Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Lords Hansard - part two & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment. I thank the noble Baroness for bringing it forward. As she said, we met many years ago in her office upstairs, with representatives of the trade union USDAW to discuss these issues. We rightly pursued this point.

Many years ago, when I was about 14, I became a shop worker; I started working in a shop on the Walworth Road. It got me talking, and I have not stopped talking since. Meeting people gave me confidence. Equally, over the many years I worked there, there were often incidents when you were abused by customers. In those days, when someone paid by credit card you had to phone up if you were a bit suspicious. You had people legging it for the bus—there were all sorts of incidents. There were always issues. You would sometimes be abused by people who were seeking to do wrong: to shoplift or cause other problems. So I have first-hand experience of some of the problems that shop workers have experienced.

I was a member of USDAW. It is a fantastic trade union. It understands its members and the issues they have, and puts them forward persuasively to government and local authorities. It always did that. One of its long-running campaigns is called Freedom from Fear. You have the right to go to work, do your job, be paid for your work and not live in fear. Many shop workers have that issue; they are in fear of what will happen to them there. During the pandemic we have all seen some appalling stories of how shop workers have been treated. USDAW has been really good in standing up to that.

I pay tribute to John Hannett, the former general secretary of USDAW, to Paddy Lillis, the present general secretary, to the staff and to the many hundreds of thousands of USDAW members who have not let this issue rest. I also pay tribute to some really good employers, the supermarkets that understand the problems their staff have. The Co-op, Tesco and many others have stood up and backed the union and its members. This amendment has also been led by the work of Daniel Johnson MSP in Scotland. He got his Private Member’s Bill through last year.

What is really good about this amendment is how wide it is; it covers anybody delivering a service to the public. In some senses it is wider than my noble friend Lord Coaker’s amendment, which I think is great, and a better amendment. It is really good and we should do it.

I am really pleased. We all hear many stories about what goes on. My good friend Elaine Dean, the vice-president of the Central England Co-op, will tell you about some of the appalling incidents it has had with its members and with staff over the pandemic. I genuinely thank the Minister. She listened, understood and went back to the department and argued in support of the campaign, and we have come out with a good amendment. I thank her very much for that.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I call the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, who will speak remotely.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I declare an interest in that my son works in retail. I have added my name to that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia on Amendment 114 in this group. This threshold needs removing from the Anti-social Behaviour Act, and here we have the perfect opportunity to do it.

Retailers keep UK plc going. They provide us with the goods we need to live our lives, no matter what. They are key workers, but they do not have the key support they need. It is shocking that retailers lose £770 million a year to retail crime. Between the 307,000 shops, this comes to an average of almost £2,500 per shop, per year. Noble Lords may say that this amount of money could easily be a sunk cost for our supermarkets —but not for our independent shops. Assuming an 8% margin, retailers such as those belonging to the British Independent Retailers Association would have to make sales of almost £32,000 for a small shop just to make back what they have lost to these criminals. This is while the level of retail crime is still increasing: by 19.1% between 2014 and 2018, compared with 4.96% between 2010 and 2014, before the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act was given Royal Assent.

As only one in 20 of all shoplifting offences are now prosecuted, it cannot be a shock that such odds are likely to give any wily criminal the feeling that their crime does not matter and that they can do what they want with little or no consequence. Is it any wonder that retailers feel that, while they are being punished, perpetrators of retail crime are not? This needs to change. Retailers need to feel that they have the Government’s support and that they are not the ones being punished when someone steals from their shop. I therefore support this amendment from my noble friend Lord Dholakia.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 10th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Clause 81: Financial penalty conditions

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

If Amendment 176 is approved, I cannot call Amendment 177 by reason of pre-emption.

Amendments 175 to 177 not moved.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I know how hard she and the other noble Lords who have backed amendments on support for migrant victims have been working on this issue. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her support on Report. I am also tremendously grateful to End Violence Against Women for its assistance; I would like to take one last opportunity to praise it and organisations such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service for the extremely important work they do.

My noble friend the Minister has been generous with her time and has worked tremendously hard on this Bill, and I recognise that the Government have made some very important concessions elsewhere. I am sorry that we have not yet been able to put in better protection and support for the migrant victims who so desperately need it. However, I am grateful for the Minister’s commitment on the statutory guidance just offered.

Of the various amendments relating to migrant victims, the original Amendment 43 passed with the largest majority in your Lordships’ House. I believe that this in part reflects the strength of feeling around the Istanbul convention. Since we last debated this amendment on Report, Turkey has withdrawn from the convention—a serious backward step for millions of women. It is one that makes our own failure, or inability, to ratify almost nine years after we signed all the less excusable. We should be leading the charge for women’s rights around the world, yet we cannot get our own house in order.

Motion F2 is a significant concession. It would not create any additional financial duties. It is much more limited in scope than its predecessor, dealing only with local authority strategies—not with all aspects of support and protection—and making non-discrimination a consideration rather than an absolute requirement. I am glad that my noble friend recognised that this amendment does not pre-empt the pilot project and reviews currently under way but could still improve the lives of some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse. It could make all the difference for them between getting the support that they need to escape to build a new life and remaining trapped, stuck with abusers who use immigration status as one more weapon in their arsenal.

I fear that we will have missed an important opportunity if we do not manage to embed greater protection and support for migrant victims in the Bill. I know that the demands on the Government are many and varied, and that future action, though promised, can easily slip. We have before us legislation and a ready opportunity to improve the lives of desperate, vulnerable victims and give them some protection, support and dignity, and a chance to become something more than victims. The various amendments being proposed—Motion F2, Motion F1 and, earlier, Motion E1—are chances to act. They are more limited in scope and ambition than earlier amendments, but they could still make real improvements to the lives of women and men experiencing abuse. I am sorry that the Government have not embraced them.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will at least be able to offer us some prospect of progress on the Istanbul convention. She said “as soon as practicable”, but I am afraid that that is still indefinite. A timetable for ratification—a yardstick by which we could monitor and observe progress in the future—would be very welcome. If we cannot legislate, at least we can scrutinise. A firmer commitment to full ratification without any reservations, sooner rather than later, would be a point of light in a world where women’s rights are slipping backwards as often as they are marching forwards.

I do not want to hold up this Bill. I know that timing is tight, and the last thing anyone wants is for it to fail. I am grateful to have taken this issue this far and to have had such resounding cross-party support for both the Istanbul convention and the important issue of non-discrimination—which, I should note, goes much wider than just migrant victims, although they have been my main focus in your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Government will not forget the strong arguments that have been heard across all stages of the Bill. Above all, I hope that they will not forget the powerful testimonies of survivors that have featured. Their voices are our inspiration and courage. I hope that we can give them the support and protection they deserve.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has withdrawn. I have no notification of unlisted speakers, but does anyone in the Chamber wish to speak? No. In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has been a passionate campaigner on these issues. I was going to say that she had stepped down from the Front Bench, but she has stepped up to bigger and better things in the House, and I personally will miss her greatly.

Lords Amendment 41 would have provided a route for victims of domestic abuse who are subject to immigration control to be given the opportunity to apply for leave to remain—not given leave to remain but given the opportunity to apply—by allowing them to stay in the UK pending the outcome of their application and to be supported financially during this time. Many of these victims are reliant on their abusive partner for support, making escape from domestic abuse almost impossible. Initially, the Government said the reason they objected was that they thought people might falsely claim to be victims of domestic abuse in order to seek leave to remain in the UK. Again, we have to ask: what is more important, protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse or immigration control? The Commons reason is simply

“Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds”.


The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has presented an alternative amendment, a very modest amendment, that seeks to address all the concerns the Government have previously expressed. There is a £1.5 million 12-month pilot supporting such victims of domestic abuse, and the amendment simply ensures that, during the pilot period, victims are not turned down because of a lack of funds. It then sets a timetable for the introduction of a permanent solution once the results of the pilot have been evaluated. The amendment comprehensively sets out the evidence necessary to show that someone is a genuine victim of domestic abuse. This alternative amendment is the very least the Government should do for these particularly vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and we would support the right reverend Prelate were she to divide the House.

Lords Amendment 43 would have ensured that all victims of domestic abuse received equal protection and support irrespective of their status, including their immigration status. The Commons reason for disagreeing was that it would

“involve a charge on public funds”.

Indeed it might—but it would also have been a significant step towards the UK finally being able to ratify the Istanbul convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has proposed an alternative amendment that would at least ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all victims, including migrant women, when they make strategic decisions about tackling domestic abuse. This cannot be the landmark Bill the Government intend it to be unless it puts the final pieces into place to enable the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention. I recall an expression my mother was fond of: “Don’t spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar.”

I was hoping that this Bill could be, like the Modern Slavery Act, a magnificent piece of legislation of which all sides of the House could be justifiably proud. We have already vastly improved the Bill in this House; it would be a shame if we now left it less than watertight.

Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, the instrument before us prevents enforcement agents—bailiffs—attending residential premises in England to execute a writ or warrant of possession, except in the most serious circumstances. The House will be familiar with the structure and content of the instrument. Although I will deal with the content of the instrument in due course, I want to begin with its duration, because that matter was raised by several noble Lords in the debate we had on 2 February about this SI’s predecessor.

This instrument applies to enforcement action in England and will be in force until 31 March this year. It extends restrictions on the enforcement of evictions that have been in place since mid-November. The current SI expires on 22 February. On 2 February, when we debated the previous statutory instrument, a number of noble Lords raised concerns that the ban was not in place for long enough and that both landlords and tenants would benefit from greater clarity about how long the restrictions would be in force. We have had to balance that need for clarity against an ongoing and changing pandemic, but we have listened to the views expressed by noble Lords. On 10 March, the Government announced that we intend to extend these protections until 31 May, and we will lay legislation to do so shortly. So although the formal position is that this SI takes us up to 31 March, the legislation we will bring forward, as we have already announced, will give people clarity and assurance until 31 May.

That 31 May date is broadly in line with the roadmap out of lockdown. Noble Lords will need no reminding from me that step 3 of the roadmap will be taken no earlier than 17 May, following a review of the data as it appears at the time. Step 3 sees a number of restrictions lifted, including the ban on domestic overnight stays, which is relevant in this context. Noble Lords might ask why the proposed date is 31 May and not linked to step 4, which is scheduled for no earlier than 21 June. The short answer is that we have to remember, when looking at 31 May, that in most cases, bailiffs are now required to give 14 days’ notice of an eviction. In practice, protection from enforcement of evictions will be afforded, in most cases, until mid-June. We believe that that strikes the right balance in the circumstances.

The substantive provisions of the instrument are the same as in the one we debated on 2 February, apart from the duration, which I have already addressed. As I set out on 2 February, the Government have put in place unprecedented financial support to protect renters directly through measures such as these regulations and increasing the local housing allowance rate to the 30th percentile of local market rates in each area. We have made £180 million available to local authorities in discretionary housing payments. Of course, there is also the furlough scheme, support for the self-employed and bounceback loans.

While I will not go through the detail of that again, let me highlight two provisions in the Budget that are relevant in this context. First, as noble Lords will be aware, the furlough scheme was extended until the end of September. Secondly, the support for the self-employed was extended in scope—600,000 people who were not previously entitled are now entitled—and duration, to the end of September. We continue to provide limited exemptions from the ban on enforcement. They are, as previously set out, broadly as follows: where the claim is against trespassers who are persons unknown; where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of antisocial behaviour, nuisance, false statements, domestic abuse in social tenancies or substantial rent arrears equivalent to six months’ rent; and where the order for possession was made wholly or partly on the grounds of the death of the tenant, and the enforcement agent is satisfied that the property is unoccupied. Those exemptions are applied by the court on a case-by-case basis.

The critical point is that given that broad sweep of financial support, we consider it unlikely that a full six months of arrears would have accumulated solely because of the effects of Covid-19. Rather, where that exemption applies, it will likely involve significant levels of rent arrears that predate the pandemic, where landlords may now have been waiting for over a year without rent being paid.

In addition, where the court applies an exemption, bailiffs have to give tenants at least 14 days’ notice of an eviction in most circumstances and have been asked not to enforce evictions where a tenant has symptoms of Covid-19 or is self-isolating. In addition, we have introduced a requirement in the Coronavirus Act that landlords in all but the most serious circumstances must provide tenants with six months’ notice before beginning formal possession proceedings in court.

Previously, in Section 21 cases, two months’ notice was needed, and other grounds required as little as two weeks’ notice. The requirement for longer notice was to apply until 31 March, but the Housing Minister laid an SI last week to extend that period also to 31 May. Extending the notice period obviously gives additional protection to tenants. Taking this in the round, that requirement to provide six months’ notice in the majority of cases means that most renters now served notice by a landlord can stay in their homes until September 2021. Our statistics show that the number of possession cases has fallen significantly. In the last quarter of 2020, they were down 67% compared to the same quarter the previous year.

In the limited time I have, I want to take a moment to express my gratitude to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee for addressing the challenges the coronavirus pandemic has caused the justice system and for the considerable work done at some pace by both that committee and the working party under the chairmanship of Sir Robin Knowles. Since I mentioned the judiciary, I extend my respectful welcome to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, a former chancellor of the High Court and, more recently, Master of the Rolls. Like all noble Lords, I look forward to his maiden speech later in this debate.

So far as the courts are concerned, temporary arrangements remain in place to ensure appropriate support. We have introduced new review stages and a requirement that cases have to be reactivated, and we are piloting a new, free mediation service until August this year. We are conscious that we also have to think about landlords. We consider that the best way to protect landlords is to provide the financial help we have been providing to help renters pay their rent. We are grateful to landlords for their forbearance during this unprecedented time, and we encourage all renters not only to pay their rent but to have an early conversation with their landlord if they are in difficulties.

This instrument provides tenants with protection from eviction up to 31 March. We have announced that we will bring forward legislation to extend that to 31 May. We are trying to strike an appropriate balance during an unprecedented public health crisis to avoid placing additional burdens on the NHS and local authorities. For those reasons, I commend these regulations to the House.

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I should have added that there is time in this debate for the maiden speaker to have a whole extra minute and the welcomer a whole extra 90 seconds if they wish to be so indulgent.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

The TPIM Act includes safeguards for the protection of the civil liberties of those subject to TPIM notices. All TPIM subjects are granted an automatic review on the imposition of their TPIM notice, and Section 16, as I say, provides an avenue of appeal for subjects who wish to challenge the decision to extend their TPIM notice for a further year. The Government have no desire to keep an individual on a TPIM any longer than is necessary and proportionate. However, protecting the public is the Government’s foremost priority and we must be able to restrict and prevent an individual’s involvement in terrorism-related activity for as long as necessary, rather than being confined by an arbitrary time limit on the length of a TPIM, which could put people at risk. These are the reasons why I respectfully urge noble Lords to withdraw their amendment.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have two questions. First, he spoke about Section 9 hearings and the appeal route under Section 16 making our amendment unnecessary. Can he tell the Committee how many times TPIMs have been revoked or restrictions eased as a result of each of these types of hearing?

Secondly, terrorism prevention and investigation measures are, as their title describes, temporary means of preventing terrorism taking place while an investigation tries to establish evidence to convict the person in a criminal court. Control orders, on the other hand, have been used in the past for public protection. If the Government are changing the nature of TPIMs and abandoning them as a temporary measure to enable an investigation to take place in safety, why do they continue to call them TPIMs? Why not now call them control orders, which are in fact what the Government are trying to use here?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 38 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 30A. I notify noble Lords that at the end of this group we shall have a short break. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 39: TPIMs: variation of measures

Amendment 30A

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with the Question that Clause 40 stand part of the Bill. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 40: TPIMs: extension of residence measure

Debate on whether Clause 40 should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 34 to 36 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 37. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 37

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the imperfections of remote working have again unfortunately intervened. I did ask to speak after the Minister on the last group, and I hope the Committee will indulge me if I ask one question of the Minister about the former group. The Government are saying that they hope the new independent reviewer of Prevent will produce his report by August this year. In our amendment, by my calculation, we are setting a deadline of August next year. Perhaps when the Minister responds to this group, he could also answer the question of why a 12-month deadline beyond what the Government are proposing themselves is not considered a reasonable time for that review to be undertaken.

Turning to this group of amendments, Amendment 37 requires a review and report on the effectiveness of current strategies to deal with lone terrorists. Amendment 40 calls for a report on which agencies are included within Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—or MAPPA—for the purpose of managing terrorist offenders. Both amendments are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.

In December 2017, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, published his independent assessment of police and MI5 reviews into the Manchester Arena attack and three other incidents in London—all of which involved lone terrorists—which killed a total of 36 people. The report made 126 recommendations, later consolidated into 104 things that could have been done better by counterterrorism officials.

In 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, published a stocktake of progress on the recommendations in his 2017 report, including multiagency centres for managing the risk posed by those suspected of being engaged in terrorist activity, which presumably includes lone terrorists. I am not sure to what extent the review and reports the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is calling for overlap with the work of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. Perhaps the Minister can advise the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I apologise to the noble Lord. The delay in getting messages to the iPad on the Woolsack meant that I did not get the message that he wished to speak on the last group. But I now call the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, continues to prove himself doughty in the face of technological challenges, and I am happy to address the question he would have asked in the previous group. He makes a valid point about the much longer timeframe proposed in his amendment, which we debated in that group. As I said, however, because Mr Shawcross is an independent reviewer, I cannot speak for him at the Dispatch Box. We must speak to him and see what he feels is the timeframe he needs. If we are able to have that conversation and he feels able to give a view before Report stage, we will of course come back and report it, but it is for the independent reviewer to make his assessment of how long he needs to do the thorough job required, as I hope the noble Lord will understand.

Turning now to this group, Amendment 37 would require the Home Secretary to commission a new, judge-led review of the effectiveness of the Government’s strategy to deal with lone-actor terrorists. While I welcome the constructive spirit in which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, tabled this amendment, I must respectfully disagree over the need to add it to the Bill.

I reassure the noble Lord that a great deal of work is already under way to combat the terrorist threat, including that posed by lone actors. My right honourable friend the Security Minister talked in some detail about this in a speech he gave at RUSI in November last year—particularly the term “lone actor” itself. If the noble Lord has not seen it, it is well worth reading. I would be very happy to provide noble Lords with a copy of that speech if they would like it.

The Government have been clear that we will not hesitate to act where necessary. Following the attacks at Fishmongers’ Hall and in Streatham, we brought forward legislation to address flaws in the way terrorist offenders were managed. The legislation we are now debating marks the largest overhaul of terrorist sentencing in decades. It follows on from the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, which came into force in February last year. That Act was, as noble Lords will remember, emergency legislation. One of its effects was to prevent around 50 terrorist prisoners being automatically released after serving only half their sentence, by amending their release point to at least two-thirds of their sentence and ensuring they are released only after an assessment by the Parole Board.

Following the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary commissioned Jonathan Hall QC to carry out an independent review of the effectiveness of the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA, when it comes to the management of terrorism, terrorist connections and offenders of terrorism concern in the community. MAPPA is the process through which the police, the Prison Service and the probation service work together and with other agencies—including children’s services, adult social services, health trusts and authorities, and youth offending teams—to protect the public by managing the risks posed by violent and sexual offenders living in the community.

That review found that MAPPA is a well-established process, and Mr Hall did not conclude that wholesale change is necessary. He made a number of recommendations on how the management of terrorists can be improved. In response to the review, the Government will shortly be bringing forward policing and crime legislation implementing a number of his recommendations, including new powers of premises and personal search, and an urgent power of arrest for counterterrorism policing.

This ongoing work builds on the response to the 2017 attacks. Three of the attacks in 2017 were carried out by lone actors, as was the attack in Reading, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, reminds us, which we sadly saw more recently. In 2018, the Government published a strengthened counterterrorism strategy, known as Contest, following operational improvement reviews overseen by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As part of that strategy we have piloted new multiagency approaches at the local level—in London, the West Midlands and Greater Manchester—to enable MI5 and counterterrorism policing to share more information with a broader range of partners, including government departments, the devolved Administrations and local authorities. This has enabled us to identify, mitigate and disrupt threats earlier. Our superb police, and security and intelligence agencies work around the clock to keep us safe: they have disrupted 27 terrorist plots since 2017.

There are now more than 20 government departments and agencies involved in the delivery of Contest, and we have worked to build strong relationships with the private sector, the third sector and the wider public. We will continue to invest in these relationships and drive greater integration, recognising that to reduce the risk of terrorism we need not only a whole-of-Government but a whole-of-society approach. In the context of the wide-ranging work already under way and recently completed, the Government do not consider that the noble Lord’s amendment is needed.

I turn now to Amendment 40. This proposed new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay a report within 12 months of the Bill being passed, defining which agencies are included within MAPPA for the purposes of managing terrorist offenders. The agencies included in MAPPA are already listed in Section 325 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As has been mentioned already, these include criminal justice agencies such as the police and the probation service, as well as other agencies, including mental health services, social services and NHS England. These agencies are placed under a statutory obligation to work together to assess and manage the risk presented by serious offenders.

Moreover, agencies with a legal duty to co-operate with MAPPA must have regard to statutory guidance issued by the Ministry of Justice. This guidance, which also sets out which agencies must co-operate, is publicly available. Agencies that do not have a statutory duty to co-operate with MAPPA are not obliged to engage. There are, however, no barriers in place to prevent this engagement for the purposes of assessing and managing the risks presented by serious offenders. It is our belief that the right agencies already have a duty to co-operate in place, and, as such, they are listed publicly in the Criminal Justice Act.

I have already mentioned Jonathan Hall’s recent review of MAPPA. On the question of the identity of the agencies involved in MAPPA, he raised no issues. He did, however, raise questions about the way in which MAPPA agencies share information with each other, and the Government have confirmed in our response to his review that we will clarify the position in upcoming legislation to put the matter beyond doubt. We believe, therefore, that since this knowledge is already publicly available and enshrined in legislation, there is no need for this amendment. I hope the noble Lord agrees and that he will be willing to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 41, which is all government amendments. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate.

Schedule 13: Consequential and related amendments

Amendment 41

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 42 to 65 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 66. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister’s reply should email the clerk during the debate.

Amendment 66

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. We do not seem to have him, so we will go on to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the opposition to Clause 69 standing part, and Amendment 191, both in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, have enabled us to debate the whole issue of mandatory polygraph tests, and the fact that such tests could be made a licence condition for domestic abuse offenders.

I certainly want to see effective action taken against offenders, and effective punishments given to them. I have some concerns about the use of the polygraph test. If we rely on it further and further, it should be piloted in the way set out in Amendment 191, and we must be convinced of its reliability. As the noble Lord set out in his amendment, a report evaluating the trials must then be laid before Parliament and debated and a positive resolution passed by both Houses. I have had no involvement in this technology and I have no understanding of it—apart from what I have seen on television—so I believe that we must be very careful to get this right.

I was concerned by the comment made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which seemed to suggest that we would not have our own standards but would import them from another country—America. I would much rather that as a country we had our own standards, in which we had confidence, than import them from elsewhere. But polygraph testing is not widely used in this country and before we go much further, we need to be confident that it is reliable, and an effective and useful tool in the management of offenders.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, shall we see if we have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, on the call? I do not think we do, sadly, in which case I call the Minister.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to strike out—alone among the clauses in the Bill—Clause 69. I will endeavour to persuade him, and the rest of the Committee, that this clause, like others, can play an important part in protecting victims of domestic abuse. Right at the start, however, I join the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in thanking those at the MoJ who provided the presentation made to them. This was a very good example of how that sort of interaction—what one might call a learning session—can help everyone when we debate these matters in Committee.

Clause 69 allows the Secretary of State for Justice to introduce mandatory polygraph examinations as a licence condition for offenders convicted of a relevant domestic abuse-related offence. The relevant offences have included, until now: murder, specified violent offences, and the controlling or coercive behaviour offences set out in the Serious Crime Act 2015.

Polygraph examinations are already successfully used in the management of sexual offenders supervised by the National Probation Service. The clause extends the use of testing to include—in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—high-risk domestic abuse perpetrators: those who have been released from custody having served a sentence of 12 months or more and are on licence.

The polygraph testing is used to monitor an offender’s compliance with other licence conditions, such as those restricting contact with their victim, requiring the offender to notify the probation officer when they form new relationships, or prohibiting entry into an exclusion zone; for example, around their victim’s home. It is also used to monitor dynamic risk factors such as alcohol or substance misuse.

I will try to respond to a number of questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, but if I miss any out, I undertake to write to him after reviewing the Official Report.

The policy underpinning these provisions does not allow offenders to be recalled to custody for failing a test. I use the word “fail” being cognisant of the fact that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, we are not talking here about failing in the normal sense of the word. Indeed, I think the noble Baroness explained her approach to polygraphs as being somewhere between a yes and a no; that might be applicable to the polygraph itself. The clause does, however, enable offenders to be recalled for making disclosures during testing which, when considered with other evidence, suggest that the risk can no longer be managed in the community.

The offender can also be recalled to custody if he or she refuses to take the test or tries to trick it in some way; for example, by controlling their breathing. However, in response to the questions put to me, I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that disclosures made voluntarily by the offender during the polygraph examination may reveal that they can no longer be safely managed in the community. Those circumstances would also lead to a return to custody. The important point to bear in mind in that regard is that that is no different from a situation in which an offender makes such disclosures without the polygraph licence condition.

Polygraph testing can be required as part of the licence conditions imposed on an offender following their release from custody. It can be imposed only where it is deemed necessary and proportionate to the risk posed. Importantly, in its report on the draft Bill the Joint Committee did not object in principle to extending polygraph testing to domestic abuse offenders; it sought assurance on two issues.

First, it sought an absolute assurance that no statement or data derived from a polygraph test would be used in criminal proceedings. The Joint Committee acknowledged that this appeared to be the effect of the draft Bill. In that regard, the provision in Clause 69 must be viewed alongside the existing provisions relating to polygraph testing in the Offender Management Act 2007. Section 30 of that Act provides unequivocally that any statement or any physiological reaction made by an offender during the polygraph session may not be used in criminal proceedings in which that person is a defendant.

To be clear, however, this does not preclude information derived from a polygraph examination being shared with the police, who may decide to use the information to conduct further inquiries. If, as a result of those inquiries, the police obtain other evidence that suggests that an offence has been committed, charges may be brought against the offender.

The second concern raised by the Joint Committee was that polygraph testing should not become a substitute for careful risk analysis—a point that, I think, was also made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I assure the Committee that the use of polygraph examinations will not replace any other risk assessment tools or measures, such as the multiagency public protection arrangements—MAPPA—but will provide an additional source of information that would not otherwise be available.

The evaluation of the pilot mandatory polygraph testing for sexual offenders concluded that offender managers found polygraph testing very helpful. To date, 5,000 tests of that type have been carried out on 2,249 offenders, and 1,449 tests have resulted in the offenders making significant disclosures that led to either a refined risk management plan or recall to custody.

With regard to the qualifications of those carrying out the examinations, I assure the Committee that they are carried out by qualified and experienced probation officers who have completed three months’ residential training to become accredited polygraph examiners, and all polygraph examinations are quality assured by an independent external provider.

However, while the use of polygraph examinations is tried and tested, as I have said, in the context of the management of sex offenders, the Government accept that domestic abuse perpetrators represent a different cohort of offender. That is why we are committed to piloting the provisions in Clause 69. I draw the Committee’s attention to the commencement provisions in Clause 79, which expressly provides for such piloting; we will begin this as soon as is practicable after Royal Assent.

We intend to run a three-year pilot in the north of England, involving about 600 offenders. Half will be subject to testing and half—the control or comparison group—will not. The Cambridge Centre for Evidence-Based Policing, in collaboration with the University of Cambridge, will conduct an independent evaluation of the pilot, and only if the results were positive would we roll out testing across England and Wales. In response to the specific question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, in conjunction with his Amendment 191, I am happy to commit that the Government will lay a copy of the evaluation report before both Houses prior to any decision on wider rollout, enabling noble Lords to consider the findings in full. I hope that that is helpful in response to his question.

Given the benefits that we have seen with the use of polygraph testing to help us to manage the risk posed by convicted sex offenders, I apprehend that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, now sees the merit, at least in principle, of analysing the question of whether we can use the same procedure with regard to serious domestic abuse perpetrators. Indeed, last week, we heard calls for the more efficient and effective use of technology to protect victims of domestic abuse—Clause 69 does just that.

With the repetition of the point that I will go through the Official Report, because there may be one or two questions that I have not directly answered but which deserve and will get a written answer from me, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his challenge to Clause 69, which I commend to the Committee.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I am afraid that we have had no luck getting in contact with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and to the Minister for his careful response. I echo both his thanks to those in his department who organised the learning session last week and his view that it sets a good example; it would be very good to hear more often from experts in the department—particularly about the use of technology, where Members of this House perhaps have less expertise than they do in other legal areas.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked a number of questions, some of which were answered by the Minister. I am not sure that he addressed the question of what is meant by, and what the criteria are for, “high-risk” perpetrators. She also wanted to know what exactly is meant by “failing” a test; I understand, as did the Minister, the concept of evaluating a test, but there is a problem with our general understanding of results of polygraph tests as binary and with the use of the term “failed test”, which frequently figures in discussions around this issue. Given his echo of the description of answers as “somewhere between yes and no”, as expressed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, the Minister clearly appreciated that these tests cannot provide definitive answers. Will he and others give consideration to how far they should be treated as more indicative than binary?

I am less concerned about the use of information, as described by the Minister, that is derived from polygraph testing and used to submit information to the police for further investigation, which would then come up with real evidence. I am, however, a little concerned about recall based on disclosures. I understand the point that there is some similarity between disclosures that arise as a result not of polygraph testing but of, for instance, discussions with probation officers; however, I still think that there need to be safeguards. The Minister may like to consider those and put out some guidance as to how they are to be dealt with.

--- Later in debate ---

I understand what the Minister said about piloting and the role of Parliament in considering polygraph testing. I understand that he will lay a report on the rollout before Parliament so that it can consider it, but I would like to know if it is proposed that there will be further regulations before the clause and system are made permanent, which will need parliamentary approval—perhaps he could tell us that in due course. However, on the basis of what he has said, I withdraw my opposition to the Question that Clause 69 stand part of the Bill.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, I regret to say that I have had a late request to speak after the Minister from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise: there is often a delay when the clerk sends a message to the Woolsack. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

Thank you. I apologise for throwing the proceedings. I have just received an email saying that I am about to be called.

My question concerns how the Minister dealt with the fact that information—I hesitate to use the term “evidence”—obtained during a test cannot be used as evidence in legal proceedings. It has only just occurred to me that, of course, family proceedings in particular—as well as civil proceedings—are very important in respect of domestic abuse. I am unclear as to the status of what is learned during a polygraph test for family proceedings. If the Minister cannot answer that now, could he add it to the questions that he will reply to after today?

--- Later in debate ---

Clause 69 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 146. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 70: Guidance about the disclosure of information by police forces

Amendment 146

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am absolutely delighted to be a signatory to this long overdue amendment, which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the other co-signatories for bringing forward. It relates to a policy that I have advocated for years—that we should make misogyny a hate crime.

Part of the problem is that misogyny and sexism are deeply embedded in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, talked about a protective kindness from men towards women. Quite honestly, we do not need that. Misogyny and sexism can be covered up by teasing and even flattery, but it is totally inappropriate and it is time that men learned that. We have enshrined our condemnation of racism and homophobia in law, but we are not treating sexism as the same kind of priority and it is time that we did.

According to statistics, 90% of British women experienced street harassment before the age of 17. Street harassment is being shouted at. We are not talking about wolf-whistling; we are talking about men shouting at women, making them embarrassed and perhaps making them feel less free to walk down a street. Eighty-five per cent of women aged 17 to 24 have been subjected to unwanted sexual advances. Can your Lordships imagine that—that 85% of women have been groped by people whom they do not want to be groped by? Therefore, it is time to make misogyny a hate crime.

The amendment is long overdue and I hope that the Minister will say that she accepts it completely. Several noble Lords have talked about Nottinghamshire Police being trailblazers on this. It has seen a 25% increase in the reporting of misogynistic crime and a very high level of satisfaction among the people—mainly women—who have reported those crimes, because finally they have been taken seriously. As noble Lords have also said, only 11 out of 43 police forces in England and Wales have made misogyny a hate crime, have trialled it or are actively considering implementing this.

Part of the problem is that, just as the police are representative of society, there will be police officers who are sexist and misogynistic. This means that they need training. I have in the past mentioned the sort of domestic abuse training that some police forces are already getting. It makes the officers aware of exactly what happens and creates more empathy for the people who are being abused. For me, domestic abuse training is part of what will help to solve this problem that we have of misogyny. I hope that standing up and talking about it here will also help.

It would be a real shame for this amendment not to be accepted on to the statute book, but will the Minister at least promise to open a debate on this issue among police forces? It is in her power to do that. I would be very pleased if she accepted this amendment but, if not, could she take it forward in any way that she can?

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

[Inaudible.]

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

We cannot hear you.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

It will be immensely helpful to have a process of gathering information ahead of the Law Commission report on whether extension of hate crimes to embrace misogyny will work, and how. At present, we do not have good information. This is a really difficult area; I do not think that any of us has trouble with the concept of hate crimes, but the Scottish Parliament is currently undergoing extreme difficulty with the concept of hate speech. Many police forces in the UK are doing some very strange things with “hate incidents”, where these can be recorded just on the say-so of one person and then appear in another person’s DBS check. There are some difficult things happening around hate crimes and hate incidents generally; having good data must, surely, be at the core of reaching good conclusions.

Here, we have a difficulty in that the police have changed their recording of crimes and reports so that they record only the reported gender of a person and not their natal sex, as is the protected characteristic under the Equality Act. Recently, we have seen extraordinary rises in the reported level of sexual abuse by women. Is this real? Is there something happening to women in our country that we really ought to understand, or is this a fiction of the change in the police reporting method? Not having accurate data disables us in understanding what to do.

I very much hope that, if something comes of this—I hope it will—the police will not only record the natal sex but will record the gender of all the people concerned so that we can understand exactly what is happening. It really does not help trans people that the hate they are subject to is subsumed under misogyny if they are trans women. We need to know whether this is happening to them because they are trans. We are trying to gather data and understanding; the better the data we have, the better our response.

I support, but would like to see extended, the definition at the end of this. It is really important that we have clarity and completeness. Let us record sex as per the Equality Act definition because that is, as my noble friend on the Front Bench has confirmed to me on previous occasions, the basis on which the Government are working. Let us also record self-identified gender or whatever other formulation works best—we could perhaps adopt the one from the forthcoming census—so that we have a complete picture of misogyny and trans misogyny and can, when the time comes, craft effective laws about it.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 139. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 139

Moved by

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to this debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Faulks for his willingness to share Front-Bench responsibilities for such a significant Bill. In your Lordships’ House, I am the government spokesperson for women and equalities. I happen also to be a woman and an Anglican so, both personally and professionally, I warmly welcome the contributions today and the support for the Bill.

Equality of opportunities for women calls for outstanding, pioneering women, and there is certainly no shortage of outstanding women in the Church of England. However, such women arise also when men have the sense of fairness and generosity of spirit to share roles which have historically been exclusively theirs. We have certainly seen fairness and generosity of spirit among the senior bishops. We have heard from a number of noble Lords—including, first of all, the most reverend Primate—about the Bishop of Lincoln, who is the first in line, but there are others behind him, too, whose entry to this House will be delayed. The Bishop of Lincoln has the very good fortune to count my noble friends Lord Cormack and the Chief Whip among his flock, so it is a happy area that he controls there. His gracious words have certainly set the standard for the response from those bishops who find themselves further down the line in terms of coming here.

As noble Lords have said, this is the right thing to do. It follows logically from the church’s decision to allow women to become bishops. It is right for the church and it is certainly right for this House. The Bill does not seek to make any changes to the relationship between the church and Parliament or membership of this House. The selection of candidates for the appointment of bishops will of course remain a matter for the church. Bishops will continue to be appointed on merit and according to the needs of the diocese in which they serve.

As there was a great deal of consensus in the contributions, I shall not seek on this occasion to respond to each noble Lord individually. The questions raised in the debate were mainly matters for the most reverend Primate, who has addressed them accordingly. However, if I have inadvertently missed any parliamentary matters, I will of course respond in writing. The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked me about the review. It was agreed quite happily in the Commons that the 10-year span of the Bill was sufficient to provide the space needed to look at how well the legislation was working and what would happen thereafter; so we should be content to follow that as well.

I pay particular tribute to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has not let the grass grow under his feet since his appointment. We might all do well to take forward his message of less confrontation and more hugs. He and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester have been of great support and assistance in bringing forward this Bill. Indeed, we have seen valuable support from all the Lords Spiritual, and I take this opportunity to thank them for all the work that they do for this House both inside the Chamber and outside it.

As we have heard, the Bill will not necessarily mean the end of the debate over women bishops, but it is another important step along the way. We look forward to seeing the Bishops’ Bench reflecting the gender diversity in evidence elsewhere in this House, and seeing it sooner rather than later, thanks to the provisions in this Bill.

I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today; it has been a real privilege to be part of the debate. It is with very great pleasure that I beg to move that the Bill be read a second time.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Friday 16th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to my Amendment 13A but I also have other amendments in this group. If I am procedurally correct, I should address only Amendment 13A at the moment and address the other amendments in the group afterwards. I am looking for confirmation from the Minister that that is correct.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

The noble Baroness may speak to all the amendments in the group.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff]

Thank you. I apologise for requiring clarification on that. I did not want to make things difficult for the Committee.

I tabled Amendment 13A because, as has been alluded to, doctors can be registered with the General Medical Council but not licensed to practise. To be licensed to practise means that one has been revalidated after an annual appraisal, and may maintain one’s clinical professional competencies. However, that is not enough for a matter of this gravity. One does not want decisions to be taken by doctors who perhaps are still in training, or not in a specialty but doing sessions in it, or whatever. The additional requirement should be that they have completed their training and therefore be on the general practice register or the specialist register, which would mean that they are recognised as having completed their specialist training and would be able to apply for a consultant post.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton]

My Lords—

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, the noble Baronesses, Lady Campbell, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Brinton, have been trying to speak for a while. I wonder if your Lordships would feel it appropriate if we heard from them now.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear.

Criminal Bar: Funding

Baroness Garden of Frognal Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the long-term impact of current levels of funding of the criminal Bar.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, as this debate is very tight, it will be much appreciated if noble Lords keep to the time that they have been allocated.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to initiate this short debate. I have no present interest to declare save for those on the register. As Attorney-General, I attended the monthly meetings of the Bar Council and, as head of the Bar, I presided over the annual meetings. On one occasion, I even had to exercise my casting vote, which pleased exactly 50% of those attending, but probably not the other 50%.

It was the Lord Chancellor who told the Commons Justice Committee:

“It is very important that the independent criminal Bar has a good future”.

I have not sought this debate to argue for more money for the profession that I had the privilege to practise in over a working lifetime; that is for others to argue. My hope is that, in this short debate, we can get confirmation from the Minister, who understands the profession well, that the Lord Chancellor meant what he said, and that he will spell out his hopes that, in the face of today’s difficulties, on his watch we will not see the decimation of a part of a profession that helps to underpin our freedoms.

It was Mr Nicholas Lavender QC, the chairman of the Bar, who said last year that the Bar was astonished that, on the Government’s figures and allowing for inflation, there had been a 37% cut in the funding of defence advocates’ fees in the Crown Court in six years. He maintained that he was,

“not aware of any other area of public expenditure where individuals have been asked to, and have, put up with cuts on this scale”.

The Bar took unprecedented steps to show how strongly it felt. It was encouraging that the Government decided that there would be no cuts that year in the advocates’ graduated fee scheme. Can we be assured that none will be proposed in immediate future years? The years have resulted in a massive reduction in expenditure on Crown Court advocacy. Fortunately, wise brokering broke the impasse highlighted in the Operation Cotton case. Sir Brian Leveson, on giving judgment in that case, said:

“We have no doubt that it is critical that there remains a thriving cadre of advocates capable of undertaking all types of publicly funded work developing their skills from the straightforward work until they are able to undertake the most complex”.

Sir Bill Jeffrey, who is not a lawyer, was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor to report on the market for criminal advocacy services. He reported that,

“the market could scarcely be argued to be operating competitively or in such a way as to optimise quality”.

When Sir Bill visited Crown Court centres and spoke to Crown Court judges who carry out the bulk of judicial criminal work at that level, he found that the “main area of concern” was that of,

“relatively inexperienced solicitor advocates being fielded by their firms (for what were presumed to be commercial reasons) in cases beyond their capacity”.

Sir Bill described the judges’ views as,

“remarkably consistent and strongly expressed”,

and said that in his view it would be a “mistake to discount them”.

I think I have said enough about the problems. It is no surprise that the relations between the defence criminal Bar and the ministry have been turbulent. It was my old friend, Kenneth Clarke MP, who, as Lord Chancellor, was one of the first to accept the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s proposals at the beginning of this Parliament. I do not know what brownie points he got for being first in the field, but, given the breadth of his responsibilities, it is no surprise that the profession is reaping the results of his alacrity.

Only a few weeks ago, your Lordships voted overwhelmingly against the limitation of judges’ discretion in judicial review cases. I believed, as did the House, that in a country that does not have a Bill of Rights judicial review was one of the bastions of the rule of law. An independent Bar, ready and willing to take up the cudgels on behalf of citizens, is vital to ensure that there is no infringement of the rights of the individual. Likewise at the criminal Bar, however odious the case, all parties who find themselves before the courts should have proper representation.

My experience, like many others, is that from time to time your non-lawyer friends will ask you, “How could you represent such an obnoxious individual?”. History is littered with such examples. My old friend the late Lord Hooson was defence counsel in the moors case. I am sure that he had to explain the role of counsel many, many times. A more recent example might be the Shipman case. Over the years those of us at the criminal Bar have had similar if less startling experiences. In my own experience it was of the upmost importance in the Broadwater Farm case that the prosecution was properly probed and challenged at every stage, as it was. One of the important pistons to the effective working of the engine of representation to ensure fairness is the sometimes questioned cab-rank rule.

Against the background of the horrific atrocities in France in recent days, the need for representation, as in our unhappy years of terrorist activity, will be more important than ever. I note and welcome the comments made by the Lord Chancellor in the reply that he gave in the House of Commons on 6 January to Jeffrey’s criticism and the letter to the chairman of the Bar Council on 22 December. The cab-rank principle has been described by many. I like very much the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hoffmann:

“It is a valuable professional ethic of the English Bar that a barrister may not refuse to act for the client on the ground that he disapproves of him or his case. Every barrister not otherwise engaged is available for hire by any client willing and able to pay an appropriate fee. This rule protects barristers against being criticised for giving their services to a client with a bad reputation and enables unpopular causes to obtain representation in court”.

Against this background I wonder if it was the best use of the funds of the Legal Services Board to commission two professors to work out the impact of the rule. Sir Sydney Kentridge systematically destroyed the methodology and conclusions of this very academic review. The rule with all its practical implications is ingrained in young barristers from the day they begin to practise. The most persuasive evidence comes in a footnote to Sir Sydney’s opinion:

“I can say from my own experience that in political trials in South Africa in the apartheid years it was essential and invaluable”.

I would hope for some endorsement in the ringing tones of the Lord Chancellor’s comments which I have already referred to.