Courts (Prescribed Recordings) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.

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

My Lords, this draft instrument relates to both transparency and security in our court system. Generally, and for good reason, there is a statutory prohibition on photography and audio recording within court buildings. Photography is prohibited under the Criminal Justice Act 1925, and audio recording is prohibited under the Contempt of Court Act 1981. More recently, Section 32 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 permitted certain exceptions—your Lordships will probably have seen sentencing remarks being broadcast recently in the Crown Court and live-streaming by the Court of Appeal, and there are some other examples. This statutory instrument deals with security and transparency, and it is made under those powers, building on the existing exceptions.

There are four aspects to the statutory instrument. The first is CCTV in court buildings, which is in Articles 5, 6 and 10 of the instrument. CCTV clearly plays a most important role in the safety and security of those who work in, or visit, our courts. The instrument ensures that the continued use of CCTV cameras in court precincts—but not courtrooms—is fully authorised and lawful. Indeed, there is currently CCTV in many court precincts. That is thought to be perfectly lawful, but this statutory instrument puts the issue beyond doubt, in case any issue ever arises in that connection.

The second aspect, in Articles 7 to 9 of the statutory instrument, relates to the use of body-worn video by operational staff. This is already common practice outside court buildings, but there is a legal issue as to whether body-worn video cameras can be lawfully worn within court precincts. Of course, such cameras are worn regularly by those who have to deal with potentially dangerous and difficult situations, such as police officers and prisoner escort staff, particularly staff from the prisoner escort and custody services transporting prisoners to and from the court.

There was a pilot scheme in 2017-18 to pilot the use of body-worn video within court precincts. There was a doubt at that time over the legality of the practice, so it was paused and then the pandemic somewhat overtook events. This provision deals not only with prisoner escort and custody staff but with police officers and court and tribunal security staff. Noble Lords will be aware that wearing body-worn cameras is now common practice in the police force, including when officers are authorised to carry Tasers, in which circumstances they are mandated to wear body-worn video. These updated provisions provide for body-worn video to be worn in the court context, but I emphasise that under Article 9 of the instrument, the body-worn video is not switched on unless there is a security alert or an escape.

The third provision is, I hope, an extremely innocent one. It is the practice in adoption cases for a photograph to be taken of the judge, who robes up for the occasion, with the family. Just in case anybody were ever to challenge that practice, this instrument makes it perfectly clear that photographs taken on that occasion are fully authorised, despite the statutory prohibitions on photography in court buildings.

Lastly, the instrument corrects a small omission in the previous order, the Crown Court (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, which authorised circuit judges and certain others, including High Court judges, to have their sentencing remarks filmed and broadcast. What that earlier order did not quite provide for was the situation that occasionally arises in which the judge sitting in the Crown Court is actually a Court of Appeal judge. That was the situation in the lamentable case of Wayne Couzens, who pleaded guilty to murdering Sarah Everard, which was presided over by a Court of Appeal judge, Lord Justice Fulford. The order amends the earlier instrument to make sure that we have included Court of Appeal judges.

I hope this is relatively straightforward. All stakeholders have been consulted, the Lord Chief Justice has given his assent and I commend the instrument to the House.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very happy to say that we support the statutory instrument and the various changes that the Minister outlined. I will just give a couple of comments and anecdotes. The first concerns CCTV in court precincts. I sat on the case—the only time I sat with the Chief Magistrate, as a winger, a magistrate—of a tribunal judge who had been assaulted in the courtroom. Of course, there was no film of that assault, but there was CCTV of the corridors approaching the courtroom, and from that we could see people going in and out, we heard the evidence and we reached our determination. It turned out that the person we convicted of assaulting the judge questioned the CCTV and was looking for the sources of it. The CCTV was able to be provided and we went ahead and convicted the defendant.

I have another small point on which I cannot resist picking up the Minister. On his third point about adoption cases, it is not just judges who do adoptions; magistrates also do them in family courts, and I have done a number myself. They were very happy occasions, and we took many photographs for the records of the families concerned. Nevertheless, we welcome all the minor changes outlined by the Minister and, on that basis, we accept the SI.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I stand entirely corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to magistrates, whose work I have paid enormous tribute to on previous occasions, and I do so again. We entirely depend on our extremely important lay magistrates and I apologise for the omission, which was correctly drawn to your Lordships’ attention. I comment the instrument to the House.

Motion agreed.

Lord Chancellor and Law Officers (Constitution Committee Report)

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, for securing this debate, all noble Lords who have contributed to our discussions this afternoon and, in particular, the noble Baroness and the members of her committee for producing such a valuable report, which has been rightly praised today in this debate and by the Attorney-General recently in another place. It is refreshing to have a report that so carefully examines important questions, hears some very distinguished witnesses and concludes in several instances that the case for major change is not made out, albeit rightly stressing the need for vigilance and for incremental improvements in the system.

I shall first make some general observations about the concept of the rule of law, then comment briefly on the respective roles of the Lord Chancellor and the law officers and finally deal with some other points raised by noble Lords this afternoon. I first disclose, as I should, my own close involvement with the foundation of the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law, which was established in 2010 within the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in honour of Lord Bingham. The first director of the Bingham Centre was Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, who was appointed only a few days before Tom Bingham’s untimely death. That centre, which I am glad to say continues to thrive, was set up not only to honour Lord Bingham but to better articulate, defend and promote education about the rule of law. I emphasise “education” since the co-founders, including me, saw above all a constant need to better explain and educate society in the fundamentals of the rule of law. That is a mission that we should all encompass and promote, including the Constitution Committee.

As to the fundamentals, “the rule of law” is a phrase that easily trips off the tongue, but, as the committee rightly points out, the exact extent of the concept is a matter for debate. I was somewhat relieved and pleased to hear that what I am citing is exactly what the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, referred to, namely our 16th century friend Thomas Fuller’s famous words:

“Be ye never so high, the law is above you”.


That is surely the core of the matter.

In other words, the Government and all citizens, however powerful, must obey the rule of law. The law of the land is decided by Parliament or by common law and is administered in public by a judiciary that is independent, fearless and incorruptible. Decisions will be not arbitrary but authorised by law and within powers legally conferred. In the words of the judicial oath, the judges

“will do right by all manner of people”

according to law. Those judges are appointed on merit, not on political or other suspect grounds, and they have commensurate security of tenure—a most important point. The security of tenure of the judiciary is the foundation of any legal system. Of course, the orders of the court will be as fully obeyed by the Government as by any other citizen. There should be no doubt about that, even though, formally speaking, there is no coercive power of enforcement again the Crown.

So described, as a number of your Lordships have said this afternoon, the acceptance of such a system by society depends on the people’s trust in and respect for the judiciary and the knowledge that the courts will not hesitate to find against the Government where necessary and that the Government will accept the ruling and not change the law without the authority of Parliament.

That is not in any sense a nebulous concept. Your Lordships, sadly, well know how many countries in the world struggle to get anywhere near that standard. Indeed, I venture to suggest that, in this core sense, the rule of law is at least as strongly entrenched in this country as anywhere else, and has historically been and still is a beacon to many. It is in the public consciousness, if you like, and the DNA. It is in the education and culture of the legal profession; the law officers; Treasury counsel and the many barristers who are part of the Attorney-General’s various panels of advisers; the Government Legal Service, including departmental lawyers; and indeed, it is fully in the minds of the mainstream public civil servants as well.

The crucial point is that all public authorities know that their acts are susceptible to legal challenge and to being subjected to close scrutiny by, if I may say so, judges of outstanding integrity and competence. Having over the years had the privilege of working in or alongside other legal systems in various parts of the world, I respectfully suggest that there are few if any countries where the Government and public authorities are so susceptible to prompt and effective legal challenge. I add—and many noble Lords have seen this unfolding over the years—that we have come a very long way in the past 50 years or so. To be personal for a moment, when I first started at the Bar, judicial review hardly existed. The Government’s legal adviser consisted of one Treasury devil. Former Attorney-Generals were still on the Bench, having enjoyed the sinecure that then went with the office of a nice judicial appointment at the end of your period as a law officer.

We have come a very long way since those days in the 1940s and 1950s. The then judiciary would not have challenged the Labour Government under any circumstances—but the culture of challenge to the Government has developed and extended and is in my submission alive and well. I suggest that the organisations, structures and people I have mentioned collectively represent, or closely approximate to, the bell tower to which the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, referred. There are enormous checks and balances in the system—one sees it every day as a Minister when submissions cross one’s desk and, in every part of government, the requirement to effect the rule of law and the legal framework is in the front of mind. That is the essence of the matter.

One can debate the further content of the rule of law but it would take too long to formulate the various aspects of it, and we have the principles formulated by Lord Bingham, promoted by the committee at paragraph 33. This is not actually my signed copy of The Rule of Law but it is a copy, and it is a remarkable work of exploration and articulation of what we are talking about. However, whereas in this Room we are subject to a picture of the tablets of stone coming down from the mountain, the eight principles of Lord Bingham are not quite yet the eight commandments, if I may say so. They are articulations of principles that need to be debated and elaborated on as the years go by.

If I may, I shall say a few words on one of the most difficult issues, on the international law point—and it is a difficult issue. The Government entirely accept the principle that international obligations should be observed. Indeed, that principle is the cornerstone of a rules-based international order, and plainly in the interests of the United Kingdom. However, it does not follow that international obligations should be justiciable in the courts in the way that I have just described unless Parliament has said so, as the committee rightly recognises at paragraphs 52 and following, particularly as explained by the sadly late Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood in the cornerstone case. There are many other cases to the same effect.

It follows that one cannot automatically treat international obligations not forming part of domestic law as having exactly the same status as if they did. We are dealing here with relations between states. As I think my noble friend Lord Howell pointed out, these are circumstances in which a Government must have a margin of appreciation and must in particular have regard to the views of the national electorate from which alone the Government derive their authorities. Difficulties on the international plane typically arise where: relations have broken down; dispute solving or treaty amendment mechanisms either do not exist or are ineffective; the exact content of the relevant international law is unclear or debatable; circumstances have fundamentally changed since the relevant obligations were entered into; or unforeseen difficulties have arisen and other state parties refuse to recognise or choose to take unreasonable advantage of those changes of circumstance. In those circumstances any Government must, as a very last resort, have the ability to have regard to the public interest, while recognising the need to act as far as possible within the recognised parameters generally accepted in international law.

If I may say so in passing, the difficulty is illustrated in particular in relation to circumstances such as the Iraq war. The then Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, advised the Government that it was a lawful exercise of the Government’s power. The late Lord Bingham, in his eighth principle, disagrees with that. That is a classic example of how difficult it is sometimes to know what is right, what is wrong and where the line should be drawn in the international sphere. Sometimes Governments have to act in the national interest. That is all I will say in general terms about the concept of the rule of law and the importance of it in our constitution, which is entirely recognised by the Government.

I turn to the position of Lord Chancellor. I first suggest that the 2005 reforms have been, on the whole, astonishingly successful. The key to those reforms was the creation of the Supreme Court and the separation of the functions of the legislature, judiciary and Executive. The Lord Chancellor, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out, was a defiant embodiment of the rejection of the doctrine of separation of powers, combining in his own person legal, judicial and executive authority. The establishment of a separate Supreme Court and the Judicial Appointments Commission was substantial progress.

The question then is whether the current role of the Lord Chancellor is satisfactory, combining the functions of the Ministry of Justice with what is described somewhat bleakly in the 2005 Act as the Lord Chancellor’s existing constitutional role in relation to the rule of law. In that context, I respectfully slightly caution against a somewhat rose-tinted view of what went on in the past. Within living memory, Lord Chancellor Viscount Kilmuir advised the Prime Minister of the time Anthony Eden that the Suez invasion was perfectly legal, in defiance of the contrary advice from the then law officers. Viscount Kilmuir then proceeded to sit as a judge so disastrously that legislation was immediately introduced to reverse his leading judgment in the case DPP v Smith. There are other examples to that effect.

I remind the Committee that, although we all admire and respect Lord Mackay of Clashfern, relations between the Lord Chancellor and the legal profession broke down entirely when he attempted to introduce legal aid reforms, replacing hourly rates with fixed fees. Relations later broke down entirely between him and the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Lane, when he successfully introduced solicitors’ rights of audience in the higher courts, which Lord Lane thought was the beginning of a fascist state, remarking that insidious progress does not necessarily come with a swastika on the armband but by other routes. The history of this office is not entirely clear, and we need to bear that in mind.

The overriding conclusion to which the committee rightly came—and with which the Government entirely agree—is that what is important is not so much whether the Lord Chancellor is a lawyer or a senior legal figure but the character, intelligence, integrity and commitment of the individual concerned. The Government would not necessarily accept that it is desirable in all circumstances for the Lord Chancellor to be a lawyer. One of the most influential Lord Chancellors in recent years was my right honourable friend Michael Gove MP, who introduced a significant and long-overdue programme of digitisation of the court system. He was a highly practical Lord Chancellor who got things done and was not in any sense susceptible to a perception of capture by the legal profession. He was not at all conservative, which many senior lawyers tend to be, if I may say so with respect to the many senior lawyers in the Room. In the Government’s view, it is about the character of the person rather than whether in some distant stage of the past they achieved a formal qualification which now enables them to call themselves a lawyer.

On the perfectly legitimate question of how this part of government machinery should be organised—whether the Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor should have responsibility for prisons and probation as well as for the courts and other aspects—the Government respectfully agree with the committee’s conclusion that the case for change is not entirely obvious, although a future Government or Prime Minister will no doubt reconsider. They are now integrated and there is a huge cost to changing political and administrative structures within government once again. There is a logic to having courts, probation and prisons together. You must have probation and prisons together because they are now integrated under one roof much more than in the past. When you have a Criminal Justice Act, it will typically deal with sentencing, prisons, court processes, rehabilitation and so forth.

There is an internal logic to doing it, but it would be for any new Prime Minister or Government to consider. With respect to the thoughtful contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, and other noble Lords, there is a case for considering how we do this in terms of the constitution—whether you want some external body or person and whether they are in the Cabinet or not, and what we do about the constitution in general, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton, was asking.

With an unwritten constitution, the tradition up to now has been to let it evolve. On the whole, it has evolved fairly successfully without anyone trying to sort it all out. For some, it is rather messy—but an unwritten constitution is a bit messy. The test is whether it is working well, and one should not reorganise it for theological reasons or out of tidy-mindedness; one should look very carefully for the right balance, very much bearing in mind the importance of not only the administrative efficiency of government but the best ways to protect the rule of law. In that respect, the rule of law and its associated freedoms are also protected by Parliament, the media, public debate and all sorts of other means, as well as the formal processes through which the Government take their legal advice or decide to act in any particular way.

As for strengthening the Lord Chancellor’s role—if I have understood some of the points made—as someone who is a sort of general watchdog or guardian who in some sense sits on the Prime Minister’s shoulder and whispers in his ear, “No, you can’t possibly do that”, I respectfully doubt whether that was ever genuinely the Lord Chancellor’s role. In his evidence to the committee, Lord Mackay basically said—I paraphrase—“I never advised the Government. I might say to the Prime Minister that you need to take advice on it, but I couldn’t, as Lord Chancellor, actually go into the detail of what the advice should be. There were occasions when I had to tell the Government that they needed to take advice, but the giving of advice is for the Law Officers and Treasury counsel, and holding the Government accountable is ultimately for the courts”.

Respectfully, I wonder whether it would be a useful additional element in our constitution to have a Lord Chancellor who had no other departmental responsibility other than to act as some kind of guardian of the rule of law. I suggest that that would almost certainly be unnecessary, given the very detailed structures and processes we already have to protect the rule of law in this country.

It is perfectly true, and on behalf of the Government I would be the first to accept, that one incident some years ago involving the “enemies of the people” was unfortunate. It was very concerning to the judges involved; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is here, listening. From a personal point of view, I have always imagined it a rather frightening—that is possibly not strong enough a word—or at least very unfortunate incident. Certainly, in those circumstances, the whole Government, as well as the Lord Chancellor specifically, need to be able to defend the judiciary.

If I may say so, our experience since suggests that, on the whole, that lesson has been learned. Noble Lords will find very muted comments from the Government on subsequent cases, whether it is the judgment of the Supreme Court in Miller 2, the recent judgment on Rwanda, and so on. We now have a completely different atmosphere. That was an unfortunate lapse, which should not happen. It would be one of the duties of the Lord Chancellor to defend the independence of the judiciary, and I am sure the present Lord Chancellor would undertake it with vigour, sincerity and integrity.

Indeed, if I may say so again, as far as I can see, the current channels of communication between the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary seem to work fairly well. The present Lord Chancellor is well aware of the importance of judicial independence and the efficient operation of the court system. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether the Government agree with the observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, that the position of the Lord Chancellor and the relationship with the judiciary need further reflection. Why not have further reflection on this difficult but evolving issue? There is no reason not to continue to further reflect on these matters.

In that context, one other question that I was specifically asked was whether the updating of the Cabinet Manual will clarify and more clearly define the duties of the law officers. On that point, I am not able to give a full answer today. However, I can say that the Government will review Hansard and consider the ideas that have been raised in this debate and the drafting process in the light of the committee’s report. A draft of the updated memorandum will come to the Constitution Committee and the relevant committees in the other place to consider. That matter will, I hope, be taken forward.

Of course, this becomes a little more difficult in terms of the rule of law. This is very much the case on the international plane but also domestically. Where the rubber hits the road is where the law is not entirely clear, and that is most of the time, actually. It is not the case that everything is entirely straightforward, and that is particularly so in, for example, human rights cases involving social and economic rights, as distinct from classic legal rights under contracts or criminal law. There are many cases where more than one view is tenable. I hesitate to suggest that anything is wrong with the Government’s present legal approach to that difficult situation. Thinking back over one’s career, one has several times lost cases that seemed totally winnable and vice versa. That is the nature of the beast; it is not a science.

Again, to comment briefly from a personal point of view on the suggestion about the Government not putting forward legislation deliberately in breach of international law, yes, there is great force in that. However, possibly the only case where that problem resulted in a legal judgment goes back to the early 1990s, when the Government came under enormous pressure from all parties to save the Cornish fishing industry from the depredations of what was seen as Spanish fishermen illicitly coming on to the British fishing register. This led to the Merchant Shipping Act, which was challenged by the then European Commission. I was led by the then Solicitor-General, and we defended it as best we could. We thought that we were entirely justified in so defending it on the basis of our legal arguments. We lost all down the line, but it raised very starkly the question of what a Government do if they must respond to their electorate on the one hand but find themselves constrained by other rules on the other hand. It is a difficult problem. I respectfully caution against any formal limitation on a Government putting forward to Parliament appropriate legislation in the circumstances.

Have I dealt with everything that I should have dealt with? Forgive me if I have left something out—I am sure that it will be drawn to my attention. Particularly on the thoughtful comments of my noble friend Lord Norton on the constitution, I say that there is scope for further reflection on that. We have the Deputy Prime Minister, and we have different answers and possibly a lack of transparency about exactly who does what. That is something for further reflection. Those are points well made.

Regarding the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, it is not the Government’s position that the Illegal Migration Bill will be in breach of our international obligations. That point has been discussed at length in the main Chamber. The independence of the judiciary is not at risk in any sense and is defended quite appropriately under the present system. As I just said, I will revert when I have further and better information on when the Cabinet Manual will be available.

I have done my best to cover everything, and it only remains for me to say again that the Government congratulate the committee on its report and warmly thank not only the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, but everyone who participated in this debate this afternoon.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

154: Clause 55, page 58, line 19, at end insert—
“(6) The Access to Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/435 (N.I. 10)) is amended in accordance with subsections (7) and (8).(7) In Article 14 (decisions about provision of funded services), after paragraph (2A) insert—“(2AA) But paragraph (2A) does not apply to a grant of representation for the purposes of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(8) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 (civil legal services: exceptions to excluded services), after paragraph (ib) insert—“(ic) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal under any of sections 43 to 48 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, or under Tribunal Procedure Rules made for the purposes of any of those sections,(id) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal on an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act), where the application relates to that Act,”(9) The Civil Legal Services (General) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 195) are amended in accordance with subsections (10) to (14).(10) In regulation 2 (interpretation), in the definition of “representation (higher courts)”, in paragraph (f), after “2(ib)” insert “, (ic) or (id)”.(11) In regulation 31 (applications for advice and assistance)—(a) in paragraph (1), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (1A) and”,(b) after paragraph (1), insert—“(1A) An application for advice and assistance may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”, and(c) in paragraph (3), after “except where” insert “paragraph (1A),” (12) In regulation 32 (extensions)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (2A)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(2A) No extension shall be required under paragraph (1) if the advice and assistance is advice and assistance mentioned in regulation 4(1)(n) of the Financial Regulations (advice and assistance relating to removal notices under the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”(13) In regulation 41 (applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (2), after “Subject to” insert “paragraph (2A) and”,(b) after paragraph (2), insert—“(2A) An application for a certificate under this Part may be made to a supplier by an applicant by telephone where the applicant is being detained under paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention under authority of immigration officer for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023) or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention under authority of Secretary of State for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023).”,(c) in paragraph (3), after “The applicant shall” insert “, except where paragraph (2A) applies,”, and(d) in paragraph (3)(b), after “met” insert “(where they apply)”.(14) In regulation 43 (determination of applications for certificates)—(a) in paragraph (1), for “paragraph (2)” substitute “paragraphs (2) and (3)”, and(b) after paragraph (2) insert—“(3) But paragraphs (1) and (2) do not apply to an application for a certificate in respect of—(a) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023),(b) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(c) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) or (b).”(15) In regulation 4 of the Civil Legal Services (Financial) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015 (S.R. (N.I.) 2015 No. 196) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual's financial resources)—(a) in paragraph (1), after sub-paragraph (m) insert—“(n) advice and assistance provided to an individual who has received a removal notice, in relation to the removal notice, and such advice and assistance—(i) includes advice and assistance in relation to a suspensive claim relating to the removal notice, and an application under section 45(4) of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 as regards such a claim, but(ii) does not include advice and assistance in relation to an application for judicial review within the meaning of the Illegal Migration Act 2023 (see section 4(6) of that Act) relating to the removal notice;(o) representation in respect of—(i) proceedings before the Upper Tribunal mentioned in paragraph 2(ic) of Schedule 2 to the Order (proceedings under or for the purposes of the Illegal Migration Act 2023), (ii) proceedings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under or by virtue of section 2AA of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 (jurisdiction: appeals in relation to the Illegal Migration Act 2023), or under rules under section 5 of that Act made for the purposes of that section, or(iii) an appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court in respect of proceedings mentioned in paragraph (i) or (ii).”(b) in paragraph (3), at the appropriate places insert—““removal notice” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”““suspensive claim” has the meaning given by section 37 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment makes provision about legal aid in Northern Ireland for the purposes of the Bill.

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

My Lords, Clause 55 will ensure that individuals who receive a removal notice under the Bill have access to free legal advice. The clause at present applies only to England and Wales. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, properly asked what the position is regarding Scotland and Northern Ireland. The Scottish Government advise that legislative provision is not required to ensure persons issued with a removal notice can access free legal advice in Scotland. Legislative changes are required, however, in Northern Ireland. Amendment 154 ensures analogous provision in Northern Ireland to that already applicable to those seeking legal advice in England and Wales. It is simply an extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Bill. That is the content of government Amendment 154. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has an amendment in this group and I defer to him at this point. I beg to move.

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 155, which is in the same terms as it was in Committee. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar, and of course to the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for putting their names to this amendment and adding some lustre to it. I am also grateful for a superb briefing note from Bail for Immigration Detainees, ILPA and the Public Law Project.

In my view, ensuring that those who are detained have legal advice at an early stage is of fundamental importance. Obviously and above all, it is important to the detainees themselves, but it is also important to the reputation of our much-vaunted legal system. I ask the House to think about it for a moment: the proposition that, in our country, any person, whether adult, child, pregnant woman or victim of trafficking, can be deprived of their liberty and, at the same time, of proper legal advice is horrific, unconscionable and unconstitutional.

Clause 55 provides for insufficient access to civil legal services. It is concerned with free legal advice and representation only in relation to removal notices. It makes access contingent upon receipt of a removal notice and does not ensure that the necessary services will be made available shortly after a person has been detained. I remind the House that there is no set timeframe in the Bill for the Home Secretary to serve a removal notice under Clause 7. It is therefore not unrealistic to suggest that an individual could be left to linger in detention for days and even weeks before a removal notice is served by the Home Secretary and thus before they are able to access legal aid under Clause 55. Accordingly, the Bill does not provide for people trapped in its provisions assurance of access to free civil legal services before a removal notice has been served on them.

Clause 55 also does nothing to address the reality that it is practically impossible for many people to access legal aid under existing entitlements. There are, as I think the House knows, vast numbers of unrepresented individuals seeking asylum and in detention due to the current unsustainability of and lack of capacity within the immigration and asylum legal aid sector.

Our Amendment 155 introduces a new clause—a duty to make legal aid available to detained persons, which would address this issue in England and Wales by supplementing what the Government intend to achieve in their Clause 55. It would place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to make civil legal aid available to detained persons in relation to already in-scope judicial review and immigration matters, and suspensive claims, within 48 hours of their detention. This is crucial, given that the Bill gives the Home Secretary wide powers to detain families indefinitely, to detain children who are alone and to detain vulnerable people such as pregnant women, while also placing a duty on the Home Secretary to remove them, with short timeframes to make suspensive claims with compelling evidence to prevent such removal.

I hardly need to remind this House of Parliament that the provision of legal aid is a key component of ensuring the constitutional right of access to justice—itself inherent in the rule of law. The courts have repeatedly upheld the principle that a failure to provide legal aid can amount to a breach of fundamental rights. Legal aid is essential to ensure that people without means can secure effective access to justice and redress.

So why is this amendment needed? As I think the House knows, legal aid was, in effect, decimated in this area of law by the legal aid cuts of 2013. Most non-asylum immigration matters are excluded, which has damaged the entire immigration and legal aid sector and the ability of everyone, including individuals seeking asylum and those in detention, to access reliable, quality legal aid immigration advice. Immigration law is highly complex and extremely difficult, if not impossible, to navigate without a lawyer.

It is unrealistic to believe that individuals seeking asylum, who have just arrived in the UK and who may be traumatised or vulnerable and who may speak little or no English, can understand our complex laws and make effective representations without professional legal assistance. As stated by Lord Justice Underhill in last week’s decision on the Rwanda scheme, cases where decisions are fair and where there has been no access to legal assistance are “likely to be exceptional”. I pray that in aid of this amendment. Amendment 155 would help to secure timely access to legal assistance, which is crucial to the fairness of decision-making.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, clearly, the Government entirely accept that legal advice is fundamentally important in the present context. That is why we introduced Clause 55. The Government are well aware that, if the procedures for obtaining legal advice under the Bill are not appropriate, legal challenge will follow. That is constraint enough to ensure that those procedures are sufficient to ensure the system works as fairly as possible. That is the approach of the ministry and, as I will say in a moment, that is how we are developing procedures to ensure that appropriate legal advice is available, and why the Government, while entirely understanding the points that have been made, respectfully feel that Amendment 155 is not the correct way to achieve the desired result, which is certainly one that is shared by everyone: that there should be appropriate legal advice.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his comments on the importance of legal advice, and to my noble friend Lady Lawlor for the reservations that she expressed. In the longer run, the whole area of legal advice, not just on immigration, is for review, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just said. The Government regard this as being at the heart of a fair justice system.

However, on this particular amendment, we already have established procedures, both at Manston and immigration removal centres, for individuals to access legal advice. I understand that, at Manston, there is scope for unlimited free phone calls to be made. There are notices and other bits of information about how you contact a lawyer: the names are given and the rotas change. Those procedures are there. Similarly, at immigration removal centres there is already a procedure similar to the police station procedure. It is not exactly the same, but there is the detained duty advice scheme, under which solicitors provides immigration advice on a rota system. That will be expanded as necessary. I was sorry to hear the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, say that people have sometimes been misadvised; I hope that will not happen in the future, because the Ministry of Justice is determined that the system to be introduced will be coherent, joined up and, above all, fair. That is what the House and the country would expect.

We are engaging closely with legal aid providers, and we believe that our proposed capacity-boosting measures will enable us to attract sufficient providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, observed, we are out to consultation on increasing fees for this kind of immigration work. An ongoing Legal Aid Agency tender has been out since March, I think, which I understand has had an encouraging response so far. We are seeing an uptick in providers coming forward. Those procedures remain to be completed and it remains to be seen exactly how that works out, but that is at least encouraging. Other key areas of focus include the provision of remote advice—that might well go some way towards addressing the problems in Lincolnshire, Norwich or wherever it happens to be, but I am given to understand that there will be on-site advice at immigration removal centres—paying for travel times for providers, and various options for signposting and connecting up individuals to ensure that they actually receive appropriate legal advice.

The Ministry of Justice is working very closely with the Home Office on the detail of this. It is a ministerial responsibility to follow closely and ensure that these measures cut the mustard, if I may use that expression, and come up to proof—to mix my metaphors somewhat dramatically. In that regard, and for those reasons, I invite the House to accept that Amendment 155 is not necessary because we are thoroughly on the case and our objective, which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, rightly drew attention to, is shared.

Amendment 154 agreed.

Sentencing Act 2020 (Special Procedures for Community and Suspended Sentence Orders) Regulations 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Monday 26th June 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for initiating this debate. I welcome his contribution and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jackson. I am not a million miles from either of their views either, but I emphasise that I value the progress that we are making with the three courts on the aims of the White Paper. I want to give it a fair wind, because we need to carry out these experiments.

I share some of the reservations of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee about some of the problems: the inadequacy of the Explanatory Memorandum; the failure to identify the resources that are needed, which are spread across government, so this is a pretty important question; and the failure to set out a systematic means of evaluation. What is the point in an experiment if you do not evaluate it properly and independently? Those who operated the experiment should not be the judges of its success.

I have a long-term interest in the development of problem-solving courts as an alternative to periods of imprisonment for some offenders—periods of imprisonment that did nothing to change the lives of such offenders. When I was chair of the Justice Committee in the Commons, I had the opportunity to visit a number of such courts, including the North Liverpool Community Justice Centre. Why do we not have a proper evaluation of that yet? The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, mentioned that point. Reoffending rates alone do not explain why the full potential of that experiment was not realised. I could see certain things that were working well when I looked at it, including the access it gave offenders to services that they needed and that are physically located within the court complex. When a judge can send an offender off to someone who can provide an addiction service or help them with their housing problem, it facilitates progress towards an orderly life for people whose lives are chaotic. We need to know what was lacking or what more could have been done to make that experiment more successful.

I also observed the Red Hook court in New York and problem-solving courts in Seattle; Portland, Oregon; and Houston, Texas. Texas was really interesting, because Republicans and Democrats there both agreed that they were wasting the taxpayer’s dollar on periods of imprisonment for people whose lives were not being changed by that imprisonment. The political divide fell away as the two parties and the wings of those parties agreed that the taxpayer’s dollar should be used for something that might work better. Hence there was a real political investment in developing problem-solving courts.

In observing these various courts, I was struck by some general points that proved important. One I have already mentioned: access to services—such as addiction treatment, housing, education and employment—which offenders had found it difficult to access or had not even tried to access before they were convicted. That is crucial.

The second is a review process overseen by the same judge, who often became an important authority figure in offenders’ lives and had a capacity to hold them to account for the changes that they needed to make in their lives.

A feature that is not attempted in these proposals—I have some doubts about it, but it was interesting to observe it in Texas—is a court-room full of other offenders, who would applaud an offender who had got a clean bill of health, because he was clean of drugs and had not reoffended since the last time he came before the judge. All the people waiting for their cases to be heard would clap at that point and give him encouragement. Of course, if the reverse was true and the offender had failed, they might be sympathetic, but the Texas marshals were there to take the offender away for imprisonment, which was the consequence of not keeping up with requirements that the judge had set. The cultivation of a common feeling of “let’s try to make this work and change our lives” was really valuable.

Today, we are authorising more limited experiments in two courts for men and one for women. They will not deliver improvement unless there are adequate resources available from the Ministry of Justice through the Probation and Courts Services. Then, of course, there is the hope of an eventual shift in resources from prisons to probation, for example, but also from a wide range of other departments that will need to become involved in offenders’ lives if we are going to try to change them; that includes housing, education and health services.

All this is taking place against a background of declining confidence in the courts in community sentences. I sit on the House of Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, is currently carrying out an inquiry. There has been a lot of public evidence already indicating that, as a proportion of sentences, there is a decline in the use of community sentences; this suggests a lack of judicial confidence in them. That must change; it needs to change for the system as a whole, but it certainly needs to change in the context of these three courts.

This is potentially an important and valuable experiment. As well as the resourcing and valuation issues that I have mentioned, it will need judicial continuity, with the same judge dealing with individuals over the period of their sentence. It will also need confidence to be built in the quality of community sentencing, addiction services and other services. The courts need to be better informed about what services are available and how good and reliable they are, as well as how appropriate they are to the kind of offender that they may want to attach to them. It will place considerable requirements on the Probation Service, which is seriously overstretched at the moment throughout the country, and will pose challenges for local authorities, the health service and other providers of services. However, we need to do it and I wish it well. We need an effective alternative to expensive, ineffective prison sentences for some offenders.

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

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate in such a constructive and thoughtful way. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, whose Motion gave rise to it.

First, I will briefly address the concerns raised, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about the Explanatory Memorandum. I am happy to acknowledge that, in this case, the Explanatory Memorandum was somewhat thin and did not meet the required standard. My officials have, I think, been able to provide answers to the committee’s satisfaction. We are working to ensure that future memoranda do not encounter a similar problem. Internal training is being undertaken and we will shortly have a meeting with the clerk of the relevant committee to understand what its requirements are. I hope that these various measures will deal with the problem, but I apologise for the fact that the committee felt it necessary to draw the House’s attention to this statutory instrument.

Let me explain briefly some of the background to this instrument; I hope also to deal with the points that have been raised. We are piloting three ISCs: two are focused on offenders with substance misuse and one is focused on female offenders. I place particular importance on the female offender court, which is at magistrates’ level in Birmingham. To take one particular point, in the earlier sentencing White Paper of 2020, the Government committed to piloting up to five schemes; we did not commit to five or more, I think. It is partly a question of resource, but the view has been taken that we should try to do three properly now rather than risk spreading resource too thinly; of course, that leaves open the possibility of the programme being expanded later if it is successful, but I hope that this is a solid and important start. I am glad to hear that, in general, noble Lords welcome this step forward.

I mention, I hope relevantly, four particular features of the programme. The first is close judicial monitoring by the same judge. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, my noble friend Lord Jackson and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Beith, raised the importance of continuity from a judicial point of view; it is crucial. I am sure that the MoJ will take away that point—it was made very forcefully by your Lordships, who collectively represent a wealth of experience in this area—and ensure that it happens. That is indeed a mainstay of the proposal.

The second feature is a particular emphasis on continuity and personal probation supervision so that there is always that particular continuity. As has been explained to me—to my personal satisfaction, I must say—it is in this respect something of a return to the old system of probation, whereby you had one probation officer who looked after you, took you all the way through the court process and was in direct touch with the judge, rather than there being, as I understand has happened to some extent in recent times, a sort of split within the Probation Service between the court team that prepares the reports and the supervisors who are out in the community, with a certain lack of communication in that process. It is very important that there should be the continuity of a single probation officer. Of course, at the same time—this is one of the reasons why the experiment is perhaps not as expansive as it might be—you do need to fully involve local authorities, other support services and so forth. We need to be sure that agencies have, as it were, signed up to and bought into the whole process for it to work.

For the substance misuse course, we have a requirement for regular drug testing so that, if there is a risk of someone falling back into such misuse, it will be picked up early.

Fourthly, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, there is not exactly a mixture of carrot and stick but the possibility of imposing sanctions on offenders if they are clearly not observing the rules in a way that merits a sanction.

Your Lordships know the sequence of events. There was a sentencing White Paper in 2020, then there was the 2022 Act and now there are the pilots. The ministry did not exactly invite bids but sought to explore which areas of the country would be interested in undertaking this work. I have to say, the response was not exactly overwhelming because, at the time, the courts were preoccupied with the backlog and after-effects of Covid and all those issues. So we do not, from that point of view, start from a particularly propitious situation. None the less, on each site, a local level, multiagency team has worked together, including the judiciary, probation, the police, the police and crime commissioner, the local authority, third-sector organisations and, of course, MoJ officials.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

Will my noble and learned friend the Minister put on record the continuing support and importance of chaplaincy—both potentially in these schemes and in the wider prison estate—which, to my mind, is an integral part of supporting prisoners as they move away from crime and take their place in society?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am very happy to give my noble friend Lord Jackson that assurance. The Ministry of Justice and the Government share his view that effective chaplaincy is very important and part of the wider holistic approach to dealing with offenders.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is a Division in the House. The Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I was explaining the work with local multiagency teams to make sure that we are delivering a model and a system that will work with a ring-fenced probation resource and a judiciary that will engage in intensive supervision and provide the continuity that has been lacking so far. As I say, this resulted from the sentencing White Paper of 2020 and the 2022 Act.

Against that background, I will take up at least some of the main points raised in the debate by noble Lords. As I say, we have sought to concentrate on what is within our ability to deliver, which is why we have gone for three courts instead of five. There may well be further opportunities to expand that in the future.

It is certainly true that there is an international context, to which attention was rightly drawn. Over the years, it has been difficult to pinpoint exactly how successful some of those international experiments were or are. I regret to say that there was not a full follow-up to the Liverpool experiment of some years ago, so we do not have the data, which is why the evaluation process is so important. All noble Lords referred—and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lord Jackson specifically referred—to the importance of evaluation.

There will be an interim process evaluation report next year—2024—a further evaluation report in 2025 and yet a further impact evaluation in 2027. The reason for the further impact evaluation in 2027 is to allow time to give an assessment of the reoffending rate because we want to be sure—or to have some information on—whether people have managed to stay on the straight and narrow for two or three years. That is why the 2027 date is in the evaluation.

There will be a continual process of assessment as we go along. There are governance boards across the three sites to enable local partners and the MoJ to review progress on an ongoing basis, so evaluation is critical to the success of this experiment. It is fair to add that one of the encouraging features in a parallel context, at least in some areas, is the relative success of the FDACs—family drug and alcohol courts. That parallel example is slowly catching on because, unlike this process, they involve very considerable dedication of resources by local authorities and it is has taken them a little while to buy in to the idea, particularly in some parts of the north of England.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

Will the Ministry of Justice be marking its own homework, or will we have some kind of independent basis for the evaluation?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

At the moment, the evaluation is an MoJ evaluation, as far as I know. I am sure that we can build in stakeholders. This is not exactly the MoJ’s homework, because the MoJ is not active in doing this; it is judges, the Probation Service, local authorities and so forth. I am sure that if your Lordships attach importance to some objective, third-party look at what we are doing—I can quite see why—that suggestion should be taken very seriously as we move forward.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)]

My Lords, there is another Division in the House. The Committee stands adjourned again for 10 minutes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in further answer to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, I understand that we will be engaging external contractors to support the evaluation of these proposals. So there will be some element of external verification, but I expect your Lordships’ House—indeed, both Houses—to take a close interest in how we are getting on and to demand explanations and information. I hope that there will be a collaborative approach all the way through.

I will take some of the other points raised; I have already touched on some of them. It is very important that we have evaluations and the same judge, and that we assemble the relevant data. As emphasised by noble Lords, it is particularly important that we take a collaborative approach, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, referred to as the “scaffolding”, in which there is a truly multiagency approach and access to services.

To take up the point raised by my noble friend Lord Jackson, this is a holistic operation because we are already engaged in rehabilitation for offenders in prison. We have employment advisers in prison and local employers helping them into jobs. We even have small things such as the Friday release Bill, which enables people to access services before the weekend and further arrangements are in train to make sure that there is accommodation, a bank account, a national insurance number and all those things, and they are beginning to have an effect. That aspect is not underestimated at all. Investment in training is accepted, and we should make sure that those who engage in this kind of work have appropriate training.

As to the concern that was said to have been expressed by probation officers that this is a route to “up-tariffing”—I think that was the expression used—that is not the aim of the exercise at all. One has to be very alert to making sure that nothing of that kind occurs. The law of unintended consequences has the habit of striking when it is least expected, but this is something to keep an eye on. As I said, the rehabilitation of offenders is very much at the forefront of our minds.

My noble friend Lord Jackson marked our paper as “could do better”. I do my best to reassure your Lordships that this is a sure start. As others have said, let us hope it leads to wider things and presents a real opportunity to make a difference. With that, I commend the statutory instrument.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, can he explain why two Crown Courts and one magistrates’ court were chosen? The magistrates’ court is for women offenders. Of course, the vast bulk of low-level drug offences are seen in magistrates’ courts, not Crown Courts, so I would be interested to know whether there is an explanation for choosing this particular combination of courts.

Also, the noble and learned Lord just said that there was not an overwhelming response when looking for pilot courts. I suggest that the reason for that is that a number of the courts have been round this course before. In the past, similar types of arrangements have run into the sand for various reasons. I gave my own example of the drug court at Hammersmith Magistrates’ Court. I sat on that separate rota and it was discontinued because it could not demonstrate the benefit of that approach.

From what the noble and learned Lord has said, it seems that there is a more holistic approach to gathering data in order to make a proper assessment; that is a very important element of what is being suggested and piloted here. I think that we just need to acknowledge that, in the ranks of court professionals and the professional people who have advised me, there is some scepticism about this. We need to be open-eyed about that because this idea has been tried a number of times and not been fully evaluated. Good luck to it this time but there needs to be a proper approach to form a proper basis for future decisions.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure that I am able to give the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, a comprehensive answer to his first question as to why we did not do more in magistrates’ courts. We certainly wanted, in terms of the Crown Court, to see to what extent we could divert from custody, which tends to be the issue in the Crown Court. That is why two Crown Courts were chosen.

On the magistrates’ court, it was felt that we should give priority to the problem of low-level offending by women. That is an area where it is felt that this approach can make a significant difference. One is working to some extent with the art of the possible and the resources available.

I have more or less finished. The last thing that I want to say was that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, rightly expressed scepticism. This approach has been tried before and the results have been rather depressing. The difference this time will be in the data and the evaluation. We have concrete evidence so we can convince everyone that it is working.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who has taken part in this brief debate. I look forward to discussing this issue further as the pilots evolve and I commend my Motion to the Committee.

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Tabled by

[Lord Bellamy]

That the draft Order and Regulations laid before the House on 11 and 15 May be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 15 June.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House and on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Bellamy, I beg to move the Motions en bloc standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, described the Bill as a “nugget of change”; that is a modest thing for him to say.

Although the scope of the Bill is narrow and specific, it will make demonstrable change. There have been attempts to make this change in other, larger Bills in the past, which have fallen by the wayside, so I congratulate him, as a relatively new Member of this House, on getting through this significant addition to the way we manage people who come out of prison. As he said, this is a very vulnerable group of people who are very likely to reoffend, particularly if they are released on a Friday, so every step, however little, matters to try to reduce reoffending. I congratulate the noble Lord.

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

My Lords, I too add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for persevering in taking this Bill through the House and for continuing the good work of the honourable Member for Barrow and Furness, Mr Simon Fell, in the other place.

This is a simple yet effective Bill that will play an important role in supporting the Government’s drive to reduce reoffending and protect the public. It will ensure that custody leavers have a better chance to access the support they need to reintegrate into the community and turn their backs on a life of crime. The Bill achieves that by enabling the offender’s release date, where it would have fallen on a Friday or the day before a public or bank holiday, to be brought forward by up to two eligible days, so that they will be released earlier in the week. Offenders with resettlement needs will no longer need to try to access these services, under what may well be very challenging circumstances, as the weekend begins and services and support stop or fade away.

The Bill applies to both adults and children sentenced to detention. It will ensure that the relevant release provisions exist and apply in all youth settings, including the recently created secure 16-to-19 schools.

I am very grateful to the Members, Lords and officials who have worked so diligently to bring forward the Bill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and his colleagues for their support and encouragement. I am once again very pleased to reiterate the Government’s support, and very much look forward to seeing the Bill on the statute book.

Bill passed.

Coroners (Determination of Suicide) Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

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

Powers of Attorney Bill

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Advocate Bill [HL]

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th June 2023 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

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

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

Judicial Appointments (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Bellamy Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Bellamy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

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

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

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

Motion agreed.