Lords Chamber
Friday 17th July 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
10:06
None
-
None
Second Second Reading Second Reading of Second Reading of the Second Reading of the Conduct Second Reading of the Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Hamwee. Bait. I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking House that the advisory speaking time is four minutes for backbench contributions. This is to allow all colleagues to participate, colleagues to participate, participate fairly and the House to rise at a reasonable time around rise at a reasonable time around 3:00. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My Lords. Our reaction to rape, to violence against women and girls, coercive control and grooming has intensified over recent years, along with greater understanding of what it means to be a target.
And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Baroness Hamwee. Bait. I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking House that the advisory speaking time is four minutes for backbench contributions. This is to allow all colleagues to participate, colleagues to participate, participate fairly and the House to rise at a reasonable time around rise at a reasonable time around 3:00. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My Lords. Our reaction to rape, to violence against women and girls, coercive control and grooming has intensified over recent years, along with greater understanding of what it means to be a target.
And
10:07
Legislation: Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill - second reading
-
Legislation: Conduct of Undercover Policing and Surveillance Operatives Bill - second reading
the protection of human rights is always topical. They include the prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment. All these are what underlie this bill. It's been known for some time that some undercover police officers entered into intimate sexual relationships with women members of organisations they
10:07
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
had infiltrated. It is still not known how many women were deceived into long term relationships with boyfriends who had assumed false boyfriends who had assumed false names. It seems upwards of 68. In some cases, children were born. The some cases, children were born. The Bill looks to the future, aiming to learn from the past. These women were activists, not terrorists. were activists, not terrorists. They went on protests. They were involved in planning protests. I don't suggest the activities were insignificant, though I think some were fairly minor.
Nor am I arguing there's no place for undercover surveillance. That's not a matter for today. It would need a psychologist properly to describe the life changing impact on the women targeted. They were in apparently close forever relationships, only for their partners suddenly completely to disappear. That caused such anxiety as it would. You'd be distraught. They made huge, extraordinary efforts to find them, and disturbing information started to come to light. True identities, wives and children assumed names taken from those of dead children.
It's not difficult to understand why such an experience means it's so hard for some people, impossible ever to trust again, including trusting themselves. In 2015, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, established an inquiry which in its so far 11 years has identified 30 officers who used this technique. Though the total isn't known. The inquiry has brought together many of those targeted. They found one another and found their experiences are so similar as they would be.
The Spycops had managers even regarding them as mentors. A whole structure behind them. Their seniors did not turn a blind eye. On the contrary, there was a so-called tradecraft manual in use. So no wonder their stories echo one another. This is not a matter of a few bad apples, even a barrel load intimacy. The very closest has been an instrument of surveillance by the state. Not a risk at the margins which could be managed by better safeguards. The women targeted cannot have been seen as human beings capable of being injured.
Indeed, some of the officers have blamed the women. Something we hear about regarding domestic violence. The very system regarded as acceptable is was simply wrong. The state has recognised this. Apologies have been made and damages paid. In 2015, the met accepted that the relationships were, to quote, deceitful, manipulative and wrong a violation of human rights. In 2021, a tribunal said, we are driven to the conclusion that either senior officers were quite extraordinarily naive, totally unquestioning, or chose to turn a blind eye to conduct which was certainly, in the case of a particular officer, useful to the operation.
There was a finding of a violation of human rights and discrimination. So the Bill makes the conduct an offence. It uses the term CHIS covert human intelligence source, which is defined for the purposes of the bill. I accept their arguments for and against using a term already in use in other legislation. However, an intimate sexual relationship could not be organised as would otherwise be law breaking surveyed what would otherwise be law breaking surveillance can be under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
The penalty is the same as that for rape. It's a distinct offence. In order to avoid the issue of whether the conduct is rape under existing legislation, inciting, intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence to cover the role of managers handling undercover operatives is itself an offence. There's provision for a defendant who is in the intelligence services to apply for an anonymity order in proceedings. As I'm aware of the issue of identifying intelligence officers, a duty of candour and assistance is included, though that may be overtaken by the Hillsboro Bill, or act as it will be, and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under the Sexual Offences Act is not affected.
This bill applies in the narrow situation of undercover surveillance. Often when we're passing legislation, noble Lords suggest guidance as a means of addressing a tricky issue. There is guidance the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice, published in 2021. It says it's never acceptable for a UCO undercover officer to have an intimate sexual relationship with those they are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their employment. Having an intimate sexual relationship must not be used as a tactic by a UCO.
So far, so good. But there is a. But it continues. If a UCO engages in an intimate sexual relationship. For example, they perceive an immediate threat to themselves and or others. If they were not to do so, this activity will be restricted to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat. Then it goes on to provide procedures to be followed. So the authorised professional practice is not an absolute bar. I wondered what situation this might be addressed to a female UCO perhaps, or a UCO being forced at knifepoint to take part in a gang rape rape.
But would there not be a defence to the charge, namely self-defence? I'm conscious that I've not mentioned the people who seem to have been regarded as collateral damage. The wives and families of the UCOs, the parents of the dead children whose names were assumed. I'm afraid my bill is too narrow for that. Actually, I feel a bit bad about that. I'm sure the Minister will tell the House that the government must await the outcome of the undercover policing inquiry before addressing the situation, and I know it has announced a consultation on the future of the inquiry.
I do not accept we need the outcome to know this conduct is wrong. It must be outlawed. Otherwise the apologists that have been made will seem pretty hollow and the future could hold further distress and damage. And then more apologies. No woman should experience this form of abuse again. These are means which cannot justify the end. I'd never thought to use this term. This was state sponsored abuse. I beg to move.
Nor am I arguing there's no place for undercover surveillance. That's not a matter for today. It would need a psychologist properly to describe the life changing impact on the women targeted. They were in apparently close forever relationships, only for their partners suddenly completely to disappear. That caused such anxiety as it would. You'd be distraught. They made huge, extraordinary efforts to find them, and disturbing information started to come to light. True identities, wives and children assumed names taken from those of dead children.
It's not difficult to understand why such an experience means it's so hard for some people, impossible ever to trust again, including trusting themselves. In 2015, the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, established an inquiry which in its so far 11 years has identified 30 officers who used this technique. Though the total isn't known. The inquiry has brought together many of those targeted. They found one another and found their experiences are so similar as they would be.
The Spycops had managers even regarding them as mentors. A whole structure behind them. Their seniors did not turn a blind eye. On the contrary, there was a so-called tradecraft manual in use. So no wonder their stories echo one another. This is not a matter of a few bad apples, even a barrel load intimacy. The very closest has been an instrument of surveillance by the state. Not a risk at the margins which could be managed by better safeguards. The women targeted cannot have been seen as human beings capable of being injured.
Indeed, some of the officers have blamed the women. Something we hear about regarding domestic violence. The very system regarded as acceptable is was simply wrong. The state has recognised this. Apologies have been made and damages paid. In 2015, the met accepted that the relationships were, to quote, deceitful, manipulative and wrong a violation of human rights. In 2021, a tribunal said, we are driven to the conclusion that either senior officers were quite extraordinarily naive, totally unquestioning, or chose to turn a blind eye to conduct which was certainly, in the case of a particular officer, useful to the operation.
There was a finding of a violation of human rights and discrimination. So the Bill makes the conduct an offence. It uses the term CHIS covert human intelligence source, which is defined for the purposes of the bill. I accept their arguments for and against using a term already in use in other legislation. However, an intimate sexual relationship could not be organised as would otherwise be law breaking surveyed what would otherwise be law breaking surveillance can be under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act.
The penalty is the same as that for rape. It's a distinct offence. In order to avoid the issue of whether the conduct is rape under existing legislation, inciting, intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence to cover the role of managers handling undercover operatives is itself an offence. There's provision for a defendant who is in the intelligence services to apply for an anonymity order in proceedings. As I'm aware of the issue of identifying intelligence officers, a duty of candour and assistance is included, though that may be overtaken by the Hillsboro Bill, or act as it will be, and causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent under the Sexual Offences Act is not affected.
This bill applies in the narrow situation of undercover surveillance. Often when we're passing legislation, noble Lords suggest guidance as a means of addressing a tricky issue. There is guidance the College of Policing Authorised Professional Practice, published in 2021. It says it's never acceptable for a UCO undercover officer to have an intimate sexual relationship with those they are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their employment. Having an intimate sexual relationship must not be used as a tactic by a UCO.
So far, so good. But there is a. But it continues. If a UCO engages in an intimate sexual relationship. For example, they perceive an immediate threat to themselves and or others. If they were not to do so, this activity will be restricted to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat. Then it goes on to provide procedures to be followed. So the authorised professional practice is not an absolute bar. I wondered what situation this might be addressed to a female UCO perhaps, or a UCO being forced at knifepoint to take part in a gang rape rape.
But would there not be a defence to the charge, namely self-defence? I'm conscious that I've not mentioned the people who seem to have been regarded as collateral damage. The wives and families of the UCOs, the parents of the dead children whose names were assumed. I'm afraid my bill is too narrow for that. Actually, I feel a bit bad about that. I'm sure the Minister will tell the House that the government must await the outcome of the undercover policing inquiry before addressing the situation, and I know it has announced a consultation on the future of the inquiry.
I do not accept we need the outcome to know this conduct is wrong. It must be outlawed. Otherwise the apologists that have been made will seem pretty hollow and the future could hold further distress and damage. And then more apologies. No woman should experience this form of abuse again. These are means which cannot justify the end. I'd never thought to use this term. This was state sponsored abuse. I beg to move.
10:15
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
The question is that this bill >> The question is that this bill be now read a second time. >> My Lords, I strongly support this bill and I do see it as a bill dealing with state sanctioned abuse. This bill directly responds to the abuse of nature of these sexual relationships, which were built on deception and the deception that is involved. It negates basically a person's ability to exercise autonomous choice about who they're having sex with, not merely what they're consenting to, and can be morally equivalent to non-consent applied here.
The women cannot be considered to be in a position of consenting to sex with the actual person. The serving police officer or. Member of our secret services. Because that identity is concealed as a matter of operational necessity. That cannot be a rationale. I have seen and met with a number of the women over the years who have been directly affected by this, and there is absolutely no doubt as to the nature of the of the pain, the emotional and psychological harm that it has done to them that one day, suddenly this person disappears.
And then it transpires, of course, it's come to their knowledge that they actually had another wife and children elsewhere. I've met with one of the women who had a child by the man who was basically using her in order to access an environmental group. The deception perpetrated by undercover police violated her right and their rights to sexual autonomy, and resulted in severe emotional and psychological harm to many of them. And they're having to have psychological help for post-traumatic stress disorder. Our consent to sexual activity with the men, they say, was fraudulently obtained.
They knew that they would never have consented to sex with them had they known who they really were. The deception removed their ability to meaningfully consent. Our freedom to make decisions, they say, was based on our own priorities, on their own priorities and their values and what they prioritised now. Yes, I am absolutely sure that the response of the government will be that we should wait. The outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry which is currently taking place is not, is due to carry on right through this summer and and basically, I suspect it will suggest all manner of protocols which already exist about what is proper behaviour for those who are running informants or who are involved in information gathering activities.
I agree with Baroness Hamwee that this should not need a waiting that outcome. This is absolutely reprehensible behaviour. It was basically accepted by senior officers on a don't ask, don't tell basis. They knew that the officers were involved in relationships, but they didn't know what to ask about the nature of those relationships and chose not to ask. And. And that in itself is really about a lack of candour. And here we are at this time talking about the Hillsborough changes and the need of for candour in public services and in all those who might be involved in processes of justice.
So I strongly urge the House to go forward with this bill, and I commend Baroness Hamwee for bringing it to our attention, because it retains it remains a scar, a scar on the lives of of many of those women. And it's over 50, over 50 women we know of, but it's also a scar on our system.
The women cannot be considered to be in a position of consenting to sex with the actual person. The serving police officer or. Member of our secret services. Because that identity is concealed as a matter of operational necessity. That cannot be a rationale. I have seen and met with a number of the women over the years who have been directly affected by this, and there is absolutely no doubt as to the nature of the of the pain, the emotional and psychological harm that it has done to them that one day, suddenly this person disappears.
And then it transpires, of course, it's come to their knowledge that they actually had another wife and children elsewhere. I've met with one of the women who had a child by the man who was basically using her in order to access an environmental group. The deception perpetrated by undercover police violated her right and their rights to sexual autonomy, and resulted in severe emotional and psychological harm to many of them. And they're having to have psychological help for post-traumatic stress disorder. Our consent to sexual activity with the men, they say, was fraudulently obtained.
They knew that they would never have consented to sex with them had they known who they really were. The deception removed their ability to meaningfully consent. Our freedom to make decisions, they say, was based on our own priorities, on their own priorities and their values and what they prioritised now. Yes, I am absolutely sure that the response of the government will be that we should wait. The outcome of the inquiry. The inquiry which is currently taking place is not, is due to carry on right through this summer and and basically, I suspect it will suggest all manner of protocols which already exist about what is proper behaviour for those who are running informants or who are involved in information gathering activities.
I agree with Baroness Hamwee that this should not need a waiting that outcome. This is absolutely reprehensible behaviour. It was basically accepted by senior officers on a don't ask, don't tell basis. They knew that the officers were involved in relationships, but they didn't know what to ask about the nature of those relationships and chose not to ask. And. And that in itself is really about a lack of candour. And here we are at this time talking about the Hillsborough changes and the need of for candour in public services and in all those who might be involved in processes of justice.
So I strongly urge the House to go forward with this bill, and I commend Baroness Hamwee for bringing it to our attention, because it retains it remains a scar, a scar on the lives of of many of those women. And it's over 50, over 50 women we know of, but it's also a scar on our system.
10:19
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lady, Lady Hamwee, for her introductory remarks about her bill. Unquestionably the conduct of undercover agents of the state, be they police officers or members of they police officers or members of the secret services, is a matter of great public interest. In those instances where women have had relationships with men they thought were fellow protesters, for example, but who turned out to be undercover police officers and for their children. It is a matter of acute and distressing private interest, as well as the noble Lady and indeed as the noble Lady, Lady Kennedy have explained so movingly, this bill moves us into new or different legal territory.
It seems to me there is, of course, as the noble Lady said, College of Policing guidance on undercover operatives being. Having intimate and sexual relations with those they are deployed to infiltrate and so on. But that behaviour, so long as it is consensual, is not currently a criminal offence. We also have the Mitting inquiry to which the noble Lady, Lady Kennedy, I think, referred, but that has yet to produce its final report, and I accept that that has been far too slow in coming.
I entirely understand the noble Lady Henry's motives for her Bill, but my concern is that it criminalises a private member's bill. Activities that, at the time of the behaviour in question, were consensual. We are debating very delicate and very difficult questions, and I do not want to be misunderstood. I most certainly don't condone rape or serious sexual assaults. I appreciate that a person who has sexual intercourse with another on the express, understanding that they will wear a condom, but who does not wear one could be prosecuted.
Someone who has sexual intercourse with another who dishonestly states that they do not have or dishonestly fails to state that they do have a sexually transmittable disease and infects that other person cannot claim that the victim consented to the sexual intercourse, and thus the infection brought about by that lie. But now it seems, it seems to me at least, is not the time to lay out detailed arguments about the statutory definitions of rape or of consent, or to contrast and compare the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and 2003, all the Sexual Offences Amendments Act of 1976.
But I say in passing that section three of the 1956 act made it an offence to procure a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences or false representations, a provision that was repealed by the 2003 act but has not been replaced. Perhaps it should be, but I'm not sure that this bill is the right way to do that. We what we have under this bill is a dilemma about what we properly disapprove of and what we ought to make a criminal offence.
Whether consent to intercourse given by a woman to an undercover police officer who she did not know at the time, was an undercover police officer, was considered, in Monica's case, formally formally known as the Crown against the DPP, and it's reported at 2018EWHC3508. In essence, the Divisional Court held that the deception regarding an undercover police officer's true identity and profession did not vitiate consent to sexual relations. The woman in question, whose name was disguised as Monica, claimed that she would not have agreed to her sexual relationship with the police officer had she known that he was a police officer masquerading as an environmental protester, and her agreement having been procured by his deception, her consent to sexual activity with him had been vitiated.
Now, the DPP refused to prosecute the policeman for raping Monica, and she sought a challenge to challenge that decision to the Divisional Court, which refused her application. It ruled that deception Vitiating sexual consent is strictly limited to fraud. Regarding the nature of the act or the identity of the person. It also went on to say that if the law is to be changed, it should be changed here in Parliament. And here we are. Now. I hope I'm not making a dull procedural point, but it seems to me that a matter of this importance, and it is important, should be dealt with by the government, should be dealt with after the advice of the Law Commission and or government lawyers.
But it should not be, despite its merits, should not be a matter for a private member's Bill. I entirely sympathise with what the noble Lady is after. I merely question whether this is the vehicle through which to achieve it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lady Hamwee for consulting, not consulting me. for consulting, not consulting me. Wrong phrase alerting me to this legislation. I've been out of action from the House for nearly six weeks, and I have to say I six weeks, and I have to say I failed to spot this bit of legislation. She knows broadly what I'm going to say, which is I have sympathy with what she's trying to achieve for the reasons, if you achieve for the reasons, if you like, the Lady Kennedy of the shores has mentioned, qualified by what Lord Garnier has just said.
My problem that she alerted me to it because she said it had an application to the security service. There is no reference to the security service in the legislation. Because I would argue that it's poorly drafted. You can't suddenly change the terms of reference for this world. A covert human intelligence source. As previous legislation, Ripper and the conduct of human intelligence sources in criminality, 2000 and. I can't remember the dates of those. But anyway. 21, I think, make it clear that a covert human intelligence source is a member of the public who provides intelligence in secret to the authorities.
Now, the piece and defined as CHISs are actually the authorities who run them. And I'm afraid this this to me is deeply confusing. And therefore, if
It seems to me there is, of course, as the noble Lady said, College of Policing guidance on undercover operatives being. Having intimate and sexual relations with those they are deployed to infiltrate and so on. But that behaviour, so long as it is consensual, is not currently a criminal offence. We also have the Mitting inquiry to which the noble Lady, Lady Kennedy, I think, referred, but that has yet to produce its final report, and I accept that that has been far too slow in coming.
I entirely understand the noble Lady Henry's motives for her Bill, but my concern is that it criminalises a private member's bill. Activities that, at the time of the behaviour in question, were consensual. We are debating very delicate and very difficult questions, and I do not want to be misunderstood. I most certainly don't condone rape or serious sexual assaults. I appreciate that a person who has sexual intercourse with another on the express, understanding that they will wear a condom, but who does not wear one could be prosecuted.
Someone who has sexual intercourse with another who dishonestly states that they do not have or dishonestly fails to state that they do have a sexually transmittable disease and infects that other person cannot claim that the victim consented to the sexual intercourse, and thus the infection brought about by that lie. But now it seems, it seems to me at least, is not the time to lay out detailed arguments about the statutory definitions of rape or of consent, or to contrast and compare the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act of 1956 and 2003, all the Sexual Offences Amendments Act of 1976.
But I say in passing that section three of the 1956 act made it an offence to procure a woman to have sexual intercourse by false pretences or false representations, a provision that was repealed by the 2003 act but has not been replaced. Perhaps it should be, but I'm not sure that this bill is the right way to do that. We what we have under this bill is a dilemma about what we properly disapprove of and what we ought to make a criminal offence.
Whether consent to intercourse given by a woman to an undercover police officer who she did not know at the time, was an undercover police officer, was considered, in Monica's case, formally formally known as the Crown against the DPP, and it's reported at 2018EWHC3508. In essence, the Divisional Court held that the deception regarding an undercover police officer's true identity and profession did not vitiate consent to sexual relations. The woman in question, whose name was disguised as Monica, claimed that she would not have agreed to her sexual relationship with the police officer had she known that he was a police officer masquerading as an environmental protester, and her agreement having been procured by his deception, her consent to sexual activity with him had been vitiated.
Now, the DPP refused to prosecute the policeman for raping Monica, and she sought a challenge to challenge that decision to the Divisional Court, which refused her application. It ruled that deception Vitiating sexual consent is strictly limited to fraud. Regarding the nature of the act or the identity of the person. It also went on to say that if the law is to be changed, it should be changed here in Parliament. And here we are. Now. I hope I'm not making a dull procedural point, but it seems to me that a matter of this importance, and it is important, should be dealt with by the government, should be dealt with after the advice of the Law Commission and or government lawyers.
But it should not be, despite its merits, should not be a matter for a private member's Bill. I entirely sympathise with what the noble Lady is after. I merely question whether this is the vehicle through which to achieve it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I would like to start by thanking the noble Lady Hamwee for consulting, not consulting me. for consulting, not consulting me. Wrong phrase alerting me to this legislation. I've been out of action from the House for nearly six weeks, and I have to say I six weeks, and I have to say I failed to spot this bit of legislation. She knows broadly what I'm going to say, which is I have sympathy with what she's trying to achieve for the reasons, if you achieve for the reasons, if you like, the Lady Kennedy of the shores has mentioned, qualified by what Lord Garnier has just said.
My problem that she alerted me to it because she said it had an application to the security service. There is no reference to the security service in the legislation. Because I would argue that it's poorly drafted. You can't suddenly change the terms of reference for this world. A covert human intelligence source. As previous legislation, Ripper and the conduct of human intelligence sources in criminality, 2000 and. I can't remember the dates of those. But anyway. 21, I think, make it clear that a covert human intelligence source is a member of the public who provides intelligence in secret to the authorities.
Now, the piece and defined as CHISs are actually the authorities who run them. And I'm afraid this this to me is deeply confusing. And therefore, if
10:25
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Manningham-Buller (Crossbench)
this legislation, this, this, this private member's bill survives, I do think that needs to be redraughted to clear, make that clear. Now, undercover policing, clear. Now, undercover policing, which is what we've been talking about, and we're obviously waiting for the Mitting report. I make no apology for that behaviour. It was disgraceful in every way. And the disgraceful in every way. And the damage it has done considerable. All I could say is that if an undercover member of the security service had been found to behave like that, certainly when I was there they would have been sacked and I think still today.
So I believe that whatever the government reaction to this, it does have to be rephrased. You can't just say from now on, an elephant is a giraffe. CHIS is a member of the public who gives information in secrecy, in some cases at risk of their lives to the authorities to eliminate a threat. You can't just suddenly say the authorities are CHISs, I suggest, but I would like to repeat my gratitude to Lady Hamwee for alerting me to what she is correctly trying to do.
I just don't think the terminology is right. Sorry to be pedantic.
So I believe that whatever the government reaction to this, it does have to be rephrased. You can't just say from now on, an elephant is a giraffe. CHIS is a member of the public who gives information in secrecy, in some cases at risk of their lives to the authorities to eliminate a threat. You can't just suddenly say the authorities are CHISs, I suggest, but I would like to repeat my gratitude to Lady Hamwee for alerting me to what she is correctly trying to do.
I just don't think the terminology is right. Sorry to be pedantic.
10:26
Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Paddick (Non-affiliated)
My Lords. I declare my relevant interest as a non-executive director of the Metropolitan Police. director of the Metropolitan Police. But at no time during my service as a police officer did I have responsibility for undercover responsibility for undercover officers, and I have no professional expertise in this area. My Lords, I congratulate my friend, the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, on her private member's bill. I absolutely agree in principle, as other speakers have, with what the noble Lady is trying to achieve, that undercover officers should be prohibited from engaging in intimate sexual relationships with those that they are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their deployment, and that such activity should be unlawful and subject to criminal prosecution and sanction if it does occur.
I believe that section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act, as suggested in the Bill, is too broad, as I believe prohibition should be limited to physical, intimate sexual activity. Non-Physical intimacy may be necessary and proportionate rather than the bill as drafted under section ten of of section 29, subsection ten of section 29 B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit the authorisation of any such conduct as may be described in the order.
I believe the Home Secretary should prohibit the authorisation of intimate physical sexual activity between an undercover officer and those he is deployed against or encounters in the course of such deployment. I'm told authorising officers would never nowadays pre authorise such activity, but this change would also prohibit retrospective authorisation. But this would not require primary legislation. I believe it should also be enshrined in primary legislation that those deceived as to the identity of the person they engaged had engaged in physical, intimate sexual activity with cannot be said to have given informed consent to such activity.
Whether the person is an undercover officer or not. Addressing the points that the noble Lord Lord Garnier has just made, these two changes taken together would mean that an undercover officer who deceived someone as to their true identity could be found guilty of indecent assault or rape, for example, and if found guilty, they could be subject to the relevant penalty for that offence. The police may say that this could put undercover officers in danger, for example, knowing the law had changed, those targeted could test the suspected undercover officer by forcing them to have sex.
My Lords undercover officers are now very closely monitored, often in real time, and their handlers should be able to withdraw the officer before the situation gets to the stage where physical, intimate sexual activity takes place. Undercover officers are also regularly supervised to ensure that they are not being drawn into inappropriate relationships. I believe that the greatest threat to women from police officers no longer lies with undercover officers, who are now amongst the most closely supervised and monitored of all police officers.
However, if an officer does end up engaging in such sexual activity, for example, because his life or the life of others would otherwise be endangered, a statutory defence should be available to an undercover officer charged with an offence to prove that life was in danger if he had not engaged in such activity. It would then be a matter for a jury to decide. Instances of undercover officers engaging in such activity today should be exceptionally rare, but if they do happen, officers should be prepared to defend themselves in the criminal courts.
That's the four-minute summary. A full version is available on request.
I believe that section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act, as suggested in the Bill, is too broad, as I believe prohibition should be limited to physical, intimate sexual activity. Non-Physical intimacy may be necessary and proportionate rather than the bill as drafted under section ten of of section 29, subsection ten of section 29 B of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Secretary of State may, by order, prohibit the authorisation of any such conduct as may be described in the order.
I believe the Home Secretary should prohibit the authorisation of intimate physical sexual activity between an undercover officer and those he is deployed against or encounters in the course of such deployment. I'm told authorising officers would never nowadays pre authorise such activity, but this change would also prohibit retrospective authorisation. But this would not require primary legislation. I believe it should also be enshrined in primary legislation that those deceived as to the identity of the person they engaged had engaged in physical, intimate sexual activity with cannot be said to have given informed consent to such activity.
Whether the person is an undercover officer or not. Addressing the points that the noble Lord Lord Garnier has just made, these two changes taken together would mean that an undercover officer who deceived someone as to their true identity could be found guilty of indecent assault or rape, for example, and if found guilty, they could be subject to the relevant penalty for that offence. The police may say that this could put undercover officers in danger, for example, knowing the law had changed, those targeted could test the suspected undercover officer by forcing them to have sex.
My Lords undercover officers are now very closely monitored, often in real time, and their handlers should be able to withdraw the officer before the situation gets to the stage where physical, intimate sexual activity takes place. Undercover officers are also regularly supervised to ensure that they are not being drawn into inappropriate relationships. I believe that the greatest threat to women from police officers no longer lies with undercover officers, who are now amongst the most closely supervised and monitored of all police officers.
However, if an officer does end up engaging in such sexual activity, for example, because his life or the life of others would otherwise be endangered, a statutory defence should be available to an undercover officer charged with an offence to prove that life was in danger if he had not engaged in such activity. It would then be a matter for a jury to decide. Instances of undercover officers engaging in such activity today should be exceptionally rare, but if they do happen, officers should be prepared to defend themselves in the criminal courts.
That's the four-minute summary. A full version is available on request.
10:31
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (Crossbench)
May I add my congratulations to Baroness Hamwee for raising this point? It is important, I think, for two reasons. First of all, the for two reasons. First of all, the terrible damage that has been done to those who have suffered as a result of what happened. And secondly, and to my mind, importantly, that damage this does to the police force. And so I think on this issue, the law needs to be clear. Now, we look to when the CHIS act, if I might call it that, was before this House, and prohibiting the authorisation of certain activities.
And Lady Massey of Darwin's amendment was passed in this House, which would have prohibited sexual relations being authorised. There were reasons that were put forward. Why that was wrong. The Other place took a different view and there was no prohibition. But as Lord Garnier explained, the issue of consent in sexual relations is a very unclear part of the law. It needs looking at. There have been many proposals for reform, and it seems to me wholly impossible to try and deal with the problem through the amendment, through an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act relating to sexual relations.
What we are therefore concerned with, it seems to me, is making it clear that under no circumstances can a person engage who is an undercover officer in sexual relations. And I must say, I found the College of Policing's guidance to be deeply unfortunate. There is no reason why they tried to qualify the very clear statement that people should not engage in sexual activity with the qualification. And it seems to me, as regards the. One solution to this problem would be for the College of Policing to be more sensitive to these issues.
It is accountable to the Home Secretary, and no doubt there are good reasons why the Home Secretary does not want to go into the details of advice given, but the College of Policing should itself have a means of examining whether the guidance it gives, because in the part read by Baroness Hamwee, it is plainly what they state is unacceptable. There should. There is no excuse for engaging in sexual relations. Therefore, I broadly welcome. I think everyone does. The attempt to put the law right to prohibit undercover officers from engaging in sexual relations, full stop.
No qualification. I wish the police would actually put the matter right themselves. That is their duty. If they don't, I hope the Home Secretary will do it. And I certainly don't think this should await the conclusion of Sir John meetings, inquiry. And in any event, we have no idea how well that will end. And I note that the government is consulting on the future of the inquiry. From what it stated last week, sir, I do believe action needs to be taken.
I don't want to get into the technicalities. There's no time to do so. But action is needed. The police should be the first step. The Home Secretary, the second step. And this activity must be made clear should under no circumstances ever be permitted. Hear, hear.
And Lady Massey of Darwin's amendment was passed in this House, which would have prohibited sexual relations being authorised. There were reasons that were put forward. Why that was wrong. The Other place took a different view and there was no prohibition. But as Lord Garnier explained, the issue of consent in sexual relations is a very unclear part of the law. It needs looking at. There have been many proposals for reform, and it seems to me wholly impossible to try and deal with the problem through the amendment, through an amendment to the Criminal Justice Act relating to sexual relations.
What we are therefore concerned with, it seems to me, is making it clear that under no circumstances can a person engage who is an undercover officer in sexual relations. And I must say, I found the College of Policing's guidance to be deeply unfortunate. There is no reason why they tried to qualify the very clear statement that people should not engage in sexual activity with the qualification. And it seems to me, as regards the. One solution to this problem would be for the College of Policing to be more sensitive to these issues.
It is accountable to the Home Secretary, and no doubt there are good reasons why the Home Secretary does not want to go into the details of advice given, but the College of Policing should itself have a means of examining whether the guidance it gives, because in the part read by Baroness Hamwee, it is plainly what they state is unacceptable. There should. There is no excuse for engaging in sexual relations. Therefore, I broadly welcome. I think everyone does. The attempt to put the law right to prohibit undercover officers from engaging in sexual relations, full stop.
No qualification. I wish the police would actually put the matter right themselves. That is their duty. If they don't, I hope the Home Secretary will do it. And I certainly don't think this should await the conclusion of Sir John meetings, inquiry. And in any event, we have no idea how well that will end. And I note that the government is consulting on the future of the inquiry. From what it stated last week, sir, I do believe action needs to be taken.
I don't want to get into the technicalities. There's no time to do so. But action is needed. The police should be the first step. The Home Secretary, the second step. And this activity must be made clear should under no circumstances ever be permitted. Hear, hear.
10:34
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
I'm grateful to the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for bringing this bill before your Lordships House. It's an honour to follow the noble It's an honour to follow the noble Lord Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd in this debate, and I acknowledge the contributions to this debate from your Lordships, who have drawn on their expertise and experience, which is far beyond my own. Before turning to the substance of this bill, which I support, I wish to acknowledge the extraordinary service that our police officers give to this country.
In doing so, I pay tribute to PC Jess Turnbull of Northumbria Police, who tragically died in the line of duty at just 19 years of age. Her funeral was held in Newcastle Cathedral last Friday. We continue to hold her family, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers, giving thanks for her life and her willingness to serve others at such a young age. Her death reminds us that policing is a vocation of public service, often carried out at great personal cost.
It is in that spirit that I approach this bill. This bill is not about preventing legitimate activities. Rather, it addresses one specific question, which at heart is an ethical question before it is a legal one. This bill concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of human life the ability to trust another person where an intimate relationship is deliberately entered into or maintained under a false identity for the purposes of surveillance. Genuine consent is fundamentally compromised and profound harm can result.
We have heard the testimony of those whose lives have been permanently affected by such experiences. Recognising that harm is not a criticism of policing or the secret services. Rather, it affirms that those engaged in covert work and those who authorise it, deserve clear ethical and legal boundaries within which to carry out their responsibilities. I therefore believe this Bill rightly recognises an ethical boundary that should not be crossed clear. Statutory limits are not a sign of distrust in such operations. Rather, they provide clarity for those exercising exceptional powers, protection for the public and confidence that those powers are exercised within a clear moral and legal framework.
Public trust is one of the greatest assets that our police possess. It is painstakingly built, but easily diminished. Effective policing, in particular, depends not only upon the lawful exercise of power, but also upon public confidence that such authority will be exercised wisely, proportionately and with integrity. As this bill progresses, I hope we will give careful attention to whether its provisions are sufficiently clear, whether oversight is sufficiently robust, and whether those undertaking covert work are themselves given the guidance and protection they need.
Ethical clarity is not an obstacle to effective policing. It is one of its foundations. My Lord, the tragic death of PC Jess Turnbull reminds us of the courage that policing demands. We honour that courage by ensuring that those entrusted with extraordinary responsibilities are also supported by laws that reflect the highest ethical standards. In doing so, we strengthen not only our policing, but also the trust between the police and the communities they serve upon which our common life ultimately depends.
In doing so, I pay tribute to PC Jess Turnbull of Northumbria Police, who tragically died in the line of duty at just 19 years of age. Her funeral was held in Newcastle Cathedral last Friday. We continue to hold her family, friends and colleagues in our thoughts and prayers, giving thanks for her life and her willingness to serve others at such a young age. Her death reminds us that policing is a vocation of public service, often carried out at great personal cost.
It is in that spirit that I approach this bill. This bill is not about preventing legitimate activities. Rather, it addresses one specific question, which at heart is an ethical question before it is a legal one. This bill concerns one of the most fundamental aspects of human life the ability to trust another person where an intimate relationship is deliberately entered into or maintained under a false identity for the purposes of surveillance. Genuine consent is fundamentally compromised and profound harm can result.
We have heard the testimony of those whose lives have been permanently affected by such experiences. Recognising that harm is not a criticism of policing or the secret services. Rather, it affirms that those engaged in covert work and those who authorise it, deserve clear ethical and legal boundaries within which to carry out their responsibilities. I therefore believe this Bill rightly recognises an ethical boundary that should not be crossed clear. Statutory limits are not a sign of distrust in such operations. Rather, they provide clarity for those exercising exceptional powers, protection for the public and confidence that those powers are exercised within a clear moral and legal framework.
Public trust is one of the greatest assets that our police possess. It is painstakingly built, but easily diminished. Effective policing, in particular, depends not only upon the lawful exercise of power, but also upon public confidence that such authority will be exercised wisely, proportionately and with integrity. As this bill progresses, I hope we will give careful attention to whether its provisions are sufficiently clear, whether oversight is sufficiently robust, and whether those undertaking covert work are themselves given the guidance and protection they need.
Ethical clarity is not an obstacle to effective policing. It is one of its foundations. My Lord, the tragic death of PC Jess Turnbull reminds us of the courage that policing demands. We honour that courage by ensuring that those entrusted with extraordinary responsibilities are also supported by laws that reflect the highest ethical standards. In doing so, we strengthen not only our policing, but also the trust between the police and the communities they serve upon which our common life ultimately depends.
10:38
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Berridge (Conservative)
I am grateful to come late in >> I am grateful to come late in the list, as most of the drafting problems regarding this private member's bill have been spoken to. member's bill have been spoken to. I recognise that the statutory guidance says that these relationships should not happen, or only in desperate circumstances, only in desperate circumstances, but a breach of the criminal law gives the victims better redress. It would then not only be in the annual IPCO report, but investigated by the police, with fuller disclosure to the victims.
Despite 11 years of a statutory inquiry, the number of victims is not reliably known. I think it's about 68 and for children, this added protection of the criminal law, I believe, is especially important for young people who may have entered into relationships with a juvenile CHIS in such desperate circumstances. I recognise those very few juvenile CHISs, but any victims could also be other young people due to the context outside of domestic contexts or of youth violence in which juvenile CHISs are deployed.
I do hope His Majesty's Government would consider a role for the Children's Commissioner for her view on this, and also on the long term outcomes for juvenile CHISs only current juvenile CHIS, as it seems to be within the remit of the IPCO report. Such evidence on the long term effects on a juvenile would aid the detailed risk assessments made by senior authorising officers on how to conduct or deploy a juvenile CHIS. My Lords, whilst today the media is seized of the case of agent X and lies told on three occasions by MI5 to our courts, I am grateful that this private member's Bill allows me to put on public record my surprise in the last minute research, to discover that it was actually only yesterday that a public consultation on the statutory inquiry was announced.
Along with that other significant news, I proposed and sat on the Select Committee on the Inquiries Act, and I cannot recall in evidence such a situation. If it exists, I suggest probably in Northern Ireland, where the Commissioning Department seeks to possibly end a statutory inquiry with that at the request of the victims. I suspect not, and I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can confirm that they had advance notice of the consultation. I wonder if I were a victim and knew that the inquiry had cost £138 million, and the Home Secretary, the decision maker, has been asked to save over half £1 billion from her budget by 2829.
I wonder how she's going to manage such a conflict of interest. Also, how does the Home Secretary, by way of a consultation, manage the allegations that there has been an inequality of arms? Core participants with deep pockets apparently have launched lengthy legal challenges, such as asking for blank anonymity. Orders that have delayed matters significantly. Is the Home Secretary going to be supplied with how much money? Each of the 250 core participants have had for their legal fees, if the inquiry is ended? I spy a judicial review on the horizon.
These women were victims of violence vawg, which is a government priority. So I do suggest that issuing publicly the consultation and I have it printed. It was yesterday, is at best disrespectful to them. Yesterday's findings by Sir John Goldring are, of course, taking the media presence and are disappointing. My Lords, I want to believe that MI5 and MI6 are the stuff of Operation Mincemeat and James Bond rules are bent sometimes, but only in a higher noble cause. Agent X, this situation and the peculiar case of Gareth Williams in 2010 when I lived in Pimlico, undermines such trust.
I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, in the enhanced oversight of MI5 that was promised yesterday by the Home Secretary, will thoroughly consider the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House, perhaps even in whether or not the inquiry should continue, because they are parliamentary representatives of the victims and the undercover police.
Despite 11 years of a statutory inquiry, the number of victims is not reliably known. I think it's about 68 and for children, this added protection of the criminal law, I believe, is especially important for young people who may have entered into relationships with a juvenile CHIS in such desperate circumstances. I recognise those very few juvenile CHISs, but any victims could also be other young people due to the context outside of domestic contexts or of youth violence in which juvenile CHISs are deployed.
I do hope His Majesty's Government would consider a role for the Children's Commissioner for her view on this, and also on the long term outcomes for juvenile CHISs only current juvenile CHIS, as it seems to be within the remit of the IPCO report. Such evidence on the long term effects on a juvenile would aid the detailed risk assessments made by senior authorising officers on how to conduct or deploy a juvenile CHIS. My Lords, whilst today the media is seized of the case of agent X and lies told on three occasions by MI5 to our courts, I am grateful that this private member's Bill allows me to put on public record my surprise in the last minute research, to discover that it was actually only yesterday that a public consultation on the statutory inquiry was announced.
Along with that other significant news, I proposed and sat on the Select Committee on the Inquiries Act, and I cannot recall in evidence such a situation. If it exists, I suggest probably in Northern Ireland, where the Commissioning Department seeks to possibly end a statutory inquiry with that at the request of the victims. I suspect not, and I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, can confirm that they had advance notice of the consultation. I wonder if I were a victim and knew that the inquiry had cost £138 million, and the Home Secretary, the decision maker, has been asked to save over half £1 billion from her budget by 2829.
I wonder how she's going to manage such a conflict of interest. Also, how does the Home Secretary, by way of a consultation, manage the allegations that there has been an inequality of arms? Core participants with deep pockets apparently have launched lengthy legal challenges, such as asking for blank anonymity. Orders that have delayed matters significantly. Is the Home Secretary going to be supplied with how much money? Each of the 250 core participants have had for their legal fees, if the inquiry is ended? I spy a judicial review on the horizon.
These women were victims of violence vawg, which is a government priority. So I do suggest that issuing publicly the consultation and I have it printed. It was yesterday, is at best disrespectful to them. Yesterday's findings by Sir John Goldring are, of course, taking the media presence and are disappointing. My Lords, I want to believe that MI5 and MI6 are the stuff of Operation Mincemeat and James Bond rules are bent sometimes, but only in a higher noble cause. Agent X, this situation and the peculiar case of Gareth Williams in 2010 when I lived in Pimlico, undermines such trust.
I do hope the noble Lord, the Minister, in the enhanced oversight of MI5 that was promised yesterday by the Home Secretary, will thoroughly consider the role of the Intelligence and Security Committee of this House, perhaps even in whether or not the inquiry should continue, because they are parliamentary representatives of the victims and the undercover police.
10:42
Baroness Neuberger (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Neuberger (Crossbench)
My Lords. >> I too want to thank the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee for bringing this bill forward, and I rise to support it. I'm speaking today very briefly, really to express my shock and outrage that after all the and outrage that after all the publicity this issue has had, there is still no absolute power on sexual relationships between undercover police operatives infiltrating organisations and women within those organisations. The noble Lady, Baroness may set up a public inquiry into all this 11 years ago, and we've been hearing about that from the noble Lady Baroness Berridge, under the chairmanship of Sir John Mitting.
That inquiry has already cost over £135 million and, as we have heard, is not yet complete. Yet it is important to recognise that its interim report for tranche one, published back in June 2023, did make it clear that in the case of the Special Demonstration Squad, the ends did not justify the means. And that, and I quote, had the use of these means been publicly known at the time, the SDS would have been brought to a rapid end. Meanwhile, the CPS decided not to prosecute any of the police officers who were known to have had intimate sexual relationships while operating undercover.
And it was that decision which has particularly led to campaigners to call for a change in the law. My Lords, this bill provides for just such a change. It also provides women with some reassurance that they will not be treated in this way by police or any other undercover operative. And I note, of course, what my noble friend Baroness Manningham-Buller has said, and actually this bill should go some way to restoring trust in the police. And we do need to be able to trust the police.
I wholly agree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Thomas of GID, but I'm a rabbi. And as somebody who has witnessed some incredibly impressive and brave policing by the met in recent months and years protecting the Jewish community, I am exceptionally grateful to them. But my more general confidence would be even greater if the government would support this bill, or at least the principles within this bill give clarity and reassurance to those who fear that such behaviours could still happen, and make it clear that should that happen, the penalties would be huge.
My Lords, Sir John Mitting said that if the public had known that such things occurred within the SDS, it would have been brought to a rapid end. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will give this bill his support and bring even the slightest possibility of such undercover, intimate relationships, particularly by the police, abusive particularly by the police, abusive
**** Possible New Speaker ****
by their very nature to a rapid end. My Lords. I'm very pleased to be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very pleased to be able to support the bill of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, and her absolute Baroness Hamwee, and her absolute determination to close what is a clear gap in the legislation. I'm clear gap in the legislation. I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert on this, and I'm moved to speak
That inquiry has already cost over £135 million and, as we have heard, is not yet complete. Yet it is important to recognise that its interim report for tranche one, published back in June 2023, did make it clear that in the case of the Special Demonstration Squad, the ends did not justify the means. And that, and I quote, had the use of these means been publicly known at the time, the SDS would have been brought to a rapid end. Meanwhile, the CPS decided not to prosecute any of the police officers who were known to have had intimate sexual relationships while operating undercover.
And it was that decision which has particularly led to campaigners to call for a change in the law. My Lords, this bill provides for just such a change. It also provides women with some reassurance that they will not be treated in this way by police or any other undercover operative. And I note, of course, what my noble friend Baroness Manningham-Buller has said, and actually this bill should go some way to restoring trust in the police. And we do need to be able to trust the police.
I wholly agree with my noble and learned friend, Lord Thomas of GID, but I'm a rabbi. And as somebody who has witnessed some incredibly impressive and brave policing by the met in recent months and years protecting the Jewish community, I am exceptionally grateful to them. But my more general confidence would be even greater if the government would support this bill, or at least the principles within this bill give clarity and reassurance to those who fear that such behaviours could still happen, and make it clear that should that happen, the penalties would be huge.
My Lords, Sir John Mitting said that if the public had known that such things occurred within the SDS, it would have been brought to a rapid end. I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will give this bill his support and bring even the slightest possibility of such undercover, intimate relationships, particularly by the police, abusive particularly by the police, abusive
**** Possible New Speaker ****
by their very nature to a rapid end. My Lords. I'm very pleased to be able to
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'm very pleased to be able to support the bill of my noble friend Baroness Hamwee, and her absolute Baroness Hamwee, and her absolute determination to close what is a clear gap in the legislation. I'm clear gap in the legislation. I'm not a lawyer or any sort of expert on this, and I'm moved to speak
10:45
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
on this, and I'm moved to speak today because Baroness Hamwee and Justice organised a meeting where we could hear from some of the women about their experiences. And I have to say, in my time in this House, I don't think I have been to a more move. Moving would be the wrong word because it was actually quite an upsetting. Experience when you started to really think what they'd been through. Actually, their lives had been stolen. So not only the time had been stolen, but their ability.
As my noble friend Baroness Hamwee said, to trust had actually also been stolen. And that's something very hard to ever get back. Probably impossible. And then, of course, there's the issue of the children. People have quoted the report that there might be more. Do they have fathers? They obviously have biological fathers, but actually they have no fathers. Do they have half siblings? All of those questions are ones that really lead me to think that for all of the arguments that the noble Lord Lord Garnier made about, I won't repeat them because noble Lords have heard them.
This change to close this loophole in our law really needs to happen. And our national institutions that allowed, encouraged or condoned this effectively. These are premeditated crimes that went on for years. It needs to be clearly outlawed by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
laws, and I support the bill. My Lords, I'm grateful to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Hamwee for bringing this bill before your Lordships House today. My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I was a police officer for 32 years, serving in the Metropolitan Police serving in the Metropolitan Police and the then National Crime Squad, where as a senior investigating where as a senior investigating officer, I was at a number of covert operations. My Lords, I
As my noble friend Baroness Hamwee said, to trust had actually also been stolen. And that's something very hard to ever get back. Probably impossible. And then, of course, there's the issue of the children. People have quoted the report that there might be more. Do they have fathers? They obviously have biological fathers, but actually they have no fathers. Do they have half siblings? All of those questions are ones that really lead me to think that for all of the arguments that the noble Lord Lord Garnier made about, I won't repeat them because noble Lords have heard them.
This change to close this loophole in our law really needs to happen. And our national institutions that allowed, encouraged or condoned this effectively. These are premeditated crimes that went on for years. It needs to be clearly outlawed by
**** Possible New Speaker ****
laws, and I support the bill. My Lords, I'm grateful to the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I'm grateful to the noble Baroness Hamwee for bringing this bill before your Lordships House today. My Lords, I begin by declaring an interest. I was a police officer for 32 years, serving in the Metropolitan Police serving in the Metropolitan Police and the then National Crime Squad, where as a senior investigating where as a senior investigating officer, I was at a number of covert operations. My Lords, I
10:47
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Davies of Gower (Conservative)
should start by saying that I entirely understand the concerns. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has raised. There have been scenarios where covert human intelligence sources and undercover intelligence sources and undercover officers have acted in a manner that is totally unacceptable. These that is totally unacceptable. These have been acknowledged and I fully appreciate her intent for this bill. appreciate her intent for this bill. We need to also acknowledge that undercover policing has been a developing aspect of criminal investigations through the years, and, by its very nature, is intended to push the boundaries and test the law through the courts in order to arrive at an agreed level of acceptance.
Above all, it is an essential tool in the investigation of serious and organised crime. And indeed, knowing what I know and having been there on the front line, I cannot support this bill. A blanket ban on undercover officers forming these kind of relationships is something we should be very cautious of. Indeed, the simple fact is that undercover operations are incredibly dangerous. Potentially the most dangerous aspect of policing. But it is also one of the most necessary. Some of the biggest successes in policing have come from undercover operations.
But to successfully and safely deliver these operations, uncomfortable decisions often need to be made. And we may not like these decisions, and they may offend our liberal sensitivities, but they are necessary decisions nonetheless. Sometimes those decisions require officers and sources to break the law or to engage in unethical behaviour. In 2021, Parliament legislated to create a framework in which covert human intelligence sources could be granted authorisation to break the law in the course of their operation. We did that because we recognised a statutory footing was required with the necessary oversight that goes with it, but also because we understand that there are occasions that warrant such action.
And in some deployments, the operation environment necessitates the covert officer to establish a romantic or intimate relationship with the target, and this has to be weighed against the national interest. That may be a hard truth and a truth that the noble Baroness might not wish to hear, but it is the truth nonetheless. It might be the case that to establish such a relationship is the only way to keep the source close enough to the target, so it might even be the only option to keep the source alive.
The Lords. I am even more concerned about the breadth of the offence in clause one. It states that a CHIS commits an offence if they engage in an intimate sexual relationship with any person they have been deployed to target a person who is a member of the group they have been deployed to target or, and this is the problem here, whom they encountered during their deployment. But the bill does not define what is meant by deployment, nor does it place any restrictions on what would be considered to be the bands of deployment.
I mean, what if an officer was involved in an operation that only required them to be undercover involved at certain times of the day? What if outside the times they are embedded in the operation, they are in a genuine, intimate relationship. They may have a partner or a romantic interest who they have just started seeing. This might not apply to most undercover operations, but it may very well apply to some. And because the language in the offence is so broad and so loose, it could be taken to mean any person that CHIS encounters at any point during the operation, irrespective of whether that person is connected with the operation.
So I would suggest to the noble Baroness the drafting of the offence in clause one does not live up to scrutiny. I also take issue with the maximum criminal penalties. The noble Baroness Cass included an officer of salts found guilty of committing this new offence would be liable and conviction to a sentence of life imprisonment. Life imprisonment for forming a relationship with a person in the course of investigating serious criminality. Ultimately, these people put their lives on the line. They deserve our support and our respect, and they deserve Parliament to give them the necessary tools they require to get on with their operations.
A bill such as this simply hampers their ability to infiltrate and disrupt organised crime groups, terrorist cells and the like, and could put them in greater peril. This is not something I can ever accept, and that is why, on this side of the House, we cannot support the bill.
Above all, it is an essential tool in the investigation of serious and organised crime. And indeed, knowing what I know and having been there on the front line, I cannot support this bill. A blanket ban on undercover officers forming these kind of relationships is something we should be very cautious of. Indeed, the simple fact is that undercover operations are incredibly dangerous. Potentially the most dangerous aspect of policing. But it is also one of the most necessary. Some of the biggest successes in policing have come from undercover operations.
But to successfully and safely deliver these operations, uncomfortable decisions often need to be made. And we may not like these decisions, and they may offend our liberal sensitivities, but they are necessary decisions nonetheless. Sometimes those decisions require officers and sources to break the law or to engage in unethical behaviour. In 2021, Parliament legislated to create a framework in which covert human intelligence sources could be granted authorisation to break the law in the course of their operation. We did that because we recognised a statutory footing was required with the necessary oversight that goes with it, but also because we understand that there are occasions that warrant such action.
And in some deployments, the operation environment necessitates the covert officer to establish a romantic or intimate relationship with the target, and this has to be weighed against the national interest. That may be a hard truth and a truth that the noble Baroness might not wish to hear, but it is the truth nonetheless. It might be the case that to establish such a relationship is the only way to keep the source close enough to the target, so it might even be the only option to keep the source alive.
The Lords. I am even more concerned about the breadth of the offence in clause one. It states that a CHIS commits an offence if they engage in an intimate sexual relationship with any person they have been deployed to target a person who is a member of the group they have been deployed to target or, and this is the problem here, whom they encountered during their deployment. But the bill does not define what is meant by deployment, nor does it place any restrictions on what would be considered to be the bands of deployment.
I mean, what if an officer was involved in an operation that only required them to be undercover involved at certain times of the day? What if outside the times they are embedded in the operation, they are in a genuine, intimate relationship. They may have a partner or a romantic interest who they have just started seeing. This might not apply to most undercover operations, but it may very well apply to some. And because the language in the offence is so broad and so loose, it could be taken to mean any person that CHIS encounters at any point during the operation, irrespective of whether that person is connected with the operation.
So I would suggest to the noble Baroness the drafting of the offence in clause one does not live up to scrutiny. I also take issue with the maximum criminal penalties. The noble Baroness Cass included an officer of salts found guilty of committing this new offence would be liable and conviction to a sentence of life imprisonment. Life imprisonment for forming a relationship with a person in the course of investigating serious criminality. Ultimately, these people put their lives on the line. They deserve our support and our respect, and they deserve Parliament to give them the necessary tools they require to get on with their operations.
A bill such as this simply hampers their ability to infiltrate and disrupt organised crime groups, terrorist cells and the like, and could put them in greater peril. This is not something I can ever accept, and that is why, on this side of the House, we cannot support the bill.
10:52
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness Baroness Hamwee for tabling this bill. And as we've seen this morning, it's generated an impassioned debate across the chamber and rightly so. These are important issues that the Bill raises out at the outset. I would say that I share the concerns of all noble Lords about the historic allegations of police undercover operations, such behaviour that we've seen, heard, discussed this morning is appalling and should rightly be condemned. Baroness Hamwee is right to describe the impact of the these events on the victims as life changing, and I do completely appreciate the intention behind the bill.
Public trust in the police is important as the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Newcastle said, and I would like to join her in paying tribute to the. The PPC Jess Turnbull, who as she said, paid the ultimate price for serving and protecting us as as the noble and learned Lord. As Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said, the reputation of the police is an important part of our discussions and I'd also say I'd like to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Neuberger once, I suppose technically still my rabbi in at West London synagogue in in in the acts that we see daily and the way they protect all communities, particularly, I would say over recent months, weeks and months, the Jewish community.
And so when we are talking about things that harm the reputation of the police, we must do so with great care and deliberation. Yet, as noble Lords know and has been mentioned many times in the debate, the undercover police inquiry was established to get to the truth of those events that that that we that we heard about and ensure that lessons are learned for the future. Yesterday, you know, my noble friend the Minister Lord Hanson of Flint, announced his attention to trying to focus public consultation to decide the future of the inquiry.
The information gathered from this consultation will inform the next phase, ensuring that any new approach is effective, proportionate, timely and firmly grounded in the needs and priorities of those affected. The government will, of course, carefully consider the inquiry's findings and any recommendations in due course. That said, the current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed and
Public trust in the police is important as the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Newcastle said, and I would like to join her in paying tribute to the. The PPC Jess Turnbull, who as she said, paid the ultimate price for serving and protecting us as as the noble and learned Lord. As Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said, the reputation of the police is an important part of our discussions and I'd also say I'd like to pay tribute to the noble Lady Baroness Neuberger once, I suppose technically still my rabbi in at West London synagogue in in in the acts that we see daily and the way they protect all communities, particularly, I would say over recent months, weeks and months, the Jewish community.
And so when we are talking about things that harm the reputation of the police, we must do so with great care and deliberation. Yet, as noble Lords know and has been mentioned many times in the debate, the undercover police inquiry was established to get to the truth of those events that that that we that we heard about and ensure that lessons are learned for the future. Yesterday, you know, my noble friend the Minister Lord Hanson of Flint, announced his attention to trying to focus public consultation to decide the future of the inquiry.
The information gathered from this consultation will inform the next phase, ensuring that any new approach is effective, proportionate, timely and firmly grounded in the needs and priorities of those affected. The government will, of course, carefully consider the inquiry's findings and any recommendations in due course. That said, the current landscape around undercover operatives is much changed and
10:54
Gov.Spokes.
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
Gov.Spokes.
Lord Katz (Labour)
steps have been taken to address many of the concerns and to help prevent the sort of historical prevent the sort of historical activity from occurring again. This includes enhanced measures that apply to certain law enforcement agencies introduced via the agencies introduced via the so-called relevant Sources order 2013. It provides a specific regime for the authorisation of undercover for the authorisation of undercover operatives from the police and certain other law enforcement agencies. Authorisation of such deployments are subject to an enhanced authorisation process broadly.
Assistant Chief Constable level and furthermore ensures that ensures that deployments lasting over a year are subject to an authorisation by Chief Constable, as well as prior approval by a judicial Commissioner. My Lords, these enhanced arrangements are are complemented by the independent oversight provided by the Investigatory Powers Commission Chair, Commissioner, the Right Honourable Sir Brian Leveson, and, as noble Lords will be aware, will soon be. He'll soon be joining us in your Lordships House and congratulate him on his. On his appointment, I'm sure he will bring much clarity and insight to our future debate here.
The Commissioner provides robust, independent oversight of CHIS powers and has a mandate to audit and inspect compliance by public authorities where issues are identified. Sir Brian takes effective action and public authorities exercising these powers must take remedial steps in response to his findings. Furthermore, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides an independent right of redress for anyone who believes they have been subject to an unlawful activity by a public authority using covert investigatory techniques. My Lords, I've spoken thus far about undercover operatives.
However, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, a covert intelligence human intelligence source, CHIS and I apologise because I think I used the acronym earlier without expanding it. It's defined in such a way that it also includes members of the public tasked to gather intelligence as informants, who are referred to henceforth as informant CHISs as the noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller. And it's very good to see her back in her place. So eloquently set out. It's unclear whether this bill is intended to include both undercover operatives and informants.
CHIS informant, CHIS use their real identities and existing relationships to obtain information that is passed back to their handlers, generally for intelligence rather than evidential purposes. Their status as a as an informant should remain a secret, and may not even be revealed to those closest to them, such as the life partner. Therefore, if the bill extends to informants CHIS, many such individuals may be captured by the clause one offence by virtue of having an existing relationship where no deceit as to their real identity or intentions are involved.
My Lords, CHIS play a vital role in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from some of the most significant threats we face, and be under no illusion that they do so at considerable personal risk to themselves. As the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower set out. And this bill, while good intentioned, will unintentionally increase both the threat to the public and the risk to those acting as sources significantly. For free. For example, there is and there is a there is an issue around clarity around sexual offences both to Noble and learned, Lord Low, Lord Garnier and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Referred to the clause one offence is tied to section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Section 78 of that act does not specifically define intimate sexual activity and includes reference to any other activity being considered by a reasonable person to be of a sexual nature. And I mentioned this, my Lords, because the use of online undercover operatives can be a particularly effective tool in the identification and prosecution of those engaged in online child sexual exploitation. As part of that, it may be necessary for undercover operatives to communicate with those suspected of engaging in such vile behaviour.
This leaves open the prospect of any communications with subjects of interest, which are considered by the recipient to be of a sexual nature, to be caught by the clause one offence and the result of this a life sentence for the underlying for the online undercover operative and if taken with the provision of subsection six of clause six, his or her name, marital and family status being disclosed to a paedophile as part of any proceedings. Let me give you a case study to illustrate the potential harm this bill could cause to vital undercover policing operations over a two year period from 2023.
Kurt DEFRA foster attempted to engage in sexual communication online with girls aged between 12 and 15 years old. However, they weren't children. They were undercover police officers. DEFRA foster was ultimately charged with attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity, and failing to comply with his notification requirements. He was jailed for seven years and six months and made subject to an indefinite sexual harm Prevention Order. This bill, my Lords, would cause significant impact to the work that undercover operatives are able to undertake in scenarios like this one, and I would also, if the House Lordships will indulge me, give you a further example, which is close to my heart, and I suggest that all our hearts, particularly I would say, you know, Baroness, noble Lady Baroness Neuberger, three individuals recently convicted in connection with a foreign terrorist plot intended to target the Jewish community in Greater Manchester in 2023.
Walid Sahraoui came into online contact with a man he believed shared extremist views like his own. However, unbeknown to him, he was actually in contact with an undercover police officer. During these discussions. Plans were made to import firearms from abroad, which could be used in attack. The individuals involved are serving police sentences. My Lords, I hope this example shows. These examples show how crucial the CHIS capability can be, and what impact would be of creating a checklist to test undercover officers and CHIS against if this undercover operation had not been stopped, a terrible terrorist act may have ensued.
How. The bill would create a means for some of the most sophisticated actors to be able to identify those who may be acting against them by, as I said, effectively creating a checklist to test suspected CHISs against. My Lords, I do not say this lightly, but given the offence in scope of the Bill relates to sexual conduct, this would in all likelihood be inadvertently responsible for creating a deeply troubling method of vetting by the most violent criminal gang groups. Those seeking to join such groups would be likely, be likely be instructed to engage in profoundly immoral behaviour, to prove themselves, or to face significant repercussions, which may lead to serious injury or death.
For those not acting on behalf of the state who are seeking to join such criminal groups, this increases the likelihood of them being ordered to inflict sexual harm on innocent members of the public. Whereas for undercover operatives published guidance, the noble Lords have referred to states that it's never acceptable for them to have an intimate sexual relationship. For those who are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their deployment. However, that is caveated for good reason, where they they perceive there to be an immediate threat to themselves or others, in which case such activity must be kept to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat, and any such conduct must immediately be reported and steps taken to investigate and establish the facts.
I'll turn now quickly to briefly to some questions that the noble Lady Baroness Berridge asked around the inquiry and juvenile CHISs firstly, on juvenile CHISs, I'd say that there are only used in exceptional circumstances, and I believe in 2024 there were only four juvenile CHISs out of around 1100, none under the age of 16, and they are. There are enhanced safeguards in place. The duty of care that a public authority has towards a juvenile CHIS does not end when their authorisation or deployment ends.
The noble. The noble Lady asked about the I s and of course the Is does play a significant role in the assurance, accountability and oversight of MI5 on behalf of Parliament. On the consultation. No outcome and such as ending inquiry is prejudged and depends on the response received, so I hope that addresses the questions that she has raised. I'm aware that there were. There were a few. But I will, of course, reflect on Hansard and I'd undertake to write to her.
If not. And that goes, of course, for all contributions in. From noble Lords in today's debate, my Lords, the result of this bill will be that CHISs capability will be diminished, and vital intelligence and investigative leads lost. At the same time, the public will be less safe from the most serious threats we face. My Lords, it is for these reasons that I find the Bill troubling, and it's likely the government would seek to block this bill when it reaches the other place.
Assistant Chief Constable level and furthermore ensures that ensures that deployments lasting over a year are subject to an authorisation by Chief Constable, as well as prior approval by a judicial Commissioner. My Lords, these enhanced arrangements are are complemented by the independent oversight provided by the Investigatory Powers Commission Chair, Commissioner, the Right Honourable Sir Brian Leveson, and, as noble Lords will be aware, will soon be. He'll soon be joining us in your Lordships House and congratulate him on his. On his appointment, I'm sure he will bring much clarity and insight to our future debate here.
The Commissioner provides robust, independent oversight of CHIS powers and has a mandate to audit and inspect compliance by public authorities where issues are identified. Sir Brian takes effective action and public authorities exercising these powers must take remedial steps in response to his findings. Furthermore, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal provides an independent right of redress for anyone who believes they have been subject to an unlawful activity by a public authority using covert investigatory techniques. My Lords, I've spoken thus far about undercover operatives.
However, under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, a covert intelligence human intelligence source, CHIS and I apologise because I think I used the acronym earlier without expanding it. It's defined in such a way that it also includes members of the public tasked to gather intelligence as informants, who are referred to henceforth as informant CHISs as the noble Lady Baroness Manningham-Buller. And it's very good to see her back in her place. So eloquently set out. It's unclear whether this bill is intended to include both undercover operatives and informants.
CHIS informant, CHIS use their real identities and existing relationships to obtain information that is passed back to their handlers, generally for intelligence rather than evidential purposes. Their status as a as an informant should remain a secret, and may not even be revealed to those closest to them, such as the life partner. Therefore, if the bill extends to informants CHIS, many such individuals may be captured by the clause one offence by virtue of having an existing relationship where no deceit as to their real identity or intentions are involved.
My Lords, CHIS play a vital role in preventing, detecting and safeguarding the public from some of the most significant threats we face, and be under no illusion that they do so at considerable personal risk to themselves. As the noble Lord Lord Davies of Gower set out. And this bill, while good intentioned, will unintentionally increase both the threat to the public and the risk to those acting as sources significantly. For free. For example, there is and there is a there is an issue around clarity around sexual offences both to Noble and learned, Lord Low, Lord Garnier and Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.
Referred to the clause one offence is tied to section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Section 78 of that act does not specifically define intimate sexual activity and includes reference to any other activity being considered by a reasonable person to be of a sexual nature. And I mentioned this, my Lords, because the use of online undercover operatives can be a particularly effective tool in the identification and prosecution of those engaged in online child sexual exploitation. As part of that, it may be necessary for undercover operatives to communicate with those suspected of engaging in such vile behaviour.
This leaves open the prospect of any communications with subjects of interest, which are considered by the recipient to be of a sexual nature, to be caught by the clause one offence and the result of this a life sentence for the underlying for the online undercover operative and if taken with the provision of subsection six of clause six, his or her name, marital and family status being disclosed to a paedophile as part of any proceedings. Let me give you a case study to illustrate the potential harm this bill could cause to vital undercover policing operations over a two year period from 2023.
Kurt DEFRA foster attempted to engage in sexual communication online with girls aged between 12 and 15 years old. However, they weren't children. They were undercover police officers. DEFRA foster was ultimately charged with attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child, attempting to cause or incite a child to engage in sexual activity, and failing to comply with his notification requirements. He was jailed for seven years and six months and made subject to an indefinite sexual harm Prevention Order. This bill, my Lords, would cause significant impact to the work that undercover operatives are able to undertake in scenarios like this one, and I would also, if the House Lordships will indulge me, give you a further example, which is close to my heart, and I suggest that all our hearts, particularly I would say, you know, Baroness, noble Lady Baroness Neuberger, three individuals recently convicted in connection with a foreign terrorist plot intended to target the Jewish community in Greater Manchester in 2023.
Walid Sahraoui came into online contact with a man he believed shared extremist views like his own. However, unbeknown to him, he was actually in contact with an undercover police officer. During these discussions. Plans were made to import firearms from abroad, which could be used in attack. The individuals involved are serving police sentences. My Lords, I hope this example shows. These examples show how crucial the CHIS capability can be, and what impact would be of creating a checklist to test undercover officers and CHIS against if this undercover operation had not been stopped, a terrible terrorist act may have ensued.
How. The bill would create a means for some of the most sophisticated actors to be able to identify those who may be acting against them by, as I said, effectively creating a checklist to test suspected CHISs against. My Lords, I do not say this lightly, but given the offence in scope of the Bill relates to sexual conduct, this would in all likelihood be inadvertently responsible for creating a deeply troubling method of vetting by the most violent criminal gang groups. Those seeking to join such groups would be likely, be likely be instructed to engage in profoundly immoral behaviour, to prove themselves, or to face significant repercussions, which may lead to serious injury or death.
For those not acting on behalf of the state who are seeking to join such criminal groups, this increases the likelihood of them being ordered to inflict sexual harm on innocent members of the public. Whereas for undercover operatives published guidance, the noble Lords have referred to states that it's never acceptable for them to have an intimate sexual relationship. For those who are deployed to infiltrate and target or encounter during their deployment. However, that is caveated for good reason, where they they perceive there to be an immediate threat to themselves or others, in which case such activity must be kept to the minimum conduct necessary to mitigate the threat, and any such conduct must immediately be reported and steps taken to investigate and establish the facts.
I'll turn now quickly to briefly to some questions that the noble Lady Baroness Berridge asked around the inquiry and juvenile CHISs firstly, on juvenile CHISs, I'd say that there are only used in exceptional circumstances, and I believe in 2024 there were only four juvenile CHISs out of around 1100, none under the age of 16, and they are. There are enhanced safeguards in place. The duty of care that a public authority has towards a juvenile CHIS does not end when their authorisation or deployment ends.
The noble. The noble Lady asked about the I s and of course the Is does play a significant role in the assurance, accountability and oversight of MI5 on behalf of Parliament. On the consultation. No outcome and such as ending inquiry is prejudged and depends on the response received, so I hope that addresses the questions that she has raised. I'm aware that there were. There were a few. But I will, of course, reflect on Hansard and I'd undertake to write to her.
If not. And that goes, of course, for all contributions in. From noble Lords in today's debate, my Lords, the result of this bill will be that CHISs capability will be diminished, and vital intelligence and investigative leads lost. At the same time, the public will be less safe from the most serious threats we face. My Lords, it is for these reasons that I find the Bill troubling, and it's likely the government would seek to block this bill when it reaches the other place.
11:03
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who've taken part all noble Lords who've taken part in this debate. An objective of a in this debate. An objective of a private member's bill, I think, is to get the government to think again about the issue, not about the words which are used by amateurs like me. I'm not sure how to take that love. And I hope that the government, in that spirit, will consider the substance of what has been said today.
We are still awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, but that doesn't mean that the issue will go away, nor the fact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that it has been referred To in historical terms means
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To in historical terms means that it should not be addressed. I think this matter should be dealt with by the government, and I'm with by the government, and I'm very happy if they produce a bill very happy if they produce a bill to deal with that, or as a second option to deal with what has so option to deal with what has so neatly been referred to as deeply unsatisfactory guidance on the part of the College of Policing. And it's clear that there is scope to improve that, as the noble and learned Lord has said.
For me, this has always been an ethical issue to which the law should respond ethical before legal. We wait to. Oh, one other specific point. I'm quite deliberately not referring to noble Lords on the whole, because otherwise people feel they've been left out. And I don't want to take the time of the house by running through through. But some of the wording to which the noble Lord, Lord Davis referred was taken directly from the College of Police guidance.
In particular, the words encountered during their deployment. encountered during their deployment. But. The. I lost my own thread. I have at least the encouragement of the Minister that the government will not block this. Going to a Committee stage in this House, there will be opportunities to deal with matters of definition and interpretation of existing legislation, and I really appreciate the care that noble Lords have taken to address those issues. And so, without taking more of the time of the House, I'm aware of the business to come.
I beg to move.
We are still awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, but that doesn't mean that the issue will go away, nor the fact
**** Possible New Speaker ****
that it has been referred To in historical terms means
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To in historical terms means that it should not be addressed. I think this matter should be dealt with by the government, and I'm with by the government, and I'm very happy if they produce a bill very happy if they produce a bill to deal with that, or as a second option to deal with what has so option to deal with what has so neatly been referred to as deeply unsatisfactory guidance on the part of the College of Policing. And it's clear that there is scope to improve that, as the noble and learned Lord has said.
For me, this has always been an ethical issue to which the law should respond ethical before legal. We wait to. Oh, one other specific point. I'm quite deliberately not referring to noble Lords on the whole, because otherwise people feel they've been left out. And I don't want to take the time of the house by running through through. But some of the wording to which the noble Lord, Lord Davis referred was taken directly from the College of Police guidance.
In particular, the words encountered during their deployment. encountered during their deployment. But. The. I lost my own thread. I have at least the encouragement of the Minister that the government will not block this. Going to a Committee stage in this House, there will be opportunities to deal with matters of definition and interpretation of existing legislation, and I really appreciate the care that noble Lords have taken to address those issues. And so, without taking more of the time of the House, I'm aware of the business to come.
I beg to move.
11:06
Lord Deputy Speaker
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-
Lord Deputy Speaker
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
We now read a second time. As >> We now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. Of the contrary, not content. the contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content. the contents have it. To move that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I think this might be a moment to pause for a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
content. the contents have it. To move that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as are of that opinion will say content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it. My Lords, I think this might be a moment to pause for a
11:07
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Morris of Bolton (Conservative)
very short time to allow noble Lords, who may wish to do so, to leave and enter the chamber, but leave and enter the chamber, but I'm sure the whole House will be very grateful. If they could do so
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, before My Lords, before we My Lords, before we begin My Lords, before we begin this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, before we begin this debate, I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking time is strictly four minutes for time is strictly four minutes for backbench contributions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading of the Genocide Determination Bill Lord Alton of Liverpool. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a. Second time. My Lords, on this politically auspicious day, as we mark the appointment of Andy Burnham, Member of Parliament, as the new leader of the Labour Party. We know that we have a parliamentarian who is passionately committed to the principle of public accountability and justice. It is serendipitous, perhaps providential, that a bill which seeks to entrench both
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My My Lords, My Lords, before My Lords, before we My Lords, before we begin My Lords, before we begin this
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, before we begin this debate, I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking time is strictly four minutes for time is strictly four minutes for backbench contributions.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Second Reading of the Genocide Determination Bill Lord Alton of Liverpool. My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a. Second time. My Lords, on this politically auspicious day, as we mark the appointment of Andy Burnham, Member of Parliament, as the new leader of the Labour Party. We know that we have a parliamentarian who is passionately committed to the principle of public accountability and justice. It is serendipitous, perhaps providential, that a bill which seeks to entrench both
11:08
11:09
Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Alton of Liverpool (Crossbench)
anniversary of the adoption of the Rome Statute on July the 17th, 1998, the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, which seeks to protect people from genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. What better day, then, to have the Second Reading of the Genocide Determination Bill, which manifests all of these values and commitments to victims and survivors, to justice and peace? Be clear, my Lords. This bill is not actor or territory specific. It is about the crime above all crimes and our willingness to make a reality of the intentions of the 1948 convention on the Crime of Genocide.
Only a few weeks ago, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. We had a constructive and helpful meeting with the Attorney General, the noble Lord Lord Hermer, and he told us that genocide is the apex crime. Well, there is no surprise then, my Lords, over the years, whether in this House or the other place, I've raised the appalling genocide crimes against humanity that have occurred in too many parts of the world. As a young MP in the House of Commons, I raised the appalling genocide of Pol Pot against the Cambodians, but subsequently the atrocities in Darfur, western China, Burma, northern Iraq and elsewhere, and all of which are documented in a book which I published with Doctor Evelyn Ochab of the International Bar Association and the coalition for Genocide Response, of which I'm a patron.
A few weeks ago, I also raised the dire situation of women and girls in Gaza. There's no shortage of suffering globally. We need, however, to be very careful about the words we use, how we use them and the actions which must follow. So why does the noble Lord Lord Hermer describe it as the apex crime? And why is our response to this crime above all others so inadequate? The word genocide was coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, over 40 of whose family had perished in the Holocaust.
It's a hybrid word combining the ancient Greek word echinos, meaning race or tribe or family, and the Latin suffix meaning killing. It's a specific word with a specific meaning and not to be used as a slogan. Genocide is an identity based crime and describes a systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. It is the cutting of the human family. We've heard it being used for situations globally, but genocide has a strict legal definition and we always need to go back to it.
Genocide and the 1948 convention, which bears its name, require us to show not only the underlying and prohibited acts. And I spelled them out of killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group to become genocide.
These acts must be directed against one of the protected groups, whether racial, national, ethnic or religious, and this with specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. Lemkin's definition of genocide, as contained in article two of the convention, was meant to establish genocide as Lord Hermer apex crime, a crime against all crimes above all crimes, with the hope that after the Holocaust we would never witness anything of that sort ever again. However, defining genocide didn't stop such atrocities from being perpetrated.
And more importantly, the convention is not only about defining what genocide is, it imposes duties upon the signatories of which we are one. So let's disassemble, if we may, the neglected duties prevention. While not explicitly explained in the convention, it was later expanded and explained by the International Court of Justice. It's a duty to prevent. To do, and I spell out their words to employ States to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide. So far as possible.
My Lords, the trigger for this duty is when the state learns or should normally have learned of the serious risk of genocide. As for protection, consider the plight of women and girls in Sudan, the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. In a report I published for the All-Party parliamentary Group on Sudan in April 2023, we specifically warned of the danger of a new genocide in Darfur. Of course, that has happened. My Lords, in El Fasher, we did not act on the warnings, not in relation to that genocide, not in relation to the genocide two decades ago.
The requirement to protect in Darfur, the first ever arrest warrant was issued by the ICC, but 200,000 to 300,000 lives were claimed, 2 million people were displaced and the warnings had fallen. Then and again 20 years later. On deaf ears. There are no blue helmets, no protection for the civilian population. It's as if, in the grand scheme of things, these African lives do not matter. As for punishing perpetrators, we are equally deficient. And let's be crystal clear the impunity for the genocide two decades ago in Darfur has a direct link with the genocide that is being perpetrated before our very eyes now.
So duties to predict, prevent, protect and punish at the moment are not worth the paper on which they are written. I first introduced the Genocide Determination Bill only a few months after I laid amendments here, and indeed with colleagues in another place, following a unanimous vote for the. Determined that the atrocities committed by ISIS against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in northern Iraq and Syria was a genocide. It was the first time that the House of Commons had made such a determination.
But despite the calls from across the political spectrum for genocide, determination and action to stop those atrocities, to prevent further atrocities, to protect the populations at risk, and to avert the risk that the communities would be annihilated. The Foreign Office refused to accept the determination made in another place, arguing that such a determination could only be made by an international judicial body or a competent court. Despite knowing only too well that there was no international judicial body that was going to look into those crimes committed by ISIS in Syria or Iraq.
The government also made it clear that it wasn't willing to move on that position. So that made me consider what would need to happen to implement the government's declared policy that only a court can decide. And how could we create a route into our own courts to make that happen, if indeed the government wants court determination? My question was could our domestic courts make such a determination as it stood at the time, the only legislation pertaining to genocide was the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.
Legislating and domesticating the Rome Statute of the ICC. It enables our court to prosecute individuals for their involvement in international crimes such as genocide. But, my Lords, it equips domestic courts with only very narrow jurisdiction over international crimes, namely active personality, personality, jurisdiction, which means that the alleged perpetrators must be British citizens or residents to fall within the purview of the legislation. In the case of the Yazidis, it is very significant that the Foreign Office has changed its position and has said that a genocide is under way and has done so because a court in Germany has declared it to be a genocide.
And whilst I welcome that, why is it that we're closing off a route to our own English High Court, to the Court of Sessions in Scotland, to courts that would be more than competent to deal with this matter? Here it is, my noble and learned friend, or hope of Craighead, who said that the 1948 convention is no longer fit for purpose. His words, and. It was he who gave us his valuable expertise and help in drafting the original bill, and I have taught this bill through with him, so I hope we won't hear from the government that this is not practical or doable when such an illustrious member of your Lordships House is one of the many who have given it support, instead of the cynical merry go round that we have at the moment, we need to establish an independent, judicial British judicial process to sift the evidence and to make a preliminary finding, triggering the provisions of the convention.
My Lords, if this is the apex crime, genocide has a high burden of proof, and rightly so. It is not a term to be thrown around lightly or to be misused. My Bill seeks to give force to the hopes of Raphael Lemkin and also of Winston Churchill, who said that there was not a word in our language capable of describing the monstrosities which had been had occurred in the Holocaust. There were genuine attempts in the post-war period to address those questions.
We need to return to those issues now and to do something practical about it. My Lords, I would commend this Bill, which enjoys all party support. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
Only a few weeks ago, with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws. We had a constructive and helpful meeting with the Attorney General, the noble Lord Lord Hermer, and he told us that genocide is the apex crime. Well, there is no surprise then, my Lords, over the years, whether in this House or the other place, I've raised the appalling genocide crimes against humanity that have occurred in too many parts of the world. As a young MP in the House of Commons, I raised the appalling genocide of Pol Pot against the Cambodians, but subsequently the atrocities in Darfur, western China, Burma, northern Iraq and elsewhere, and all of which are documented in a book which I published with Doctor Evelyn Ochab of the International Bar Association and the coalition for Genocide Response, of which I'm a patron.
A few weeks ago, I also raised the dire situation of women and girls in Gaza. There's no shortage of suffering globally. We need, however, to be very careful about the words we use, how we use them and the actions which must follow. So why does the noble Lord Lord Hermer describe it as the apex crime? And why is our response to this crime above all others so inadequate? The word genocide was coined by the Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin, over 40 of whose family had perished in the Holocaust.
It's a hybrid word combining the ancient Greek word echinos, meaning race or tribe or family, and the Latin suffix meaning killing. It's a specific word with a specific meaning and not to be used as a slogan. Genocide is an identity based crime and describes a systematic destruction of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. It is the cutting of the human family. We've heard it being used for situations globally, but genocide has a strict legal definition and we always need to go back to it.
Genocide and the 1948 convention, which bears its name, require us to show not only the underlying and prohibited acts. And I spelled them out of killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group or forcibly transferring children of the group to another group to become genocide.
These acts must be directed against one of the protected groups, whether racial, national, ethnic or religious, and this with specific intent to destroy the group in whole or in part. Lemkin's definition of genocide, as contained in article two of the convention, was meant to establish genocide as Lord Hermer apex crime, a crime against all crimes above all crimes, with the hope that after the Holocaust we would never witness anything of that sort ever again. However, defining genocide didn't stop such atrocities from being perpetrated.
And more importantly, the convention is not only about defining what genocide is, it imposes duties upon the signatories of which we are one. So let's disassemble, if we may, the neglected duties prevention. While not explicitly explained in the convention, it was later expanded and explained by the International Court of Justice. It's a duty to prevent. To do, and I spell out their words to employ States to employ all means reasonably available to them, so as to prevent genocide. So far as possible.
My Lords, the trigger for this duty is when the state learns or should normally have learned of the serious risk of genocide. As for protection, consider the plight of women and girls in Sudan, the world's worst humanitarian catastrophe. In a report I published for the All-Party parliamentary Group on Sudan in April 2023, we specifically warned of the danger of a new genocide in Darfur. Of course, that has happened. My Lords, in El Fasher, we did not act on the warnings, not in relation to that genocide, not in relation to the genocide two decades ago.
The requirement to protect in Darfur, the first ever arrest warrant was issued by the ICC, but 200,000 to 300,000 lives were claimed, 2 million people were displaced and the warnings had fallen. Then and again 20 years later. On deaf ears. There are no blue helmets, no protection for the civilian population. It's as if, in the grand scheme of things, these African lives do not matter. As for punishing perpetrators, we are equally deficient. And let's be crystal clear the impunity for the genocide two decades ago in Darfur has a direct link with the genocide that is being perpetrated before our very eyes now.
So duties to predict, prevent, protect and punish at the moment are not worth the paper on which they are written. I first introduced the Genocide Determination Bill only a few months after I laid amendments here, and indeed with colleagues in another place, following a unanimous vote for the. Determined that the atrocities committed by ISIS against Yazidis, Christians and other minorities in northern Iraq and Syria was a genocide. It was the first time that the House of Commons had made such a determination.
But despite the calls from across the political spectrum for genocide, determination and action to stop those atrocities, to prevent further atrocities, to protect the populations at risk, and to avert the risk that the communities would be annihilated. The Foreign Office refused to accept the determination made in another place, arguing that such a determination could only be made by an international judicial body or a competent court. Despite knowing only too well that there was no international judicial body that was going to look into those crimes committed by ISIS in Syria or Iraq.
The government also made it clear that it wasn't willing to move on that position. So that made me consider what would need to happen to implement the government's declared policy that only a court can decide. And how could we create a route into our own courts to make that happen, if indeed the government wants court determination? My question was could our domestic courts make such a determination as it stood at the time, the only legislation pertaining to genocide was the International Criminal Court Act of 2001.
Legislating and domesticating the Rome Statute of the ICC. It enables our court to prosecute individuals for their involvement in international crimes such as genocide. But, my Lords, it equips domestic courts with only very narrow jurisdiction over international crimes, namely active personality, personality, jurisdiction, which means that the alleged perpetrators must be British citizens or residents to fall within the purview of the legislation. In the case of the Yazidis, it is very significant that the Foreign Office has changed its position and has said that a genocide is under way and has done so because a court in Germany has declared it to be a genocide.
And whilst I welcome that, why is it that we're closing off a route to our own English High Court, to the Court of Sessions in Scotland, to courts that would be more than competent to deal with this matter? Here it is, my noble and learned friend, or hope of Craighead, who said that the 1948 convention is no longer fit for purpose. His words, and. It was he who gave us his valuable expertise and help in drafting the original bill, and I have taught this bill through with him, so I hope we won't hear from the government that this is not practical or doable when such an illustrious member of your Lordships House is one of the many who have given it support, instead of the cynical merry go round that we have at the moment, we need to establish an independent, judicial British judicial process to sift the evidence and to make a preliminary finding, triggering the provisions of the convention.
My Lords, if this is the apex crime, genocide has a high burden of proof, and rightly so. It is not a term to be thrown around lightly or to be misused. My Bill seeks to give force to the hopes of Raphael Lemkin and also of Winston Churchill, who said that there was not a word in our language capable of describing the monstrosities which had been had occurred in the Holocaust. There were genuine attempts in the post-war period to address those questions.
We need to return to those issues now and to do something practical about it. My Lords, I would commend this Bill, which enjoys all party support. I commend it to the House and I beg to move.
11:18
Lord Wills (Labour)
-
-
Lord Wills (Labour)
The question is that this bill >> The question is that this bill be now read a second time. >> My Lords.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. It's a privilege to follow and support my noble friend Lord Alton. He sits in a different part of the He sits in a different part of the house. I do regard him as a friend, and I'm very glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless way that he has campaigned, year after year, on this critical issue. My Lords, he's already outlined how his Bill will work and its purpose and its merits far better than I can.
So I'll try not to rehearse the points that he's made. But I do want to say why I think his bill is so important. At first glance, it may seem like a limited measure tackling anomaly in process, and yet I believe it speaks fundamentally to what sort of country we are and how far we're prepared to prioritise abiding moral imperatives over perceived geopolitical interests. These needn't always be in conflict, of course, and even when they might be, it might be worth remembering the immortal words of a former member of a past member of your Lordships House, Lord Palmerston, he said.
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. My Lords, geo political interests can be transitory, subjectively defined, but are eternal and perpetual interest. To use. Lord Palmerston's word should must include those moral imperatives that this Bill pursues, as we've heard already from the noble Lord. This isn't focussed on the specific case or situation, but it seeks to ensure access to justice for victims and survivors of genocide who otherwise would not have such access. Now, the Joint Committee of Human Rights has argued there are limitations to what international courts can do to secure such justice, and the noble Lords outlined them again.
So, for example, in relation to the genocide perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidi people, neither Iraq nor Syria, where the genocide took place, is a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. The ICC would therefore need the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Iraq and Syria to it, but no such referral has been made. Such a draft resolution in the case of Syria has been blocked in the Security Council, particularly because of vetoes by Russia and China, which appear to derive from their political interests in that region.
My Lords. So sadly, this isn't the only example of perceived geopolitical interests overriding action against genocide recently. And the noble Lord has referred to this. The human rights academic Nathaniel Raymond, has alleged that the UK received more than two dozen briefings, that the rapid support forces in Sudan were preparing an assault on the city of Al-fashir. Mass atrocities were highly likely. UK was well placed as a member of the Security Council in the UN to galvanise international action, yet it did not escalate its response sufficiently, apparently because this country prioritised its strategic relationship with the United Arab Emirates, prominent backer of the Rapid Support Force, over stronger action to pretend prevent the anticipated atrocities in Al-fashir.
And tragically, those were realised. Yet our government continues to insist that action against those perpetrating genocide or risks of genocide can only be taken by such international courts and competence. As a result, there hasn't been a single prosecution in this country of ISIS. Members of the crimes of genocide perpetrated against the Yazidi people, despite some estimates suggesting there could be hundreds living in this country who should be prosecuted for such international crimes. China has been accused of dreadful atrocities in recent years against the Uyghur people, and systematic policies aimed at eradicating indigenous Tibetan language, region, religion and cultural identity.
Yet the issue of genocide in the country has still not been adjudicated. My Lords, when US forces liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, handmade signs displayed by the prisoners read never again. Sadly, that did not turn out to be the case. Genocide has been perpetrated again and again and again. Now the government's policy on on genocide aims to protect and preserve the rights of people at risk of genocide and those who have suffered from it. However, this needs to be delivered.
This bill does that, and that's why I support it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords. It's a privilege to follow and support my noble friend Lord Alton. He sits in a different part of the He sits in a different part of the house. I do regard him as a friend, and I'm very glad to have this opportunity to pay tribute to the tireless way that he has campaigned, year after year, on this critical issue. My Lords, he's already outlined how his Bill will work and its purpose and its merits far better than I can.
So I'll try not to rehearse the points that he's made. But I do want to say why I think his bill is so important. At first glance, it may seem like a limited measure tackling anomaly in process, and yet I believe it speaks fundamentally to what sort of country we are and how far we're prepared to prioritise abiding moral imperatives over perceived geopolitical interests. These needn't always be in conflict, of course, and even when they might be, it might be worth remembering the immortal words of a former member of a past member of your Lordships House, Lord Palmerston, he said.
We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. My Lords, geo political interests can be transitory, subjectively defined, but are eternal and perpetual interest. To use. Lord Palmerston's word should must include those moral imperatives that this Bill pursues, as we've heard already from the noble Lord. This isn't focussed on the specific case or situation, but it seeks to ensure access to justice for victims and survivors of genocide who otherwise would not have such access. Now, the Joint Committee of Human Rights has argued there are limitations to what international courts can do to secure such justice, and the noble Lords outlined them again.
So, for example, in relation to the genocide perpetrated by ISIS against the Yazidi people, neither Iraq nor Syria, where the genocide took place, is a party to the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. The ICC would therefore need the UN Security Council to refer the situation in Iraq and Syria to it, but no such referral has been made. Such a draft resolution in the case of Syria has been blocked in the Security Council, particularly because of vetoes by Russia and China, which appear to derive from their political interests in that region.
My Lords. So sadly, this isn't the only example of perceived geopolitical interests overriding action against genocide recently. And the noble Lord has referred to this. The human rights academic Nathaniel Raymond, has alleged that the UK received more than two dozen briefings, that the rapid support forces in Sudan were preparing an assault on the city of Al-fashir. Mass atrocities were highly likely. UK was well placed as a member of the Security Council in the UN to galvanise international action, yet it did not escalate its response sufficiently, apparently because this country prioritised its strategic relationship with the United Arab Emirates, prominent backer of the Rapid Support Force, over stronger action to pretend prevent the anticipated atrocities in Al-fashir.
And tragically, those were realised. Yet our government continues to insist that action against those perpetrating genocide or risks of genocide can only be taken by such international courts and competence. As a result, there hasn't been a single prosecution in this country of ISIS. Members of the crimes of genocide perpetrated against the Yazidi people, despite some estimates suggesting there could be hundreds living in this country who should be prosecuted for such international crimes. China has been accused of dreadful atrocities in recent years against the Uyghur people, and systematic policies aimed at eradicating indigenous Tibetan language, region, religion and cultural identity.
Yet the issue of genocide in the country has still not been adjudicated. My Lords, when US forces liberated the Buchenwald concentration camp in April 1945, handmade signs displayed by the prisoners read never again. Sadly, that did not turn out to be the case. Genocide has been perpetrated again and again and again. Now the government's policy on on genocide aims to protect and preserve the rights of people at risk of genocide and those who have suffered from it. However, this needs to be delivered.
This bill does that, and that's why I support it.
11:23
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
My Lords, as a as a general rule, >> My Lords, as a as a general rule, I support most ideas that the noble Lord Lord Alton brings to your Lordships House because he's Lordships House because he's motivated, motivated by a genuine desire to improve the state of the world and those who live in it. And I join with the noble Lord Lord Wills in the tributes that he has paid to Lord Alton, not least because the noble Lord Lord Alton and I share, for example, a desire to see China, a country that can claim to have a long and civilised history and has brought great intellectual, artistic, scientific and many other benefits to us all behave in the 21st century in a way that matches the best traditions of that great nation.
But there are far too many contemporary examples of Chinese government conduct towards its own and other citizens that rightly attract international criticism and indeed, condemnation for what they have done and are doing to, for example, the wages to Christians, to freethinkers and to supporters of freedom of assembly and expression, and to the man whose name should never be forgotten in this Parliament or any other domestic democratic Assembly. Jimmy Lai. I do, however, query what practical effect this bill would have on, say, China first.
My hunch is, and it is only a hunch that the court would be reluctant to become engaged in what is essentially a political question, or that at least one with huge non-legal implications over which it has no control. Unlike members of Parliament, judges don't table early day motions. They don't initiate ten minute rule bills or a German debates in the other place or in Westminster Hall, although courts do sometimes make findings of fact in the absence of contested evidence, I wonder how a court would look at evidence of, say, the alleged killing or mass incarceration of members of an ethnic group by the Chinese government.
When we know that China, for good or ill, asserts its innocence of such crimes and the court is unlikely to have received direct evidence of guilt, arbitrating political arguments as opposed to finding what the hard facts are and the legal consequences of a given set of facts would not be a welcome task for the court. But even if a United Kingdom court made a preliminary determination of a case of genocide, or that there existed a serious risk of genocide in, say, the case of the wedges, the relevant Secretary of State for all sorts of good, bad and indifferent trade, political and diplomatic reasons will have to ask him or herself whether, all things considered, it's in our national interest to make a reference under clause three of the Bill, and it doesn't take much imagination to work out what the answer is likely to be.
The court will then have been used to make a point, but over which it had no control and could not enforce. In reality, the court will have no power over the section the Secretary of State and even less over the international courts or bodies set out in clause three to take another regime, the military junta in Myanmar that deserves nothing but vilification, vilification for what they have done to the Rohingya population. The Gambia brought a case to the International Court of Justice in November 2019, alleging that state sponsored atrocities in 2017, which forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, were committed with genocidal intent.
In 2020, the ICJ unanimously ordered Myanmar to take provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya and to preserve evidence. As far as I can tell, Myanmar has also been accused by rights groups of violating those orders, and it's highly unlikely that they paid any attention to them at all. During hearings in January this year, The Gambia presented evidence, including testimony from Rohingya survivors to demonstrate Myanmar's genocidal policies. Of course, the Myanmar government denied these allegations, arguing that the 2017 operations were legitimate counter-terrorism measures rather than genocide.
11 countries beyond The Gambia, including the United Kingdom, have intervened in those proceedings to against Myanmar. So far, so good and all achieved. If anything has been without the enactment of this bill. My Lord, at the risk of being unhelpful or jumping onto the cynical merry go round that the noble Lord referred to a moment ago, I don't think that either China or Myanmar or any other possible candidate, state or government for censure will change their behaviour. If this bill becomes an act, what we need is determined diplomatic, bilateral and internationally organised.
Movement of power. The thing that will affect China or Myanmar is sanctions is, is, is, is trade being denied? The noble Lord referred to Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston sent battleships to Piraeus and bombarded that city because one of our citizens had been treated in a disobliging way by the Greeks. We really do have to get real about this. And although I entirely accept what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, yes, I can see the time. I entirely accept what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
This is probably not the best way to do it.
But there are far too many contemporary examples of Chinese government conduct towards its own and other citizens that rightly attract international criticism and indeed, condemnation for what they have done and are doing to, for example, the wages to Christians, to freethinkers and to supporters of freedom of assembly and expression, and to the man whose name should never be forgotten in this Parliament or any other domestic democratic Assembly. Jimmy Lai. I do, however, query what practical effect this bill would have on, say, China first.
My hunch is, and it is only a hunch that the court would be reluctant to become engaged in what is essentially a political question, or that at least one with huge non-legal implications over which it has no control. Unlike members of Parliament, judges don't table early day motions. They don't initiate ten minute rule bills or a German debates in the other place or in Westminster Hall, although courts do sometimes make findings of fact in the absence of contested evidence, I wonder how a court would look at evidence of, say, the alleged killing or mass incarceration of members of an ethnic group by the Chinese government.
When we know that China, for good or ill, asserts its innocence of such crimes and the court is unlikely to have received direct evidence of guilt, arbitrating political arguments as opposed to finding what the hard facts are and the legal consequences of a given set of facts would not be a welcome task for the court. But even if a United Kingdom court made a preliminary determination of a case of genocide, or that there existed a serious risk of genocide in, say, the case of the wedges, the relevant Secretary of State for all sorts of good, bad and indifferent trade, political and diplomatic reasons will have to ask him or herself whether, all things considered, it's in our national interest to make a reference under clause three of the Bill, and it doesn't take much imagination to work out what the answer is likely to be.
The court will then have been used to make a point, but over which it had no control and could not enforce. In reality, the court will have no power over the section the Secretary of State and even less over the international courts or bodies set out in clause three to take another regime, the military junta in Myanmar that deserves nothing but vilification, vilification for what they have done to the Rohingya population. The Gambia brought a case to the International Court of Justice in November 2019, alleging that state sponsored atrocities in 2017, which forced over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to Bangladesh, were committed with genocidal intent.
In 2020, the ICJ unanimously ordered Myanmar to take provisional measures to prevent genocidal acts against the Rohingya and to preserve evidence. As far as I can tell, Myanmar has also been accused by rights groups of violating those orders, and it's highly unlikely that they paid any attention to them at all. During hearings in January this year, The Gambia presented evidence, including testimony from Rohingya survivors to demonstrate Myanmar's genocidal policies. Of course, the Myanmar government denied these allegations, arguing that the 2017 operations were legitimate counter-terrorism measures rather than genocide.
11 countries beyond The Gambia, including the United Kingdom, have intervened in those proceedings to against Myanmar. So far, so good and all achieved. If anything has been without the enactment of this bill. My Lord, at the risk of being unhelpful or jumping onto the cynical merry go round that the noble Lord referred to a moment ago, I don't think that either China or Myanmar or any other possible candidate, state or government for censure will change their behaviour. If this bill becomes an act, what we need is determined diplomatic, bilateral and internationally organised.
Movement of power. The thing that will affect China or Myanmar is sanctions is, is, is, is trade being denied? The noble Lord referred to Lord Palmerston. Lord Palmerston sent battleships to Piraeus and bombarded that city because one of our citizens had been treated in a disobliging way by the Greeks. We really do have to get real about this. And although I entirely accept what the noble Lord is trying to achieve, yes, I can see the time. I entirely accept what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.
This is probably not the best way to do it.
11:29
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
-
-
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle (Bishops)
My Lord. I thank the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool for introducing this bill, which I support and for his unwavering commitment over many years to the prevention of genocide, the protection of persecuted communities and the advancement of human rights. At the heart of this bill lies a simple yet profound principle that every human life possesses equal and inherent worth. There is a clear inconsistency in our present arrangements. Successive governments have rightly maintained that genocide is a matter for a competent court.
However, in practice, the international courts capable of making such determinations are not always able to do so because of jurisdictional limitations or political deadlock. The result is that credible allegations of the gravest crime recognised in international law may never receive judicial determination. The noble Lord, Lord wills, has made this point compellingly in his speech. There are legitimate questions about how such the mechanism at the heart of this bill would operate and its relationship with foreign policy. As my noble friend Lord Garnier pointed out in his speech, those are proper matters for committee, but they do not undermine the principle behind this bill.
Rather, they challenge us to ensure that any mechanism is proportionate, carefully designed and properly resourced. My Lords, I have seen the importance of these principles close to home. My great uncle, Mandy Morris, was a Holocaust survivor who was a young boy, came to Yorkshire as a refugee with his family and rebuilt his life in Newcastle. More recently, I've had the privilege of working alongside Smile Beso, a survivor of the Bosnian genocide who found refuge in the United Kingdom and has dedicated his life to education and remembrance.
Most recently, I attended a Bosnian Genocide Education Trust event at Newcastle Civic Centre, organised and led by smile. What struck me most was the response of the young people who took part. They expressed their reflections on the subject through art and poetry. Their work demonstrated remarkable empathy and compassion. They understood that behind every legal definition or individuals, families and communities whose lives have been forever changed, recognition cannot undo the past. It cannot restore those who have been lost or erased, the suffering endured by survivors.
But truth and justice matter. A willingness to examine credible evidence through an independent legal process affirms the dignity of victims and strengthens our resolve that such crimes should never be repeated. This bill, my Lords, is ultimately an expression of confidence in the rule of law. It simply asks whether, where there is credible evidence of the gravest crime recognised in international law, there should be a lawful and independent means by which that evidence can be examined and in a timely manner. And in that regard, a question to the noble Lord.
The Minister is what mechanisms does the government believe are sufficient to ensure timely and independent identification of the risk of genocide? My Lord, this bill also gives an opportunity to strengthen our leadership in the area of foreign policy. As we debate this legislation. I think, again, of those young people in Newcastle, in many ways, the young people in Newcastle captured the ethical foundation of this bill better than any legal text could. They understood that every life has equal worth, and that indifference is never an acceptable response to human suffering.
My Lords, I therefore support the Bill and look forward to its careful scrutiny in committee.
However, in practice, the international courts capable of making such determinations are not always able to do so because of jurisdictional limitations or political deadlock. The result is that credible allegations of the gravest crime recognised in international law may never receive judicial determination. The noble Lord, Lord wills, has made this point compellingly in his speech. There are legitimate questions about how such the mechanism at the heart of this bill would operate and its relationship with foreign policy. As my noble friend Lord Garnier pointed out in his speech, those are proper matters for committee, but they do not undermine the principle behind this bill.
Rather, they challenge us to ensure that any mechanism is proportionate, carefully designed and properly resourced. My Lords, I have seen the importance of these principles close to home. My great uncle, Mandy Morris, was a Holocaust survivor who was a young boy, came to Yorkshire as a refugee with his family and rebuilt his life in Newcastle. More recently, I've had the privilege of working alongside Smile Beso, a survivor of the Bosnian genocide who found refuge in the United Kingdom and has dedicated his life to education and remembrance.
Most recently, I attended a Bosnian Genocide Education Trust event at Newcastle Civic Centre, organised and led by smile. What struck me most was the response of the young people who took part. They expressed their reflections on the subject through art and poetry. Their work demonstrated remarkable empathy and compassion. They understood that behind every legal definition or individuals, families and communities whose lives have been forever changed, recognition cannot undo the past. It cannot restore those who have been lost or erased, the suffering endured by survivors.
But truth and justice matter. A willingness to examine credible evidence through an independent legal process affirms the dignity of victims and strengthens our resolve that such crimes should never be repeated. This bill, my Lords, is ultimately an expression of confidence in the rule of law. It simply asks whether, where there is credible evidence of the gravest crime recognised in international law, there should be a lawful and independent means by which that evidence can be examined and in a timely manner. And in that regard, a question to the noble Lord.
The Minister is what mechanisms does the government believe are sufficient to ensure timely and independent identification of the risk of genocide? My Lord, this bill also gives an opportunity to strengthen our leadership in the area of foreign policy. As we debate this legislation. I think, again, of those young people in Newcastle, in many ways, the young people in Newcastle captured the ethical foundation of this bill better than any legal text could. They understood that every life has equal worth, and that indifference is never an acceptable response to human suffering.
My Lords, I therefore support the Bill and look forward to its careful scrutiny in committee.
11:32
Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sugg (Conservative)
My Lords, in previous debates on atrocity crime, I have said that we cannot continue to look away when there is credible evidence of genocide, and the bill before us genocide, and the bill before us today is an opportunity to address this challenge, and I'm grateful to the noble Lord Lord Alton for his continued efforts to find a way to formally determine genocide, and his introduction clearly set out why that's needed. The House of Lords library briefing sets out the central problem with clarity.
For decades, successive governments have relied on the position that determinations of genocide should be made by competent courts, rather than by governments or non-judicial bodies. Yet despite this position's longevity, no government has ever introduced legislation to give effect to it. As a result, when credible evidence of genocide emerges, British courts have no mechanism to assess it. We have a policy that says leave it to the courts, but no legal pathways for our courts to act as a Minister. FCDO, I found this position inconsistent and difficult to justify, and I've supported Lord Alton in his earlier efforts aimed at creating a mechanism for genocide determination linked to trade agreements.
This bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the UK does not turn away when credible evidence of atrocity crimes is presented. As the noble Lord Lord Alton has said, this bill will ensure that the UK government acts quickly on its existing obligations under the Genocide Convention, which legally binds signatories to prevent mass atrocities. The moment a serious risk is recognised. My Lords, in earlier debates I have emphasised the importance of survivor centred approach. This Bill embodies this principle. It empowers victims and survivors to seek a preliminary determination of genocide or serious risk of genocide from our own High Court or equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It gives those targeted by atrocity crimes a route to be heard in a British court, and once a determination is made, the Secretary of State act. That action, referring the situation to the International International Court of Justice or other bodies, is not an expansion of government power, it's simply the implementation of our existing duties under the Genocide Convention, the duty to prevent and the duty to punish. My Lords, there may well be a concern that our judicial system is not structured to deal with cases of this nature.
But if the government wishes to maintain its long standing policy of leaving genocide determinations to competent courts, then recognising the issues with the international courts that have been set out, it should introduce legislation that allows British courts to fulfil that role or provide an alternative. Otherwise, never again is honoured only in rhetoric and never in practice. In action empowers perpetrators. It signals that the United Kingdom is unable or unwilling to recognise genocide. Even when the evidence is overwhelming, it leaves victims of that recourse and it leaves our international obligations unfulfilled.
This bill offers a principled, judicial, survivor centred mechanism that aligns with the government's own stated policy and with our obligations under international law. If we are serious about preventing genocide, then we must be serious about recognising it.
For decades, successive governments have relied on the position that determinations of genocide should be made by competent courts, rather than by governments or non-judicial bodies. Yet despite this position's longevity, no government has ever introduced legislation to give effect to it. As a result, when credible evidence of genocide emerges, British courts have no mechanism to assess it. We have a policy that says leave it to the courts, but no legal pathways for our courts to act as a Minister. FCDO, I found this position inconsistent and difficult to justify, and I've supported Lord Alton in his earlier efforts aimed at creating a mechanism for genocide determination linked to trade agreements.
This bill provides us with an opportunity to ensure that the UK does not turn away when credible evidence of atrocity crimes is presented. As the noble Lord Lord Alton has said, this bill will ensure that the UK government acts quickly on its existing obligations under the Genocide Convention, which legally binds signatories to prevent mass atrocities. The moment a serious risk is recognised. My Lords, in earlier debates I have emphasised the importance of survivor centred approach. This Bill embodies this principle. It empowers victims and survivors to seek a preliminary determination of genocide or serious risk of genocide from our own High Court or equivalent courts in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
It gives those targeted by atrocity crimes a route to be heard in a British court, and once a determination is made, the Secretary of State act. That action, referring the situation to the International International Court of Justice or other bodies, is not an expansion of government power, it's simply the implementation of our existing duties under the Genocide Convention, the duty to prevent and the duty to punish. My Lords, there may well be a concern that our judicial system is not structured to deal with cases of this nature.
But if the government wishes to maintain its long standing policy of leaving genocide determinations to competent courts, then recognising the issues with the international courts that have been set out, it should introduce legislation that allows British courts to fulfil that role or provide an alternative. Otherwise, never again is honoured only in rhetoric and never in practice. In action empowers perpetrators. It signals that the United Kingdom is unable or unwilling to recognise genocide. Even when the evidence is overwhelming, it leaves victims of that recourse and it leaves our international obligations unfulfilled.
This bill offers a principled, judicial, survivor centred mechanism that aligns with the government's own stated policy and with our obligations under international law. If we are serious about preventing genocide, then we must be serious about recognising it.
11:35
Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness D'Souza (Crossbench)
My Lords, if, as the government constantly asserts, only a court ruling can determine acts of genocide, then the courts must have genocide, then the courts must have the powers to carry out this function. At present they do not. This renders the 1948 Genocide Convention no longer fit for purpose and the commitment, as we've heard, to never again following the Holocaust becomes almost meaningless. This modest bill seeks to enable any person or representative organisation affected by genocidal actions to apply to the UK courts to decide on whether or not the genocide has taken, is taking or is likely to take place.
In so doing, a response from the government is required and the relevant Minister would be obliged, within time limits to refer the case to the appropriate international bodies. The International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or other international bodies. The arguments, my Lords, for such powers have been well rehearsed over many years, and equally so too have the arguments against both sides were expressed in some detail in the course of the Atrocity Crimes debate on June 26th. In this chamber, the Lords.
The arguments that this Bill is urgently needed can be. In no doubt the evidence lies in the numerous credible reports on past acts of genocide and on current threats of genocidal action. A recent book, Genocide in Gaza, by the world renowned Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim, sets out in forensic legal details the actions, which he states are the absolute antithesis of Jewish values perpetrated by the Netanyahu government. Between 2023 and 2024 in Gaza, in response to the murder of Israelis on the 7th of October in 2023, Shlaim describes the Netanyahu policy as one of deliberate killing or persecution, intended to partially or wholly destroy the people of Gaza.
It is difficult to refute his conclusions of genocidal intent and actions on the part of the government. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry, following the case brought by South Africa following case brought before the ICJ in 2024 into Israel's contact conduct in Gaza site intentionally directed attacks on civilians of whom many were women and children. Forcible transfer of civilian populations, destruction of water and electricity infrastructure indispensable for survival, starvation as a method of warfare and wilfully impeding relief supplies.
These actions more than fulfil the criteria for genocide, as set out in the 48 convention in April 2016, the House of Commons unanimously recognised the atrocities committed by ISIL against the Yazidis in 2014 and other religious minorities as genocide. The government declined at first to act due to the lack of formal determination by the courts itself, guaranteed by absence of both legal and procedural mechanisms to lodge a case. This underlined the disconnect between the policy of reliance on a competent court, where no court possessed the jurisdiction to make such a determination.
My Lords, the UK continues to supply the Israeli government with arms and political support and has refrained from naming the atrocities in Gaza as genocide. Meanwhile, some UK members of ISIL involved in the Yazidi slaughters remain free and unencumbered by criminal charges. The UK is failing in its international obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and to punish genocide. My Lords, in his response to the atrocities debate, the Minister, Lord Collins, stated that while the government agreed with the underlying objectives of the bill, it did not support the means proposed.
It is to be hoped that this bill will be allowed to reach its final stages, but if not that, the government will instead publish its own bill to meet the underlying objective and in so doing, meet its international obligations.
In so doing, a response from the government is required and the relevant Minister would be obliged, within time limits to refer the case to the appropriate international bodies. The International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court or other international bodies. The arguments, my Lords, for such powers have been well rehearsed over many years, and equally so too have the arguments against both sides were expressed in some detail in the course of the Atrocity Crimes debate on June 26th. In this chamber, the Lords.
The arguments that this Bill is urgently needed can be. In no doubt the evidence lies in the numerous credible reports on past acts of genocide and on current threats of genocidal action. A recent book, Genocide in Gaza, by the world renowned Israeli scholar Avi Shlaim, sets out in forensic legal details the actions, which he states are the absolute antithesis of Jewish values perpetrated by the Netanyahu government. Between 2023 and 2024 in Gaza, in response to the murder of Israelis on the 7th of October in 2023, Shlaim describes the Netanyahu policy as one of deliberate killing or persecution, intended to partially or wholly destroy the people of Gaza.
It is difficult to refute his conclusions of genocidal intent and actions on the part of the government. The Independent International Commission of Inquiry, following the case brought by South Africa following case brought before the ICJ in 2024 into Israel's contact conduct in Gaza site intentionally directed attacks on civilians of whom many were women and children. Forcible transfer of civilian populations, destruction of water and electricity infrastructure indispensable for survival, starvation as a method of warfare and wilfully impeding relief supplies.
These actions more than fulfil the criteria for genocide, as set out in the 48 convention in April 2016, the House of Commons unanimously recognised the atrocities committed by ISIL against the Yazidis in 2014 and other religious minorities as genocide. The government declined at first to act due to the lack of formal determination by the courts itself, guaranteed by absence of both legal and procedural mechanisms to lodge a case. This underlined the disconnect between the policy of reliance on a competent court, where no court possessed the jurisdiction to make such a determination.
My Lords, the UK continues to supply the Israeli government with arms and political support and has refrained from naming the atrocities in Gaza as genocide. Meanwhile, some UK members of ISIL involved in the Yazidi slaughters remain free and unencumbered by criminal charges. The UK is failing in its international obligations under the Genocide Convention to prevent and to punish genocide. My Lords, in his response to the atrocities debate, the Minister, Lord Collins, stated that while the government agreed with the underlying objectives of the bill, it did not support the means proposed.
It is to be hoped that this bill will be allowed to reach its final stages, but if not that, the government will instead publish its own bill to meet the underlying objective and in so doing, meet its international obligations.
11:40
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Labour)
It always gives me pleasure to be able to stand and support my be able to stand and support my friend Lord Alton. He and I have worked extensively over now many, worked extensively over now many, many years, and I pay tribute to him as others have. And he comes again with this bill. And this bill aims to establish a formal legal mechanism allowing British courts to make preliminary determinations on whether genocide is occurring or is at risk of occurring. And it's both those things.
When we signed the Genocide Act, we did not only agree to condemn genocide and bring perpetrators to justice, we committed to preventing genocide. And that's one of the major things about this. Prevention means monitoring for indicators, the dehumanising language used by politicians with an undercurrent threat of annihilation, human rights abuses of minorities or of neighbouring peoples dispossessing people of their homes and lands, displacement of people, making conditions of life so intolerable that people are forced into exile. All those signs of ethnic cleansing, sexual violence, of despised groups.
And we are seeing these things happening in many, many conflicts now around the world. There are over 60 conflicts ongoing at the last count. But I wanted to ask a number of questions here today of government and as to why there might be opposition to this, and I do I do smile at my friend, my my learned friend Lord Garnier, but, you know, saying no and being a naysayer, these are the steps that actually lead to accountability. These are the things we need to do if we want to have a just world, and we mustn't nod our head and say, oh, it's not going to work, and who's going to listen? And are the Chinese? I've worked very hard on the Uyghur issue.
I know how hard it is, but we keep on keeping on. And and one of the things I wanted to say was that we've got to ask what happens. For example, it's easy when we can identify as we do in China, as we do in Myanmar, as we do in the Congo and as we are currently doing in Sudan. But what do we do when a friendly state goes rogue? The UAE plenty of evidence of it arming the the RSF in in Sudan just now, and we don't see a peep about it.
What about Israel falling into the hands of extreme right wing, an extreme right wing government, and which is committing serious crimes against people? A lot of silence in this House about that, a sort of omerta where everybody's frightened to be accused of being an anti-Semite. When we're calling out things that we happily call out in other places. Now, I am particularly wanting to talk about the Yazidi here, because Lord Alton and I met with the war crimes unit of the Metropolitan Police, and it was very interesting to talk about.
It made me wonder. And I asked the government, I mean, what kind of training are the Met Police Unit getting? Do they meet sufficiently with the Foreign Office and the Atrocity Unit? That certainly used to exist within the Foreign Office. I hope it continues to. This country saw quite a number of young people going off to ISIL. The Islamist terrorist organisation. Some returned. And we know that several hundred did and there have been prosecuted in jail. Some of them I mean, most of them.
But they were prosecuted for membership of international of an international terrorist organisation. And one of the horrors of ISIL. Yes, was the conduct and the slaughter of many hundreds of Yazidi men and boys, but also of the enslavement of women and girls and the constant and repeated rape that they experienced, the impregnation, the way in which they have suffered, the consequences and the trauma of that, and how ongoing it is. And yet, when we ask the war crimes Unit, did you ever ask any of those who returned? What were your domestic circumstances there? Did you have a wife? Did you have a second wife? And I'm not sure we did.
So I want to know what kind of training is going on in our own genocidal behaviours. And also, did we ever find out how it was possible for Germany, along with Amal Clooney, to to actually charge and convict people of genocidal crimes? And what makes the difference in their law? So I really do recommend this bill to this House. I think it will make a change. It will be another brick in the wall. The wall that we're building for justice.
When we signed the Genocide Act, we did not only agree to condemn genocide and bring perpetrators to justice, we committed to preventing genocide. And that's one of the major things about this. Prevention means monitoring for indicators, the dehumanising language used by politicians with an undercurrent threat of annihilation, human rights abuses of minorities or of neighbouring peoples dispossessing people of their homes and lands, displacement of people, making conditions of life so intolerable that people are forced into exile. All those signs of ethnic cleansing, sexual violence, of despised groups.
And we are seeing these things happening in many, many conflicts now around the world. There are over 60 conflicts ongoing at the last count. But I wanted to ask a number of questions here today of government and as to why there might be opposition to this, and I do I do smile at my friend, my my learned friend Lord Garnier, but, you know, saying no and being a naysayer, these are the steps that actually lead to accountability. These are the things we need to do if we want to have a just world, and we mustn't nod our head and say, oh, it's not going to work, and who's going to listen? And are the Chinese? I've worked very hard on the Uyghur issue.
I know how hard it is, but we keep on keeping on. And and one of the things I wanted to say was that we've got to ask what happens. For example, it's easy when we can identify as we do in China, as we do in Myanmar, as we do in the Congo and as we are currently doing in Sudan. But what do we do when a friendly state goes rogue? The UAE plenty of evidence of it arming the the RSF in in Sudan just now, and we don't see a peep about it.
What about Israel falling into the hands of extreme right wing, an extreme right wing government, and which is committing serious crimes against people? A lot of silence in this House about that, a sort of omerta where everybody's frightened to be accused of being an anti-Semite. When we're calling out things that we happily call out in other places. Now, I am particularly wanting to talk about the Yazidi here, because Lord Alton and I met with the war crimes unit of the Metropolitan Police, and it was very interesting to talk about.
It made me wonder. And I asked the government, I mean, what kind of training are the Met Police Unit getting? Do they meet sufficiently with the Foreign Office and the Atrocity Unit? That certainly used to exist within the Foreign Office. I hope it continues to. This country saw quite a number of young people going off to ISIL. The Islamist terrorist organisation. Some returned. And we know that several hundred did and there have been prosecuted in jail. Some of them I mean, most of them.
But they were prosecuted for membership of international of an international terrorist organisation. And one of the horrors of ISIL. Yes, was the conduct and the slaughter of many hundreds of Yazidi men and boys, but also of the enslavement of women and girls and the constant and repeated rape that they experienced, the impregnation, the way in which they have suffered, the consequences and the trauma of that, and how ongoing it is. And yet, when we ask the war crimes Unit, did you ever ask any of those who returned? What were your domestic circumstances there? Did you have a wife? Did you have a second wife? And I'm not sure we did.
So I want to know what kind of training is going on in our own genocidal behaviours. And also, did we ever find out how it was possible for Germany, along with Amal Clooney, to to actually charge and convict people of genocidal crimes? And what makes the difference in their law? So I really do recommend this bill to this House. I think it will make a change. It will be another brick in the wall. The wall that we're building for justice.
11:44
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Helic (Conservative)
Yes. >> My Lords, last week marked the 31st anniversary of the genocide in Srebrenica, where three 8372 Srebrenica, where three 8372 Bosniak men and boys were systematically murdered in what the United Nations had declared a safe haven. Their wives, daughters and sisters were subjected to rape and expulsion as part of a calculated campaign of ethnic cleansing. In March 1995, Radovan Karadzic, president of the self-declared Republika Srpska, issued directive seven, ordering the creation of, in his words, an unbearable situation of total insecurity with no hope of further survival for the people of Srebrenica.
Four months later, those words were translated into ethnically motivated mass slaughter. In 2007, the International Court of Justice confirmed Srebrenica was genocide. Srebrenica did not occur because the world lacked information. Karadzic is interventions were set out in plain terms, the warning signs were unmistakeable. The UN peacekeepers in Srebrenica diplomatic cables were incoming. The failure was not one of knowledge. It was one of political will. The lessons have still not been learned. Only two days ago, a serving Serbian government Minister declared if I had been Slobodan Milosevic, I would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo.
In 1998, three decades after Srebrenica, language that seeks to justify ethnic cleansing is still being voiced from public office. That should alarm us all. We have since witnessed Daesh attempt to destroy the Yazidis, the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya, and today there are grave reports of mass killings in Gaza and Sudan. Whatever conclusion courts ultimately reach, these crisis exposed the same fundamental weakness. Legal processes move slowly, more slowly, than the atrocities they are intended to address. This is why the noble Lord, Lord Alton's bill, matters.
It does not ask Ministers or politicians to determine whether genocide has occurred. It gives practical effect to the government's long standing position that genocide is a matter for competent courts. By providing a timely judicial mechanisms through which evidence can be assessed. While there is still time to prevent further atrocities, international courts can take years, sometimes decades, to reach their conclusions. By then, the victims are dead, communities destroyed, and the opportunity for prevention has long passed. This bill may not prevent genocide, nor can it overcome the geopolitical divisions that so often paralyse the international community.
But it would strengthen the United Kingdom's authority and ability to fulfil its obligation under article one of Genocide Convention, not merely to punish genocide after the event, but to try and prevent it before it becomes and reaches its murderous conclusions. In conclusion, may I ask the noble Lords Minister three questions? First, will the government make any clear that the United Kingdom stands firmly behind the International Criminal Court, its independence and its officials in the face of the threats now being directed against it? Second, what urgent steps are being taken to prevent the atrocities feared in El Obeid from becoming another El Paso? And thirdly, what measures are being taken to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become complicit, directly or indirectly, in atrocities that may ultimately be found to constitute genocide in Gaza and Sudan? My Lords, history's greatest failures have seldom resulted from ignorance.
More often, they have resulted from the failure to act upon what was already known. Srebrenica stands out as a permanent reminder of the cost of that failure. This bill seeks, in a modest way, but important way, to ensure that we do not repeat it.
Four months later, those words were translated into ethnically motivated mass slaughter. In 2007, the International Court of Justice confirmed Srebrenica was genocide. Srebrenica did not occur because the world lacked information. Karadzic is interventions were set out in plain terms, the warning signs were unmistakeable. The UN peacekeepers in Srebrenica diplomatic cables were incoming. The failure was not one of knowledge. It was one of political will. The lessons have still not been learned. Only two days ago, a serving Serbian government Minister declared if I had been Slobodan Milosevic, I would have ethnically cleansed Kosovo.
In 1998, three decades after Srebrenica, language that seeks to justify ethnic cleansing is still being voiced from public office. That should alarm us all. We have since witnessed Daesh attempt to destroy the Yazidis, the ethnic cleansing of Rohingya, and today there are grave reports of mass killings in Gaza and Sudan. Whatever conclusion courts ultimately reach, these crisis exposed the same fundamental weakness. Legal processes move slowly, more slowly, than the atrocities they are intended to address. This is why the noble Lord, Lord Alton's bill, matters.
It does not ask Ministers or politicians to determine whether genocide has occurred. It gives practical effect to the government's long standing position that genocide is a matter for competent courts. By providing a timely judicial mechanisms through which evidence can be assessed. While there is still time to prevent further atrocities, international courts can take years, sometimes decades, to reach their conclusions. By then, the victims are dead, communities destroyed, and the opportunity for prevention has long passed. This bill may not prevent genocide, nor can it overcome the geopolitical divisions that so often paralyse the international community.
But it would strengthen the United Kingdom's authority and ability to fulfil its obligation under article one of Genocide Convention, not merely to punish genocide after the event, but to try and prevent it before it becomes and reaches its murderous conclusions. In conclusion, may I ask the noble Lords Minister three questions? First, will the government make any clear that the United Kingdom stands firmly behind the International Criminal Court, its independence and its officials in the face of the threats now being directed against it? Second, what urgent steps are being taken to prevent the atrocities feared in El Obeid from becoming another El Paso? And thirdly, what measures are being taken to ensure that the United Kingdom does not become complicit, directly or indirectly, in atrocities that may ultimately be found to constitute genocide in Gaza and Sudan? My Lords, history's greatest failures have seldom resulted from ignorance.
More often, they have resulted from the failure to act upon what was already known. Srebrenica stands out as a permanent reminder of the cost of that failure. This bill seeks, in a modest way, but important way, to ensure that we do not repeat it.
11:48
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
-
-
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Labour)
Yes. >> My Lords, I want to add my tribute to the noble Lord Lord Alton, for keeping matters of this Alton, for keeping matters of this kind before us and demanding of us that we give such matters our attention. I am most grateful in a briefing paper that I was very impressed by. I saw a formula put out showing the atrocities that have existed in Iraq and Sudan and China and Ethiopia, Tigray and in Myanmar, each section being coming to an end.
If a stipulated in clause one of the Genocide Determination Bill, a determination of genocide was made. Clause three actions could include. And then from clause three, whichever three. Whichever of those stipulated possible actions are laid out. I come at this bill and this discussion from the end of Claude three, clause three. I'm sorry, it must be somebody here named Claude that I keep on subconsciously thinking about. And a month ago, for example, in Stockholm with the Syriac Eastern Orthodox Congregation, I laid a wreath at the monument for the victims of the Armenian genocide.
Early in the 20th century. My son in law, or one my son in law, is Cambodian. His parents were drafted forcibly into Pol Pot's army and their lives completely wrecked. My son in law, raised in a Buddhist monastery, and I have sensed in Cambodia on my regular visits the awful things that happened there. I was in Bosnia in 2010, and I was with the families of people who were still crying in controllably at the thought of, or the aftermath of what had happened under Dutch protection, as they thought, to the killing of those boys and and those men.
There was slaughter in East Timor, and I've met people from the Timorese people, too. I was at the plebiscite that brought Eritrea into existence in 1993, and had occasion to meet people who for 30 years had been subject to the depredations and and the warmongering of nearby Ethiopia in Haiti. And I need not rehearse this too much. People will have heard me on Haiti many times. But after a military junta forced a democratically elected president and government out, the United Nations proved totally incapable to handle the ensuing chaos.
And then just performing a marriage of a young woman, the only survivor of her whole community who were eradicated in Kigali. I've got closer personally to some of the victims of these manifold places where atrocities occur. For me to feel I can keep any distance from it at all. Consequently, I have to raise the critical question about why are those mechanisms that do exist in the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and Criminal Court and so on, so ineffective at bringing charges to bring these things to light and to pass judgement on them.
Some of these things have been waiting forever, and some, as in Myanmar, totally, totally overlooked and marginalised and forgotten about. They hope so. For me, clause three is where my attention is focussed and the injustices that occur not by missing a determination that others talk about that, but waiting for justice.
If a stipulated in clause one of the Genocide Determination Bill, a determination of genocide was made. Clause three actions could include. And then from clause three, whichever three. Whichever of those stipulated possible actions are laid out. I come at this bill and this discussion from the end of Claude three, clause three. I'm sorry, it must be somebody here named Claude that I keep on subconsciously thinking about. And a month ago, for example, in Stockholm with the Syriac Eastern Orthodox Congregation, I laid a wreath at the monument for the victims of the Armenian genocide.
Early in the 20th century. My son in law, or one my son in law, is Cambodian. His parents were drafted forcibly into Pol Pot's army and their lives completely wrecked. My son in law, raised in a Buddhist monastery, and I have sensed in Cambodia on my regular visits the awful things that happened there. I was in Bosnia in 2010, and I was with the families of people who were still crying in controllably at the thought of, or the aftermath of what had happened under Dutch protection, as they thought, to the killing of those boys and and those men.
There was slaughter in East Timor, and I've met people from the Timorese people, too. I was at the plebiscite that brought Eritrea into existence in 1993, and had occasion to meet people who for 30 years had been subject to the depredations and and the warmongering of nearby Ethiopia in Haiti. And I need not rehearse this too much. People will have heard me on Haiti many times. But after a military junta forced a democratically elected president and government out, the United Nations proved totally incapable to handle the ensuing chaos.
And then just performing a marriage of a young woman, the only survivor of her whole community who were eradicated in Kigali. I've got closer personally to some of the victims of these manifold places where atrocities occur. For me to feel I can keep any distance from it at all. Consequently, I have to raise the critical question about why are those mechanisms that do exist in the Security Council, the International Court of Justice and Criminal Court and so on, so ineffective at bringing charges to bring these things to light and to pass judgement on them.
Some of these things have been waiting forever, and some, as in Myanmar, totally, totally overlooked and marginalised and forgotten about. They hope so. For me, clause three is where my attention is focussed and the injustices that occur not by missing a determination that others talk about that, but waiting for justice.
11:52
Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Baroness Uddin (Non-affiliated)
My Lord, it's a pleasure to salute and thank my noble friend Lord Alton for allowing us to Lord Alton for allowing us to consider this bill Lord Alton of Liverpool has spent a decade fighting for this bill and far fighting for this bill and far longer refusing to let the House look away from the Yazidis of Sinjar, Tigray and Darfur. And whilst I sometimes do not agree with some of his analysis, I have long admired his consistent courage and persistence. He has taught us that recognition without consequences and action is a dangerous inertia.
That lessons, challenges us to examine atrocities regardless of where it is happening, in where. When we find it too difficult, difficult to name the many counts of barbaric inhumanity, we are witnessing genocide, my Lords, does not hide. It broadcast itself in desecration of Sudan. The mass graves of Al-fashir, the lion, the Rohingyas of Myanmar, and the famine and mass slaughter of Palestine in Gaza, murderous cleansing of the West Bank and Lebanon. The human cry for survival is so often been unheeded in this chamber.
And the other place I'm very grateful to noble Lords. We cannot say we didn't know my Lords, for it lays dormant in our conscience in the discretion of our will to protect some and not others. We have selectively chosen to voice atrocities, silent on others, as innocent as families and communities remain under rubble and dying today, while we deliberate which human beings deserves our attention politically, financially and who we choose to prevent access to food, electricity and water.
If this. If the bill is supported and passed. My question is simple. Indisputably it can compel our government to meet its obligations under the UN Genocide Convention. However, will what I have described meet the test of any government? For reference to the courts for a preliminary determination on genocide? Sadly, we've seen that that has not been the case. I am therefore concerned about the context in which our government would refer matters to a preliminary determination. Given the political distinction it has already applied to the war in Gaza and Ukraine as one example.
For decades our government has hidden behind sentiment of leaving it to the courts, not a treaty obligation, a neglectful policy repeated so often it has become a shield for looking the other way and not mandate any obligatory action by default, guaranteeing no mechanism exists to fulfil its obligation. The bill ends that evasion. It avoids politicians and officials and empower the victims, survivors and the organisation representing them before an independent court encouraging victim centred justice. And it does not stop at recognition.
Clause three indeed compels the Secretary of State to refer any determination to the ICC and ICJ the Security Council turning to find into a legal duty, thus stepping forward towards meeting our obligations under the Genocide Convention. The moment a serious risk is known and identified, not years after the graves are counted. My Lords, on the eve of my 28th year in this House, I wish to stay hopeful and hopeful that truth will weigh heavier in our deliberation, forcing us to act over thunderous noise of those who have ignored public call to stop genocide, confident that there will be no consequences for them.
It is indeed an honour to support this Bill in the hope that it will secure a lasting and meaningful justice for.
That lessons, challenges us to examine atrocities regardless of where it is happening, in where. When we find it too difficult, difficult to name the many counts of barbaric inhumanity, we are witnessing genocide, my Lords, does not hide. It broadcast itself in desecration of Sudan. The mass graves of Al-fashir, the lion, the Rohingyas of Myanmar, and the famine and mass slaughter of Palestine in Gaza, murderous cleansing of the West Bank and Lebanon. The human cry for survival is so often been unheeded in this chamber.
And the other place I'm very grateful to noble Lords. We cannot say we didn't know my Lords, for it lays dormant in our conscience in the discretion of our will to protect some and not others. We have selectively chosen to voice atrocities, silent on others, as innocent as families and communities remain under rubble and dying today, while we deliberate which human beings deserves our attention politically, financially and who we choose to prevent access to food, electricity and water.
If this. If the bill is supported and passed. My question is simple. Indisputably it can compel our government to meet its obligations under the UN Genocide Convention. However, will what I have described meet the test of any government? For reference to the courts for a preliminary determination on genocide? Sadly, we've seen that that has not been the case. I am therefore concerned about the context in which our government would refer matters to a preliminary determination. Given the political distinction it has already applied to the war in Gaza and Ukraine as one example.
For decades our government has hidden behind sentiment of leaving it to the courts, not a treaty obligation, a neglectful policy repeated so often it has become a shield for looking the other way and not mandate any obligatory action by default, guaranteeing no mechanism exists to fulfil its obligation. The bill ends that evasion. It avoids politicians and officials and empower the victims, survivors and the organisation representing them before an independent court encouraging victim centred justice. And it does not stop at recognition.
Clause three indeed compels the Secretary of State to refer any determination to the ICC and ICJ the Security Council turning to find into a legal duty, thus stepping forward towards meeting our obligations under the Genocide Convention. The moment a serious risk is known and identified, not years after the graves are counted. My Lords, on the eve of my 28th year in this House, I wish to stay hopeful and hopeful that truth will weigh heavier in our deliberation, forcing us to act over thunderous noise of those who have ignored public call to stop genocide, confident that there will be no consequences for them.
It is indeed an honour to support this Bill in the hope that it will secure a lasting and meaningful justice for.
11:56
11:56
11:56
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Conservative)
genocide, and this bill will ensure that the UK government, as a signatory to the Genocide Convention, will be able to act Convention, will be able to act quickly to fulfil its existing duties the moment a risk is recognised. I also declare my recognised. I also declare my interest as co-chair of the women, Peace and Security APPG. I first came across genocide when I visited Rwanda in 2007, and although it was 13 years after the genocide, the horror was still present there in around 100 days.
In 1994, nearly 1 million Tutsi people were killed and thousands of Tutsi women taken away to become sex slaves. I met women across the country, many of whom had seen their husbands and children hacked to death in front of them. I sat and heard their stories. It was utterly shocking. A few years later, I visited Bosnia and walking in the graveyard with the widows and wives of the missing was harrowing. It was one of the most difficult things I've ever done, and there.
Any young man or male child over seven was taken away and shot. I remember meeting a young man whose twin brother had been killed who said this should never happen again. But it has. Years on from the horrors of the Holocaust, as we've already heard, we've seen repeated incidents and as already has been laid out by the noble Lord Lord Alton. Genocide is an identity based crime trying to bring about the destruction of a group, sometimes through preventing births, mass rape and forcible transfer of children to another group.
And despite the powerful wording of mechanisms such as the Genocide Convention, the fact remains that the mechanisms are globally weak and therefore commitments are not integrated into policy or programmes in the UK today, who decides when a genocide is occurring? As we've already heard, in 2016, the House of Commons unanimously determined that atrocities against the Yazidis by Daesh amounted to genocide, but the government would not formally recognise this, wanting it determined by competent courts but deciding that no British courts could make a determination.
Thus, the UK had no legislative vehicles to identify genocide, and the UK government only formally recognised the situation with Zydis as a genocide. In 2020. Three years too late to do anything, and this bill is designed to address this situation. My Lords, of course, the ultimate is to prevent conflicts occurring, investing more into conflict prevention so atrocities are never committed in the first instance, saving lives and averting the mass costs of war. However, a report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld last year revealed a sharp decline in the UK's investment in peace building, violence prevention and conflict resolution over recent years.
Given that the development budget has been slashed and the FCDO seems to be rolling back our soft power. Can the Minister advise if it considers its current work to prevent atrocities has been affected? What conversations have they had with other countries who are reassessing their stance on genocide? My Lords, last year I was lucky enough to go and visit Lalish, which is the sacred temple of the Yazidis in northern Iraq. They have worshipped there for about 4000 years.
The ISIS attack on the Yazidis was the most horrendous crime. So many innocent people killed and around 6000 women taken away to be sex slaves. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Kennedy has already talked about some 12 years later, there are still 2000 women missing and the children born of rape have not been accepted back into the community. My Lords, we should not forget these terrible crimes. So I support this Bill as it will help fix a gap in our system and help us to fulfil our Genocide Convention commitments, and hopefully it will aid the prevention of genocide in the future.
Yes, my Lords.
In 1994, nearly 1 million Tutsi people were killed and thousands of Tutsi women taken away to become sex slaves. I met women across the country, many of whom had seen their husbands and children hacked to death in front of them. I sat and heard their stories. It was utterly shocking. A few years later, I visited Bosnia and walking in the graveyard with the widows and wives of the missing was harrowing. It was one of the most difficult things I've ever done, and there.
Any young man or male child over seven was taken away and shot. I remember meeting a young man whose twin brother had been killed who said this should never happen again. But it has. Years on from the horrors of the Holocaust, as we've already heard, we've seen repeated incidents and as already has been laid out by the noble Lord Lord Alton. Genocide is an identity based crime trying to bring about the destruction of a group, sometimes through preventing births, mass rape and forcible transfer of children to another group.
And despite the powerful wording of mechanisms such as the Genocide Convention, the fact remains that the mechanisms are globally weak and therefore commitments are not integrated into policy or programmes in the UK today, who decides when a genocide is occurring? As we've already heard, in 2016, the House of Commons unanimously determined that atrocities against the Yazidis by Daesh amounted to genocide, but the government would not formally recognise this, wanting it determined by competent courts but deciding that no British courts could make a determination.
Thus, the UK had no legislative vehicles to identify genocide, and the UK government only formally recognised the situation with Zydis as a genocide. In 2020. Three years too late to do anything, and this bill is designed to address this situation. My Lords, of course, the ultimate is to prevent conflicts occurring, investing more into conflict prevention so atrocities are never committed in the first instance, saving lives and averting the mass costs of war. However, a report by Mercy Corps and Saferworld last year revealed a sharp decline in the UK's investment in peace building, violence prevention and conflict resolution over recent years.
Given that the development budget has been slashed and the FCDO seems to be rolling back our soft power. Can the Minister advise if it considers its current work to prevent atrocities has been affected? What conversations have they had with other countries who are reassessing their stance on genocide? My Lords, last year I was lucky enough to go and visit Lalish, which is the sacred temple of the Yazidis in northern Iraq. They have worshipped there for about 4000 years.
The ISIS attack on the Yazidis was the most horrendous crime. So many innocent people killed and around 6000 women taken away to be sex slaves. As the noble Baroness, Baroness Kennedy has already talked about some 12 years later, there are still 2000 women missing and the children born of rape have not been accepted back into the community. My Lords, we should not forget these terrible crimes. So I support this Bill as it will help fix a gap in our system and help us to fulfil our Genocide Convention commitments, and hopefully it will aid the prevention of genocide in the future.
Yes, my Lords.
12:01
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
This bill is not the right >> This bill is not the right mechanism that I would wish for the prevention and punishment of genocide. It asks the courts of the genocide. It asks the courts of the UK to do something they are not equipped to do. The most fundamental problem is evidential genocide. Determinations have to be carried out in accordance with international law and in full possession of the facts. The time lag would be self-defeating. The closest thing we've had was the action by David Irving against Penguin Books, based on his being called a Holocaust denier.
In effect, the famous judgement was whether the Holocaust had taken place or not, and from start to finish the case took three years and seven months. Secondly, the bill risks drawing our courts into geo political controversies. We know very well that the applicants who will rush forward if this bill is enacted, are less likely to be the Yazidis, Sudanese and Uyghurs, but more likely to be those who want to continue their campaign against Israel. Regardless of the fact that what has happened in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide, it would be a way of continuing a political and distorted campaign, no doubt funded by Iran.
Thirdly, the bill cannot do what it means to do. Our courts might make a determination of genocide, but that would have no binding effect on the ICJ or the ICC. Only 75 countries accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, the UK being the only Security Council member to do so. So the Bill would expose the weakness of international law, whether it comes to keeping the peace or preventing genocide, while setting up a scenario involving different definitions of genocide and under which some states would be at risk because they accept international jurisdiction and others would not be.
While it is hard to see how actions by terrorist non-state groups such as Hamas or Daesh could be caught, my Lords, successive UK governments have failed to prosecute Nazi war criminals who prosecute Nazi war criminals who came to this country under the War Crimes Act 1991, an education, but did nothing to punish those responsible for it. It let them slip through our fingers. The bill before us is retrospective, with no limitation. There could be complaints by New Zealanders, Australians and Americans about the real genocide carried out by white settlers against the indigenous populations of those countries.
My Lords, what we need are genuine UN peacekeeping forces. They can only be used if the Security Council authorises their use under chapter seven of the charter, which it never does. The Security Council itself could act, but is stymied by the veto. It has a doctrine called the Responsibility to Protect directed against genocide, but it has failed to achieve it. It did not act in Sudan. It was ineffective in Rwanda and Srebrenica because of the political realities. The action by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in Kosovo was much more effective, even though it might not technically have qualified as a genocide, NATO intervened.
I suggest that action by determined leaders and NATO, which shares our values more than the UN bodies, would be more effective than the handing over of responsibility to international bodies prescribed by this bill. Well intentioned though it is.
In effect, the famous judgement was whether the Holocaust had taken place or not, and from start to finish the case took three years and seven months. Secondly, the bill risks drawing our courts into geo political controversies. We know very well that the applicants who will rush forward if this bill is enacted, are less likely to be the Yazidis, Sudanese and Uyghurs, but more likely to be those who want to continue their campaign against Israel. Regardless of the fact that what has happened in Gaza does not meet the definition of genocide, it would be a way of continuing a political and distorted campaign, no doubt funded by Iran.
Thirdly, the bill cannot do what it means to do. Our courts might make a determination of genocide, but that would have no binding effect on the ICJ or the ICC. Only 75 countries accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ, the UK being the only Security Council member to do so. So the Bill would expose the weakness of international law, whether it comes to keeping the peace or preventing genocide, while setting up a scenario involving different definitions of genocide and under which some states would be at risk because they accept international jurisdiction and others would not be.
While it is hard to see how actions by terrorist non-state groups such as Hamas or Daesh could be caught, my Lords, successive UK governments have failed to prosecute Nazi war criminals who prosecute Nazi war criminals who came to this country under the War Crimes Act 1991, an education, but did nothing to punish those responsible for it. It let them slip through our fingers. The bill before us is retrospective, with no limitation. There could be complaints by New Zealanders, Australians and Americans about the real genocide carried out by white settlers against the indigenous populations of those countries.
My Lords, what we need are genuine UN peacekeeping forces. They can only be used if the Security Council authorises their use under chapter seven of the charter, which it never does. The Security Council itself could act, but is stymied by the veto. It has a doctrine called the Responsibility to Protect directed against genocide, but it has failed to achieve it. It did not act in Sudan. It was ineffective in Rwanda and Srebrenica because of the political realities. The action by former Prime Minister Tony Blair in Kosovo was much more effective, even though it might not technically have qualified as a genocide, NATO intervened.
I suggest that action by determined leaders and NATO, which shares our values more than the UN bodies, would be more effective than the handing over of responsibility to international bodies prescribed by this bill. Well intentioned though it is.
12:04
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Goudie (Labour)
My Lords, I. Liverpool on securing the Bill's Second Reading and on his persistence that spans a decade persistence that spans a decade from its first introduction in 2016. My Lords, today as an adviser to the Georgetown Institute for women, Peace and Security and someone who has spent many years, like others in this House working on conflict related sexual violence, I welcome today's opportunity to speak in support of the Genocide Determination Bill. I would like to grant my support. First, as an
**** Possible New Speaker ****
example, I have addressed the House on Sudan's Wider humanitarian crisis before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Wider humanitarian crisis before. And today I return to it through the lenses of accountability. My Lords, in February this year, the Lords, in February this year, the United Nations independent fact finding mission for Sudan concluded that the rapid support forces sieged and takeover of bore the hallmarks of genocide against the hallmarks of genocide against the sagas and the fur communities. My Lords, the mission documented mass execution, enforced disappearances and the widespread of sexual violence deployed alongside starvation.
My Lords, as it coordinated as a coordinated campaign to destroy these communities. Yet, as with yet, as with Darfur two years earlier, there remains no mechanism in the United Kingdom law through which survivors can ask the courts to make a kind of determination that successive governments have said it should properly be made by judges rather than Ministers. This is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix. It is victim centred, my Lord. It allows survivors themselves and organisations representing them to bring evidence before the courts.
That principle should not be underestimated. The United Kingdom has formally recognised only five instances of genocide since the convention was adopted in 1948, despite being one of the 154 state parties that, having acceded to it in 1970. My Lords, the gap between our obligations and our practice is precisely that. This Bill seeks to close. The Joint Committee on Human Rights identified shortcomings in our domestic work relating to accountability for international crimes. My Lords, this bill would not resolve every aspect, but it would give the courts a defined role in identifying when the threshold of a serious risk has been reached.
As this bill, genuinely accessible to survivors of sexual violence, confidential, trauma informed and mindful that evidential relates to atrocity, particularly for women relatively fit conventional courts themselves. My Lords, this is the practical. This is a practical bill. It does not ask the government to abandon its long standing position that determines is a judicial matter. It simply asks that our own courts be equipped to do what that position already assumes that they should.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
example, I have addressed the House on Sudan's Wider humanitarian crisis before.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Wider humanitarian crisis before. And today I return to it through the lenses of accountability. My Lords, in February this year, the Lords, in February this year, the United Nations independent fact finding mission for Sudan concluded that the rapid support forces sieged and takeover of bore the hallmarks of genocide against the hallmarks of genocide against the sagas and the fur communities. My Lords, the mission documented mass execution, enforced disappearances and the widespread of sexual violence deployed alongside starvation.
My Lords, as it coordinated as a coordinated campaign to destroy these communities. Yet, as with yet, as with Darfur two years earlier, there remains no mechanism in the United Kingdom law through which survivors can ask the courts to make a kind of determination that successive governments have said it should properly be made by judges rather than Ministers. This is the problem that the Bill seeks to fix. It is victim centred, my Lord. It allows survivors themselves and organisations representing them to bring evidence before the courts.
That principle should not be underestimated. The United Kingdom has formally recognised only five instances of genocide since the convention was adopted in 1948, despite being one of the 154 state parties that, having acceded to it in 1970. My Lords, the gap between our obligations and our practice is precisely that. This Bill seeks to close. The Joint Committee on Human Rights identified shortcomings in our domestic work relating to accountability for international crimes. My Lords, this bill would not resolve every aspect, but it would give the courts a defined role in identifying when the threshold of a serious risk has been reached.
As this bill, genuinely accessible to survivors of sexual violence, confidential, trauma informed and mindful that evidential relates to atrocity, particularly for women relatively fit conventional courts themselves. My Lords, this is the practical. This is a practical bill. It does not ask the government to abandon its long standing position that determines is a judicial matter. It simply asks that our own courts be equipped to do what that position already assumes that they should.
12:07
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
-
-
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Conservative)
Well done, well done. >> My Lords. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lady Baroness Goudie, and I, too, would like to thank Lord Alton for his thank Lord Alton for his perseverance, not just in terms of this bill, but for his lifelong advocacy on behalf of so many. My advocacy on behalf of so many. My Lords, I am not a regular contributor on foreign affairs, but I was moved to speak today because of a radio programme, specifically a dispatch from from Afghanistan, from radio fours, from our own correspondent.
It's about a little girl called five year old Sheikha. I realise her story is not unique, and I realise that there are many such stories that noble Lords can tell and have told from personal experience, but sometimes the story just grabs you and so I hope you won't mind if I share this as the focus of my contribution today. And this is, as I heard it, in abridged form. Five year old Sheikha has a striking face with brown hair and big black eyes.
She stares at her suspiciously, clinging on to her father, 34 year old Saeed Emma. Her small arms wrapped around his neck. She thinks all strangers might be doctors. That's why she's scared, he tells us as he holds her close, comforts her and kisses the top of her head. A month ago, Sheikha spent two weeks in hospital after she had surgery for appendicitis, said Sheikha lived in Ghor province in the Hindu Kush. But amid a severe hunger and jobs crisis, Saeed barely makes enough money as a labourer to provide food for his family.
Funding medical treatment is simply out of reach. So Saeed made an unbearable choice. I sold her to a relative so I could pay for her operation, he says, his eyes welling up with tears. If I had money, I would never have taken the decision to sell my daughter. But then I thought, what if she dies without the surgery? This way at least she is alive. That is enough for me. Saeed negotiated with the buyer a better off, distant cousin, to keep Shaker at home for as long as possible.
If I had taken the whole sum at once, he would have taken her away immediately, he explains. So I told him, just give me enough for her medical treatment, and over the next five years you can give me the rest. Afterwards you can take her. My wife and I don't talk about the situation in front of her, but I think Sheikha has started to understand. I do not have the strength to think of the moment when she will have to leave.
As they sit hugging each other, the close bond that Saeed and Sheikha share is evident, as is the grief of the father, who believes he's failed his daughter now Saeed. Of course, is not to blame. Not for the poverty, the desperation, or the Taliban's recent decree which legalises child marriage while hardening the already severe divorce laws. The result being that when she is older, there will be no chance of Sheikha leaving this relationship of her own free will. But Lord Alton bill could potentially change things for Sheikha and the many other girls and women in Afghanistan being persecuted on the basis of their gender.
It is known that this persecution may amount to genocide when targeted at particular groups and in Afghanistan, there is a deliberate targeting of Hazara women and girls. And so, as we have heard, the Genocide Determination Bill would enable vulnerable groups to apply directly to the UK court, thereby offering a legal pathway that would give victims a voice and perhaps girls like Sheikha a chance in our domestic politics. We now set great store by putting victims and survivors at the heart of our policy making.
So I just have one question for the noble Lord, the Minister. And I just wonder, is it perhaps time to do the same in the international arena? I very much support this bill, if only, as Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws says,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as another brick in the wall. My Lords, I congratulate, as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate, as other noble. Lords have done, my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool on this extremely important Bill, and indeed his commitment to this issue which reaches back across decades. I'm reaches back across decades. I'm proud to speak along with others who support this bill and wish to associate with every word of my associate with every word of my noble friend, Baroness Kennedy, of the Shaws intervention. My Lords,
It's about a little girl called five year old Sheikha. I realise her story is not unique, and I realise that there are many such stories that noble Lords can tell and have told from personal experience, but sometimes the story just grabs you and so I hope you won't mind if I share this as the focus of my contribution today. And this is, as I heard it, in abridged form. Five year old Sheikha has a striking face with brown hair and big black eyes.
She stares at her suspiciously, clinging on to her father, 34 year old Saeed Emma. Her small arms wrapped around his neck. She thinks all strangers might be doctors. That's why she's scared, he tells us as he holds her close, comforts her and kisses the top of her head. A month ago, Sheikha spent two weeks in hospital after she had surgery for appendicitis, said Sheikha lived in Ghor province in the Hindu Kush. But amid a severe hunger and jobs crisis, Saeed barely makes enough money as a labourer to provide food for his family.
Funding medical treatment is simply out of reach. So Saeed made an unbearable choice. I sold her to a relative so I could pay for her operation, he says, his eyes welling up with tears. If I had money, I would never have taken the decision to sell my daughter. But then I thought, what if she dies without the surgery? This way at least she is alive. That is enough for me. Saeed negotiated with the buyer a better off, distant cousin, to keep Shaker at home for as long as possible.
If I had taken the whole sum at once, he would have taken her away immediately, he explains. So I told him, just give me enough for her medical treatment, and over the next five years you can give me the rest. Afterwards you can take her. My wife and I don't talk about the situation in front of her, but I think Sheikha has started to understand. I do not have the strength to think of the moment when she will have to leave.
As they sit hugging each other, the close bond that Saeed and Sheikha share is evident, as is the grief of the father, who believes he's failed his daughter now Saeed. Of course, is not to blame. Not for the poverty, the desperation, or the Taliban's recent decree which legalises child marriage while hardening the already severe divorce laws. The result being that when she is older, there will be no chance of Sheikha leaving this relationship of her own free will. But Lord Alton bill could potentially change things for Sheikha and the many other girls and women in Afghanistan being persecuted on the basis of their gender.
It is known that this persecution may amount to genocide when targeted at particular groups and in Afghanistan, there is a deliberate targeting of Hazara women and girls. And so, as we have heard, the Genocide Determination Bill would enable vulnerable groups to apply directly to the UK court, thereby offering a legal pathway that would give victims a voice and perhaps girls like Sheikha a chance in our domestic politics. We now set great store by putting victims and survivors at the heart of our policy making.
So I just have one question for the noble Lord, the Minister. And I just wonder, is it perhaps time to do the same in the international arena? I very much support this bill, if only, as Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws says,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
as another brick in the wall. My Lords, I congratulate, as
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I congratulate, as other noble. Lords have done, my noble friend Lord Alton of Liverpool on this extremely important Bill, and indeed his commitment to this issue which reaches back across decades. I'm reaches back across decades. I'm proud to speak along with others who support this bill and wish to associate with every word of my associate with every word of my noble friend, Baroness Kennedy, of the Shaws intervention. My Lords,
12:12
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
we have witnessed acts of genocide around the globe and despite the around the globe and despite the weasel words of denial, we are still witnessing nothing short of the attempt to extinguish national, the attempt to extinguish national, ethnic, racial or religious groups and others. Srebrenica, Rwanda, Sudan, Cambodia, China, Sudan, Cambodia, China, Palestinians in Gaza. Sadly, the list goes on. Genocides that happened and are still happening before our eyes and the atrocious events, my Lords, that are often cited to excuse the inhumane assault against a national, ethnic, racial or religious groups can never be justified.
Innocent women and men and children are maimed, injured and killed, and protests are dismissed by the politicians enacting such inhumane behaviour. They pronounce the dead and maimed as collateral damage, or cite that innocents are being used as shields by their enemies. My Lords, it doesn't need me to explain that modern warfare provides means and methods that do not need to bring about such human carnage. And I ask, how is it ever legitimate to kill innocent people who are used as shields? It can never be legitimised, and in a civilised world, it can never be excused or accepted.
Because whenever genocide occurs or the attempt at genocide occurs, we need to call it out. Otherwise the legal order is lost and sinks into an unimaginable void where the lives of innocents the weak, often the impoverished women, children of men, the elderly, the infirmed are targeted by the strongest and sacrifice by cowards. There are those, my Lords, who will question and argue with my opinions and my submission, and that is the luxury we enjoy at the moment in our democracy.
And there will be those who point the finger at me and potentially make accusations, especially in relation to my statement on the treatment of Palestinian people in Gaza, the genocide there. But I stand by my words with no excuse. The acts of genocidal politicians must be scrutinised by the courts, and each of them must be held accountable. Otherwise, the international legal order upon which we have relied for so long will be lost forever. Particularly and sadly, as the United States under President Trump has joined those states, blatantly disregarding the rule of the international legal order.
My Lords, I believe, despite what the Minister may say at the despatch box and other governments have said that it is time for the UK to simply give a lead. I say this to the government and to others. Silence or appeasement will only embolden the bully and encourage others, and it will lead to the sacrifice of the lives of millions of more innocent people. Yes.
Innocent women and men and children are maimed, injured and killed, and protests are dismissed by the politicians enacting such inhumane behaviour. They pronounce the dead and maimed as collateral damage, or cite that innocents are being used as shields by their enemies. My Lords, it doesn't need me to explain that modern warfare provides means and methods that do not need to bring about such human carnage. And I ask, how is it ever legitimate to kill innocent people who are used as shields? It can never be legitimised, and in a civilised world, it can never be excused or accepted.
Because whenever genocide occurs or the attempt at genocide occurs, we need to call it out. Otherwise the legal order is lost and sinks into an unimaginable void where the lives of innocents the weak, often the impoverished women, children of men, the elderly, the infirmed are targeted by the strongest and sacrifice by cowards. There are those, my Lords, who will question and argue with my opinions and my submission, and that is the luxury we enjoy at the moment in our democracy.
And there will be those who point the finger at me and potentially make accusations, especially in relation to my statement on the treatment of Palestinian people in Gaza, the genocide there. But I stand by my words with no excuse. The acts of genocidal politicians must be scrutinised by the courts, and each of them must be held accountable. Otherwise, the international legal order upon which we have relied for so long will be lost forever. Particularly and sadly, as the United States under President Trump has joined those states, blatantly disregarding the rule of the international legal order.
My Lords, I believe, despite what the Minister may say at the despatch box and other governments have said that it is time for the UK to simply give a lead. I say this to the government and to others. Silence or appeasement will only embolden the bully and encourage others, and it will lead to the sacrifice of the lives of millions of more innocent people. Yes.
12:15
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
-
-
Lord Cromwell (Crossbench)
Well done. >> My Lords. I join in the shower of congratulations on noble Lord Alton for sponsoring this bill, which I support and of course for which I support and of course for his many years of work in this field. This bill, my Lords, is not about labelling current or past actions as genocide. That often passionately contentious area diverts attention from what this bill is actually about. This bill is simply about giving effect to long standing government policy of referring questions on genocide to the courts.
The crucial word there, my Lords, is referring, not my Lords, leaving a possible case to find its haphazard way to international courts, either directly or via domestic courts in other countries. That is why this bill needs our support to bridge a legal gap, as already fully and clearly detailed by excellent earlier speakers, and I will spare them your Lordships from repetition of them. Today we stand on one side of this gap. We look across at awful events occurring on the other side.
And modern technology means that we see these events in full colour and in real time. Questions may get raised in Parliament. The government perhaps wrings its hands, even strongly condemning the actions we see, and may send some material aid to those surviving or affected. But despite our Genocide Convention obligations, government after government has stood and looked across the gap but never built that simple bridge. This bill represents towards perpetrators being at some point held to account or indeed preventing genocide happening, perhaps as part of a set of other actions outlined so well by the noble Baroness Deech.
I am not going to go over the previous attempts to address this gap in our law and to match our obligations with our enforcement, or why these have failed. I simply note that we do business around the world. In some cases, the argument runs. We must, in that familiar phrase, do business with people whose systems of government or human rights records we do not like. But I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, how bad do things have to get before gestures of general disapproval are not enough? How bad? Before we can at least enable a UK court to give a preliminary determination on a legal basis whether a genocide is imminent or occurring? And the Secretary of State then referred that determination to an international court.
My Lords, while I underline again that this bill does not label specific events as genocides, I used to live and work in Sudan, and I have been in villages in those parts of the country where people are now being tortured, raped and murdered in numbers and on a scale of cruelty that is scarcely imaginable. I have stood on a hilltop in Central Africa and had pointed out to me where mechanical diggers had dug huge pits to be used as mass graves for people slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide.
I have met Yazidis and others subject to deliberate attempts to wipe them off the world's consciousness. It is almost absurd, even complacent, to hear in Parliament when some likely genocidal acts are being perpetrated elsewhere, expressions of outrage and demands that something must be done in the knowledge that this legal bridge, something practical, something achievable and something vital remains unconstructed. That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I hope that the House will do the same. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool not only for introducing this bill, but for decades of tireless work exposing decades of tireless work exposing some of the gravest human rights abuses across the world. Whether campaigning for victims of campaigning for victims of religious persecution, standing up for prisoners of conscience, or ensuring that those suffering unimaginable atrocities are not forgotten by Parliament. He has
The crucial word there, my Lords, is referring, not my Lords, leaving a possible case to find its haphazard way to international courts, either directly or via domestic courts in other countries. That is why this bill needs our support to bridge a legal gap, as already fully and clearly detailed by excellent earlier speakers, and I will spare them your Lordships from repetition of them. Today we stand on one side of this gap. We look across at awful events occurring on the other side.
And modern technology means that we see these events in full colour and in real time. Questions may get raised in Parliament. The government perhaps wrings its hands, even strongly condemning the actions we see, and may send some material aid to those surviving or affected. But despite our Genocide Convention obligations, government after government has stood and looked across the gap but never built that simple bridge. This bill represents towards perpetrators being at some point held to account or indeed preventing genocide happening, perhaps as part of a set of other actions outlined so well by the noble Baroness Deech.
I am not going to go over the previous attempts to address this gap in our law and to match our obligations with our enforcement, or why these have failed. I simply note that we do business around the world. In some cases, the argument runs. We must, in that familiar phrase, do business with people whose systems of government or human rights records we do not like. But I ask the noble Lord, the Minister, how bad do things have to get before gestures of general disapproval are not enough? How bad? Before we can at least enable a UK court to give a preliminary determination on a legal basis whether a genocide is imminent or occurring? And the Secretary of State then referred that determination to an international court.
My Lords, while I underline again that this bill does not label specific events as genocides, I used to live and work in Sudan, and I have been in villages in those parts of the country where people are now being tortured, raped and murdered in numbers and on a scale of cruelty that is scarcely imaginable. I have stood on a hilltop in Central Africa and had pointed out to me where mechanical diggers had dug huge pits to be used as mass graves for people slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide.
I have met Yazidis and others subject to deliberate attempts to wipe them off the world's consciousness. It is almost absurd, even complacent, to hear in Parliament when some likely genocidal acts are being perpetrated elsewhere, expressions of outrage and demands that something must be done in the knowledge that this legal bridge, something practical, something achievable and something vital remains unconstructed. That is why I wholeheartedly support this bill, and I hope that the House will do the same. Thank you.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool not only for introducing this bill, but for decades of tireless work exposing decades of tireless work exposing some of the gravest human rights abuses across the world. Whether campaigning for victims of campaigning for victims of religious persecution, standing up for prisoners of conscience, or ensuring that those suffering unimaginable atrocities are not forgotten by Parliament. He has
12:19
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
shown remarkable consistency and also moral courage. He referred to himself as a young MP when he was a himself as a young MP when he was a young MP. My parents were in fact his constituents. And so I blame his constituents. And so I blame the noble Lord for my interest in politics thereafter. Are any politics thereafter. Are any members of this House who share that concern? Refer it to the noble Lord, Lord Alton. May I also thank the noble Lord for the time he gave me, together with Professor Ochab, whose work on genocide prevention and accountability has enriched this debate, and from whom? I learned a lot in our discussion.
My Lords, having listened to the debate, there is remarkably little disagreement on the principles I would suggest across your Lordships House. Genocide is rightly described as the crime of crimes. It is an assault not only on individual victims but upon humanity itself. We, the United Kingdom, are a party to the Genocide Convention. We accept, therefore, both morally and legally obligations to prevent genocide and punish those responsible. Nor do I doubt for a moment the sincerity of the objective which underlies the Bill.
The noble Lord Lord Alton seeks to ensure that where there is credible evidence that genocide is taking place, or there is a serious risk that it might occur, there is an effective legal mechanism capable of triggering action, and that objective deserves the support of the whole House. And indeed, I think the noble Lord is entitled to put a difficult question to governments of every political persuasion, because for many years, different governments of all colours have maintained that genocide is a matter for determination by competent courts and not by politicians.
And yet, in some of the situations which has caused the greatest concern to this House, there has been no international court capable of making such a determination. And so the noble Lord is entitled to ask whether there is a gap between the government's long standing policy and the practical means by which that policy can be implemented. That is not a frivolous point. It is not a political point. It is a serious constitutional question, and it deserves a serious answer. But, my Lords, identifying a problem does not necessarily mean that every proposed solution is the right one.
The question before us today is not whether genocide should be prevented. Plainly it should. Nor is it whether those responsible should be brought to justice. Plainly they should. The real question is this does this bill address that perceived gap in a way that is constitutionally coherent and practically effective, and with the greatest respect to the noble Lord? I am not yet persuaded that it does. There is, I suggest, an important constitutional principle at stake. Our Constitution works best when each branch of the state performs the function for which it is institutionally equipped.
Parliaments legislate, Ministers govern, or at least they are meant to. Courts adjudicate. Each is independent of the others, but each has its own constitutional role, and we should hesitate before asking one branch of the state to assume responsibilities which properly belong to another. This bill would confer upon the High Court in England and Wales, the High Court in Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland, a wholly new jurisdiction to make preliminary determinations that genocide is occurring overseas has occurred overseas, or there is a serious risk that genocide may occur overseas.
And having listened to speeches from across the House, I understand why that proposal has an obvious attraction. It seeks to remove profoundly difficult questions from the political arena and place them before an independent judiciary. But, my Lords, our judges do not conduct the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. They do not determine diplomatic priorities. They do not assess intelligence. They do not balance national security considerations. They do not negotiate with foreign governments, and nor should they. These are functions entrusted by our Constitution to Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the decisions they take.
It's one thing for the courts to determine legal rights. It's quite another to ask them to make findings which may have immediate and profound diplomatic consequences for the United Kingdom's relations with other sovereign states. And that brings me to what, for me, is perhaps the greatest constitutional concern raised by this bill. Von Clausewitz famously said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Too often today, it appears that law has become politics carried on by other means.
We call it lawfare. We see it internationally. We sometimes see it domestically, and we should be careful before encouraging more of it before our own courts. We should be cautious indeed, I suggest, before inviting our own courts to become yet another arena in which international political disputes are pursued through litigation. And that concern is reinforced by the remarkable breadth of the jurisdiction which this bill proposes to create. A noble Lord should have a quick glance at clause one.
An application can be brought by a person belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or by an organisation representing such persons. There is no requirement that the applicant be a British citizen or a British resident. No requirement that the applicant that the perpetrator be before our courts. Nor indeed there is any requirement that the actions have any connection whatsoever with the United Kingdom. In substance, therefore, Parliament would be conferring upon our domestic courts what would amount to a roving international jurisdiction to make judicial findings in relation to allegations of genocide occurring anywhere in the world.
And if I may, contrary to the word used by the noble Lady, Baroness de Souza, who called it a modest bill, I suggest that that represents a very serious and major constitutional step. Now, this is not a criticism of those who would use the bill to bring such applications. If Parliament creates a jurisdiction, people will understandably want to fill it. My concern is directed not at the litigants, but at the legislation, because proceedings of this nature will inevitably be used, at least in some and frankly, probably in many, if not most cases, not simply to vindicate legal rights, but to advance political objectives.
That is the reality of modern international litigation. And my concern is that we should not lightly draw our own courts into that sphere. Our courts exist to determine legal controversies with legal consequences. They do not exist to issue advisory opinions on international disputes. When I was at university, I had an idea that in order to get a first, I would try to predict the questions and issue an application asking a High Court judge what the answer would be.
Until my supervisors pointed out to me that courts don't exist to answer hypothetical questions or to give advisory opinions. They do not give advisory opinions. The ICJ might. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales should not, and all judges command international respect precisely because they determine actual legal disputes independently and impartially, and we should hesitate before placing them at the centre as some of the most politically sensitive controversies in international affairs. There is, then, the practical operation of the Bill itself.
And, like the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, I also focussed very much on clause three, which requires the Secretary of State to refer a preliminary determination from our courts to the International Court of Justice. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Security Council or other competent United Nations bodies, but only where jurisdictional requirements are met. And that immediately raises an important question what happens when none of those bodies has jurisdiction? What practical consequences would follow from the preliminary determination of our domestic court? Have we simply therefore created a mechanism which results in a judicial declaration which no international body is capable of acting upon.
All of these points seem to me to be legitimate questions, and I do respectfully suggest that they require fuller answers before Parliament creates an entirely new jurisdiction for our highest domestic courts. And of course, I note that the Bill provides that the Minister can make regulations, but that is not a proper way to legislate in this field. I think Parliament is entitled to see exactly how it would work in practice before deciding whether to pass the bill or not.
None of this, of course, should be taken as diminishing the horror of genocide. I mean, that ought not need to be said, but I say it anyway. Nor, of course, are they criticisms of the noble Lords motives. On the contrary, if I may say respectfully, Lord Alton has provided us a great service by forcing us to confront this very uncomfortable question. How does a government whose long standing policy is that genocide should be determined by courts, respond when no competent international court is realistically capable of acting? I think that is the question underlying the bill.
It is a serious challenge. It deserves a serious response. My point is, is that the fact that there may be a gap does not mean that this bill fills it. And for those reasons, while I look forward to engagingly to engaging always, I hope constructively with the noble Lords as the Bill proceeds. And while I hope we can continue to explore ways of strengthening the United Kingdom's ability both to respond to and to prevent genocide, I cannot support the bill in its present form.
The noble Lord has identified a very important problem. I simply at the moment, remain unpersuaded that this bill provides the correct constitutional answer.
My Lords, having listened to the debate, there is remarkably little disagreement on the principles I would suggest across your Lordships House. Genocide is rightly described as the crime of crimes. It is an assault not only on individual victims but upon humanity itself. We, the United Kingdom, are a party to the Genocide Convention. We accept, therefore, both morally and legally obligations to prevent genocide and punish those responsible. Nor do I doubt for a moment the sincerity of the objective which underlies the Bill.
The noble Lord Lord Alton seeks to ensure that where there is credible evidence that genocide is taking place, or there is a serious risk that it might occur, there is an effective legal mechanism capable of triggering action, and that objective deserves the support of the whole House. And indeed, I think the noble Lord is entitled to put a difficult question to governments of every political persuasion, because for many years, different governments of all colours have maintained that genocide is a matter for determination by competent courts and not by politicians.
And yet, in some of the situations which has caused the greatest concern to this House, there has been no international court capable of making such a determination. And so the noble Lord is entitled to ask whether there is a gap between the government's long standing policy and the practical means by which that policy can be implemented. That is not a frivolous point. It is not a political point. It is a serious constitutional question, and it deserves a serious answer. But, my Lords, identifying a problem does not necessarily mean that every proposed solution is the right one.
The question before us today is not whether genocide should be prevented. Plainly it should. Nor is it whether those responsible should be brought to justice. Plainly they should. The real question is this does this bill address that perceived gap in a way that is constitutionally coherent and practically effective, and with the greatest respect to the noble Lord? I am not yet persuaded that it does. There is, I suggest, an important constitutional principle at stake. Our Constitution works best when each branch of the state performs the function for which it is institutionally equipped.
Parliaments legislate, Ministers govern, or at least they are meant to. Courts adjudicate. Each is independent of the others, but each has its own constitutional role, and we should hesitate before asking one branch of the state to assume responsibilities which properly belong to another. This bill would confer upon the High Court in England and Wales, the High Court in Northern Ireland and the Court of Session in Scotland, a wholly new jurisdiction to make preliminary determinations that genocide is occurring overseas has occurred overseas, or there is a serious risk that genocide may occur overseas.
And having listened to speeches from across the House, I understand why that proposal has an obvious attraction. It seeks to remove profoundly difficult questions from the political arena and place them before an independent judiciary. But, my Lords, our judges do not conduct the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. They do not determine diplomatic priorities. They do not assess intelligence. They do not balance national security considerations. They do not negotiate with foreign governments, and nor should they. These are functions entrusted by our Constitution to Ministers who are accountable to Parliament for the decisions they take.
It's one thing for the courts to determine legal rights. It's quite another to ask them to make findings which may have immediate and profound diplomatic consequences for the United Kingdom's relations with other sovereign states. And that brings me to what, for me, is perhaps the greatest constitutional concern raised by this bill. Von Clausewitz famously said that war is a continuation of politics by other means. Too often today, it appears that law has become politics carried on by other means.
We call it lawfare. We see it internationally. We sometimes see it domestically, and we should be careful before encouraging more of it before our own courts. We should be cautious indeed, I suggest, before inviting our own courts to become yet another arena in which international political disputes are pursued through litigation. And that concern is reinforced by the remarkable breadth of the jurisdiction which this bill proposes to create. A noble Lord should have a quick glance at clause one.
An application can be brought by a person belonging to a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, or by an organisation representing such persons. There is no requirement that the applicant be a British citizen or a British resident. No requirement that the applicant that the perpetrator be before our courts. Nor indeed there is any requirement that the actions have any connection whatsoever with the United Kingdom. In substance, therefore, Parliament would be conferring upon our domestic courts what would amount to a roving international jurisdiction to make judicial findings in relation to allegations of genocide occurring anywhere in the world.
And if I may, contrary to the word used by the noble Lady, Baroness de Souza, who called it a modest bill, I suggest that that represents a very serious and major constitutional step. Now, this is not a criticism of those who would use the bill to bring such applications. If Parliament creates a jurisdiction, people will understandably want to fill it. My concern is directed not at the litigants, but at the legislation, because proceedings of this nature will inevitably be used, at least in some and frankly, probably in many, if not most cases, not simply to vindicate legal rights, but to advance political objectives.
That is the reality of modern international litigation. And my concern is that we should not lightly draw our own courts into that sphere. Our courts exist to determine legal controversies with legal consequences. They do not exist to issue advisory opinions on international disputes. When I was at university, I had an idea that in order to get a first, I would try to predict the questions and issue an application asking a High Court judge what the answer would be.
Until my supervisors pointed out to me that courts don't exist to answer hypothetical questions or to give advisory opinions. They do not give advisory opinions. The ICJ might. The High Court of Justice of England and Wales should not, and all judges command international respect precisely because they determine actual legal disputes independently and impartially, and we should hesitate before placing them at the centre as some of the most politically sensitive controversies in international affairs. There is, then, the practical operation of the Bill itself.
And, like the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, I also focussed very much on clause three, which requires the Secretary of State to refer a preliminary determination from our courts to the International Court of Justice. The prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the Security Council or other competent United Nations bodies, but only where jurisdictional requirements are met. And that immediately raises an important question what happens when none of those bodies has jurisdiction? What practical consequences would follow from the preliminary determination of our domestic court? Have we simply therefore created a mechanism which results in a judicial declaration which no international body is capable of acting upon.
All of these points seem to me to be legitimate questions, and I do respectfully suggest that they require fuller answers before Parliament creates an entirely new jurisdiction for our highest domestic courts. And of course, I note that the Bill provides that the Minister can make regulations, but that is not a proper way to legislate in this field. I think Parliament is entitled to see exactly how it would work in practice before deciding whether to pass the bill or not.
None of this, of course, should be taken as diminishing the horror of genocide. I mean, that ought not need to be said, but I say it anyway. Nor, of course, are they criticisms of the noble Lords motives. On the contrary, if I may say respectfully, Lord Alton has provided us a great service by forcing us to confront this very uncomfortable question. How does a government whose long standing policy is that genocide should be determined by courts, respond when no competent international court is realistically capable of acting? I think that is the question underlying the bill.
It is a serious challenge. It deserves a serious response. My point is, is that the fact that there may be a gap does not mean that this bill fills it. And for those reasons, while I look forward to engagingly to engaging always, I hope constructively with the noble Lords as the Bill proceeds. And while I hope we can continue to explore ways of strengthening the United Kingdom's ability both to respond to and to prevent genocide, I cannot support the bill in its present form.
The noble Lord has identified a very important problem. I simply at the moment, remain unpersuaded that this bill provides the correct constitutional answer.
12:31
Lord Katz (Labour)
-
-
Lord Katz (Labour)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool noble Lord Lord Alton of Liverpool for presenting this Bill and like all noble Lords in today's debate, I'd also like to pay tribute to him I'd also like to pay tribute to him for his tireless campaigning on behalf on all these issues, on behalf of so many who have no no voice, both in this House and indeed in an earlier life in the other place. I would like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to today's debate, which, as a noble Lord Lord Alton said, is taking place on the day of the International Day of International Criminal Justice, being the 28th anniversary of the founding of the International Criminal Court.
My Lords, how we consider the crime of genocide is among the most serious foreign policy responsibilities of any government, and as the noble Lord Lord Alton said, my noble friend, the Attorney General does indeed call it the apex crime. That the Genocide Convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, underlines the international community's shared commitment to ensuring the horrors of the Holocaust occur never again. So it's critical that the UK government's position on genocide determination is robust and consistent with our obligations under the convention.
The long standing position of successive British governments fulfils this criterion. That position is that any formal judgement as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent national or international court. After considering all necessary evidence and as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction. This ensures that any determination is impartial, independent and evidence based. And I must say at this point, I have a. I do have sympathy with both the noble Lady Baroness Deech and indeed the.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, of the critique of some of the technical aspects of. Bill of the Bill, especially the legal points around jurisdiction. My Lords. Key partners, including France, Italy and Japan, also refrain from making determinations without a court judgement. In contrast, this bill introduces a novel concept of a preliminary determination by the UK courts and, as we've heard, this has no settled nor solid basis in international law at present. I'm afraid the noble Lords Bill does not suitably consider this point.
And as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson said, there is also the issue of constitutional independence between different branches, Ministers. It is Ministers who are rightly accountable to this, to this Parliament, for decisions around diplomacy and foreign policy. And we should never want our courts to be engaged in that sort of decision making. However, this bill might well lead them to straying into such an area, and we might and indeed places what you might call political as well as legal obligations on the on the Foreign Secretary.
I would want to stress, though, that the UK position does not and has not prevented the UK from taking action. Indeed, atrocity and conflict prevention capability is central to the FCDO. By the end of the year, the department will run 16 training courses and numerous capability building events for staff, and the newly established Conflict Resources Hub integrates guidance, training and evidence based practice, improving accessibility and utility. So this ensures that risks escalate or atrocities occur. We act decisively and quickly, working through diplomatic channels and international institutions to raise the alarm, build consensus, and coordinate action.
This includes the UN, UN Human Rights Council, where our human rights ambassador recently raised the UK's deep concern around the situation in Xinjiang and in Xinjiang. The right reverend Prelate Bishop of Newcastle asked some specific questions about measuring, measuring, measuring risk and prevention and the indicators of risk of genocide are are indeed obviously context specific. The Genocide Convention doesn't provide detail, but we are committed to investing in our systems for early warnings of atrocities. We monitor risks around the around the world, using data sets to assess factors which indicate where atrocities may occur, in line with the UN framework of analysis of atrocity crimes.
In response to the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson of Abinger and others, our atrocity prevention strategy saves lives, upholds international law and break cycles of violence in the financial year 25 to 26, we. We gave £150,000 to support the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and to help those at risk of atrocities. Dedicated atrocity prevention capability continues at the FCDO FCDO, as I said, which has now been integrated into the Humanitarian Directorate, which means better integrated analysis and delivery. I'd say as well as the noble Lady, Baroness Baroness Hodgson, that we are engaging with regional partners and through international organisations to prevent atrocities, particularly in terms of conflict related sexual violence, which you which you raised.
This is, of course, a breach of international law, and we will work with the UK founded International Alliance for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. This is to be clear, a real priority for the Foreign Secretary. I just also would like to say at this point in response to my noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, I just want to stress the FCDO does work with the Metropolitan Police through the War Crimes Network, which brings together relevant parties across government, both in terms of policy and operation and operationally.
The last War Crimes Network meeting was in April 26th, which ensured the closer integration and joint joint working. I think it's probably at this point in time, I want to turn to respond to some of the issues raised specifically in regards to specific conflicts. Firstly, in the context of the suffering caused by Daesh, the UK was a fierce advocate for justice for the Yazidi people. Long before we determined that acts of genocide had taken place at the UN Security Council, we played a leading role in establishing the United Nations investigative team to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh.
We provided £2 million to support the collection of evidence against ISIS crimes, and we work closely with our Iraqi partners to pass the Yazidi Survivors Law in 2021, enabling reparations and support for survivors. While much progress has been made, Daesh, of course, remains a threat and we will continue to work tirelessly with our partners in pursuit of their enduring defeat. And this at this point, I should, of course, recognise that heart wrenching testimony that was given provided to your Lordships' House by Baroness Sanderson around of the heartbreaking story of Saeed and and and his daughter Sheikha.
What is happening is akin to gender persecution. It is abhorrent. Women and girls, girls, my Lords have been specifically targeted and subject to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriages, rape and sexual violence. This is horrific. We'll continue to work closely with Iraqi partners to ensure that all those working with or are held accountable, including through our work as members of the Global Coalition against Daesh. And I'll turn now to Sudan. As mentioned by many noble Lords, particularly by my noble friend Baroness Goudie and my.
And the noble Lord, Lord Lord Cromwell, who has direct personal experience of the. Of the area of living in the area in Sudan. The scale of suffering is unimaginable. The fund. The UN's fact finding mission following the fall of El Fasher last year were alarming. This makes recent reports of the Rapid Support Force offensive at Lord Beith extremely concerning. The world failed the people of El Fasher. We cannot let this happen again. In February we launched the the coalition for Atrocity Prevention Justice in Sudan, uniting the international community around the goal of preventing another El Fasher.
The coalition has already condemned the Sudanese armed Forces strike on LDN teaching hospital and the growing use of drones in this conflict. The Baroness Helic. My noble friend Lord Wills raised the issues, particularly around the action with respect to Lord Beith. I just want to be clear. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister raised the situation at NATO and issued a statement at NATO, as well as a UN, UK and Human Rights Council resolution condemning the atrocities and calling for an urgent inquiry by the UN fact finding mission, which was adopted by consensus.
The noble Lord Lord Cromwell said we were just simply what we were doing, making gestures. I don't think this is quite fair to our actions. We are doing more than gestures. In the case of Sudan, we've sanctioned 24 individuals and entities since the outbreak of the conflict in in in 2023. And I wrote to the I'd also point to the action, my noble friend the Minister, Baroness Chapman, who wrote to the Commons International Development Committee earlier this early this Committee earlier this early this month outlining UK action around.
Around El Fasher and and saying how it had actually impacted on our relationship with the UAE hadn't impacted our actions and our determination to call out call out atrocities when we see them. I'll turn to, to, to, to Gaza in relation to Gaza. I'd like to remind the your Lordships' House in particular, I'd say Baroness noble Lady Baroness D'Souza, who raised it, that one of the government's first acts was to review and suspend export licences against items which might be used by the Israeli Defence Force to commit or facilitate serious violence, violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
In making export licensing decisions, we carefully assess all relevant evidence relating to our obligations under international law, including, where relevant, the Genocide Convention. I would I would at this point, just just gently point out to my noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws when she talks about an omerta, in discussing in discussing Gaza, I would, having spent a lot of time on the front bench with being. Various debates over the past year, plus, I would say that Gaza is a foreign policy issue has been discussed.
I would say more times than any other foreign policy issue. And I'm not saying that isn't that there isn't a good case for it. But I'd say, sadly, it has been also not only in this in this House, but in the other place, potentially at the expense of other places which require attention, for instance, Sudan. I'm very pleased that in today's debate we haven't had that imbalance. And we've paid we've paid attention to a wide variety of of places where, sadly, there are issues that we need to look at.
I want to stress we continue to raise our concerns with Israeli government and counterparts at all levels. In light of the ceasefire, there's been deep relief felt around the world, but we must now see full and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The noble and learned Lord Garnier, and indeed, my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port raise the issue with Myanmar. In March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in in The Gambia versus Myanmar case. This case is now entering its deliberative phase and we welcome the ICJ's consideration.
Since 2021, the UK has imposed 19 rounds of targeted sanctions, including ten individual sanction sanctioned targeting impact of aviation fuel in Myanmar on the International Criminal Court. We continue to stand by the International Criminal Court and its mission to end impunity. To be clear, as the noble Lady Baroness Helic raised it, we very much, very much do firmly support the ICC. We are proud to be one of the court's biggest funders, providing £14.3 million support this year alone.
Our approach to universal jurisdiction is that where there is no apparent link between the UK and the crime, we support the principle that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This reflects the practical advantages of securing the evidence and witnesses necessary for a fair investigation and prosecution. Our approach, as I've said, is similar to key partners including the US, Italy, Japan and France. The most serious international crimes not covered by our approach to universal jurisdiction are often already subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is generally better placed to prosecute such offences where they're not dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities.
My Lords, we are all in agreement that a robust, credible process to determine whether a genocide has occurred is essential to ensuring perpetrators are held to account, and I, like others, would like to thank and pay tribute to Lord Alton Liverpool for giving us yet another opportunity to debate, discuss and try and understand the the the the the the the issues are that are at play here when we are looking to see seek to end the most awful crimes that can be committed around the world as both he and indeed the noble Lord Cromwell rightly said, using the term genocide lazily, irresponsibly and inappropriately can be harmful here in this country, to individuals, to communities and to our society.
And I would suggest that perhaps that's happened in recent weeks and months. This is a serious issue. And so we must, as we've all said, treat this seriously. As I've made clear, genocide determination is no place to introduce novel concepts. And the preliminary determination, which has no basis in international law, is indeed one of those concepts. And this is why we express reservations about this bill. And indeed, I suppose as a counterpoint, why the noble law, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others seem it necessary to to bring this bill before our House at Earl Howe to discuss this.
I want to assure him that my noble friend the Minister, Baroness Chapman, would be very happy to continue discussions with the noble Lord about this important issue. My Lords, we stand firm in our belief that any formal judgement is a matter for competent courts, which have come to a reasonable conclusion after considering all the evidence available as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction. And my Lords and I say this particularly to in response to the very powerful words of my noble friend Lord Cashman, where we can prosecute the crime of genocide, we will.
Where we cannot, we will do all we can to help others, to do so. Through robust legal processes and close international partnership. We can ensure there is no safe haven for perpetrators and that those responsible for these heinous crimes are brought to justice. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope I've addressed them before. Before. My noble friend sits down. I just wanted to say that when I referred to omerta, I was not suggesting that there hadn't been discussion in this House about been discussion in this House about Gaza or about the West Bank. What I was suggesting was that many people was suggesting was that many people around this house feel inhibited about raising this issue, or about raising this issue, or speaking to it, because they feel that they'll be accused of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitism here. To well, I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. To be misunderstood my hon. Friend. To be absolutely clear to me, there is there is there is no in no way can there is there is no in no way can you UQ somebody, myself included, can be very, very critical of the actions of the Israeli government. actions of the Israeli government. That should not be conflated with anti-Semitism, and I. But I also don't think that necessarily don't think that necessarily inhibits any of any member in your Lordships House from making a clear and dispassionate case about what actions are being undertaken by the Israeli government, what they're doing, and indeed their ability at one and the same time to call out anti-Semitism where it occurs in this country or indeed in any country.
And I think probably on that matter, I would hope we are agreed. I hope I've addressed as many questions as I possibly can in in probably far too much time I've taken this morning. But I will, of course, reflect on Hansard and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
undertake to write to any noble Lord Grantchester question. Yes. My Lords. I'd like to thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to thank. All noble Lords. Who have. Contributed to today's important debate and even those who have debate and even those who have disagreed with the principle behind the bill or the practicalities or the specifics. I'm grateful to them the specifics. I'm grateful to them as well, because I think I heard from the noble Lord Lord Wolfson, the noble Lord Lord Katz, from the noble Lord Lord Katz, from their respective front benches, their willingness to go on discussing this.
And that's why I hope the bill will be given the Second Reading today, and that it will go on to Committee stage so that we can have those discussions. I also had a note from the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed, who would very much like to have taken part in today's debate, and I'd like to thank those noble Lords on his benches who have indicated their support for this Bill. Can I say straight away to the those who have spoken against or have entered reservations, but I'm very willing to go on discussing those.
But just as a preliminary. First of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, I'm very happy to take the blame for his becoming involved in politics during his school day. Boys in Liverpool, and thank him for the contribution that he made today, and also the discussions that we've had outside the House about the bill. Yes, there is a gap. He's right about that. How we fill it. I'm perfectly content to accept that there may be various ways of filling it, and I do accept the point that's been made across the House that this would only be one contribution to the filling of that gap.
But we are right to be having that debate. I agree with him. We don't want lawfare. We don't want vexatious cases where I don't agree with him is, would our courts be capable of examining this? I have a particular regard for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, because he comes from the really the very best traditions of our judiciary and our legal profession in this country. And my noble and friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, for whom I have particular regard, and who helped in the framing of this bill, and has given me encouraging in pursuing it, believes that the Court of Sessions in Scotland, or our High Court in England and Wales would be perfectly competent to deal with this question.
As for his reference to article one in the in the Bill, he was right to then just gently remind us there is an article two, and therefore there is a gatekeeper. This would not lead to every vexatious claim appearing before our courts, and we would be. We could be quite discriminating in those that we accept and those that we don't. And there would be a political contribution to that. But for me, this is not a political issue. And this really goes to something that the noble Lord Lord Garnier said to the House in his speech earlier on.
He said that genocide is a political question. And in that I do for once disagree with the noble Lord Lord Garnier. It's a legal question. As the government have said, this government and previous governments on many occasions Baroness Davies have reminded us. They've always said that this is a matter for the courts to determine. Genocide is an international crime. It has a legal definition and therefore it requires a legal assessment. And the regimes in China, Myanmar and many more disregard the determination by a British court.
Maybe they will. But as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Wills and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, the international rules based order requires us to take an approach that is principled and not overshadowed by political considerations. And too often I fear that has been the case. I'd like to say thanks to the noble Lord Lord Katz and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who can't be here today, but for the meeting that they had yesterday with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and myself, where we did discuss a number of these issues.
I won't go over all the arguments, but let me take two points that the noble Lord made. He rightly referred to the many contributions that refer to Sudan. 20 years ago, after I visited Sudan, where 2 to 300,000 people died, 2 million people were displaced. It was decided by the International Criminal Court in a remarkable decision that they arraigned the head of state, Omar al-Bashir, and said he had committed the crime of genocide. The fact that he still walks the earth, never having been brought to justice for any of those crimes, is surely proof positive as to why we need to do something more than simply rely on the courts.
But here I would agree with the noble my noble friend Baroness Deech, about the International Criminal Court itself and the ICJ, and why we need to look again at how they operate. The French some years ago said that we need to look at the veto. The point I raised with the noble Lord yesterday, the veto can and has been always is being used. Take China. They're not going to allow an investigation into the genocide referred to by the noble Lord Lord Garnier.
That's the word the House of Commons decided to use to. What has happened to Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. So that being the case, always a veto being used. The French suggested that maybe we should at least exclude from the right of veto the determination of acts of genocide or indeed other crimes against humanity. And I think there is scope there. My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised a point yesterday that we need further discussion, even around questions of of definition around crimes against humanity.
That was an unsettled point when Lemkin gave us the genocide Convention. And there is still serious discussion taking place about what to do about that. So I hope that we will go on having those discussions. The noble Lord also said it's better to do things in the locality. Well, take what happened in northern Iraq and northern Syria if these cases had ever gone, although we collected the evidence, the British government collected the evidence. The last government did a terrific job in collecting evidence, which is stored now in New York.
No one is doing anything about it. And one of the reasons for that is the local courts in Iraq would use the death penalty. And so we're very hesitant, understandably, in saying they should therefore bring these cases to justice. So we do need to have a rather deeper think about some of those questions. I'd also say to the noble Lord Lord Garnier that some of I have enormous regard for is Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who was the prosecutor of Milosevic. And of course, we heard an amazing contribution from Baroness Helic again today, reminding us about the horrors there.
He chaired an independent tribunal, the equivalent in many ways of a court in this country. They had jurors who listened to the evidence, and he found that in four instances there was no genocide. But in a fifth there was. And he declared there to be a genocide. It was based on that finding that the House of Commons took its decision. So the idea that we wouldn't be competent, capable or right to do such a thing through our courts is not something with which I can agree with him.
My Lords, I can't take and shouldn't take all the time that might now be left. But Mr. Justice Kirby, a brilliant Australian jurist, was asked by the United Nations to chair a commission of inquiry into human rights in North Korea. He found that there had been crimes against humanity. He said it was a state without parallel. His words and he said it should be taken to the International Criminal Court. Guess what? It never has been. And the United Kingdom, to its shame, has never asked the Security Council even to consider the request of a commission that was established by the United Nations, and which found conclusively that there are crimes against humanity.
Now, the idea that no one takes any notice of these things, though I disagree with, because we had evidence here recently from a man called Tae Yong Ho, Tae Yong Ho was the number two in the North Korean embassy in London, and he defected. And he told me that the reason why he left was because he'd often come to Parliament and was so taken by our beliefs, by our system of democracy and our rule of law. And he said that when that decision was made by the tribunal, the commission of inquiry, but they could be arraigned for crimes against humanity.
Official fear spread through the upper echelons of the regime in North Korea. And the relief, he said, was palpable when it was decided that nothing was going to be done about it. So that's the challenge to us to do something about it. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, said. This is an opportunity to strengthen law. My noble friend Lady Sugg, herself a former Minister, said we can't go on repeating the same mantra about it's for a competent court when there isn't one to do it.
Hon. Friend lady de Sousa says this is a focussed bill which is urgently needed. Baroness Kennedy said there shouldn't be exceptions, whether they're our friends or our foes, and I agree with her. And she pointed to the German precedent of a court that was able to determine a genocide, not against a German citizen, but someone who committed genocide against Yazidis. The noble Lord Lord Griffiths of Burry Port pointed to clause three and the failures of international institutions. Baroness Brady Uddin said that without consequences, what is the point of recognition? And I agree with her about that.
This empowers victims, it empowers courts and it disempowers political activists who have no intention in many cases of doing anything, because so often they follow the money rather than the morality. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, who is a good friend on so many of these things, and a noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and others referred to Afghanistan. They go, and they put their hands as the noble Baroness has done, and Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, too. They put their hands into the wounds.
They're not unaffected. They're not left unchallenged, and nor should any of us be too. These are real stories about real people, about which we have a duty to do something. Baroness Goudie emphasised that through her work with Georgetown and the noble Lord Lord Cashman, my old friend talked about the human carnage and the danger of silence and appeasement, and I'm going to finish with words about silence and appeasement. It was a great hero of mine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who did speak out against the horrors of Nazism.
One of the few who did. Too many collaborated, too many were indifferent. And that great Protestant theologian said not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act. This may not be a perfect bill, but it does give us an opportunity to act. And in that spirit, I commend it to the House. And I beg to differ.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be now read a second time, as many of the opinions say, content. The of the opinions say, content. The country is not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate. My Lords, if I if I can we move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, if I if I can we move on. I'm grateful to her. But before we do that, I'd like to ask the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House to commit this to a Committee of the whole House. My Lords, the question is that this bill be committed to a this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. With apologies for my eagerness to. The noble Lord Alton apologies, the enthusiasm of the newbie, as he the enthusiasm of the newbie, as he says. My Lords, before we begin the debate, I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking House that the advisory speaking time is four minutes for backbench contributions. This is to allow all colleagues to participate fairly and the House to rise at a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reasonable time around 3 p.m. My Lords will pause for a second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords will pause for a second My My Lords Second Reading of the Cohabitation Rights Bill Lord Marks of Henley on Thames.
My Lords, how we consider the crime of genocide is among the most serious foreign policy responsibilities of any government, and as the noble Lord Lord Alton said, my noble friend, the Attorney General does indeed call it the apex crime. That the Genocide Convention was adopted unanimously by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948, underlines the international community's shared commitment to ensuring the horrors of the Holocaust occur never again. So it's critical that the UK government's position on genocide determination is robust and consistent with our obligations under the convention.
The long standing position of successive British governments fulfils this criterion. That position is that any formal judgement as to whether genocide has occurred is a matter for competent national or international court. After considering all necessary evidence and as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction. This ensures that any determination is impartial, independent and evidence based. And I must say at this point, I have a. I do have sympathy with both the noble Lady Baroness Deech and indeed the.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, of the critique of some of the technical aspects of. Bill of the Bill, especially the legal points around jurisdiction. My Lords. Key partners, including France, Italy and Japan, also refrain from making determinations without a court judgement. In contrast, this bill introduces a novel concept of a preliminary determination by the UK courts and, as we've heard, this has no settled nor solid basis in international law at present. I'm afraid the noble Lords Bill does not suitably consider this point.
And as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson said, there is also the issue of constitutional independence between different branches, Ministers. It is Ministers who are rightly accountable to this, to this Parliament, for decisions around diplomacy and foreign policy. And we should never want our courts to be engaged in that sort of decision making. However, this bill might well lead them to straying into such an area, and we might and indeed places what you might call political as well as legal obligations on the on the Foreign Secretary.
I would want to stress, though, that the UK position does not and has not prevented the UK from taking action. Indeed, atrocity and conflict prevention capability is central to the FCDO. By the end of the year, the department will run 16 training courses and numerous capability building events for staff, and the newly established Conflict Resources Hub integrates guidance, training and evidence based practice, improving accessibility and utility. So this ensures that risks escalate or atrocities occur. We act decisively and quickly, working through diplomatic channels and international institutions to raise the alarm, build consensus, and coordinate action.
This includes the UN, UN Human Rights Council, where our human rights ambassador recently raised the UK's deep concern around the situation in Xinjiang and in Xinjiang. The right reverend Prelate Bishop of Newcastle asked some specific questions about measuring, measuring, measuring risk and prevention and the indicators of risk of genocide are are indeed obviously context specific. The Genocide Convention doesn't provide detail, but we are committed to investing in our systems for early warnings of atrocities. We monitor risks around the around the world, using data sets to assess factors which indicate where atrocities may occur, in line with the UN framework of analysis of atrocity crimes.
In response to the noble Lady Baroness Hodgson of Abinger and others, our atrocity prevention strategy saves lives, upholds international law and break cycles of violence in the financial year 25 to 26, we. We gave £150,000 to support the Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect and to help those at risk of atrocities. Dedicated atrocity prevention capability continues at the FCDO FCDO, as I said, which has now been integrated into the Humanitarian Directorate, which means better integrated analysis and delivery. I'd say as well as the noble Lady, Baroness Baroness Hodgson, that we are engaging with regional partners and through international organisations to prevent atrocities, particularly in terms of conflict related sexual violence, which you which you raised.
This is, of course, a breach of international law, and we will work with the UK founded International Alliance for Preventing Sexual Violence in Conflict. This is to be clear, a real priority for the Foreign Secretary. I just also would like to say at this point in response to my noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, I just want to stress the FCDO does work with the Metropolitan Police through the War Crimes Network, which brings together relevant parties across government, both in terms of policy and operation and operationally.
The last War Crimes Network meeting was in April 26th, which ensured the closer integration and joint joint working. I think it's probably at this point in time, I want to turn to respond to some of the issues raised specifically in regards to specific conflicts. Firstly, in the context of the suffering caused by Daesh, the UK was a fierce advocate for justice for the Yazidi people. Long before we determined that acts of genocide had taken place at the UN Security Council, we played a leading role in establishing the United Nations investigative team to promote accountability for crimes committed by Daesh.
We provided £2 million to support the collection of evidence against ISIS crimes, and we work closely with our Iraqi partners to pass the Yazidi Survivors Law in 2021, enabling reparations and support for survivors. While much progress has been made, Daesh, of course, remains a threat and we will continue to work tirelessly with our partners in pursuit of their enduring defeat. And this at this point, I should, of course, recognise that heart wrenching testimony that was given provided to your Lordships' House by Baroness Sanderson around of the heartbreaking story of Saeed and and and his daughter Sheikha.
What is happening is akin to gender persecution. It is abhorrent. Women and girls, girls, my Lords have been specifically targeted and subject to abductions, forced conversions, forced marriages, rape and sexual violence. This is horrific. We'll continue to work closely with Iraqi partners to ensure that all those working with or are held accountable, including through our work as members of the Global Coalition against Daesh. And I'll turn now to Sudan. As mentioned by many noble Lords, particularly by my noble friend Baroness Goudie and my.
And the noble Lord, Lord Lord Cromwell, who has direct personal experience of the. Of the area of living in the area in Sudan. The scale of suffering is unimaginable. The fund. The UN's fact finding mission following the fall of El Fasher last year were alarming. This makes recent reports of the Rapid Support Force offensive at Lord Beith extremely concerning. The world failed the people of El Fasher. We cannot let this happen again. In February we launched the the coalition for Atrocity Prevention Justice in Sudan, uniting the international community around the goal of preventing another El Fasher.
The coalition has already condemned the Sudanese armed Forces strike on LDN teaching hospital and the growing use of drones in this conflict. The Baroness Helic. My noble friend Lord Wills raised the issues, particularly around the action with respect to Lord Beith. I just want to be clear. Earlier this month, the Prime Minister raised the situation at NATO and issued a statement at NATO, as well as a UN, UK and Human Rights Council resolution condemning the atrocities and calling for an urgent inquiry by the UN fact finding mission, which was adopted by consensus.
The noble Lord Lord Cromwell said we were just simply what we were doing, making gestures. I don't think this is quite fair to our actions. We are doing more than gestures. In the case of Sudan, we've sanctioned 24 individuals and entities since the outbreak of the conflict in in in 2023. And I wrote to the I'd also point to the action, my noble friend the Minister, Baroness Chapman, who wrote to the Commons International Development Committee earlier this early this Committee earlier this early this month outlining UK action around.
Around El Fasher and and saying how it had actually impacted on our relationship with the UAE hadn't impacted our actions and our determination to call out call out atrocities when we see them. I'll turn to, to, to, to Gaza in relation to Gaza. I'd like to remind the your Lordships' House in particular, I'd say Baroness noble Lady Baroness D'Souza, who raised it, that one of the government's first acts was to review and suspend export licences against items which might be used by the Israeli Defence Force to commit or facilitate serious violence, violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.
In making export licensing decisions, we carefully assess all relevant evidence relating to our obligations under international law, including, where relevant, the Genocide Convention. I would I would at this point, just just gently point out to my noble friend Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws when she talks about an omerta, in discussing in discussing Gaza, I would, having spent a lot of time on the front bench with being. Various debates over the past year, plus, I would say that Gaza is a foreign policy issue has been discussed.
I would say more times than any other foreign policy issue. And I'm not saying that isn't that there isn't a good case for it. But I'd say, sadly, it has been also not only in this in this House, but in the other place, potentially at the expense of other places which require attention, for instance, Sudan. I'm very pleased that in today's debate we haven't had that imbalance. And we've paid we've paid attention to a wide variety of of places where, sadly, there are issues that we need to look at.
I want to stress we continue to raise our concerns with Israeli government and counterparts at all levels. In light of the ceasefire, there's been deep relief felt around the world, but we must now see full and unimpeded provision of humanitarian assistance into Gaza. The noble and learned Lord Garnier, and indeed, my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port raise the issue with Myanmar. In March 2025, the UK submitted written observations to the ICJ in in The Gambia versus Myanmar case. This case is now entering its deliberative phase and we welcome the ICJ's consideration.
Since 2021, the UK has imposed 19 rounds of targeted sanctions, including ten individual sanction sanctioned targeting impact of aviation fuel in Myanmar on the International Criminal Court. We continue to stand by the International Criminal Court and its mission to end impunity. To be clear, as the noble Lady Baroness Helic raised it, we very much, very much do firmly support the ICC. We are proud to be one of the court's biggest funders, providing £14.3 million support this year alone.
Our approach to universal jurisdiction is that where there is no apparent link between the UK and the crime, we support the principle that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This reflects the practical advantages of securing the evidence and witnesses necessary for a fair investigation and prosecution. Our approach, as I've said, is similar to key partners including the US, Italy, Japan and France. The most serious international crimes not covered by our approach to universal jurisdiction are often already subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC, which is generally better placed to prosecute such offences where they're not dealt with by the relevant domestic authorities.
My Lords, we are all in agreement that a robust, credible process to determine whether a genocide has occurred is essential to ensuring perpetrators are held to account, and I, like others, would like to thank and pay tribute to Lord Alton Liverpool for giving us yet another opportunity to debate, discuss and try and understand the the the the the the the issues are that are at play here when we are looking to see seek to end the most awful crimes that can be committed around the world as both he and indeed the noble Lord Cromwell rightly said, using the term genocide lazily, irresponsibly and inappropriately can be harmful here in this country, to individuals, to communities and to our society.
And I would suggest that perhaps that's happened in recent weeks and months. This is a serious issue. And so we must, as we've all said, treat this seriously. As I've made clear, genocide determination is no place to introduce novel concepts. And the preliminary determination, which has no basis in international law, is indeed one of those concepts. And this is why we express reservations about this bill. And indeed, I suppose as a counterpoint, why the noble law, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and others seem it necessary to to bring this bill before our House at Earl Howe to discuss this.
I want to assure him that my noble friend the Minister, Baroness Chapman, would be very happy to continue discussions with the noble Lord about this important issue. My Lords, we stand firm in our belief that any formal judgement is a matter for competent courts, which have come to a reasonable conclusion after considering all the evidence available as part of a credible judicial process, including appropriate jurisdiction. And my Lords and I say this particularly to in response to the very powerful words of my noble friend Lord Cashman, where we can prosecute the crime of genocide, we will.
Where we cannot, we will do all we can to help others, to do so. Through robust legal processes and close international partnership. We can ensure there is no safe haven for perpetrators and that those responsible for these heinous crimes are brought to justice. And
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I hope I've addressed them before. Before. My noble friend sits down. I just wanted to say that when I referred to omerta, I was not suggesting that there hadn't been discussion in this House about been discussion in this House about Gaza or about the West Bank. What I was suggesting was that many people was suggesting was that many people around this house feel inhibited about raising this issue, or about raising this issue, or speaking to it, because they feel that they'll be accused of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anti-Semitism here. To well, I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. To be misunderstood my hon. Friend. To be absolutely clear to me, there is there is there is no in no way can there is there is no in no way can you UQ somebody, myself included, can be very, very critical of the actions of the Israeli government. actions of the Israeli government. That should not be conflated with anti-Semitism, and I. But I also don't think that necessarily don't think that necessarily inhibits any of any member in your Lordships House from making a clear and dispassionate case about what actions are being undertaken by the Israeli government, what they're doing, and indeed their ability at one and the same time to call out anti-Semitism where it occurs in this country or indeed in any country.
And I think probably on that matter, I would hope we are agreed. I hope I've addressed as many questions as I possibly can in in probably far too much time I've taken this morning. But I will, of course, reflect on Hansard and
**** Possible New Speaker ****
undertake to write to any noble Lord Grantchester question. Yes. My Lords. I'd like to thank.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
I'd like to thank. All noble Lords. Who have. Contributed to today's important debate and even those who have debate and even those who have disagreed with the principle behind the bill or the practicalities or the specifics. I'm grateful to them the specifics. I'm grateful to them as well, because I think I heard from the noble Lord Lord Wolfson, the noble Lord Lord Katz, from the noble Lord Lord Katz, from their respective front benches, their willingness to go on discussing this.
And that's why I hope the bill will be given the Second Reading today, and that it will go on to Committee stage so that we can have those discussions. I also had a note from the noble Lord Lord Purvis of Tweed, who would very much like to have taken part in today's debate, and I'd like to thank those noble Lords on his benches who have indicated their support for this Bill. Can I say straight away to the those who have spoken against or have entered reservations, but I'm very willing to go on discussing those.
But just as a preliminary. First of all, to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, I'm very happy to take the blame for his becoming involved in politics during his school day. Boys in Liverpool, and thank him for the contribution that he made today, and also the discussions that we've had outside the House about the bill. Yes, there is a gap. He's right about that. How we fill it. I'm perfectly content to accept that there may be various ways of filling it, and I do accept the point that's been made across the House that this would only be one contribution to the filling of that gap.
But we are right to be having that debate. I agree with him. We don't want lawfare. We don't want vexatious cases where I don't agree with him is, would our courts be capable of examining this? I have a particular regard for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, because he comes from the really the very best traditions of our judiciary and our legal profession in this country. And my noble and friend, Lord Hope of Craighead, for whom I have particular regard, and who helped in the framing of this bill, and has given me encouraging in pursuing it, believes that the Court of Sessions in Scotland, or our High Court in England and Wales would be perfectly competent to deal with this question.
As for his reference to article one in the in the Bill, he was right to then just gently remind us there is an article two, and therefore there is a gatekeeper. This would not lead to every vexatious claim appearing before our courts, and we would be. We could be quite discriminating in those that we accept and those that we don't. And there would be a political contribution to that. But for me, this is not a political issue. And this really goes to something that the noble Lord Lord Garnier said to the House in his speech earlier on.
He said that genocide is a political question. And in that I do for once disagree with the noble Lord Lord Garnier. It's a legal question. As the government have said, this government and previous governments on many occasions Baroness Davies have reminded us. They've always said that this is a matter for the courts to determine. Genocide is an international crime. It has a legal definition and therefore it requires a legal assessment. And the regimes in China, Myanmar and many more disregard the determination by a British court.
Maybe they will. But as emphasised by my noble friend Lord Wills and Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws, the international rules based order requires us to take an approach that is principled and not overshadowed by political considerations. And too often I fear that has been the case. I'd like to say thanks to the noble Lord Lord Katz and the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, who can't be here today, but for the meeting that they had yesterday with my noble friend Lady Kennedy and myself, where we did discuss a number of these issues.
I won't go over all the arguments, but let me take two points that the noble Lord made. He rightly referred to the many contributions that refer to Sudan. 20 years ago, after I visited Sudan, where 2 to 300,000 people died, 2 million people were displaced. It was decided by the International Criminal Court in a remarkable decision that they arraigned the head of state, Omar al-Bashir, and said he had committed the crime of genocide. The fact that he still walks the earth, never having been brought to justice for any of those crimes, is surely proof positive as to why we need to do something more than simply rely on the courts.
But here I would agree with the noble my noble friend Baroness Deech, about the International Criminal Court itself and the ICJ, and why we need to look again at how they operate. The French some years ago said that we need to look at the veto. The point I raised with the noble Lord yesterday, the veto can and has been always is being used. Take China. They're not going to allow an investigation into the genocide referred to by the noble Lord Lord Garnier.
That's the word the House of Commons decided to use to. What has happened to Uyghur Muslims in Xinjiang. So that being the case, always a veto being used. The French suggested that maybe we should at least exclude from the right of veto the determination of acts of genocide or indeed other crimes against humanity. And I think there is scope there. My noble friend Lady Kennedy raised a point yesterday that we need further discussion, even around questions of of definition around crimes against humanity.
That was an unsettled point when Lemkin gave us the genocide Convention. And there is still serious discussion taking place about what to do about that. So I hope that we will go on having those discussions. The noble Lord also said it's better to do things in the locality. Well, take what happened in northern Iraq and northern Syria if these cases had ever gone, although we collected the evidence, the British government collected the evidence. The last government did a terrific job in collecting evidence, which is stored now in New York.
No one is doing anything about it. And one of the reasons for that is the local courts in Iraq would use the death penalty. And so we're very hesitant, understandably, in saying they should therefore bring these cases to justice. So we do need to have a rather deeper think about some of those questions. I'd also say to the noble Lord Lord Garnier that some of I have enormous regard for is Sir Geoffrey Nice KC, who was the prosecutor of Milosevic. And of course, we heard an amazing contribution from Baroness Helic again today, reminding us about the horrors there.
He chaired an independent tribunal, the equivalent in many ways of a court in this country. They had jurors who listened to the evidence, and he found that in four instances there was no genocide. But in a fifth there was. And he declared there to be a genocide. It was based on that finding that the House of Commons took its decision. So the idea that we wouldn't be competent, capable or right to do such a thing through our courts is not something with which I can agree with him.
My Lords, I can't take and shouldn't take all the time that might now be left. But Mr. Justice Kirby, a brilliant Australian jurist, was asked by the United Nations to chair a commission of inquiry into human rights in North Korea. He found that there had been crimes against humanity. He said it was a state without parallel. His words and he said it should be taken to the International Criminal Court. Guess what? It never has been. And the United Kingdom, to its shame, has never asked the Security Council even to consider the request of a commission that was established by the United Nations, and which found conclusively that there are crimes against humanity.
Now, the idea that no one takes any notice of these things, though I disagree with, because we had evidence here recently from a man called Tae Yong Ho, Tae Yong Ho was the number two in the North Korean embassy in London, and he defected. And he told me that the reason why he left was because he'd often come to Parliament and was so taken by our beliefs, by our system of democracy and our rule of law. And he said that when that decision was made by the tribunal, the commission of inquiry, but they could be arraigned for crimes against humanity.
Official fear spread through the upper echelons of the regime in North Korea. And the relief, he said, was palpable when it was decided that nothing was going to be done about it. So that's the challenge to us to do something about it. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Newcastle, said. This is an opportunity to strengthen law. My noble friend Lady Sugg, herself a former Minister, said we can't go on repeating the same mantra about it's for a competent court when there isn't one to do it.
Hon. Friend lady de Sousa says this is a focussed bill which is urgently needed. Baroness Kennedy said there shouldn't be exceptions, whether they're our friends or our foes, and I agree with her. And she pointed to the German precedent of a court that was able to determine a genocide, not against a German citizen, but someone who committed genocide against Yazidis. The noble Lord Lord Griffiths of Burry Port pointed to clause three and the failures of international institutions. Baroness Brady Uddin said that without consequences, what is the point of recognition? And I agree with her about that.
This empowers victims, it empowers courts and it disempowers political activists who have no intention in many cases of doing anything, because so often they follow the money rather than the morality. The noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson, who is a good friend on so many of these things, and a noble Baroness, Lady Sanderson, and others referred to Afghanistan. They go, and they put their hands as the noble Baroness has done, and Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, too. They put their hands into the wounds.
They're not unaffected. They're not left unchallenged, and nor should any of us be too. These are real stories about real people, about which we have a duty to do something. Baroness Goudie emphasised that through her work with Georgetown and the noble Lord Lord Cashman, my old friend talked about the human carnage and the danger of silence and appeasement, and I'm going to finish with words about silence and appeasement. It was a great hero of mine, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who did speak out against the horrors of Nazism.
One of the few who did. Too many collaborated, too many were indifferent. And that great Protestant theologian said not to speak is to speak, not to act is to act. This may not be a perfect bill, but it does give us an opportunity to act. And in that spirit, I commend it to the House. And I beg to differ.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The question is that this bill be now read a second time, as many of the opinions say, content. The of the opinions say, content. The country is not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
debate. My Lords, if I if I can we move
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, if I if I can we move on. I'm grateful to her. But before we do that, I'd like to ask the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
House to commit this to a Committee of the whole House. My Lords, the question is that this bill be committed to a this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House, as many of that opinion will say, content. The contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
The contents have it. With apologies for my eagerness to. The noble Lord Alton apologies, the enthusiasm of the newbie, as he the enthusiasm of the newbie, as he says. My Lords, before we begin the debate, I would like to remind the House that the advisory speaking House that the advisory speaking time is four minutes for backbench contributions. This is to allow all colleagues to participate fairly and the House to rise at a
**** Possible New Speaker ****
reasonable time around 3 p.m. My Lords will pause for a second
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords will pause for a second My My Lords Second Reading of the Cohabitation Rights Bill Lord Marks of Henley on Thames.
12:59
Legislation: Cohabitation Rights Bill - second reading
-
Legislation: Cohabitation Rights Bill - second reading
My Lords, I beg to move that >> My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My Lords, this is not the first time I have introduced a Bill in this form which closely follows the Law Commission recommendations for Financial relief for Cohabitants in 2007, and for improving Cohabitants position on the death of an interstate partner in 2011. However, we now have a real prospect of achieving worthwhile reform for Cohabitants.
That is because this government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. As part of fulfilling that commitment, the government on the 5th of June opened a consultation on a set of proposals it was considering. This is due to close on the 14th of August, and is very good news for those of us who have long sought reform in this area, including a majority of practitioners, judges and the specialist family law associations, including resolution, the Family Law Bar Association and others.
So, my Lords, why is there a need for reform? The House of Commons Women's and Equalities Committee reported in 2022 that
That is because this government made a manifesto commitment to strengthen the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples. As part of fulfilling that commitment, the government on the 5th of June opened a consultation on a set of proposals it was considering. This is due to close on the 14th of August, and is very good news for those of us who have long sought reform in this area, including a majority of practitioners, judges and the specialist family law associations, including resolution, the Family Law Bar Association and others.
So, my Lords, why is there a need for reform? The House of Commons Women's and Equalities Committee reported in 2022 that
13:00
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
there were an estimated 3.6 million unmarried couples cohabiting in the United Kingdom, roughly a fifth of all couples and a well over double the figure in 1996, 26 years earlier. Yet although cohabitation is so widespread and increasing so fast, nearly half the public still fast, nearly half the public still believe that cohabitation over a period or a couple's having a child gives rise to a so-called common law marriage, bringing with it financial rights. If they separate this false understanding, the common law marriage myth is just that a myth.
There are in reality virtually no financial rights protecting cohabitants who separate. It is true that couples can enter into formal cohabitation agreements to regulate their financial affairs, provide for ownership of assets and for the consequences of separation. But very few couples make them, and if they don't, they are thrown back on outdated and unwieldy trusts. Law by which a partner can claim a share in the property that's in the name of the other. If, but only if, they can establish that this was the joint intention of the parties.
And even then, the shares are difficult to determine. There is also an entitlement to child maintenance, but even that's limited in extent, and to secure more requires an application under the Children Act, which is costly and complex, and very few such applications are in fact made. So currently one cohabitant who may have given up career or home or both to live with the other, or invested all their efforts and resources into supporting their partner's business, home, life or childcare needs is left on separation without any recourse.
Then, if one partner dies without a will, current intestacy rules provide nothing for the surviving partner. The deceased's estate, often including the couple's home, goes to the relatives of the partner who died often children from a previous relationship who may have no goodwill towards the surviving partner. So unless the surviving partner's name was on the deeds, they get nothing and may be left homeless and may be a right to apply for some provision. Under legislation passed in 1975, but that requires proof of dependency.
Both this bill and the government's consultation proposals seek to address this unfairness by providing for financial relief on the breakdown of cohabitation and by reforming what happens on the death of an intestate partner. The two sets of proposals have much in common. Both would require either three years of cohabitation as a couple with the same sex or opposite sex, or the arrival of a child before any claim could arise. Both would require that any claim be brought within two years of separation.
Both would exclude couples who would be prohibited to marry because of close family relationships. Both would permit couples to enter into formal opt out agreements, excluding applications. Under these proposals, and both would allow a broad range of remedies, including property adjustment orders, lump sum orders and pension sharing orders. The consultation proposals would also allow for maintenance for a limited time in exceptional cases. My bill would not provide for maintenance orders, although a lump sum could be payable in instalments.
Importantly, neither set of proposals would treat cohabiting couples as if they were married or in a civil partnership. Marriage and civil partnerships have a special status in law and in conscience. The consultation considers separate proposals to develop, simplify and clarify financial relief on divorce or dissolution. But those are irrelevant to this bill. They recognise that marriage embodies a commitment to mutual support and sharing, hence the provision on divorce for continuing maintenance where income dependence is established.
The proposals in my Bill for relief for separating Cohabitants are intended to address unfairness and exploitation, so contributions by one partner who makes financial sacrifices for the other should carry recompense. My bill reflects the Law Commission's proposals for what they called retained benefit to be removed, and for any residual economic disadvantage to be shared between the parties. That may seem to some a complicated approach, but it seeks to address equitably the unfairness of one party profiting from a cohabiting relationship and walking away, the richer for it, leaving the other party correspondingly poorer on separation.
That is unjust. At worst, it's exploitative, and it needs addressing. There are, however, two differences of substance between the proposals in my Bill and the thrust of the proposals under consideration in the consultation paper. First, the government's proposals expressly mark a step towards fulfilling its manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Now, I applaud and share that aim, and I agree that financial relief for separating Cohabitants would support that aim in cases which did involve violence or coercion.
But these proposals, I suggest, need to be of general application whenever separation after cohabitation would lead to unfairness and less relief for granted. Whether or not domestic abuse is a feature. The second difference is more significant. Although the concepts of reversing retained benefit and sharing economic disadvantage may be ever complicated, and I would readily consider amendments to simplify them, I am concerned that the government seems to have rejected compensation as a basis for relief on Cohabitants separation.
Their proposals are based on only on the financially weaker party's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
financial Needs. However, the requirement
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Needs. However, the requirement for relief often arises because one party has unjustly benefited from party has unjustly benefited from sacrifices made by the other, so that the benefiting party ought, in fairness, to disgorge benefit achieved at the expense of the other. And this injustice arises irrespective of need to pose an example. A man gives up his lucrative career to look after the party's child and to work on renovating his partner's house, all to enable his enable his partner to pursue her acting career.
She becomes a successful actor on the back, partly of his efforts. Why should she keep the house and all the benefits of his contributions, for which he gets no recognition? The injustice does not arise from his needs. He may be unable to earn a living himself. It arises from his sacrifices for her benefit. My Lords, these are interesting issues on which there may be competing answers. I have not sought to go through all the provisions of my bill in detail, because what is now important is for the government to collect and consider the consultation responses.
However, I much look forward to engaging with the noble Lady, the Minister and with the government on these proposals and making progress on this difficult area where there is now widespread recognition of an unmet need. My Lords, I beg to move your.
There are in reality virtually no financial rights protecting cohabitants who separate. It is true that couples can enter into formal cohabitation agreements to regulate their financial affairs, provide for ownership of assets and for the consequences of separation. But very few couples make them, and if they don't, they are thrown back on outdated and unwieldy trusts. Law by which a partner can claim a share in the property that's in the name of the other. If, but only if, they can establish that this was the joint intention of the parties.
And even then, the shares are difficult to determine. There is also an entitlement to child maintenance, but even that's limited in extent, and to secure more requires an application under the Children Act, which is costly and complex, and very few such applications are in fact made. So currently one cohabitant who may have given up career or home or both to live with the other, or invested all their efforts and resources into supporting their partner's business, home, life or childcare needs is left on separation without any recourse.
Then, if one partner dies without a will, current intestacy rules provide nothing for the surviving partner. The deceased's estate, often including the couple's home, goes to the relatives of the partner who died often children from a previous relationship who may have no goodwill towards the surviving partner. So unless the surviving partner's name was on the deeds, they get nothing and may be left homeless and may be a right to apply for some provision. Under legislation passed in 1975, but that requires proof of dependency.
Both this bill and the government's consultation proposals seek to address this unfairness by providing for financial relief on the breakdown of cohabitation and by reforming what happens on the death of an intestate partner. The two sets of proposals have much in common. Both would require either three years of cohabitation as a couple with the same sex or opposite sex, or the arrival of a child before any claim could arise. Both would require that any claim be brought within two years of separation.
Both would exclude couples who would be prohibited to marry because of close family relationships. Both would permit couples to enter into formal opt out agreements, excluding applications. Under these proposals, and both would allow a broad range of remedies, including property adjustment orders, lump sum orders and pension sharing orders. The consultation proposals would also allow for maintenance for a limited time in exceptional cases. My bill would not provide for maintenance orders, although a lump sum could be payable in instalments.
Importantly, neither set of proposals would treat cohabiting couples as if they were married or in a civil partnership. Marriage and civil partnerships have a special status in law and in conscience. The consultation considers separate proposals to develop, simplify and clarify financial relief on divorce or dissolution. But those are irrelevant to this bill. They recognise that marriage embodies a commitment to mutual support and sharing, hence the provision on divorce for continuing maintenance where income dependence is established.
The proposals in my Bill for relief for separating Cohabitants are intended to address unfairness and exploitation, so contributions by one partner who makes financial sacrifices for the other should carry recompense. My bill reflects the Law Commission's proposals for what they called retained benefit to be removed, and for any residual economic disadvantage to be shared between the parties. That may seem to some a complicated approach, but it seeks to address equitably the unfairness of one party profiting from a cohabiting relationship and walking away, the richer for it, leaving the other party correspondingly poorer on separation.
That is unjust. At worst, it's exploitative, and it needs addressing. There are, however, two differences of substance between the proposals in my Bill and the thrust of the proposals under consideration in the consultation paper. First, the government's proposals expressly mark a step towards fulfilling its manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls in a decade. Now, I applaud and share that aim, and I agree that financial relief for separating Cohabitants would support that aim in cases which did involve violence or coercion.
But these proposals, I suggest, need to be of general application whenever separation after cohabitation would lead to unfairness and less relief for granted. Whether or not domestic abuse is a feature. The second difference is more significant. Although the concepts of reversing retained benefit and sharing economic disadvantage may be ever complicated, and I would readily consider amendments to simplify them, I am concerned that the government seems to have rejected compensation as a basis for relief on Cohabitants separation.
Their proposals are based on only on the financially weaker party's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
financial Needs. However, the requirement
**** Possible New Speaker ****
Needs. However, the requirement for relief often arises because one party has unjustly benefited from party has unjustly benefited from sacrifices made by the other, so that the benefiting party ought, in fairness, to disgorge benefit achieved at the expense of the other. And this injustice arises irrespective of need to pose an example. A man gives up his lucrative career to look after the party's child and to work on renovating his partner's house, all to enable his enable his partner to pursue her acting career.
She becomes a successful actor on the back, partly of his efforts. Why should she keep the house and all the benefits of his contributions, for which he gets no recognition? The injustice does not arise from his needs. He may be unable to earn a living himself. It arises from his sacrifices for her benefit. My Lords, these are interesting issues on which there may be competing answers. I have not sought to go through all the provisions of my bill in detail, because what is now important is for the government to collect and consider the consultation responses.
However, I much look forward to engaging with the noble Lady, the Minister and with the government on these proposals and making progress on this difficult area where there is now widespread recognition of an unmet need. My Lords, I beg to move your.
13:10
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Second time. >> My Lords, I'm delighted to be able to support the noble Lord Lord Marks in introducing his Second Marks in introducing his Second Reading to this cohabitation Cohabitation Rights Bill. In layman's language, I suppose one could call it the unmarried couple's divorce bill, but it really does, I think, reflect modern societal. Habits and ways of living. And I think it is time that Parliament legislated for this, this reality. My noble friend, the noble Lord, brings with him considerable experience.
I believe it's right that when he began his career at the bar, he was a family law practitioner. And so he brings with him his expertise in that field, to this to this bill. I am nonetheless somewhat fearful that the person succeeding me in this debate is the noble and learned Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, a former president of the Family division. So I shall keep my remarks both short, but also, I hope, moderately uncontroversial, as I hope this bill is.
And I also hope, following on from what the noble Lord said a moment ago, that the government which gave a manifesto commitment along these lines, and the noble Lord can amalgamate their efforts to produce one bill which all of us can support. But if it has the advantage of government backing and the assistance of the of the Civil Service and so on, well, then, it seems to me that we can produce at speed a bill which is fit for purpose and will achieve the justice and the humanity which the noble Lord speaks of.
There will be many issues, I'm sure, of detail in relation to financial settlement orders and financial relief. The difference between whether there should be periodic payment allowed or simply lump sum payments allowed, and so on and so on and so on. But these are matters that can, I hope, be discussed between the two parties. That's to say, the government and the noble Lord, and, if necessary, ironed out in committee. But essentially this is an idea that has been long in development.
As Lord Marks indicated, I seem to remember supporting a bill similar to this, if not exactly introduced into the other place by the late Lord Davies of Stamford, who was then the member of Parliament for Grantham and Stamford, and it had broad support there, but never got much further than a Friday. Friday morning's debate. It seems to me that this, as I said a moment ago, recognises the contemporary societal norms and above all, protects the children of these unions in a way which is fair and right.
And I recognise the the good sense of the example that Lord Marks mentioned just a moment ago about one of the one of the couple working and one of the couple not working and so on. And that seems to be highly important in, in, in, in modern family law, my Lord, unlike so many private members bills, this one has a decent ancestry. That is to say that it flows from a Law Commission recommendation. It is detailed, it is clear, and I'm sure it's capable of improvement.
But nonetheless, it is clear in its purposes and in its and in its effects. And I do hope that this House will give it its support today and allow it to pursue its further passage with the assistance of the government.
I believe it's right that when he began his career at the bar, he was a family law practitioner. And so he brings with him his expertise in that field, to this to this bill. I am nonetheless somewhat fearful that the person succeeding me in this debate is the noble and learned Lady, Lady Butler-sloss, a former president of the Family division. So I shall keep my remarks both short, but also, I hope, moderately uncontroversial, as I hope this bill is.
And I also hope, following on from what the noble Lord said a moment ago, that the government which gave a manifesto commitment along these lines, and the noble Lord can amalgamate their efforts to produce one bill which all of us can support. But if it has the advantage of government backing and the assistance of the of the Civil Service and so on, well, then, it seems to me that we can produce at speed a bill which is fit for purpose and will achieve the justice and the humanity which the noble Lord speaks of.
There will be many issues, I'm sure, of detail in relation to financial settlement orders and financial relief. The difference between whether there should be periodic payment allowed or simply lump sum payments allowed, and so on and so on and so on. But these are matters that can, I hope, be discussed between the two parties. That's to say, the government and the noble Lord, and, if necessary, ironed out in committee. But essentially this is an idea that has been long in development.
As Lord Marks indicated, I seem to remember supporting a bill similar to this, if not exactly introduced into the other place by the late Lord Davies of Stamford, who was then the member of Parliament for Grantham and Stamford, and it had broad support there, but never got much further than a Friday. Friday morning's debate. It seems to me that this, as I said a moment ago, recognises the contemporary societal norms and above all, protects the children of these unions in a way which is fair and right.
And I recognise the the good sense of the example that Lord Marks mentioned just a moment ago about one of the one of the couple working and one of the couple not working and so on. And that seems to be highly important in, in, in, in modern family law, my Lord, unlike so many private members bills, this one has a decent ancestry. That is to say that it flows from a Law Commission recommendation. It is detailed, it is clear, and I'm sure it's capable of improvement.
But nonetheless, it is clear in its purposes and in its and in its effects. And I do hope that this House will give it its support today and allow it to pursue its further passage with the assistance of the government.
13:13
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Butler-Sloss (Crossbench)
Lords. I am very happy often to >> Lords. I am very happy often to bow to the expertise of the noble Lord Lord Garnier, and it's unnecessary for him to be quite so unnecessary for him to be quite so polite about me, so I am grateful to him for it. I supported the noble Lord Lord Marks earlier. Bill, and he was kind enough to send me the link so I could read what I'd said previously. It seems. I think this is a sensible and moderate bill, but the question of course, is much broader.
The question is, should there be any sort of legislation for cohabitation? The government clearly wants it in their manifesto. I've been married for 64 years. I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation, so I've thought with considerable care the extent to which I should, as I do, support this bill, one bears in mind that marriage is and remains the longest living partnerships between parties, and that is greatly to be welcomed. And therefore the question has to be, how far will, if at all, a cohabitation bill affect marriage? I've come to the conclusion.
I really don't think it will. I don't think, because there are the number of people that the noble Lord Lord Marks has said are living together. They've been living together regardless of marriage, and I don't think giving them any rights is going to have very much in the way of change. I think the other question is, should I remember the noble Lady, the Baroness Deech who's speaking today, did refer to this in her previous speech, which is some Cohabitants don't want to have any rules, but I suspect the majority of Cohabitants, certainly in my own family, have drifted into that relationship and have just stayed in it.
And as the noble Lord Marks has pointed out, there is a particular group of people, very often women, but not always. His example was a man where one has a distinct advantage over the other, and I won't repeat what he said, but there is a manifest manifest injustice in the points that he has been making. But the other group, which I think your Lordships probably would not know about, which is why I raise it, is the woman coming from many parts of the world, often from Pakistan, in an arranged marriage, a proper arranged marriage, living in a family in England where they go through the Muslim marriage nikah.
But they don't register the marriage. And when they part. Very often when the husband now has a children, particularly a son, and he doesn't want this woman any longer, she isn't married, she has no rights, she has no visa. Not that I think the noble Lord Lord Marks will include that in the bill. But the fact is she is completely lost and some form of cohabitation, right? Would at least give her the opportunity to live in this country, at least for some period, and not be completely lost, probably with very little English.
So I very concerned about this group. So I've come to conclusion. Regulation is needed. I would like to think that the noble Lady, the Minister, would like to pick up this bill and run with it and add to it the various points that the government would wish to add. It seems to me a very neat way of doing it, but I now strongly support the noble Lords Bill.
The question is, should there be any sort of legislation for cohabitation? The government clearly wants it in their manifesto. I've been married for 64 years. I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation, so I've thought with considerable care the extent to which I should, as I do, support this bill, one bears in mind that marriage is and remains the longest living partnerships between parties, and that is greatly to be welcomed. And therefore the question has to be, how far will, if at all, a cohabitation bill affect marriage? I've come to the conclusion.
I really don't think it will. I don't think, because there are the number of people that the noble Lord Lord Marks has said are living together. They've been living together regardless of marriage, and I don't think giving them any rights is going to have very much in the way of change. I think the other question is, should I remember the noble Lady, the Baroness Deech who's speaking today, did refer to this in her previous speech, which is some Cohabitants don't want to have any rules, but I suspect the majority of Cohabitants, certainly in my own family, have drifted into that relationship and have just stayed in it.
And as the noble Lord Marks has pointed out, there is a particular group of people, very often women, but not always. His example was a man where one has a distinct advantage over the other, and I won't repeat what he said, but there is a manifest manifest injustice in the points that he has been making. But the other group, which I think your Lordships probably would not know about, which is why I raise it, is the woman coming from many parts of the world, often from Pakistan, in an arranged marriage, a proper arranged marriage, living in a family in England where they go through the Muslim marriage nikah.
But they don't register the marriage. And when they part. Very often when the husband now has a children, particularly a son, and he doesn't want this woman any longer, she isn't married, she has no rights, she has no visa. Not that I think the noble Lord Lord Marks will include that in the bill. But the fact is she is completely lost and some form of cohabitation, right? Would at least give her the opportunity to live in this country, at least for some period, and not be completely lost, probably with very little English.
So I very concerned about this group. So I've come to conclusion. Regulation is needed. I would like to think that the noble Lady, the Minister, would like to pick up this bill and run with it and add to it the various points that the government would wish to add. It seems to me a very neat way of doing it, but I now strongly support the noble Lords Bill.
13:17
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Conservative)
What I'm listening to Lord Marks speak has entirely ruined the speak has entirely ruined the speech I had prepared because I was about to become heavily down against this bill, because I come from a very poor community where marriage is almost non-existent and many of our poor social outcomes are related to the fact that marriage is non-existent. But listening to the details in a way that Lord Marks laid them out gives me some ability to, to, to engage in this process and give it another hearing.
But I still want to make the point that for me, I, I declare an interest. I've been married 21 years. Marriage is the gold standard. The government tells us that there is now 3.5 million cohabiting couples in the country, and the law must respect modern relationships and it's. And that's why the government has put this in in has put this before, before, before the House. But my worry is the effect that this will have on poorer communities. Marriage has increasingly become the preserve of the better off part of our community.
87% of those in high income households are married, and in the lowest households, that figure drops to only 24%. Surely our ambition should be to close the marriage gap and not legislate as if it doesn't matter. This debate isn't about judging people. I come from a single parent family. I watched my mother fight tooth and nail every day for the well-being of my brother and I. In fact, she is still expressing her views on every little thing I do to this very day, even though I'm 55 years old.
But almost half of all the teenagers in this country are not living with both of their natural parents. This reflects a scale of family instability in our society. And this matters because secure family is consistently associated with better educational outcomes, better emotional outcomes, and better economic outcomes. Life chances for young people. Ian Rowe, who works with disadvantaged young people in New York, teaches what he calls the success sequence finish school, get a job, marry, have children.
I think the last bit is optional, but research shows that following the sequence gives young people a 97% chance of avoiding poverty. And that, for me, is the function that marriage performs. I come from the community in this country that has the lowest social outcomes, and that is a direct consequence of low instances of marriage. Lord Marks talked very powerfully about the cohabiting myth, the common law marriage myth. But if we weaken the the legal uniqueness of marriage, we run the risk of setting another myth going that you don't need to be married.
But marriage, for me provides a very powerful social uplift. That sequence that I talked about is an ideology. It's social mobility in action. And if we really are interested in boosting the outcomes for the poorest communities in this country, we must support marriage, not legislate against it. If we want to tackle inequality, improve social mobility, reduce poverty, then our task is to make marriage not less distinctive, but more distinctive. It is to make stable, committed family life more achievable for everyone.
So for that reason, I remain slightly sceptical of the bill. But I, like I say, Lord Marks comments I found very powerful, and I'll engage in the process and see how we can build this in order to support the poorest communities, but also give justice to those who are cohabiting.
But I still want to make the point that for me, I, I declare an interest. I've been married 21 years. Marriage is the gold standard. The government tells us that there is now 3.5 million cohabiting couples in the country, and the law must respect modern relationships and it's. And that's why the government has put this in in has put this before, before, before the House. But my worry is the effect that this will have on poorer communities. Marriage has increasingly become the preserve of the better off part of our community.
87% of those in high income households are married, and in the lowest households, that figure drops to only 24%. Surely our ambition should be to close the marriage gap and not legislate as if it doesn't matter. This debate isn't about judging people. I come from a single parent family. I watched my mother fight tooth and nail every day for the well-being of my brother and I. In fact, she is still expressing her views on every little thing I do to this very day, even though I'm 55 years old.
But almost half of all the teenagers in this country are not living with both of their natural parents. This reflects a scale of family instability in our society. And this matters because secure family is consistently associated with better educational outcomes, better emotional outcomes, and better economic outcomes. Life chances for young people. Ian Rowe, who works with disadvantaged young people in New York, teaches what he calls the success sequence finish school, get a job, marry, have children.
I think the last bit is optional, but research shows that following the sequence gives young people a 97% chance of avoiding poverty. And that, for me, is the function that marriage performs. I come from the community in this country that has the lowest social outcomes, and that is a direct consequence of low instances of marriage. Lord Marks talked very powerfully about the cohabiting myth, the common law marriage myth. But if we weaken the the legal uniqueness of marriage, we run the risk of setting another myth going that you don't need to be married.
But marriage, for me provides a very powerful social uplift. That sequence that I talked about is an ideology. It's social mobility in action. And if we really are interested in boosting the outcomes for the poorest communities in this country, we must support marriage, not legislate against it. If we want to tackle inequality, improve social mobility, reduce poverty, then our task is to make marriage not less distinctive, but more distinctive. It is to make stable, committed family life more achievable for everyone.
So for that reason, I remain slightly sceptical of the bill. But I, like I say, Lord Marks comments I found very powerful, and I'll engage in the process and see how we can build this in order to support the poorest communities, but also give justice to those who are cohabiting.
13:22
Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Gohir (Crossbench)
My Lords, I welcome this Bill >> My Lords, I welcome this Bill and thank noble Lord Marks for introducing it. The Bill would provide important legal protections for many financially vulnerable people in cohabiting relationships. It also benefits women in religious only marriages. So I'm going to focus my comments on Muslim women. Around 25% of Muslim women are in marriages that are not legally recognised because they have undergone a religious ceremony in the UK and have not had the additional civil marriage, often through no choice of their own.
And I declare an interest here because that figure is from the Muslim Women's Network helpline, and that's 11 years worth of data. And I just want to pick up on a point that noble Lady Butler-sloss mentioned about the spouses that are arriving from abroad. I just want to point out that any spouses that arrive from abroad, if their marriage is registered abroad according to the laws of that land, they would be recognised as in being in a legally valid marriage. Through our helpline, we have seen that the devastating consequences of the legal gap women who have been in relationships for many years, sometimes decades, well, you know, religious marriages and could find themselves homeless overnight when that relationship ends with no legal right to family, home or financial provision, that situation is often compounded where the women have given up their careers to become homemakers, have been subjected to domestic abuse, financial abuse, economic abuse, and not being able to build up their own savings or have their own income.
Some women are older women whose husbands have simply decided that they want a younger partner and and feel that they can discard their wife. And without any accountability. During the Covid pandemic, we also supported women whose husbands died unexpectedly and because their marriages were not legally recognised, there were cases where they were evicted from their homes by adult children who asserted legal ownership of the property. For these reasons, I strongly welcome the legal and financial protections this bill would provide.
However, I believe the bill needs further clarity on how it would operate. Where an individual maintains more than one household, for example, a person may remain legally married but separated and began a cohabiting relationship with another partner. And then that second relationship breaks down. In other cases, some individuals live with two different partners at separate addresses, with neither partner necessarily being aware of the other where the person spends long periods of of, of their working life away from home. Within some Muslim communities, there has been cases where a man is legally married to one woman through a civil marriage, and then enters into a religious only marriage with another woman.
How would competing claims be resolved? My Lords, clarity is also needed whether the Bill would also apply to. Irrespective of whether a person's immigration status, particularly for those with insecure immigration status, who are often most vulnerable to financial and relationship exploitation. Finally, I welcome the fact that the bill provides a safety net but does not place cohabitation on an equal footing to civil marriage.
And I declare an interest here because that figure is from the Muslim Women's Network helpline, and that's 11 years worth of data. And I just want to pick up on a point that noble Lady Butler-sloss mentioned about the spouses that are arriving from abroad. I just want to point out that any spouses that arrive from abroad, if their marriage is registered abroad according to the laws of that land, they would be recognised as in being in a legally valid marriage. Through our helpline, we have seen that the devastating consequences of the legal gap women who have been in relationships for many years, sometimes decades, well, you know, religious marriages and could find themselves homeless overnight when that relationship ends with no legal right to family, home or financial provision, that situation is often compounded where the women have given up their careers to become homemakers, have been subjected to domestic abuse, financial abuse, economic abuse, and not being able to build up their own savings or have their own income.
Some women are older women whose husbands have simply decided that they want a younger partner and and feel that they can discard their wife. And without any accountability. During the Covid pandemic, we also supported women whose husbands died unexpectedly and because their marriages were not legally recognised, there were cases where they were evicted from their homes by adult children who asserted legal ownership of the property. For these reasons, I strongly welcome the legal and financial protections this bill would provide.
However, I believe the bill needs further clarity on how it would operate. Where an individual maintains more than one household, for example, a person may remain legally married but separated and began a cohabiting relationship with another partner. And then that second relationship breaks down. In other cases, some individuals live with two different partners at separate addresses, with neither partner necessarily being aware of the other where the person spends long periods of of, of their working life away from home. Within some Muslim communities, there has been cases where a man is legally married to one woman through a civil marriage, and then enters into a religious only marriage with another woman.
How would competing claims be resolved? My Lords, clarity is also needed whether the Bill would also apply to. Irrespective of whether a person's immigration status, particularly for those with insecure immigration status, who are often most vulnerable to financial and relationship exploitation. Finally, I welcome the fact that the bill provides a safety net but does not place cohabitation on an equal footing to civil marriage.
13:25
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
-
-
Baroness Deech (Crossbench)
I agree. >> I agree. >> My Lords. >> This bill would impose a far reaching legal regime on millions reaching legal regime on millions of adults who have expressed the chosen not to marry or enter a civil partnership. Just because some may think they have rights is no justification for taking away the liberty of others. Some may not know the law, but a majority do, and we should respect the majority who have acted consciously and not those who will say they didn't know there were no rights.
Article eight of the Human Rights Code protects the right to private and family life, which will be attacked by this bill. Some of the comments that the public have made are interesting. They say in response to my article, I thought that forced marriages were illegal and more of the authoritarian state in terms of certainty and predictability, the scheme is gravely lacking. Litigation will flourish, costs escalate, there will be blackmail to settle coercion and fear. Knowledge of a three year time limit will lead many to walk out.
As they've said before, three years is up. Retrospectivity is contrary to the rule of law and what amounts to cohabitation. There will be investigation of the sexual, domestic and financial scenario, exposure of what should be private and informal. The inheritance rights proposed here would bring more trouble. Why should a surviving cohabitant not named in any will take priority over the children of a previous relationship, creating immediate conflict and unfairness. In fact, Cohabitants already have rights under the Inheritance Provision for Family Independence Act 1975.
Let me also examine those much used words protection and vulnerability. Those words are brandished to appeal to our emotions and drive this issue forward. For a woman, typically the protection she might need at the end of a cohabitation is definitely not the possibility of embarking on litigation with a former partner without legal aid designed to extract from him a meagre amount, most of which will be taken up in costs for cohabitants tend to be less well off than married couples.
The litigation will take a long time. The lead judge of the London Financial Remedies Court has calculated that there would be an extra ten 000 case applications a year, while sitting days are being cut and 88000 cases are waiting. It will be litigation fraught with definition, problems of the sort that appeals to lawyers. And have you noticed, my Lords? It is in fact, only the lawyers who support this legislation. The public don't. The majority of comments on my article in the Guardian on this.
Reject the law. If you want marriage rights, they said get married, keep the government out and the consultees to the Law Commission said the same in 2007. And who is really vulnerable? The children are and there's nothing here to help them. And the government hasn't reformed the maintenance law. Equally vulnerable are single women who may be saddled with childcare and lower pay. The woman who's cared for her elderly parents for years but is not entitled to anything from them.
The sisters who lived together and are disregarded by the law. I wonder why it is that only a sexual relationship brings women within the purview of a law to benefit them. I can find no good answer. Co-habiting couples can choose to marry, enter a civil partnership, make a will, sign an agreement. Ensure each other's lives become joint tenant. Gain property by contributing to the improvement of the other one's property that respects autonomy. This bill does not.
It intrudes into private life. It makes for uncertainty and expense, and opens up new avenues of judicial discretion and lots of lucrative litigation. And if there's a problem with Muslim unrecognised marriages that needs to be solved elsewhere, the bill is well intentioned but profoundly misguided. It's illiberal, intrusive, a bedroom tax. Share your bedroom and you'll pay for it forevermore. Noble Lords should protect freedom to choose one's lifestyle and freedom of contract over deprivation of rights. It is your relationship, your choice.
Article eight of the Human Rights Code protects the right to private and family life, which will be attacked by this bill. Some of the comments that the public have made are interesting. They say in response to my article, I thought that forced marriages were illegal and more of the authoritarian state in terms of certainty and predictability, the scheme is gravely lacking. Litigation will flourish, costs escalate, there will be blackmail to settle coercion and fear. Knowledge of a three year time limit will lead many to walk out.
As they've said before, three years is up. Retrospectivity is contrary to the rule of law and what amounts to cohabitation. There will be investigation of the sexual, domestic and financial scenario, exposure of what should be private and informal. The inheritance rights proposed here would bring more trouble. Why should a surviving cohabitant not named in any will take priority over the children of a previous relationship, creating immediate conflict and unfairness. In fact, Cohabitants already have rights under the Inheritance Provision for Family Independence Act 1975.
Let me also examine those much used words protection and vulnerability. Those words are brandished to appeal to our emotions and drive this issue forward. For a woman, typically the protection she might need at the end of a cohabitation is definitely not the possibility of embarking on litigation with a former partner without legal aid designed to extract from him a meagre amount, most of which will be taken up in costs for cohabitants tend to be less well off than married couples.
The litigation will take a long time. The lead judge of the London Financial Remedies Court has calculated that there would be an extra ten 000 case applications a year, while sitting days are being cut and 88000 cases are waiting. It will be litigation fraught with definition, problems of the sort that appeals to lawyers. And have you noticed, my Lords? It is in fact, only the lawyers who support this legislation. The public don't. The majority of comments on my article in the Guardian on this.
Reject the law. If you want marriage rights, they said get married, keep the government out and the consultees to the Law Commission said the same in 2007. And who is really vulnerable? The children are and there's nothing here to help them. And the government hasn't reformed the maintenance law. Equally vulnerable are single women who may be saddled with childcare and lower pay. The woman who's cared for her elderly parents for years but is not entitled to anything from them.
The sisters who lived together and are disregarded by the law. I wonder why it is that only a sexual relationship brings women within the purview of a law to benefit them. I can find no good answer. Co-habiting couples can choose to marry, enter a civil partnership, make a will, sign an agreement. Ensure each other's lives become joint tenant. Gain property by contributing to the improvement of the other one's property that respects autonomy. This bill does not.
It intrudes into private life. It makes for uncertainty and expense, and opens up new avenues of judicial discretion and lots of lucrative litigation. And if there's a problem with Muslim unrecognised marriages that needs to be solved elsewhere, the bill is well intentioned but profoundly misguided. It's illiberal, intrusive, a bedroom tax. Share your bedroom and you'll pay for it forevermore. Noble Lords should protect freedom to choose one's lifestyle and freedom of contract over deprivation of rights. It is your relationship, your choice.
13:30
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
My Lord, may have been one of those occasions when noble Lords felt that they should have started felt that they should have started their speeches. As I was saying. I don't think I have, in fact spoken on this subject before, though I've listened to a number of debates. My noble friend has taken every opportunity over quite a long time to seek to have the law, recognise how so many couples choose to live their lives and still do, despite the introduction of civil partnerships.
I agree with the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss. I don't believe I'm not an expert. I've done no polling, but I don't believe this will affect the numbers deciding to marry. I hope it won't take what the noble Lord Lord Bailey has said very seriously of a very interesting perspective that we need to take into account. I recall an occasion and the noble Lady Baroness Deech was, I think, was referring to some of this debate when there was a determined effort to extend cohabitation rights to people sharing a household when one was acting as a carer to the other, or particularly when siblings were living together.
I was never persuaded by that. Relationships can be very close indeed, but entirely different from cohabitation. I heard a discussion on the radio a few days ago on the government's current consultation. One of the speakers, a woman. But my noble friend, I don't want to overlook the fact that either party may find him or herself brutally discovering that cohabitation is not the same as marriage. The speaker described how, having supported her partner when she was a higher earner, saw his career take off while she had children and to care for them reduced her working hours and lost chances of promotion, she hadn't realised she could have kept up her national Insurance contributions, nor what an effect this would have on her future financial situation, including her pension.
In stark contrast to his, the bill deals not only with financial matters, including intestacy and the opportunity to arrange insurance cover on a partner's life, but also the right to register the death of a partner. The block on that must be so hurtful. The noble Baroness Ludford Deech has referred to article eight I. We will have opportunities, I'm sure, in a different context, to be discussing article eight in the in the near future. So today is not the day for discussing how far it extends, how far it must extend.
Unsurprisingly, my noble friend has done a very thorough job on the bill. I'll be interested to see what comes out of the government's consultation and any negotiations. My noble friend will be able to have based on his bill. I hope we may end up with a system as simple as possible, and the one that doesn't need the involvement of lawyers, the people who can readily afford them are probably the people who are least in need of this bill.
My noble friend is seeking to modernise the law and to provide rights that many people mistakenly think they have. So as the government, I assume because you shouldn't consult on something you don't want to do,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anything else would be too cynical. My Lords, I begin by paying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, who has pursued this issue with, if I may pursued this issue with, if I may say, characteristic persistence and conviction over many years, conviction over many years, introducing substantially similar bills on a number of occasions. But
I agree with the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss. I don't believe I'm not an expert. I've done no polling, but I don't believe this will affect the numbers deciding to marry. I hope it won't take what the noble Lord Lord Bailey has said very seriously of a very interesting perspective that we need to take into account. I recall an occasion and the noble Lady Baroness Deech was, I think, was referring to some of this debate when there was a determined effort to extend cohabitation rights to people sharing a household when one was acting as a carer to the other, or particularly when siblings were living together.
I was never persuaded by that. Relationships can be very close indeed, but entirely different from cohabitation. I heard a discussion on the radio a few days ago on the government's current consultation. One of the speakers, a woman. But my noble friend, I don't want to overlook the fact that either party may find him or herself brutally discovering that cohabitation is not the same as marriage. The speaker described how, having supported her partner when she was a higher earner, saw his career take off while she had children and to care for them reduced her working hours and lost chances of promotion, she hadn't realised she could have kept up her national Insurance contributions, nor what an effect this would have on her future financial situation, including her pension.
In stark contrast to his, the bill deals not only with financial matters, including intestacy and the opportunity to arrange insurance cover on a partner's life, but also the right to register the death of a partner. The block on that must be so hurtful. The noble Baroness Ludford Deech has referred to article eight I. We will have opportunities, I'm sure, in a different context, to be discussing article eight in the in the near future. So today is not the day for discussing how far it extends, how far it must extend.
Unsurprisingly, my noble friend has done a very thorough job on the bill. I'll be interested to see what comes out of the government's consultation and any negotiations. My noble friend will be able to have based on his bill. I hope we may end up with a system as simple as possible, and the one that doesn't need the involvement of lawyers, the people who can readily afford them are probably the people who are least in need of this bill.
My noble friend is seeking to modernise the law and to provide rights that many people mistakenly think they have. So as the government, I assume because you shouldn't consult on something you don't want to do,
**** Possible New Speaker ****
anything else would be too cynical. My Lords, I begin by paying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, who has pursued this issue with, if I may pursued this issue with, if I may say, characteristic persistence and conviction over many years, conviction over many years, introducing substantially similar bills on a number of occasions. But
13:34
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Conservative)
bills which undoubtedly raise important questions of law, policy and fairness, and I do not begin from the proposition that there is no problem to be addressed. There plainly are cases in which the breakdown of a long term cohabiting relationship can leave one party, often the economically weaker party, in circumstances of genuine hardship. There also remains a widespread misconception that common law marriage exists, and that couples who live together automatically acquire legal rights equivalent to those of married couples.
And they do not. That misunderstanding has been recognised by governments of different political persuasions, and is reflected both in the noble Lords speeches and in the government's current consultation. So the question is not whether there is an issue, nor is it whether some cohabitants deserve protection. It's whether this bill provides the right legal and constitutional answer. My Lords, I approach this debate not only as a lawyer, but as someone who believes that there is an important constitutional principle which underpins much of our private law.
And that principle is autonomy. Indeed, I would put it this way the common thread running through our private law is not paternalism, but is autonomy. The law exists to enable adults who are capable to make deliberate legal choices for themselves, and not to relieve them of the need to make those choices. And that principle runs through countless areas of our law. When two people decide to marry, they voluntarily assume a legal status containing both rights and obligations. If they prefer, they can enter into a civil partnership if they want to regulate their financial affairs without marrying or without a civil partnership, they can act.
They can execute an agreement or a declaration of trust governing ownership of property. If they want to decide who inherits, they can make a will. And of course, while they still have capacity, people now can determine who makes decisions on their behalf if they one day lose that capacity in the form of a lasting power of attorney. And each of those legal mechanisms expresses, I suggest, a simple but very profound principle. The law provides a framework, but adults make the choice.
And. This bill, however, proceeds from a very different premise. This bill, in effect, says that significant legal obligation should arise not because people have chosen to undertake them, but because Parliament has inferred them from the existence of a relationship, and that is a significant constitutional step. Of course, cohabitation deserves respect. Millions of people choose to live together without marrying for different reasons. Some might marry later, some will never marry, some consciously reject marriage. That's entirely a matter for them.
The issue is whether Parliament should transform what at its heart is a factual relationship into a legal status without the conscious and voluntary agreement of the people whose lives it governs. And that's why the difference between marriage and cohabitation are fundamentally important. Marriage and civil partnership are not simply descriptions of a relationship. They are legal institutions. They arise because two adults consciously decide to assume legal obligations towards one another before the law. Cohabitation is different.
It is a factual circumstance. People make a habit for months or years. They may intend eventually to marry. They may positively decide never to marry. They may have religious reasons for cohabiting. There could be financial reasons. There could be family reasons. Those could also be reasons why they've chosen not to marry. They may simply prefer not to enter into a legal relationship. The reasons, ultimately, I suggest, do not matter. The critical point is that the choice is theirs and the choice belongs to them.
And I listened very carefully to, if I may say, respectfully, a very interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, who made some of these points, I thought very sharply, who also pointed out, I think very clearly, that the characteristics of Jewish mothers are not limited to mothers who are Jewish. And now one of the themes running through the noble Lords Bill is that after a period of cohabitation or immediately where there is a child, the law should intervene by default unless the parties have taken positive steps to opt out.
And that reverses what I suggest is the proper constitutional starting point. I understand why the noble Lord has adopted an opt out model, and indeed, the government's current constitution proposes a broadly similar approach. But there are issues, and I look forward to the Law Commission's report. There are issues with an opt out model, the choice between an opt in and opt out model is not a drafting detail. It is a fundamental issue, and I am sure the noble Lord, the Minister, will have something to say on that, and there may be a point between us on this, which, if you want to intervene now, I'll give way, but I'll leave it to her to.
Oh, well, I'm sorry I, I did slip into that. I know there is a. Sometimes people do say the noble Lords, and I didn't mean any. I wasn't trying to be rude or forget the. The noble Minister is in fact a noble Lady, so I hope she will forgive me. It was entirely accidental and unintended. Please do forgive me, my Lords and the noble Lady, the Minister. There is another reason why I have reservations about this bill, and this is a serious point.
There is a constitutional principle engaged here as well, which is the rule of law. One of the points about the rule of law is that the law has to be certain. People have to have to know where and when legal rules and rights and obligations arise. The law should not leave people guessing where they've inadvertently entered into a legal relationship, carrying significant financial consequence. Now marriage does that. You know, when a marriage begins, you also know when a marriage legally ends.
There's no uncertainty when those legal obligations arise. The same is true of a civil partnership. But this bill is fundamentally different. One of the first questions the courts will have to answer is this when precisely, did these two people become cohabitants for the purposes of the act? Was it when they first stayed together most nights, when they gave up one property, when they opened a joint bank account, when they began introducing each other as partners? Those are fact sensitive questions. And to pick at one point which was made earlier, if you want to increase the role of lawyers and increase legal costs, you introduce a lot of sensitive questions.
And the decision in Kimba and Kimba illustrates that there is no single, decisive test for determining whether two people are living together as a couple. I fear this bill will increase uncertainty by increasing judicial discretion, and that makes outcomes more difficult to predict. Now, it's sometimes said that these proposals simply recognise the reality of modern life, and I do agree that at least at some point, the law should come into some sort of contact with reality.
But recognising reality is not the same thing as creating legal status. This bill comes close to creating what are sometimes been described as marriage without consent, and the state should be slow to impose legal obligations which people might have deliberately chosen not to assume. Freedom, my Lords, means more than the freedom to make choices. It also means accepting responsibility for those choices. And the law should support people in making informed decisions, but should not too readily relieve them of the consequences of deciding not to enter into legal relationships, carrying defined rights and obligations.
Now, that does not mean we should be indifferent to genuine hardship where children are involved, in particular, their welfare must be of the greatest importance, and I look forward in particular to what the Law Commission says in that regard. I would also just take a moment to pick up the points made by the noble Baroness Butler-sloss noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lady go here about religious marriage and women being left in a very difficult position if they've only had a religious marriage and haven't also had a civil marriage, which gives them civil legal rights and protections, I think I'm right in saying that.
Certainly in the United Synagogue, the United Synagogue will not marry you religiously unless at the same time they marry you civilly. And I do think that's something which is worth looking at. I know that's something which has been brought before this House on previous occasions. It is something worth looking at from the position, not of treading on people's religious freedoms, but actually of protecting women in particular, and making sure they have the legal rights which they ought to as members of our civil society.
But we do not need this bill to do that, and we should not use this bill to do that. So while I have, as the House has heard serious concerns about the bill, I am also conscious that the Law Commission is looking at this very issue. The Law Commission is one of the unsung heroes of our legal and constitutional settlement. I look forward to their work, which is of invariably an extremely high quality. And for those reasons, although I have concerns about the bill as drafted, I look forward to continuing conversations around this issue and the bill in light of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the work of the Law Commission. Well, my Lords. May I start by saying it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I start by saying it's always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course, I accept his apology for course, I accept his apology for what was obviously a slip of the tongue. But before I turn to the points that he has made, which are interesting and valid, as they interesting and valid, as they always are, may I start with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, and congratulate him on
And they do not. That misunderstanding has been recognised by governments of different political persuasions, and is reflected both in the noble Lords speeches and in the government's current consultation. So the question is not whether there is an issue, nor is it whether some cohabitants deserve protection. It's whether this bill provides the right legal and constitutional answer. My Lords, I approach this debate not only as a lawyer, but as someone who believes that there is an important constitutional principle which underpins much of our private law.
And that principle is autonomy. Indeed, I would put it this way the common thread running through our private law is not paternalism, but is autonomy. The law exists to enable adults who are capable to make deliberate legal choices for themselves, and not to relieve them of the need to make those choices. And that principle runs through countless areas of our law. When two people decide to marry, they voluntarily assume a legal status containing both rights and obligations. If they prefer, they can enter into a civil partnership if they want to regulate their financial affairs without marrying or without a civil partnership, they can act.
They can execute an agreement or a declaration of trust governing ownership of property. If they want to decide who inherits, they can make a will. And of course, while they still have capacity, people now can determine who makes decisions on their behalf if they one day lose that capacity in the form of a lasting power of attorney. And each of those legal mechanisms expresses, I suggest, a simple but very profound principle. The law provides a framework, but adults make the choice.
And. This bill, however, proceeds from a very different premise. This bill, in effect, says that significant legal obligation should arise not because people have chosen to undertake them, but because Parliament has inferred them from the existence of a relationship, and that is a significant constitutional step. Of course, cohabitation deserves respect. Millions of people choose to live together without marrying for different reasons. Some might marry later, some will never marry, some consciously reject marriage. That's entirely a matter for them.
The issue is whether Parliament should transform what at its heart is a factual relationship into a legal status without the conscious and voluntary agreement of the people whose lives it governs. And that's why the difference between marriage and cohabitation are fundamentally important. Marriage and civil partnership are not simply descriptions of a relationship. They are legal institutions. They arise because two adults consciously decide to assume legal obligations towards one another before the law. Cohabitation is different.
It is a factual circumstance. People make a habit for months or years. They may intend eventually to marry. They may positively decide never to marry. They may have religious reasons for cohabiting. There could be financial reasons. There could be family reasons. Those could also be reasons why they've chosen not to marry. They may simply prefer not to enter into a legal relationship. The reasons, ultimately, I suggest, do not matter. The critical point is that the choice is theirs and the choice belongs to them.
And I listened very carefully to, if I may say, respectfully, a very interesting speech from my noble friend Lord Bailey of Paddington, who made some of these points, I thought very sharply, who also pointed out, I think very clearly, that the characteristics of Jewish mothers are not limited to mothers who are Jewish. And now one of the themes running through the noble Lords Bill is that after a period of cohabitation or immediately where there is a child, the law should intervene by default unless the parties have taken positive steps to opt out.
And that reverses what I suggest is the proper constitutional starting point. I understand why the noble Lord has adopted an opt out model, and indeed, the government's current constitution proposes a broadly similar approach. But there are issues, and I look forward to the Law Commission's report. There are issues with an opt out model, the choice between an opt in and opt out model is not a drafting detail. It is a fundamental issue, and I am sure the noble Lord, the Minister, will have something to say on that, and there may be a point between us on this, which, if you want to intervene now, I'll give way, but I'll leave it to her to.
Oh, well, I'm sorry I, I did slip into that. I know there is a. Sometimes people do say the noble Lords, and I didn't mean any. I wasn't trying to be rude or forget the. The noble Minister is in fact a noble Lady, so I hope she will forgive me. It was entirely accidental and unintended. Please do forgive me, my Lords and the noble Lady, the Minister. There is another reason why I have reservations about this bill, and this is a serious point.
There is a constitutional principle engaged here as well, which is the rule of law. One of the points about the rule of law is that the law has to be certain. People have to have to know where and when legal rules and rights and obligations arise. The law should not leave people guessing where they've inadvertently entered into a legal relationship, carrying significant financial consequence. Now marriage does that. You know, when a marriage begins, you also know when a marriage legally ends.
There's no uncertainty when those legal obligations arise. The same is true of a civil partnership. But this bill is fundamentally different. One of the first questions the courts will have to answer is this when precisely, did these two people become cohabitants for the purposes of the act? Was it when they first stayed together most nights, when they gave up one property, when they opened a joint bank account, when they began introducing each other as partners? Those are fact sensitive questions. And to pick at one point which was made earlier, if you want to increase the role of lawyers and increase legal costs, you introduce a lot of sensitive questions.
And the decision in Kimba and Kimba illustrates that there is no single, decisive test for determining whether two people are living together as a couple. I fear this bill will increase uncertainty by increasing judicial discretion, and that makes outcomes more difficult to predict. Now, it's sometimes said that these proposals simply recognise the reality of modern life, and I do agree that at least at some point, the law should come into some sort of contact with reality.
But recognising reality is not the same thing as creating legal status. This bill comes close to creating what are sometimes been described as marriage without consent, and the state should be slow to impose legal obligations which people might have deliberately chosen not to assume. Freedom, my Lords, means more than the freedom to make choices. It also means accepting responsibility for those choices. And the law should support people in making informed decisions, but should not too readily relieve them of the consequences of deciding not to enter into legal relationships, carrying defined rights and obligations.
Now, that does not mean we should be indifferent to genuine hardship where children are involved, in particular, their welfare must be of the greatest importance, and I look forward in particular to what the Law Commission says in that regard. I would also just take a moment to pick up the points made by the noble Baroness Butler-sloss noble and learned Baroness Butler-Sloss and Lady go here about religious marriage and women being left in a very difficult position if they've only had a religious marriage and haven't also had a civil marriage, which gives them civil legal rights and protections, I think I'm right in saying that.
Certainly in the United Synagogue, the United Synagogue will not marry you religiously unless at the same time they marry you civilly. And I do think that's something which is worth looking at. I know that's something which has been brought before this House on previous occasions. It is something worth looking at from the position, not of treading on people's religious freedoms, but actually of protecting women in particular, and making sure they have the legal rights which they ought to as members of our civil society.
But we do not need this bill to do that, and we should not use this bill to do that. So while I have, as the House has heard serious concerns about the bill, I am also conscious that the Law Commission is looking at this very issue. The Law Commission is one of the unsung heroes of our legal and constitutional settlement. I look forward to their work, which is of invariably an extremely high quality. And for those reasons, although I have concerns about the bill as drafted, I look forward to continuing conversations around this issue and the bill in light of
**** Possible New Speaker ****
the work of the Law Commission. Well, my Lords. May I start by saying it's
**** Possible New Speaker ****
May I start by saying it's always a pleasure to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. Of course, I accept his apology for course, I accept his apology for what was obviously a slip of the tongue. But before I turn to the points that he has made, which are interesting and valid, as they interesting and valid, as they always are, may I start with the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley on Thames, and congratulate him on
13:45
Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Levitt, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Labour)
Thames, and congratulate him on securing a Second Reading for his Cohabitation Rights Bill. I also want to pay tribute to the noble Lord for his long standing interest in cohabitation reform and his thoughtful and principled engagement on this important area of family law, and his determination in bringing this bill forward. Again. He and I spoke yesterday. I hope that that is the beginning of a number of other conversations on this important topic. I also want to make it absolutely clear from the outset that this government shares his view that cohabitation reform is an important and pressing issue, and that is why we committed in our 2024 manifesto to strengthening the rights and protections available to women in cohabiting couples.
Broadly speaking, my Lords, it appears that agreement has broken out all over this House, with the exception of the noble Lady Baroness Deech and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. I'll come back, if I may, to them in a moment. But I begin with the case for reform. As a noble Lord Lord Marks has said, there are currently around 3.5 million cohabiting couples, more than twice the number 30 years ago. But despite this, Cohabitants have very limited financial protection.
When they separate or when their partner dies, having not made a will, and this lack of protection can leave the most vulnerable, including women, children and victims. Survivors of domestic abuse exposed to significant financial hardship. It can also leave victims of domestic abuse with an impossible choice between leaving their abuser, but then having no financial security at all, or staying in a dangerous relationship. And these problems are compounded by the fact that many people do not know they have no rights until it's too late.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, agreed with the government when he says that, and with the noble Lord Lord Marks, that almost half of the population believes that there is such a thing as a common law marriage. The idea that a person will accrue some kind of financial rights simply by living with a partner for a number of years, or having a child together. It's a myth. It's simply untrue. Now, some of you Lordships, in particular the noble Lady Baroness Deech, have raised the point that many individuals choose not to marry.
And of course, that's a choice they are entitled to make, and we respect that. But we must be careful not to assume that such choices are always made with a full understanding of the law and its consequences. And my Lords, children should not be left in a vulnerable financial position as a result of the decisions made by their parents. So I ask the noble Lady Baroness Deech and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, why not just get married? If they want those financial rights, why not just do so? But that risks overlooking the fact that many Cohabitants are, as many of your Lordships have agreed, not aware of the fact that their financial rights.
Some simply drift into having cohabited. Maybe they thought about getting married, but they never quite got round to it. And for some, getting married is too expensive. I'll return to the points made by the noble Lord Lord Bailey in a moment, but it's too expensive and too hard to deal with. And so. And I simply disagree with the noble Lady Baroness Deech, when she says that half the population understand, or maybe half the. More than half the population understand their rights.
All the evidence suggests that public awareness campaigns do not improve this understanding at all. Now, we're aware that we all risk the state overstepping into what are ultimately deeply personal choices about how individuals choose to live their lives. But I do feel that to concentrate on the freedom of choice aspect ignores the imbalances of power that can exist within relationships, and the point that a perpetrator of abuse may refuse to marry a victim precisely in order to ensure that they have no rights.
At the end of the relationship, the noble Lady Noble and learned, Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lady Baroness Gohir make a really important point about religious only marriages, and I will return to that in a moment, because that is something about which this government is really concerned, and about something about which we intend to do something. But as far as undermining marriage is concerned, I do recognise the concern expressed by a number of your Lordships that offering a framework of protections for cohabitants could undermine marriage.
But may I reassure, for example, the Noble and learned noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss there is no evidence from other jurisdictions which do have cohabitation protections that it has, in fact undermined marriage at all. And indeed, what the government is proposing is two very different regimes on relationship breakdown a, a regime for divorce, which is based on sharing and a regime for cohabitation that is based on need. My Lords, this government supports and values marriage. I hope that this your Lordships' House will forgive me for saying that.
I am always pleased when I see the name of the noble Lord Lord Bailey on the list of a debate in which I'm taking part. He and I come from very different political parties, but he always says something really interesting, and I thought his speech today really gave us things to think about. He. And the reason that we say that we are in favour of marriage and we support and value it, is that yesterday we launched our consultation on reforms to weddings law, and this forms part of a piece with the consultations in relation to what happens in terms of finances.
On the breakdown of relationships. We recognise that marriage can be too difficult and too expensive for many people. And so what we are proposing, but we are very interested to know everybody's views about, is moving from a building based regulation system to an efficient based regulation system, which would, for example, permit those who conduct religious marriages to also conduct civil marriages at the same time so that those who take part in, for example, Muslim marriages can have the protections that are afforded to others in that situation.
So, my Lords, whilst the government agrees with the noble Lord Lord Marks on the vital need for cohabitation reform, we do not believe that this bill is the right vehicle in which to deliver it. And I have four reasons for saying this. The first is our ongoing consultation. It will not have escaped your Lordships attention that we launched our A Fairer End to Relationships consultation last month. It sets out our approach to cohabitation reform, together with the proposals to reform financial remedies on divorce.
It represents one of the most significant opportunities for the reform of family law in decades. And as part of the consultation, the government is engaging with a wide range of interested parties in order to test our proposals and try and achieve consensus about the direction of reform. So legislating at this stage would pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. The second reason is that the government is not persuaded that the bill's proposed model for cohabitation reform meets the policy objectives set out in our consultation.
Our objectives include prioritising a fair outcome for children, protecting the vulnerable and providing a clear and accessible framework. I take on board what everybody said about lawyers, and I think I'd better pass on quickly. Whereas this bill proposes a compensation based approach to cohabitation reform. And in broad terms, what this means is giving the court power to compensate a cohabitant if they have been economically disadvantaged as a result of contributions made during the relationship. And the bill would also allow the reversal of an economic benefit gained in the relationship.
So this would require the courts to assess retrospectively how contributions create advantage or disadvantage. This is going to be complicated. It may be hard to evidence and it's hugely likely to increase conflict and cost. And what we know is that very acrimonious court proceedings are really bad for families. And they are particularly bad for children. But most importantly, the compensation model does not reliably ensure that needs, particularly the needs of children, are met. And for these reasons, the government prefers a needs based approach to cohabitation reform, which prioritises meeting the financial needs of cohabitants when they separate.
So, for example, this would capture needs which have arisen completely independently of the relationship, such as serious illness or disability, which might not be catered for under a compensation model. Under this bill, a cohabitee who got a serious illness, for example, MP shortly after the relationship began and as a result could not contribute in speech marks to the relationship, would be left unprotected. That cannot be right. And this is particularly important in the cases of families with children, as it is children who are most often affected by the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.
A needs based approach also offers a clearer and more accessible framework, respecting choice for people not to marry, but also designed to look after the economically weaker parties in the relationship. And my Lords, I would point to the fact that compensation as a principle is rarely used even in divorce cases, although we are consulting on whether it should have a place there, we will think about it. But at the moment our view is that the needs based model is more likely to achieve our objectives.
I note that the noble Lords Bill reflects the proposals recommended by the Law Commission, but they were made almost two decades ago and things have moved on considerably since then. And in particular, there's now much greater awareness of domestic abuse, including economic abuse. And it is right, therefore, that we consult on our own approach. And I can just reassure the noble Lord if I can just reassure the noble Lord Lord Marks, our approach would not simply benefit victim survivors of domestic abuse, but all cohabitees once the relationship breaks down, if they are in need of economic support.
Our third reason, which I can do with very quickly, is coherence across the system. Government believes that cohabitation reform and the law in relation to the to finances on divorce should be examined together. Whilst we propose distinct and separate separate regimes, we are of the view that we should draw on the Law Commission's 2024 Scoping Report on financial remedies, which raised important questions about how the law for divorcing couples can be made fairer and more certain, a topic upon which the noble Lady Baroness Deech has spoken often, and I have listened to everything she has had to say, together with the contributions of the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss on this topic with great interest.
Our consultation, therefore, makes proposals aimed at improving the system for divorcing couples who go through financial remedies proceedings. But by contrast, this bill would deal with cohabitation reform in isolation and that risks, in our view, missing a wider opportunity. What we want is a coherent, consistent and modern family justice system for both married couples who divorce and for cohabitants, whether on separation or on death. We want one which respects freedom of choice in how families arrange their lives, whilst at the same time protecting the vulnerable.
And that is why we are consulting on all these three areas of reform together. Finally, as far as this intestacy is concerned, the government has concerns about the bill's approach towards intestacy and inheritance claims because the bill's proposed definition of cohabitant and its qualifying criteria would create a broader entitlement to intestacy rights than the government is currently considering. My Lords, I hope I've made it clear that the government is committed to cohabitation reform. We have already begun that work, and we have committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows.
Having considered the results of the consultation, our consultation sets out a clear framework for cohabitation reform that will meet the needs of women, children and those otherwise vulnerable. But whilst the government cannot support the noble Lord Lord Marks Bill for the reasons I have given, I do hope that he will be reassured by the government's clear commitment to reform in this area. We share his objective. He and I have talked over many months about various bills that have come before this House and other topics.
I profoundly hope that we will continue to do so. We want to deliver vital financial protections for Cohabitants. So any difference between us is not about whether reform is needed, it's simply about how best to achieve it. I therefore respectfully invite all your Lordships to engage with the consultation and to give us your views. We want to get this right, views. We want to get this right, and we Yeah.
Broadly speaking, my Lords, it appears that agreement has broken out all over this House, with the exception of the noble Lady Baroness Deech and to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and the noble Lord, Lord Bailey. I'll come back, if I may, to them in a moment. But I begin with the case for reform. As a noble Lord Lord Marks has said, there are currently around 3.5 million cohabiting couples, more than twice the number 30 years ago. But despite this, Cohabitants have very limited financial protection.
When they separate or when their partner dies, having not made a will, and this lack of protection can leave the most vulnerable, including women, children and victims. Survivors of domestic abuse exposed to significant financial hardship. It can also leave victims of domestic abuse with an impossible choice between leaving their abuser, but then having no financial security at all, or staying in a dangerous relationship. And these problems are compounded by the fact that many people do not know they have no rights until it's too late.
The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, agreed with the government when he says that, and with the noble Lord Lord Marks, that almost half of the population believes that there is such a thing as a common law marriage. The idea that a person will accrue some kind of financial rights simply by living with a partner for a number of years, or having a child together. It's a myth. It's simply untrue. Now, some of you Lordships, in particular the noble Lady Baroness Deech, have raised the point that many individuals choose not to marry.
And of course, that's a choice they are entitled to make, and we respect that. But we must be careful not to assume that such choices are always made with a full understanding of the law and its consequences. And my Lords, children should not be left in a vulnerable financial position as a result of the decisions made by their parents. So I ask the noble Lady Baroness Deech and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, why not just get married? If they want those financial rights, why not just do so? But that risks overlooking the fact that many Cohabitants are, as many of your Lordships have agreed, not aware of the fact that their financial rights.
Some simply drift into having cohabited. Maybe they thought about getting married, but they never quite got round to it. And for some, getting married is too expensive. I'll return to the points made by the noble Lord Lord Bailey in a moment, but it's too expensive and too hard to deal with. And so. And I simply disagree with the noble Lady Baroness Deech, when she says that half the population understand, or maybe half the. More than half the population understand their rights.
All the evidence suggests that public awareness campaigns do not improve this understanding at all. Now, we're aware that we all risk the state overstepping into what are ultimately deeply personal choices about how individuals choose to live their lives. But I do feel that to concentrate on the freedom of choice aspect ignores the imbalances of power that can exist within relationships, and the point that a perpetrator of abuse may refuse to marry a victim precisely in order to ensure that they have no rights.
At the end of the relationship, the noble Lady Noble and learned, Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss, and the noble Lady Baroness Gohir make a really important point about religious only marriages, and I will return to that in a moment, because that is something about which this government is really concerned, and about something about which we intend to do something. But as far as undermining marriage is concerned, I do recognise the concern expressed by a number of your Lordships that offering a framework of protections for cohabitants could undermine marriage.
But may I reassure, for example, the Noble and learned noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss there is no evidence from other jurisdictions which do have cohabitation protections that it has, in fact undermined marriage at all. And indeed, what the government is proposing is two very different regimes on relationship breakdown a, a regime for divorce, which is based on sharing and a regime for cohabitation that is based on need. My Lords, this government supports and values marriage. I hope that this your Lordships' House will forgive me for saying that.
I am always pleased when I see the name of the noble Lord Lord Bailey on the list of a debate in which I'm taking part. He and I come from very different political parties, but he always says something really interesting, and I thought his speech today really gave us things to think about. He. And the reason that we say that we are in favour of marriage and we support and value it, is that yesterday we launched our consultation on reforms to weddings law, and this forms part of a piece with the consultations in relation to what happens in terms of finances.
On the breakdown of relationships. We recognise that marriage can be too difficult and too expensive for many people. And so what we are proposing, but we are very interested to know everybody's views about, is moving from a building based regulation system to an efficient based regulation system, which would, for example, permit those who conduct religious marriages to also conduct civil marriages at the same time so that those who take part in, for example, Muslim marriages can have the protections that are afforded to others in that situation.
So, my Lords, whilst the government agrees with the noble Lord Lord Marks on the vital need for cohabitation reform, we do not believe that this bill is the right vehicle in which to deliver it. And I have four reasons for saying this. The first is our ongoing consultation. It will not have escaped your Lordships attention that we launched our A Fairer End to Relationships consultation last month. It sets out our approach to cohabitation reform, together with the proposals to reform financial remedies on divorce.
It represents one of the most significant opportunities for the reform of family law in decades. And as part of the consultation, the government is engaging with a wide range of interested parties in order to test our proposals and try and achieve consensus about the direction of reform. So legislating at this stage would pre-empt the outcome of that consultation. The second reason is that the government is not persuaded that the bill's proposed model for cohabitation reform meets the policy objectives set out in our consultation.
Our objectives include prioritising a fair outcome for children, protecting the vulnerable and providing a clear and accessible framework. I take on board what everybody said about lawyers, and I think I'd better pass on quickly. Whereas this bill proposes a compensation based approach to cohabitation reform. And in broad terms, what this means is giving the court power to compensate a cohabitant if they have been economically disadvantaged as a result of contributions made during the relationship. And the bill would also allow the reversal of an economic benefit gained in the relationship.
So this would require the courts to assess retrospectively how contributions create advantage or disadvantage. This is going to be complicated. It may be hard to evidence and it's hugely likely to increase conflict and cost. And what we know is that very acrimonious court proceedings are really bad for families. And they are particularly bad for children. But most importantly, the compensation model does not reliably ensure that needs, particularly the needs of children, are met. And for these reasons, the government prefers a needs based approach to cohabitation reform, which prioritises meeting the financial needs of cohabitants when they separate.
So, for example, this would capture needs which have arisen completely independently of the relationship, such as serious illness or disability, which might not be catered for under a compensation model. Under this bill, a cohabitee who got a serious illness, for example, MP shortly after the relationship began and as a result could not contribute in speech marks to the relationship, would be left unprotected. That cannot be right. And this is particularly important in the cases of families with children, as it is children who are most often affected by the financial consequences of relationship breakdown.
A needs based approach also offers a clearer and more accessible framework, respecting choice for people not to marry, but also designed to look after the economically weaker parties in the relationship. And my Lords, I would point to the fact that compensation as a principle is rarely used even in divorce cases, although we are consulting on whether it should have a place there, we will think about it. But at the moment our view is that the needs based model is more likely to achieve our objectives.
I note that the noble Lords Bill reflects the proposals recommended by the Law Commission, but they were made almost two decades ago and things have moved on considerably since then. And in particular, there's now much greater awareness of domestic abuse, including economic abuse. And it is right, therefore, that we consult on our own approach. And I can just reassure the noble Lord if I can just reassure the noble Lord Lord Marks, our approach would not simply benefit victim survivors of domestic abuse, but all cohabitees once the relationship breaks down, if they are in need of economic support.
Our third reason, which I can do with very quickly, is coherence across the system. Government believes that cohabitation reform and the law in relation to the to finances on divorce should be examined together. Whilst we propose distinct and separate separate regimes, we are of the view that we should draw on the Law Commission's 2024 Scoping Report on financial remedies, which raised important questions about how the law for divorcing couples can be made fairer and more certain, a topic upon which the noble Lady Baroness Deech has spoken often, and I have listened to everything she has had to say, together with the contributions of the noble and learned Lady Baroness Butler-Sloss on this topic with great interest.
Our consultation, therefore, makes proposals aimed at improving the system for divorcing couples who go through financial remedies proceedings. But by contrast, this bill would deal with cohabitation reform in isolation and that risks, in our view, missing a wider opportunity. What we want is a coherent, consistent and modern family justice system for both married couples who divorce and for cohabitants, whether on separation or on death. We want one which respects freedom of choice in how families arrange their lives, whilst at the same time protecting the vulnerable.
And that is why we are consulting on all these three areas of reform together. Finally, as far as this intestacy is concerned, the government has concerns about the bill's approach towards intestacy and inheritance claims because the bill's proposed definition of cohabitant and its qualifying criteria would create a broader entitlement to intestacy rights than the government is currently considering. My Lords, I hope I've made it clear that the government is committed to cohabitation reform. We have already begun that work, and we have committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows.
Having considered the results of the consultation, our consultation sets out a clear framework for cohabitation reform that will meet the needs of women, children and those otherwise vulnerable. But whilst the government cannot support the noble Lord Lord Marks Bill for the reasons I have given, I do hope that he will be reassured by the government's clear commitment to reform in this area. We share his objective. He and I have talked over many months about various bills that have come before this House and other topics.
I profoundly hope that we will continue to do so. We want to deliver vital financial protections for Cohabitants. So any difference between us is not about whether reform is needed, it's simply about how best to achieve it. I therefore respectfully invite all your Lordships to engage with the consultation and to give us your views. We want to get this right, views. We want to get this right, and we Yeah.
13:59
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (Liberal Democrat)
I don't think I stopped by saying I'm very grateful to saying I'm very grateful to everyone who has contributed to to this debate. On a private member's bill, it's an unusual position that we find ourselves in with the private member's bill on my part, which was introduced just after the King's Speech, and then June, the co announced. So the two are in parallel, which which is unusual and which is why I didn't go into the detail of my bill.
I should say that we've nevertheless had a very interesting debate with some very important points being made. And I should start with my noble friend, and I call him that. He's a chambers colleague as well. The noble Lord, Lord Garnier. I welcome his support for this legislation, and I also welcome his urging, the government and me, to see if we can't get together and produce a single bill that perhaps has the best and avoids the worst of the proposals on either side.
In so doing, I should make it clear that I see a great deal of merit in almost all the consultation proposals. My doubts about the needs based scheme and the compensation based scheme which the noble Lady, Baroness Levitt, has explained, I think can be capable of resolution where there is some case for righting injustice and unfairness, where there is a need for compensation, where one party has been exploitative of the other. And I do think that's a real danger.
Whereas the needs based regime that the government is consulting on at the moment does involve addressing the needs of of cohabitants who are left. And I also take the point that the other difference I mentioned between us as to the role of abuse and violence in relationships, whereby one partner, the weaker partner, is coerced by the stronger partner into accepting a position whereby they have very limited rights. They don't get married, they're left without resources and often with children.
And that is, of course, a very powerful argument for the needs based approach. So I'm hopeful that we can achieve most of our objectives. The very fact that there is this consultation and that we are going to get legislation is at the most important aspect of this debate. I turn to the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, and I particularly welcome her support, which has been consistent since I first introduced this bill, and I welcome it particularly because as a member of the Marriage Foundation, committed to marriage as indeed I am, and I think all the supporters of this bill are.
She has considered carefully whether there is a risk of an adverse impact on the institution of marriage from proposals for cohabitation support, and I agree with and and warmed by her belief that there would be no adverse reaction. I thought that both she and the noble Lady, Baroness go here raised a very important point, which the government is going to consider about religious only marriages. I quite understood the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the United Synagogue may have got it right in insisting on a dual marriage, but there are nevertheless many cases where a religious only marriage in a Muslim context can be can result in serious injustice to women.
Women who are later left. Turning to the noble Lady, Baroness Deech and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson at Central Point, which is a point on autonomy. I accept that in English law, autonomy, autonomy has an important place, but relationships and marriage, both of them develop over time. Many relationships start with cohabitation and then move into marriage, of course, and then they adopt the regime that we apply to marriage or to civil partnership. But it is a gradual process, and people sometimes fall into cohabitation without considering either a cohabitation agreement or whether they should be opting out of, of such legal protections as we introduce.
And then children come along, not always entirely expected, and not all, not always intentionally, but nevertheless, they change the dynamic of a relationship. And it is incumbent, I believe, on society and on the law to keep up with that and to recognise that injustices can follow and unfairness is can follow from relationships, then break down. Or when one partner dies. If the law hasn't made sure that there are protections in place. I'm very grateful also to my noble friend Baroness Hamwee for her reflections on this bill and her support for it.
It is indeed Liberal Democrat policy to have this kind of reform, though I should say that I moved the conference motion that brought that about, and I may take some responsibility for that, but I am hopeful. I've heard everything that the noble Lady, Baroness Levitas, said in reply. We've had conversations and I hope we'll have many more. I hope during the course of the consultation for. For the moment, though, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to.
No, no, no. First, I need to beg to move the. But I think we need to go forward with both now and. There will be a time, I hope, when we may come to an amalgamated position, but for now I beg to move.
I should say that we've nevertheless had a very interesting debate with some very important points being made. And I should start with my noble friend, and I call him that. He's a chambers colleague as well. The noble Lord, Lord Garnier. I welcome his support for this legislation, and I also welcome his urging, the government and me, to see if we can't get together and produce a single bill that perhaps has the best and avoids the worst of the proposals on either side.
In so doing, I should make it clear that I see a great deal of merit in almost all the consultation proposals. My doubts about the needs based scheme and the compensation based scheme which the noble Lady, Baroness Levitt, has explained, I think can be capable of resolution where there is some case for righting injustice and unfairness, where there is a need for compensation, where one party has been exploitative of the other. And I do think that's a real danger.
Whereas the needs based regime that the government is consulting on at the moment does involve addressing the needs of of cohabitants who are left. And I also take the point that the other difference I mentioned between us as to the role of abuse and violence in relationships, whereby one partner, the weaker partner, is coerced by the stronger partner into accepting a position whereby they have very limited rights. They don't get married, they're left without resources and often with children.
And that is, of course, a very powerful argument for the needs based approach. So I'm hopeful that we can achieve most of our objectives. The very fact that there is this consultation and that we are going to get legislation is at the most important aspect of this debate. I turn to the noble and learned Lady, Baroness Butler-sloss, and I particularly welcome her support, which has been consistent since I first introduced this bill, and I welcome it particularly because as a member of the Marriage Foundation, committed to marriage as indeed I am, and I think all the supporters of this bill are.
She has considered carefully whether there is a risk of an adverse impact on the institution of marriage from proposals for cohabitation support, and I agree with and and warmed by her belief that there would be no adverse reaction. I thought that both she and the noble Lady, Baroness go here raised a very important point, which the government is going to consider about religious only marriages. I quite understood the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that the United Synagogue may have got it right in insisting on a dual marriage, but there are nevertheless many cases where a religious only marriage in a Muslim context can be can result in serious injustice to women.
Women who are later left. Turning to the noble Lady, Baroness Deech and the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson at Central Point, which is a point on autonomy. I accept that in English law, autonomy, autonomy has an important place, but relationships and marriage, both of them develop over time. Many relationships start with cohabitation and then move into marriage, of course, and then they adopt the regime that we apply to marriage or to civil partnership. But it is a gradual process, and people sometimes fall into cohabitation without considering either a cohabitation agreement or whether they should be opting out of, of such legal protections as we introduce.
And then children come along, not always entirely expected, and not all, not always intentionally, but nevertheless, they change the dynamic of a relationship. And it is incumbent, I believe, on society and on the law to keep up with that and to recognise that injustices can follow and unfairness is can follow from relationships, then break down. Or when one partner dies. If the law hasn't made sure that there are protections in place. I'm very grateful also to my noble friend Baroness Hamwee for her reflections on this bill and her support for it.
It is indeed Liberal Democrat policy to have this kind of reform, though I should say that I moved the conference motion that brought that about, and I may take some responsibility for that, but I am hopeful. I've heard everything that the noble Lady, Baroness Levitas, said in reply. We've had conversations and I hope we'll have many more. I hope during the course of the consultation for. For the moment, though, I beg to move that this Bill be committed to.
No, no, no. First, I need to beg to move the. But I think we need to go forward with both now and. There will be a time, I hope, when we may come to an amalgamated position, but for now I beg to move.
14:06
Legislation: Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill - second reading
-
Legislation: Rights of Boat Dwellers Bill - second reading
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. >> To move that this bill now be
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To move that this bill now be read a second time. My Lords, I am grateful to the National Bodies grateful to the National Bodies Association and the public Bill office for their help in drafting this piece of legislation, which is this piece of legislation, which is long overdue and very important to those who make their homes on Britain's rivers and canals. And I thank those few who are speaking this afternoon for taking part. 2021 census counted 105,000 people living on boats and other mobile homes.
Many living on boats, did not receive this census information at all. They have no postal address and cannot receive mail in the way which everyone else takes for granted. Housing law does not apply to boats. Boat dwellers who travel have no access to health services, as you need a permanent postcode to register with a GP, a Marina or canalside address is not accepted and I will return to this. Since 2015, the Canal and River trust have enforced a policy that pushes boaters without a permanent mooring to travel a distance and pattern that can cut them off from work, from their children's school and from family.
This goes well beyond what the British Waterways Act of 1995 requires those with children, which admittedly is a very small percentage of boat dwellers. Gaining access to education is problematic if they are forced to move on every 24 hours. I fear it is difficult to comprehend the Minister in the other place saying
**** Possible New Speaker ****
To move that this bill now be read a second time. My Lords, I am grateful to the National Bodies grateful to the National Bodies Association and the public Bill office for their help in drafting this piece of legislation, which is this piece of legislation, which is long overdue and very important to those who make their homes on Britain's rivers and canals. And I thank those few who are speaking this afternoon for taking part. 2021 census counted 105,000 people living on boats and other mobile homes.
Many living on boats, did not receive this census information at all. They have no postal address and cannot receive mail in the way which everyone else takes for granted. Housing law does not apply to boats. Boat dwellers who travel have no access to health services, as you need a permanent postcode to register with a GP, a Marina or canalside address is not accepted and I will return to this. Since 2015, the Canal and River trust have enforced a policy that pushes boaters without a permanent mooring to travel a distance and pattern that can cut them off from work, from their children's school and from family.
This goes well beyond what the British Waterways Act of 1995 requires those with children, which admittedly is a very small percentage of boat dwellers. Gaining access to education is problematic if they are forced to move on every 24 hours. I fear it is difficult to comprehend the Minister in the other place saying
14:08
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
in December 24th, in answer to a parliamentary written question. Those with children who choose to Those with children who choose to live on a boat without a permanent mooring are responsible for ensuring they have access to education. If a family were to live in the middle of Dartmoor, miles in the middle of Dartmoor, miles from a local school with the education Authority, say it was the education Authority, say it was the parent's responsibility to provide access to the relevant school. It is time that boat dwellers who travel, have recognition and enjoy the same rights as the rest of society.
I have received emails from those with views from both ends of the spectrum of support and antipathy. I take this as a sign that this subject needs a proper airing. The bill is short, and 1 or 2 clause of the clauses appear to be causing some concern currently, for which is the right to access public services and five security of tenure for boat dwellers, my Lords, this is what debate in the House of Lords is all about airing concerns, modifications and agreements.
My Lords, I am not personally a subscriber to social media. However, I have been sent a copy of the National Association of Boat Owners Facebook pages from 11th to the 29th of June. Anonymised. There are a wide range of views for and against, with many who have boats for leisure activities. Worried about how this Bill will affect their use of the water, I understand this. However, I will just quote from one contribution giving rights to someone doesn't take away any from anyone who already has that right.
It just makes it fair to all. And my Lords, I agree with this statement. One boat dweller contacting me via email says, and I have taken out the venue he has listed to protect his anonymity in the spring, summer and fall I travel in the winter. My boat is in a static place. However, I cannot register with the GP in this static area and I would like to know if this bill became law, would it require financial services, banks and credit agencies to treat boat dwellers equally and not a reason to lower their credit ratings? The Boa has welcomed the bill and the debate, which will arise as a result, and they say the bill addresses a number of long standing issues affecting resident boaters, including recognition of boats as lawful homes, access to public services, security of tenure and treatment of those living aboard without a permanent mooring.
I return to the issue of access to health services. I have received an email. Again, I am not mentioning the name from a travelling boater who does illustrate the difficulties. Recently, my wife has been able to register temporarily with a GP and this has its problems because they use a different computer system computer system from the one our home GP uses, and they are unable to access her past records. Also, because we are now moving away, we now have to incur expensive and time consuming train travel to get back to the hospital, because appointments cannot be transferred without going back to the bottom of the list.
My Lords, it is obvious that those boaters who travel have significant disadvantages to those living in permanent moorings or bricks and mortar. Those objecting have particularly difficulties with clause six, which is cruising patterns and licensing conditions. Those who cruise for leisure instead of as a way of life believe they will be adversely affected. Those with fixed addresses appear not to understand the difficulties of those who are unable to register and address to receive mail registered to vote enrolled with a GP.
These are the basics of life to which everyone should have access. There are those who, having moored their boats, appear to seek to block the towpath, causing difficulties for others, and I do not support their actions. I am grateful to those who have made contact to me to tell me of their concerns, but not always of the way in which they have expressed themselves. The debate is moving on. In 2006, Sir Vince Cable secured a Westminster Hall debate on this subject.
So I am following in his footsteps on that occasion, the leader of this House, Baroness Smith, responded as the relevant Minister, boat dwellers deserve rights and the same access to services as you and I in this chamber. Enjoy. Governments from both sides of the House believe that boat dwellers are not a housing issue. This may well be true, but it is certainly an accommodation issue and one where those who choose this lifestyle should not be looked down on or ignored.
My Lords, my Bill is not in the same class as others debated this morning, but it does deal with those who are at a disadvantage. And I am not a lawyer. I hope my bill, having started a very serious discussion, will be successful and look forward to Committee stage, where we can explore the pros and cons that have arisen, and I forward to the Minister's comments. My Lords, I beg to move.
I have received emails from those with views from both ends of the spectrum of support and antipathy. I take this as a sign that this subject needs a proper airing. The bill is short, and 1 or 2 clause of the clauses appear to be causing some concern currently, for which is the right to access public services and five security of tenure for boat dwellers, my Lords, this is what debate in the House of Lords is all about airing concerns, modifications and agreements.
My Lords, I am not personally a subscriber to social media. However, I have been sent a copy of the National Association of Boat Owners Facebook pages from 11th to the 29th of June. Anonymised. There are a wide range of views for and against, with many who have boats for leisure activities. Worried about how this Bill will affect their use of the water, I understand this. However, I will just quote from one contribution giving rights to someone doesn't take away any from anyone who already has that right.
It just makes it fair to all. And my Lords, I agree with this statement. One boat dweller contacting me via email says, and I have taken out the venue he has listed to protect his anonymity in the spring, summer and fall I travel in the winter. My boat is in a static place. However, I cannot register with the GP in this static area and I would like to know if this bill became law, would it require financial services, banks and credit agencies to treat boat dwellers equally and not a reason to lower their credit ratings? The Boa has welcomed the bill and the debate, which will arise as a result, and they say the bill addresses a number of long standing issues affecting resident boaters, including recognition of boats as lawful homes, access to public services, security of tenure and treatment of those living aboard without a permanent mooring.
I return to the issue of access to health services. I have received an email. Again, I am not mentioning the name from a travelling boater who does illustrate the difficulties. Recently, my wife has been able to register temporarily with a GP and this has its problems because they use a different computer system computer system from the one our home GP uses, and they are unable to access her past records. Also, because we are now moving away, we now have to incur expensive and time consuming train travel to get back to the hospital, because appointments cannot be transferred without going back to the bottom of the list.
My Lords, it is obvious that those boaters who travel have significant disadvantages to those living in permanent moorings or bricks and mortar. Those objecting have particularly difficulties with clause six, which is cruising patterns and licensing conditions. Those who cruise for leisure instead of as a way of life believe they will be adversely affected. Those with fixed addresses appear not to understand the difficulties of those who are unable to register and address to receive mail registered to vote enrolled with a GP.
These are the basics of life to which everyone should have access. There are those who, having moored their boats, appear to seek to block the towpath, causing difficulties for others, and I do not support their actions. I am grateful to those who have made contact to me to tell me of their concerns, but not always of the way in which they have expressed themselves. The debate is moving on. In 2006, Sir Vince Cable secured a Westminster Hall debate on this subject.
So I am following in his footsteps on that occasion, the leader of this House, Baroness Smith, responded as the relevant Minister, boat dwellers deserve rights and the same access to services as you and I in this chamber. Enjoy. Governments from both sides of the House believe that boat dwellers are not a housing issue. This may well be true, but it is certainly an accommodation issue and one where those who choose this lifestyle should not be looked down on or ignored.
My Lords, my Bill is not in the same class as others debated this morning, but it does deal with those who are at a disadvantage. And I am not a lawyer. I hope my bill, having started a very serious discussion, will be successful and look forward to Committee stage, where we can explore the pros and cons that have arisen, and I forward to the Minister's comments. My Lords, I beg to move.
14:15
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
benefits, but the problems. Also. I've long taken an interest in this subject. Indeed, since the decimation of the rights of people with houseboats at the Chelsea Yacht and Boat Club along the Yacht and Boat Club along the Thames at Lots Road and their subsequent attempts to try and seek subsequent attempts to try and seek justice and security of tenure against rogue developers and against rogue developers and landlords. This bill, my Lords, addresses the rights that we need in order to protect boat dwellers along the river ways of the United Kingdom, as well as the canals.
During the passage of legislation in your Lordships House, I have tried to bring forward amendments to address this. These issues, particularly on the rights of access to public services and security of tenure for boat dwellers with a permanent mooring and also for those without. However, sadly, I've been unsuccessful and the government has not been willing to address this in legislation, although they recognise the problem sympathetically. I was a little alarmed, my Lords, to learn that the Riverboats and Canal Trust had heavily lobbied civil servants when we were dealing with the Renters Rights Act and my amendments, alarmed because they did not address their concerns to me.
And as far as I know, they did not address their concerns. To all members of your Lordships House, but directly to civil servants. When we previously discussed this issue in the passage of the Renters Rights Act, I was told that the issue was far too difficult to address, and this was reinforced by the civil servants. My Lords, I am aware it is difficult and it's a difficult situation. As I have said before, we come into politics in order to address and try to solve such difficult situations, not prolong them.
It's about outcomes. And this bill rightly seeks to address positive outcomes for the boat dwellers. At the moment, the United Kingdom faces a housing crisis and we need to look at every available opportunity to address that crisis. I believe houseboats, residences and ownership are ways that we can deal with homelessness, overcrowding, as well as a ladder onto the housing market. Indeed, there are developers currently offering, and I quote, a luxury life on the water waves. Interestingly, accompanied by the offer of flexible moorings.
My Lords, for flexible moorings read non permanent moorings where people can be evicted, their licence not renewed, their moved on whilst on the canals they are forced to play. As Baroness Bakewell said, a forward game of ping pong in order to remain in their licensed boat or barge. Developers see potential and are making inroads across London, at the marinas and indeed in Limehouse, east London, the Surrey docks in south east London and places where people have lived in boats and barges for decades, in some instances for centuries.
And these are now being taken over by companies seeking to make a quick buck, such as those at Lots Road. It is happening, my Lords, in Riverways across the country, and that is why we need this bill. I have gone on for too long. Sadly, I think I know that the government will reject this bill. It will repeat that it's too problematic that it covers too many Whitehall departments. However, my Lords, this will not be an acceptable excuse for me because without such rights, people will move, be moved along, they will be evicted, their homes taken from them, their licence is not renewed.
They will be denied basic rights as outlined earlier. And we who do nothing, my Lords, must shoulder the responsibility of such inaction. That is why I wholly support this important Bill.
During the passage of legislation in your Lordships House, I have tried to bring forward amendments to address this. These issues, particularly on the rights of access to public services and security of tenure for boat dwellers with a permanent mooring and also for those without. However, sadly, I've been unsuccessful and the government has not been willing to address this in legislation, although they recognise the problem sympathetically. I was a little alarmed, my Lords, to learn that the Riverboats and Canal Trust had heavily lobbied civil servants when we were dealing with the Renters Rights Act and my amendments, alarmed because they did not address their concerns to me.
And as far as I know, they did not address their concerns. To all members of your Lordships House, but directly to civil servants. When we previously discussed this issue in the passage of the Renters Rights Act, I was told that the issue was far too difficult to address, and this was reinforced by the civil servants. My Lords, I am aware it is difficult and it's a difficult situation. As I have said before, we come into politics in order to address and try to solve such difficult situations, not prolong them.
It's about outcomes. And this bill rightly seeks to address positive outcomes for the boat dwellers. At the moment, the United Kingdom faces a housing crisis and we need to look at every available opportunity to address that crisis. I believe houseboats, residences and ownership are ways that we can deal with homelessness, overcrowding, as well as a ladder onto the housing market. Indeed, there are developers currently offering, and I quote, a luxury life on the water waves. Interestingly, accompanied by the offer of flexible moorings.
My Lords, for flexible moorings read non permanent moorings where people can be evicted, their licence not renewed, their moved on whilst on the canals they are forced to play. As Baroness Bakewell said, a forward game of ping pong in order to remain in their licensed boat or barge. Developers see potential and are making inroads across London, at the marinas and indeed in Limehouse, east London, the Surrey docks in south east London and places where people have lived in boats and barges for decades, in some instances for centuries.
And these are now being taken over by companies seeking to make a quick buck, such as those at Lots Road. It is happening, my Lords, in Riverways across the country, and that is why we need this bill. I have gone on for too long. Sadly, I think I know that the government will reject this bill. It will repeat that it's too problematic that it covers too many Whitehall departments. However, my Lords, this will not be an acceptable excuse for me because without such rights, people will move, be moved along, they will be evicted, their homes taken from them, their licence is not renewed.
They will be denied basic rights as outlined earlier. And we who do nothing, my Lords, must shoulder the responsibility of such inaction. That is why I wholly support this important Bill.
14:19
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (Liberal Democrat)
It's a pleasure to follow Lord Cashman and his long campaign on Cashman and his long campaign on this issue. And indeed, my friend, noble friend Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, has long fought for those members of society, found it hard or indeed impossible to have their non-traditional homes recognised as a home, be it for travellers, or in this case, boaters. And she's laid out extremely well why this bill is needed. I lived in a houseboat on a rented mooring in the 1980s, and frankly, even 50 years later, the issues haven't really changed.
My noble friend talked about how difficult it is to access services because a boat address is not recognised by many authorities. And I think clause four in this bill is absolutely key. Last year, Lord Cashman introduced as an amendment to the renters rights Bill this issue and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who's going to reply today, mentioned on the 14th of May. A couple of points that I think are worth thinking about. Firstly, she told the House that a boat is regarded as a chattel, not a home.
So security of tenure is actually, and I'm paraphrasing now, already in the two difficult to consider government books, but nevertheless that chattel is someone's home and I think the boat needs to be redefined from chattel, which is actually an insulting these days to call that when it's somebody's home. She also mentioned the implications for the navigation authorities, and the Canals and Rivers Trust are well aware of the issue, but actually they have no duty to regard, no duty to have regard to a boat being someone's home.
And then there's the added complication that some boat owners own their moorings, some rent their moorings, some have no mooring and have to move on every 14 days. But for all of these groups, this bill would give them some extra security. And that's particularly the recognition of a home with no such definition. Boat dwellers fall down the gap that exists in the legislation that should recognise the status of a home dweller. And then there's the duties of local authorities.
Local authorities have a duty to recognise someone as homeless if they can no longer live on their boat, but they make very little effort or no effort as a planning authority to address the need for more moorings, both temporary and permanent. That's possibly because land based communities actually don't want to see more permanent moorings, but it's still something that needs to be addressed. So my noble friend exposed very clearly why clause four is essential, but it's very hard to see how you can get through life when you're denied the rights to health care, financial services and voting.
So I think there may be a need to amend the definition in section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 to include actually boats. Recently, the Canals and Rivers Trust commissioned a report on the future of boat licensing, and it has reported. And they're working through the recommendations. And I think it's worth reflecting on their CEO, Campbell Robb's comment on receiving the report. And I quote, he said it's clear that some of the issues the Commission has highlighted are a symptom of the wider housing crisis, driven in part by the cost of living.
More people are finding it harder to afford somewhere to live and more people are vulnerable. We know that the recommendations in the report won't solve this. Whilst the trust is not a housing charity, we do recognise this reality. That's indeed a welcome and constructive statement. So I think the very least the government can do at this point is to take a far more engaged attitude to the issue. Indeed, it is complex, but there are amendments to legislation and to guidance that would be really constructive and helpful.
And I hope my Noble Friends Bill will help the government to move forward in this direction.
My noble friend talked about how difficult it is to access services because a boat address is not recognised by many authorities. And I think clause four in this bill is absolutely key. Last year, Lord Cashman introduced as an amendment to the renters rights Bill this issue and Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, who's going to reply today, mentioned on the 14th of May. A couple of points that I think are worth thinking about. Firstly, she told the House that a boat is regarded as a chattel, not a home.
So security of tenure is actually, and I'm paraphrasing now, already in the two difficult to consider government books, but nevertheless that chattel is someone's home and I think the boat needs to be redefined from chattel, which is actually an insulting these days to call that when it's somebody's home. She also mentioned the implications for the navigation authorities, and the Canals and Rivers Trust are well aware of the issue, but actually they have no duty to regard, no duty to have regard to a boat being someone's home.
And then there's the added complication that some boat owners own their moorings, some rent their moorings, some have no mooring and have to move on every 14 days. But for all of these groups, this bill would give them some extra security. And that's particularly the recognition of a home with no such definition. Boat dwellers fall down the gap that exists in the legislation that should recognise the status of a home dweller. And then there's the duties of local authorities.
Local authorities have a duty to recognise someone as homeless if they can no longer live on their boat, but they make very little effort or no effort as a planning authority to address the need for more moorings, both temporary and permanent. That's possibly because land based communities actually don't want to see more permanent moorings, but it's still something that needs to be addressed. So my noble friend exposed very clearly why clause four is essential, but it's very hard to see how you can get through life when you're denied the rights to health care, financial services and voting.
So I think there may be a need to amend the definition in section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 to include actually boats. Recently, the Canals and Rivers Trust commissioned a report on the future of boat licensing, and it has reported. And they're working through the recommendations. And I think it's worth reflecting on their CEO, Campbell Robb's comment on receiving the report. And I quote, he said it's clear that some of the issues the Commission has highlighted are a symptom of the wider housing crisis, driven in part by the cost of living.
More people are finding it harder to afford somewhere to live and more people are vulnerable. We know that the recommendations in the report won't solve this. Whilst the trust is not a housing charity, we do recognise this reality. That's indeed a welcome and constructive statement. So I think the very least the government can do at this point is to take a far more engaged attitude to the issue. Indeed, it is complex, but there are amendments to legislation and to guidance that would be really constructive and helpful.
And I hope my Noble Friends Bill will help the government to move forward in this direction.
14:24
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
-
-
Lord Jamieson (Conservative)
My Lords, I think I ought to >> My Lords, I think I ought to declare a tangential interest, as my brother in law is a boat dweller. I'm grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward Lady Bakewell, for bringing forward this Bill and how eloquently she raised the issues that are faced by boat dwellers, and both supported by Lord Cashman and Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I don't think there's any doubt that there are genuine issues that need to be addressed, and it is only fair and right that everyone in this country should have access to those public services, whether it's medical, whether it's the ability to vote and so forth.
Now, boat dwellers are a diverse community, and for some, living afloat is a lifestyle choice. But for others, as has been mentioned, it is an affordable housing option in an increasingly expensive housing market. And we have discussed the housing crisis many times. And whatever their circumstances, many undoubtedly face those practical challenges in accessing those services. The principle that people should not be denied access to public services merely because they live on a boat is one that I think we can all share across this house.
However, and I'm sorry, there is a, however, sympathy for the objective of this bill is not necessarily the same as support for the legislation before us. This House must ask not only whether a problem exists, but whether the proposed solution is proportionate, workable and compatible with existing law. And in that context, a number of provisions in this bill raise concerns. Section two defines boat dwellers as those for whom a boat is their primary residence. The term permanent mooring in the Bill risks confusion, in our view, would be better replaced with residential mooring.
Certainly in the case of the Canal and River trust, inland waterways, where a person chooses to make their boat their primary residence, they are required to have either a residential mooring or a continuous cruiser licence, and to then abide by the conditions of those licence, where boaters fail to comply with licence conditions or moorings. Anchorage regulations the relevant authorities must be able to take appropriate enforcement action. However, many of the provisions in this bill would impede their ability to do so.
The bill also seeks to elevate a boat dwellers right to a secure home above many existing statutory responsibilities relating to the management of waterways. In doing so, it risks creating considerable legal uncertainty. The bill requires authorities to refrain from enforcement action wherever such an action might affect a person's right to a secure home. Yet it provides little clarity how competing rights and responsibilities are to be balanced in practice. Inevitably, this will risk litigation and uncertainty for both authorities and boat dwellers alike.
Now, nobody wishes to see vulnerable residents lose their homes, whether that's on land or water. But we must consider the wider implications for creditors, navigation authorities and the rule of law. The bill appears to create protections that go considerably beyond those available to homeowners or tenants on land. This House must be cautious before establishing a category of property that becomes effectively immune from certain forms of law enforcement. My Lords, perhaps the most striking provision is that which requires relevant authorities to give greater weight to the rights and interests of boat dwellers than to those of commercial, sporting, leisure users or riparian owners, including homeowners.
Whatever the rights of boat dwellers, sorry whenever the rights of boat dwellers may be affected, that's a very far reaching proposition. Britain's waterways are shared spaces. They support economic activity, recreation, tourism, environmental purposes and residential use. Good governance requires fair balancing between all legitimate interests. Whatever one's views on the current enforcement practices, we should recognise that mooring space is a finite resource. Navigation authorities already struggle to enforce these essential regulations, particularly in premium sites. If authorities are deprived of the ability to manage that resource effectively, there is a risk of congestion, congestion, tension between different users and unintended consequences for the very communities this bill seeks to assist.
There are also questions about whether this bill inadvertently imports concepts from the housing law into circumstances for which they were never designed. In previous debates, as has been mentioned on related matters, concerns were rightly raised about whether concepts such as dwelling house tenure and residential occupation can simply be transposed into a waterways context. Finally, I raise the issue of council tax, as this bill potentially raises a number of issues of when a boat is a home or not.
Currently, a boat with a permanent mooring on which you reside is subject to council tax, but not if you do not permanently reside there. If in effect, all boats have a right of residence, would they all be subject to council tax or second home tax? I don't have the answer, but I think it's a question that needs answering. My Lords, none of this is to dismiss the concerns that have motivated the Bill. We should continue to examine whether barriers to public service can be reduced, and whether existing protections are operating fairly.
But legislation must be carefully targeted and evidence based in its current form. The bill risks upsetting long established legal frameworks, constraining the legitimate functions of navigation authorities and creating uncertainty for all users of our waterways. For those reasons, while I respect the intentions behind the bill and we do believe something needs to be done, I remain unconvinced at this stage that it provides the right legislative answer. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Baroness, the Minister, and whether she is able to answer some of those flummoxing questions.
Well said.
Now, boat dwellers are a diverse community, and for some, living afloat is a lifestyle choice. But for others, as has been mentioned, it is an affordable housing option in an increasingly expensive housing market. And we have discussed the housing crisis many times. And whatever their circumstances, many undoubtedly face those practical challenges in accessing those services. The principle that people should not be denied access to public services merely because they live on a boat is one that I think we can all share across this house.
However, and I'm sorry, there is a, however, sympathy for the objective of this bill is not necessarily the same as support for the legislation before us. This House must ask not only whether a problem exists, but whether the proposed solution is proportionate, workable and compatible with existing law. And in that context, a number of provisions in this bill raise concerns. Section two defines boat dwellers as those for whom a boat is their primary residence. The term permanent mooring in the Bill risks confusion, in our view, would be better replaced with residential mooring.
Certainly in the case of the Canal and River trust, inland waterways, where a person chooses to make their boat their primary residence, they are required to have either a residential mooring or a continuous cruiser licence, and to then abide by the conditions of those licence, where boaters fail to comply with licence conditions or moorings. Anchorage regulations the relevant authorities must be able to take appropriate enforcement action. However, many of the provisions in this bill would impede their ability to do so.
The bill also seeks to elevate a boat dwellers right to a secure home above many existing statutory responsibilities relating to the management of waterways. In doing so, it risks creating considerable legal uncertainty. The bill requires authorities to refrain from enforcement action wherever such an action might affect a person's right to a secure home. Yet it provides little clarity how competing rights and responsibilities are to be balanced in practice. Inevitably, this will risk litigation and uncertainty for both authorities and boat dwellers alike.
Now, nobody wishes to see vulnerable residents lose their homes, whether that's on land or water. But we must consider the wider implications for creditors, navigation authorities and the rule of law. The bill appears to create protections that go considerably beyond those available to homeowners or tenants on land. This House must be cautious before establishing a category of property that becomes effectively immune from certain forms of law enforcement. My Lords, perhaps the most striking provision is that which requires relevant authorities to give greater weight to the rights and interests of boat dwellers than to those of commercial, sporting, leisure users or riparian owners, including homeowners.
Whatever the rights of boat dwellers, sorry whenever the rights of boat dwellers may be affected, that's a very far reaching proposition. Britain's waterways are shared spaces. They support economic activity, recreation, tourism, environmental purposes and residential use. Good governance requires fair balancing between all legitimate interests. Whatever one's views on the current enforcement practices, we should recognise that mooring space is a finite resource. Navigation authorities already struggle to enforce these essential regulations, particularly in premium sites. If authorities are deprived of the ability to manage that resource effectively, there is a risk of congestion, congestion, tension between different users and unintended consequences for the very communities this bill seeks to assist.
There are also questions about whether this bill inadvertently imports concepts from the housing law into circumstances for which they were never designed. In previous debates, as has been mentioned on related matters, concerns were rightly raised about whether concepts such as dwelling house tenure and residential occupation can simply be transposed into a waterways context. Finally, I raise the issue of council tax, as this bill potentially raises a number of issues of when a boat is a home or not.
Currently, a boat with a permanent mooring on which you reside is subject to council tax, but not if you do not permanently reside there. If in effect, all boats have a right of residence, would they all be subject to council tax or second home tax? I don't have the answer, but I think it's a question that needs answering. My Lords, none of this is to dismiss the concerns that have motivated the Bill. We should continue to examine whether barriers to public service can be reduced, and whether existing protections are operating fairly.
But legislation must be carefully targeted and evidence based in its current form. The bill risks upsetting long established legal frameworks, constraining the legitimate functions of navigation authorities and creating uncertainty for all users of our waterways. For those reasons, while I respect the intentions behind the bill and we do believe something needs to be done, I remain unconvinced at this stage that it provides the right legislative answer. I look forward to hearing the contribution of the noble Baroness, the Minister, and whether she is able to answer some of those flummoxing questions.
Well said.
14:31
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
-
-
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Housing, Communities and Local Government) (Labour)
My Lords, can I thank Baroness Bakewell for bringing forward this Bakewell for bringing forward this private member's Bill? She raises a very important issue which, as she knows, we have debated before in your Lordships House and the government's recognises the important role that the waterways play in enriching people's lives by providing homes for those who live on boats and indeed and indeed with the the housing crisis we are only now beginning to tackle. It's become an option being considered by more and more people.
Government, of course, is committed to tackling insecurities across all housing sectors, including boat dwellers. And the question before us is not only one of housing rights, it's also about the practical management of finite public waterways and the ability of navigation authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities. And the noble Lord Jamieson referred to this several provisions of the Bill would substantially reduce the ability of navigation authorities to enforce licensing requirements and to manage the network fairly. And of course, while the government accepts the need for a proportionality and appropriate safeguards, navigation authorities must retain the ability to deal with persistent non-compliance, licence evasion, unsafe vehicles and potentially obstruction of the network.
Now, to use a boat as a main and only home, the boat owner will require a licence, a mooring with planning permission for residential use and the agreement of the mooring owner. The agreement with the mooring owner will grant the boat owner a licence to occupy the mooring, and will set out how long the boat owner can stay on the mooring. A boat owner on a residential mooring may also benefit from the protection from Eviction Act 1977. This requires a mooring owner to obtain a court order to evict a boat owner who continues to use the mooring after their licence agreement has ended.
Boat owners using their boats for other purposes, including for recreational use, will have access to other types of moorings, including utility and short stay visitor moorings on waterways managed by the Canal and River trust. If a boat is licensed without a home mooring, it must move on a regular basis and must not generally stay in the same place for more than 14 days. The bill before us today aims to formally recognise the rights of people whose main home is a boat, the definition of which in clause two includes a number of floating structures.
The government does not consider that the proposed legislation would achieve its intended outcome. The Bill proposes that boats should be brought within the definitions of house and dwelling at section 99 of the Housing Act 2004, and that other legislation be amended as required, so that boats would then be considered as lawful homes and give the boat owners access to public services. The existing definition of house at section 99 of the 2004 act currently refers only to a building.
A building is defined in common law as a structure which forms part of the. Realty, changes the physical appearance of the land and which requires some degree of permanence. Section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 also defines the term house as it applies to the selective licensing regime. The proposed amendment would therefore only have practical effect. Where a boat is located in an area already designated for selective licensing, the amendment would not have any impact if the boat was not located in an area subject to selective licensing.
Clause five of the bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to, within one year of enactment, publish a report to assess the extent to which boat dwellers with and without permanent moorings have security of tenure within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. In simple terms, security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 means certain tenants may have a right to stay in occupation or seek a new lease when their existing lease comes to an end.
That regime applies only in specific cases, including some long residential tenancies at low rents and certain commercial tenancies. Boat owners on a residential mooring will not be party to a commercial lease. Rather, they will have a licence to occupy the mooring. Boat owners without a residential mooring will also not have a lease agreement. Rather, they must comply with the terms of the boat licence agreed by the relevant navigation authority. Therefore, the concept of security of tenure as it applies to long tenancies at low rents and to commercial leases is not relevant here.
The Bill also places certain requirements on relevant authorities, which include navigation authorities, port authorities, the Environment Agency and riparian owners. There would need to be extensive consultation with those authorities on the bill's proposals to ensure the effective operation and management of the waterways. Turning now to some of the specific points that were raised by the noble Baroness Bakewell, the noble Lord Cashman, who I thank for his long campaign on this subject. And he. We. He and I have had many conversations on this issue.
First of all, on security of tenure. Boat owners with a residential mooring do have that licence to occupy the mooring, and their security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement they entered into with the mooring owner. And as I said earlier, they may also be protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Some boat owners will not want a residential mooring, but instead prefer to move frequently around the waterways. And it's important that boat owners continue to have that choice.
A tenancy arises when a landlord grants a person a legal right to exclusive possession of premises for a specified period of time, in return for the payment of rent in law. A licence arises when there is no right to exclusive possession, and there is no intention to enter into a legal relationship of landlord and tenant. A boat owner security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement with the owner of the residential mooring in relation to access to public services, and I think this is a really key point, and I understand the concerns about access to services.
Boat dwellers who have a residential mooring will have a security of tenure based on their mooring agreement, and be able to access public services to give boat dwellers without a residential mooring the same rights as those with residential moorings, would have significant implications for the management of the waterways. Any changes that may impact the management of waterways should be taken after consultation with navigation authorities and key stakeholders, and must also take account of the findings of the review commissioned in 2025 by the Canal and River trust, one of the largest navigation authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, particularly mentioned issues of GP and other services and for GP services. There is no regulatory requirement to prove identity, address or an NHS number to register as a patient and no contractual requirement for GPS to request this. If anyone is turned away by GP. The NHS has published guidance online on what their rights are, and a residential mooring will usually have a fixed address attached to it, and this will enable the boat owner to access public services.
Just like anyone else in the catchment area. They can register with a local GP and dentist, access local schools and vote on the issue of people that are not in residential moorings on education. I will write to the noble Lady on that issue. I don't, I don't know, liaise, do have responsibility for people that move around the country because they do with travellers, but I'm not sure how that applies to boat owners. So I will write to her on that subject. And on the issue about different GP IT systems, I I'm not sure that that's an insurmountable issue because GPS will treat you in a different part of the country if you're there on holiday, for example.
So I'm not clear why that that should be an issue for people that move around the country for other reasons. So perhaps if the noble Lady's got some evidence on that, I'll be happy to look at it and find out more about where there's an issue. And in terms of banks, DVLA and HMRC, all of those will generally accept a residential mooring address in the same way as other addresses. Many banks may insist on a fixed residential address for identity checks, though Baroness Miller raised the issue about housing needs assessment.
And I think that's a very good point. Planning policy, of course, does require local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community and set policies to address those needs. And those groups include travellers and house and boat dwellers. So I recognise and welcome the commitment of the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Cashman. On the issue of boat dwellers, the government's opposition to this bill isn't based on any lack of respect for those views, but rather the lack of clarity on what this bill is intending to achieve.
Any changes to the security of tenure of boat owners must be carefully considered, together with the views of all navigation authorities and the findings of, as I said of the 2025 review on the licensing of boats commissioned by the Canal and River trust, the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Cashman will appreciate the current pressures on resources in my department and the many competing demands to add additional priorities for work to be carried out on policy. That said, I am sure that with a fair wind, to use a boating expression, I will be happy to continue discussions with them about how we work to make things better for boat dwellers.
And with that, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I thank all those who have taken part in this very short have taken part in this very short debate, especially Lord Cashman, for his expertise as he's been dealing with this matter for a very dealing with this matter for a very long time. He's absolutely right that when we've tried to amend the Renters Rights Act, it's always Renters Rights Act, it's always been said that it's just too difficult to do and that there is a difficult to do and that there is a housing crisis.
And this is possibly part of the solution. The the issue around flexible morning moorings, which the Minister has
Government, of course, is committed to tackling insecurities across all housing sectors, including boat dwellers. And the question before us is not only one of housing rights, it's also about the practical management of finite public waterways and the ability of navigation authorities to discharge their statutory responsibilities. And the noble Lord Jamieson referred to this several provisions of the Bill would substantially reduce the ability of navigation authorities to enforce licensing requirements and to manage the network fairly. And of course, while the government accepts the need for a proportionality and appropriate safeguards, navigation authorities must retain the ability to deal with persistent non-compliance, licence evasion, unsafe vehicles and potentially obstruction of the network.
Now, to use a boat as a main and only home, the boat owner will require a licence, a mooring with planning permission for residential use and the agreement of the mooring owner. The agreement with the mooring owner will grant the boat owner a licence to occupy the mooring, and will set out how long the boat owner can stay on the mooring. A boat owner on a residential mooring may also benefit from the protection from Eviction Act 1977. This requires a mooring owner to obtain a court order to evict a boat owner who continues to use the mooring after their licence agreement has ended.
Boat owners using their boats for other purposes, including for recreational use, will have access to other types of moorings, including utility and short stay visitor moorings on waterways managed by the Canal and River trust. If a boat is licensed without a home mooring, it must move on a regular basis and must not generally stay in the same place for more than 14 days. The bill before us today aims to formally recognise the rights of people whose main home is a boat, the definition of which in clause two includes a number of floating structures.
The government does not consider that the proposed legislation would achieve its intended outcome. The Bill proposes that boats should be brought within the definitions of house and dwelling at section 99 of the Housing Act 2004, and that other legislation be amended as required, so that boats would then be considered as lawful homes and give the boat owners access to public services. The existing definition of house at section 99 of the 2004 act currently refers only to a building.
A building is defined in common law as a structure which forms part of the. Realty, changes the physical appearance of the land and which requires some degree of permanence. Section 99 of the Housing Act 2004 also defines the term house as it applies to the selective licensing regime. The proposed amendment would therefore only have practical effect. Where a boat is located in an area already designated for selective licensing, the amendment would not have any impact if the boat was not located in an area subject to selective licensing.
Clause five of the bill places a duty on the Secretary of State to, within one year of enactment, publish a report to assess the extent to which boat dwellers with and without permanent moorings have security of tenure within the meaning of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954. In simple terms, security of tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 means certain tenants may have a right to stay in occupation or seek a new lease when their existing lease comes to an end.
That regime applies only in specific cases, including some long residential tenancies at low rents and certain commercial tenancies. Boat owners on a residential mooring will not be party to a commercial lease. Rather, they will have a licence to occupy the mooring. Boat owners without a residential mooring will also not have a lease agreement. Rather, they must comply with the terms of the boat licence agreed by the relevant navigation authority. Therefore, the concept of security of tenure as it applies to long tenancies at low rents and to commercial leases is not relevant here.
The Bill also places certain requirements on relevant authorities, which include navigation authorities, port authorities, the Environment Agency and riparian owners. There would need to be extensive consultation with those authorities on the bill's proposals to ensure the effective operation and management of the waterways. Turning now to some of the specific points that were raised by the noble Baroness Bakewell, the noble Lord Cashman, who I thank for his long campaign on this subject. And he. We. He and I have had many conversations on this issue.
First of all, on security of tenure. Boat owners with a residential mooring do have that licence to occupy the mooring, and their security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement they entered into with the mooring owner. And as I said earlier, they may also be protected under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977. Some boat owners will not want a residential mooring, but instead prefer to move frequently around the waterways. And it's important that boat owners continue to have that choice.
A tenancy arises when a landlord grants a person a legal right to exclusive possession of premises for a specified period of time, in return for the payment of rent in law. A licence arises when there is no right to exclusive possession, and there is no intention to enter into a legal relationship of landlord and tenant. A boat owner security of tenure will depend on the terms of the agreement with the owner of the residential mooring in relation to access to public services, and I think this is a really key point, and I understand the concerns about access to services.
Boat dwellers who have a residential mooring will have a security of tenure based on their mooring agreement, and be able to access public services to give boat dwellers without a residential mooring the same rights as those with residential moorings, would have significant implications for the management of the waterways. Any changes that may impact the management of waterways should be taken after consultation with navigation authorities and key stakeholders, and must also take account of the findings of the review commissioned in 2025 by the Canal and River trust, one of the largest navigation authorities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, particularly mentioned issues of GP and other services and for GP services. There is no regulatory requirement to prove identity, address or an NHS number to register as a patient and no contractual requirement for GPS to request this. If anyone is turned away by GP. The NHS has published guidance online on what their rights are, and a residential mooring will usually have a fixed address attached to it, and this will enable the boat owner to access public services.
Just like anyone else in the catchment area. They can register with a local GP and dentist, access local schools and vote on the issue of people that are not in residential moorings on education. I will write to the noble Lady on that issue. I don't, I don't know, liaise, do have responsibility for people that move around the country because they do with travellers, but I'm not sure how that applies to boat owners. So I will write to her on that subject. And on the issue about different GP IT systems, I I'm not sure that that's an insurmountable issue because GPS will treat you in a different part of the country if you're there on holiday, for example.
So I'm not clear why that that should be an issue for people that move around the country for other reasons. So perhaps if the noble Lady's got some evidence on that, I'll be happy to look at it and find out more about where there's an issue. And in terms of banks, DVLA and HMRC, all of those will generally accept a residential mooring address in the same way as other addresses. Many banks may insist on a fixed residential address for identity checks, though Baroness Miller raised the issue about housing needs assessment.
And I think that's a very good point. Planning policy, of course, does require local authorities to assess the size, type and tenure of housing needed for different groups in the community and set policies to address those needs. And those groups include travellers and house and boat dwellers. So I recognise and welcome the commitment of the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Cashman. On the issue of boat dwellers, the government's opposition to this bill isn't based on any lack of respect for those views, but rather the lack of clarity on what this bill is intending to achieve.
Any changes to the security of tenure of boat owners must be carefully considered, together with the views of all navigation authorities and the findings of, as I said of the 2025 review on the licensing of boats commissioned by the Canal and River trust, the noble Lady and my noble friend Lord Cashman will appreciate the current pressures on resources in my department and the many competing demands to add additional priorities for work to be carried out on policy. That said, I am sure that with a fair wind, to use a boating expression, I will be happy to continue discussions with them about how we work to make things better for boat dwellers.
And with that, I'm very grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
My Lord, I thank all those who have taken part in this very short have taken part in this very short debate, especially Lord Cashman, for his expertise as he's been dealing with this matter for a very dealing with this matter for a very long time. He's absolutely right that when we've tried to amend the Renters Rights Act, it's always Renters Rights Act, it's always been said that it's just too difficult to do and that there is a difficult to do and that there is a housing crisis.
And this is possibly part of the solution. The the issue around flexible morning moorings, which the Minister has
14:41
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
also referred to, does produce the ability to evict. And so it doesn't ability to evict. And so it doesn't provide the what we're looking for in this bill, the fact that it's in this bill, the fact that it's too problematic to do something. It's not really, I don't think, a good enough reason for not taking good enough reason for not taking any actions. I'm grateful to my noble friend, Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer. She's absolutely right that it's about the rights of those who choose a different lifestyle.
And sometimes it's very difficult for those people who are following 99% of the population's choice of lifestyle to accept that some have a different choice, and we need to protect that, because if we don't protect the minorities, that just diminishes us all. The issue about about being a chattel, I was very interested in that. You're absolutely right. It is still a home. It's not like a wine glass or a a chair. It is the home and homes are really, really important to everybody's well-being.
And you, you go into the door and you shut the door and that is your home. That's where you feel safe. And it doesn't matter whether it's on land or whether it's on water. You're absolutely the forget who is. Somebody said the Canal and River trust do have different types of moorings. They have permanent moorings. They have temporary moorings. And and that is good. But what does happen for those that do not have a permanent or a temporary mooring, then they get moved on and I hear what is been said about being moved in 14 days.
That is not always what happens. Sometimes people are moved on within 24 hours and it's very, very distressing for them. I welcome Lord Jameson's contribution and that all should have access to public services, and I absolutely agree with what he said about council tax and about what people who are looking for more security on the on the river and canals ways. And it is absolutely about more rights, but with more responsibilities. The one is not going to come without the other.
And I sign up to that completely. So it's not the question of giving people rights through the back door, for which they have no responsibility. But it is about making sure that those who live in boats do have, can. Maintain a nomadic lifestyle and, and have access to services at the same time. The Minister is quite right to raise the issue about the navigation authorities. They are agitated about what's in the bill, and I have had contact from them.
But the the issue about moorings and moving forward on this is absolutely key. I'm not sure that section 99 of the Housing Act is likely to ever be amended so that it includes both. But it's something that we could look at and something that we could look at and we have to consider that. We have to find a way. Me, I have to find a way through this bill to get some kind of security for those boat dwellers who travel.
They don't just. Mosey up and down the river on a leisure activity. They are moving as part of their lifestyle. In some cases, as part of their business. They are using their boat and they where they go. Then they conduct their business and then they move on and do it again. And they have to do to be able to do that. The Minister says that that GPS cannot turn boaters away because they don't have a postcode, and that they should be able to access the health service.
Unfortunately, that is not what happens in every case, and GPS have refused to take on people because they don't have a postcode. But I thank everybody for the debate that we have had, and it's really interesting and we have started the debate, and I do hope that we can move forward with that debate, and therefore I beg to move.
And sometimes it's very difficult for those people who are following 99% of the population's choice of lifestyle to accept that some have a different choice, and we need to protect that, because if we don't protect the minorities, that just diminishes us all. The issue about about being a chattel, I was very interested in that. You're absolutely right. It is still a home. It's not like a wine glass or a a chair. It is the home and homes are really, really important to everybody's well-being.
And you, you go into the door and you shut the door and that is your home. That's where you feel safe. And it doesn't matter whether it's on land or whether it's on water. You're absolutely the forget who is. Somebody said the Canal and River trust do have different types of moorings. They have permanent moorings. They have temporary moorings. And and that is good. But what does happen for those that do not have a permanent or a temporary mooring, then they get moved on and I hear what is been said about being moved in 14 days.
That is not always what happens. Sometimes people are moved on within 24 hours and it's very, very distressing for them. I welcome Lord Jameson's contribution and that all should have access to public services, and I absolutely agree with what he said about council tax and about what people who are looking for more security on the on the river and canals ways. And it is absolutely about more rights, but with more responsibilities. The one is not going to come without the other.
And I sign up to that completely. So it's not the question of giving people rights through the back door, for which they have no responsibility. But it is about making sure that those who live in boats do have, can. Maintain a nomadic lifestyle and, and have access to services at the same time. The Minister is quite right to raise the issue about the navigation authorities. They are agitated about what's in the bill, and I have had contact from them.
But the the issue about moorings and moving forward on this is absolutely key. I'm not sure that section 99 of the Housing Act is likely to ever be amended so that it includes both. But it's something that we could look at and something that we could look at and we have to consider that. We have to find a way. Me, I have to find a way through this bill to get some kind of security for those boat dwellers who travel.
They don't just. Mosey up and down the river on a leisure activity. They are moving as part of their lifestyle. In some cases, as part of their business. They are using their boat and they where they go. Then they conduct their business and then they move on and do it again. And they have to do to be able to do that. The Minister says that that GPS cannot turn boaters away because they don't have a postcode, and that they should be able to access the health service.
Unfortunately, that is not what happens in every case, and GPS have refused to take on people because they don't have a postcode. But I thank everybody for the debate that we have had, and it's really interesting and we have started the debate, and I do hope that we can move forward with that debate, and therefore I beg to move.
14:46
Lord Deputy Speaker
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Labour)
-
Lord Deputy Speaker
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin (Labour)
This will be now read a second >> This will be now read a second time. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. To move that this bill committed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to a Committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill
**** Possible New Speaker ****
opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it. To move that this bill committed
**** Possible New Speaker ****
to a Committee of the whole House. The question is that this bill
14:46
Commitment motion
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
-
Commitment motion
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (Liberal Democrat)
>> The question is that this bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House. As many as are of that whole House. As many as are of that opinion will say content. To the contrary, not content. The contents have it.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
**** Possible New Speaker ****
have it. My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.