Lords Chamber

Friday 4th July 2025

(began 4 months, 3 weeks ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
None Portrait None
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Third Third reading Third reading of Third reading of the Third reading of the mortgage business act. I beg to move that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

now read 1/3 time. The question is that this bill be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill be now read 1/3 time. The contents have it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

it. I beg to move that this bill do now pass and I would like to take now pass and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported the bill and who have supported the bill and supported the wider effort to bring justice to mortgage prisoners. In particular, I would like to thank Baroness Bennett, Lord Altrincham, Baroness Bennett, Lord Altrincham, and the Right Reverend Prelate for their contributions at second reading and my invaluable colleague reading and my invaluable colleague Dominic Lindley.

This bill may be leaving us now but the campaign for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

relief to the mortgage business. The question is that this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

building now pass. Please let me thank the noble Lord Lord Sharkey for his tireless Lord Lord Sharkey for his tireless work on proactively raising awareness of this issue and continuing to maintain that dialogue. The nearly 200,000 individuals trapped as mortgage individuals trapped as mortgage prisoners will be thanking him as he keeps up the momentum. People who were unable to secure better mortgage terms for a whole range of
10:08
10:08
10:08
10:09
10:11
10:12
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
to her excellent penmanship, fair, firm, fruitful and always friendly. The UK constitution requires active stewardship, pragmatism and devolution, and it leaves our constitution vulnerable to erosion and challenge. There is a key distinction between lawfulness and constitutionality. As we said in the report, paraphrasing Lord Sedwill, if the Atty Gen advised that a course of action was unlawful and the Prime Minister chose to pursue it nonetheless, then he would advise that the civil service would not be able to support it because doing so would be in contravention of the civil service code.

By contrast, if the cabinet secretary advised that the reaction was unconstitutional, then so long as it was lawful in the civil service will be able to support its delivery if the primer chose to go ahead. There are some constitutional issues which get constitutional issues which get resolved in the court. However, the existence of an area of constitutional issues which cannot be tested in the courts but which could lead to the government acting unconstitutionally underlines the importance of the various methods for safeguarding constitution there is a complex network of guardians on all lines to safeguard constitution.

Parliament itself is oversee a significant Guardian. Indeed, the Constitution Committee has a vital role to play, scrutinising all legislation for its implications and drawing them where necessary to the tension of the house, as well as holding the government to account in constitutional matters. The focus of this enquiry was on the role of the executive as constitutional Guardian. We also took an early look at the council of the nations and regions to which I will refer later. Let me begin with the very centre of government.

The Prime Minister is ultimately responsible for safeguarding the constitution within government. This is a significant responsibility which ought to be taken seriously. But in reality, the Prime Minister is much more likely to be held to account for failure to deliver on policy objectives than on constitutional responsibilities, and may find the latter gets in the way of reform. Prime ministers are tested on whether they deliver on their policy premises. We have had two recent prime ministers who did not really consider themselves inhibited by principles and norms.

That was bad news, but most prime ministers sincerely believe in the constitution and their role in defending it, inferior not always in practice. We have to recognise how much they are under to recognise the pressure they are under. This happens when government seeks to achieve policy by secondary legislation. Interesting comparison is president trumps use of the executive order to bypass Congress and state legislature. The prime minister is supported by a number of close advisers, significant among them is the cabinet secretary who plays a vital role in advising on constitutional matters.

Given its significance, it was disappointing to see that this responsibility was not explicitly included in the job description during a recent recruitment for that post, and it was our recommendation to include it going forward was not included by the government. Yet the cabinet secretary can also be affected by the priority delivering that, and they will be expected to ensure that the civil service is fully committed to securing the policy objectives. Warnings of constitutional impropriety can be made to look like obstruction and delay.

Supporting the cabinet secretary, as well as special advisers is the propriety and constitutional group in the Cabinet Office. This group provides advice on issues, evolution of standards and the relationship with the monarchs, however, it has been shuffled around between departments, particularly The Department for Levelling Up, Housing and We recommend it be made a permanent fixture within the Cabinet office for it to become a true centre of excellence. Institutional memory is another concern. Constitutional president must be consistently recorded.

Without this ministers and officials are left navigating complex issues as they arise without the benefit of deep institutional knowledge. This weakens the quality of the advice and risks undermining constitutional norms. Turning to the role of other ministers, we recognise that constitutional responsibility is not confined to the Prime Minister. The Lord Chancellor has a statutory duty to defend the rule of law and judicial independence. The Law Officers, particularly the Attorney-General are the definitive source of legal advice to the Prime Minister.

We were pleased to see the new Attorney-General swear a new version of the oath that included a commitment to the rule of law. This is a welcome affirmation. In the current government there is a minister for the constitution, but his responsibilities appear to be limited and sit alongside very different issues, like EU engagement and the Infected Blood enquiry. We recommended the appointment of a senior minister with broader responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on constitutional matters, role which used to be undertaken by the Lord Chancellor.

This individual should be senior and authoritative and whose advice will not be lightly disregarded. Preferably someone in the senior stage of their career rather than looking for their next job. The looking for their next job. The government did not accept this. It's important that all ministers take their constitutional responsibilities seriously otherwise there is a risk that constitutional law will gradually be eroded. Means it's important the government should strengthen the status of the advisory bodies and consider whether it be desirable to place them on the statutory footing.

We welcome the creation of the union and We said in our report that we would welcome an annual meeting between the deputy of this new cabinet committee and Constitution Committee and the Cabinet Secretary to discuss outcomes. The government told us they will be unable to disclose specific details of the committee's work because of the convention of collective responsibility. Nevertheless we will be happy to find ways to make such a discussion possible whilst respecting confidentiality. I hope the Minister will take us up on this request.

Turned the council of the nations and is. We chose to take an early look at the council as a follow-up to a recent report on the governance of the union because the council now forms part of institutional safeguards. Transparency and clarity of ownership around the council is important. We need clarity about its management. That was absent when Baroness Gale was briefly appointed as the Prime Minister's envoy for the nations and regions, but didn't take up the job. Has somebody since been appointed, or was it not needed? We are disappointed that information about the second meeting of the council is not yet available and we urge government to publish the communique as soon as possible.

It's important that no one is left unrepresented, particularly those in much of England who do not have a mayor. The government told us these areas will be represented on the council if choose to Grueneberg others to create a metro mayors. It's odd to make a central part of the intergovernmental machinery contingent on the political decision to opt for a mayoral system of local government. We are concerned about their representation in the meantime and would welcome clarity from the government about how the council will ensure that the interests of much of England are actually heard.

To be successful the council requires serious and sustained engagement by the UK government and other governments in regions of the United Kingdom. We look forward to reviewing the success of the council in due course. I think the jury is still out on the question of whether the council will be a significant element in our constitutional structure. The fact that we have a constitution, which is not to be found in a single document, and large parts of which are often. In the courts, provides for overseas observers a mixture of puzzlement and admiration.

It essentially works because we have a culture of constitutional government. The general acceptance that we should observe constitutional conventions and long standing practices have merit, but can be changed. We are looking at the machinery within the Executive and they are examined, but not necessarily in force. On that basis I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this notion

**** Possible New Speaker ****

be agreed to. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord. I congratulate all the noble Lord. I congratulate all the members of the committee and the chair for the report they have produced, and the success of getting this debating. I take the view that this debating. I take the view that it is always a good idea to direct our constitution. I regard today's debate as a welcome chance to take debate as a welcome chance to take the temperature of the health of our democracy.

Mind you, it's not the democracy. Mind you, it's not the only debate on constitution this week. Members present on Wednesday would have heard Lord Roberts of Belgravia tell us that the word historic, much overused, historic, much overused, nevertheless does apply to the bill under consideration on Wednesday. I say Wednesday, but I was on the say Wednesday, but I was on the Woolsack to well past midnight. I regard it as yesterday's debate. Many speeches were made, some of Many speeches were made, some of The silicon constitution I think is one of the houses most important one of the houses most important committees.

If that looks as if it's an application to join it, I'm afraid it probably is. As the House well knows we have over the centuries been engaged in a constant struggle between the Executive and the legislature, the powers of the King have gradually been replaced by the powers of the Prime Minister and it is the position of the Prime Minister which is at the centre of this report. It's important that whatever arrangements we make for safeguarding our constitution, every boss -- they are robust, like the constitution itself.

The report states that the Prime Minister stands as the principal adviser for safeguarding the constitution. We sometimes forget the role both of office make. Each of us have to swear or a firm and oath of office. At one stage Members of Parliament had to take three oath. Supremacy, allegiance and duration. At various stages they took on political and religious characteristics. It was only in 1858 with the oath of allegiance at that the modern Parliamentary oath crystallised into
10:24
Viscount Stansgate Portrait Viscount Stansgate (Labour)
-
-
the form in which it exists today. They have been updates and consolidations, the most recent in consolidations, the most recent in 1978. The point of my digression is 1978. The point of my digression is this. I think there is a case for requiring the Prime Minister to take a special oath of office that would incorporate a requirement to uphold the constitution of the country. I the constitution of the country. I make this suggestion because as the Prime Minister has replaced the King as the font of political power and as the font of political power and in practice the Prime Minister has to ultimate responsibility for the constitution as special oath might constitution as special oath might be appropriate.

I was interested in the evidence given by Lord Gove who the evidence given by Lord Gove who said, very conscious of swearing and oath in his role as Lord Chancellor. oath in his role as Lord Chancellor. It shows there is merit in considering an oath for the Prime Minister. If it weighed on the noble Minister. If it weighed on the noble Lords mind then, then it should when there is constitutional there is constitutional significance. I was interested to significance.

I was interested to read the evidence submitted by the noble Lord when he said the Cabinet Secretary's capacity to constrain the actions of the Prime Minister were pretty significant. I'm bound to say that I did not see this reflected in the events of 2019 and the attempted prorogation. Turning to the increasing importance of the law officers, and oath applies to them. Although the Lord Chancellor is required to take one we heard earlier this week the Attorney- General has taken one voluntarily which is a good thing.

Turning to some of the other elements of the committee's report there are pertinent questions. How active is the union and Constitution Committee? I am not convinced that it meets very often and the suggestion was made to have an annual meeting with that and the Council of the Duchy of Lancaster. It might be the only time they meet at all. Secondly, how often does the public bill committee meet? I don't know. Over the past three years that we have seen far too many examples of both.

We did have a debate on skeleton bills. Then there is a suggestion the is a role for the protection of our constitution. When it comes to Holland, I supported the case made by the noble Lord and his bill, although I should add I don't believe it's advice to the Prime Minister however important should be made by them. I part company with the committee over a specific minister being responsible for the constitution. I'm not sure it should be formally evolved to another minister.

It would fetter the discretion of the Prime Minister a sure any Prime Minister would wish to be constrained in this way, so I don't work. When 15 years ago Gordon Brown authorised the publication of the Cabinet manual, it immediately made its mark. It was described as guide to the laws a provisional government. Its existence help us to understand the way government works. It made it easier for us to understand how its conventions, customs and practices could and should be protected.

The Cabinet manual is its existence to the support of the Prime Minister and other noble Lord's, but where is it now? My noble friend the Minister said it reply to our most recent question on it. The government takes the function of the Cabinet manual seriously and we will keep it under review. Is there anything what the noble Lord can tell us? I remain to be convinced that there is either an appetite or interest. The previous government promised to produce an updated version by Christmas 2023, but nothing came of it.

It would be in the spirit of the Constitution Committee's report that available document like this was redrafted for the current age and I succeed in being selected for the committee I will bring my suggestion with it.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure to follow the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord Viscount Stansgate. I was not a member of the Constitution Committee member of the Constitution Committee at the time of writing this at the time of writing this important report as I am now, but I would have endorsed the conclusions we pleasure with one exception, and we pleasure with one exception, and it is the same exception mentioned by Viscount Stansgate. I think the responsibility has to lie with the responsibility has to lie with the Prime Minister, but I think also, and I will come back to it, it is the duty of all ministers more widely than the Law Officers and
10:29
Lord Waldegrave of North Hill Portrait Lord Waldegrave of North Hill (Conservative)
-
-
widely than the Law Officers and others in charge of departments to act constitutionally. I've already spoken on another occasion in this House of my admiration for the noble Lord at the time and his deputy as described in paragraph 17 of this report. Their behaviour in response was a fine example of the system working and when advocacy of potentially unconstitutionally wrong behaviour emanated from the Prime Minister and those around him. This report is clear and to my experience accurate in the attention it focuses on the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary and his or her vital role.

My only comment to add is my belief that there are various models in action and it is best if the Cabinet Secretary is head of the Civil Service. He or she speaks not only for themselves but for the Civil Service as a profession. Juan Mata leaves a residual anxiety from this famous story in paragraph 17. Helen McNamara stood her ground by saying to a political adviser, we do not work for you, we were for the Queen. That is what I would have said if I had been brave enough in her place, but under our constitution the Monica acts on the advice of the Prime Minister.

It needs to be clear in law that a civil servant may refuse an unconstitutional order. Some procedure akin to the accounting officers report should be available to put the dispute before Parliament. Relationship between the Prime Minister Cabinet Secretary should be replicated in every The permanent secretary should have the right to challenge his or her Secretary of State and what is perceived as unconstitutional action. If there is a dispute, it would be elevated to the PM to judge.

My final point takes me into dangerous territory in which experts in the political trivia of the past will remember I once before stumbled to the delight of the media. All action in politics is covered by ordinary mineralogy. There's no such thing to my mind as an ethical realm of reason of state. Any constitution depends on those working within it acting morally as the noble Lord said eloquently in his introductory said eloquently in his introductory speech. The dilemmas which we find when moral imperatives clash with each other exist just as much in politics as in ordinary life.

Is that always a categorical thing to tell the truth? I believe not. Sometimes it is right not to tell the home side a maniac that he knows where the axe is hidden. We are good at deceiving our enemies to mislead the Germans as to when the landings were coming. No one doubts that those were necessary, but truth telling to Parliament is a constitutional principle in the United Kingdom, and rightly so. Deliberate deception of the house is a resigning matter.

Without true facts laid before them, a proper constitutional democratic debate cannot take place. There are difficulties about constant candour and public and private. Conventions allow ministers to refuse to answer questions on secret security matters, but what of the question about telling the truth being impossible? I irritated a former prime minister whom I greatly admire as I said long ago that of course he couldn't give a candid answer when asked whether he was contemplating devaluing the plan.

He thought I was saying that he was dishonest which was the last thing I intended, but he could not tell or fulfil his duty as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time properly while telling the the time properly while telling the whole truth on that matter. The 99% of the time, my friend is right to deprecate what he sees as a radical increase in political lines. Telling the truth is a vital condition for democratic debate. How on earth are we to decide when a lack of candour or even a lie is justified? Some good steps have been taken since the date of my media fracture like the Office for National Statistics which comes out misuse of statistics by ministers or anyone else.

But what about straightforward factual lies? In retrospect the lies told in the government of the time of suet surely crossed the line. I take that example because we all do. There have been other incidents since and I won't specify them now but others could do so to their own satisfaction. I will make one more interjection which may help in certain situations though not all. And the seeds of which are already sad. I believe that in cases, in those past cases, it was a failing at the very top members of the civil service not to protest on ethical grounds.

I also think, in a democracy, the elected ministers if backed by the prime minister should prevail, and answer in the end the political process of Parliament and the electorate. But I believe the constitution would be well served the cabinet secretary or permanent secretary had the right to record their objection publicly if they felt they had to surrender their ethics are the ultimate power when overall to overvalue to money to the EAC. My belief is that, like all good deterrents, such a procedure would most likely never be required.

But I believe that this was something like it, more formal that we have now, would strengthen one vital part of our constitutional balance so well described in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

report and the debate. I should begin by apologising for turning up a few minutes late. I'm turning up a few minutes late. I'm afraid I was misinformed about the start of the debate. It is a pleasure to follow Lord Waldegrave pleasure to follow Lord Waldegrave of North Hill whose many achievements both in government and achievements both in government and out of government making the fitting recent member of the constitutional recent member of the constitutional committee. This country is almost unique in having no formal written constitution.

We have the bedrock of constitution. We have the bedrock of Parliamentary Sovereignty superimposed on which is a mishmash of appealable and amendable statutory provisions and
10:36
Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury Portrait Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury (Crossbench)
-
-
statutory provisions and conventions. This make it up as you go along constitution has served us pretty well over the past centuries and is the attraction and flexibility in a fast changing world. But the danger of a flexible system is that it transmogrified into an arbitrary system. In the fast changing world to which I refer means that the challenge we now face is ensuring a degree of restraint and propriety in a political culture that increasingly rewards speed, dominance and spectacle.

And the extent of that challenge is illustrated by a number of worrying developments over the last few years. They include the excessive use of skeleton bills and delegated powers, bills which have proposed reaches of international obligations, inappropriate government influence over independent regulators to spread about clauses, and questionable private sector requirement outs being taken on by former ministers and civil servants. Particularly in the case of a constitution which is so much based on convention, the most serious and dangerous constitutional evasions are often cumulative minor breaches rather than sudden major ones, ignored code of conduct, an appointment made without the requisite scrutiny, a Henry VIII clauses bell, each individually mind which seep into the culture and gradually undermine the system.

Without wanting to seem alarmist, I think we have seen a real erosion of constitutional propriety over the last quarter- century. In particular, the lack of even elementary constitutional awareness at all levels of government was demonstrated during the COVID pandemic, and I'm afraid that that accords with my experience of dealing with ministers and civil servants when I was a senior judge. It is only fair to add that, in the past year, and to some extent the last three years, things have got somewhat better but there is real cause for concern.

Institutional memory perhaps important in a system where convention plays such a large part has been eroded over the past couple of decades due to ministerial turnover, civil service job rotation and ad hoc government. There are various ministers who can be said to be responsible for aspects of the constitution but save where the courts get involved and they rarely get involved in matter of convention or what goes on in parliament, the Prime Minister can be characterised as the ultimate guardian of constitutional propriety, and it has become apparent that many aspects of our constitution.

In our excellent report which I would like to pay tribute, the committee mentions the Prime Minister was described by a service minister is a very busy person, and the pressing demands of the office would mean that his role in safeguarding the constitution which not be at most outside of times of constitutional crisis. And the remedies for prime ministerial failings are often impractical. In any event, there is an inherent paradox in the head or indeed any part of the executive arm of government being the ultimate guardian of the constitution.

After all, a very major purpose of the constitution is to control and limit constitution is to control and limit the powers of the executive so there is a force in the notion that the government or any member of the government cannot simultaneously be the custodian of the constitution and the principal risks to its integrity. Self-regulation has generally deprecated these days when it comes to other institutions. So both the experience of the past few years and principle suggests that there is a need for increased support for constitutional propriety and that it should not simply come from ministers or civil servants and their departments.

For this reason, I must confess there are some doubts about the reports recommendation, that there would be a new post of a minister responsible for advising the Prime Minister on constitutional matters. If there is to be such a post, then echoing will say that such a post should be held by a very senior politician with considerable experience of law and politics, who has no political ambitions. From that, we can draw considerable experience from the change in the role of the Lord Chancellor.

Maybe that was inevitable, as was the creation of the Secretary of State for Justice, but the consequences for the rule of law, of replacing a very experienced lawyer with no political ambitions who could be relied on to speak up for the rule of law by a middle ranking member of government with little if any experience of the law suggests that the new minister with a constitution advisory role will be of no real value unless he or she is somebody with considerable authority, but having said that, I do support another of the reports suggestions, namely putting bodies on a statutory footing to provide a framework with which the Prime Minister could exercise his current powers.

I would include within these bodies not only how lack but also the advisory committee on business appointments and the body to supervise the Ministerial Code. This was one of the recommendations made in January 2024 in a paper by UK government commission chaired by Dominic Green for which I was a member. As we pointed out, such a course would not entail any major expenditure and it could be expected to help re- establish some degree of public failure in our democratic processes.

The extent if any to which the Prime Minister should delegate his powers to the relevant body or what should happen if he did not do that but did not follow their advice should obviously be a matter for detailed discussion. The report which we are considering also refers to the government's intention to introduce an ethics and integrity commission which would add coherence to the range of what the report refers to as ancillary structures, including the civil service commission. This is a manifesto commitment of the government and I agreed that it is discharged and imminent, representing an opportunity to give both team and coherence to quite a wide-ranging of important constitutional watchdogs.

Again, details of how that will be done will be given in the paper produced by the UK government's government to which I have referred. These details include proposals as to how the committee on standards in public life would feature in a newly coherent structure. Implementation of these proposals would be a contribution.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

If the noble Lord were able to wind up. I have just finished. I'm sorry to have overrun.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

to have overrun. I begin by thanking the Lord for the debate and the constitutional committee for their thought- provoking report. It's also a great provoking report. It's also a great pleasure to follow the learning Lord, as well as the other noble Lords have contributed so far to this debate. What they have said, there is much thought and I hope there is much thought and I hope that others will have a chance to read what they have said. In the
10:44
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
time available to me, I just want to touch on one of the subjects that the report deals with, the role of the law officers. I was Solicitor General's in the early part of the Cameron coalition, an Irish shadow attorney under his leadership. I was also before that a shadow attorney under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Haig of Richmond. I quote the definitive source of advice on legality for the prime minister had a significant constitutional role. They reiterated the recommendations they have made in an earlier report on law officers that the Atty Gen must place a duty to law above party political considerations and I agree.

In giving evidence on 6 July 2022 to the committee in that earlier enquiry on the role of the law officers, I referred to the experience of the late Peter Rawlinson, a former law officer and the government's of Macmillan Douglas Hume and Heath. And he explained in his autobiography that when he was appointed Solicitor General in 1962, he was given a first half-hour seminar about the Macmillan told him his first priority was to uphold the rule of law, the second was to be responsible and accountable to Parliament and the duty was to Macmillan's administration.

Lord Cameron appointed me in the three minute telephone call, but I expect he had rather more important things to get on with. I suspect there are no more misunderstood post in government tenders occupied by the attorney and Solicitor-General. Being a law officer is not like being a political minister in other departments. If you are the Secretary of State for Health you have a prominent role. Every minute of your day looks at policy and working out how to pay for it.

The Law Officers department is not traditionally a policy-making department, it only really introduces legislation. I used to describe our role as being like the light in the cupboard. The Minister light in the cupboard. The Minister opens the door and asks you what the answer is to a question you give it to them and then they close the door. I have also described the Law Officers as submarines. Submarines are most effective when unseen, unheard and operating without drawing attention to themselves. I came up with this laboured naval metaphor when in 2010 a new submarine conducting sea trials had run aground nether Isle of Skye.

If the Law Officers runs aground, either the government is in trouble, he is in trouble or sometimes both. The knowledge they are patrolling somewhere in the depths of Whitehall somewhere in the depths of Whitehall and Westminster ought to be sufficient to ensure ministers behave accordingly. As the late Lord Mayhew said, the Attorney-General has a duty to ensure that the ministers acting in the name of the Queen act lawfully because it is his duty to secure the rule of law, the principal government, sorry, the principal requirement of which is that the government itself act lawfully.

It will not be forgotten that when he was Solicitor-General he threatened to as the police to raid Number Ten to find out who had unlawfully linked his confidential opinion on the Westland affair. I was grateful to the noble Lord Viscount Stansgate. Good government requires leadership, example from the top and mutual trust and understanding. The Law Officers cannot work or advise in isolation. They cannot just talk to themselves. It is essential they are seen to be part of the government team, albeit a semi-detached part of that team.

They should not ignore what their duties are a should other members of the government take them for granted. One of the things I have worried about over the last several years that the fellowship of lawyers and Members of Parliament between the judiciary and government and between the judiciary and Parliament has gone. We no longer speak the same language. When I took a Lord Chancellor to dinner, she appeared to feel she was going into a foreign country. Not long ago the Lord Chancellor would not only have known most of the people there, but would have appointed the judges in the room.

There should be an understanding about their separate roles. The Lord Chancellor would have defended the judges against the attacks made on them from Parliament. That has gone and discourages practising members of the bar and solicitors from going the bar and solicitors from going Younger and much younger than me who would have made excellent members of Parliament, excellent ministers and more particularly excellent Law Officers but they will not come anywhere near Palin because to them it is poison. I am not the first to resort to the metaphor of the sea when referring to the Law Officers.

David Malik's The Life of Francis Bacon says, Attorney-General rocks upon which many aspiring lawyers have made shipwreck of their virtue in human nature. We have had Law Officers who have strayed outside the remit gave questionable legal advice. They were not the first and perhaps will not be the last to do so, but I hope properly informed public opinion and thus government and Parliament will continue to seek the benefit of the current system with our Law Officers being members of your Lordships House or other other place.

As an institution we need to encourage many more really good lawyers from all political party none to play an active role in politics, but for then also not to lose sight of the legal routes and heritage. We see a number of them in the chamber most days of the week. We need, and I apologise because they are not amongst us today. I apologise if we -- I apologise if I caused an embarrassment. We need younger equivalents to be attracted to law.

The fellowship I spoke of a moment ago has unfortunately vanish.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It's a pleasure to contribute to today's debate. I have been in government more recently than some of the people speaking today, or perhaps not the most recent. It's perhaps not the most recent. It's fair to say our constitution continues to evolve. That is why it continues to evolve. That is why it should not be codified. It's why we shouldn't set in stone and above the recommendations, I don't believe, that I put here today. One of the most important things that happens most important things that happens in this country is the Prime Minister meets our monarchy every week.

It is a private conversation, but I think the Prime Minister having that direct role, that direct interaction is one of the biggest safeguards on constitutional life and that should not be underrated. In terms of thinking through, the Prime Minister has to ultimately be Prime Minister has to ultimately be responsible and to be candid it will be hard to have another minister with the separate responsibility with the separate responsibility that really may not even be privy to lots of things that go on when you are a very senior cabinet minister.

People under national security council, on all sorts of different council, on all sorts of different things, who have information that simply many other people in this country will never know about and have to keep secret. Is also an important part of how they consider how they are responsible for the country as a whole. So having a separate minister, unless it was in effect Deputy Prime Minister or equivalent, nobody else would have the same amount of information the Prime Minister would have when making decisions of the day.

Referring to COVID, it was a big discussion in cabinet that we could have used the Civil Contingencies Act to manage COVID, but it was decided that for respect for Parliament we would introduce a piece of legislation, because we have time, sometimes, to get in and to get that view of Parliament at both houses. That was a respect for the constitutional this country and the important role of Parliament. In terms of other aspects of how things have evolved, reference to the Council of nations and regions and the moving around of humans in charge of intergovernmental relationships.

When devolution started it would be the Secretary of State for Scotland who would the direct link to the First Minister Scotland. That has evolved. It's almost seen as a snub if the Prime Minister of the day doesn't have the calls with the Prime Minister, but it has changed. If we start to codify these things, we start to get into actually not keeping up with what is needed. That somewhat gives the justification to put as many Henry VIII clauses in. We need to be careful about how they are used.

In terms of my experience, I spent three years in charge of the Department that was Great Britain wide. I was also in charge of a department where my responsibility was principally England, but also international. It was a very different dynamic, but one of the things that has actually somewhat shaken the constitution, it has got good intentions, but it was the UK internal market sat. That needs a revision, or thinking through about how that helps disbalance that we how that helps disbalance that we have.

But also, and I was one of the Secretary of State's that really pushed our Law Officers to take the Scottish government to court when they were stepping over the line. Another one that I did was to very important rulings that came ultimately from the Supreme Court under the presidency of Supreme Court Justice George Reid was about making sure the UK Parliament was the primary Parliament, but also the courts should not be used in case law to overturn policy, but importantly legislation that have been passed by democratically elected Parliament.

In terms of thinking through the role of the Law Officers. They are exceptionally important, of course they are, but it's interesting to me in terms of, particularly in referenda you DP, we had a lot of legal cases. There was one particular case where I was trying to test the patience of the court. It was to do with a change in EU law and stuff we were doing. Our lawyers wanted me to concede and I wasn't prepared to do that.

But working with the amazing Sir James Eadie and others, actually, one of the things that isn't written in ministerial code, but if you go to the law officer for a decision, their decision was final and that is what I wanted. I wanted the Attorney-General of the time to make that decision and I would abide by it, but interestingly there was so much pushback that actually, I had already left office by the time that thing was concluded. This is to show
10:57
10:57
10:57
Baroness Coffey Portrait Baroness Coffey (Conservative)
-
-
government does work and actually how is usually ministers rather than the Civil Service who are very mindful of aspects of the mindful of aspects of the parliamentary relationship for a start, but also it is important that the Ministerial Code does having their about aspects of the law, all their about aspects of the law, all those things you have to be mindful those things you have to be mindful of and of course you have to respect that. But also I would say to their Lordships one thing they could have Lordships one thing they could have considered in this committee is actually the role of the Civil Service code.

There were several Service code. There were several occasions when I was advised by civil servants to knowingly break civil servants to knowingly break the law. Now, it may have only been minor infringement, but I challenged about how was that possible under about how was that possible under the Civil Service code that you are in your advice and in your inaction, you are advising me to knowingly you are advising me to knowingly break the law? And I was not break the law? And I was not prepared to do it.

So one of the things that I would encourage a committee, I'm not suggesting we have even more reports, but it is to genuinely think about that. It is something that by and large, another weird example, it is not exactly breaking the law. Quite early on in my office I learnt that my shadow Secretary of State had written to me on Twitter. I only knew it because he also published my response to him on Twitter. I had never seen the letter from the shadow Secretary of State.

I had never seen letter written in my name, but there it was, my response, and my signature. These sorts of things unfortunately in the Civil Service code should have been more serious than it was, but my Lords, you may think I'm trying to deflect from where we are going to. The one thing I would agree is moving civil servants around from department to department following a minister does not work. They should stay in the Cabinet office.

Sometimes people suggest it's politicians doing this that and the other. I am not accusing the Civil Service, but their job is to manage and ultimately I could go on about another legal case where I was named as a defendant. I didn't know until the ruling had come against me formally. These things I am afraid do happen, so it is important when we consider not only the role of ministers and how we potentially try and find their hands, we also need to try to make sure we keep the focus on the civil servants who give advice to ministers.

Sometimes it can be difficult and demanding, but nevertheless next time, have a think about how the Civil Service code

**** Possible New Speaker ****

works in practice. My Lords, I was once told that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I was once told that the constitution was best left to the constitution was best left to the lawyers, the historians and the former Cabinet ministers. So former Cabinet ministers. So naturally here I and, and musician turn town centre advocate about to
11:00
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town Portrait Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Labour)
-
-
turn town centre advocate about to offer my thoughts, very much aware of the esteemed company in which I do so. I thank the noble Lord person for introducing this debate and skilfully participating in the committee that brought it to us. -- Lord Beith back stop --. I've tried to make things work underground in town centres and underground and in partnerships. Most of the discussion today will be on our constitution and the creeping powers that bypass proper scrutiny.

I do share those concerns, but today I speak in cautious praise of the constitution cautious praise of the constitution It is an codified, sometimes obscure, but it's flexibility is, in many ways, it's quiet genius. We've weathered recent constitutional storms as we've already had alluded to today, Brexit, COVID emergency powers, without paralysis or collapse. That is no small feat. It shows that our system, for all its flaws, still rests on something more than law. On values. On participation. On president.

On a shared expectation that power must answer to principal. Now, the so- called good chaps theory of government is already referred to has taken a few knocks of late, let's be honest. But it hasn't collapsed entirely. And perhaps it's time that we updated the idea. Less about chap and more about the culture of stewardship that reflects modern governance and today's public. So, how do we safeguard this quiet genius without fixing it in stone? Perhaps inevitably, as we've already had referred to, one of the committees recommendations as the appointment of a senior minister for constitutional responsibility.

But the answer to many a problem in Whitehall has been to appoint a minister for, and I think we have to acknowledge the government's response to the point and the difficulty with it that we have already had alluded to. Got it. Sorry, it was a fly. I wouldn't do that normally. Perhaps the answer lies not in centralising that responsibility but in sharing it. Perhaps the committee itself could undertake an annual constitutional audit across both houses which could help in bed longer term sense of constitutional care.

One that isn't so easily swept aside and reshuffled or by headlines. In my experience, including in my daily work for which I refer my house to the register of interest, the most effective accountability often comes not from central control but from shared distributed responsibility. As indeed, we made experience in this very place. My Lords, I don't for a moment suggest that we rest easy. Nor should we rash to codify all concrete the system that, for all its quirks, has helped us adapt, absorb shocks, and correct course where necessary.

In a world where constitutions are increasingly polarised or ignored, hours and written though it may be has so far held. Perhaps my Lords this report shows us how to hold it letter, not by rewriting the rules, but by renewing the responsibility. And for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

that, it deserves our thanks. My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, and I to follow the noble Lord, and I think he does himself an injustice in the humble way he introduced his in the humble way he introduced his speech. He will see that I largely speech. He will see that I largely agree with what he said, and I think the whole house will have heard the wisdom that he heard from a wisdom that he heard from a practitioner at local level for implementing these things, and it is a good lesson at the point of the constitution and all of these principles is to make sure that we principles is to make sure that we are better governed for the people that we are entrusted with.

And that that we are entrusted with. And that of course is the purpose, and I think he set that out very well. A few remarks from me. I was very
11:05
Lord Harper Portrait Lord Harper (Conservative)
-
-
few remarks from me. I was very pleased in his remarks that the noble Viscount referred to, the Cabinet Manual. He was right in saying that he was under Gordon Brown that one chapter of it was developed and published and that proved to be very helpful in the process of forming the correlation government. It felt that government to develop the rest of the Cabinet Manual, and he already referred to the noble Lord who was then the cabinet secretary who led the official team putting it together.

I was a junior minister responsible at a ministerial level for the Cabinet Manual, and the noble Viscount is quite right that the version that we produced, the first edition in October 20 remains the only addition and hasn't yet been updated, and I will take a little bit of that, that we did a reasonably good job in the first place, and that is credited with Donald and his team, but it does need updating, and I think there will be some merit. It doesn't cover the whole constitution.

It is supposed to be about central governments but I think having all that in one place and some clarity that in one place and some clarity about what the rules are would be very helpful if a followed, so I'm pleased that he raised it before I did. It's always slightly embarrassing when you're the co- author of something to be the first person to raise it in a complimentary way, so I'm glad he beat me to it. I strongly agree with the committee's conclusion, the first and second conclusions in the third and fourth recommendations about the central position of the Prime Minister on these matters, but also, the importance of the civil servants who, not just across the civil service as a whole, but those specifically tasked with looking after this.

My noble friend referred to the importance of the cabinet secretary's role in this, and as I said, when I was doing the constitutional role, if it is not inappropriate, I notice one of the former officials that gave evidence to the Constitution Committee work on this, Alex Thomas who is now the programme director who was one of my key officials at the time, and I think he exemplified the quality of officials that we do benefit from who gave very sound advice.

In the end, the decisions were mine but I felt well supported by the team and I think the recommendation to keep the team together in the Cabinet Office I think is a very sensible one that the government should follow. I also agree with my noble friend about the importance of the law officers, and I think it is a very important one. It seems like my experience in government is still the case, notwithstanding all of the changes with the role of the Lord Chancellor, the law office still has government, active politicians where they do is to have an important role when they set out their authoritative position on what the law is for ministers, and I think the more we can strengthen that within government and take them slightly out of that day-to-day political fight is a welcome one, and I very much strongly support what Lord Garnier said, but also the recommendation of the committee.

But I understand that the point of recommendation seven which is the one referred to by a number of noble Lords around appointing a weighty figure to support the Prime Minister and the constitution, I think it is a worthy idea, but fundamentally, it doesn't really work. In the end, in our system, particularly in constitutional matters, the buck does stop with the Prime Minister. And it is not just the day-to-day work, and I know there is evidence that was given about the premise to being a very busy man which has been referred to as true, but a lot of the way the constitution is followed in government is not about whether the Prime Minister spends a lot of time thinking about it or looking at lots of papers about it, it is about the tone that the Prime Minister sets for how his or her government is conducted.

The standards and the expectations that they have for others, but also, and this is where I think the word integrity is important, the standards they set and expect of themselves. And integrity is an important word. It is about what you do when you don't think somebody else is lacking. And I think that is very important and it is something we should all think about when thinking about who the right people are to the Prime Minister. It is that tone and culture that they set in government, and whatever we say about other people, they are the kings first Minister, the adviser on the constitution, and yes, they can take advice from cabinet secretary will these valuable functions, but in the end, it is the Prime Minister who sets that tone.

The final point is recommendation 14 about the statute, this is where I strongly agree with Lord Keighley about the genius of the constitution, which is the fact that it is flexible and can respond to the political situation. I will to the political situation. I will give one great example back in 2010 when the session was chaired by my noble friend Lord Norton. And it was a very gruelling experience and very high calibre people on that committee but it is about the fixed term Parliament acts and that was a very good example of trying to put things into statute which will probably left best not, and the reason why it didn't work is because a set of circumstances evolved after the Brexit referendum which we could not possibly have foreseen, and therefore, the system was not capable of responding, so I strongly agree that we should leave things to be flexible.

In the end, the pedicle system has to deal with these matters, and our flexible contribution is best placed to do so. so.
11:12
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle Portrait Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (Green Party)
-
-
My Lords, I think the noble Lord for his and all of the committee's work and his clear and comprehensive introduction today. And I thank the committee for taking on a difficult indeed impossible task of trying to find ways within the limits of their mandate to prop up a tottering, failing system. I declare my position as vice president of the Association for reasons are come back to later. If we start with where the committee starts in paragraph 3, is as this is none codified and flexible system " of Supreme Court from 2019.

The system remains sufficiently flexible to be capable of further development. I'm afraid there is a sense in a tone of protesting too much. The vehement C is a measure of desperation. We are stuck rather visibly somewhere between the 16th and the 19th centuries, and indeed, that is rather acknowledged in paragraph 5, the committee says that the constitution is vulnerable to erosion and challenge relies to a considerable extent on individuals replying with constitutional norms, and I think the noble Lord clearly set out how much that is not happening.

And I'm going to begin with a practical example because this week marks the 10th anniversary of the slaughter of Cecil the lion by an American trophy hunter, and that reminds me of a disgraceful evening, 12 September 2023, a bill which had gone through the elected house with the support of all sides. We saw in this house 12 former public schoolboys driver cart and horses through what we have always been told is the respective traditions of the house, the unwritten rules to fill filibuster the prohibition bill.

The unwritten rules demonstrably were not worth rules demonstrably were not worth the paper they were not written on. Now, the committees report, coming back to that, refers to the primacy of the prime minister in safeguarding the constitution. Well, there is an obvious glaring weakness there. If our constitution relies on one person, that is not the kind of way to organise a constitution to organise a structure, and more than that, I point about the position of the prime minister.

We have the support of his party of 34% people who voted in the general election last year. If we look at eligible voters, the Prime Minister has the support of 20% of eligible voters. And of course, we don't elect the Prime Minister. We elect MPs, and if we look at who elected our current prime minister, well, in the people of Hoban and St Pancras, less than half of them voted for Sir Keir half of them voted for Sir Keir Starmer.

We are putting all of the weight of our constitution on this one person on those incredibly fragile foundation. Now, is it any wonder that the start of this year, there was a Channel 4 poll, 52% of 13 to 27-year-olds said the UK would be in a better place with a strong leader who does not have to do bother with Parliament and elections. I would remind your Lordships house that is where we are today. As Lord Garnier said, a wide-ranging people now regard the idea of coming into Parliament as poison.

That is a measure of the How about we start to think broadly, and I don't fault the committee, but having a proper, modern, democratic functional constitution. That is where we have to go because it is not what we have now. Now, we can see the impact of this in the state of the. We can even say in the state of this building. It is easy to blame individuals, and I do very often, but white we keep on having failing government after failing government.

-- But why. We have to look at the constitutional structures. I'm going to come to a more specific point again, chapter 4 of the report about the Council of the Nations and Regions. The committee says the government should set out who within the UK government is responsible for the Council of is responsible for the Council of nations and regions. This is clear that this is being taken so seriously, I have no idea who is responsible. Something that is going to meet every six months and bring together elected mayors that represent some parts of the country.

represent some parts of the country. Some mayors may be elected with 25, 30% of the vote he will be speaking for the regions. And these are devolution plans imposed from Westminster. I am going to come to a very specific point here. It's interesting that this entire report makes no mention at all of local councils, who are at least rather more representative local organisations. They are not included in the council and the regions. When the government declared that councils must have a leader and cabinet model, this is Westminster directing how local councils should work.

This is supposed to ensure local communities will have the right mechanism to engage with their counsel. But this is a question to the noble Lady the Minister directly. The people of Bristol in 2022, the people of Sheffield in 2021 through a grassroots campaign and a referendum of the Hull City decided they want committee structures in their councils. Is the government really going to overall that basic piece of democracy? Yes, I hear a probably from the Lib Dem front bench and I feel they may be right, but what I'm going to say is having just been to the local government associations conference in Liverpool I can warm the noble Lady the Minister and the government that the plans also to abolish the district councils, the former government closer to the people, there will be resistance.

People are going to fight. I come to my concluding sentence. We cannot rely on good chaps suddenly discovering a sense of responsibility and honesty. Institutional structures do not support good chap behaviour. The select is trying to valiantly shore up something that is not working. We need to think about getting our modern functional constitution for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the UK. I join with others in paying tribute to the noble Lord for introducing this debate. I want to introducing this debate. I want to focus my remarks on chapter 4, paragraph 46 and the role of the Parliamentary business and legislation committee. PB offer legislation committee. PB offer short. We legislate too much and short. We legislate too much and scrutinised too little. It's not a new problem. We have been new problem. We have been legislating for nearly 800 years.

The Statute of Marlborough which addressed the misuse of power by feudal landlords is still on the feudal landlords is still on the feudal landlords is still on the statute book. There were 20 volumes that captured all the laws on the that captured all the laws on the statute books from the previous 700 years. The fifth edition comprises
11:20
Lord Bates Portrait Lord Bates (Conservative)
-
-
years. The fifth edition comprises of 105 volumes. So in the last century we have added 85 volumes of law to the 20 volumes of the previous seven centuries. In 1921 the added 220 pages to the statute book. In 2005 we added 12,933 pages. In 1931 there were 51 acts passed by Parliament, but the total number of pages was 322. This year the Employment Rights Bill alone runs to 309 pages and requires another 191 pages of explanatory notes.

This is not just the government's fault, it is Parliament's fault, too. The parliamentary process typically as 40% to the length of the bill. Rather than applying a break to the legislative instinct of the Executive, we are applying an Excel iterator. The legislative burden in Britain comes from secondary legislation. Over 1,000 Statutory Instruments and thousands of pages went through Parliament last year. Effectively they went through on the nod. In 1949 Winston Churchill said in this very chamber if you have 10,000 regulations you will destroy all respect for the law.

Well since then we have had over 100,000 Statutory Instruments presented to Parliament of which only 17 have been rejected. The last time an essay was rejected was 25 years ago in the Lords. In the other place it was 46 years ago. The two departments that legislate the most the Home Office and the Treasury. I've had the pleasure of serving with both. In the case of the Treasury we can see the effect of their legislative instincts in the length of the tax handbooks.

In 1976 length of the tax handbooks. In 1976 they ran to 1620 pages. However there has been an increase of 1023% in the tax code in 50 years. Every legislation imposes a cost, borne by consumers and taxpayers. Legislation can also stifle innovation, creativity and risk-taking, which . In a global economy it also events our competitiveness. Turning to the Home Office, between 1983 and 2009 the Home Office published 100 Criminal Justice Bill is and over 4,000 new criminal offences were created.

But 4,000 new offences added to how many existing ones? Being a diligent researcher I turn to ChatGPT and the answer which came was it is impossible to determine Of statutory offences in England and Wales. This seems to me to be quite an important constitutional point. If the law is made for the people and not people for the law, then one presumes that between the Law Commission and the Cabinet Office someone should know exactly how many laws there are and informed citizens should know why they are necessary.

By definition each new law impedes some freedom of the individual or the market. Laws are corrective, of human, upmarket or societal failings, yet there is a balance in a good society between keeping people safe and secure and keeping people free and prosperous. It's not possible to eliminate all of this legislation without eliminating or freedom, too. Individual liberty is a core value of the British constitution. It is a cornerstone of our democracy, too. In 2013 the office of the Parliamentary Counsel published an excellent review into the causes of complex legislation.

The foreword begins, excessive complexity of legislation hinders economic activity, creating burdens for individuals, businesses and communities. It obstructs good government and undermines the rule of law. I agree. We need government behavioural change to recognise that government is about leading, not just legislating. Delegating powers, not just centralising them. Protecting individual liberty, not inhibiting it. Ring enterprise, not binding it, and recognising that we best uphold the constitution not by strengthening the law, but by strengthening the people under the law.

I need to insert a couple of caveats. I'm not saying that all legislation is bad, far from it. Second, statistic user from the range of sources and despite the help of the House of Lords library we haven't managed to corroborate them all. I do think it is right for people to have a definitive list of all the rules and laws by which they are governed. Then it is our duty to ensure that they are all absolutely necessary. Finally, today is Independence Day and we wish all our American, cousins and in my case to wonderful grandson is a happy Independence Day.

The declaration of Independence on this day in 1776 listed grievances against a King. The first of which was that he has refused his assent to laws the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. That seems a noble test for our work here, to ensure that all our current laws are most wholesome, absolutely necessary and essential for the public good.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, like my honourable friend Lord Keatley I rise to speak not -- like my honourable friend not -- like my honourable friend Lord Peach RIs not to speak as a lawyer, I speak as a Constitutional Reform Act whose experience has Reform Act whose experience has , at least until I entered this , at least until I entered this place. Way back in 1997 I worked on the White Paper on devolution and the Scotland act.

Subsequently said in Holyrood and in 2010 shared the
11:27
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden Portrait Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Labour)
-
-
in Holyrood and in 2010 shared the Scotland Bill committee transferring fiscal powers to the Scottish Parliament. I learnt that bold Constitutional Reform Act can both embed and endure. My remarks today are essentially about recovering some of that Constitutional Reform Act ambition. I also need to declare an interest. My brother is the Minister of State in the Cabinet Office, so for the record, everything that follows is mine and mine alone. As befits a Friday in July debating the cross-party report, I want to range beyond party lines and speak directly to my noble friends on the committee, encouraging them to return to how our constitution needs to evolve.

And today specifics I welcome the government's commitment to a centre of excellence in the Cabinet Office, to the dedicated cabinet committee, to strengthening the standard landscape, although I believe it should be put on a statutory footing. Unlike Monique noble Lord is anti-government, I shared the scepticism about the Prime Minister having one specific support around the constitution vested in the Lord Chancellor. Although my objections are for a slightly different basis because the Lord Chancellor is in English Law Officers running an English territorial department and notwithstanding the admirable stewardship of noble Lords who instinctively grasp the formation character of the UK, we can't self- evidently rely on the occupant always been a Scot.

Let me turn to my noble friends on the committee. I appreciate the context of the report with the strains of the last Parliament. Yet I also want to encourage the committee to continue to look forward to tomorrow's constitutional challenges, to dig deeper, be bolder and braver on how Constitutional Reform Act can contribute to national progress. This report comes at a time when established political order is under attack across the democratic world. So given that precarity, do constitutional niceties matter at a time of so many other challenges? I believe there are two major constitutional issues that demand our attention because they are holding Britain.

The chief culprits are Executive dominance and corrosive centralisation. As the committee recognises increasing use of delegated powers accelerated by COVID have shifted power from Parliament to the Executive. We need to address the power of the Executive, is control of the parliamentary agenda, the peak of Parliamentary performance, all of these commend themselves for further scrutiny. Next, corrosive centralisation. The UK is the most centralised large country in the developed world. Let that sink in. Notwithstanding the welcome development of the committee of the nations and regions, its most corrosive in England as the recent White Paper recognises.

I want to say to all noble Lords it will take a cross-party consensus to drive power out from this place and back where it longs. I firmly believe that tackling these constitutional realities of Executive dominance and corrosive centralisation could make a real difference because they unlock the possibility of better governance and the opportunity to tackle the inequality that scars our nation. That is a bold claim, so let me try and justify it. Decentralisation can deliver better governance. Getting Parliament out of the legislative reads is a prerequisite for better and more strategic policy-making, of the kind we have just heard from the noble Lord.

Without wishing to lower the tone of the debate, let me simply say it cannot be right that here in the upper House of a nation of 60 million people we are discussing South Cambridgeshire car parking arrangements, or highly localised Statutory Instruments. We are drowning in detail that needs drowning in detail that needs When it comes to inequality, the UK is the world's most geographically unbalanced economy. The North-South divide has become so normalised we barely see the depth of its destructive impact.

Thankfully, driving decentralisation, tackling the North-South divide, our priorities for the government. And yet, history suggests that both constitutional reform and regional needs party support to secure legitimacy and longevity. I will conclude with just one final thought. Many of the issues that I have raised today across the chamber are about improving the functioning of the state. Functions in which many of our citizens have lost face recently. And here I echo the remarks of Lord Bates. These issues straddle the constitution, the mechanics of government, civil service reform, regulation and judicial reform yet our current committee structure typically addresses these issues in isolation while the public simply see a collective failure of governance, so I commend my normal friends they consider nominating for a house special enquiry in the next session and more holistic consideration.

In so doing, this chamber would be getting ahead of the constitutional agenda and not merely looking in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

rearview mirror. Thank you. It is a great pleasure to follow the wise words of the noble Baroness lady Alexander. And I declare my lady Alexander. And I declare my interest as a member of the committee. It is true that there is no single document in this country called the constitution as in the called the constitution as in the United States and other countries, but it is not correct to say that but it is not correct to say that our constitution is unwritten.

On the contrary, almost all our myriad the contrary, almost all our myriad laws, powers, judicial service, convention and practices are written convention and practices are written down somewhere. Often in great detail. It is just that they are not detail. It is just that they are not written down in one place. In an accessible form. In consequence, accessible form. In consequence, much of our constitution remains a mystery as far as the general public mystery as far as the general public is concerned.

With that in mind, is concerned. With that in mind, powerful speech of my noble friend, I make three points. First,
11:34
Lord Bellamy Portrait Lord Bellamy (Conservative)
-
-
I make three points. First, understanding of the constitution. The constitution that is not fully understood or is partially inaccessible may be a particular weakness in an age of political discontent. If established constitutional norms can come and challenge, even in countries such as the United States, we have an codified contribution pending constitutional convention which may find ourselves vulnerable. In those circumstances, it has never been more important for the general public to understand at least the basics of the constitution, Parliamentary Sovereignty, the rule of law, separation of powers, the devolution settlement is to name but a few.

In that context, I warmly commend the publication of 23 June last week by the library of the other place of the most impressive briefing paper entitled the United Kingdom constitution, a mapping exercise which sets out over 300 pages, many of the basic elements of the constitution. But my Lord, that is only the start. My suggestion is that they should henceforth be an accepted responsibility that it is the active duty of the executive to explain and demystify the constitution for the general public.

Among many possibilities, there is a role for golf.uk to bring together in one place with appropriate links and accessible sources for the important materials as one example, an active approach led by the government to full openness and transparency about how the constitution works, perhaps even an updated office manual as noble Lords have already suggested, and as recommended by a previous committee which should be combined with decreased information of the basic principles of the constitution. I do not suggest that our constitution should be reduced to a single document or code form, but I do suggest the constitution should not be kept in the cupboard, bought out only in times of crisis.

It should be actively woven deep into our national DNA so that every citizen understands and can access the basic principles, and I hope the noble Baroness the Minister would indicate whether the government will be prepared to undertake such an active project. My second point is this question of whether we need a second senior minister to support the Prime Minister as suggested. My respectful answer is no other reason that other noble Lords have given.

I would simply add that many constitutional issues will arise in one way or another in relation to the rule of law and the role of the courts and access to the courts, and in that respect, we already have a guardian of the constitution. Admittedly it is only in England and, but it spreads out across the United Kingdom in the shape of the Lord Chancellor. When I had, in the previous government, the honour of being answerable for the affairs of the Ministry of Justice on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, I was given a list of responsibility, and there, nestling amongst matters of attorney, I saw the awesome work of the constitution.

What is my responsibility for the constitution? I was told it is there, no need to worry. It is only there just in case. So, I relaxed. But unfortunately, only for a short while Becker's just in case it happened almost immediately. Then we have the issue arising from the have the issue arising from the Horizon scandal as to whether it was relevant for us to make decisions on the criminal courts. I would suggest it is only the Lord Chancellor and a senior and respected Lord Chancellor who had the great pleasure to serve under who had the authority to deal with such an issue which he did.

So in that respect, when you think the decision itself was right or wrong, at least the constitutional proprieties were fully observed, so my conclusion is we don't need any formal mechanisms any more to safeguard constitutions which has survived intact over the last few years. Lastly, on a completely different point, I've won somewhat squirmed to reading the report that when the van per minister caught COVID and became very seriously L, Cabinet Sec found himself consulting constitutional academics as to what we should do if the worship happened.

Surely there should be in place, as in the United States, a settled constitutional procedure to determine who is to take over immediately and without any delay of any kind automatically if heaven for friends the Prime Minister suddenly dies is incapacitated. That is a lacuna in the requirements should be

**** Possible New Speaker ****

filled as soon as possible. I stand with a mixture of

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I stand with a mixture of intimidation and embolden meant to make my remarks. I have no experience in the law at all and I have very little experience of the world of politics, but I am part of the general public to which the the general public to which the noble Lord just adduced his own
11:41
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port Portrait Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
-
-
noble Lord just adduced his own concerns as to their ability as to how to understand our constitution, and I am heartened by the presence of the gallery of members of the public, and I would love to be some sort of an assessment as they lead us to how much of our debate they have understood. I am now a member of the Constitution Committee, and it is a great honour and I see three members here and each has spoken, and that adds to my sense of intimidation.

But when I became appointed, I did take the report before us just to see what I was going to get into. And a very good preparation it has proved to be for this present debate. I was interested in a remark that appears right at the beginning of the report. It is hinted at. It is half referred to, and in this debate, as has only been mentioned once by the noble Lord, and that is the desire stated in the manifesto of the government to put forward a commission for ethics and integrity.

And since I do claim a little bit of experience in the realms of ethics, I feel now a bit more emboldened to launch fourth on a discussion of this paper. I was interested by a distinction that was made under heading safeguarding the constitution stewardship and policy. The distinction between stewardship of the constitution and the policy out workings how bits and pieces of policy impact on the constitution are affected by it or threaten it or whatever. For me, I was interested in the stewardship aspect and felt that the commission for ethics and integrity could snuggle in quite nicely as a duty of the commission appointed to safeguard the constitution.

It reminds me of a debate we are currently having in our Constitution Committee about the rule of law. Now, you would have thought we all know what that was. Well, let me just speak for myself. I thought I knew what it was, but the more we get experts to come and tell us about it, the more we realise and the big distinction is between a thin understanding of the rule of law and a thick understanding. It is the thin understanding, the procedural aspects of what the rule of law is that most people are in agreement with.

There is not much to argue about, and I think it is the same distinction between the stewardship of the constitution and the policies that emanate from it. But I read of course the events have overtaken that declaration, that commitment that was made to have such a commission. The Prime Minister has now repackaged the whole idea. The idea has been abandoned, and the idea is that, the noble Lord Lord Garnier had a metaphor. It was a shipping one, a nautical one.

The metaphor called to do the work here is that the concerns for those who want to steward the constitution should be gathered under an umbrella, and so one is bound to ask what that pickup? What would that do? What bits and pieces would be gathered under that umbrella? The advisory committee on business appointments would be one. The code of standards in public life. The Parliamentary standards commissions. The civil service commission, the independent complaints and grievous servers, the House of Lords appointment commission, the Electric commission, the Parliamentary standards authority, the United Kingdom statistics authority, and the register of consultant lobbyists.

Well, what an umbrella. To me, I prefer to change the metaphor and say that anybody wanting to take an overview of that bunch of previously quasi-or semi- independent bodies would be creating or offering us a better and feels. They have their own intrinsic codes and we are being asked that a commission could somehow magic an overview of the combined work of all those different bodies and I say those different bodies and I say If it in a modelling -- ethics in a modern age, no longer exists.

A Welsh pop band, the manic street preachers, I will this one out every now and again to prove to my children that I am relevant. They had a number entitled This Is My Truth, Tell Me Yours. I believe the idea of the constitution and the stewardship of the constitution in that the incense is incumbent on us all. It's a counterintuitive stance in an age where breaking things up, looking at things in a piecemeal way is more the order of the day.

So I just stand now that I have made my remarks to be glad that I have done it, to be looking forward to my lunch, and I must say hoping, hoping that the general public will be more and more aware of what our constitution is, and if not, we should ask ourselves the question, what are we going to do about that?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Always great pleasure to follow the fresh views of the noble Lord. The public sees a collective political failure, a phrase used by political failure, a phrase used by the noble Baroness in her excellent contribution. That anger and sense contribution. That anger and sense of disillusionment is highlighted by
11:48
Lord Hannan of Kingsclere Portrait Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Conservative)
-
-
of disillusionment is highlighted by the decentralised aspect of our government. When we have failures at the centre here, they are felt far more strongly elsewhere. It is the extraordinary thing. That sense of anger and alienation, that rage against the failing political system has happened before we have got to a recession. I said before because I can read the numbers of labour spending just as anyone can. Putting that more neutrally, without a recession, we have been flatlining a bit.

It's not a response to mass unemployment and bread lines, it's a response to things not working. Taxes are going up and public services are not improving. The state seems unable to discharge its basic core functions, such as policing its borders. What I think people do not understand until they have been close to politics, until they have seen the system in operation, is the extent to which this is not a failure of will on the part of the elected ministers, so much as a systemic failure because the Minister newly arrived finds himself encased in an inert machine.

A broken state machine. He is tugging at levers that have worked loose, pressing buttons that are disconnected, he is giving disconnected, he is giving instructions and nothing works. One example, the case of the Afghan hijackers that arrived at Stansted after directing their flight gunpoint into thousand. Six successive home secretaries tried to remove them, including the noble Lord Lord Reid and noble Lord Lord Blunkett. They had public opinion on their side and parliamentary support that they were unable to do it because they were jabbing at that disconnected button.

It is the same whether it is planning or an energy policy. Ministers come in all sorts of ideas having sincerely made promises and find that the machine does not let them deliver those promises. Until we sort that problem out the anger and dissolution of the public will increase, to the point I fear where people may feel in an irrational rage that like a man who takes a module to his computer because it is malfunctioning, that they need to get something out of the system, even though the net result will be worse.

I think we underestimate the extent to which this has happened in our lifetimes and specifically since 1997. There was a new juridical system created, both by international treaty and national law which has massively tilted the balance against the elected representative and in favour of the standing functionary. Any incoming government that wants to restore, honour and purpose to the meaning of casting a ballot will need to begin by repealing a great many things. Not just the international treaties that prevent Manifesto promises, but a lot of the national legislation, the Equality Act, Human Rights Act, Climate Change Act, all of the things that constrain governments from freedom to act.

Then a lot of the internal mechanisms of the Civil Service. I find it shocking that we were not more shocked by what Baroness Coffey said about finding letters in her name on Twitter for the first time because they had been written on her behalf by officials without her knowledge. The fact that we are not shocked by that and we take it for granted tells us a great deal about the feebleness of a minister within this system. The people who approve illicitly of all the things that were put in place are much more relaxed about the lack of democracy.

I understand that. It's why Baroness Chakrabarti is giving me a funny look. She doesn't like the idea of repealing the Human Rights Act and all of that, I get, but is it not an argument we ought to be having to allow people to make a decision. When the case on its merits. Do not try to constrain future government through judicial activism and review. When we were talking the day before yesterday about not allowing people to come here unless they had people to come here unless they had been approved by Holland, -- HOLAC...

Certain points of view are disallowed regardless of their popularity in the country at large. In responding the noble Lord Lord Wallace of Saltaire said it's the difference between popular democracy and liberal democracy. I want to interrogate that distinction a bit. Of course, we don't have absolute majority. Nobody is in favour of a system where the majority of 50% plus one you can expropriate people and incarcerate them without trial. There are some basic defences of human rights and we recognise that in this country since the Bill of Rights and before.

But liberal democracy in that sense that a bunch of good chaps in HOLAC can determine who can be here, shouldn't be allowed. A certain kind of perspective is just not proper in these chambers. I think that has a great deal to do with what looks like the looming collapse of the two-party system that we have had for the better part of the century and with a commensurate feeling that the entire system has failed. And the sense that one detects now in focus groups, the scary thing that people are saying is we need some sort of autocratic government sort this out to make things happen, to get public services working and make sure our borders are secure.

That is the smashing of the malfunctioning computer. Unless we anticipate it and restore power to elected nationally and locally, I fear the cultural will descend. cultural will descend.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I have a particular interest in that I was the first chair of the constitutional committee and was responsible for the report reviewing responsible for the report reviewing the constitution on which this report draws on fields. I fear though the gist of my speech can be though the gist of my speech can be summarised as here we go again. We have an excellent report from the committee. I agree with everything in it, and we have a response from the government essentially saying thanks, but we aren't going to do anything.

Responsibility for the constitution is spread across the government. We have been here before. In July 2023 we debated in Grand Committee a report from the Constitution Committee on the roles
11:56
Lord Norton of Louth Portrait Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
-
-
Constitution Committee on the roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law offices. The committee advance similar recommendations to those made in this report and the government response was essentially the same as the one before us. Rereading my speech of that occasion I realised that I could repeat it basically words or word today. The current government is making the mistake in not grasping the dangers of leaving responsibility for the constitution spread amongst ministers and civil servants and with no imperative to engage with it.

The government like the last one reminds us that the Prime Minister has ultimate responsibility for the constitution. However, as Adam told the committee, in the real world Prime Minister is a very busy person. Prime ministers may not have the time to think about the constitution as a constitution and they may not have an interest in understanding. The loss to give serious thought to work John Major and Gordon Brown. Under Tony Blair they were major constitutional changes, but those changes were essentially disparate and discreet.

They were not granted in any intellectual constitutional change and the Prime Minister lacked any interest in it. I recall Charles Kennedy telling me that whenever he tried to talk to the Prime Minister about parliamentary reform, his eyes glazed over. Boris Johnson believed that he was above the constitution rather than the other way round. He was thwarted by what Lord Henley has termed the good chap's theory. That term though diminishes the fundamental culture of constitutionalism that characterises constitutionalism that characterises the British politics.

As noble Lords have said and argued, it is not the form of the constitution that is crucial, but rather the culture within which it is embedded. Having responsibility spread amongst ministers means there is no one with the capacity to oversee how our constitution is working as a constitution. The Prime Minister doesn't have the time and may lack the inclination to exercise constitutional stewardship. The same applies to those who advise him. Components of teams in the Cabinet Office dealing with constitutional issues have in recent years move between departments.

There is also a significant degree of change. I moved an amendment to the bill in 2010 which the Justice Secretary Jack Straw to his credit accepted. It formed section 3, subsection 6, requiring the Minister for the Civil Service to ensure senior civil servants who advise ministers are aware of the constitutional significant of Parliament and of the convention's between Parliament and government. It is embodied in the Civil Service code. I sought to test how effectively it is being applied, not least giving the turnover of senior civil servants.

It's not clear how well branded the most senior civil servants are in the constitution of Parliament and the Executive. As one former Permanent Secretary confided in me they see it as an inconvenience. I notice the noble Lord told the committee that when he was Cabinet Secretary and Boris Johnson went into intensive care, he referred to the constitution as to what would happen if the Prime Minister died. He was unaware of recent scholarship and that one of his predecessors had commissioned research on the subject.

I also notice in committee that the last Prime Minister dying in office was Spencer Percival. The last Prime Minister to die in office was Palmerston in 1965. We need to embed within government amongst ministers and civil servants an understanding of our constitution and how it operates, not least the nature of conventions of the constitution. There needs to be a systematic means of inculcating that understanding in effect generating the culture and crucially as recommended by the committee at paragraph 38, a senior minister with responsibility for advising the Prime Minister on discharging his Prime Minister on discharging his We need the equivalent of William Whitelaw.

Given the need to embed constitutional stewardship, action needs to be taken, and quickly. I look forward to hearing from the Minister, the noble Baroness, precisely what action the government will now be taking in response to the committee's report. I also encourage her to respond substantively to the recommendation made by my noble friend Lord Bellamy, there is a powerful case for ensuring that citizenship is taught and taught effectively in our schools. They need the resources to teach it effectively.

Active citizenship is crucial to the health of the British policy. of the British policy.
12:02
Lord Wallace of Saltaire Portrait Lord Wallace of Saltaire (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
The UK is a constitutional democracy without a written constitution. It's a very odd constitution that we don't have. The integrity of our government depends on the witness of those in power to accept the constraints of constitutional conventions, to behave like gentlemen. This report states in its opening paragraph, " the actions of ministers and Prime Ministers in the last decade have placed strains on our constitution. " That's a modest way of putting something about behaviour of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.

That sets the context, however, for the recommendations of the report. Evidence or opinions surveys, the public distrust at this post and Whitehall Parliament and government is at an all-time high, makes it even more important to re-examine the mechanisms for maintaining appropriate and ethical behaviour, and the ancillary structures which provide the constitutional guard rails against inappropriate behaviour. I found the government response to this report flabby and complacent. It ignores the acute strains that Johnson and trust placed on our constitutional conventions and so draws no lessons from them.

What we read is a defence of the current message distribution of tasks across Whitehall with no indication of concern that improvements might be needed. 10 days ago I listened to a speech by the current Minister of the constitution, Thomas Symons, speaking to Constitution Unit conference. His message was that the delivery of public services will be enough to " with store the public's faith in our constitution". He did at in passing that we should always be looking at the adequacy of checks and balances.

Some of you will have seen today's times cartoon which depicts President Trump declaring July 4 the day of independence from checks and balances. Getting away from constitutional strengths. I'm sure that the noble Lord Lord Hannan is extremely happy that Trump is behaving in such a fashion. Reading the report on Wednesday morning, going into the debate on the Hereditary Peers, I was also of the parallels between this and that debate. Lord Hannan, Baroness Fox of Buckley, argues that a popular democracy should not create bodies of unelected people to hold back unelected Prime Minister, and Lord Jackson of Peterborough warned against an activist judiciary, constraining the prime ministerial power.

Lord Hannan has just repeated that we should not try to constrain future governments. The whole point of constitutions is indeed to constrain future comments. I have read much of the noble Lord Lord Hannan's many writings, including that wonderful but entirely inaccurate book, how the Anglo- Saxons invented freedom. Actually, the history, particularly of the United States, and its relationship to Britain is about the invention of constitutional democracy. All the constraints that President Washington and the Federalist papers and others put in on that, and the President Trump is doing his utmost now to tear away.

The difference of course between popular democracy and constitutional democracy is a very important one, I stand on one side and he very clearly stands with President Trump and others, apparently, on the other side. Our constitution, a written constitution, has executive dominance within contexts which it is hoped the Prime Minister will observe and a number of Parliamentary judicial and advisory checks and balances which are intended to strengthen those constraints. Some of those present may already have registered for the policy exchange meeting on July 16 entitled Populism : is it the future of the right.

And I hope most of us who will say not. This refers to the compact framework of institutional guardians which safeguard the UK constitution and it nevertheless notes that since the abolition of the Lord Chancellor's office, the various bodies within Whitehall have been shuffled around from the Department for Constitutional affairs into the Cabinet Office to the ministry local government and so on, without really having the important to which they have. In the manifesto last year, the government promised a number of things, on which it has not yet begun to deliver.

Where is the ethics and integrity commission? Which we were promised. What is happening to the provision of the Cabinet manual? I may say it is particularly important that the Cabinet manual does be revised because the Cabinet Manual was written, sparked by Gordon Brown in 2008/9, partly because he believed we might not have a single party majority in the 2010 election. It wasn't competing for that, useful help in that. It now looks highly likely that in the 2029 election, we likely that in the 2029 election, we will have a non-majority outcome.

We have the moment five parties in England, effectively competing, six in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and today we have the announcement of 1/7. And the messy outcome that might well lead us to, and I know very well, when I look at politics in Yorkshire, I can see the party which has been spoken of willing several speak -- several seats in Yorkshire. We will need an edited Cabinet Manual updated in order to guide the negotiations which may then have the follow.

I hope the Minister will be able to say something about progress with the Cabinet Manual which in an unwritten constitutional situation becomes all the more important. I was interested in a number of peers who spoke about both. And as I swear to the beginning of each Parliament, to be loyal to the King, his heirs and successors, I do wonder whether I shouldn't actually be swearing to obey the constitution and the laws of this country instead. And I do think that when the Prime Minister comes into office, it will be appropriate for the Prime Minister to swear an oath, perhaps in front of the House of Commons, that he will, he or she will respect the laws of this country.

I think it will be a very good idea for the Constitution Committee have to look at the 1868 oath act, rather long time ago, and consider how the taking of office of one sort or another, in the various parts of the British constitutional machinery, should perhaps now the updated. On the council of nations and regions, on one of the very small number of people who have actually read Gordon Brown report, which I dohasalsowrittenwaythroughit. -- Hasalsoreadherway throughit.

Whatwehavenowisreallyalmostnothing. Ithasmettwice. Wearenotquitesure whogoestoit andwearealsonotquitesure whethersecretariatis. Istronglyagreewiththosewhosaidthat democracyinEnglandinparticularisar ealproblem andisaconstitutionalproblem. Iwouldencouragetheconstitutionalco mmittee tolookatwhatismeantbydevolution andlookatwhywehavesomuchofour local democracy intheinterestpartofthiscountry.. Haveforthefirsttimebeguntoappreciate thattheusefulness ofthe ambiguous relationship betweenthemonarch andtheprimeminister, thereisnoonetosayto PrestonTrump ,whenhewishes tobehavewithoutanyconstraintswhats oever ,areyousureyou'redoingtherightthing or ,I'mverysorry,youcan'tseemeatthepr esent moment. Perhapsintoathreedaystime. IrememberinSpain whentherewasanattempt atamilitarycoup,itwasindeedtheking refusedtoagreewhichprevented it. See that the role of the Minister and his own advisers is perhaps one of the few backstops to an emergency we might need to have, but I conclude our constitutional issues are, as we all see from the rather thin benches, dry and not of interest most of the time, but we are in a situation where this is very confused, the public mistrust Westminster and Whitehall and we are likely to face after the next election considerable constitutional.

Issues. For that reason, the Government is to take these issues much more seriously to fulfil some of the prophecies of the manifesto which they have not yet done and to produce in consultation cabinet.
12:13
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
I thank the Noble Lord for introducing the debate in the report today and I would to thank Lady Drake you cannot be there today. It was a real privilege to sit on the committee at the time of the report publication and I welcome the opportunity to reflect on its findings and the government's response today. And I would also like to tribute to the brilliant cross for their hard work and dedication and I always unfailingly impressed by their ability to make sense of our discussions.

The report raises fundamental questions about raises fundamental questions about how we govern ourselves and how we safeguard the integrity of the United Kingdom's constitution. It is a reminder that the strength of our constitutional arrangement not only lies in traditional flexibility but the checks and balances that uphold them. The responsibility for different parts of the constitution is split against several Government departments and abilities to transfer functions between departments. I welcome the governance recognition to safeguard and that further work is required to protect the democratic foundations of our nation.

While the strength of our attitudinal arrangements lie in the legs ability of the system, it is important to recognise that there have been strengths placed on the constitution and it is imperative that we take the reforms to ensure the continued resilience and integrity. On central Government, the Government response recognises the importance and that they oversee the constitutional arrangements and the Cabinet secretary support and the Prime Minister to safeguard the constitution. This is something that was pointed out by the report.

The Government has rejected recommendations for setting out the Cabinet Secretary's official responsibilities. There are potential risks of not formalising this responsibility and therefore could the noble Baroness the Minister explain why the Government has chosen not to adopt this recommendation and why it has reframed from being clarified the Cabinet secretaries constitutional Cabinet secretaries constitutional duties. And from my own experience in Government I know the civil servants often struggle with preserving institutional memory. And the retention of constitution knowledge are essential.

When I was working in the Cabinet Office, to give you an example, during the coalition Government, the Minister there was much to his astonishment discovered during the course of an inquiry that there existed this rather chaotic room which housed the so-called cabinet files. And there was, at the time, no registry of these files. They were just thrown into the room. As a result, officials kept finding extra files after the initial request had gone out and making sure they had been given all the documents and that would come up.

This was very much the exasperation of my Noble Friend Baroness May who was then the Home Baroness May who was then the Home Secretary. Over time, there has definitely been some longer term and the documentation of precedent is crucial, to advance the quality of Ministers. We saw an example of a president not been followed this week in respect of the UK treaty and the Government has failed to follow convention it substantive debate in the House of Commons should be granted or a treaty requested for all channels.

This is the first time the Government has had to deal with the ratification process and it is a civil service to advise directly on the constitution precedent but my Noble Friend Lord Bellamy refers to the need to know what happens if the primary study comes incapacitated and dies within office. I welcome the Government recommendation, while I welcome the Government recognition of the need for a centre of expertise on constitutional matters setting out the Propriety and Constitution Group of the Cabinet Office to undertake this role, there is a case to go further.

For the entire time I was in Government, the constitution group did not always draw on the available precedent. There was more of a search, more of There was more of a search, more of a scramble and my Noble Friend Lord Bellamy made a powerful case. For the need to hold these principles and all the information in one place. As it stands, the propriety constitution group does not have institutional memory and not to institutional memory and not to which member they are accountable.

It is central to the resilience of our constitutional framework, so can the Minister therefore explain how the Government intends to safeguard the UK constitutional integrity across further administrations? If it fails to preserve such vital institutional knowledge within the civil service. And, if I may, take this opportunity to reflect on the role of the Propriety and Constitution Group more broadly, I would caution that the Government should be careful about this particular group giving them even more power. It already, in its propriety role, controls all constitutional advice given to the Prime Minister, manages the Prime Minister, manages the Of every major standards body in Government and that includes the independent advisory ministerial interest, commission of the public appointment, House of Lords commission, civil service, advisory committee on business appointments and the committee of standard life.

Each of these bodies was intended to serve general executive power, and yet they are managed by the Capitol office directorate. The rules remit extends to many areas, including public inquiries, Privy Council and households. It includes the freedom of hassle, decides what the public is allowed to know and when they are allowed to know it. Indeed, its officials interpret to which many noble Lords have referred today including the Noble Lord and my Noble Friend Lord Harper. The point of this is that it is unclear to which minister the group actually reports on all of these areas.

And that is not really how it constitution is meant to function. And an minimal friends have made some very key observations in this regard in the debate today. So, this has been a quiet but fundamental shift in the role of ethics as part of the constitution group that Ministers should watch with care. There is obviously a need for a centre constitutional affairs to function effectively and provide accurate advice to Ministers, but there would also appear to be a bit of? About whether the centre should actually sit in the same group as they have responsibility for propriety Government.

And can the noble Baroness the Minister confirm whether the Government has considered establishing a separate constitution unit which is separate from the propriety work of the Propriety and Constitution Group. The new Council of the Nations and Regions has made a strong start, however it should serve to complement rather than replace or compete with the director of these meetings between the Prime Minister and the heads of devolved and the heads of devolved Governments. On the role of the Ministers, this ultimately rests with the Prime Minister, I am absolutely mindful of the reservation of many of the noble Lords today, including my Noble Friend Lord Bellamy and Baroness Coffey.

I think there is a case to assign some clear ministerial errors, we talk about the centre of expertise without being accountable and the Prime Minister already carries an extensive portfolio of response abilities and appointing the senior minister constitutional matters for the centre would not only alleviate some of that burden and potentially strengthen transparency. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views on such senior and authoritative to carry out this role. Finally, I turn to the critical matter of constitutional decision-making.

With constitutional considerations and policy develop movement, tensions can arise. And these are, too often, left unexamined. As you will know, the revised ministerial code published by the Prime Minister in 2024 expanded powers of the independent adviser with interest, granting the authority to investigate ministerial conduct. The committee on standards and life has recommended that the independent adviser, it has gone further, the independent adviser and key regulators such as the advisory committee on appointments should also have a statutory basis, and here I must say that I concur fully with my Noble Friend Lord Harper and Lord Keighley.

And that the constitution is best when it remains flexible and allows the political system to be able to respond. So, I think, in my view, the Government must be extremely wary of any proposal to put these powers in proposal to put these powers in statute. In case of the independent adviser, it would elevate the role in a way that may come to challenge the authority of the Prime Minister who is the sovereign chief adviser, the independent adviser is established to provide independent advice to the pro-Minister, not to act independently of the Prime Minister.

This shift currently undermines the balance, the intended balance, and I would strongly urge the Government to keep it under close review. Therefore, to conclude, while I welcome aspects of the government's response, it is the government's response, it is clear that further steps are needed to secure our constitutional framework to remain robust, transparent and resilient. Safeguard the constitution is central to our democracy and we must not try away from the architecture that upholds our democracy. It is our duty to ensure that our processes are legitimate and accountable, so that citizens will trust in our institutions.

Thank the Government for the response and urge the Minister to consider the points raised and I look forward to hearing it.
12:25
Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent Portrait Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Labour)
-
-
I would first like to thank my Noble Friend Baroness Drake for securing what has been an excellent and informative debate and for her time spent chairing the constitutional committee, during which they produced the debate today. And of course can I thank the Noble Lord for leaving the debate and making sure that we were well structured before we started. Before I begin, I would just like to thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what I think has been a rich and interesting debate and as always, challenging.

But the government's commitment to upholding the UK constitutional arrangements is that it takes very seriously. Since the election, the governor has worked to maintain the service. This extends to its commitment to maintain standards in public life and the role of lot of the delivery of reform set out in the manifesto, including the House of Lords which we have debated extensively, again, only this week. And resetting the UK Government relations with the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. As noble Lords have referenced throughout the debate, the UK does not have a codified constitution, instead, the U.K.'s wide-ranging and complex constitutional arrangements have evolved and continue to do so.

Because of the various institutions, statutes, judicial decisions, principles and practices. And, as several noble Lords, including the noble Baroness Lady Coffey, my Noble Friend Keighley, the Noble Lord Harper reminded us, there are significant benefits to having this level of flexibility. The Government believes that this characteristic is not merely the future of our constitutional arrangement but a fundamental advantage that allows us to move flexibly to meet the complexity of the future and the modern world. The Government is of course committed to ensuring that Parliament is able to play a crucial role and allow Parliament the time it needs to properly scrutinise the debate legislation as the court to maintaining high quality legislation.

The Government greatly values the work of your Lordships house and the function it performs and, of course, the other place, as democratically elected chamber, has a vital role to play in representing the interests of their constituents in holding the Government to account. The Government is also committed to ensuring that the constitutional safeguards are able to work effectively. For instance, which is why the pre-Minister has given the independent adviser on ministerial standards the power to initiate investigations without needing prime ministerial approval.

I will return to that role in response to the question of the noble Baroness. With regards to the role of Ministers, which was an important theme of today's debate, the report we are debating today has suggested the constitutional oversight at one senior member of the Cabinet, which has sparked an interesting debate with varying views. The Government, unsurprisingly, agrees with the Noble Lord viscounts like landscape when we suggest that the role of Pieter fulfilled by all noble Lords, by Honourable Members of his majesties Government, in fulfilling their duties.

The noble Lords are, of course, whether as the sufferance adviser and the most senior about the Government, the Minister is ultimately responsible for overseeing the U.K.'s constitutional arrangements. In addition, the Prime Minister has a specific constitutional role in advising the sovereign on the exercise in relation to the appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of other Ministers. His role, his support in this role by the Cabinet Secretary. And at this point I just want to reference point made by several noble Lords regarding the role of the Cabinet secretary and I appreciate that in the report.

In evidence the constitutional affairs committee in The Other Place, the Cabinet Secretary itself states that the Cabinet secretaries role is to bring forward all of those and give the Minister some advice where they can properly make their decision. While it is not explicitly stated in the job description, as pointed out by noble Lords on the committee, I believe both the current occupant and also from previous Cabinet secretaries believed upholding the constitution to be employed in the very definition of their role.

Naturally, going back to Ministers, certain investors have a portfolio that places constitutional matters at the centre of their decision- making. The Cabinet officers at the home of the UK constitution anti pollution, working closely with the Secretary of State for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, has oversight for all Cabinet policy purported by the Minister for the Cabinet Office and there is also the constitution and by the Minister of State supports intergovernmental relations, otherwise known as the brother of my Noble Friend Baroness Alexander.

The machinery that took place in the election moving the devolution policy in local Government back to the Cabinet Office further strengthens the Cabinet Office's role as the centre of expertise on the constitution within Government. The Government believes that the current arrangement in which constitutional is incumbent on all Ministers is one responsibility sets with a single. I do not think any of the Ministers would think matters of the constitution or strength of the union are someone else's responsibility and will be dealt with by them.

Particularly as ought to be considered constitutional goals much further than the roles I have listed so far. Something the Constitution Committee has itself recognised in the descriptions of the five key tenants of the And promoting all of fluoride home and abroad. The importance this government places on ministers performing their constitutional duties is devastated in the oath sworn by the Attorney General. Which commits to response the rule of law and serve the king in its first nine. The leader of both your Lordship's House and the leader of the Lace act as the government representatives in the legislature.

The representatives of the House and government. The leaders are responsible for representing the interests of both houses and ensuring the customs and principles that make Parliament unique property represented. Considering the wide- ranging subjects that a single minister responsible for contusion of matters would be expected to cover the it would be appropriate to maintain the current approach. Moving onto into government relations. The manifesto commitment to reset the relationship with devolved governments and to ensure the structures and institutions of intergovernment working improve relationships and collaboration of policy is key.

That is why almost a year ago, the Prime Minister spoke to the heads of the devolved within hours of taking office. The government has continued in that vein. Have last year working across all levels of government to deliver for every part of the United kingdom and are using structures to collaborate with the devolved governments. My Lords, we have recommitted to the idea structures, this has been evidenced, we held the second of the Council of the Nations and Regions in London, this book together at the prime minister, the deputy Lister, the Chancellor that your flag is to, the heads of the devolved and that regional mayors from across England for the second meeting.

Alongside the council, the promised and that she multilaterally with the heads of the governments, this is an additional to the bilateral meetings. With regard to the pressure from noble Lord Lord Beith, and communicate related to this meeting, of the Council of nations and regions, the government has published the current terms of reference from the council and values is good no both houses of Parliament. -- Values the scrutiny of both houses. Through its enquiries, Parliamentary questions and regulatory engagement, which I have responded to many in my role, and although the communique was not published on this occasion, ministers will continue to update both houses through the regular scrutiny mechanisms.

The noble Lord Lord Beith also raised with me how other organisations who are not part of the Council of nations and regions get to engage. A minister Alexander has been appointed as a minister to support cross government coordination engagement with the devolved governments. It shows how serious the Prime Minister and the government are about working with devolved governments to deliver for citizens across the UK. The English devolution white paper sets out that the mayors of strategic and established strategic mayor authorities will be able to be members of the CNR as we have referenced.

The government wants to see all of England benefit from see all of England benefit from devolution. We are committed to working productively with local government and the government has established leaders Council to bring together other local leaders and the sister identify and tackle strategic challenges. Moving on, that Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has also travelled alongside the Secretary of State to Belfast where they checked the first East-West Council under this government and attended the 43rd Summit of the British Irish Council in Newcastle County Down.

They met bilaterally with the heads of the devolved. A fortnight later the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and other UK ministers met with the ministers responsible for intergovernment relations from the devolved governments. We genuinely are seeking to engage using the current structures and the new Council of the Nations and Regions structures to make sure that intergovernment engagement, both in the formal government forums and the informal everyday contact at official level, works better than it has historically done.

Through this we are ensuring there is genuine respect and collaboration across the different governments making up the UK and focus on a future built on partnership and rendition. Lord Beith raised the issue of the English regions and counties without a mayor and the representations. As is always the case in our diverse intergovernment structures, there are other mechanisms for engagement and we will continue to ensure that we progress with them. Turning to some of the other specific points that were raised by noble Lords in the debate.

Noble Lord Lord Waldegrave raised an interesting suggestion on the right for the Cabinet Secretary and others to record public dissent. I think the very suggestion may also suggest that some changes would happen government but I look forward to going back and reflecting on that within the Department and will report back. Noble Lords will be aware I am an honorary captain in the Royal Navy so the analogy from the noble Lord Lord Garnier was, I'm sorry to alert participants, was my favourite.

Not least because HMS Duke was actually at my wedding in Gibraltar. I would like to remind noble Lord, I appreciate his concerns, but I want to remind him that the Prime Minister, my noble friend the Attorney-General, and my noble friend the Scottish advocate general, had had distinguished careers at the bar and this may be one point where it is quite clear those at the top of our government have complete respect for the role of the judiciary. And have so much respect for the legal profession given that they...



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I noticed I wasn't referring to any of those three people. I absolutely do. On this

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I absolutely do. On this occasion, we can suggest that this occasion, we can suggest that this government has made, it's very clear in its commitment to the rule of law and the people that are in post. and the people that are in post. There was a great deal of discussion about the chaps. I like to think about the chaps. I like to think chaps and female chaps, what was at the heart of the discussions was touched upon by Lord Pitkeathley touched upon by Lord Pitkeathley which was the culture of stewardship that we need to ensure we have a that we need to ensure we have a collective responsible of the two collective responsible of the two deliver with regard to our constitution.

We all have an extraordinary privileged position by sitting in your Lordship's House and sitting in your Lordship's House and being part of our constitution and therefore the onus is on us to make sure working as members of the government and of Parliament to government and of Parliament to deliver on it. With regard to the comments by the noble Baroness Lady comments by the noble Baroness Lady Bennett, I will write to her about Bristol City Council which is where I went to school so I have I went to school so I have particular interest.

Lord Bates gave us a masterclass, and I love the us a masterclass, and I love the historical comparisons and the imaginatively use of ChatGPT. I speak in your Lordship's House of many different issues, as it turns out, and I always manages to get into the debate. I did not think it would do so today but I appreciate the ingenuity. I think my noble friend Baroness Alexander made a fascinating and important point regarding the devolution settlement and the role of the Lord Chancellor, and we have discussed this in recent days, something I will reflect upon given the responsibilities that we place upon it.

I'm proud of the work that our party has done to drive the devolution to deliver for people. And we will continue to do so, both through the English if settlement, in short devolution continues. The noble Lord Lord Bellamy raised a very interesting point about ensuring a deeper public understanding of our constitution. I think there's an onus on all of us about how we do that. But it's incredibly important for all citizens. And for parliamentarians, for all citizens. Lots of parliamentarians do extraordinary work to support public understanding but I will take away his suggestion.

I'm not sure a single program led by government on promoting the constitution will be effective. Touched upon regarding active citizenship, citizenship is in the National Curriculum and we are currently undertaking a review of the National Curriculum and I hope that when we get the outcome of the review will be able to reflect on that to make sure this and other issues relating to citizenship are reflected upon. The noble Lord Lord Hannan knows that I genuinely enjoy his oratory in your Lordship's House.

Not least because it forces me to question my own opinions every time to make sure that my views are in line with the my values as much as his are in line with his. It will not surprise him that although his speech was fascinating, I still believe in the role of the Human Rights Act and its role in ensuring there are safeguards for the operation of government, as well as the other safeguards that will touch upon by the noble Lord Lord Wallace. Returning to the noble Lord, want to thank him for his decades of work on constitutional protections, government has well established Parliamentary and devolution mobility programs for civil servants but there is always more to be done and I will go back and look at to see exactly what those are and see if there are other suggestions we need to follow.

With regard to the noble Lord Lord Wallace, to reassure the noble Lord, of the current political environment, I want to remind noble Lords it is four years until the next general election so we will see how many political parties will be facing in four years time. I do reflect upon the seven classical parties that are now in existence. Noble Lords, that are aware of my own personal travails, will be sure where of what I think of the establishment of the most recent of those political parties.

With regard to the 1860 80 thatched, it's an interesting suggestion and I will go back to the Department and have a conversation about it. I would like to thank him for riding us of the important role of the monarch that plays within our constitution but also the subtle way that conversations can be had that give the level of importance to the Prime Minister. To the noble Baroness Lady Finn, Cabinet Secretary 's filing system sounds all-too-familiar to my own. I think for members of the government there is some reflections we should take on our own filing systems both in our emails and paper.

With regard to the propriety and grew, she had interesting reflections which I would welcome a further conversation with her about, outside your Lordship's House, to consider what next steps we might need to take and to have an ongoing conversation about areas of reform. I want to reassure all noble Lords that members of the Propriety and Constitution Group accountable as is normal for all Civil servants and for a moment during the noble Baroness's speech, I did think she was about to suggest we need another arm's-length body and I was amazed.

Absolutely not, she did clarify. That would not be something she would welcome. Further on the propriety and group, Lord Beith also raised the point about them. I want to noble Lord that teams have moved from back to the Cabinet Office -- I want to reassure. Teams have consistently been in the Cabinet Office and I would like to, I would like to reassure noble Lords I think this does give us an opportunity to present, preserve traditional memory that. And by the noble Lord.

With regard to the Cabinet Manual, sorry, I'm going to go slightly over, the government is focusing on delivering on our commitments outlined in our manifesto. We recognise the importance of the Cabinet Manual, and although we don't have current plans to update it, are keeping this under review. Noble Lady Baroness Coffey... I would ask for an assurance that when the Cabinet manual is reviewed there will be consultation at the appropriate committees in both houses before it is published.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm going to say yes. And we will see how much trouble I have got see how much trouble I have got myself in. I just wanted to touch on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

the... As I always endeavour to be, on

**** Possible New Speaker ****

As I always endeavour to be, on that point, it is important that the Minister commits to consulting Parliament but it was very clear Parliament but it was very clear that the Cabinet Manual remains an executive document and it shouldn't be approved by either house of parliament, it should remain owned parliament, it should remain owned by ministers and I think that

**** Possible New Speaker ****

by ministers and I think that distinction is worth getting on the record. Is right, and bubbly just saved me from myself and getting myself in trouble. This very clearly executive trouble. This very clearly executive document as he was party to and document as he was party to and combat this government will also want to consult as widely as possible which is why I want to meet with my noble friend, your noble with my noble friend, your noble friends. She's because I think the wider consultation is important.

You wider consultation is important. You wider consultation is important. You In terms of the UK market, the noble Baroness touched on, we are going Baroness touched on, we are going through the statutory review process and although we are ahead of time, we just finished the consultation and we are currently reflecting on that, but it is an important point she made. There were many other points that were raised and I realise I am not going to get to, but that just shows quite how important the debate has been and the wider nature of it, so I will come back to the noble Lords on the additional means that were raised that I didn't get to touch on and I would like to touch on them.

I would like to thank noble Lords for their participation in today's debate and for assuring that I learned something in your Lordships house.
12:46
Lord Beith Portrait Lord Beith (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I want to thank the House for what has been a truly excellent debate, I genuinely think that the committees work has been greatly held in the report and has considered the Ministers response, even though I was disappointed by some of the things that she has not considered herself perhaps not as good as my Noble Friend getting her into trouble. But one of the things that did become quite clear in the debate is there is an appreciation where most people want the Prime Minister to retain the responsibility or constitutionality, the pressures and the Prime Minister are remarkable and we have to make sure that is not an unrealistic of doing things.

Some are fewer as we have a senior minister with the role or all Ministers at every level are more firmly committed to dealing with constitutional matters and providing appropriate advice to the Prime Minister. But almost all the other recommendations that committee made there is a good deal of acceptance in the House. We will reflect on what they have brought forward and what the Minister has said, and it would be relevant to current inquiries .I also want to assure the House the committee will continue week by week with its work of examining all the legislation that comes before the House to see whether it has constitutional applications and whether it is clear to the House and I agree it has

**** Possible New Speaker ****

taken note. The question is that the motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion, say, "Content", Of the contrary, "Not content", The contents have it. My Lords, we will just have a few minutes to regroup
12:49
12:49
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
My Lords, I beg to move that this bill be now read a second time. I am overjoyed to introduce this important bill to your Lordships house. And I would like to thank the Governments of the Noble Lord Kennedy, for ensuring that there was time to facilitate the debate today. I would also like to thank the noble Baroness for her support and commitment to improving care for those that have suffered loss and all the noble Lords who have offered their support.

I know that the thousands of people who are hoping for change in the definition of stillbirth are most grateful. This debate means more than words can say. Let me begin by asking a deeply personal and profoundly painful question. How many amongst us have experienced the heartbreak of losing a baby during pregnancy? I have. My husband and I have been blessed with husband and I have been blessed with two wonderful children, but we also endured multiple pregnancy losses.

Each one left a permanent mark for nearly 4 decades we grieved privately. Our pain unspoken. Our babies and acknowledged. This has been the same for millions of families. But that changed last year with the introduction of the certificate of loss, of formal and enduring recognition of the lives we lost. We felt so uplifted when we applied for our certificate of loss which is proudly displayed on the wall alongside our family photos. To date, tens of thousands of certificates of loss have been issued.

And I would like to thank both the previous Governments for making this become a reality. As well as the extraordinary work with the challenge to campaign tirelessly for a decade with the creation that suffered baby loss. I work with the charity to introduce the private matters bill to see this brought in. I must commend Pregnancy Loss Review led by silly Clark MP, founder of Saying Goodbye, and Samantha Collins. Their recommendations made these certificates. Today, my Lords, I bring before you the next necessary step, to amend the legal definition of stillbirth in UK law.

My Lords, currently, a stillbirth is defined as the loss of a baby from the 24th week of gestation until birth. This definition established by the stillbirth definition act 1992 was a step forward, lowering the threshold from 28 weeks in line with updated viability guidance, and granting grieving parents access to bereavement leave, maternity benefits, and legal recognition of their loss. However, more than three decades on, this definition no longer reflects the medical realities nor the profound emotional impact of baby loss.

Each year, up to 10,000 families in the UK lose their babies between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. These parents are excluded from maternity protections, bereavement leave, and statutory recognition of their loss as a stillbirth. Though the new certificates of loss of a deeply symbolic recognition, these families still face the trauma of returning to work within days, sometimes even hours, of delivering their deceased child. They lose pregnancy -related medical exemptions immediately. Many are left without paid leave or time to heal, emotionally or physically.

My Lords, I want to tell you about the experience of a lady I call Clara to protect her privacy. In her words, she sees, " I lost my son at 23 weeks pregnant. A late miscarriage. When I found out that my son would likely pass away, all I wanted was to make to 24 weeks, to have him acknowledged legally as a person. To feel like my miscarriage and the trauma associated with my 48-hour labour acknowledged for how horrifying it actually was.

To have a bit of extra space to breathe by having maternity pay and benefits rather than returning to work immediately. However, I missed it by six days. I was fortunate that my employer was understanding, and I had two months of with full pay. However, I still had to return well before I was ready, feeling very traumatised and recovering physically, as I went back to a busy job. I had to return to work one week after my son's funeral.

As it took that long to have his body released after the post-mortem examination. My debrief meeting was quick by NHS standards at three months. However, I was back to work full-time and I had to go into work before and after the meeting where before and after the meeting where they told me why my son died. My Lords, to compound this tragic experience, Clara would not have been eligible to receive support from the children's funeral fund. Which was set up to cover burial costs for children under the age of 18 who are stillborn after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Change in the definition has had an impact and would fit bereaved parents and give some solace to those enduring the trauma of stillbirth after 24 weeks. How the ruling stands at the moment, we are asking grieving parents to carry on as though nothing happened. carry on as though nothing happened. This is not compassion. It is a legislative blind spot that we now have the opportunity and, indeed, the obligation to address. I warmly welcomed the government's recent commitment to exploring the introduction of paid bereavement leave for parents who experienced stating loss of a baby before 24 weeks gestation.

This measure, which was announced for the recommendations of the Pregnancy Loss Review and also highlighted in women's and equalities report, would represent a meaningful and long overdue step forward in recognising and supporting families through 24 week pregnancy loss. It was all so good to hear during the Employment Rights Bill report stage in The Other Place that Minister of employment rights stating that the Government fully accepts the principle of treatment leave for those who have experienced pregnancy loss and looks forward to further discussion on this subject as the bill moves on to other stages.

This is most reassuring. But while the introduction of paid leave goes a long way to helping the hundreds of thousands of people who experience baby loss, my bill seeks to go much further. And, instead all rights and benefits that currently exist after 24 weeks gestation during the losses from 20 to 24 weeks. Internationally, that UK is falling behind those developed nations. The World Health Organisation defines loss as a stillbirth from 24 weeks gestation, as a country such as France, Sweden, and the Netherlands follow this definition.

Our closest allies such as Austria, Canada, the United States, have gone even further in recognising stillbirths from 20 weeks. Importantly, I would like to reiterate none of these changes relative viability which is medically distinct. Rather, they reflect a growing consensus that we must respond to the human experience, not just clinical threshold. I am not asking for us to define viability but to redefine compassion. To recognise humanity for every baby lost from 20 weeks onwards. To extend to their parents the dignity, support, and legal recognition that they hold through desperately needs.

Let us be clear. This bill proposes to change the definition of stillbirth to include losses to 20 weeks gestation until birth. This would include thousands of families each year to access protection already afforded to those where the loss occurred after 24 weeks, including bereavement leave, paternity and maternity pay, and funeral funds and the former recognition of their babies stillbirth. This is not just, it is well overdue. The law should not distinguish between the heartbreak of a 23 week loss and a 24 week loss.

The pain is the same. The baby is the same. The need for support is the same. I am mindful that some may express concern that this proposal could affect the rights and privacy of those who undergo a lawful termination of pregnancy between 20 and 24 weeks. Whether for elective reasons or medical necessity. It is important to note that reducing the gestation law threshold for stillbirth registration to 20 weeks could, under the current legal framework, result in approximately 3,000 terminations each year falling within the scope of the mandatory registration.

This would mean that individuals personal details will be formally recorded and potentially made disclosable under the births and registration act 1953 via the For many, this could represent a significant and distressing intrusion, with implications for their physical and mental well- being. With this in mind, in a survey conducted by Saying Goodbye, of the 194 people who had undergone a termination for medical reasons, known as the FMR, over 87% of people were terminated between 20 and 24 weeks stated that they would welcome mandatory registration if it meant the baby would be classed as stillborn.

-- TFMR. To avoid any unintended and following the president said within other acts, I propose that any legislative amendment in this area, include a clear and specific exemption, namely excluding cases where an elective, non-medical termination was chosen. But including terminations for But including terminations for medical reasons, TFMR. This would mean they would not require certification by clinic, would not impose any legal duty to register the loss with a register. -- Registrar. And would exclude these losses from statutory benefits.

This safeguard would uphold the integrity of the proposed changes are protecting the privacy and greasy of those affected by complex and often heartbreaking decisions. My bill is about fairness. And consideration. It's about modernising and outdated legislation in line with global best practice, and above or, it is honouring the lives of those lost to soon. And standing alongside the parents who carry that loss for the rest of their lives. My Lords, this is why ambassador for Saying Goodbye.

The charity which is at the forefront of support and work alongside tens of thousands of bereaved parents each month. I urge your Lordships to join me in supporting this bill. Let us ensure that no grieving parent is left without support, recognition, or dignity. Simply because of a date on a medical chart. Let this House be remembered, not only for debating this issue, but for acting upon it. I look forward to listening to the other speakers and to what the noble Lady the Minister has to say.

I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this will be now read a second time. -- This bill. I speak in support of the
13:04
Lord Bishop of Guildford Portrait The Lord Bishop of Guildford (Bishops)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I speak in support of the principles of this bill and I'm grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it to the House. One of the best traits in human nature is to use the difficult experiences we are use the difficult experiences we are -- encounter to speak up for others facing similar situations and I applaud Baroness Benjamin for using her experience and her voice in this way and especially for the achievement of the introduction of the certificate of loss last year. During my time as a vicar in south- west London, another inspiring woman from within my then congregation came to me with the idea of starting a listing service for women who had miscarried or were facing difficult or unintended pregnancies.

This was partly born out of her own experience and partly out of the fact that living, that she was Bps abortion clinic were constant trickle of women, sometimes accompanied by their partners or their mums, sometimes quite alone, would make their way to the front door, often in considerable distress, with little time or opportunity to think through that was a desperately difficult decision for some. It wasn't long before she had assembled a small group of others, six in all, who enthused by the vision and undertook some substantial training, not least given the extreme sensitivity of what they have been doing and to ensure that they were professional and not directive in their approach.

I visited the BPS clinic shortly afterwards to let them know what we're doing and was met with considerable suspicion bordering on hostility. This was understandable as their previous experience of Christians had been of small groups of people who had occasionally stand outside waving placards. But we pressed on regardless and formally opened our pregnancy centre in 1999 advertising its services to the local press and a few synthetic doctors surgeries. After a very safe stop -- slow start one of the journalists from a national newspaper use the service and wrote about the positive experience she did serious.

-- She'd experience. The number of those seeking help doubled and then troubled with the clinic itself slowly warming to the idea and eventually advertising it on their noticeboard. The service on their noticeboard. The service continues to this day as an organisational member of the British Association of counselling and psychotherapy and has eight part- time staff, 27 volunteers, serving those facing an unintended pregnancy or pregnancy loss through termination, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, preterm loss or stillbirth. One of the consequences of our new initiative was that from time to time someone would want to see a priest or organisation most funeral or at least some simple prayers to acknowledge the life that had been lost.

Here I was much helped by the resources provided by the Church of England with themselves drawing on the considerable experience of our hospital chaplaincy teams. But what that experience taught me is the sheer extent of the trauma of pregnancy loss for many mothers and often for their partners as well. Especially when that loss occurs in the second half of a pregnancy. This very simple bill which reduces the legal definition of a stillbirth from 24 weeks to 20, so opening the way for a wider group of people to benefit from the care given to the bereaved, seems compassionate and sensible, bringing us into line with other Western nations and Canterbury within the 22 week term set by the World Health Organisation.

The only thing that has given me pause here has been answered by the noble Baroness and that was the major reservation expressed in the critique of these proposals and especially the need to register stillbirths at a registry office. This was pointed out as was pointed out, would place additional burdens on mothers including those who for elective reasons had chosen to terminate their pregnancies. Before hearing Baroness Benjamin's opening speech I was going to suggest that a light-touch registration could be devised in hospitals and clinics where appropriate without the need for a further visit to a registry office, not too difficult to achieve especially in an age where many sections are carried out online.

The noble Baroness has come up with an alternative solution, based on research from the organisation Saying Goodbye, but whatever approach were to be adopted, I'm quite sure that a way could be quite sure that a way could be around the concerns expressed. -- The way could be found. I wish to commend this bill to the House.
13:09
Baroness Featherstone Portrait Baroness Featherstone (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
I'm so very glad my noble friend Baroness Benjamin has brought this issue to the Floor of the House. 'Tattoo' things in particular, not Argo was listening to programme on the radio about early stillbirth, and listening to mothers talking about their feelings of loss. And how emotionally debilitating it was to find there was nothing, nothing to support you emotionally, financially, and nothing to legally mark the loss, except as has been mentioned from the recent change which enabled one to get a certificate acknowledging your baby's existence, but the certificate of loss.

But the loss of a baby is profound at any stage of a pregnancy. Women with this experience were saying things like, it felt the world move on in second but I was frozen in grief. Everyone thought it was early but to me it was absolutely everything. It made me, the second thing was it made me remember my own first pregnancy when I started bleeding at about eight I started bleeding at about eight weeks and had to take to my bed to rest.

I was terrified I would lose my baby. I didn't, I was fortunate, that baby is now 41. But the feeling of potential loss and the fear was absolutely shattering and affected me for the whole of the rest of my pregnancy and that was at just eight weeks. This much-needed move to 20 weeks will be hugely significant in helping to reduce some of the horror and sadness, and acknowledge and mark the time needed for healing, because many parents experience profound grief after a loss before the current 24 weeks but currently legal financial definitions can actually invalidate the experience.

And the mother who loses her baby at 20 weeks will often enjoy the same medical processes as one who delivers at 24 weeks, she may labour, she may require surgery, she will certainly require care and yet at the moment she leaves hospital, the moment she leaves hospital, she will find there is no recognition of the child, and until recently no certificate. No access to statutory bereavement leave, no access to financial support, and her grief, while intensely personal, is made all the more isolating by its lack of societal acknowledgement.

It is time we change that. And advances in medical imaging mean that many anomalies and indeed most pregnancy convocations are now defied at or shortly after the 20 week scan. The clinical, emotional and psychological experience of loss at this stage often there is that of stillbirth and yet the law continues to draw this sharp line at 24 weeks. The line that was originally based on neonatal viability in the 20th- century. Not on bereavement realities of the 21st. There is no statutory management of the grief many women and their partners feel at such a loss and that sense is profound.

I want to say again big thank you to my noble friend Baroness Benjamin because recognising losses from 20 weeks onwards, emotionally acknowledges the reality that attachment, planning and love will begin well before viability. And offering support at 20 weeks helps to remove offertory emotional hierarchies of grief. It is also the case that many people feel isolated and abandoned because the losses " don't count " legally and changing the threshold as well as mitigating some of that financial stress and enabling time to be taken to recover also signals that will loss matters, regardless of length of gestation.

By April 25 this year, over 100,000 baby loss certificates have been issued. Miscarriage and loss at 2024 weeks is often treated similarly to stillbirth in actual clinical practice. So it is totally appropriate that legal recognition and support lines with what is actually happening on the ground. Many hospitals and care providers already offer bereavement care, memorials and leave paperwork for losses around 20 weeks. So aligning state support with current clinical norms will create consistency and reduce confusion.

But most importantly, parents who lose baby between 20 and 24 weeks may news between 20 and 24 weeks may news time off work, or counselling or funeral support, and are not always eligible for paid legal benefits and offering that support at 20 weeks helps avoid the financial hardship during what is already a hugely traumatic time. This touches thousands and thousands of families each year, yet remains too often hidden behind. Extending state support from 24 to 20 weeks is not an act of extravagance, it is a modern, modest, meaningful gesture that says, we see you, and loss matters.

And as both the noble Baroness and that noble Bishop have already raised the issues around termination, whether medical or by choice, I will not go there, but discovered and is an important point because I wouldn't support any bill that made life worse for people who are facing that decision. This is a targeted, compassionate bill to existing framework designed to bring equity. I urge this House to consider emotional truth and the practical necessity of this change and to stand on the side of parents who are simply asking to have their grief recognised, the child acknowledged, and the dignity preserved.

I wish to speak briefly preserved. I wish to speak briefly in the gap to make one particular
13:15
Baroness Barker Portrait Baroness Barker (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Unsupported and would have been of the work of my noble friend in the Bible a certificate #I am supportive. I have supported for many years the rights of people who have suffered baby loss. And also adoptive parents to have better provision in employment rights. I think the employment rights on the subject are out of date. My concern solely is about the mandatory nature of the recording and concern is about those people who, for whatever reason, between 20 to 24 weeks may have to make an always difficult choice to have a termination.

It's never a decision that is made likely. It's often very difficult. And I listened with great care to what might noble friend said. And I was very moved by her understanding that some people who go into a termination at that time, late in pregnancy, do wish to be included within the recognition that she is I have a concern that there are some people and some of them are quite vulnerable that end up in that position that they have had to make the decision might not be advisable or it might be quite dangerous.

And, therefore, I would like us to be absolutely sure that we are not going to force people to have to make the declaration. It does not actually matter where it happens. It is the nature of the declaration and the support which follows on from it. I have no doubt that we are moving towards being in a much more compassionate and understanding society in this regard. That is partly to do with the fact that medical care for women who are in that stage of pregnancy is advancing.

I do not want to put anything in the way of women or doctors that would in anyway inhibit their right to choose the right path for the individual woman, so I just want to suggest that we might hold back on making this a mandatory scheme until we are absolutely sure we are not jeopardising these women.
13:17
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone Portrait Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Conservative)
-
-
I also speak in the gap and I apologise for not having been able to put my name down earlier. I must warmly congratulate the honourable lady, the Noble Lady. I would also congratulate my Noble Friend because we have worked together for about 30 years for her powerful and evocative and sensitive presentation of her bill. I need to declare my interest quickly that I am the mother of a consultant gynaecologist, so I am all too aware that the gynaecologist is constantly dealing with the most difficult situations of women having babies that they really cannot bring up and have, and therefore looking for a termination and other women in the most acute heartbreak because they're desperate to have a baby that they do not seem able to produce because I was very struck by the Right Reverend product in the earlier experience in south London where I also used to work this is extraordinary.

I was also the Secretary of State that handled the human fertilisation act and this was such complex and emotional legislation and it marked the time at 24 weeks for the time of the abortion act and the time when it was thought by consensus that a child and a foetus was viable. And I am extremely concerned again and I would sit at the end whilst I certainly support a second reading I feel at committee stage there does need to be very careful scrutiny about how the bill would lie alongside present arrangements concerning termination.

That was a very important bill and opened the door to the extraordinary number of IVF babies saying every classroom has an IVF baby, one in 30 babies are IVF which is really extraordinary and those are babies who are desperately wanted, so those who are desperately wanted, so those involved in a stillbirth are all the more greater agony. It was also involved with the Rosie Barnes bill on stillbirth definition and where Lord Marnoch spoke powerfully in this House.

My particular debt is to a former colleague of this House who had so much on maternal health, infant well-being, and infant viability. And the lasting impact in the improvement services is absolutely one that I recognise. We have to look at the context, two generations ago we as women are very aware we would have lost any number of children in childbirth, we would have lost our own lives in childbirth and so many would have experienced the loss of a child.

But now the situation is very different from 100 years ago for every 10,000 births 800 died. Now, for every 10,000 births, only 40 die, so that loss of a stillbirth is evermore unusual and all the more painful. The other thing we see is the changing age at which women are having babies, so whereas many women used to have their babies in their late teens and 20s, now 31% are over 40 and having their children, and therefore complications, comorbidities, diabetes, are more likely to be present, get on with it while you can while you are young and healthy, but many do not have that opportunity.

So, those are that opportunity. So, those are something now 11% of IVF births at 45 and a remarkable achievement, so I applaud the Noble Lady and I applaud the efforts by others in the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

last Government for the MP for East with. And I just remind the Noble Lady

**** Possible New Speaker ****

And I just remind the Noble Lady she has four minutes for speaking stop

**** Possible New Speaker ****

stop Shall I finish quickly? I applaud them. I wanted to ask the Minister about what she is going to do about about what she is going to do about implementing criteria for coroners? Because I think this is really Because I think this is really important in the partnership. I must finish quickly because I did not know the rules by saying we support know the rules by saying we support the bill but I think it needs careful scrutiny before it becomes
13:22
Baroness Finn Portrait Baroness Finn (Conservative)
-
-
legislation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I commend that noble Baroness for securing this private bill and setting out the purpose so clearly. It was very hard to listen clearly. It was very hard to listen to the noble Baronesses heartbreak personal experience. And she is to be applauded, as my Noble Friend said to introduce compassion for said to introduce compassion for other grieving parents. There are truly no words that can capture the heartbreak of losing a baby, no matter when it happens.

In our lifetime, most of us will come across friends or family that have had to experience the devastating loss of a baby. It is deeply loss of a baby. It is deeply personal. And families that have had personal. And families that have had to endure such heartbreak. As the to endure such heartbreak. As the noble Baroness Lady Featherstone set out in a very moving speech. It was out in a very moving speech. It was very heartening to hear the account very heartening to hear the account of the organisation of the Riverfront prelate setup to support Riverfront prelate setup to support pregnant women.

The proposal set out in today's bill would amend the definition of stillbirth to apply for 20 weeks for the current 24 weeks and obviously it is terribly difficult and I am wholly in favour in those that have had to grease the loss of a newborn baby, in the proposed changes could lead to difficult challenges for them. It is a difficult area. The push pregnancy advisory service have a change in the stillbirth to present convex challenges for both patients and medical professionals.

We must recognise that the changing definition of a stillbirth could result in leaving women accessing abortion care in an even more vulnerable position. Women accessing vulnerable position. Women accessing abortion care after 20 weeks or before the 20 week abortion limit would be required to register the termination as a stillbirth with the registry office and I very much the concerns of the Baroness Lady Barker. Whilst we must recognise the intentions behind today's proposals, the complexity part of the change mean it is probably not right for the change to be delivered through a parliament member's bill.

If we look more closely at the implications for women and girls who, through lack of understanding, fear the termination or inability to attend a registry for this purpose, without putting her at risk of abuse, they could find themselves inadvertently committing a criminal offence. And I must be aligned to the realities faced by these women in our society across the services and it would be wrong to put them at risk in this way. Under the Births and Deaths Registration Act there are legal implications for parents as the registered consent for the contents of the stillbirth register.

This would mean the confidential records of legal abortion could be disclosed to third parties without their consent as a matter of public record. For many, such personal and private information could be exposed this way, would be profoundly distressing and could have lasting emotional and social consequences beyond the devastating grief that they are left with. So, my Lords, parents who have to suffer this inconsolable loss of my deepest sympathies, but given the complexities of any proposed changes that must be carefully weighed to ensure that they balance compassion with practical and ethical considerations, the practicality of these implications presents unrealistic complications for these women for these reasons.

That I think that there needs to be really careful consideration before we upset the balance that exists. And as my Noble Friend Baroness Emily explained in her own previous experience, the Secretary of State, so, my Lords whilst we remain deeply sympathetic to the parents and families who deal with the profound grief of losing a stillborn baby, they remain concerns about the wider practical and impact of the proposals in the bill. And the bill on the wider healthcare system and on vulnerable women.

And therefore there would need to be further consideration of such impacts before we were able to support this bill.
13:27
Baroness Wheeler Portrait Baroness Wheeler, Captain of the King's Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard (HM Household) (Deputy Chief Whip, House of Lords) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness for introducing this bill. And I know the importance this House places on ensuring that parents, regardless of the babies gestation and support and care that they need. And I pay tribute to that noble Baroness herself of the huge amount she has done and the service is very personal. She has raised awareness in pregnancy loss and campaign for baby loss certificates, helping women and families receive better support. I know what strength and courage is needed and I thank all of today's speakers for their contributions about their experiences.

Can I also congratulate those in The Other Place might Noble Friend Sarah Owen and the inequalities committee for highlighting the gap in the current support for those that experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks. People need time to recover and it is important that they are supported at work as they do so. We also recognise the vital role of mini charity supporting families and experiencing loss. The Noble Lady comes to mind on this. Including miscarriage Association birth right and imposed international and the role they have played in raising awareness and campaigning for additional care and support that is needed.

Overall, good and steady progress is being made to address the treatment and care and support for women and families, experiencing the trauma of pregnancy loss. I thank the noble Lords for recognising this as well as highlighting the considerable amount of work and progress that still needs to be done. For example, on bereavement leave, the importance of it has been stressed by a number of speakers. This Government has made clear that it fully accepts the principle for those who've experienced burdens in supporting families during such a distressing time under our flagship Employment Rights Bill currently in the House parliamentarians from both sides have spoken strongly on the issues on the bill and we look forward to further discussions on the matter as the bill moves into its further stages, the Noble Lady Benjamin, again, acknowledged this, going forward.

However, I do need first to address the government's reservations about this bill in relation to the proposed definition of stillbirth. The current definition is based on the gestation at which the foetus is considered viable. 24 weeks. Sadly, babies born at 22 weeks do not survive. In 1922, in 2022, sorry, 98% of the 305 babies born alive before 22 weeks in England and Wales died in their first week, and in 2020 to 2021, only 5% of babies born at 22 weeks survived.

Changing the definition of stillbirth to 20 weeks would, therefore, remove the link to fatal feet or survival, making this a clinically evidenced position stop there is no medical consensus that the age of fatal viability is reduced below 24 weeks, therefore this proposal will create an assistance with the abortion act, 1967. I do understand the concerns and force of the arguments in principle put forward by Noble loads today, but I am afraid we just cannot support the definition of this bill. However, as I have stressed, I do very much welcome the focus of the debate on the other points to support women who experience miscarriage which is what baby loss before 20 weeks is treated The care families The care families received The care families received after The care families received after the death of a baby can have long- lasting effects.

We can't remove the pain but we know porker can make things worse. Loss matters is that noble Lady emphasised. That is why the baby loss certificate is so important and why the government extended eligibility for the scheme, allowing parents to officially recognise their loss regardless of how long ago it occurred. The feedback has been incredibly positive and part of the healing process for many women experiencing loss, as noble lady's have said, with over 100,000 certificates issued to date, it's a lasting memory of their baby.

We are also improving bereavement services and making them available seven days a week. We will look closely at the outcomes of Tommy's graded model of care for miscarriages which is also due to report later this year. No ladies have referred to the trauma of pregnancy loss leading to a worsening mental health issues and matters were B have introduced maternal mental health services in all parts of England to provide care for women with mental health difficulties arising from baby loss. As I stress, we do accept that is much more to do to improve care for women and families who have experienced loss.

I will now turn to address the points raised, I'm going to endeavour to answer these but I do hope no ladies will to give me advice I have to write them. Baroness Benjamin, said if her bill is implemented, those having terminations between 24 weeks would be exempted from registering it as a stillbirth. Changing the definition is likely to have other unintended, on abortion services, and wider impacts, for example around the disposal of fatal remains and other issues.

She pointed to a number of the potential consequences that would occur. Lady Benjamin and other noble lady's mentioned that there is a variation among other nations. We recognise that the is this variation in the definition of stillbirth and that the UK's position isn't aligned with the World Health Organisation countries may take different approach to defining terms such as stillbirth and miscarriage and reasons for variation include legal and administrative difficulties and approaches to collecting data. Baroness Barker raised the support for LGBTQ people and we recognise the complexities of a blissful people from LGBTQ and other communities.

Personalised care and support plans should be offered to all those accessing maternity services to ensure care is tailored. She raised the concerns on the mandatory nature of declarations of abortions and the impact on the most vulnerable individuals and I certainly understand that concern. It is an important point about this, and the recording of stillbirth, and diagnose the impact this can have on the most vulnerable about the decision to have abortions and we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

very much, thank I would be grateful if you could come back to me on part two of the come back to me on part two of the 2019 act which authorises Kahanist 2019 act which authorises Kahanist to become involved in stillbirth. -- Authorises Kahanist to become Authorises Kahanist to become We must continue to deliver services that acknowledge and support the heartbreak of losing a baby. The government will work with that noble government will work with that noble Baroness and others, endeavouring to support this antic consider how to
13:35
Baroness Benjamin Portrait Baroness Benjamin (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
support this antic consider how to offer families the care they need in all areas of their life.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this important issue. First I would like important issue. First I would like to thank the Public Bill Office and to thank the Public Bill Office and the library for their support and their guidance. I'm most grateful to them. The Right Reverend Prelate, them. The Right Reverend Prelate, have to commend him on sharing his personal experiences of working with personal experiences of working with those suffering from baby loss.

And showing empathy for those parents. showing empathy for those parents. That is what we are asking for. My That is what we are asking for. My noble friend bonus with a spoon, for her support, I feel kindred spirits her support, I feel kindred spirits with her as she told the House her personal experiences and empathy for personal experiences and empathy for those who suffered stillbirth before those who suffered stillbirth before 24 weeks. It is heartbreaking. My noble friend Baroness Barker and noble friend Baroness Barker and Baroness Bottomley, I would like to Baroness Bottomley, I would like to thank them for the brief contribution.

Baroness Barker raised an important point which I have an important point which I have taken to heart. But as I said, my bill is not asking for changes to the age of liability or change to abortion or -- age of viability. It's about adding a specific exception within the bill, I feel the... I reassure my noble friend by saying we are going to make sure that people who have elective termination do not have to register. We understand that some might be We understand that some might be vulnerable.

So we want to show compassion to their predicament. That is what this bill is about, showing compassion and consideration. To the noble Baroness, I hear her concerns but I repeat that once again, a precedent has been set by other acts that there will be exceptions for those who suffer elective terminations. Keep repeating that, that's really important. I don't want us to just blindly go ahead, forgetting about other people's feelings, because we are talking about somebody who has those emotions, both physical and mental emotions, that needs to be considered.

So they will not be cast aside or not but about in this bill. aside or not but about in this bill. I'm deeply grateful to the Minister, the noble Baroness the Minister, I want to thank her for laying out the government's position and to making a difference to the care and consideration given to women who have suffered baby loss. And for articulating so strongly the comments promised to make a commitment to make a difference to those who have suffered baby loss.

It is estimated that between two and 4% of baby loss occur between 20 and 24 weeks of pregnancy. The World Health Organisation and many leading nations already recognised stillbirth from 2024 weeks, paving the way for us. My bill is not calling for something that hasn't already been adopted by nations around the world. My bill is there to help those to serve those who have journeyed one of the most traumatic experiences anyone could ever go through, the loss of a child.

It simply wishes to extend support by a mere four weeks. Those who elect termination will be protected. This bill is asking government to show true compassion to aggrieved parents and families across the country. I was pleased to hear that the noble Lord the Minister is happy to work with me and the single by charity, to work closely to bring solace and consideration into the lives of those who need -- the Saying Goodbye charity. I'm more than happy to make changes and I will accept a compromise.

That's what I'm here for. I passionately commend this bill and I beg to move that this bill be committed to a committee of the whole House.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is initially that this bill be now read a second time. this bill be now read a second time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Would the noble Lady wish to move Would the noble Lady wish to move that her bill be commended to Committee of the Whole House?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move. The question is that this bill be committed to Committee of the Whole House Mac. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. I will give a moment for people to move before we

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The The House The House to The House to be The House to be in The House to be in committee The House to be in committee and the imprisonment of public protection, resentencing bill. Lord Woodley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move the House now is resolved itself to ability upon this resolved itself to ability upon this bill. The question is that house new
13:41
13:42
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Woodley. With your indulgence I wish to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

With your indulgence I wish to open this debate by saying the following. IPP imprisonment for public protection is the biggest scandal as the Post Office and indeed the infected blood scandal, as bad as they are. Almost 100 prisoners have taken their own lives, hundreds more are being driven to insanity, with this no hope never-ending sentence. The only difference with IPP is not enough people know about it, and that's got to change. Now speak directly to everyone who is serving IPP sentences, my message quite simply is don't give up hope.

You have more supporters here than you realise and there are many members in this House and any other place who will not rest until we have justice so that everyone suffering these appalling sentences, and please understand, the government has the power to end this injustice stop sadly, my bill by itself will not bring you justice but it can help, though pressure on the government to do the right thing and can help build public awareness of this industrial scale miscarriage of justice.

So please don't have full hope in this bill, hope but not full hope, that is my aim here today. By debating these amendments, especially this group of probing amendments, because they are used to probe the government position, can hold ministers to account and expose the lack of logic behind their refusal to consider sentencing seriously and creatively. My Lords, each of these amendments restrict resentencing to a particular cohort. In the case of amendment one in my name, restrict resentencing entirely by only committing a government to establishing an expert, to to advise on resentencing.

To be clear, this is not because I don't want a resentencing happening, but with the government resisting resentencing, these amendments allow us to focus on the specific directions. Why either against -- why are they against forming a committee? Against the sentencing those who have suffered the greatest injustices? I put my name to all of the amendments in this group because I genuinely believe that each is legitimate and reasonable questions of the governed. Amendment to districts resentencing to those already released by the Parole Board and living unlicensed in the community.

I tabled this because I believe there should be a the only ones I did so to probe the government position to test the faulty logic. Because if fears around public detection are all that are standing in the way of full resentencing, what could be the objection starting with those already released? This group who definition have been deemed safe for release by the parole board are still living nightmare of unexpected and immediate recall. Often for a minor breach of licence or sometimes on a mere allegation.

The Minister knows this. I have received some examples from prisoners who have been recalled after a malicious allegation with no further action taken yet inside they go to save another indeterminate term -- to In one further action has been taken there facing a year or more in jail, waiting for their next hearing if they are lucky. This is clearly not justice. This is simply there is no credible reason not to resend these people already cleared. Now, to his credit, the Noble Lord the Minister tried his best to offer a reason at second reading when he said, and I quote, these offenders now have a clear and potentially shorter pathway to the end of their sentence by virtue of the victims act.

Of course, there is some truth in that. The last Government, and specifically the last justice secretary deserves genuine credit for sweat and blood, as I hear it described, recently, on the stage to secure this act. But however clear and potentially shorter pathway is now on licence they are still serving the long abolished sentence. The only way to end this torture is with pre-sentencing. Indeterminate never-ending sentence into a standard determinate sentence. How can the Government use public protection as justification for holding this act of obedient recall over the heads of them on IPP now living in the community.

Give them supervision, yes. Give them support, of course, but let it be a normal probation supervision report. In the form of an extended licence. For a determinate sentence as specified in my name in the other group. Pre- sentencing in normal determinate is what the Justice Committee said in 1922 and their logic is still unassailable. The logic is how can this be done in a way that minimises any risk to the public. The Justice Committee is clear, this is exactly what the panel is for, to advise the Government on the best way to balance the principles of justice with the need for public protection.

The amendments in the other group explicit suggestions about how this can be achieved. At second reading, the Noble Lord the Minister rejected the idea of setting up a second advisory panel on the grounds it would give and I quote. Hope to those serving an IPP sentence. This hope could easily be minimised by making it very clear to everyone, especially those still serving IPP's and their families, that no decision had been made about re-sentencing that would happen in the future. Only that the Government were exploring with experts different ways in which it may be done but without committing any offence in doing so, sorry, any offence in doing so.

The experts could recommend that certain cores be prioritised or excluded and giving their exemption in court the power to impose extended licences or move prisoners to secure hospitals. All of these options will be explored in the amendment we are debating today. So, my Lords, let me turn to the rest of this group amendment three in the name of Baroness Burt of Solihull who has asked me to convey her regret at not being able to attend today's debate prioritises resending to those that have served 10 years or longer past their minimum.

10 years. When we debated in Oral Questions in this matter in March, the Noble Lord the Minister revealed that as of the end of last yeah, there were 695 prisoners serving IPP's who had never been released and who worked 10 years or longer over tariffs. There will still be more inside who I think have been recalled since that statement. This amendment echoes the call by Doctor Alice Edwards, the United Nations special rocket of the torture. For the Government to consider partial pre-sentencing by prioritising those over the tariff.

How can the Government deny resetting to those people that have served over 10 years past their minimum sentence? Let me remind you that the people locked up for over a decade longer than someone else convicted of exactly the same crime before 2005 and 2012. Although we have spoken about two-tiered justice, this is one situation where the label seems to apply. It is not right and it is certainly not fair. Now, moving to this group, how can the Government deny pre-sentencing to anyone still serving sentences with the intention of public attention.

People who were under 18 when convicted. That is the question put by Amendment 10 in the name of my Noble Friend who, of course, was the architect, but who now campaigns, like the rest of us, against the injustice. And campaigns fiercely and diligently. IPP for kids. IPP for kids, the very thought breaks your heart. Again, the Noble Lord sent his regrets for not being able to attend this debate, but he knows as well as anyone the harm these sensors have caused, especially those convicted as children.

Moving on the Noble Lord the Minister be able to explain why they cannot prioritise people that were convicted before major change services were made before 2008. Surely the extra injustice suffered behind this cohort and immediate action. The 2008 changes introduced a new seriousness threshold and some judicial discretion was made in response to recognise this concern at the time. As with the abolition four years later, shamefully, these changes were retrospective, leaving thousands in limbo, many of whom are still in prison.

Despite the manifestly unfair process that has led them to be there in the first place. Why can't we deal with these cases immediately as a matter of urgency, as the Noble Lord will no doubt ask when he speaks to his amendments 11 and 12. Why can't we do all of these things as proposed by the amendments in this group. The truth is that we can. If the political is there, we can. And if the Government is free to do so, then we have every right to demand that.

Why not? I believe with the exercise for everyone and the services it is the only way to widen the stain of our justice system, and that is the government's arguments against it. Hiding behind the public protection is not going to work any more. Not with the viable safeguards of the expert committee to recommend. Specified explicitly in the second group, and certainly not for my amendment to which would restrict this to those already deemed not to pose a risk to the public.

I look forward to what that Noble Lord the Minister and my esteemed colleagues in this place have to say on these matters, and in the spirit of collaboration, and in the search of solutions, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out must, and insert may.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

insert may. My Lords, may I congratulate the Noble Lord Woodley on the tenacity Noble Lord Woodley on the tenacity that he has shown in continuing the fight against the injustice of the fight against the injustice of the IPP sentence. The Noble Lord the Minister will understand, I hope Minister will understand, I hope that the amendments in this group are intended to be helpful. In that
13:54
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-
are intended to be helpful. In that they offer the Government a range of possibilities. Flexibilities. About the application of pre-sentencing, in the event that they cannot bring themselves, and I think it is clear that they cannot, to endorse the recommendation of the Select Committee in The Other Place in 2022. That all prisoners subject to the sentence should be resentenced, and that the solutions to the problem lie in that. So, that is certainly the character of two amendments standing in my name in numbers 11 and 12.

They make a point that was often made, in fact, by the late Lord Browne of, who was so passionate about this injustice. Namely, that in July July 2008, there was significant reform as the Lord Woodley has already said. There were significant reforms to the IPP regime in England and Wales, through regime in England and Wales, through the criminal act 2008, and these changes in to address the growing concerns about the sentence and the changes were that a serious result was introduced and from that day there could only receive an IPP sentence in the event they were being sentenced that it was serious enough to justify a determinant sentence of these four years.

Before this change, there have been occasions, some referred to in Parliament, some are anecdotal because the names are not always known, with people with determinate sentences and applied determinate sentences as low as 28 days who had been given IPP sentences. From this point on, the seriousness test and this was a shift and that reforms also gave greater discretion allowing them to do their job properly. That is of sentencing somebody according to their individual deserts which is the purpose of the sentencing regime.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003, the original act, given the charges to that discretion. You had that they must assume that there is a risk in the cases of those qualified for IPP sentencing. They must assume that there is a risk. Unless the court considered that it would be unreasonable to conclude that there was not a risk. And these are very strong words, must and unreasonable set a very high bar, effectively removing judicial discretion in determining the sentence.

And the defendants sentenced under this provision were denied what should have been there right to an individually appropriate sentence. Now, the key point, as the Noble Lord Woodley has said, that these changes made into thousand and five which came into effect on 4 April, 2005, only related to offences committed after that date before April 2005. There was not attempt to make it retrospective, and people imprisoned, sorry, I big your pardon, July 2008, only came into effect from July July 2010.

And there was no attempt made to make a retrospective those that had been sentenced between 2005 and 2008, and many of those people are still subject to the sentence, many of them are in prison. Many of them have never been released. They are almost at 1,000 or so prisoners that have never been released to date. They continue to suffer from an injustice of exceptional gravity. A surplus sentence to which it was recognised in 2008 was passed pursuant to a serious threshold, and by judiciary whose discretion Parliament was so fettered thus to prevent them from saving defendants from unjustifiable severity.

There are two amendments, 11 and 12, because one is required for IPP sentences, and the other DPP sentences, and the other DPP sentences imposed on those under 18 as the Noble Lord has explained because that is the way in which the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

legislation is drafted. My Lords, can I to pay tribute to
14:00
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd Portrait Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, can I to pay tribute to the Noble Lord Woodley for all that he has done, is doing, and I sure will continue to do to try and remedy the injustice that he has outlined. And I think before turning to the options that are put before us, I would just like to say something about the injustice. I think it is largely common ground that the imposition of this sentence in the Justice act 2003 was at stake and I paid tribute to Lord Blunkett in acknowledging that mistake.

But what we have failed to do and herein lies the real perpetuation of injustice, is to deal with those who injustice, is to deal with those who And I am sure it is that that caused members of your Lordships house particularly the judge, the late Lord Lloyd of Berwick and the late Lord Simon Brown of Eaton-under- Heywood, to describe this as a stain on the character of British justice. Which it is. And it is, I think, a very serious matter that we are not taking practical steps to deal with injustice.

We did it in respect of the post office, but there are a lot of hangups, misconceptions in my view which are preventing the doing of justice in this case. And why is it such an injustice? First of all, we are perpetuating the mistake that underlay is this sentence in respect of the cohort that is either in jail or that is subject to licence. Secondly, we accept that if you have an offence very similar or identical insofar as offences can be almost identical to those for which these people are in prison or remain subject to the sentence was committed either before April 2005 or committed after December and sentenced after December December and sentenced after December 2012, they would have been given determinate sentences, and we accept the risk that goes with that.

Why are we continuing to treat these people differently? They are also subject, and I want to enter this in a moment to the extraordinarily unjust licence regime which I do not think has had enough focus. And again, we see it as unjust because it is positively harming those, apart from keeping those in prison, harming their mental well-being. I think that we have got to do something, and we have a range of options. The options have been one, reformulating the test for release.

We've looked at that. Second, re- sentencing. I will come to that in a moment. Thirdly, resetting a release date for all, an expert committee which I have shared with certain proposals, but we are not debating those, and it would be wrong for me to go into them and use this as an occasion to go into them today, so I won't go into them. Shortening the time for licence, this has been a singular achievement of the last government, and I do pay tribute to the Lord Chancellor who had the guts to do this, and I think it is right to remind people that politicians who have guts sometimes to serve a great deal of praise and he had the guts to do so.

And the next problem is dealing with the report. And then there is the action plan, and I'm not going to comment on the action plan. How could I comment on something in respect of which a report hasn't yet been published. That would be a denial of natural justice and how could I do that when making a plea for justice? So, can I turn therefore to what we should do? First, resentencing. When giving evidence to the Select Committee chair at the end of 2021, I gave strong evidence in favour of resentencing.

That was 3 1/2 years ago. And a number of things have happened. First, can the committee reported. When the government was asked to comment on it, they said they were not going to do so. When the present government were asked about this, they took very much the same position and have maintained that position. And I therefore have reservations about resentencing after 3 1/2 years. And the courts are now dealing with a horrific backlog. Is it going to be possible to persuade the government? That's what we have to look at alternative.

Then there is the option of resentencing those dealt with in amendments three, those 10 years over tariff, those in amendments 10 and those subject to the sentence when a under 18, and those who were sentenced prior to the changes in 2008. And I can see how a strong case can be made for each of those, but the difficulty is, what with the other people feel about that? They are subject to an injustice, possibly not as great of an injustice as those.

And therefore, I turned to the amendment to, those in the community. Now, I'm not sure that the wording of the amendment is quite right because it must depend on the happenstance of whether you've been recalled, but I think that's just a lawyers technical point but it can be put right. But let me turn to the substance of the problem. Now, I think it is very very important to appreciate when dealing with this option, the sheer injustice of the licence regime.

We all accept that when you are someone out of prison before the end of his sentence for the court, or if the person is subject to life imprisonment for murder as a result of the bargain made, then that person is still being published, and the regime may be appropriate to that. What this recall regime is doing is subjecting people to further preventive dictionary, and it is completely different and therefore the safeguard in respect of this which need to be much greater, and if those can't be put in place, then plainly, we must terminate the license provisions.

This would not be a good idea, and why do I say that it's wrong? I think the real problem is look at how this works in practice. The test for recall which is set out is a linkage with the original offence which should be shown, but it's not an absolute test. But there has always been a risk of harm, and I want to laid-back that the person was originally given a sentence which required preventative detention if there was a significant risk of serious harm.

It can come back if you are at risk of harm. That is fundamentally unjust. Secondly, like we tend to appreciate in this country, we don't like sending people to prison unless they go through a judicial process. What about recall? No judicial process. Officers supervised by civil servants. So we had a situation of civil servants returning people to preventative detention for a risk that is far left than they originally sentenced to by a judge. That is grossly inappropriate.

There are many problems with the recall but the second and biggest of the injustices is not in itself but what happens if someone is accused of a crime. Normally in this country, there are clues to a crime. If you were to be held pending trial, the judge or magistrate decides whether you should be locked up. And if you can test your guilt or you don't admit it, you are subject to a trial. And it seems to me in this case that we should accept that people should not return simply because the probation service and the civil servants concerned on behalf of the country say that the person should not be given a trial and bail should not be judicially determined.

That is the justice but it is also futile and I can make this point. Look at the futility of it by the number of recalls that people will let out. Again, this is an exercise in futility. And thirdly, there is the huge benefit that can be obtained from using the pieces that are elsewhere. So those are what we need to think about, looking at these amendments. But if all else fails, I would say an extra committee but don't have a committee if they are going to get somewhere if they are going to get somewhere because it raises full so.
14:11
Lord Garnier Portrait Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
I want to commend, if I may, the noble Lord Lord Woodley for his continued campaign in this regard and to thank the noble Lord for their remarks in support of the campaign and the general thrust of what Lord Woodley has been talking about. It's easy to want to rehearse the second reading debate, and for my part, unlike the noble Lord who analysed the problems before us this afternoon with a forensic stiletto, I tend to come from the blunderbuss school of argument, and I would prefer to give this particular piece of injustice a thorough whacking.

But unfortunately, it would not be helpful. It would be repetitive, and it would probably not move the government. I know that they both find themselves in positions that they would rather not be in. They didn't invent the IPP and they are not responsible for its progress Make a few short points because you could not put a cigarette paper between me and the landlord in relation to the remarks that he has just made. The IPP sentence was uncontroversial and just.

It was also uncontroversial that within the sentence overall, there are elements which are great that injustice, and the monstrous consequence of a slight breaching recall of the terms slight breaching recall of the terms of a licence which has nothing to do with the original defence. The inability of the state properly to police the return to be put into imprisonment without a separate and new trial in relation to wholly different allegations.

I think they feel bound up in the bureaucracy and the sure inability to move things along because there are so many other parts in the world of public policy. And was never able to clear a path through to achieve what we all want to do which is to end every consequence of the regime, with consequences that were venerated by the changes and by the abolition of the sentences. But still we having these results and having discussions when we all know what we need to do.

I will do my best to return to the amendments. An expert committee is a fine thing but we have several things called judges, and it seems that sitting singly or in batches of two or three, they could form lots and lots of expert committees to break the back of this problem. I break the back of this problem. I appreciate the financial and resource system that the Crown Court faces. But the whole system of government is the mere discord of problems, and it is also too easy to say that it is too difficult and we can't do anything, unless we start, and I congratulate the noble Lord for making us think about this through the lens of his bill, unless we start doing something about this, nothing will happen because it is nothing will happen because it is I therefore want to be quite clear.

I don't really care how it is done, whether by an expert committee, whether by the Court of Appeal, whether by Mr Justice somebody or other sitting as a senior judge in a Crown Court or a judge somewhere else sitting in a Crown Court, but what we must stop doing is going around this Mulberry Bush, week after week after week, while over 1,000 people, I think nearly 2,000 people are still incarcerated for offences for which they should have been sentenced to a determinant sentence many years ago and they will be out by now.

And yes, we would be facing the risk, as Lord Thomas pointed out, that we face every time a prisoner on a determinant sentence is released, that they might reoffend or do something antisocial or dish obliging, but that is life. What is not life is to imprison these people in a state of utter hopelessness. We do not run a Gulag system, we run it justice system and if I may ask the government, and I repeat my sympathy for the ministers on the front bench because this is not a problem of their making, but I regret to say as far as they are concerned, it is a problem they have to solve.

And we are here to help.
14:18
14:18
14:18
Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick Portrait Lord Hastings of Scarisbrick (Crossbench)
-
-
immensely commending Lord Woodley for having the guts and fearsome for having the guts and fearsome less of argument and the persistence and thank goodness the irritation to keep going and pushing this as far as we reasonably and possibly and as we reasonably and possibly and must do. We are going to hear as we must do. We are going to hear as we have heard already essentially Second Reading reruns because we are all just fed up and angry. The all just fed up and angry.

The Minister knows this, too, that in Minister knows this, too, that in his file sits wishy-washy arguments about public protection which don't stack up. One of the reasons they stack up. One of the reasons they don't stack up is that any assessment of those who are still assessment of those who are still languishing in prison of the 1,000+ IPP sentences, looking at their original time of sentence, 80% of them work for non-violent offences. In which case, based on accurate In which case, based on accurate judicial knowledge of those individuals, we cannot say they pose individuals, we cannot say they pose a public risk because they have never been let out, we have no evidence to prove they behave otherwise, and when they did go to court for sentencing, they were not there for violent actions.

In which case let them out, for goodness sake. Don't continue to use the argument that there is a public protection issue. That is nonsense. Is simply a very nice Civil Service Way and Secretary of State way to say we do not want to deal with it because it keeps the public smiling, but ministers know that what they are really doing is perpetuating a gross, unacceptable injustice of acts of torture that are destroying individual lives, sending people to suicide and desecration and they are a gross stain on anything to do with justice.

You, take those pages out, hand them back to the Civil Service and say meet some real prisoners. I continue to receive, three in the last month, information directly from business inside IPP sentences who have heard nothing. -- From prisoners inside. Even the information went out to inform governors that they should let prisoners know about the changes in the regulations legislation. They have heard nothing. Nothing. And why do they hear nothing? They say in some of their cases that frankly they don't believe the system is not going to work and also because there is too much bureaucracy.

When we look at a range of amendments before us, the probing ones and if necessary the voting amendments, what we see is all of us finding ways to hedge around this untidy mess. It is an untidy mess because the simplicity of accepting that a wrong has inconsistently done means that there is a more straightforward way for a right to be consistently done. Give dignity to the individuals involved, excepting as in the group Minister pointed out, there may be a few hundred who are simply mentally so distressed that they cannot participate in the process and they have lost altogether and they feel there is no point to their reassessment.

They almost just want to in a way hang back on it all. Is a tragedy and loss of human dignity and destruction of their souls. But those few hundred we need to find, as one of the amendments does, find a different way of supporting their mental recovery. But when it comes to the majority, we beg you Minister not to swallow the argument that this is all about public protection because those of us who work in prisons week in week out know very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

well it is not. My Lords, I just wanted to contribute to this debate as I did contribute to this debate as I did on second reading. Not that I have the expertise in the justice system the expertise in the justice system that other participants have, but to that other participants have, but to thank the noble Lord Lord Wigley for thank the noble Lord Lord Wigley for his Championship of this bill and his Championship of this bill and just to agree that this is an injustice amounting to torture.

The injustice amounting to torture. The ball is been kicked down the road in a completely unacceptable fashion. a completely unacceptable fashion. There is a way out. I think there There is a way out. I think there are several ways out, actually. I will come to the one that the noble will come to the one that the noble will come to the one that the noble and learned Lord mentioned briefly, the Howard League proposals later, but insofar as there is risk, and it but insofar as there is risk, and it may be no more than would be undertaken by the release of prisoners under a normal regime.

But it has become obviously a great concern of government and they could get plaintive people are released from IPP sentences and go on to commit other offences. There is already blame that attaches when other business are released, but maybe there is some particular fixation on this. We have to give the government courage and a cross- party basis -- on a cross-party basis to tackle this. The noble and learned Lords Lord Thomas talk about the guts of Lord Blunkett to having been the instigator of the original regime has had the guts to admit regime has had the guts to admit that it was the wrong thing to do.

We had the report from the Justice Select Committee and other place which of course was cross-party. We have had the remark from the former Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, who Lord Chancellor Alex Chalk, who repeated the conclusion of his late colleague about the IPP system being a stain on our justice system. We have the present Lord Chancellor whom in one of her first speeches in the House said the situation with IPP prisoners is of great concern. We want to make progress with that cohort of prisoners.

Already that was more than half a year ago. Concern has been expressed across the political spectrum. I think the government should take that into account and be ready to grasp that nettle. It has taken decades for there to be recognition of injustice in other sectors. Lord Woodley talked about the Post Office scandal, we have had the infected and others. We seem to be very bad in this country at writing runs with in this country at writing runs with dispatch.

I would like to give the IPP system a huge whack because it is a scandal and an outrage, but I due just want to refer to the recently launched report from the Howard League for penal reform. They had an expert committee, very expert, not least because it was chaired by the noble Lord law Thomas. -- Lord Thomas. In his foreword to the report he said, history shows that governments invariably find it difficult to remedy state rooms. This is even more so when those subjected to the injustice have broken the law.

Successive governments have seen that IPP sentences are a mistake and it's long overdue for those whose lives have been blighted by the sentences to be released from its clutches. There are six points of recommendation in that Howard League report. I hope the noble Lord the Minister has read the report. I'm glad to see he is nodding his head in agreement. I think probably I might be able to say this, not only from my bench, although I am speaking as a backbencher, but for others.

We place great hope in the sense and experience of the noble Lord the Minister in this area. I know the bill is about re- sentencing. The amendment being put forward today are about modifications frankly to the original proposals, but the Howard League is proposing another way. I don't want to detract from it. We all wanted to see resentenced in, but for reasons which pass as all understanding, this government is no more willing apparently, unless the noble Lord the Minister is going to surprise us out of our skins, to accept resentenced in.

I do hope he can give us some encouragement that he is willing to look at another scheme such as that put forward by the Howard League. This is to have what they call a two-year conditional release so that it would modify the current approach of the Parole Board, which requires the Board to decide whether it is necessary for the protection of the public for the individual to be detained. This proposal in the report is that in IPP cases the Parole Board should be asked to set a date as to when a person will be released within a two-year window and what is required to achieve that safely.

So you would give the certainty of a release date, alleviating the significant mental distress of those serving the sentence. You would increase the likelihood of engagement for those who have lost confidence in the system for reasons we can all understand and you will facilitate safe and speedy release of those prisoners on IPP sentences. There are other suggestions in the report which I don't want to take up time talking about, but the main one is a reform to the recall system, which is very bad in its operation.

I do hope that if he cannot help us on resentenced in today the noble Lord the Minister can give us a chink of light to end this scandalous outrageous injustice and be willing outrageous injustice and be willing to say that with in a short future time the government is going to seize this issue and really give hope to people and their families and their friends and all of us who absolutely hate to see this injustice and hopelessness that goes with it.

I feel I am preaching to the converted in the sentiments I believe. What we need now is a practical scheme to get out of this terrible situation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could I begin by

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, could I begin by thanking Lord Woodley for giving us this opportunity to debate this injustice. Lord Woodley and I both serve on a committee with the serve on a committee with the Justice unions as they are called. I
14:31
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
Justice unions as they are called. I have recently succeeded the Akleh as the Conservative Vice President of this APPG because Earl Attlee is being cast into outer darkness and decided he would go quietly and hand over to me rather than wait to be But I would like to thank Lord Woodley because in the justice unions group, no one is really interested if they can be kept down and kept quiet. That is it. And when you look at the problems that the unions in the justice industry have, you see there is enormous problems that the government is addressing.

I don't think they are addressing seriously I don't think they would. seriously I don't think they would. As Forrester's bill goes, what other weaknesses? One is that you get swept away and nothing sounds quite as good as imprisonment for perfection. Yes, we will lock them up and throw away the key. That really was how this came in. It came in because the government wished to show that it was prepared to be tough with people without a lot of mention why, and I will accept as one of the ministers said to me that some of the people who were detained for public protection probably should not be let out.

But that decision should be made by a tribunal or a group of people who can judge the mental state of the people in prison for public protection. It shouldn't just be allowed to drift on and on. Now we have a bill with lots of amendments, and I know it is the noble Lord Woodley who has signed the more because I can see that he is trying to find a solution, and he accepts that there may well be problems in any precise way forward, but what I would like to hear from the Minister is that they are prepared to give a fair wind to this.

And the most important thing is that they acknowledge that there has been a severe miscarriage of justice. And this needs putting right. And that would be an extremely good start. But I'm going to mention another word which hasn't been mentioned, and that is class. These people are not middle-class people. I remember when I was in the European Parliament. I was one of the founders of the human rights subcommittee of Parliament and we went all over the place, and one of the things I noticed when I went to places like the Czech Republic and fashionable places where the British government was very concerned about human rights in Nicaragua.

I had a very nice time visiting their presence, the one key thing was that in eastern Europe, most of the prisoners were forgotten because they were actually ordinary people. They had no universities behind them or people campaigning for them. They were basically working class people were basically working class people who had fallen foul of the system. And many of the regimes that existed in Eastern Europe, many of them were locked up and there were many sentences, the gulag was an indeterminate sentence.

Most of the people in the gulag were actually not your intellectuals. The few that were has been mounted for them. I helped with those campaigns, but the fact of the matter is that many of the prisoners, as Gorbachev found when he came to power and started overhauling the system, many of them were there by accident. They shouldn't have been there at all. But they had no advocates. They had But they had no advocates. They had But they had no advocates.

They had no people behind them. No organised campaigns. I wonder how many of the thousands actually know each other. Actually talk to each other. Actually able to swap notes and see how they might get out of this situation that therein. Now, I hope, and I will not deal with individual things, but they are genuine attempt by Lord Woodley and the colleagues who have put them down to move the matter forward. This house is unique in a way.

I don't think you would have a debate like this because there is more vested interest. But here we can be dispassionate. One of the things we need to be dispassionate about is the fact that there has been a massive miscarriage of justice, and that now has to be put right. It is up to this government, just as it was the last government, and I fully support what we were trying to do. He was a good justice manner, we have got to move things forward.

Somehow ministers, you have got to get hold of civil service to say this is a blot on the record of human rights. Of course, some people should not be released at their cases should be reviewed and there should be some form of appeal and some form of sentence, and if they are not to be released, the sentence should be subject to review. I suspect a number of them had become institutionalised. I suspect a number of them were mentally L before they ended up in prison.

But our job is to make it possible for the justice system to be seen, to be fair. My concern is that these thousand people in prison today P7 800 of them have no family, friends or social network, and when they are let out, they're going to need a lot of support to adjust back into the community. This is the beginning of a big challenge. I hope our ministers will be able to take it on board and solve this blot on our justice system.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

Many of the points that I was going to make today have already going to make today have already been made more elegantly than I could have made them, so entertain could have made them, so entertain you for very long at all. The first is I have always been quite impressed by the government's argument that they are responsible for public protection and they can't release people who are assessed to release people who are assessed to be a risk to the public.

And that any exercise would just take us round in circles because it would have to incorporate a safety have to incorporate a safety assessment. We end up back where we started. But I was very struck by started. But I was very struck by what the noble Lord said and the statistic that I think I had him say statistic that I think I had him say which was that 80% of IPP's other when the index offence was non- when the index offence was non- violent.

That is an astonishing thing, and so I have learned thing, and so I have learned something. If that is the case, how does the public protection argument does the public protection argument really stack up? Surely there is some answer to these non-violent some answer to these non-violent offences. The other thing was that if this government had nevertheless
14:40
Lord Carter of Haslemere Portrait Lord Carter of Haslemere (Crossbench)
-
-
been resolute that they do not want an exercise, then I nevertheless strongly commend the noble Lord strongly commend the noble Lord because what the bill does and the amendments we are considering is amendments we are considering is that it shows how diverse the IPP that it shows how diverse the IPP population is. And that's important because it will affect the way because it will affect the way assessors risk and the decision on assessors risk and the decision on whether to do recall.

Firstly, there are those who had previously are those who had previously released, and those are in a completely different category from those who haven't. They have been assessed in a previous occasion to assessed in a previous occasion to be safe to release. If they had been be safe to release. If they had been recalled and considered safe, that means the burden and standard of the means the burden and standard of the prisons and Probation Service should be really very high to show they are be really very high to show they are everything.

The other category as juveniles. Those who juveniles when they committed their offences. The court had been clear that young people are far more likely to rehabilitate quickly and are more open to it. For example, in the case of tariffs and attention during her man to pleasure, in the case of juveniles, their tariffs need to be reviewed much more regularly. And finally, there is those who are mentally L, and we know from expert psychological evidence and the third report to Justice Committee that the effect of the IPP sentence itself is a major factor in the mental-health of prisoners, and the report said that someone may be deemed to higher risk based on their current mental- health presentation rather than based on their original offence.

If that is the case, consideration should be given to transferring these prisoners to a more suitable environment than prison for treating them appropriately. So whatever the government's decision on this bill, I very much hope that the learning Lord Woodley spell would lead to further progress in reducing the

**** Possible New Speaker ****

prison population. Looking around the house at the legal expertise present, I feel legal expertise present, I feel rather underqualified, however, I rather underqualified, however, I did work as a trustee for some years did work as a trustee for some years and that leads me to pick up on the point that what people need in prison is the things the government wants, which is hope, hope, and what wants, which is hope, hope, and what has happened as a result of IPP is that hope has been replaced by uncertainty and inequality, and we uncertainty and inequality, and we have to put that right.

Now, the other reason I wanted to speak today was the late Leonard Lord Simon Brown was a close friend of mine, but that is not the reason. The reason was that he made such an impassioned speech from these ventures that it made me feel that I ventures that it made me feel that I too have to take up this cause too have to take up this cause because it has resulted in enormous injustice, and I returned to Lord Hastings that figure of 80% are non- violent is terrifying.

And I would say to the noble Lords on the Frontbench who are distinguished in the law themselves, if you could and I imagine you will want to shed some light on this to say some light of seeking light at the end of the tunnel, I think that would be tunnel, I think that would be welcome across the house. I'm not going to go on because it has all going to go on because it has all been said, and this is not the time to do it, but I do say to noble Lords, please try to find a way Lords, please try to find a way forward here.

forward here.
14:45
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar Portrait Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, may also begin by thanking the Lord for his determination and commitment to this matter both today and on several previous occasions. And the injustice of the IPP sentence and its facts which continue are not in dispute. As my noble Lord said, it is a miscarriage of justice, and we are dealing with an injustice, and if I can take a moment to recognise the work he did to try to rectify another injustice of leave in the former Soviet Union.

A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the former Chancellor Alex Chalk who indeed said that he showed guts in the work that he did and the changes did ameliorate to an extent the Unlike some members of the committee this is not Second Reading, so perhaps I can be forgiven for not making all the points I made at second reading. The committee should be under no illusion as to my position on IPP which I hope I have made clear in a number of occasions.

As my noble friend said it is up to us in the Front Benches to try and sort it out, although the noble Lord the Minister has a singular advantage over me in that he is in government and I not. But he can take it from me that we will work constructively with the noble Lord on this issue and we will continue to discuss it, as we have on previous occasions. And if I may paraphrase a famous phrase, even if we cannot finish the work, we have nonetheless an obligation to do what we can to progress it and make things better.

Today we are looking as a committee and particular amendments to the bill. I should perhaps be the first to say something about each of the amendments. The first group has to do with resentencing. I dealt with the principal of resentencing in my second reading speech so I will not repeat those points, but it seems to me the real issue is to whether we have resentencing as a matter of policy. I made the point that for those in prison that would usually result in immediate release of people who often fairly recently have been deemed to be dangerous.

So we do take issue on these benches, we do take issue on these benches, the front bench with the premise underlying the amendments, but we share the aim, which is to ensure all those currently serving IPP sentences in prison or in the community are removed wherever possible to do so. Let me say a word or two about the amendments. They all seem to me to be different ways of putting substantially the same point of principle. An amendment the expert advisory, it is not clear to me what the Lord Chancellor's duty would be if the word may is interposed into clause 1.

It seems to be that really the issue attachment go together. If there is going to be a committee it should be about how the resentencing is done. On amendment to, resentencing only for those on licence. It's not about changing the terms of the recall, although there may be a useful debate on that will stop it's about whether they should be resentencing only for those on licence. We would suggest that the better way forward is to continue the work of the former Lord Chancellor to reduce the period of the licence and ensure that those on licence get the support they need to make sure they are not recalled.

On amendment are not recalled. On amendment three, resentencing for those 10 years over the tariff, not clear what is meant by the tariff. I don't know if that is meant to be the index sentence, but it goes back to the fundamental problem of dangerousness, which I've already mentioned. Amendment 10 which singles out those on the juvenile equivalent, I would suggest we need to focus on everybody who is currently in prison or on licence for IPP offences. I am not sure in principle why I they should be why should be a difference in sentencing for someone one day before their 18th birthday or one day after.

Finally amendment 11 put before has by Lord Moylan who has done an enormous amount of work in this area. It's about the sentencing imposed by the recall. The noble Lord is right to remind us of this. Again these amendments are predicated on the underlying resentencing policy, which is the point with which we take exception. However let me end by saying this. IPP was and remains an injustice. We have made some progress, but not enough. We will work constructively the Minister and therefore from these benches we look forward with these benches we look forward with
14:50
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wigley and every period friend Lord Wigley and every period that has bought such sustained focus to the imprisonment public protection sentences. The passion of protection sentences. The passion of everyone has kept this complex issue at the top of our agenda. I welcome that scrutiny and the positive that scrutiny and the positive intent behind this Private Members' Bill, even though I cannot support the specific remedy proposes. I also the specific remedy proposes.

I also welcome Lord Alfie who takes over the responsibility from the noble the responsibility from the noble Earl Akleh. I heard the mood of your Lordships has to move forward Lordships has to move forward quickly. I share the sentiment, but we do not think that sentencing is a we do not think that sentencing is a way to move it forward. -- Resentencing is a way to move it Resentencing is a way to move it forward. My aim is to address this fairly and in a way that enjoys.

Since taking office I've met many IPP prisoners and their families, I've listened to victims of frontline staff, chaired roundtables and walked landings with governors. It strengthened my resolve to pull It strengthened my resolve to pull hard on every operational lever. Even yesterday I met and IPP prisoner who has her parole hearing today. I agree with Lord Hastings around communication. It's vital that IPP prisoners and their families are aware of the changes that have been made, but I was pleased yesterday to see multiple copies of Inside Times around the prison, but I will take that back to the Department to consider what we can do more.

We are already seeing can do more. We are already seeing what action we can achieve. Licences have ended for 1042 people with more cases moving through the Parole Board. It's real progress. People read building their lives Matt people rebuilding their lives the public Say. The total IPP population has full and from 5040 in 2015 to 2544 today with the unreleased cohort down to 1012. Rigorous cohort down to 1012. Rigorous supervision keeps risks low.

We can shrink the cohort whilst maintaining the confidence and safety of victims. We are not stopping there. This summer I will lay before Parliament the second a report on the IPP sentence alongside a refreshed action plan. It sets tougher targets. 90% of IPP prisons in the right present for their needs by December and sharper deadlines for parole and determination reports and it hardwired accountability at every level. I know Piers and campaign groups will be looking closely at how we perform and I know the Howard League for Penal Reform and campaign trusts have reservations about this bill and wish to focus on what can be achieved by what can be done by pursuing this bill.

Recourse themselves fell from 658 in 2023 to 619 in 2024, clearly did is more work to do. Even with a more complex residual population the Parole Board continues to release 45% of applicants at their first oral hearing. That balance, firm and risk, ambitious and progression is what victims and the public expect. My commitment is to drive that plan with colleagues across both houses with campaign groups and crucially with victims and their advocates. Together we can press down on every leave that to ensure every individual can be safely released and supported to stay out.

In response to Lady Ludford we are considering the recommendations in the Howard report. While I cannot back resentencing exercise that will short-circuit the parole boards vital public protection role, I will champion evidence-based progress. Let us challenge the evidence of this bill into the concrete measures that are already delivering change and will with continuing support allow more IPP prisoners to complete their sentences and move on with their lives. If I may turn to the amendments tabled. I thank Lord Wigley for amendment one on the creation of an expert advisory would advise the Lord Chancellor on a resentencing exercise that she may resentencing exercise that she may rather than must carry out.

As race at second reading my concern remains with the creation of an expert advisory that it risks giving full scope to those serving IPP sentences, even if the Secretary of State was not obliged to implement recommendations. This is only confirmed with my Wrekin, The meetings with IPP prisoners. The Justice Select Committee in the other House and other organisations have considered the issue of resentencing but there has been no solution to undertaking a full resentencing exercise that would not involve releasing offenders who the Parole Board opposed to greater risk to the public.

I recognise the noble Lord's attempts to address this issue by limiting resentencing exercises to those already in the exercises to those already in the community. I would respectfully suggest that those on licence in the community are already benefiting from the significant changes to the IPP licence. In the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 which means they will have had their licence considered for termination by the Parole Board three years after their first release or two for those sentence when under 18.

They know that even if the licence is not terminated at this point it will be terminated automatically if they are not recording the subsequent two year period. Those in the community have met the Parole Board's release test, but only on the basis they would be released with the support, oversight and controls in place. This amendment would remove those licence conditions earlier, potentially immediately. It is right that someone who has been imprisoned for a significant period of time should have resettlement support from the probation service and that there are appropriate control measures in place to protect the public, manage risk and provide a soft landing for those leaving prison.

I agree with Lord Thomas and Lord Guarnieri. Licence conditions need to be necessary and proportionate, but it is also right that those conditions are set by the independent Parole Board. Amendment three restricts the sentencing for IPP business 10 years over their tariff both in custody and in the community. I thank Baroness Burt of Solihull for this. I share her concern about those still serving their sentence years after their Terrace has expired. Resentencing IPP prisoners who have spent 10 years over their tariff look at their race.

The independent Parole Board would have determined at least every two years since the offender reach the end of their tariff that they are too dangerous to be released. They have not this statutory release test. For that reason all of those serving an IPP sentence in prison must satisfy this test before they are safely released. For those in the community they will have been recently released for the first time or after being recalled. Any support from the probation service to progress towards licence termination. Amendment 10 restrict resentencing exercise for those serving a sentence for DPP.

I thank Lord Blunkett for this amendment and recognise that he remains a constant. Change on this topic. We recognise the specific challenges for those serving a DPP sentence which is why those in the community know that their licence will be considered for termination two years after release and they will have it terminated a year earlier than those on an IPP sentence. There are now fewer than 30 individual serving DPP sentences in the community and fewer than a hundred in custody. IPP action plan includes focus on DPP offenders and Lord Carter will be comforted I hope that there are more frequent views by psychology services and the Parole Board's listing these cases for consideration.

However our position remains that those serving a DPP sentence should only be released once they have satisfied the statutory release test which is the only way we can ensure the public and victims are protected. Finally amendments 11 and 12 tabled by Lord Moylan, who I thank for the amendments and his contributions to the roundtables, they referred to those who received an IPP sentence before 14 July IPP sentence before 14 July 1980. I recognise the purpose behind the amendments but as most IPP prisoners have served beyond their minimum tariff, it would lead to the release of the pre-2000 eight cohort.

A review remains that IPP prisoners should only be released once they have satisfied the statutory release test. The government therefore cannot support these amendments or any that would involve the resentencing of IPP offenders for the reasons I have set out. These amendments would lead to the partial resentencing of specific cohorts of individual serving the IPP sentence. They do not address the government's public protection concerns and will put both the public and victims at risk. They remove the vital role of the Parole Board in considering release and with the provisions in the act that is always a path to the end of the sentence in a safe and I remain committed to supporting those serving their sentence in prison and as I have said already I believe that IPP action plan is the best way to achieve this.

To conclude I would like to give to final examples are the progress that has been made to support that IPP has been made to support that IPP The pilot extended the time from 12 to 16 weeks. This was tested in for APs. At one of them, 23/26 men moved unsuccessfully after the placement ended. We also saw 7% decrease every course at that AP. Although this is a small sample, it demonstrates that training and extra support has had a direct impact on successful reintegration into the community.

If we can replicate this across the state then the impact could be significant. And secondly, we are taking action to look at rerelease when it is safe to do so. This summer, we will see the policy framework which will ensure a multidisciplinary meeting is convened within 28 days for any offender that is recalled. The detail gathered from this panel informs consideration for the risk assessor recall process which, in appropriate circumstances, can lead to early rerelease. These panels help prisoners prepare for release which aids the resettlement into the community.

Measures like these will help individuals progress through the sentence towards having a sentence terminated. I hope my Lords are reassured by some of the updates I have provided today and I will continue to work closely with noble Lords on this very important issue. I am pulling every operational lever I can as hard as I can to support IPP prisoners so they can get out of prison and stay out.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Thank you for your response, minister. I was very pleased to minister. I was very pleased to forewarn you of my speech to give you more than a fair opportunity to review and reflect on such a very review and reflect on such a very serious matter. Especially bearing in mind the hundreds if not in mind the hundreds if not thousands of individuals who are watching, listening and hoping that something positive can come out of something positive can come out of this debate here today.

I've got to say that I am disappointed but not say that I am disappointed but not surprised with your answer because surprised with your answer because it's very much more of the same that you have given us on two further occasions now which is that occasions now which is that resentencing is not part of your wish to move forward. And I still struggle, really struggle to turnaround and understand how you turnaround and understand how you can't convince yourself it is the right thing to do for those groups
15:04
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-
right thing to do for those groups of individuals that really don't create any sort of risk to the public. These people are already out on probation, like those who have been released as a perfect example never mind the kids and others, but nevertheless, all we can do is encourage amount that I have a lot of respect for, this minister who is genuine, honest, who is doing as much as he feels he can do to give health and support for this victimised group of more than 3000 individuals, and I hope your words will prove it to even more actions that have been done today as you move away from this chamber, minister.

But it is a bit of a struggle. Only a week ago, we saw an individual who is released finally out into the community again, and was arrested within 24-hour's. And sent back into prison again. You turn round with a guy who is mentally unstable now, created by the system and has been trying to get out of prison, with your help and support, he gets out of prison and goes into a mental institution only to find that not long thereafter, he sent straight back into the same prison to create the same mental instability.

It doesn't work, and are matter what you say, it gives giving us the answer to the hundreds of problems that we have got associated with these IPP sentences. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all my colleague Lourdes for their contributions. I'm proud of each and every one of them. They are fantastic, from the heart, genuine and well-informed. Thank you very much on behalf of all of these prisoners for what you are trying to do. I think we got the message across.

There is no doubt at all about that. But in the spirit of moving the process along, I beg

**** Possible New Speaker ****

leave to withdraw my amendment thereafter. It is your Lordships pressure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

It is your Lordships pressure that this be withdrawn. Amendment two, Lord Woodley. Not moved. two, Lord Woodley. Not moved. Amendment three, Baroness Burt of Solihull. Not moved. Amendment four, Lord Woodley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Woodley. This is quite challenging now because this group of amendments because this group of amendments were designed as a voting group of amendments, and I've been informed amendments, and I've been informed there was enough people in the house, we will not be therefore house, we will not be therefore taking a vote on these. That is what I have been informed of a few moments ago, and therefore, it somewhat cuts the legs from under me, and what I don't want to do is me, and what I don't want to do is waffle on, talking through all the things that we have been talking things that we have been talking about a few minutes ago with the hope and the belief and the view that we were actually going to vote that we were actually going to vote on it.

So, with that in mind, with the very greatest of reluctance, and I really do mean this, the greatest I really do mean this, the greatest of reluctance at this point in time, I withdraw my amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I think I can object to this because I did want to add something.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed, clause 1 page 1 line 16, leave out subsections five and six and insert the words as printed on the Marshall list.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

printed on the Marshall list. Are you going to move yours? OK,
15:08
Baroness Fox of Buckley Portrait Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-affiliated)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Are you going to move yours? OK,

**** Possible New Speaker ****

All right, goodness. Confusing, sorry. Firstly, apologies that I was sorry. Firstly, apologies that I was unable to be with you at second reading but I did read the act and the contributions in Hansard and listening today confirmed that I really do, like everyone else, want to commend the noble Lord Lord Woodley for his Private Member's Bill for some I think it has done a huge amount of raising the issue. I have to say that he is one of those thorn in the side -type people.

That is the greatest compliment I can give him because I think that is how things change. Important issues have already been raised and I do want to and I did speak in the group 4 time purposes, so I will bring some of it forward to say that I thought that Lord Woodley's approach to this resentencing exercises refreshing because what he has been offering to do is to do whatever he can to ensure that it is not as too often caricatured and turned into some sort of chaotic mess with inadequate oversight.

And instead, what we are all looking for through all of these amendments is to use whatever mechanisms we can to convert these never-ending IPP sentences into regular normal determinate sentences regular normal determinate sentences with an end in sight, and that means we are prepared to make compromises and look at all options. Nothing is off the table, and in that spirit, rather than treating all IPP prisoners as an undifferentiated blob, I am glad to see that today's amendments are trying to tackle the different cohorts within the IPP population and work out how best to deal with each group reasonably and differently to edge towards justice.

The focus of my amendment, amendment seven those IPP prisoners suffering mental illness. Given the resentencing caught the power to continue incarceration if someone still presents a risk to the public. Due to mental disorder, they may be dangerous. This will effectively replace an IPP sentence with a secure hospital order. It is a backstop safeguard for the government to use in dealing with one difficult group of IPP. One key context for this, and we have heard again and again from the Frontbench on both sides of the house is that the noble Lord in explaining his resistance to resentencing stresses the first priority and responsibility of any government is to protect the public, and therefore, the focus will always be and continually be on public safety.

Aye soon convinced myself that that is not too crude a measure of the government's main priority, always protecting the public, but regardless, it seems that the MoJ are fixated even paralysed with the notion of dangerousness and IPP's. I have never been convinced by the argument that IPP is a run a list of offenders who are dangerous. So much more dangerous than other prisoners on determinate sentences for far more heinous crimes, often released into the community at their sentence to end regardless.

Or let out on early release to solve the states prison crisis. And I do want to just take the chance to site a letter I received from one prisoner talking of his frustration of seeing early release prisoners walking out every day, laughing and joking having told prison officers to shove their sentence plan, boasting about how they're going to and hundred times more than prison officers by selling Classe, having adjudication from alcohol, drugs, violence, self- destruction all wipe clean, and yet they all get an early release.

My corresponding pointed out that IPP is almost choir boys in comparison but they are left to rot. However, I will concede that one risk factor that makes hundreds of IPP prisoners not choirboys is that the very nature of the IPP sentence is so psychologically toxic that itself has damaged prisoners of mental health and caused problematic behaviour, and that is what I want to look at. This theme has been well rehearsed in all our debates in the chamber and is evidenced in all the literature, the despair and sense of hopelessness contributes to making some IPP prisoners so L, and we know about the self-harm and suicide numbers that are falling.

What's more, ill IPP prisoners have a double whammy in as much as they are often wary of disclosing a decline in the mental-health to prison staff in case it could not back pro hearing, so the IPP regime contributes to untreated illness with no intervention to stop deterioration, and that creates even more risky behaviour. The irony is that the prisoners are arguably becoming less safe to release precisely because they are being held indefinitely, creating so much pent-up anger and frustration and lack of agency with no hope, and that potent mix is leading to instability and people lashing out or disengagement, and all of that is a barrier to progressing release, but also, it means in the context of this bill, a percentage of IPP could be too ill to be considered for resentencing.

And this is partly because prisons are not the right location to deal with mental illness. As the noble Lord knows, the government has already agreed that prison is not the right setting for prisoners who are ill, and he knows that because it was an important element of the mental- health bell that pass through the Lords declaring that prisons should not be treated as places of safety. I moved amendments on that issue with a focus actually on IPP prisoners as well during that bills committee and report stages.

So, this meant that the time moving today follows up on that discussion. It acknowledges that, as the punishment part of the sentence of an IPP has long since been discharged, but where there are still concerns about risk and dangerousness because of mental- health challenges, a mental health setting is more appropriate than prison. And that would allow the resentencing Council to use hospital orders to ensure the public protection aspect has concerns that are dealt with appropriately, also making sure the prisoner is in the right setting.

Where someone has become apparently not safe enough to release because of an illness that the state has helped to induce, this is a reasonable and elegant solution. The way IPP sentence individuals had accessed that way to access targeted help their distress, have the deterioration behaviour clinically managed and this can allow progression through specialist designed and pharmacological inpatient care in a psychiatric setting can hopefully build up and help recovery of individuals with At the second reading Claude Davis of Brixton noted that 30% of IPP prisoners aren't inappropriate settings.

It was conceded by Lord Timpson and said the MLG is addressing this working with HMPPS to make sure people are transferred to the best prisons to access interventions and services that will aid their rehabilitation. It seems to me that my emphasis on moving mentally ill people into hospitals using hospital orders is even more important when it comes to settings. This is something I would urge to be an immediate priority. We have all been celebrating the fact that finally and at last Thomas White has been discharged from prison into a hospital cell and will now be patient, not a prisoner.

Thomas White has been discussed in this House many times, but it just seems so depressing to me that we called that move of Thomas White from prison into a hospital victory when it has been such a hard and gruelling slog, over six years involving so many people's hard work and dedication to pull this off. The huge courage and campaigning of his sister Clara, the magnificent journalism of Mary Claire Martin. His case has been continually raised by MPs and peers in this House and a shout out to Lord kit for his personal interventions with the family.

Full credit to the noble Lord and Minister for visiting Esther White in March, but that is a huge amount of political intervention to get someone who was so obviously too ill for prison to get him into hospital. Mr Thomas developed paranoid schizophrenia whilst in custody as an IPP prisoner. He was repeatedly smashing his face on the floor of the maximum security Championship. He set himself on fire in his cell. Three psychiatrists call for him to be moved to hospital, to medical reports warned his lengthy incarceration was creating impermeable barriers to his recovery.

Yet he was repeatedly refused a hospital bed, so hurrah, he will now get appropriate treatment. But we can't continue depending on need in high-profile campaigns and massive political intervention for IPP prisoners to access what should be an obvious conclusion when they get ill. If we stick with the status quo position by the way, as somebody else has mentioned, then...

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Can I advise the noble Lady that the advisory speaking limit is 10 minutes.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

minutes. Sorry. The status quo position is that the moment than Mr Thomas when that the moment than Mr Thomas when he becomes well and stable in hospital will be returned to the hospital will be returned to the prison again as an IPP prisoner. That seems unconscionable. All that this amendment does this suggest that people are referred when they are mentally ill to a hospital, that then the hospital uses a clinical assessment to decide when they are assessment to decide when they are well and when they are well they can be not dangerous and released.

It can be part of the resentencing
15:19
Lord Moylan Portrait Lord Moylan (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

procedure. I am conscious of the time. I

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I am conscious of the time. I only want to speak to say that the noble Baroness Lady Fox has put her finger on a problem which I do not finger on a problem which I do not think the government has properly face, but which it is going to have to face soon and that is that the action plan it has been pursuing, the commendable action plan it has been pursuing with vigour is not going to reach a large number of the prisoners who are now in prison and have not been released before.

It will not reach them because in order for the action plan to work at the individual level, the individual has individual level, the individual has to engage and engage successfully with the processes of the Parole Board. We know now that of the thousand or so prisoners who have never been released, there are a significant number who no longer have the mental capacity to do that. Those are the people to whom the noble Baroness draws attention. I wish to add to that group a further possibly overlapping group of people, prisoners, who may have mental capacity, but refused to engage with the process because of an understandable disillusionment arising from their experience of the process in the past.

These people are not, as I say, going to be addressed by an action plan that requires that successful engagement. So the government has to come up with something else because at the moment, it has nothing for them and the alternative is that they simply stay in prison until they die. That is something on which I think the House would like to hear, if not today because we are coming to a close, but on the future occasion not too far in the future the House would like to hear what the government proposes to do for these people.
15:21
Lord Davies of Brixton Portrait Lord Davies of Brixton (Labour)
-
-
I wanted to participate in this debate, principally to congratulate my noble friend on his excellent introduction to this stage. Throughout he has been clear and concise about the need for this legislation and I thought his contribution today was magnificent. I think all the speeches have been clear about the total injustice of the situation with which we find ourselves and I have little doubt that the views are shared by the members on the frontbench.

The two issues that I did want to raise, firstly the mental health aspects of the problem and also the fact that we can no longer rely on people to manoeuvre through the system under their own power have been powerfully made by the noble Lady Baroness Fox of Buckley and the noble Lord Lord Moylan. So I'm not going to repeat them, but I hope the Minister will, my noble friend the Minister will address them in his reply.

The last point I want to make is to emphasise to the Minister he is effectively, perhaps he will tell me if I am wrong, but he has effectively said that we do not need resentencing as set out in this bill because the action plan is going to deal with the problem. Because of his unique, well it's not unique. Because of his particular position, he has been brought into this House, brought into government to address this issue along with others that we have with the prison system, it is very much on his shoulders.

I would stress in a not very friendly way, although it is and although he is a noble friend, it is on his shoulder to sort this out and by rejecting the resentencing approach, the approach being pursued by the government has to work. My noble friend the Minister has it on his shoulders to sort it out and to address the problems of mental health and the fact that those remaining, large proportions of them are incapable of manoeuvring through the system themselves and the government has to provide them with the support.

Either through the Department or through funding some external agency that will provide those suffering from this injustice away out of the maze.
15:25
15:26
Lord Timpson Portrait Lord Timpson, The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Labour)
-
-
The second group of amendments provide clarification to the clauses within the and make important changes to the wording. However the government maintains reservations government maintains reservations about the risk to public protection. Lord Bradley's amendment for set out that an offender could not receive a harsher sentence under the resentencing exercise. We accept this principle but it's already established by article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Amendment five would allow resentencing Amendment 5 Would Allow Resentencing Ct to maintain the IPP Resentencing Ct to maintain the IPP sentence where the prisoner may have received a life sentence.

The testing applied by resentencing court would be less stringent than the Parole Board that a true test. The final amendment amendment six will provide the resentencing court with the option to issue an extended This amendment would involve the release of IPP prisoners who have peevishly been assessed as not safe to be released under the statutory release test and would not address our fundamental public protection concerns with undertaking a resentencing exercise. I thank -- I thank baronet Fox for her input.

The amendment would substitute hospital amendment would substitute hospital order. A hospital order requires evidence of the mental disorder at the time the crime was committed. It would remove the IPP sentence respective of the Parole Board's assessment of an individual's risk. Instead an individual could be released by Mental Health Tribunal. IPP prisoners like any prisoner can require additional support for their mental health. They can already be secured to secure mental health hospitals if required and I'm working with HMPPS to explore how they can best be supported when that care is no longer required.

I completely agree with Lord Moylan around disengaged people with IPP sentences and hospital returnees. They may be returned to a category B prison which is not always the most appropriate place for them in their recovery. I'm keen to have further engagement with the noble Lord and others on that matter. I thank the Bishop of Gloucester for amendment eight. Although the government doesn't support the bill I understand the thoughts behind it. It is a requirement in the Victims and Prisoners Act former Secretary of State to lay in a report before Parliament about the steps taken to support rehabilitation of IPP and DPP offenders.

A report is expected to publish my summer recess and will show the progress that has been made. Since the publication of the refreshed IPP action plan there has been a 22% decrease in the number of those prisoners who have never been released. When I became a minister 17% of IPP prisoners were in the correct prisons for their needs. This has increased and improvements continue. This will help more individuals to progress towards a release because they are better able to access the support they need.

Blunkett second amendment would reduce the licence period of one for those subject to an invalid recall before the changes made by the Victims and Prisoners Act. The amendment doesn't constitute a valid recall. If suggesting scenarios when further information comes to light that recall should be reconsidered, there is a process. Around 40 of recalled IPP offenders have already been rereleased using this power when they were due to wait for a number of months before their scheduled hearing. The Secretary of State has the power to consider whether it is in the interest of justice to treat the licence has -- as remaining in force.

Under this power offenders will not need to start again to year. On licence. The Secretary of State can also rescind The government is determined to make further process towards a safe and sustainable release for although serving a sentence but not in a way that puts public and private at risk. We must bear in mind that a sentence was imposed where offenders were convicted of a serious specified violence or sexual offence. According to data, all prisoners in December 23 were offended ever in offence.

There are many individuals capable of causing serious harm which is why we must press down every control, treatment and settlement. The action plan ensures that prisoners leaving sentences have robust and effective sentence plans and that a in the correct prison to access the right interventions and services. The victims act made significant changes to the licence period. It allows for determinations of the sentence in a safe and sustainable way, ensuring the public there is a clear route to the end of the sentence for the cohort.

The action plan is where we will get this sorted out. We want to do more and this is where it is best

**** Possible New Speaker ****

placed to make this happen. Just before the Minister sits down, I was slightly confused in the summation. The implication if you are listening and didn't know about are listening and didn't know about the subject is that people have been given IPP sentences originally because of sexual and violent acts because of sexual and violent acts and that is not accurate. Maybe the Minister could clarify what he meant Minister could clarify what he meant by that. One of the arguments that I was putting forward, and maybe the was putting forward, and maybe the Minister could just reflect is that the dangerousness that we keep hearing about from different hearing about from different governments versions of the MoJ is that it is often associated with the that it is often associated with the deterioration of behaviour because upon mental-health created by the sentence, and therefore, when the Minister says the Parole Board are Minister says the Parole Board are the only people who can assess whether that behaviour is dangerous whether that behaviour is dangerous or not, in the instances of mental illness, would it not be better for clinical assessment? I hospitals have to make decisions about releasing people all the time about whether they are dangerous or not.

whether they are dangerous or not. They are a much stronger position surely than the Parole Board who don't necessarily understand the mental ill-health.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

HMI Peter report into recalls of IPP prisoners and said that they are being used proportionally. And I being used proportionally. And I believe that the Parole Board have the right skills to make these the right skills to make these complex decisions. So far as the make-up of the cohorts of IPP prisoners, I will write with exact
15:34
Lord Woodley Portrait Lord Woodley (Labour)
-
-
prisoners, I will write with exact percentages as I have them for confirmation.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Whilst this committee has not materialised in the way I would have preferred, not least of all leading towards what I hoped would be evoked towards what I hoped would be evoked and may be more importantly votes where the Minister finally agreed to move forward on resentencing for move forward on resentencing for each and every part of the cohorts that we have highlighted, so carefully and fairly here today. Last I have got that said, I think Last I have got that said, I think it is fair to say that we have got one thing that IPP prisoners would be grateful for, and we will have be grateful for, and we will have raised the awareness of this disgraceful set of circumstances here and in the wider public yet again, and therefore, there is no again, and therefore, there is no escape.

There is no escape to say we will do something and do nothing. There is no escape for people in this house to just ignore the injustices that we are watching each and every day. I would like to say and every day. I would like to say this as well to my colleagues and this as well to my colleagues and Lord Moylan and Lord Davies. Thank you once again. The expertise that you have brought to this debate has been a privilege for me to listen to, never mind anyone else, and your support has always is very much appreciated.

I will finish when Lord Davies finished, and you yourself just said it, Minister. It is in your hands now. It's no good having a nice man whose heart and will is there to try and make these changes and find, in 12 months time or two years time, nothing has moved. And the people who have committed suicide has gone up. It is on your shoulders now and I very much look forward to working with you to see what we can do to alleviate this catastrophe that has been with us for many decades.

Thank you very

**** Possible New Speaker ****

much. Is at your Lordships pleasure

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Is at your Lordships pleasure this amendment be withdrawn? It is by leave withdrawn. Amendments five and six taken together, not moved. Amendments seven, Baroness Fox of Buckley.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Buckley. One thing, when people say that we don't want to give false hope, the obvious thing to do is to do something real so they have real hope. We don't have to give them false hope, we can change things, false hope, we can change things, but I will not move the amendment.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment seven not move. The question is that because one stand question is that because one stand part of the bell. The contents have it. Amendment eight, not moved. Amendment nine, Lord Blunkett. Not Amendment nine, Lord Blunkett. Not moved. Clause 2, amendment 10. Not moved. Clause 2, amendment 10. Not moved. Amendment 11 and 12, Lord Moylan. Not move. The question is that because to stay as part of the bell. The contents have it.

The question is the clause 3 stand part of the bell. The contents have it. The question is this be the title of the bell, as many of that opinion say content. The contents have it. My Lords, that concludes the committee's proceedings. The house committee's proceedings. The house My Lords, the Committee of the whole House to which the imprisonment of public protection resentencing bill was committed has gone through the same as directed me to report your Lordships without amendment.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

IBEC to move the house do now adjourn.
This debate has concluded
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page