Nuptial Agreements

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, the Government have confidence in the courts to apply the general law, which is that prenups should in general be respected unless it is unfair to do so. That is not far off what the Law Commission recommended in 2014.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, most couples going through a divorce do not have their financial arrangements made by judge. Some reach settlement with the assistance of lawyers, others through mediation and arbitration. Of course, many do not have access to lawyers because of the withdrawal of legal aid. When the holistic review looks at financial provision for divorce, will that include the increase in legal aid for divorcing couples?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I think the answer to that question, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is that this is not directly within the Law Commission’s terms of reference, but it is well within the review of civil legal aid upon which the Government are currently embarking.

Offenders (Day of Release from Detention) Bill

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 21st April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we on this side of the House support this Bill and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bird, on piloting it through this House. Noble Lords will be aware that the proposal to avoid Friday releases has been around for a number of years, and a number of political parties and advocacy groups have tried to introduce it in previous criminal justice Bills. However, for various reasons, it was resisted by the Government. Nevertheless, I welcome the Government’s support for this Bill.

The rehabilitation of offenders starts within prisons with better conditions, better education and training, support for mental health, help to repair broken family relationships and more drug treatment programmes. If the Government are serious about cutting reoffending, they could look at reducing the use of shorter sentences for non-violent offences. One answer to that lies in effective community sentencing for those who commit non-violent offences. That would help ease overcrowding and allow prisons to get their education programmes back up and running.

My hope is that this Bill will have a positive effect on reoffending rates, along with reducing the number of recently released prisoners who become homeless. Only 45% of people released from prison in 2021-22 had settled accommodation on their release. That means over half were released from prison with nowhere to go and had to use their first hours of freedom searching for a safe and suitable place to sleep. Sadly, 11% of those people ended up homeless or sleeping rough.

Studies have shown that safe and secure housing is key to stopping the cycle of reoffending. His Majesty’s Inspectorate of Probation found that

“the proportion of service users recalled or resentenced to custody within 12 months of release was almost double for those without settled accommodation”.

I have always found it ironic—but understandable—that when sex offenders are released from custody, they have a guaranteed address because the police need to know what that address is, whereas other prisoners do not get that guarantee.

To state the obvious, when a prisoner leaves custody there is a huge contrast in their life—the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McNally, about his interaction with the prison leaver in Birmingham. Until their day of release, prisoners have all their housing, meals and medication needs under one roof. Then, on a Friday, they are out—maybe with only the number of a probation officer in their pocket, a little bit of money and the address of a pharmacist. It is then a race against time to find a roof over their head, to apply for benefits, to buy food and to visit their GP or pharmacist if they are part of a drug treatment programme. If all these elements are not in place, there is a much higher chance of relapse and reoffending and a return to custody. When a prisoner is released, it should be seen as a new start, where opportunities are presented and support is readily available—but all too often the opposite is true. We hope this Bill can go some way to rectifying that, but we are realistic in understanding that it is only part of the picture.

I took the trouble to revisit the arguments used by the Government against this proposal in the PCSC Bill. First, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, spoke of the Scottish experience, where there has been direct early release for some time, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, referred to. At that time, only 20 prisoners had been released under this scheme, so the argument was that there was insufficient data to draw any conclusions from the Scottish experience. Is the Minister able to update us on the Scottish experience of early release?

Secondly, in a separate debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson—the then Minister—argued against the proposal and said that it was deficient in three ways. His first point was that efforts to avoid Friday bunching should be focused on where the chances of rehabilitation of the offender were greatest. The second was that a five-day release period was too long. I understand that in this Bill it is two days; nevertheless, the point is made. His third point was about the impact on short custodial sentences if there was a two-day early release. How has the Minister’s department’s system evolved from these previous oppositions to the Bill? Of course, I welcome it, but I would be interested to hear the department’s thinking.

Turning to some of the speeches we have heard this afternoon, first, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, got back from his cruise relatively unscathed—I say “relatively”, given that he is coughing right at this moment. I also thought that the examples he gave of Berwyn prison were very good ones, and they should inspire other prisons to work in a similar way. Of course, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about the importance of alternatives to prison.

I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds for talking about particular cases. The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, talked about young prisoners, many of whom have been in care. It must be said that many young prisoners have committed much more serious offences than their adult counterparts—nevertheless, there is an extremely high reoffending rate for young prisoners. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds made a good point when talking about the particular problems of women when they leave prison, not least because they are far further away from their home—or very likely to be—because of the nature of the prison estate.

The noble Lord, Lord McNally, who has a lot of experience in this area, as the House will be aware, spoke about the key ingredients for release. Of course, they are the same key ingredients: accommodation, stable relationships and something to do with your time—namely, education, a job or something like that. That is a truism in trying to promote rehabilitation and reduce reoffending. I support the Bill, because I think it goes one step along the road to achieving that. However, there is a lot more to do to try to rectify the current situation.

Prison Officers: Retirement

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I open by agreeing with the three previous speakers. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, closed by asking for a “hard think” about this situation. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, asked for informal talks to start with the POA, and that request was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for securing this debate. He has shown dogged determination to secure justice and dignity for prison officers. I know that the POA union is extremely grateful for everything he does in this place for its members, who, let us face it, have one of the toughest and most dangerous jobs that we ask public servants to do.

We have heard some of the statistics, but I shall go over them again. Violence in prisons, especially against people working in them, has increased in recent years. The latest ONS safety in custody statistics, published January, show that there were 20,872 assault incidents in the 12 months to September 2022, up 11% from the 12 months to September 2021. In the most recent quarter, assaults were up 5% to 5,590 incidents.

It was recently reported that civil servants at the probation service’s HQ are being redeployed to work in prisons because of the staffing crisis there. An HMPPS spokesman said:

“We are temporarily moving around 90 qualified staff from desk-based roles to help frontline colleagues in prisons and probation.”


My first question for the Minister is: what action will the Government be taking immediately to address insufficient staffing in our prisons?

As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said in introducing this debate, newly recruited prison officers cannot draw their full occupational pension until they are getting on for 68 years old, depending on their date of birth. As he said, the POA has argued that this increased pension age is one reason why many younger officers are leaving the occupation. In recent evidence to the House of Commons Justice Committee, Mark Fairhurst, the national chair of the Prison Officers’ Association, said:

“If I join now as an 18-year-old recruit, I have to work for 50 years on the frontline before I can access my full pension, because our retirement time is now 68; it is related to the state pension. We must be the only uniformed frontline service in the entire country that expects staff to work in what I class as the most volatile, hostile workplace environment … That is not practical, and it puts off a lot of people.”


As we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, a 2011 report by the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, proposed that some uniformed services—namely the police, firefighters and the Armed Forces—should be exempt from the rise in the retirement age to 68. The decision excluded prison officers from the uniformed services that were spared the retirement age rise. This omission has never been explained or justified; it is a cause of anger and resentment among prison officers. This omission was then enshrined in law with the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 despite its apparent conflict with the Prison Act 1952, which grants prison officers

“all the powers, authority, protection and privileges”

of the police.

In 2016, as part of a prospective deal negotiated by the then Secretary of State for Justice, Liz Truss, the retirement age for prison officers would have been reduced by up to three years from 68 to 65. This was voted on by the POA’s members but was rejected by 65% of those polled. Since then—this is another point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee; in fact, by all the speakers in this debate—Conservative Ministers have argued that any lowering of the pension age for prison officers would

“mean that their pension contributions would have to increase.”

Of course, prison officers would be quite happy to make a greater contribution if their salaries were comparable to those of the other uniformed services.

Another point, which has not been made, is that reports by the Prison Service Pay Review Body have continued to raise the pension age as a concern, arguing that it is

“far too old to cope with the physical and mental demands of being an operational frontline Prison Officer.”

I quote again the POA’s national chair, Mark Fairhurst, who told the Justice Committee this last month:

“Lord Hutton neglected to include us as a frontline uniformed service. He classed us as civil servants who are deskbound. We are not. We are unique. We face violence every single shift. The police do not. They might go through the entire week dealing with pleasant people, and of a weekend they have to deal with a bit of violence when the pubs spill out. We deal with violent people every single shift, and we are expected to do that in our late 60s.”


In concluding, my question for the Minister is this: do the Government recognise that it is more difficult for men and women in their late 60s to control and restrain people who may be only a third of their age? Can the Minister show any evidence that prison officers at this age are able to do this work?

I think all noble Lords have asked for talks to be reopened. This is a difficult issue; it will not go away, and I will listen to the Minister’s answer with interest.

Jurors: Mental Health Impact

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Tuesday 28th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, lay participation in justice, whether through the jury, the magistracy or, I would add, membership of tribunals, is at the heart of the common-law system and the Government will fully support that participation.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, judicial officeholders, their partners and their children are offered helpline support 24/7 for 365 days a year through the Ministry of Justice. There is no equivalent for jurors. Arguably, judicial officeholders are better placed to withstand the pressures of their role because they have the support of their peer group. When jurors leave the court, they are on their own. Does the Minister think that this should change and the Government should offer the same support to jurors as is offered to judicial officeholders?

Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Home Detention Curfew) Order 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I beg to move. As your Lordships will know, the home detention curfew—or HDC—scheme allows certain prisoners to be released from prison early and kept on an electronically-tagged curfew in their home. The scheme was first established some 20 years ago. The statutory instrument before us extends the permitted maximum HDC by 45 days—around six weeks—from 135 days to 180 days. I will say a little more about the effect of that in a moment.

In parallel with the statutory change, which extends the HDC period, the Government are at the same time introducing non-statutory policy changes to exclude certain kinds of offenders from the scope of HDC. As your Lordships know, in statutory terms, certain offenders are totally excluded from HDC—for example, when they are sentenced to more than four years or are registered sex offenders, terrorists, or others. Other kinds of offenders are presumed unsuitable under the relevant HMPPS policy framework, including, for example, foreign national offenders liable to deportation, those convicted of possession of an offensive weapon, possession of firearms, and so on.

Following the discussions that took place in connection with the passing of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, to which the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Newlove, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, made important contributions, further offences are now being added to the “presumed unsuitable list” to coincide with the coming into force of the statutory instrument on 6 June. These are offences relating, for example, to stalking; harassment; the breach of a non-molestation or similar order; controlling or coercive behaviour in an intimate or family relationship contrary to the Domestic Abuse Act 2021; and non-fatal strangulation and suffocation. In other words, offenders guilty of those offences will be presumed not suitable for HDC, unless the prison governor concerned is persuaded of exceptional circumstances.

In addition, since April 2022, it has been mandatory for information to be gathered from police and children’s services about domestic abuse or safeguarding risks. It is only after that information has been gathered and a full risk assessment made that an offender may be released on HDC. While the HDC period is being extended, these parallel measures protect the public—in particular, from potential abusers.

The net effect of these measures, in parallel, is that fewer offenders are likely to be eligible for HDC, whereas those who are eligible may be on HDC for up to six weeks longer. In practice, the net increase of prisoners out on HDC is expected to be about 300 up from the current figure, which is about 1,850. I should add that, in practice, because of the requirement to serve a minimum of a quarter of any prison sentence, this statutory change affects those serving between 18 months and four years, with those serving between two and four years eligible for the maximum period of 180 days.

In addition to these developments, technology in this area continues to improve. GPS now allows the monitoring of offenders away from home, which also enables certain types of offender, such as those known as acquisitive offenders, to be targeted. If one is wandering away to do some shoplifting, the GPS can follow one, as it were. It also now permits alcohol monitoring, so alcohol monitoring tags have been rolled out across England and Wales. This technology development is supporting the policy.

HDC has been used successfully for 20 years to better manage the transition of eligible offenders from prison back into the community, and the changes I have outlined continue along that path. The other place has just approved the statutory instrument this afternoon, and I commend the instrument to the Committee.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that introduction, and we support the SI. As the Minister said, the current maximum period that an eligible offender may spend in the community on home detention curfew is 135 days, and this is being increased to 180 days through the order. He gave an example and talked about the improvement in the technology for those who are on HDC. Are all prisoners on home detention curfew on some form of electronic monitoring, or are some deemed to have no monitoring necessary?

The Minister also spoke about the greater use of GPS monitoring, rather than just home curfew monitoring, and alcohol monitoring. Would he care to speculate on what other forms of technological improvement we might see in the next few years? I have been involved, on and off, in giving tags to people on bail, and so on, and I have seen the technology used and abused over the years. It is interesting how the technology has developed and how the courts and prison system is learning to work with it appropriately. I should appreciate it if the Minister would speculate a little on how that might change in future.

The MoJ states that the purpose of running the home detention curfew is to ensure that offenders have a smooth transition back into the community from custody. We agree with that, and we support the scheme as a whole. However, we say that there is limited evidence to support the claim about reoffending statistics. The draft Explanatory Memorandum points to research published in 2011 that shows that offenders released on home detention curfew

“were no more likely to engage in criminal behaviour”.

That is a rather lukewarm endorsement of the policy—even though we do support it. The Ministry has said that it will publish internal evaluations on the expansion of the scheme in 2024. Given the lack of clear supportive evidence for the effectiveness of the scheme, despite the length of time it has been running, will the Government ensure that robust evaluations are made as soon as possible?

Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) (Amendment) Regulations 2023

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Monday 20th March 2023 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us today amends the Judicial Pensions (Fee-Paid Judges) Regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme 2017. The statutory instrument was approved in the other place on 21 February.

At present, the fee-paid judicial pension scheme provides only for eligible fee-paid judicial service on or after 7 April 2000. The main purpose of the statutory instrument is to provide pension benefits for certain eligible fee-paid service before 7 April 2000. The situation arises as a result of three cases.

The first was O’Brien 1 in 2013, when it was decided that fee-paid judges were workers and therefore eligible for pension benefits that mirrored those of salaried judges under the then judicial pension scheme. That was from 7 April 2000, the date when the relevant EU regulation was transposed into UK law. It led to the 2017 regulations.

In 2018, in O’Brien 2, the European Court of Justice found that eligible fee-paid judicial service prior to 7 April 2000 should also be taken into account for the purposes of calculating pension benefits. If one was already a judge on 7 April 2000, service before that date should count towards the pension.

In 2019, in the Miller case, the UK Supreme Court found that the time limit for fee-paid pension entitlement claims runs from the date on which the judge retired from judicial service rather than the date on which they left the fee-paid office concerned. You had until your ultimate retirement date to make the relevant claim.

Although we now have a new judicial pension scheme, these regulations ensure that the judgments I have just referred to are fully implemented and that the judges concerned get pension benefits in respect of their historical fee-paid judicial service.

The detail of the regulations is, if I may say so, impenetrably complex, as a result of different pension arrangements over the years. There was a different arrangement in force between 1981 and 1995, and then again between 1995 and a later date. These regulations deal with the pre-1995 provisions as well as the post-1995 situation. They make certain changes or additions to eligible offices and provide for a way of dealing with small amounts; one can commute to have a lump-sum payment, if there is just a small pension entitlement; they provide for the purchase of additional benefits; they apply to various techniques for reconciling various amounts outstanding; and they correct certain minor errors. These are very detailed matters indeed, but the essential purpose is to make sure that the pensions to which those judges are entitled are enshrined in the statutory instrument.

There was a consultation in 2020, and the responses received were broadly supportive. Officials have been in close touch with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, which have been kept apprised of developments, and, as I said, there has been close consultation with the judges affected.

In closing, I will make two points. Questions have been raised as to whether these regulations are affected by the retained EU law Bill currently before Parliament. On the assumption that the Bill becomes law, the regulations provide for already acquired pension rights, and I can confirm that they will not be sunsetted or otherwise adversely affected as a result of that Bill. Assuming that in due course it becomes an Act of Parliament, the relevant rights will be preserved.

Lastly, I point out, in case anyone has ever glanced at my CV, that I have no personal claim under any of these regulations.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the cavalry has just arrived in the form of my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, who is a pensions expert. Unfortunately, he will not say anything on the SI, which I will take as a level of endorsement of it. He is nodding his head—jolly good.

As the Minister said, the SI amends the judicial pensions regulations 2017, which established the fee-paid judicial pension scheme and provide pension benefits for eligible fee-paid judicial service from 7 April 2000 to 31 March 2022. It mirrors the pension benefits for salaried judges under the Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.

As the Minister set out, the SI amends the 2017 regulations, as required by O’Brien 2 litigation. In several ways, it is very complex. The Labour Party supports the SI. In essence, its purpose is to ensure that the work of fee-paid and salaried judges is undertaken and remunerated in the same way, and that that is recognised in their pensions.

I thank the Minister in particular for being very clear about the retained EU law Bill. I was indeed going to ask about that, and he could not have been clearer in saying that the Government will not put any sunset clauses in and will expect to retain all the provisions under this SI after the retained EU law Bill is passed.

I will go no further than that, because the Minister has answered the questions I was going to ask. As I said, the Labour Party is happy to support this statutory instrument.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, in those circumstances, I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Divorce: Financial Provision

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, cohabitation is not envisaged as being within the review we have been talking about today. It does raise important issues and the Government keep them under review.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that the time taken to reach a financial settlement following a divorce is often far greater than that taken for the divorce itself. The noble and learned Lord will also be aware that children often suffer badly from family breakdown and its consequences, particularly when there is an acrimonious and protracted divorce. Legal aid is currently permitted only in limited circumstances, such as when there is evidence of domestic abuse. Will the Government reconsider the issue of legal aid for matrimonial matters, particularly where one party has insufficient resources to get the necessary advice?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government have commissioned a review of civil legal aid, which includes legal aid in the family courts. The point the noble Lord raises will be included in that review.

Independent Public Advocate

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the Statement which he just read out; there is much to welcome in it. I add my thanks to all those mentioned in it. Above all, the Government’s action yesterday is a tribute to the heroic campaigning of the Hillsborough families over decades. However, as the families themselves have said, the Government have not gone far enough.

Your Lordships will recall that the idea of an independent public advocate was born in your Lordships’ House seven years ago, when the Private Member’s Bill of my noble friend Lord Wills had its Second Reading; my noble friend sends his apologies—his health prevents him being here today but I know that he supports what I am going to say. As a Minister, my noble friend was the key architect of the Hillsborough panel. His experiences led him to draft his Public Advocate Bill, which was supported by all sides of your Lordships’ House at Second Reading. Since then, he has continued to campaign for it, alongside the right honourable Maria Eagle, who has championed it in the other place.

Two key elements of that Private Member’s Bill are missing from the Government’s Statement. First, the Statement denies effective agency to bereaved families in calling the independent public advocate into being. We should understand how profoundly the Hillsborough families and others bereaved by public disasters have felt let down by successive Governments in the aftermath of a public tragedy. We must offer them reassurance that others similarly bereaved in future will not be similarly let down. We must give them the agency that the Government are currently denying them.

Secondly, the independent public advocate must have the power to establish a Hillsborough-type panel. It was only that panel which exposed the cover-ups in the aftermath of the disaster and secured the transparency that the families deserved and for which they have campaigned. The Labour Government who set up the panel and the Conservative Government who supported it to its conclusion set a welcome precedent. This Government must not now row back on that precedent.

Yesterday, through this Statement, the Government indicated their willingness to make changes to their earlier proposals. I welcome that. We will hold them to that commitment to ensure that bereaved families in future receive the agency and transparency that they are owed and for which the Hillsborough families have campaigned for so long and so heroically. I have one question for the Minister: when might we expect to see the victims Bill?

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is one piece of legislation that I am very glad to see but very sorry, of course, that it had to happen. We have here a response to things going very badly wrong. The three examples mentioned are things that we did not expect to go wrong but did, with horrible consequences. They all have in common that they happened quickly and on one day. I can think of a few other things. My noble friend Lady Brinton, who hoped to be here but has not been able to make it, gave the example of contaminated blood. Would this be caught by any definition as a case where independent public advocacy is required?

I am still not clear on whether one person or a panel is coming through here. That is probably my fault. When will the trigger point to get involved be? Will it be case law? Will it be a judgment? To add to that, my example was the accounting cock-up—I cannot think of any other way to put it, although that is putting it too mildly—with the Post Office system. That is a massive problem that has caused tremendous harm and, it is assumed, loss of life through suicide on numerous occasions. Where the trigger point will be is very important.

My noble friend Lady Brinton was also going to ask how much resource could be called on. It will probably have to vary because there will be differing circumstances and different bodies to call on. How will the Government have the resources to follow it through? Will they set a precedent of what is initially available and where to go, because in all three cases—here and in the two that I have just mentioned—there will be slightly different requirements to do stuff. A fixed panel will not to be able to do it—end of story. There needs to be a greater degree of flexibility than just having a panel. The capacity to call in expertise as one goes through will be needed.

I hope we will have further discussion on this before we get legislation. We will have to know, or we will have yet another long and brutal session in Committee and on Report to get this out. An issue such as this should not have that because we have had all the discussion already. We know what we are trying to get at. If we know that we will be removing a few cases from this which have to go somewhere else, then fair enough. There will have to be a line drawn somewhere, but there will be an argument about what the trigger point is.

My principal point is: what is the trigger point for having the body brought into action? That must be set. If the Government do not know now, can we know the process by which they will decide? The first time that we decide will be incredibly important for what follows. Will resources after that follow the individual case or will they remain in place? Let us ensure that we know exactly what is happening here, because I am afraid that without that, we are getting nowhere.

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords for their comments and interventions. I begin by indicating and reiterating the willingness of the Government to work collaboratively across party with all these measures and to consider possible changes to the scheme that I have briefly outlined. Speaking for myself, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, it seems very sensible to have those discussions in early course so that we do not get into a legislative battle when the Bill is already set in stone.

On the specific points raised, and subject to my renewed expression of willingness to discuss this, whether to give agency to the families is a very important point for further discussion. At the moment, it is envisaged that the Government should trigger the appointment or operation of the public advocate in particular circumstances, but the question of what power to give the families to trigger it is for further discussion.

Similarly, the power to establish a Hillsborough-type panel is something that we need to consider in some detail, not least with a view to avoiding duplication. We have had some expertly conducted inquiries—on Grenfell by Sir Martin Moore-Bick and on Manchester Arena by Sir John Saunders. One does not want to duplicate or overconfuse the issue; we need to work out the exact relationship between that kind of statutory inquiry and this kind of operation. Those are matters for further discussion.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of scope. The concept at the moment is that of an event—a specific disaster like the three that we have been talking about: Hillsborough, Manchester and Grenfell. Whether contaminated blood, the Post Office and the NHS-type scandals that we have unfortunately experienced over the years fall within the definition is for further reflection. They are probably not events, as presently constituted, so we need to think about this further. Will this have a roving remit for everything that goes badly wrong somewhere in the system or is it directed specifically at major disasters? At the moment, the Government’s thinking is the latter but, again, I express my willingness to consider this further.

On resources, clearly this will not work unless sufficient resources are available. Exactly how that is done, where they come from and on whose budget they fall are all details that need to be refined.

We have taken a decision in principle. It is now for everyone to work collectively across the parties to sort out the details and make this work, in the interests of the families, whom we will consult fully to make sure that we have filled in the gaps, closed the loops and got a good working system to make sure that Hillsborough never happens again.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, could he say when we might expect the victims Bill?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

I am sorry; I hope the victims Bill will be with the House shortly, in this Session.

Mental Capacity Act 2005: Small Payments Scheme

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Young, for his tenacity on this issue. Does the Minister agree with me that, while the vast majority of parents and carers will act in the best interests of their loved ones, proper processes still need to be in place to protect the assets of vulnerable people? The Government have said, and the Minister repeated just now, that they intend to improve the processes of going through the Court of Protection—specifically, improving processing times and simplifying court forms. Can the Minister say what progress has been made in this regard?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, yes; I am able to fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. We identified two problems. The first was the clunky—if I may use that expression—procedures of the Court of Protection, and the second was a general lack of awareness of the general law under the 2005 Act. On the first, the Court of Protection has in the meantime been digitalised. As from this month, anyone can apply online for the relevant authorisation, known as a “deputyship”. The relevant pilot reduced waiting times from 24 weeks to eight weeks, and the court forms are being worked on at the moment with a view to making them simpler and more user-friendly. So, there is good progress at the level of the Court of Protection. On the second problem, the general awareness of the need to observe the 2005 Act, we are in the process of a cross-government consultation to improve and raise public awareness.

Criminal Justice System: Translation and Interpreting Services

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, with respect to the noble Lord, this is not the moment to debate the wider points of the retained EU law Bill. As for the Ministry of Justice, most retained EU law has already been removed. We are left with some 23 pieces of legislation out of 3,700. I am not best placed to describe or consider the wider implications of the Bill, and, with respect, I think that is for another occasion.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is correct in saying that there are 23 identified Ministry of Justice items on the Government’s dashboard, and that was as of 28 February. Is the Minister satisfied that the Ministry of Justice review of the relevant legislation from the ministry’s point of view is complete and that that number of 23 will be the end of the story?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I am satisfied, as far as we can ever be satisfied in this exercise, that that is the correct figure. One cannot ever rule out something turning up, but as far as I know that is a correct working hypothesis.