Independent Review of Administrative Law

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP) [V]]

When this review was announced I corresponded with the Lord Chancellor, reminding him that our independent system of civil justice in Scotland is protected by article 19 of the treaty of Union and devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so I welcome the assurance he has given today that his proposals going forward will apply to England and Wales only. As it is my birthday, will he indulge me by joining me in celebrating another victory for Scotland’s independent legal system, which of course in 2019 led the way in ruling that the Prime Minister’s Prorogation of Parliament was unlawful?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Happy birthday.

[Robert Buckland]

I am more than happy to wish the hon. and learned Lady a very happy birthday. I absolutely accept that she and I corresponded on these matters, and she pressed me when serving on the SNP Front Bench, but at no time was there any intention by the Government to trespass on to issues that are the province of the separate Scottish legal system. In this particular instance we have the Cart process, which applies to reserved matters and which of course would apply to Scottish courts, but I can assure the hon. and learned Lady that, if anything, we will be learning from the Scottish jurisdiction, because I note in particular section 108 of the Scotland Act 1998 and its provisions with regard to a certain type of remedy. So once again the great jurisdictions of England, Wales and Scotland are learning from each other as part of our even greater United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Before I call the Lord Chancellor, I do want to remind hon. and right hon. Members of the dress code, which is the same for those contributing by video link and is that we should wear jackets.

[Robert Buckland]

I can absolutely reassure the hon. Gentleman that the proposals in fact are the opposite of a restriction or restraint on judicial review. The proposals include a recommendation that the rule about bringing a claim promptly be removed because it does not add anything to the overall procedural framework. Secondly, the three-month limit will remain, but there is of course within that discretion for the court to disapply or to entertain a late application. None of that is going to be interfered with. This review is not based upon some crude attempt to restrict a class of people from applying or to restrict the length of time. This is all about the scope of judicial review and the remedies that are on offer. It is a mature contribution to the debate, and I know that when Labour Members look at it carefully they will be compelled to draw the same conclusion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that both he and his constituents in Bury South will have the opportunity to take part in further consultations. I suspect that most of the people and organisations who responded so helpfully to the review panel’s call for evidence last autumn will indeed engage again in this consultation. I look forward to a full and lively debate in the weeks ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I thank the Lord Chancellor for his statement. I am suspending the House for two minutes to allow the arrangements to be made for the next business.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 2
Tuesday 16th March 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]]

I am grateful to be called in this debate. I wish to place on record my thanks to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), for meeting me to discuss this Bill. The scale of the Bill, the wide-ranging import of its provisions and indeed the two days set aside for the Second Reading debate all indicate the magnitude of what is contained within it.

First, I wish to indicate my support for the provisions that directly apply to Northern Ireland. The ability to access information from encrypted devices, the ability to take samples from human remains, changes to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and mutual recognition across our United Kingdom are all welcome provisions that will assist in the fight against serious crime. Ministers are aware that I have raised my concern that, although they are not part of this Bill, unexplained wealth orders, provided for in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, have not yet commenced in Northern Ireland, despite our Department of Justice seeking a commencement order.

With paramilitarism and organised crime still having a significant impact in Northern Ireland generally, and in my constituency of East Belfast particularly, we need immediate progress on this issue. I am prepared to table amendments to the Bill if necessary, though I am somewhat assuaged to hear that progress may come in the next week or two. I would therefore be extremely grateful if confirmation of that could be given from the Dispatch Box this evening.

Separately, the House is well aware of the strength of feeling following the abhorrent murder of Sarah Everard so I am pleased that the Bill will increase the time served in prison from half to two-thirds of the sentence as a minimum for the most serious sexual offences. It will bring in provisions on abuse of positions of trust and enact Kay’s law with greater protections linked to pre-charge bail.

Finally, and regretfully, I rail against in the strongest possible terms the overarching sweeping and draconian provisions on protests. I have heard what the Government’s intention is, but the loose and lazy way the legislation is drafted would make a dictator blush. Protests will be noisy. Protests will disrupt. No matter how offensive we may find the issue at their heart, the right to protest should be protected.

Unless we wish to proceed with societal constraints that permit only graceful, genteel and humble protest, I urge the Government to indicate that they accept the strength of feeling on this issue, that they will work with colleagues across the House to amend the provisions significantly, and that they will not proceed without publishing guidance underpinned by statute on the operative implications.

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues a happy St Patrick’s Day for tomorrow.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Thank you. We now go by video link to Dame Angela Eagle.

Courts and Tribunals: Recovery

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend knows that, coupled with the action we took to deal with possession applications, we also dealt with enforcement matters to ensure that evictions could not take place. I can reassure him that the increase in the time period required to six months means that we will have, in effect, a long period before particular possession actions might be completed towards the latter end of 2021. I am grateful to the judiciary for having worked extremely hard to prepare a plan for how to deal with these cases. It involves, in any cases that are to be revived, a statement by the landlord as to the current position and the effect on the tenants. A lot of safeguards have been put in to ensure that the interests and rights of tenants are protected, that a balance is struck and that the caseload will be managed sensibly, sensitively and humanely by the courts in the year ahead.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Just a gentle reminder that we have two further debates this afternoon that colleagues will have spent a lot of time preparing for, and we are anxious that they should have enough time to air their views during those debates, so concise questions and brisk answers would be welcome all round.

[Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) has already spelt out, Halifax county and family court and Calderdale magistrates court were two of the 86 courts that were closed under this Government in 2016 alone. We were promised video links and a technological revolution in access to justice, but four years later, we have had absolutely none of that. The pressures were just transferred to other regional courts, which now face intolerable backlogs because of the virus. Those court buildings are still standing empty, so why not reopen some of them to get the justice system moving again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for all the work he has been doing to keep the justice system moving. I have two quick questions on employment tribunals. First, I know that the improvements in virtual proceedings have made a material difference to reducing the backlog, so what plans does he have to extend their roll-out? Secondly, I am hearing about a hidden problem, whereby a shortage of administrative staff in the tribunals is leading to applications and letters being processed very slowly, which is contributing to an overall delay. May I urge him to shine a spotlight on that issue when he looks at tribunals?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. It is important that Members ask just one question, because there are two debates to follow, and I am anxious that they are getting squeezed at the moment.

[Robert Buckland]

I will not repeat what I said with regard to investment and case levels in employment tribunals, but I assure my hon. Friend that the extra funding we have had in year means that we can recruit 1,600 extra staff. We are allocating more resources to recruit up to 1,800 staff. So far we have recruited 800, with 200 or so of them in training, and I hope that we can use those extra resources in the employment tribunal and other jurisdictions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I refer the hon. Lady exactly to my response to the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry), who asked a question in very similar terms. The hon. Lady is right to ask that, and we do take that obligation extremely seriously indeed and are working to meet it at all times.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

We have now taken an hour on the statement. Although I will try to get everyone in, that absolutely depends on short answers and short questions.

[Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

One of the things that we have heard in the Justice Committee is of a reduction in violence in prisons as a result of the lockdown. Will my right hon. and learned Friend assure me that we will look at what we can learn from a positive point of view from that fall?

Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [Lords]

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments & Ping Pong & Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendments 1A and 1B.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

With this it will be convenient to consider the Government motion to agree to Lords amendments 4A to 4E.

[Alex Chalk]

Private international law, sometimes known as conflict of laws, comprises rules applied by courts and parties involved in legal disputes for dealing with cases raising cross-border issues. The rules generally apply in the context of civil law, including specialist areas such as commercial, insolvency and family law. PIL typically includes rules to establish whether a court has jurisdiction to hear a claim that has cross-border elements, which country’s law applies to such a claim, and whether a judgment of a foreign court should be recognised and enforced. However, it can also encompass rules on co-operation between courts and other public authorities in different countries involved in dealing with cross-border issues, such as service of documents, taking of evidence abroad or even establishing efficient procedures to assist with the resolution of cross-border disputes.

These agreements are important. They are the sort of thing that a member of the public, or a business trading across borders may not know they need until a difficulty or a disagreement arises. Without these agreements, cross-border legal disputes can become expensive and difficult to resolve. With them, the path to resolution is clearer and smoother.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

The legislation is clear that it can be extended more than once, but the real point is that parliamentarians will want to be satisfied that that process is not entirely a rubber-stamping exercise and that, first, Governments of any stripe will be actively required to turn their attention to whether it is the proper thing to do—and they will be, because of the consultation requirements in the statute—and secondly, that Parliament will be sufficiently notified of the Government’s intention to do so that it is well placed to marshal whatever opposition it thinks is appropriate.

All of that feeds into the next points that I wish to make, but before I do so I should say that the Government have been clear about how they want to use the power over the next few years, and that includes in respect of implementing the Lugano convention—or, indeed, alternatives with Norway, Iceland and Switzerland, should our application be declined—as well as, subject to consultation, the Singapore convention on mediation and the 2019 Hague judgments project. I pause to mention that the Singapore convention has no more doughty champion in this place than my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell).

If the Government ask Parliament to extend the power in five years’ time, they will need to make their case again and have the relevant regulations approved in both Houses. In any view, the sunset amendment represents a significant concession by the Government. It takes account of the concerns that have been powerfully expressed, while still retaining a proper measure of the flexibility and agility that we seek—manifestly in the national interest, we contend—to support the UK’s long-term private international law strategy which, I pause to note, strengthens the international rules-based order.

Finally, on the third of the three points to which I referred, Lords amendment 4B adds a requirement for the Government to consult prior to making any regulations under the Bill, whether those regulations concern the implementation of a private international law agreement or propose to extend the sunset period—the point I just addressed with my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly). The amendment puts on the face of the Bill the commitments that we have already made from the Dispatch Box on engagement with Parliament and other stakeholders. Although there will be times when a wide-ranging and broad consultation is appropriate—for instance, when the UK is seeking to join a new private international law agreement—there will be other times when the power is used to make minor technical and procedural updates to agreements, such as to update the name of a foreign court referred to in an existing agreement.

The requirement to consult applies across the piece but allows for a proportionate approach to different issues. Different instruments will require different approaches and, no doubt, different consultees, and the consultees who might be most appropriate to offer a view on an instrument about family law will not necessarily be the same as those who might add most value in respect of an instrument that deals with commercial disputes. As with any statutory obligation to consult, there is a requirement to take proper account of the representations received, and I can give an undertaking that the Government will meet that requirement. In the explanatory memorandum that must accompany any statutory instrument laid before this House, we will provide—I hope this will provide some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon—a thorough and detailed explanation of the consultation that has taken place, setting out not only those whom we have consulted but a fair and balanced summary of the views expressed.

In conclusion, I restate the point about the importance of resolving this issue today. Clause 1 needs to be in force before the end of the transition period. It is plainly in the interests of this country to avoid an extended back and forth, and the Bill represents a pragmatic approach that respects the misgivings that have been expressed while ensuring that Governments retain the agility and flexibility that they need to enter into vital international agreements. I urge right hon. and hon. Members to accept this compromise as an appropriate and balanced approach.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister, Alex Cunningham.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker—from one Alex to another.

When I stood at the Dispatch Box some weeks ago for the Bill’s Second Reading, I made Labour’s position very clear: we absolutely understand and appreciate the need for the Bill. The Minister was rightly wholehearted in his endorsement of the Bill and provided us with some excellent examples of how it will work and what it will mean. He even mentioned that it will apply to widgets. Perhaps when he does his summing up, he can tell me what a widget is.

In a post-Brexit world, it is essential that individuals, families and businesses have access to fair and clear legal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. This has never been contentious and, from the very beginning, Labour made its support for clause 1 of the Bill clearly known. Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill because it maintains and perhaps enhances our legal co-operation across jurisdictions and provides certainty and fairness for those involved in cross-border litigation. In a post-Brexit world, this is essential to maintaining a prosperous economy, protecting our legal system and providing for families and individual claimants engaged in cross-border disputes. International agreements provide clear and reciprocal mechanisms for dealing with international disputes. In doing so, they are crucial in protecting our country’s proud reputation as the world’s centre for resolving complex disputes while offering us a competitive advantage in finance, business and trade.

This is also a Bill that will affect human beings and human stories. A wide range of family law issues can lead to cross-border disputes—for example, when one partner takes a child abroad and there is a disagreement about parenting arrangements, when making arrangements for divorce in similar circumstances, and on issues of abduction and adoption. Over the years, many of us have seen examples of that in our constituencies, when a child has been removed from this country against the will of another parent, and yet we have struggled, even with the existing laws, to resolve those sorts of disputes. Of course, this is also about keeping our citizens safe. We must ensure that we have robust international agreements so that justice can be done.

On Second Reading and in Committee, we were content to give our full support to clause 1, which gives effect to international treaties in domestic law through primary legislation, because we recognised that it is both necessary and welcome. It is hoped that these provisions, which affect the rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments overseas, will play a crucial role in building a strong economy and provide some certainty for families in often desperately trying circumstances.

Labour welcomes the principle of the Bill, but we remain of the opinion that there was no need for clause 2. Attempts by those in the other place to persuade the Government to ditch the unnecessary and, some would say, dangerous provisions covered by clause 2 were successful. Sadly, their decision was not appreciated by the Government and, despite the pleas and arguments put forward by their lordships, the Government felt compelled to reinstate the clause when it came back to the Commons. The House will be aware that despite the clear and sensible arguments of the Opposition and others, ultimately the Government are the Government and use their majority to prosecute their will, and, with no surprise, succeeded in reinstating clause 2.

--- Later in debate ---

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to allow for safe exit and entry before the next business, we will have a three-minute suspension.

Lammy Review

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

There is a lot of pressure on time this afternoon. A lot of people want to speak now and in the next business, so can we have short questions and answers please?

[Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)]

It is noted in the report that BAME young adults face high levels of deprivation and disadvantage that may make reoffending more likely. What steps is my hon. Friend’s Department taking to reduce the likelihood of BAME children and young adults reoffending and entering the court system for a second time?

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Committee stage & 3rd reading & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 17th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I remind right hon. and hon. Members that because we are in Committee I cannot impose a time limit, but I am sure that everyone can see from the call list that there are still nine speakers. The debate has to finish at 6 o’clock. I am sure that hon. Members will want the Minister to have a good chunk of time to address the points that have been raised and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) to have some time to respond. If everyone continues to speak for 15 minutes, not everyone is going to get in. I am just pointing that out and will leave colleagues to adjust their speeches appropriately.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I went into politics to make the world a better place. It has been my lifelong ambition since I was a kid to try to improve the world around me. The problem I have with this Bill is that it is just not clear that it does that. When I was four years old, my parents divorced, so I know first-hand what it is like to be the child of divorced parents. I have met so many of these people in my constituency surgeries. There are the estranged wives who say, “He’s a beep beep beep, he’s been horrendous, he does not turn up when he says he will, he’s been a terrible father.” Then the men come into my surgery saying, “She denies me access to the kids, she was unfaithful, she was this, she was that.” I have seen the problem of warring couples. Of course, as many colleagues have said, the children are often the ones to suffer.

Now we also have the more modern case where a couple cohabit and either do or do not have children, with the challenges for them of relationship breakdown and how they solve that. In recent years, since I have been a Member of Parliament, we have introduced civil partnerships for same-sex couples and then for opposite-sex couples, all designed to give people options, but ultimately, in my view, to help people have strong and happy relationships.

What do we do in this place if it is not to try to help people have better, happier lives—and what does that mean? I have heard an awful lot of, frankly, lawyers talking about the problems of this and the problems of that, the legal position here and there, and the financial position and so on, but ultimately this is about human happiness. What all of us in this place know is that human beings need to be together in communities. Just over the past few months, we have tested to destruction the idea of separating people into their single units to be lonely and isolated. We know that people want to be together, and yet what we never do in this Chamber is say, “We stand up for people being together and sticking together and loving each other, and we want to help them in every way we can.”

I really do not know what to make of this Bill, as someone who experienced divorce myself, and whose kids, now in their teens or early 20s, have friends whose parents split up and whose lives have been wrecked by the experience. I know so many people who have been through traumatic relationships. I also know lots of people who have divorced and got back together again—people whose relationships have been severely challenged and they have managed to find a way through it. I cannot see in this Bill any attempt to help them to stay together, to help them to get through a rough period, or to encourage them to stay together to focus on the children. It does not seem to me to do any of those things, which we all absolutely know are in the interests of a stronger and a happier society.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he brings me to my key point: I totally support the idea of minimising the angst, pain, and further acrimony of a terrible divorce, as that is in no one’s interests—it is not in the interests of the warring couple, and it is certainly not in the interests of any children—but we are not talking about the other side of the coin. We are saying to people, “You can get divorced much more easily”, and that, in my view, is a good thing, because if the relationship is irretrievably broken down, it is right to make the process much easier. However, statistics show that up to 50% of people later come to be sorry about their divorce, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), that is because they still love their partner, or miss them, or because they are lonely. Yes, it might be because they are financially deprived. They might now be in a one-bedroom flat, whereas previously they were in a nice three-bedroom house with a garden. People may regret a divorce for all sorts of reasons, so why would we make this provision for six months? I literally do not get it.

Why not say that a couple can judicially separate after six months—they can move out of the family home, divide up their possessions, sort out arrangements for any children, decide who gets the cat and so on—but that they should at least then have a period of reflection? I simply do not understand. I think all the points have been made, and as a non-lawyer, I do not propose to get into that area, but I just feel that we are missing an opportunity to add to human happiness.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I have now to announce the result of today’s deferred division on the Abortion (Northern Ireland) (No.2) Regulations 2020. The Ayes were 253 and the Noes were 136, so the Question was agreed to.

[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]

[Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), with whose comments I completely agree. The community I represent contains some of the most deprived wards in England, and the magnitude of some of the social challenges in Blackpool is frankly enormous. When I visit our local soup kitchens, or work with community groups who help the most marginalised in society, I speak to many of those who are reaching out for support. There are, of course, a wide variety of different personal circumstances, and a plethora of reasons why people need additional help. It always strikes me, however, that some form of family breakdown usually lies at the heart of it.

The traditional family is a cornerstone of a strong society, and marriage is the glue that holds families together. Marriage creates a stable environment in which children can thrive, and we know that children born to married parents are more likely to go to university, get married themselves, and find long-term employment. Strong families and marriage provide the support and stability that benefits not just the individuals concerned, but society as a whole. Indeed, it is a sad fact that anything we do to weaken the family unit and marriage by making a divorce easier to obtain will result in greater family breakdown, and there will be more people falling on hard times and invariably presenting themselves for support at those community groups and food banks that I visit in my constituency.

The benefits of marriage speak for themselves. There is so much more that I would like to say on this, but I would like to associate myself with the comments made in the excellent speeches on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), who highlighted many of the points that I would make this afternoon, had I more time.

I have reservations about this Bill and the message that it sends out to society. As a Government, we should be encouraging marriage and supporting the principle of the traditional family. If we introduce compulsory no-fault divorce in a six-month timeframe, the result will inevitably be an increase in the divorce rate and the problems within society that family breakdown creates.

One obvious way of mitigating the impact of the Bill is the provisions in new clause 1, which would ensure increased support for marriages and new support for couples where an application for divorce has been made to the court. Of course, there will be sad occasions when it may not be in the couple’s best interests to stay together, but I am speaking more generally when I say that it is in the national interest for couples to stay together.

Surely it would be an effective use of public funds for the Government to make available grants for marriage support services before marriage and during a marriage—that is, before couples appear before a court seeking a divorce. The estimated cost of family breakdown is £51 billion per year. In stark contrast, the Government’s forecast spending on relationship support in the last financial year was a paltry £10.2 million. So family break- down costs us £51 billion, yet we spend only £10 million trying to fix the source of it. Sadly, I am not sure that will make much of a difference.

A number of Government Members have expressed concerns about the Bill. It would go some way to show the Government’s support for marriage if they were minded to invest in relationship support, counselling and marriage preparation. Those programmes will make a significant difference. The Government’s own commissioned evaluation of relationship support provided in the UK found that counselling and relationship education resulted in statistically significant

“positive changes in individuals’ relationship quality, well-being and communication”,

and that couple counselling and certain types of marriage preparation were

“cost effective, providing substantially greater savings to society than they cost to deliver.”

The Relationships Alliance, a group that includes Relate, has published evidence on why good-quality couple and family relationships matter. In that publication, it stated:

“International evidence, including several randomised control trials, shows that relationship counselling or therapy can be effective in improving relationship quality, relationship satisfaction, conflict resolution skills, and wellbeing and mental health.”

Relationship support really does work, and it is clear that it would make a significant and effective difference. Services offered should be local and able to respond to a couple’s needs within days, especially given the minimum timeframe that the Bill currently specifies. I sincerely hope that the Government will see that the proposal in new clause 1 fits with their key policy objectives on divorce law reform, which include sufficient opportunity for reconciliation, and will therefore ensure that marriage counselling is made available to spouses when an application has been made for divorce.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. A reminder that there is pressure on time. There are still quite a few speakers, who would be well advised to take pretty well under 10 minutes to allow everyone to speak. I call Sir Edward Leigh.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I rise to speak to new clause 3, which stands in my name. It would replicate Scottish law, which replaces the two and five-year separation with a no-fault divorce after one year. It is a moderate compromise and I have no doubt that the Government will accept it.

I believe the Government are making a huge mistake. That is not just my opinion; the research is clear that liberalisation and expansion of no-fault divorce, wherever it has been introduced, has led to the most vulnerable in society being worse off. Look at the evidence from Sweden, Canada, and various US states—it all points in the same direction: we will have more divorces, and the worst-off will be hurt the most.

The Brining study in the US showed that 75% of low-income divorced women had not been poor when they were married. The Parkman studies show that, overall, women living in American states with no-fault divorce work, on average, 4.5 more hours a week than their counterparts in states with fault-based divorce. In this country in 2009, the then Department for Children, Schools and Families produced an evidence review that showed that a child not growing up in a two-parent household was more likely to be living in poor housing, to experience more behavioural problems, to perform less well in school, to need more medical treatment, to leave school and home when young, to become sexually active, pregnant or a parent at an earlier age, to report more depressive symptoms, and so on.

We now understand the intent behind the Bill: it is to make divorce easier and to propel more families, and particularly more women, into poverty. We know that, in reality, the Government’s intention is to speed up the divorce process, which they say will make it more efficient, but look at the side-effects I just described. Surely the cure is much worse than the disease? I realise that I am out of alignment with Government policy—a rare event for me—so I want to outline the purpose and rationale of the new clause. I admit it would constitute a rewrite of the Bill, but I think it is quite a moderate rewrite, and it accords with the central purpose of the Bill, which is to encourage no-fault divorce and, like it or not, to speed up the process.

Hon. Members will recall that the current law sets down the five facts that must be established before a divorce is granted. The separation ground does not require proof of fault, so we already have no-fault divorce, but the Government say the period is too lengthy. The problem campaigners have with the current no-fault divorce law is that it takes too long, and I agree. As Baroness Deech in the other place has said,

“the essence of the demand for reform is speed.”

I think the Government should be honest about wanting to speed up the whole process. Ministers do not like to be reminded that they are making divorce easier, but we must be honest: if a process is made easier, human nature being as it is, more people will do it. Of course, for many divorce is an agonising decision, but when married couples are having problems, the quicker and easier it is to get a divorce, the more likely they are to choose divorce, instead of choosing the hard work of talking out their problems.

My parents met at Bletchley Park during the war, and it was a great pleasure to attend their 50th wedding anniversary celebration in 1994, shortly before my father’s death. It was a shock for my sister and me to find some extraordinary and poignant letters written in the 1940s that showed our parents were clearly having enormous problems, but it was just as obvious that they were determined to make a go of it. People might say, “It was a previous generation,” but there were many couples like my parents in their generation. I owe them so much for keeping together and looking after us, and always being ready to help my brother, my sister and me. I am proud of what they did and the sacrifices their generation made, and I worry about what my own Government are doing in sending the wrong signal—sending the signal that marriage is not one of the most precious things in the world.

It has already been said that people can sign up to a mobile phone contract and be stuck with it for two years, in which they have to fulfil the obligations of the contract, but they can have a church or civil ceremony, profess lifelong fidelity before the law, before God, before friends and neighbours, and after just six months walk away. Basically, they just say, “I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you,” and that is that. What sort of message is our own Conservative Government sending to society? I believe we should be Conservative with a big “C” and conservative with a small “c”—socially conservative. I know that not a lot of people in Parliament agree with that message, but I have no difficulty with it. People out there understand what is at stake. In one poll, 72% of people said that no-fault divorce may make people more blasé about divorce. We do not need to look at a poll; it is obvious that it will make people more blasé about divorce.

Clause 1 abolishes all five fact grounds and replaces them with a system where one spouse can simply resign from a marriage and get a divorce in six months. My new clause would make a much less dramatic rewrite of the law. We can maintain the fault grounds for those who wish to use them, while substantially speeding up no-fault divorces, but still giving people time to reconsider. Far from giving couples in difficulty more options, this Bill takes them away. Is it a Conservative option to take away options, rather than keep them to provide people with different ways of getting a divorce if that is what they really want to do, and give them more time to reconsider?

We should think of the wife who is faithful to her husband for 30 years only for him to run off. She will have no way of getting a divorce that recognises who was in the right and who was in the wrong—that is taken away. Abolishing fault deprives spouses who wish to obtain a divorce on fault grounds any opportunity of doing so. We should think of the man or woman who is mentally or physically abused by his or her spouse. He or she will be unable to get any recognition of that through the divorce process. This new system will be blind to all suffering and to all injustice. The spouse being divorced against his or her wishes will have zero opportunity of contesting the divorce to try to save the marriage or to slow things down and plan for the future.

Probation Services

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 11th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He talked about turning the clock back, and in some of his remarks I felt as if the years had fallen away and we were back in the 1980s in some sort of ideological death struggle—public good, private bad. Let me reassure him that I take no ideological view as to what works. I will follow the evidence, and when the facts change I will change my mind. I make no apology for doing that today. He will of course acknowledge that the course was set last year, when the announcement was made by my predecessor and I, as the Minister of State, very much supported that decision. This is a necessary adjustment in the way in which we are going to deliver the new service.

I am not going to dwell for too long on the rhetoric; I will deal with the substance of what the right hon. Gentleman asked, and he asked a number of questions. [Interruption.] Well, rhetoric has its place, but we are talking here about the lives of people we are under a duty to protect and to support. I can tell the Opposition that I spent the best part of 30 years working with probation officers and with the probation service, reading hundreds of pre-sentence reports and respecting the professionalism of probation officers in court, both as counsel and as a part-time judge, so I do not need noises off to tell me what I know or do not know about the probation service, with the greatest of respect.

This is a service, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that is unsung. Its work is vitally important, but often goes unnoticed, unheard and unobserved. That is something that I am doing my very best to put right, and I can reassure him that those dedicated public servants who are working in the CRCs will have the opportunity to transfer, as I said in my statement, to the NPS, when the time comes in June next year. That is the timescale that we have kept to.

The right hon. Gentleman is right to talk about the need to focus on the reduction in reoffending. He will be glad to note that in last year’s spending review I secured an extra £155 million for probation services—one of the biggest rises and cash injections that the service has seen in many a year—and it is my aim to keep annual expenditure well over £100 million for each of the next several years. That is our ambition, and it is matched with investment and with a bold agenda on embracing technology. This is a service that will not only be able to keep pace with change, but be very much in the vanguard of it.

I am proud to be at the helm of a Department that has such a set of dedicated public servants. This is the right decision at the right time. I make no apology for it whatsoever, and I look forward to a non-ideological future in which the right hon. Gentleman and I can genuinely work together in support of the probation service that he says he values.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I am going to try to get everybody in. However, I need to finish the statement at 12.50 pm. That will require short answers and short questions.

[Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I will do my level best, but I was the probation Minister between 2010 and 2012. One of the proudest moments of my time was attending a dinner where the Princess Royal presented the British Quality Foundation’s gold award to the National Probation Service. The reforms that subsequently were done to probation service would not have been done by me. They were visited upon the Department to a degree by some whizz kids—bright people—some of whom are now very senior in the Government.

There were two faults. The first was that the companies were too large and did not equate with the geographical area of the police force. I would have given them, had I done it, to the police and crime commissioners, saying that they were responsible for the input and the output. A very good point was made by the shadow Lord Chancellor about engaging local authorities in all the services we have to bring to an offender for there to be a decent chance of getting them rehabilitated.

Secondly, I say to my right hon. and learned Friend that, attractive as going back to the position of 2012 might seem to me, we were trying to find the opportunities to make sure that we can get the charities, the private sector and everyone else engaged in the great work of rehabilitation of offenders. We are in many ways back to square one, but there is a huge opportunity to be grasped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)]

This has been a sorry episode, and it is a sobering reminder of what happens when we let ideology push ahead of the evidence in public policy making. That is something I hope those on the Government Benches will reflect on, but frankly it is something for all of us to reflect on. Secretary of State, you have a real opportunity as you build your unified model. There is so much talent in the NPS and those CRCs, so will you commit to getting staff around the table, finding the best of their experiences and building on them?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he really should not be referring to the Secretary of State as “you”.

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know takes a keen interest in these issues. Perhaps I will emphasise the second part of his question. I thoroughly agree about the need to harness that experience and talent. That is what we are going to do. We will work with the unions and all the representative bodies to make sure that as we emerge from June of next year, we will be in an even better position to reduce reoffending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)]

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is correct for any Government to try different mechanisms for delivering the best outcomes for service users and for the taxpayer? Leaving the word “ideology” to one side, is it not right to follow in the footsteps of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who introduced independent sector providers to the NHS?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We need very short questions without long preambles, and a short answer.

[Robert Buckland]

My hon. Friend, who speaks for the residents of Dudley so powerfully, is right to remind us about those ideological experiments indulged in by a Government of which the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) was a member not so many years ago. It pays us all to focus on the evidence, rather than the ideology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Buckland]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has consistently raised these issues in the past year to 18 months. She is right to hold me to account on that need to maintain a mixed economy approach, to harness the excellent work of the employees that she talks about in the new structure and to make sure that that initiative—that sense of personal ownership of the programmes—is not lost as we make that transition. I am grateful to her.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.

Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June).

Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [Lords]

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion & Programme motion: House of Commons
Monday 8th June 2020 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, I need to inform hon. and right hon. Members that I will need to impose a time limit because the debate has to finish by 10 o’clock. I will start the time limit at five minutes for Back Benchers. In the meantime, I call David Lammy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I pay tribute to the characteristic clarity and eloquence with which he made his representations. Although I cannot give any commitment to specific points, he has made powerful points. On behalf of the Government, I commit to continuing the conversation in Committee.

Part of the problem is that the court has limited means to investigate the circumstances. Having marched the parties up to the top of the hill by requiring petitioners to make allegations, the system rarely inquires into whether those allegations are true. It simply does not have the means to do so. In fact, just 2% of cases are contested, and only a handful progress to a contested court hearing. For more than 40 years, English and Welsh courts have not routinely held divorce trials to prove the allegations set out. That is because most people nowadays recognise that marriage is a voluntary union. When consent disappears, so, too, does its legitimacy.

That lack of inquiry is a problem because allegations may bear little resemblance to reality, but they are presented as established facts. The scope for injustice is obvious. To satisfy the statutory provisions, minor incidents may have to be dredged up and artificially repackaged as a pattern of behaviour. A respondent who, in truth, is a perfectly reasonable individual will have their behaviour branded unreasonable. Conversely, a respondent may have behaved despicably—a point made by the Lord Chancellor —but because of the fear of repercussions, a petitioner may seek to rely on two years’ separation instead. At the end of it all, in the eyes of the law, the culpable respondent will never have been publicly rebuked, and will exit the relationship apparently blameless.

All too often, the law does not do what people think it does. That is not just the Government’s view. Sir Paul Coleridge, a former family judge and chair of the Marriage Foundation, no less, said that the current system

“is, and always has been, a sham”.

I think I may be the fifth person to quote him this evening, but Sir James Munby, former president of the family division, criticised the current law for being

“based on hypocrisy and lack of intellectual honesty”—

a point powerfully made by the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill). The same is true of academia. Professor Liz Trinder, who has conducted extensive research on the divorce process, has branded the current arrangements “a meaningless charade”.

I want to address the points that have been made with great force by my hon. Friends the Members for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and for Devizes (Danny Kruger), and my right hon. Friends the Members for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes). To paraphrase—I will not do justice to the way in which they expressed it—the concern that they have raised is that the Bill will undermine the institution of marriage by making divorce more attractive. That is an important argument, and it has to be addressed.

The point is that it is a very sad circumstance indeed when a marriage breaks down, but some marriages do end. The legal process of divorce is not the driver for a marriage breaking down; it is the consequence. That is the point that my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor was making about the telescope. Petitioners do not issue speculative applications for divorce. In the overwhelming majority of cases, they take that step only after reaching a settled conclusion. In those circumstances, we must do all we can to mitigate the pain experienced by the couple and their family, especially the children. We cannot have a system where the legal process works to exacerbate acrimony and suffering where divorce is simply the process of bringing a legal end to a personal relationship that has ceased to function for both parties.

The point that is so often made by practitioners is that very often, individuals are surprised by the convoluted and artificial process that they are presented with. International evidence shows that long-term divorce rates are not increased by removing fault from the process of obtaining a divorce. In short, divorce and dissolution are a sad reality, but one that is sometimes unavoidable. This Bill prevents hardship and misery, and it will help people at a vulnerable time. I commend this Bill to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Hon. Members should now be familiar with the Division process, but I ask all hon. Members other than Front Benchers and Tellers to leave the Chamber by the doors behind me. I will not give the instruction to lock the doors earlier than probably 28 minutes after I call the Division.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading: House of Commons
Wednesday 12th February 2020 Commons Chamber

[Kenny MacAskill]

I thank the hon. Lady. The same has been done in previous years in the case of other prisoners. Even during my tenure, we had special units for those involved in paramilitary activities in Northern Ireland. This is something deeply specialised, but it will require action both by those involved in the establishment of the units and by the Prison Service.

That brings me to the question of deradicalisation programmes. I recognise the difficulty of checking against delivery and ensuring that the programmes are working, but I think that we need to take steps. I have a special request for the Minister: I think that prison officers should have an input in these courses. Their input is currently very limited—indeed, almost nil—and they are outsourced, which is understandable. There are also the specialist resources such as imams, who were mentioned earlier. However, we should recognise that prison officers have remarkable skills. They are able to tell who is pulling the wool over their eyes. They may not be trained in this or qualified in that, but they know psychology and individuals within the prison institution. They can tell you why someone is applying for a course—in the main, because no one can always get it right. They are hugely skilful in distinguishing those who are signing up because they want to be able to tick the box and satisfy the Parole Board from those who are signing up for a course because they believe in it. They do not engage with the prisoners just on the course; they live with them 24/7, and they can see who prisoners are interacting with and what their behaviour is like. I think that we have been remiss in this regard, and I ask the Minister to take my suggestion on board.

Let me end by simply saying that we are satisfied about the need for the Bill. We are satisfied with the general principles. We wish to be assured that retrospectivity will be addressed, and that resources both within and without will be provided. If that is done—although we accept that no Government can give us an absolute, categorical assurance that these people will not reoffend —we can at least go back to our constituencies and say to our constituents that we are doing as much as we can to keep our communities safe.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

It is a pleasure to call Dr Kieran Mullan to make his maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir William Cash]

That is an extremely important point. As my right hon. Friend knows, I have the greatest respect for his analysis when it moves from not just the law into the broader societal and philosophical questions, which ought to inform opinions made in this House; we should not just treat issues of this kind as if they are somehow matters of semantics. We are dealing with the kind of society that we want, and the impact of the terrorism, and murderous and dangerous behaviour, of the perpetrators of these crimes our own constituents. A most recent case involved somebody who travelled from Stafford down to London, and therefore was a matter of immediate concern to my constituents, because he had been living there for some time. The manner in which he was allowed to leave to come down to London and commit murder in Fishmongers’ Hall and in the vicinity is a lesson for us all.

I now want to deal with the retrospectivity elements of this Bill, which relate to my general concern to tie down this issue in the longer term. The Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), and I had an exchange about a number of cases. I am well aware that this is not the place for us to attempt to make an assumption that we are able to treat this Chamber as though it is a court of law, although we are, of course, the High Court of Parliament, but that is to miss the point; the fact is that proper analysis of the case law has to be conducted. Some of that has already been done in blogging and in some pamphlets, and I am expecting the House of Lords to home in on it effectively when the Bill gets to that House, although it will not have much time.

We know that Ministers have been warned about the likelihood of a legal battle; despite the assertions of the Government that the Bill is compatible with article 7 of the European convention on human rights—for reasons that I will explain, I am sympathetic to their view—there are those who will argue that it is not. I can see this coming, so my amendment would remove any chance that there could be that kind of legal battle on the applicability of the Human Rights Act to this Bill. My amendment would insert the words

“notwithstanding the Human Rights Act 1998”.

That is a belt-and-braces approach, and it is what I am seeking. I am not going to move this amendment in Committee with any intention of dividing the Committee of the whole House on it; I think the matter needs further consideration outside this House, and I look to the House of Lords for some indication of views.

My argument goes like this: this Bill is compatible with article 7. No one has read it out so far, so I will do so. It states:

“No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence”—

for conduct —

“which did not constitute a criminal offence…at the time when it was committed.”

This Bill does not purport to create a new criminal offence. Rather, it seeks to prevent terrorists convicted by UK courts on the basis of offences that existed prior to the Bill from having automatic early release. I have already made my point about the length of time indicated. Furthermore, the explanatory notes state:

“The Bill does not retrospectively alter a serving offender’s sentence as imposed by the court, or alter the maximum penalties for offences.”

They state that the Bill is concerned with the “administration of a sentence”. I still believe, despite the exchanges I had with the Chairman of the Justice Committee, that the del Río Prada case could well still come into play there. I fear that it might be used effectively against the Bill. So my conclusion on the question of a textual interpretation of article 7 of the ECHR indicates that is not incompatible with this Bill. However, Parliament does have the power to legislate retrospectively—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. I just want to let the hon. Gentleman know that I am sure he will have the opportunity in Committee to address his amendment. I am sure he will be aware that there are quite a few people who wish to speak on Second Reading; I just want to assure him that he will be able to address his amendment during the Committee stage.

[Sir William Cash]

I do understand that, but I also anticipate that there may be a need for brevity at that point. That is how these things go, from my experience, which goes back some time. I am talking about matters of principle. I repeat: I am talking about matters of principle.

As established by Willes J in Phillips v. Eyre, courts ascribe retrospective force to new laws that affect rights only if

“by express words or necessary implication that such was the intention of the legislature”.

Clause 1 will amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 and expressly restrict eligibility for the release of prisoners who have been sentenced for a terrorist offence

“whether before or after this section comes into force”.

My conclusion on this point is simple: the courts would be expected to give retrospective effect to the Bill.

The principle I wish to address is that I am concerned that the courts have a disinclination and reluctance to give effect to retrospective legislation, particularly when it deals with criminal acts. That is well established, and I could quote Bradley and Ewing, page 56, which explains that. Although I do not think that article 7 applies to the Bill, to ensure that the courts do not find a way around the Bill or a misguided interpretation that would frustrate its real purpose, I shall move my amendment in Committee, for the purposes of legislative clarity and for the avoidance of doubt in relation to the power of Parliament to legislate retrospectively. That is the principle that I am addressing at this moment.

I have no further comment to make for the purposes of this debate, but this matter has to be taken seriously. The wording that I intend to introduce in Committee will be taken as a serious attempt to make sure that no way around the provisions is found by the courts or by some ingenious lawyers, who would avoid and frustrate the purposes and principle of the Bill, as expressed on Second Reading, which we are debating.

Ministry of Justice Spending

Rosie Winterton Excerpts

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. We have seven speakers, so if everybody takes about eight minutes we should be able to get everyone in comfortably for the winding-up speeches.