Courts and Tribunals Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 27th October 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Stace on a very thoughtful and personal maiden speech. He is a friend who I have known for over a quarter of a century. Both of our families lived and grew up in south London and in south London Labour politics.

As we have heard, my noble friend Lord Stace brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to your Lordships’ House. He did not do justice to the work that he did when he was CEO of the Prince’s Trust, now the King’s Trust. In its 40-year history, the then Prince’s Trust helped and supported over 1 million people. As the new CEO, my noble friend Lord Stace—or Nick, as he was then—set an ambitious target of helping 1 million more over the next decade. He also did not touch on his time as the CEO of Saga travel—known to some of us in your Lordships’ House. When Nick became CEO, he was under the age of 50 and had to get special dispensation to attend and travel on some of the Saga cruises, which I am sure he thoroughly enjoyed. Finally, what an apt Bill for him to make a maiden speech on. As chair of the Prison Reform Trust, my noble friend brings an understanding and compassion that will be greatly appreciated and respected across your Lordships’ House. I welcome Nick, my noble friend Lord Stace.

I turn to the Second Reading. I welcome the Government’s determination to confront the crisis in our courts. Behind every delayed hearing are people whose lives cannot move forward. I want to approach the Bill through the lens of social justice. The question is not simply how many cases can move through the system; it is whether someone without money, influence or knowledge of the law can obtain justice, and whether victims can secure a hearing before delay exhausts their confidence. Those are not competing objectives: a fair justice system must and can deliver both.

The scale of the challenge is stark. Ministry of Justice figures show that, at the end of June, there were over 80,000 open Crown Court cases and over 380,000 open cases in magistrates’ courts. For a victim, delay can mean repeated preparation for a hearing that does not happen. For an innocent defendant, it can mean a livelihood, a reputation and family life suspended. Delay is therefore not merely an administrative failure; it is a social justice issue. That is why doing nothing cannot be the answer and why I welcome the Government’s willingness to listen, and their decision not to proceed with the proposed Crown Court Bench division changes.

I welcome the provisions concerning evidence in sexual offence proceedings and support for vulnerable and intimidated witnesses. These recognise that access to justice means more than just entering a courtroom; it means being able to give evidence safely and effectively, while preserving a fair trial.

The remaining structural reforms require careful examination. Removing the adult defendant’s right to elect a Crown Court trial, increasing magistrates’ sentencing powers and introducing permissions required for appeal must be considered together. Their combined effect matters more than any provision viewed in isolation. My concern is practical. If more serious decisions are taken in magistrates’ courts, with greater consequences for liberty, what safeguards will ensure that those least equipped to navigate the system are not disadvantaged?

First, we need credible capacity before additional responsibilities are transferred. The magistrates’ courts are not empty reservoirs into which Crown Court work can simply be poured. Their open caseload is already at record levels. The Justice Committee’s chair put it plainly:

“A clear plan to ensure there is capacity to meet increased demand is vital”.


Will my noble friend the Minister published a plan covering magistrates, district judges, legal advisers, administrative staff and court facilities before these changes take effect? As someone whose working life has included representing working people, I add that reform must be designed with the workforce, not simply delivered to it. The people preparing files, supporting witnesses and keeping hearings running know where time is lost. Their experience, and that of their trade unions, should help inform implementation.

Secondly, access to an appeal must remain meaningful. A permission requirement may look like a modest procedural change, but, for someone with limited literacy or a learning disability or no effective legal assistance, explaining why a decision may be wrong can in itself be a formidable barrier. Will the Minister explain what practical support will be available, particularly for the most vulnerable?

Efficiency should mean resolving cases correctly, not making errors harder to challenge. I welcome the independent review, examining the differences in treatment or outcomes by race and socioeconomic status. That is not special treatment; it is a test of whether equal treatment exists in practice. However, a review must be capable of prompting action. Will there be a clear baseline, published findings and a commitment to explain how any adverse effects will be addressed? Parliament should not discover years later that a reform intending to improve justice has deepened inequality.

Legislation cannot substitute for making the existing system work. The latest statistics show that one-quarter of Crown Court trials listed to start do not start—they did not proceed as scheduled and require another listing. Better case preparation, reliable prison transport, functioning technology and properly maintained buildings are not glamorous reforms, but they matter enormously to the people waiting outside the courtroom.

I support the ambition to deliver swifter justice. My test is whether these reforms improve the experiences of those with the least power: victims waiting to be heard, defendants entitled to fairness and families living with uncertainty. Let us reduce delay without reducing confidence, strengthen capacity before transferring responsibilities, and make equality before the law a practical reality. That should be the social justice purpose of the Bill.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

Clause 39: Illegal entry and similar offences

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, if Amendment 120 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 121 because of pre-emption.

Amendment 120

Moved by

Taking Control of Goods (Fees) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 13th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I support this Motion to Regret in the name of my noble friend Lady Meacher. The last thing needed by those trying to deal with a problem debt is an extra 20% charge on top of the collection costs in tax that should clearly have been levied on the creditors, not the debtors. It is surely a great injustice for debtors to have been charged VAT when they should not have been and to have to go to considerable lengths to recover money they have been falsely charged. It is certainly a matter of deep regret and the remedies proposed by my noble friend seem entirely justified.

Perhaps I could take this opportunity, on the subject of bailiffs, to note that there is considerable political and practitioner interest in bailiff reform. Will the Minister reaffirm the Government’s support for the enforcement conduct authority as organised by the Centre for Social Justice in partnership with both the bailiff sector and the debt advice sector? Impressive work has been done by the CSJ in securing agreement between those representing bailiffs and those providing debt advice, such as the charity StepChange. This now needs government to take matters forward and grant statutory powers to this new body to give it real teeth. Perhaps the Minister could comment.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest. A close family member was supported by StepChange, and to say that its engagement and support were life-changing is an understatement.

This is an issue which has united parliamentarians from across both Houses and both sides of the House, as well as the advice sector. It is right that the matter is before us, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving us the opportunity to consider it today. I also join her in thanking Just for its briefing and, probably more importantly, for its campaigning on this issue. As she rightly said, I am not sure we would be here today if Just had not taken it as far as it had.

As we have heard, enforcement officers have been incorrectly charging VAT to debtors since 2014. The Government, I think, agree that debtors should not be paying the VAT and Ministers have confirmed this at the Dispatch Box previously. When the matter was raised in Parliament by my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara in 2019, the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, said on behalf of the Treasury that

“any VAT due is payable by the creditor who receives the service. The debtor is not required to pay the VAT.”

As Parliamentary Answers go, that is quite unequivocal. That should have instigated an immediate reset of VAT charging at that point. It would have been nice if the MoJ had listened to the Treasury then.

The SI deals with the charging of VAT and ensures that, going forward, High Court enforcement officers—HCEOs—do not charge debtors. That is to be welcomed. The move should be to the creditors. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, we are concerned that the Government are not tackling the historic overcharging that has been taking place for at least the last seven years. The Government accept that debtors have been unfairly taxed, so can the Minister please explain why the Government are not committing to providing—as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has outlined—tax refunds or other systems to resolve this mischarge to debtors? There is an established principle when someone has been financially wronged: we saw it regarding PPI and heard it in the news this morning in a recommendation from the ombudsman about incorrect benefits payments. Why are the Government taking this position?

There may well be another simple solution. I look for a response from the Minister to this. It could possibly be dealt with as an administration task. The MoJ could order debt enforcement companies to return the VAT to the debtors who had overpaid it. The debt enforcement companies which are VAT registered would then reinvoice the creditors to return this money to them. The creditors could submit this VAT as a cost to HMRC. This means it would not cost the debt enforcement companies or the creditors any money. It would be a return through the VAT system directly from HMRC. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Wednesday 15th December 2021 Lords Chamber

18:13

Division 4

Amendment 78B disagreed.

Ayes: 149

---

Labour: 75
Liberal Democrat: 54
Crossbench: 11
Independent: 4
Green Party: 2
Democratic Unionist Party: 1
Bishops: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 149

---

Conservative: 135
Crossbench: 7
Independent: 5
Ulster Unionist Party: 2

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, there being an equality of votes, in accordance with Standing Order 55, I declare the amendment disagreed to.

Amendment 78B disagreed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I am going to make a slightly unusual request. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, cannot unfortunately be in her place. She was unable to be in the House at very short notice. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, needs to chair a Select Committee at 3 pm, so I wonder if I could formally move Amendment 224 and then allow the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, to make her speech. On that basis, I beg to move Amendment 224.

Crown Dependencies: Contributions

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I would never make an absurd point, either to the noble Lord or anybody else. I am certainly aware that there is no current or perceived future requirement to use the Alderney breakwater for operational military purposes, but it still needs to be maintained to preserve the facilities in Alderney’s only serviceable harbour. The Government previously retained responsibility for maintaining the breakwater because it was built by the UK for naval purposes and the Bailiwick of Guernsey could not be expected to subsidise the cost at the time.

When we requested that the Crown dependencies start making contributions towards the cost of defence in 1987, Guernsey assumed responsibility for maintaining the breakwater alongside remitting passport fees for British passports issued in the bailiwick. Irrespective of whether the breakwater serves any defensive purpose, by meeting the maintenance cost that would otherwise fall on the Government, Guernsey contributes to the cost of its defence and international relations.

[Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK is formally responsible for representing the Crown dependencies in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, including during the COP negotiations. Given that small islands are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, can the Minister confirm how Her Majesty’s Government are engaging with the Crown dependencies in the lead up to the COP 26 summit?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble Lord raises an important point. My role in the Ministry of Justice is essentially to be the point Minister for the Crown dependencies regarding the Government. Just as I make sure that the Crown dependencies’ relations with, for example, the Department for International Trade, are secure when we talk about international treaties, I also make sure that discussions on environmental and climate issues are close between the Crown dependencies and the relevant government departments.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

Amendment 42 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 43. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 43

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 43 withdrawn.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

Amendment 44 was previously debated on Monday. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, wish to move Amendment 44?

Amendment 44

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Helic (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I wish to move Amendment 44.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall now put the question. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, taking part remotely, that she wishes to divide the House in support of this amendment and I will take that into account. The question is that Amendment 44 be agreed to.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

My Lords, we now come to the group beginning with Amendment 45. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 45

Moved by

Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this statutory instrument amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which I will refer to as the FPJPS regulations, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017, which I will refer to as the FPJPS. This statutory instrument broadly has three purposes: the first is to add eligible fee-paid judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations; the second is to make amendments consequential to adding these offices to the FPJPS regulations; and the third is to make various further amendments to those regulations.

Dealing with those in turn, the main purpose of this statutory instrument is to add further eligible judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations. To give the House an example, Part 2 of the statutory instrument adds the office of legal chair of the Competition Appeal Tribunal to the schedule of offices in the FPJPS. Until that is done, individuals holding these offices cannot be members of the FPJPS and cannot, therefore, accrue pension benefits under it, even though they would otherwise meet the eligibility criteria. Similarly, member pension contributions could not be deducted from their judicial fees. Currently, when the Ministry of Justice is notified that an individual in this situation retires, an interim payment in lieu of pension is made, but once these judicial offices are added to the FPJPS regulations the payments in lieu will become formalised pension payments.

The second element is the consequential amendments, contained in Part 3, which flow from the addition of these judicial offices to the pension scheme. These amendments ensure two things: first, that eligible service before this SI comes into force on 1 April 2021, and potentially as far back as 7 April 2000, can also count as pensionable service and pension contributions can be deducted in respect of it; and, secondly, these new members can complete certain actions in the scheme, such as the purchase of additional benefits, from their date of admission to the scheme.

Thirdly and finally, we are taking the opportunity of this SI to make some further necessary amendments to the FPJPS regulations. I will highlight three kinds of amendment. First, we explicitly set out the service limitation dates that apply for relevant judicial offices. This is the date from which reckonable service is taken into account for the accrual of pension benefits under the scheme. Service limitation dates represent the point in time when the appropriate salaried judicial officeholders had access to a pension under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 scheme, known as the JUPRA scheme. Following the 2013 judgment in a case called O’Brien v Ministry of Justice, we need to replicate that in the FPJPS. To give the House an example, service in the office of deputy adjudicator of Her Majesty’s Land Registry is eligible for an FPJPS pension, but only in relation to service in this office after 1 January 2009. Although these offices already fall under the entry in the FPJPS regulations of

“First-tier Tribunal Judge (where a legal qualification is a requirement of appointment)”

and the service limitation dates could be inferred, if one had the time and interest to do so, from various sources, such as the purpose of the existing regulations and litigation decisions, we consider it preferable for these dates to be clearly specified in these regulations, so that is what we have done.

Secondly, we have taken the opportunity to correct the service limitation dates, which are already listed for three judicial offices in these regulations, as they wrongly limit, by one day, the period of eligible service for these judicial officeholders. To give an example, the entry for

“Legal Chair Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeals Panel”

is currently limited to service in this office after 3 November 2008, whereas the correct date that the amendment records is 2 November 2008.

Thirdly, we have added the new names of two judicial offices already listed in the regulations. These are the Deputy Insolvency and Companies Court Judge, a position formerly known as the Deputy Bankruptcy Registrar; and the Deputy Master of the Senior Courts, formerly known as the Deputy Supreme Court Master.

Turning briefly to the consultations we have undertaken on these and related matters, I shall highlight three. In 2016, we issued a public consultation on the draft regulations establishing FPJPS and the responses were reflected in the final version of the regulations. The scheme commenced on 1 April 2017, with backdated effect to 7 April 2000. We have since undertaken further consultation exercises relating to the addition of eligible judicial offices to FPJPS. In the first of those two additional consultation exercises, in 2018 we consulted directly with judges of the First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Agricultural Land and Drainage, as this office was not expressly mentioned in the 2016 consultation. We received four responses, which we considered carefully.

Secondly, from June to October last year, we consulted on adding these judicial offices to FPJPS as part of a wider consultation on amendments to the regulations on the inclusion of service in the scheme prior to April 2000. We received a number of responses, and the Government response to the consultation was published on 10 December last year. In addition, of course, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed of developments and have liaised specifically with officials from Wales and Northern Ireland regarding the offices whose jurisdictions are in those countries, reflecting their views accordingly.

I can reassure the House that this statutory instrument, which I accept is somewhat technical, is essentially a tidying-up exercise. We are not implementing any major changes through the statutory instrument, nor are we making any amendments to FPJPS with negative implications for judges. In fact, we are doing the opposite: we are enabling additional officeholders to become members of the fee-paid judicial pension scheme, something I know that both the judges concerned and my department are very keen to see happen. The key reason, therefore, for this statutory instrument is to add eligible judicial offices to the FPJPS regulations to enable those officeholders to become members of the scheme and to enable pension contributions to be deducted from their fees. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, will be followed by the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

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

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 160 while offering my sympathy and support for the other two amendments in this group. I reflect on the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who said that this is a landmark Bill and needs to be as near perfection as we can possibly make it. I speak also as a member of the delegation from this Parliament to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Istanbul convention is one of the key cornerstones of the achievements of that council over the last several years. It grieves me that I regularly see on the material put out by the council that the United Kingdom is one of the countries that has not yet ratified the convention, although of course it added its signature in 2012.

The idea is that our legislation is not yet in line with all the requirements of the convention, and that we are working on that. Earlier today, I heard extraterritoriality mentioned in debates and that a parallel effort is being made in the Northern Ireland Assembly which, mercifully, will deal with a major part of what prevents us at this minute ratifying the convention. That leaves us with Article 4(3) and Article 59. The whole question of discrimination has been properly alluded to as a very important thing for us to accord. I believe that the Government wish to do that, but they have taken the extraordinary step, having seen the recommendation in what is the fourth report since we have had these annual reports, to refer the matter into a pilot that will sit from December last to the end of March. That pilot’s findings will help us to quantify and find sustainable responses to this particular need.

I say that it is ironic and it is because, in a sense, the two other amendments in this group, were they on the statute book, would provide exactly the guarantees being sought and would allow us to ratify the convention at once. Is the fact that we have the pilot, which goes on to the end of March, going to make it necessary or impossible for us to include any measures to deal with discrimination for migrant women within the timescale of the passage of this Bill? I cannot see that we can possibly do the Bill and include any outcome from this process, which means that we will have missed the opportunity in this landmark Bill to deal with the two outstanding obstacles to our signing the Istanbul convention.

I missed a lot of these riveting debates because I was in Strasbourg, virtually—but we were talking about the same things. It pains me that we have not ratified the convention. At this minute Turkey and Poland are on the point of withdrawing from the Istanbul convention, and our moral stance in urging them not to is greatly diminished by the fact that we ourselves have not ratified it. With all that in mind—and this point has not yet been made, although it has been alluded to many times—I wish that these amendments could be made. Some 58 people and organisations wrote to me, as I am sure they wrote to the Minister, to say that all the evidence we could possibly need has been gathered. What is to stop us going forward? Why cannot we find a way between now and Report to leapfrog any obstacle, if necessary? Is this really impossible?

At the end of the day, it will all come down to money—£1.5 million will not do what needs to be done in the next five months and certainly, it will take a lot of money to deal with this in a sustainable way in the fullness of time. The domestic abuse commissioner designate—what a welcome appointment and what a clear-sounding person she seems to be—says that, unless migrant women with no recourse to public funds are included,

“their options are brutal.”

So, there it is from the person who will be overseeing this whole area of our national life.

I do not know whether the Minister can assure us that, even though we are out of sync with the passage of the Bill, we can hope in the not too distant future to incorporate retrospectively all that we are seeking to do through these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I call the next speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, who will be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, as I and many others said at Second Reading, the biggest hole in the Bill is its failure to make any provision for migrant women—a group of domestic abuse survivors who are let down badly by current provisions. I therefore strongly support these amendments, which, in different ways, would fill that hole and ensure that abused migrant women receive the same support as other domestic abuse survivors.

It is to the Government’s credit that they listened to the criticisms from domestic abuse organisations and, in particular, those working with abused migrant women such as Southall Black Sisters and the Latin American Women’s Rights Service—to which I pay tribute—and revised the prospectus for the Support for Migrants Victims pilot scheme. However, they refused to face up to the most fundamental criticism, as cited by the right reverend Prelate in her powerful speech, that a pilot scheme of this kind is simply not necessary in order to provide the evidence that Ministers claim they need before taking longer-term action to protect abused migrant women. Southall Black Sisters, for instance, has already provided the necessary evidence and the domestic abuse commissioner designate supports its belief that the Government do not need further evidence to act.

Although much improved from its original specification, the pilot is still inadequate to meet the needs of abused women. According to SBS, and as we have heard, the £1.4 million allocated is nowhere near enough to meet the needs of all the women requiring crisis support. It calculates that this will enable it to support only 50 women for three months each over a year, which would leave many women still excluded from protection and crisis support. At the same time, the £1.09 million grant it was awarded from the tampon tax fund to support women subject to the no recourse to public funds rule is due to end in March. As the right honourable Theresa May pointed out on Report in the Commons, we have to take account of the fact that the removal of financial support from a woman in a relationship might be

“part of the abuse they are suffering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6 July 2020; col. 712.]

The Government must surely do all they can not to compound that abuse through public policy. At the very least, will the Minister consider suspending the application of the NRPF rule to domestic abuse survivors during the lifetime of the pilot to minimise the hardship that is likely to result?

Whatever the merits of the pilot project there is, as we have already heard, no guarantee that it will lead to lasting change. Such an important part of the domestic abuse strategy should not be dependent on the presence of sympathetic Ministers. Domestic abuse legislation does not come along that often; indeed, how many years have we had to wait for this Bill, welcome as it is? It is therefore vital that provision be made within it to ensure equal protection for migrant domestic abuse survivors. Indeed, the EHRC warns that failure to do so might put us in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights and, as we have heard, it would almost certainly breach our obligations under the Istanbul convention. Given that the Minister said in her letter to Peers following Second Reading that the Government will ratify the convention only when they are satisfied that we meet all our obligations, it is surely imperative that equal protection for migrant women be enshrined in this Bill, as argued by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 156 and 157 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 158. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Amendment 158

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 159. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 159

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 160 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to Amendment 161. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 161

Moved by

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord McNicol of West Kilbride Excerpts

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

Amendment 140 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 141. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and that anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate.

Amendment 141

Moved by