cohabitation differs from deciding to get married. And how that affects relationship durability.

Baroness Hale, as we have heard, in her minority judgement in Radmacher v Granatino, which tested the binding nature of a prenup, spoke of the importance of maintaining the distinction between marriage and cohabitation. She also said Parliament, not judges, needed to make the law in this area. In 1998, the last Labour government published supporting families. The U.K.'s first ever Green Paper on family policy and made a strong case for doing this. It is worth repeating what I said then.

" Allowing couples either before or during their marriage to make written agreements, dealing with their financial affairs, which would be legally binding on divorce, could give people more choice and allow them to take more responsibility for ordering their own lives. It could help them to build a solid foundation for their marriage, by encouraging them to look at the financial issues they may face as husband and wife, and reach agreement before they get married." This speaks of the greater intentionality, prenuptial agreements bring to marriage.

People think about the future. Indeed, this measure was included in the section of policy proposals on supporting marriage. Still a very valid aim of social policy. It pointed out that, providing greater security and property matters in this way could make it possible people could marry rather than similarly -- Simply live together. It will also protect the children of first marriages who can often be overlooked at the time of the second marriage, or a second divorce. In the family law review, the CS J point out that England and Wales is unusual, among other westernised family law jurisdictions, in not having binding prenuptial agreements or other Whilst prenuptial agreements should not be mandated, it is responsible to consider what the couple would want to happen in future circumstances.

Arguably, when the couple are in the flush of premarital romance and well disposed towards each other is a good time to think about how finances should pan out if things don't work out. Of course, some strongly hold that premarital agreements plan for premarital agreements plan for failure, reflect distrust and promote divorce. I think planning addresses the reality of the future. Moreover, it's ironic that whilst it is possible to have a cohabitation agreement, married couples in England and Wales are subject to very uncertain outcomes of our current divorce law, which can create many perverse incentives.

The CSG list many advantages of making prenup's legally binding -- CSJ. Lower legal costs and delays as judges have not the need to determine arrangements from scratch and finally, international norms which mean prenup's are expected to have legal force. Disadvantages include the difficulties of providing -- protecting future providing -- protecting future events. The weaker party or the one who is keen to marry may feel obliged to sign. This leads to the issue of how much residual discretion, which we've heard about, should be allowed at the court not to treat prenup's as binding in these cases.

The greater the risk that agreements are not binding until. Lesser the discretion, the more unfair outcomes will be, even though there is a fairness in upholding agreements. Hence, in 1998, the government permitted another discretionary factor of significant injustice. Judge made law could elaborate circumstances in which significant injustice may be found. Inclusion, I would ask the Minister if this government will Minister if this government will make the prevention of relationship down -- in conclusion.

Poverty is a consequences of family breakdown as well as a cause of it. Bowstring marriage is essential as the last Labour government realised and perhaps intuitively making prenup's binding is a low-cost tool to do that -- bolstering.
16:48
Lord Meston Portrait Lord Meston (Crossbench)
-
-
I have been practising family law as a barrister for many years and latterly worked as a family judge. I don't find it altogether easy to recognise the picture of how the lot now works, portrait by the noble Baroness lady Deitch but never mind, that is a debate for another day. that is a debate for another day. Given that the amount of -- given that the average of marriages ending in divorce is now 13 years...

Typically, the parties may wish to ring fence inherited assets or wish to ensure provision for children of previous relationships. And did, not surprisingly, agreements are now set to be popular with the farming community with their particular in community with their particular in the were particularly illiquid assets -- with their particularly illiquid assets. The use of prenuptial agreements have developed They distastefully require the involvement of lawyers in what was supposed to be a happy period leading up to the marriage ceremony.

These to be seen as required only by wealthy, older men after several unsuccessful trips around the matrimonial course. Who wanted to protect themselves in case the latest candidate for matrimony turned out to be a golddigger, at least from the man's point of view. They were also seen as advantage in -- as disadvantaging women in terms of what they might expect to receive if the marriage ended in divorce and allowing parties to contract out of responsibility to meet each other's needs. In a classic, American case, the very wealthy husband, 25 years older presented the wife with an agreement only hours before the ceremony and threatened to cancel the marriage if she did not sign.

She had sparse knowledge of his finances and did not have any independent advice, only a session with a lawyer selected by the husband. That lawyer, to his credit, advised her not to sign, however in spite of that advice, she did sign the agreement and the marriage went ahead. 13 years and two children later, there was a divorce and costly litigation across two state jurisdictions. The decision of the supreme court has reduced the prospect of such a scenario in the United Kingdom.

Arrest agreements with limited legal advice and limited disclosure, particularly if they appear unfair and very different from what the court might different from what the court might otherwise order, can be -- cannot be expected to be up old and in reality can be worse than having no agreement at all. The Law Commission's later, well researched and reasoned recommendations in 2014 included crucial requirements for there to be independent legal advice for each party and a sufficient financial disclosure, and for the agreement to be completed at least 28 days before the wedding.

Although those recommendations are not yet in statute, they undoubtedly already reflect current good practice and have helped to make agreements more popular and effective. I note with some surprise the doubt about, expressed by Lord Faulks questioning the need for 21 day cooling off period, but there is a need to protect those who get married in a fever, to quote the old song. The remaining area of controversy concerns whether and in what circumstances the court might go beyond an agreement freely and properly entered into, which would otherwise be expected to be binding upon the parties will stop there is a clear distinction between agreements unfair from the outset and agreements which may later operate on fairly if access to legal remedies is severely restricted.

It was recommended by the commission that the court has jurisdiction to make provision for needs should not be ousted by qualifying agreements so that no party would be left unjustifiably without resources following separation. To that extent, the mere fact of an agreement cannot make their what may otherwise appear or become particularly unfair. The Law Commission side is and that it would be helpful to have more relevant information about how popular they are and how they are treated in litigation, and how many cases settle on the basis of agreement.

I suggest it would also be helpful to have reliable overall evidence that the difference between the outcomes prenuptial agreements produce and the outcomes which the court would otherwise direct. I suspect the majority of prenuptial agreements are not seen by the courts because couples involved managed to stay married and leave the agreement in a drawer. Many other agreements are only seen by the court because the parties are simply wish to comply with the submitting it in support of an agreed order to reflect what has been agreed.

It is also likely that the prenup's which are challenged by those with enough money to do so only become -- only come before the court because of inadequate drafting or unforeseen changes in circumstances or because of an irresistible dispute about jurisdiction if the agreement was made outside England and Wales. However, I do seriously question the suggested number of challenges which was made by lady Deitch, however was made by lady Deitch, however statistics will prove one of us right or wrong.

Carefully prepared agreements, although unromantic and transactional, can provide couples with a sense of security and certainty, reducing some of the acrimony and expense in the event of later permanent separation. And also reducing the temptation to divert or conceal assets ahead of a divorce. Specialist legal practitioners can now help parties to achieve fair, realistic and civilised agreements, capable of later revision which the courts will uphold. If in doubt, the parties can now ask the court for an early decision as to whether the agreement is determinative of their financial affairs.

Nevertheless, they do -- there do the main parties who signed agreements and marry not understanding good legal advice that they could or would be better off marrying without the agreement -- there do remain parties. This is also raising concerns that some may still enter an agreement on willingly or with unrealistic optimism. The chances of that are not likely to be much diminished by any legislation. Contractual autonomy has to be seen in the particularly wrong with peculiarly emotional context of these agreements.

-- Peculiarly emotional agreements. -- Peculiarly emotional Paragraph 7.98 of the commission's recent scoping support suggest that if there is not to be major change, the recommendations relating to agreements could be implemented straight away but if major changes are expected, recommendations about agreements will need to be reconsidered. And indeed, I think we should be grateful to the noble Baroness for making us think about this. If there are major changes, many existing agreements could will need. To will renegotiation.

An important component of any good advice is what the court quite new in the absence of a prenup to protect the economically weaker protect the economically weaker party. Until it is clear what the law is to be in the foreseeable future, it will be hard to give satisfactory advice to those who need it about what might happen at a much later date. If reforms are undertaken piecemeal with prenup's legislated for in advance of substantive law reforms, there is a risk that some agreements based on the substantive law enforced when the agreement was reached would become unfair and so would either produce an unfair result or have to be renegotiated if the parties were willing to do so.

Failing which, they might have to go to court. However, I do accept that to some extent, that risk exists in respect of whether the law relating to prenup's is reformed as the noble Baroness has proposed irrespective of the changes which may be further down the track. Accordingly, meanwhile, until clarity is reached and until a decision is made about how we should proceed, I do suggest that the approach which is developed following the case now works well and that the family courts can and should be trusted to continue to deal with individual cases as required.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I am also grateful to Baroness Deech for bringing today's Baroness Deech for bringing today's debate. With the Law Commission's recent report on celebrating the marriage and new weddings law and
16:59
Baroness Berridge Portrait Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
marriage and new weddings law and the ongoing work on divorce and dissolution which includes reviewing its own 2014 report on the matter, it seems we might be on the cusp of March legislative work in this area. Firstly, I would be grateful to know if His Majesty's Government 's position remains that all of these issues about financial remedies should be dealt with together. If there is limited legislative time, which is often what the government says, then I reiterate the point that I've made at Oral Questions, that the greatest injustice to be dealt with in this area is currently those who are entering a religious wedding ceremony which when conducted turns out not to be valid under UK law.

For participants, especially women, even the current remedies of section 5 are but a dream. Many are left destitute, particularly if they don't have adult children. I accept that that law is not as oven baked as Baroness Deech's low. On the subject of today's debate, I wonder if the previous comments by Lord Bellamy that prenup jewels are the province of privileged and few is correct as the noble Lady Baroness Deech outlined and if the co-operative legal services statistics are in any way accurate about one fifth of marriage couples come to such an If you Google it in the UK the AI answer is that the prenup will be relevant as long as you entered into it freely with full disclosure, you have legal advice and it's not unfair.

I accept the comments from Lady Shackleton about the breadth of the discretion for unfair. That will be comforting to read if say, your prenup only entitles you to a return plane ticket to the Philippines. Only you and your, not any of your children. Yes this has been a case. Of course all the reform suggestions outlined as I understand it would present a remedy for this, I presume it would be be primer flashy a evidence of duress under Lady Deech's outline. Any people will just look now to AI so a law change will of course change that answer when someone looks up a prenuptial agreement.

Can I be assured by His Majesty's Government that any reforms will have a comprehensive publicity campaign so the public, particularly vulnerable groups understand any change? One only has to look at Hamley people think common-law marriage exists as a legal concept to see how necessary awareness is. I also ask His Majesty's Government to look at what is covered in the citizenship curriculum. Surely young people need to know institution and its legal ramifications that so many will eventually enter. But despite much Law Commission work, there do remain areas of the prenuptial jurisdiction that have not yet been discovered.

Or considered. It is one of the privileges of being in your Lordships house that your approach to raise issues that may be the government needs to consider. Unfortunately for this nation of pet lovers and owners, the law still treats pets as mere chattels. And are treated as property for the purposes of section 25. There are currently about 13 million dogs and about 10 million cats as per so it's actually not a minority issue. The United Kingdom is becoming something of an outlier legally in relation to this.

I'm sure the noble Lord from his role in the International Academy of family law will be aware of this as well. The recent decision of District Judge Crispe in FI vs DO on 20 December in Manchester family Court last year outlined what might become a test for other cases to decide in that case who got custody of the dog. But the most interesting part of his judgement in my view was I think this quote. The dog is a I think this quote.

The dog is a chattel. At times it seemed to me though that I was in the realms of a Children Act application which featured the dog. When the wife was cross examined about the dogs welfare and shared care arrangements. I set this out because I have no doubt that if this feature could have been agreed, other matters may have been able to be agreed. Such of course is the emotional attachment that this couple had that potentially a change in the law could avoid some litigation I would hope.

On 28 January this year another District Judge, District Judge Hatt Blaney put a block piece entitled, of dogs and divorce, on the financial remedies Journal website stating and I quote at length, our legal system has a reputation for being the finest on the planet. Yet in court the legal test for who gets to keep the family dog is the same as that for any other inanimate content of the family home. The roots of this absurdity lie in the common law which insists that pets are property no different in principle from furniture even though we all know This probably stems back to mediaeval times when dogs were kept for hunting and cats for mousing, but in the 21st-century is laughably outdated.

In other jurisdictions courts are beginning to recognise that pets aren't just property. There seems to be no effective mechanism in English courts however for resolving the issue of who gets the family dog. ". I am informed that this niche professional journal got a large level of response to this blog piece on pets. And when I was weighing up when deciding whether to stand and speak on this in some -- in such eminent company, I was however reassured us this was an issue, subject matter on radio four you and yours on Monday of this four you and yours on Monday of this week entitled, pet naps.

-- Prenup. Could he outline whether they have a view on pets in prenuptial agreements and whether pets should continue to be continued -- considered chattel. Also is the committee that your chips established under the animal sent sacked 2022 -- sentience, looking at this matter. There are other jurisdictions such as Colombia who amended the law in 2016 and the case law recognises the emotional bond to Families don't equate to making animals the equivalent to humans will top proposals are afoot to amend the Italian legal code to a quote, regulate the custody of family pets upon separation and divorce and New York has a best interest test on deciding custody of a companion animal.

Many of these changes the jurisprudence actually stems firstly from a recognition of the sentience of animals so it looks like the animal sent sacked 2022 might inadvertently have started us on this journey -- sentience act. They also recognise that humans commercial the emotional connection to animals are moved away from anything nonhuman is merely an object. I hope this matters government will look at these comparisons to see if they have affected the prenuptial arrangements in those jurisdictions as well. Of pets on divorce and barrister Sarah Lucy Cooper and solicitor Stella Newbould Brown for their work on this drawing this to my attention.

This group also has the support of the previously mentioned High Court Judgements and Nicholas Mostyn and the kennel club. Perhaps his Majesty's government might agree to meet with them to understand the solutions in this area for the law and how often it is an issue in proceedings. In principle I do share the sentiments of the noble Lady Lady Hale in her vigorous dissenting judgement. I note the comments by the Right Reverend Prelate in relation to this is a covenant not a contract and it reminds me so much of the wisdom we used to receive from the late Lord Sacks and explained to us the difference between covenants and contracts.

I am pleased to learn that there would be an irreducible minimum here that spouse would not be left so destitute to be dependent on public funds and agreement should not be allowed to leave the burden on a taxpayer rather the other spouse who taxpayer rather the other spouse who As I conclude I realise I may have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous, women left destitute as they have no remedies they are not in fact legally married, to the custody of family pats.

But this does I think reflects the red variation in practice issues that the breakdown of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Act reveal and the necessary issues that the government need to consider when legislating for a pre-or pet prenuptial agreement.
17:08
Lord St John of Bletso Portrait Lord St John of Bletso (Crossbench)
-
-
I'm grateful to Baroness Deech for her tenacity in campaigning for the reform of this area of family law. Unlike my distinct friends next door to me Lord Meston and the noble and learned Baroness butler source I am not a family law judge, I have simply been a lawyer, divorce lawyer in South Africa practising under the corpus US Capitol less in Roman Dutch law. I shall not be speaking for 11 minutes I will speak very briefly.

When we devoted, debated the Private Members' bills of my noble friend Baroness Deech Way back in 2018 the divorce financial provisions Bill, we were led to believe the time that following the Law Commission report prenuptial agreements would soon be placed in statutory footing and be enforceable. That was the subject of course to both parties entering the agreement without duress, it being fair, it being reasonable and both parties receiving independent legal advice before signing a agreement.

Sadly seven years later prenuptial agreements are still not enforced by courts in England and Wales and the can is constantly being kicked down the road. If I can revert to my experience of being a divorce lawyer in South Africa where prenuptial agreements we refer to them as anti-NAP jewel agreements, they work very well for decades. It does pose a problem where a lot of South Africans have moved across to the United Kingdom and if a couple were to be divorced in this country we would, they would not be able to get divorced with that prenuptial agreement.

I'm also very familiar that many noble Lords of mentioned about a case in 2010, I'm also conscious of the fact that London has the reputation of being the divorce capital of the world. Clearly public attitudes have changed where the public is now clearly broadly supportive of me not jewel agreements. The time -- prenup. The time has come to simplify divorce process reduce the emotional strain and with that, the reduction of costs. Simpler, streamlined procedures would benefit both divorcing parties as well as the legal system.

Whilst many lawyers advocate for reforms to make the process more efficient, I accept that opinions differ based on personal practice, on experience and client consultations. I think Baroness Butler-Sloss made a very powerful point about change in circumstances, to that degree I support post knocked you will agreements. McNab tool. They must be a balance between efficiency, fairness and adaptability, for prenup's to be enforceable there needs to be full disclosure and transparency of both parties assets, their liabilities and the fight -- financial condition of both parties will stop also both parties need to have independent legal advice and independent legal advice weeks if not possibly months before they get married.

Also prenup's should be signed by both parties voluntarily and the terms should be free and fair and reasonable. But pivotal to any reform must be the consideration of children's needs, ensuring that the financial provisions for the welfare and needs of children are at the very centre of any settlement. To this end, maintenance provisions for children born in the course of marriage would need to be determined separately to the prenup. I would also encourage promotion of financial disappearance outside of the court through what I called ADR, including mediation and collaborative law.

Aiming to reduce the burden on the legal system and the emotional stress of both parties. In the context of prenuptial agreements, inheritance, gifts and pre-marital property, can generally be included or excluded based on specific terms of both parties full stop I don't have the answer to this and it reinforces the need for disclosure and transparency. I also agree with the point made by Baroness Berridge that we need to promote public awareness of these changes, ensuring that individuals are aware of their rights and obligations within a marriage or cohabitation context.

The bottom-line is that huge amounts of money being spent on negotiating financial settlements in acrimonious divorces, I speak as one who has been divorced, and ignoring often the best interests in the marriage. I am totally in favour of providing safeguards and protections but the time has come to simplify the proceedings and bringing more certainty and more enforceability we constantly hear the words from ministers at the despatch box that all options are being considered and a response will be given in due course.

I hope that when the noble Lord the Minister winds up the debate that we can get a clear timetable that prenuptial agreements can finally be incorporated into family law and be enforceable.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

What a very interesting debate and I congratulate Baroness Deech on
17:15
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
and I congratulate Baroness Deech on securing it. I have to say I have no legal training, I'm not sure if I'm the only person who isn't a lawyer of some sort or a judge in this debate, so I'm speaking on human grounds and commonsense is a bitter divorce. It's a bit sad, I agree with the Right Reverend Prelate to think that marriage which is or was a lifetime commitment to another until death do them part, now to enable a division of chattels should that marriage ended in divorce.

Even before entering said marriage full stop but we are where we are. In 2023 there were 76,000 divorces in the UK which was about 38% of marriages ending in divorce was down from 113,505 divorces in 2021, 46% of marriages. We should welcome anything which makes this challenging process better, safer, challenging process better, safer, fairer, easier and less dramatic. -- Traumatic. Even though currently the courts almost always upholds prenup's as long as they are fair who knows what outcome you will get.

It seems to me from the rate of divorce and from noble Lords who have spoken in the debate today that the time has come for the legitimate status of prenup's to be enacted. There are clear prose as identified by many lordships who have spoken this debate so far but I am concerned that the negatives have concerned that the negatives have What happens when a prenup is unfairly drawn but now legal contracts agreed to by both parties? I think the noble Baroness refer to that.

How will we know status of the individual agreeing or signing whether they were coerced and whether they knew the consequences. I'm concerned about women particularly because it is women who are less, even if they were full- time, still women who give up work for early years having a baby, who lose their place in promotion, who are not employed despite employees theoretically not being able to ask young woman if she intends to have children. On the other hand, prenup's to offer financial protection and ensure that a woman's personal assets of inheritance, business ownership and investments are protected from divorce and they can shield a woman from debt including husband is dead after divorce and can clarify her finances will be handled in the marriage, they can support career sacrifices where women give up work to looked after children while husbands further their careers and legal battles can be reduced.

I'm a bit on 100 and the other hand, being legalised. A prenup that takes everything into consideration might be a good thing. But my concern is even more agitated, if that's the right word, by the formation of a right word, by the formation of a prenup itself. Because they might be poorly negotiated, particularly if one partner is wealthy and more powerful. Some prenup's wave or limit alimony and that is romantic when a woman has sacrificed her career for marriage.

The current production might protect her better than a prenup. Which might restrict her rights. And she might be pressurised into signing a prenup again if the partner is wealthy or illegally savvy, such as many of the noble Lords who have spoken today. Women would have to be able to have independent legal representation and to afford it, and that might be a challenge as well. If prenup sought to become legal I would want a number of safeguards against those negatives, because it appeared from me during my research for this debate that a prenup will favour who have -- who have negotiated better or who has a better adviser.

The key to the success is to have strong legal representation and not sign anything under pressure. I mean, the case which has been raised by many noble Lords, of which I'm now familiar, understanding was that the prenup was upheld but it set the precedent for what courts considered fair or unfair. And then there's the costs. The cost of obtaining legal advice for a prenup agreement in the UK, officially varies based on the complexity of the assets involved, the reputation, the location of the solicitor and that needs of the couple.

Straightforward cases, minimal assets, fixed fees, starting from 500. Moderate complexity, agreements involving more detail, financial arrangements between 2,000 and 4,000. High complexity, for cases with intricate assets, business interests or international consideration, 5,000, without a ceiling. And then there is acid laxity because the more complex the financial situation, the more time and expertise required to draft the agreement, and in my experience, forgive me, lawyers always find extra things to charge for. Legal representation, both parties need independent legal advice, that doubles the cost.

Negotiation time, extended negotiations or revisions, increased fees, geographical location, the stiff fees vary, depending on where in the UKAR. And there are, thankfully, some platforms offering prenuptial agreement services at a fixed fee of 1,500, total for both parties, aiming to make it more affordable. And accessible. Each of a couple will have to consult with a qualified family law solicitor to have a precise quote and costs are significant but obviously if this is to become legal, they will drafted prenuptial agreement providing clarity could potentially save considerable expenses as has been mentioned where divorce costs can cost a fortune.

As it stands, prenup that would should be thrown out of those that leave one party in financial hardship. One that was signed after US without legal advice, hidden on this presented finances, where time has changed the circumstances in which the prenup was agreed. We haven't really discussed much the soft challenges, the potential for a prenup to undermine trust in a marriage, the sense couple feels it's a bit like planning for divorce. In this day and age is quite wise. It can create a power imbalance, it can be emotionally hurtful.

And it might look and feel a bit like an insurance policy. On the other hand, it encourages open communications, prevent future complex, strengthen the relationship by setting out clear expectations, protect both partners fairly and show maturity and responsibility. So in summation, if prenup Sarr to become legal entities which I believe they should they must have some indispensable clauses. The clause on full financial disclosure, an independent legal advice, or no to ocean or duress, on asset protection, on debt liability, on inheritance and family assets, on future children, and a Sunset clause ensuring every visiting of a prenup after a certain amount of years, and be signed at least 28 days, as has been said before a wedding, and if a enough is written one-sided leader wealthy or powerful partner will benefit.

If it is fair and glaciated well both parties can benefit by protecting personal assets while ensuring financial fairness and that is what the government and we must aim for. I am much persuaded by the noble Baroness's arguments and it is time to make prenup's legal.
17:23
Lord Keen of Elie Portrait Lord Keen of Elie (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may I begin by thanking the noble Lady Baroness Deech for securing this debate. I begin with the advantage shared by the noble Lord the Minister of never having practised in the earlier family law. I believe that accordingly we can both bring a shy this long-running saga. My Lords, I find myself almost Italian agreement with the observations made by the noble Lady Baroness Deech. Particular with regard to the need to bring forward suitable statutory provision for prenuptial contracts, and I use that word advisedly.

I also agree with the noble Lady Baroness Shackleton, who followed the noble Lady Baroness Deech, and I noted the point she made about the scope for a prenuptial agreement and its inability to forbid or exclude child maintenance. And I entirely agree with the point made by the noble Lords Itchen that clearly maintenance should not be part of such natural agreements. There should be separate provision for the maintenance of children when it's required and that is reflected in for example the law of Scotland which will come to address in a different context, where there is express provision for periodical allowance for children up to a certain age which cannot be excluded by any prenuptial agreement.

The Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwold pointed out that of course marriage is not just an economic transaction. But as the noble Lord Lord Farmer made clear, those entering into matrimony do need to take responsibility for that financial consequence of marriage, and accordingly, there is no reason why we shouldn't look at the economic aspects of that relationship. And the way in which it is going to be addressed. The noble Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, while supporting prenuptial agreements on a statutory footing, did express the view that there should be some means of addressing changes in circumstances.

And I cannot find myself in agreement with that because it seems to me that we are merely exchanging one set of discussions for another. A point that the noble Lord Lord Faulks touched upon when he addressed the issues. The court, of course, at the present time has the very wide discussion but I'm not sure that replacing that with a narrow discretion is the appropriate way forward. The noble Lord Neston has the advantage with regard to the scope of family law but I cannot find myself agreeing with his inclination towards the status quo.

It does seem to me that the time has come for action, indeed the time for action has passed. Agree with Baroness Berridge on the matter of awareness but will not seek to elaborate on the issue of chattels. I leave that to others to consider. I also agree with Baroness Lady Featherstone that if we are to put a statutory basis for prenuptial agreements, we do need to have certain safeguards in place. But let me seek to make these points.

There is no compelling logic to a person leaving a marriage wealthier than when they entered it. So I don't agree with the noble Lord the Minister and's reference to some expectation upon divorce. I don't see why that should be taken into account. Prenuptial agreement is neither unique nor, in our present social position, to be regarded as unconscionable. It is an example of what is known to the law as a contract. The contract made between two competent and consenting persons should be enforced in the absence of fraud, coercion or misrepresentation, a point made by the noble Lady Baroness Butler- Sloss.

If there is material nondisclosure, that should be grounds for avoiding any such agreement. But adults entering a relationship should be free to decide for themselves the consequences in terms which they may terminate that relationship. The same logic applies here as would apply to other forms of business or professional relationship. Albeit acknowledging as the Right Reverend Prelate hideout, that marriage is not an economic transaction -- as he pointed out. Parties should be entitled to agree the existing wealth should never form part of what is termed matrimonial profiting.

Parties anticipating the respected contributions to the Commonwealth during a marriage should be entitled to agree how their matrimonial property should be dealt with, in the event of divorce. The law of and Wales at present is simply a model of uncertainty, fed by discussion. Since 2010 of course, we have been told that a prenuptial agreement may be enforced if regarded as fair. But fair, we are told, at the time it's being implemented. That is at the time of divorce.

Taking into account many changes in circumstances. And that is part of the problem. Because anyone who is entered into a prenuptial agreement, of which they are unhappy many years later, will simply say, will, it was fair at the time but I don't think it's fair now. Us because to the courts to litigation and to legal costs. That temptation to challenge will always be there and ultimately will only be there and ultimately will only benefit lawyers. My Lords, if I least a car for five years, I could ask whether the time of the lease contract was fair.

But to apply that test five years later when the vehicle has lost its loom, become less reliable, and is inclined to breakdown, rather like some marriages, seems inappropriate in my submission -- lost its loom. In the law of Scotland a prenuptial agreement is treated as what it's is, a contract. There is a statutory test, affair and reasonableness, but it is applied to the contract at the time it was entered into, which is both logical and consistent legal theory.

Section 16 of the family law Scotland Act states that the court must decide or very such an agreement if it is not fair and reasonable at the time it was entered into. A modest statutory amendment, a modest statutory amendment, could bring in hand and Wales into line with the more developed and logical jurisprudence of Scotland. And I therefore invite the Minister to indicate whether and indeed when the government will address this issue, which has been outstanding now for more than 14 outstanding now for more than 14
17:31
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
I would like to begin by thanking Lady Deech for securing this important and timely debate about a topic that has a real impact on people's lives. I would also like to thank the Baroness Bull taking the time to talk to me last week, and also to thank your lordships for the important issues they have raised today and their kindness to me as well. I am participating in this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby. I must therefore at the outset the Clare that I'm not an expert on these matters, save that my wife and I just elevated our 28th wedding anniversary last week.

As Lord Farmer and the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark Nilin Nottingham set out so clearly set out in the remarks marriage is a hugely important institution and the foundation of many happy relationships. That being said, Marriage and Civil Partnership Act can of course rake down. I wish to recognise as many do, that divorce can be one of the most stressful and difficult times people's lives. I will start with some context. As your lordships will know it's almost 3 years since our divorce law underwent its most significant change in half a century.

The introduction of no-fault divorce now allows couples then the marriage or civil partnership without having to blame each other. No-fault divorce has removed the legal requirement for conflict. Miss Juliet Harvey the national chair of resolutions said one year after no-fault divorce was introduced, this historic change marked the end of the blame game for divorcing couples. It's perhaps fitting that the bill introducing these measures passed with cross- party support both here and in the other place, gaining Royal Assent on 25 June, 2020.

At this point I must reference Lord Keen who played a crucial role in taking the bill through this House. In speaking with officials in my department I know how much they enjoyed working with the noble Lord on this legislation. I know that the noble Baronesses Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton take the view that no-fault divorce is just one part of the divorce reform story and remain concerned about the law that relates to a divorcing couple's finances. This leads me to the specifics of the motion tabled by Lady Deech on prenup switch after the House to take note of the law relating to prenup.

I'm aware that many of your lordships will know the legal background, however the benefit of those who may be less familiar including myself a week ago I will given overview of how the law in this area has developed. In the 19th century the court concluded that agreements relating to a couple's future hypothetical separation were invalid, this was because at the time it was a public policy concern that these sorts of arrangements might encourage separation or divorce. As Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton mentioned, in the 2010 landmark case the Supreme Court decided that a couple should be held to the prenup and post up agreement.

If it is freely entered into with a full appreciation of the circumstances unless it would be unfair to do so -- post not dual. The current lawyer set out in that case. Central to developing law in this area the courts have considered how to protect the finances of those who are vulnerable including children. How to make sure vulnerable individuals are not coerced into signing prenup. Your lordships will of course be aware that the previous government asked the Law Commission to conduct a review of the law into these agreements.

It's a report was published in 2014 and recommended the introduction of qualifying not you will agreements will top these would be enforced by the courts in specific circumstances however couples would not be able to use them to prevent each other providing for each other's financial needs including those of their children. including those of their children. We have come back into government just over 10 years after the Law Commissions report was published on the subject. The reports regrettably never received a full response from the previous government.

I know this has been a source of frustration to Baroness Deech, Lords engine and Lord Faulks, I can afford make sure your lordships government is looking into the issue with utmost care. It seems remiss for me not to mention at this stage another report that the previous government did also not respond to which was the Law Commissions 2022 report on wedding reform. Again I want to assure my Lords this government is looking into the issue including in relation to humanist weddings and will provide an update in the coming months.

Since 2014 the Law Commission however has one further work on the law remain -- relating to financial settlements following divorce. In December last year at published an important paper which outlined its assessment that there are problems with the current law and possible ways the law could be fundamentally reformed. The Law Commission further outlined how changing the law on prenup's and post could form part of the wider reform. I know that Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report and will be setting out next steps in due course.

I also wish to assure your lordships that the government has an ambitious reform agenda for unmarried couples. This includes delivering our manifesto commitment to strengthen rights and protections for cohabitants, we are working on delivering this manifesto commitment and plan to launch a consultation later in the year. Lady Berridge will see that cohabitation reform will address some of the issues raised in respect of religious only marriage. I'm afraid on the subject of pets in the family it is not my pet subject. Lords engine was right to express the importance of mediation and may be pleased to hear we have also committed to funding the mediation voucher scheme until at least March 2026.

The scheme has helped over 37,000 families to date full stop mediation helps couples take a less adversarial approach to making agreements following separation. I've heard the cause in this debate, including from Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton and Lord Faulks that prenup can be dealt with separately to wider reform. And that we should legislate for them now. The Law Commission does not see prenup's as a discrete issue but as I have heard today, some noble Lords disagree. The government will take all these views in the round before setting out its position.

It may be helpful for me to set out your lordships what the Law Commission says in a 2024 report. It states that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup proposals would depend on the type of wider financial reforms that could be put in place. The Law Commission takes this view for a couple of reasons for the first, the Law Commission is of the view that it would be unnecessarily complicated to enact its 2014 proposals now if future reforms would apply different rules for prenup's that would come into being at a later date.

This would result in different law applying to different agreements depending on the timing of those agreements being put into place was second, the 2014 proposals for prenup's were based on the central role of financial needs in the current law. The Law Commission said that any legislation would likely need to be picked if Wider reform financial remedies I can absolutely assure your lordships the government is considering the Law Commissions 2024 report on the issue of prenup's in this context, I think this debate is invaluable and timely.

I know my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and his team as officials will take on board the perspectives heard today in the chamber when considering next steps in fact am looking forward to meeting him on Monday. I can reassure the noble Lord Lord Faulks that I will take his comments back to the Department and maybe to the colleagues who knew very well when he was there. I thank Lady Butler-Sloss for the contributions to this debate full stop given her lifetime of service to family justice including presence in the family division it's important to have her careful and considered impact -- input on this topic today for top I'm grateful to her for highlighting the need of fairness and transparency for prenup's, the Law Commissions 2014 report recommended that a couple must have received important information about each other's finances when making a prenup.

We will be looking into this recommendation in depth. The Law Commissions 2014 report addressed the issue of the family court having the issue of the family court having the discretion to intervene if there has been a major change in circumstances, by recommending that a couple would not be able to contract out of providing for each other's needs and divorce this is a very important issue and one I will assure you Lord Ponsonby will be thinking very carefully about. I would also like to thank Lord Meston for raising important questions about the formation of prenup's, in particular there is the question that Baroness Butler-Sloss also raised about fairness or a spouse which may have signed a prenup without anticipating the future might hold.

No young couple getting married can precisely predict the future. They may win the lottery or the health may deteriorate to a point where they can no longer work. No one can be certain how life will pan out. The Law Commissions 2014 report considered this issue and recommended qualifying not you will agreements, these types of prenup's would not allow to contract out of meeting each other's financial needs and divorce, the Law Commissions regulations of this type of prenup to recommended this type of prenup to ensure that needs that have arisen because of unforeseen circumstances are not ignored by the court just because there is a prenup in place of as Lord Keen is aware, the definition of needs and financial cases on divorce has been the subject of much case law.

As I previously stated Law Commission does not see prenup's as a discrete issue, however the government will take on board all the views your lordships of race today and considering next steps will top I want to express my thanks to Lord Farmer for his contribution to this debate. I know how important these issues are to the noble Lord and acknowledges continued efforts to make sure my department works across government to ensure the best outcomes for families who are separating. As I have already said in the speech and was also raised by Baroness Shackleton and Lord Faulks, marriage is very important within our society and the foundation of many successful relationships.

I have listened with interest to the noble Lords perspective that prenup's would boost the marriage institution and am sure Lord Ponsonby will be interested in this point as well full stop I will write to Lady Shackleton on her question about appeals. I thank the noble Lady Baroness Featherstone and the Right Reverend Prelate for raising the important issue of impact on prenup's on women within this debate, this is an important policy question. I'm aware the Law Commission consider specifically this point in the 2014 report and may recommendations in protecting spouses financial needs when they divorced the safeguard recommended was that parties can't contract out of meeting each other's needs when they divorce.

I further thank Lord Farmer for his suggestion that the prevention of parental breakdown should form part of the governments opportunity mission, the government already does much to support separating couples. The Department of work and delivering the reduced parental conflict program to reduce parental conflict and improve children's outcomes will stop through this program funding is made available to local authorities in England who work in partnership with a range of experts from relationship and family charities. The government will now consider these recommendations in the context of the Law Commissions 2024 financial remedies review.

Lady Deech and Lady Shackleton have rightly expressed the need to reduce court delays, these delays have a significant impact on families and we are committed to improving court timeliness. In 2014 the Law Commission said its recommendations for prenup's and post will reduce the number of financial provision cases going before the courts in general. We will look at this further as part of our consideration of the Law Commissions 2024 report. Your lordships will I'm sure be pleased to know that the government is already taking action to reduce delays in financial cases.

We are supporting the family procedure rule committee to launch a new express pilot for financial cases in particular regions will top this pilot will reduce the number of court hearings in lower value financial cases from three to two. As part of this dispute resolutions will be the central focus of the will be the central focus of the first hearing. Lady Deech will I hope be pleased to know the government continues to explore the use of technologies such as AI to improve the efficiency of courts and legal processes.

The Ministry of Justice has established a new justice AI unit led by the Department's first AI officer. To develop a comprehensive AI strategy for the Department and its agencies I can confirm that our chief AI officer is a very popular person for everybody to meet. The Law Commission says in its 2024 report that any reform on the basis of its 2014 prenup proposals would depend on the type of wider financial reforms stop the Law Commission does not therefore see prenup's as a discrete issue, as I have heard today some noble Lords including Lord Meston disagree.

The government will take all of these views in the round before setting out its position. In closing, the debate today serves as a reminder that the law relating to prenup's raises complex questions about the role the courts and couples should take in the division of financial assets when divorcing. I understand Lady Deech's frustrations that the previous covenant had little enthusiasm to address prenup. I hope my repeated assurance in this debate that this government is considering carefully the Law Commission's December report have been helpful.

As referenced earlier I know Lord Ponsonby has been reviewing the recent report will be setting out our views in due course. It has been extremely helpful to have this debate, in fact is the first time I've heard the words romance and love in a debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed my time dealing with family justice matters and I will take what I have learnt back to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby on Monday I hope my noble friend thinks I given this topic justice if noble Lords will excuse the pun.

I hope I've managed to cover all the points raised today and that your lordships will forgive me if I have not, if anything has been missed I will write you on these issues. In closing I want to reiterate my thanks to the noble Baroness for tabling this motion, it is because this issue is so important both for couples and children that the government has taken the time to get government has taken the time to get
17:46
Baroness Deech Portrait Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
SME academic lawyer, I'm grateful and impressed for the real lawyers who brought their wisdom to bear in this debate this afternoon. -- As a mere academic lawyer. I say to the government that the commendable concern for financial prudence ought to be guarding them in this respect. And I think there is no doubt that couples and courts will be spared unnecessarily expensive if they go ahead and legislate. I would like to pick up the number of points and I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I don't address all of them.

Bearing in mind the time we are at this afternoon. I was moved to hear the Right Reverend Prelate the Bishop talk about marriage. But it's not the financial elements and prenup's that have degraded, as he might say, that have degraded, as he might say, marriage to the level at which he expresses, a number have expressed concern. Marriage has been emptied of all its former aspirations by changes in the law. The recent change in divorce law, while welcomed by many, of course means that you can get a divorce without presenting any reasons, and really relatively quite quickly.

And that sort of change must do more to affect a couples entry or not entry into marriage, than anything about the finances that may face them when the marriage comes to an end. I wish, like him and others, the force was not so common, but bearing in mind that it is, we have to be realistic. The burden of money impoverished divorcees. The state anyway. Amount of contract provision for settling financial matters in the court will take us away from the fact that many couples have few assets stop and the divorce means two sets of housing rather than one.

Increased reliance on state benefits. And whatever may be paid by way of maintenance is clawed back in Universal Credit. So prenup's, the present spot, is not going to do much to affect that particular financial element. Children. I absolutely agree with all noble Lords who have exposed concern for children. Children cannot and should not be part of prenup's or post knocks because those are agreements between two adults. We have not shown enough concern for children. When is the judgement I have read concerning the couples running to many dozens of pages in the last half page as a throwaway comment about so much per month or week for the children and their school fees.

And that's it. No concerns as to how the huge amounts expended on legal fees detract from the children. And no concern shown Emily about how many fathers, usually fathers, are allowed to walk away from their responsibilities to those children without any recourse, without state child maintenance legislation having much effect at all. And it's time we took more concern for children's financial situations in divorce. I don't think that we should worry too much about the cost of making a prenup because those costs are but a pinprick compared to what people have to spend when they enter into an acrimonious divorce which needs to go to court.

I don't think we should be concerned either about this convoluted argument that the Law Commission put forward that is the overall law were to change one would have to go back and alter the prenup because after all, the law relating to money and divorce keeps on changing, every time there's the Supreme Court judgement or Court of Appeal judgement things change Appeal judgement things change profoundly, and might require couples to revisit the prenup so that's not a firm argument. I do urge the government once again to go with it for enacting prenup's because that will save money all around and it is in fact a discrete issue, as most people have said, virtually everyone here this evening has said prenup's should be in action statutorily.

As for cohabitation, if one changes the law relating to cohabiting couples now, without reforming the law relating to financial provision, then cohabiting couples into court will find themselves caught up in the same network of inefficient, uncertain financial provision, as existing married couples do. So I still think that there is no reason to delay statutory enactment of prenup's law. The Minister, whichever minister, will find in the Ministry of Justice files and files gathering dust.

I have dealt with seven different ministers over this particular issue over several decades, and somewhere there is for dragging which is no longer justified. The government wants to save money, it wants to help couples. It wants to support children. And now is the time to do that, so I end by urging the Minister to go back to the ministry

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and tell them to get on with it. My Lords, I beg to move. The question is that this motion be agreed to. As many are of that be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions Questions on Questions on a Questions on a statement Questions on a statement made...
17:53
None Portrait Statement: Grenfell Tower Inquiry: Phase 2 Report
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Questions on a statement made... Order. Questions made in a statement in the House of Commons on the
17:53
Baroness Scott of Bybrook Portrait Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Conservative)
-
-
in the House of Commons on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry phase 2

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report. My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for bringing the repeat of this statement to your Lordship's House. Sir Martin Moore back and his team are to be congratulated for the work they did on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry and the government is right Inquiry and the government is right to have accepted the report's recommendations. The Deputy Prime Minister speaking in the other place rightly recognises the suffering of rightly recognises the suffering of the victims, the brief families, the survivals, and those in the middle, in the immediate Grenfell community.

When I was minister in government, I worked closely with the Grenfell community and my heart goes out to them. Their bravery, the determination, in campaigning for change so that this never happens again, has been exemplary. And I pay tribute to them all. As my honourable friends shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government suggested, tragedy of Grenfell, which claimed 72 innocent lives, 54 adults and 18 children, will always remain a scar on our national conscience. We on these benches offer our sincere apologies to the bereaved and survivors for the failures that led to that horrific light in June to that horrific light in June The findings are damning revealing decades of systematic failure, dishonesty and negligence.

They are a damning indictment of successive governments, regulators and the industry. I welcome the government's decision to accept 58 of the recommendations and it is right that ministers have committed to act on them. We support the creation of a single construction regulator, the appointment of a chief construction adviser, and the consolidation of fire safety functions under one department. These reforms are long overdue. We also support steps to professionalise five engineers and to reform the construction sector. The systematic dishonesty from firms such as iconic, Kings band and said attacks revealed by the enquiry is appalling and government must respond.

The response is promising but the government must deliver proper accountability. Unlimited fines and prison sentences for rogue executives and where appropriate government officials cannot remain mere rhetoric. We need action urgently and the official opposition will be following this closely to ensure ministers act in a timely way. Can the noble Lord the Minister explain why the government have not accepted the enquiry's recommendation for a single regulator to overseas the testing and certification of construction? Leaving that instead with the existing assessment bodies.

We know the building research Establishment was criticised strongly by the inquiry. So what steps is the government taking to address the concerns? We also welcome the remediation acceleration plan but we know that the targets rely on voluntary engagement for developers. Can the noble Lord the Minister explain what options are available to ministers where developers failed to comply? And will ministers work to deliver solutions for nonqualifying leaseholders and those at risk as a consequence of other fire safety defects? Because no resident should be left behind.

We have concerns about the phased approach to implementation stretching beyond 2028. The Grenfell community has waited long enough for change and can the noble Lord the Minister explain the reason for the delay of another Parliamentary term for full delivery? Finally, we fully support the Metropolitan Police investigation but this must be delivered more quickly. Those who profited from cutting corners or were criminally negligent must face consequences. Whether that be through fines or criminal sanctions. So can the noble Lord the Minister confirm whether the government has reviewed existing legislation to ensure we have the appropriate laws in place to prosecute similar criminal negligence in the future? The tragedy of Grenfell must be a turning point and we support the government in seeking to deliver a legacy of safety, transparency, and respect for every resident.

We are committed to working with this government on a cross-party basis to meet that promise. And as always, my thoughts and prayers are with Grenfell and that community.
17:58
Baroness Pinnock Portrait Baroness Pinnock (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, 72 people died in the Grenfell Tower fire. Seven years ago. In the most horrifying of circumstances. This phase 2 report on the Grenfell Tower enquiry is an excellent analysis, and provides a strong challenge to the government. For the decisions they need to make. It is therefore disappointing that the Secretary of State's statement fails to be absolutely clear that the recommendation from the enquiry will be implemented in full. Instead, the words used are that the government accepts the findings and " will take forward the recommendations ".

That is simply unacceptable. The enquiry exposed a culture of greed and indifference which must be rooted out of all the organisations associated with this holy avoidable tragedy. Holy avoidable. The government has a duty to ensure that all buildings with flammable cladding, and whether constructors omitted deliberately omitted, fire safety features, are fully mediated and the cost borne entirely by those responsible for those failings. Leaseholders must not be required to pay anything. Living in a building that is not safe is itself a cause of immense anxiety.

Add to that the scandal of huge rises in insurance costs and service charges, when leaseholders should not be paying anything. The ministry figures show that the 9,000, the 12,000 buildings over 11 m, will need remediation yet only 4771 have so far been identified, of which, under half of hard work started. Now, the National Audit Office has called for the cost of this work over and above that funded by the taxpayer to be placed on developers.

And that is absolutely right. Can the noble Lord the Minister explain how the costs of Minister explain how the costs of The estimate for information is around £7 billion. Turning to the 58 recommendations in the report, the report did recommend a single construction adviser which the government has accepted and will appoint and I fully support the government has accepted that recommendation. However, the recommendations in the Dame Judith Hackett report of 2018 that was made immediately following the Grenfell Tower fire also recommended that there be a full log of every element during construction work and including building improvements which may follow.

That log had to be signed off by the person responsible for the works. It seems to me to be the fundamental change that is needed. Can the Minister advise whether this particular change is being implemented? One of the other key changes proposed by the Hackett report was that the overall responsibility for building control should return to the local authority for independent oversight. Can the Minister explain why the statement, simply refers to a review of building control? Currently, construction, construct doors can appoint their own building inspector -- constructors, and the failure of that system is seen in the fire safety corner cutting in Grenfell Tower and many other buildings.

Does the Minister agree with me that an independent building inspector is a key change that has to be made? The failure of the regulatory systems that enabled flammable cladding to be added to the walls of many high- rise blocks is at the heart of the scandal. Yet the statement has little to encourage us to believe that essential reform is coming. The government has published a construction products Green Paper which is positive about long overdue.

The safety of construction products partly depends on the testing regime which was exposed as testing regime which was exposed as being deficient in the reports. What are the government's intentions therefore for the future of the British research establishment? Finally the reports refers to Higher-Risk Buildings and states to reference higher risk only by height is arbitrary and recommends that the use of the building is also vitally important. Is the government intending to review the definition as a matter of urgency as required by the recommendations in the report? What is needed now is a sense of urgency and purpose.

It is over seven years since that dreadful fire, survivors need to see that change, radical change is being made. The tragedy of 72 lives
18:05
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
made. The tragedy of 72 lives Thank you for your comments today. I know I speak for all of us when I say that what happened on that terrible night in June 2017 must never be allowed to happen again. It never be allowed to happen again. It was a national tragedy and an immensely personal tragedy. 72 immensely personal tragedy. 72 innocent people, 18 of them children innocent people, 18 of them children lost their lives. The Grenfell Tower Inquiry exposed damning and painful evidence of political, corporate and individual failings over decades.

I want to thank the enquiry chair Sir Martin Moore-Bick and his team for their hard work over seven years to shine a light on these failings. Yesterday in the other place the Deputy Prime Minister announced the government's response to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry's final report and apologised on behalf of the British state. I want to say again how deeply sorry I am in this government is for the failures that led to the tragedy. We accept that the enquiry's final report must be a catalyst for a long lasting system change.

That message has been re- emphasised by the points raised today. That is why the government accepts the findings of the report and will take forward all the recommendations. Our response addresses all the recommendations and sets out wider reforms of social housing in the construction sector. Alongside this, we published a construction products Green Paper with detailed proposals for rigorous systemwide reform to address the critical gaps in how construction products are regulated. Reforming construction products means safety will come first.

The culture that allowed the tragedy to happen will be transformed. We are focused on prioritising residents, ensuring industry builds safe homes and providing transparency and accountability. In doing so, we will rebuild trust. The government commits to publishing progress on implementing the enquiry recommendations every quarter from mid next year full stop in addition, we will provide additional update to Parliament. The government's response is explicit about the need to bring about the transformational change that the people of this country deserve.

As the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, to have anyone anywhere living in an unsafe home is one person too many. Yesterday I joined the deputy priming the in a meeting of the bereaved and victims of the horrible tragedy. It was an emotional and difficult experience but they need justice. If I particularly focus on the points that Lady Scott and Baroness Pinnock talked about on the issue of the single regulator and why in particular we are not committing to meet the enquiry's recommendation on that point.

We accept their enquiries recommendation will can create a single regulator however we must avoid pretty a conflict of interest within the regulator. We don't believe it is appropriate for the believe it is appropriate for the single regulator to undertake testing and certification of construction products and issue certificates of compliance itself. This would create a new conflict- of-interest within the regulator it, it would set the rules, test and issue certificates against those rules and police compliances within the rules as well.

Through the Green Paper we are putting forward as I just mentioned wider measures to a significantly strengthen conformity to provide the confidence and rigour that is essential as part of that systemwide reform moving forward. We are taking action now to the regulators to ensure enforcement action is taken against safety breaches and that new buildings meet our more vigorous standards. The new buildings safety regime is stopping bad designs from becoming bad buildings. The enquiry exposed regulation of the construction industry as too complex and fragmented.

Merging responsibility for regulation construction products, professional and monitoring the operation of building regulations provides the best basis for a regulatory system with clear standards, no regular to conflict and clarity uncertainty on how the industry must conduct themselves. In autumn 2025 we will set further details of the pathway to establish the single regulator. To the point Baroness Pinnock talked about, the government accepts all the enquiry's findings and will absolutely take action on every recommendation directed at us. They are 58 in total.

Where we have accepted nine recommendations in principle we will deliver the intended outcome in a slightly different way to ensure it meets the aims and is a lasting success. We want to be clear that the government accepts all the enquiry's findings and will take forward action on every recommendation. Baroness Scott mentioned remediation acceleration plan and wanted an update, we are focused on speeding up remediation. This plan will create certainty of which buildings need remediating and who is responsible. This plan will make obligations for assessing completing and regulating remediation clearer with severe consequences for non-compliance and give residents greater control in situations of acute were landlords of neglecting response villages.

I will update regularly on that process in particular. The legislative commitments are detailed in the remediation action plan and that will create certainty of which buildings need remediating and who is responsible for remediating them. It also makes obligations for setting and completing remediation clearer with severe consequences for non-compliance and gives residents greater control in a situation of acute harm where landlords are neglected their responsibilities. My final point on the construction products which not Baroness Pinnock talked about in relation to asking government what action we are taking to address criticisms of other situations found comfortable -- culpable in the law, the government has taken full account of the criticisms in the report including that of identified institutions we are addressing these criticisms through the response recommendations are set out in the Green Paper as part of the measures for systemwide

**** Possible New Speaker ****

reform. I welcome the news that the government has accepted all 58 of the recommendations, at least I welcome it in principle. In the same welcome it in principle. In the same way the government has accepted some of the key recommendations in principle. If we could just take principle. If we could just take recommendation 25, that asks that it be made a legal requirement for the government to maintain a publicly government to maintain a publicly accessible record of recommendations by Select Committees, coroners public enquiries together with a description of the steps taken in response.

Now the government says
18:13
18:14
Lord Khan of Burnley Portrait Lord Khan of Burnley, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
I thank her for that, the points she raises reality. I didn't actually mention this but I want to pay tribute to the Minister Baroness Scott and Baroness Pinnock for the work they have done for many years and this in particular the work in this area, I also want to pay tribute to Baroness Anderson in particular for the work she has been working with the bereaved victims families on this area. On your points we are looking forward, we are taking forward the enquiries recommendation on oversight, they need to be better accountability and oversight recommendations iron fermented I totally accept that.

Robust oversight of the government implementation response is And draw public enquiries the system needs to be improved and we are taking forward the enquiries recommendation on oversight full stop will create a publicly accessible record on gov.uk recommendations made by public enquiries since 2024 but we will consider making this a legal requirement as part of a wider review of the enquiries framework was the Granville enquiry recommendations my department will publish quarterly progress updates on gov.uk until they have all been delivered full stop we will report annually to label members to scrutinise progress and hold us to account and I said the noble Eddie my office is or is available I'm happy to sit down with the noble Baroness and noble Lords guesthouse if there is anything pertinent that you think the government needs to be doing more.
18:15
18:17
18:18
18:19
18:20
18:20
18:21
18:22
18:22
18:24
18:30
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Evans of Guisborough and Baroness Mattinson
-

18:30
18:31
None Portrait Introduction(s): Lord Evans of Guisborough and Baroness Mattinson
-

18:31
18:31
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page