Section 40
Selaine’s response:
Freedom of the press is one of the pillars of our democracy, holding the powerful to account without fear nor favour; and a core principle of that freedom is that the press should be free from government interference. If commenced, Section 40 could force publishers to pay the costs of the people who sue them, even if the publishers win, unless they are signed up to a state-approved regulator.
Section 40 risks creating a chilling effect on freedom of speech, undermining high-quality investigative journalism, and causing serious damage to newspapers, who play a vital role in our democracy. A number of newspapers, including the Guardian and the Financial Times, have noted that Section 40 would hurt the sort of investigative journalism that uncovered the phone-hacking scandal that prompted the Leveson inquiry.
The majority of traditional publishers, including 95 per cent of national newspapers by circulation, are members of the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the independent regulator for most of the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK.
In addition, in the years since the Leveson Inquiry, many publishers have introduced comprehensive guidance on topics including accuracy and harassment. Where participating publishers fall short of their legal standards, IPSO offers support to victims of libel, slander or malicious falsehood in the form of low cost arbitration, which offers quick access to fair and independent redress. IPSO can also act against publishers that do not comply with the Editors’ Code of Practice, as it has done on many occasions.
I stood on a manifesto in 2019 that pledged to repeal Section 40 and support the Media Bill delivering this vital promise for public interest journalism, and our wider democracy.
I will closely follow the debate as the Bill progresses.
November 2023
Public Order Bill
Selaine’s response:
Recent protest activity from a minority of individuals utilising guerrilla tactics has caused misery to the hardworking public, disrupted businesses, interfered with emergency services, cost millions in taxpayers’ money, and put lives at risk.
Indeed, fuel supply has been disrupted by protesters tunnelling under oil terminals and cutting the brakes on tankers, and police officers have spent hours trying to unglue people’s body parts from some of the UK’s busiest and most dangerous motorways. This includes groups like Just Stop Oil, which alone has cost the police over £5.9 million in a matter of months.
The Government is therefore legislating to equip the police to better manage and tackle dangerous and highly disruptive tactics, as well as prevent major transport projects and infrastructure from being targeted by protestors. This follows the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PSCS) Act, having received Royal Assent at the end of the last parliamentary session, which introduced a number of measures to enable the police to better manage protests.
The new Public Order Bill seeks to: introduce new criminal offences of locking on and going equipped to lock on; make it illegal to obstruct major transport works such as HS2; create a new criminal offence for interfering with key national infrastructure; extend stop and search powers for police to search for and seize articles related to protest related activity; and introduce Serious Disruption Prevention Orders where a breach of the order would constitute a criminal offence.
I am confident these new changes to public order law will put a stop to the relentless reoffending and significant disruption caused by a selfish minority of protesters which impinge on the rights of the British public to go about their daily lives in peace.
Abortion Protests:
MPs agreed to add Clause 9 to the Public Order Bill, which introduces areas around abortion clinics and hospitals (buffer zones) where interference with, and intimidation or harassment of, women accessing or people providing abortion services would be an offence.
Matters related to abortion are a free vote for MPs, meaning the Government does not ask members to vote a certain way. I recognise that there are very strong views from both sides of the debate on this subject. When discussing the amendment in Parliament, the Government expressed the view that this country has a proud history of allowing free speech, but the right to peaceful protest does not extend to harassment or threatening behaviour. The law already provides protection against harassment and intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to manage protests. Like all members of the public, protesters are subject to the law and suspected criminal offences must be robustly investigated and dealt with by the police.
Following concerns about the tactics of protestors outside some abortion clinics, a review was instigated by Government in 2018. This review revealed that anti-abortion demonstrations take place outside a small number of facilities. In 2017 for example, 363 hospitals and clinics in England and Wales carried out abortions. Of those, 36 hospitals and clinics experienced anti-abortion demonstrations. With this in mind, the Government’s assessment was that introducing buffer zones would not be an appropriate response given the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics. As matters relating to abortion are a free vote issue, MPs nonetheless decided to add provisions for buffer zones to the Public Order Bill, an amendment I voted in favour of.
Separately, Ministers have taken steps through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to give police the powers they need to better manage protests, enabling them to balance the rights of protesters against the rights of others to go about their daily business. It is also the case that Public Spaces Protection Orders have been implemented successfully to restrict harmful anti-abortion protests in Ealing, Richmond and Manchester.
March 2023
Robert Brown
Selaine’s response:
This was an appalling crime and my thoughts remain with Joanna Simpson's family and friends. I understand that the public is concerned that Mr. Brown is due to be released from prison on licence in November, which is the halfway point of his sentence.
I can assure constituents that the Secretary of State for Justice is giving this case his closest personal attention and that he will do everything in his power to keep the most dangerous offenders behind bars. I will continue to monitor this issue closely.
March 2023
Guide Dogs
Selaine’s response:
No one should be refused access to businesses or services because they have a guide dog and everyone deserves to travel with comfort and dignity.
Guide dogs give people with disabilities the freedom and confidence to work, travel and visit friends independently. There are already, as you are aware, strict laws against the discrimination of those who rely on guide dogs.
The Equality Act 2010 makes clear the duties of all people to permit guide dogs without any hindrance to most services, premises and vehicles. Failure to comply with this requirement can result in prosecution and a fine on conviction of up to £1,000.
The use of guide dogs is encouraged by the clear guidance which clarifies the rights of guide dog owners, and outlines the options available to those who have been discriminated against when using a guide dog. This includes the ability to report those who do not make reasonable adjustments to make a disabled person’s journey easier. Distinctive jackets for guide dogs to wear are available to help clearly identity them. It is also advised that any identification cards, if given, are carried by a person with disabilities to help ensure they are not discriminated against.
The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Act 2022, which came into force on 28 June, now provides specific protections for disabled people including new duties on taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to carry any disabled person and their mobility aids, to provide reasonable mobility assistance, and to support them in identifying a booked vehicle, without charging extra.
Parliamentary business permitting, I will be attending the Guide Dogs' Open Doors event at Westminster.
December 2022
National Security Bill
Selaine’s response:
The threat from hostile states is a growing, diversifying and evolving one, manifesting itself in several different forms. Our espionage laws date back to 1911 and I know my Ministerial colleagues are concerned that they do not account for how threats to our national security have changed over time.
The UK’s espionage legislation is contained within the Official Secrets Act 1911, 1920 and 1939. While the Government has already strengthened our ability to deter, withstand and respond to hostile state activity, (including through Schedule 3 to the Counter Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 which grants an examining officer at UK ports and the border area several powers when a person appears to be involved in espionage on behalf of a foreign government), more can be done to update our laws for the 21st century.
Through the new National Security Bill, the Government aims to deter, detect and disrupt state actors who seek to harm the UK. The Bill seeks to reform existing espionage legislation to tackle modern threats and bring in new offences to address state-backed sabotage, interference, the theft of trade secrets and assisting a foreign intelligence service. Crucially, it will also make it an offence to be an undeclared foreign spy working in the UK.
Furthermore, a Foreign Influence Registration Scheme will be introduced, requiring individuals to register certain arrangements with foreign governments to deter and disrupt state threats activity in the UK. This sits alongside new civil measures that could be used as a tool of last resort where prosecution of a hostile actor is not possible.
The new National Security Bill will keep pace with the changing threat and will keep our country safe by making the UK an even harder target for those states who seek to conduct hostile acts.
November 2022
Public Order Bill
Selaine’s response:
Recent protest activity from a minority of individuals utilising guerrilla tactics has caused misery to the hard-working public, disrupted businesses, interfered with emergency services, cost millions in taxpayers’ money, and put lives at risk.
Indeed, fuel supply has been disrupted by protesters tunnelling under oil terminals and cutting the brakes on tankers, and police officers have spent hours trying to unglue people’s body parts from some of the UK’s busiest and most dangerous motorways. This includes groups like Just Stop Oil, which alone has cost the police over £5.9 million in a matter of months.
The Government is therefore legislating to ensure the police have the tools they need to better manage and tackle dangerous and highly disruptive tactics, as well as prevent major transport projects and infrastructure from being targeted by protestors. This follows the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PSCS) Act, having received Royal Assent at the end of the last parliamentary session, which introduced a number of measures to enable the police to better manage protests.
The new Public Order Bill seeks to introduce new criminal offences of locking-on and going equipped to lock-on, make it illegal to obstruct major transport works such as HS2, create a new criminal offence for interfering with key national infrastructure, extend stop and search powers for police to search for and seize articles related to protest-related activity and introduce Serious Disruption Prevention Orders where a breach of the order would constitute a criminal offence.
I am confident these new changes to public order law will put a stop to the relentless reoffending and significant disruption caused by a selfish minority of protesters which impinge on the rights of the British public to go about their daily lives in peace.
I look forward to ensuring the Bill receives the thorough scrutiny it commands as it progresses through Parliament. Please be assured I will be following developments closely.
October 2022
Dangerous Dogs Act
Selaine’s response:
Ministers recognise that many people are opposed to the prohibitions placed on the four types of dog under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Government must balance the views of those who want to repeal or amend breed specific legislation with Ministers’ responsibility to ensure that the public is properly protected from dog attacks.
I am aware that simply repealing the breed specific provisions contained in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 with no other changes may increase the risks to public safety, which I know the Government is unwilling to do. Any changes to current legislation would require careful consideration to ensure that public safety remains at the heart of the regime.
Regarding the rehoming of exempted dogs, I understand that current legislation only permits transfer of keepership of prohibited dogs where the existing keeper has died or is seriously ill. However, case law has confirmed that a person with a pre-existing relationship with the dog may apply to place it on the Index, even if they are not the owner or most recent keeper.
In December 2021, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) published research in collaboration with Middlesex University, investigating measures to reduce dog attacks and promote responsible dog ownership across all breeds of dog. The report made recommendations relating to improved data recording and collection, consistency in enforcement practice, the quality of dog training and dog awareness courses, and improved knowledge and awareness of appropriate behaviour around dogs.
Finally, Defra has set up a steering group with the police, local authority representatives and animal welfare stakeholders to consider these recommendations in detail and provide advice to the Government as to how these could be taken forward. The steering group will consider the recommendations alongside further evidence and expertise from relevant stakeholders, academics, and experts, to inform its final advice.
August 2022
Non-Religious Belief (Human Rights)
Selaine's response:
I am proud that the UK has a long and diverse history of freedom. This includes the Magna Carta in 1215, the 1689 Claim and Bill of Rights, and the Slave Trade Act of 1807, through to the 1918 Representation of the People Act.
As you know, the recent Queen’s Speech announced that the Government will bring forward a new Bill of Rights in this Parliament to replace the Human Rights Act. This follows a consultation on the subject which closed on 19 April. The Bill of Rights will strengthen our traditions of liberty and free speech, restore public confidence in the justice system and ensure Parliament has the last word on the law of the land.
I note that you are concerned about what the proposals mean for the UK’s policies on freedom of religion or belief. Let me reassure you, the reforms seek to curtail abuses of the system and restore public confidence.
It is my firm belief that people of every faith and none should be able to enjoy the same freedoms and equal treatment so that they can practice their religion and live by their principles. My ministerial colleagues and I are committed to ensuring that freedom of religion or belief is safe in modern Britain.
June 2022
Abortion Protests:
Selaine’s response:
This country has a proud history of allowing free speech, but the right to peaceful protest does not extend to harassment or threatening behaviour. The law already provides protection against harassment and intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to manage protests. Like all members of the public, protesters are subject to the law and suspected criminal offences must be robustly investigated and dealt with by the police.
Following concerns about the tactics of protestors outside some abortion clinics, a review was instigated by Government in 2018. This review revealed that anti-abortion demonstrations take place outside a small number of facilities. In 2017 for example, 363 hospitals and clinics in England and Wales carried out abortions. Of those, 36 hospitals and clinics experienced anti-abortion demonstrations. With this in mind, I support the Government’s assessment that introducing national buffer zones would not be an appropriate response given the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics.
The Government has, however, taken steps through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act to give police the powers they need to better manage protests, enabling them to balance the rights of protesters against the rights of others to go about their daily business. It is also the case that Public Spaces Protection Orders have been implemented successfully to restrict harmful anti-abortion protests in Ealing, Richmond and Manchester.
It is for these reasons that I do not think New Clause 1 to the Public Order Bill is necessary, but I am assured that the Home Office continues to welcome any new evidence on this importance and sensitive issue, as this matter is kept under review.
June 2022
Sexual Harassment
Selaine’s response:
I agree that sexual harassment of women and girls, including in public places, is totally unacceptable. No one should be forced to change the way they live to avoid harassment and abuse.
I am glad that action is already being taken in this vitally important area. The Law Commission has recently concluded a wide ranging review into hate crime. In its final report, the Commission made a number of recommendations to provide greater protection on the basis of sex and gender, including extending the offence of ‘stirring up hatred’ to cover ‘stirring up hatred on the grounds of sex or gender’. It is suggested this would help to tackle the growing threat of extremist misogynist “incel” ideology, and its potential to lead to serious criminal offending. The Government will now carefully review and consider the recommendations of the report before issuing a full response and any future action.
I am, however, encouraged that ministers have already taken action to implement some of the Law Commission's findings. As you may recall, the Law Commission recommended that the Government launch a review into the need for a specific offence to tackle public sexual harassment, arguing that it would likely be more effective than adding sex or gender to the protected characteristics for aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing. Ministers have now announced that a consultation will be launched ahead of the summer recess on whether there should be a new offence of public sexual harassment. I am confident that this is the right approach to take to allow all those with an interest to submit their views on the arguments for and against any such measure.
I also welcome the publication of the tackling violence against women and girls strategy to ensure women and girls are safe everywhere, at home, online and on the streets. The strategy increases support for victims and survivors, will increase the number of perpetrators brought to justice and reduce the prevalence of violence against women and girls in the long-term. In addition, the Voyeurism (Offences) Act criminalises the reprehensible behaviour of up-skirting. There can now be no doubt that this activity is criminal and will not be tolerated. For the most serious offences, this law will ensure that the offender is also placed on the sex offenders' register.
You will be pleased to learn that relationships education is now compulsory for all primary pupils and relationships and sex education compulsory for all secondary school pupils. This ensures that concepts such as healthy relationships, consent and boundaries are taught to children.
There is more to do, and I will be paying close attention to the important work which is underway.
May 2022
Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill
Selaine's response:
I stand in complete opposition to Putin’s horrific, unjust war on Ukraine. The regime’s grotesque actions cannot be allowed to succeed, and I applaud my ministerial colleagues for so quickly legislating, through the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act to crack down on dirty money in the UK and tackle corrupt elites, who so often underpin Putin’s leadership.
The new Register of Overseas Entities will require anonymous foreign owners of UK property to reveal their real identities to ensure criminals cannot hide behind secretive chains of shell companies, setting a new global standard for transparency. Entities who do not declare their ‘beneficial owner’ will face restrictions over selling their property, and those who break the rules could face up to 5 years in prison or a daily fine of £2,500.
An unexplained wealth order (UWO) is an investigatory order placed on a respondent whose assets appear disproportionate to their income to explain the origins of their wealth. Under the reforms to UWOs, those who hold property in the UK in a trust will be brought within scope and the definition of an asset’s ‘holder’ will be expanded to ensure individuals can’t hide behind opaque shell companies and foundations.
The reforms will also remove key barriers to the use of UWOs by increasing time available to law enforcement to review material provided in response to a UWO and reforming cost rules to protect law enforcement agencies from incurring substantial legal costs if they bring a reasonable case that is ultimately unsuccessful.
Furthermore, the Treasury will also be able to intensify sanctions enforcement by introducing a more wide-ranging ‘strict civil liability test’ for monetary penalties, rather than the current one which requires firms to have knowledge or a ‘reasonable cause to suspect’ sanctions are being breached. This will make it easier for the Office for Financial Sanctions Implementation to impose significant fines.
These measures form part of a wider package of legislative proposals to tackle illicit finance which will be introduced in Parliament in the coming months, including reforming Companies House and introducing new powers to seize crypto assets more easily.
I hope with this response I have provided reassurance that the UK continues to play a world leading role in the response to Russia’s appalling actions in Ukraine and that the Government are taking all necessary steps to tackle the scourge of economic crime.
March 2022
Human Rights Act
Selaine's response:
I am pleased that the UK has a long and proud history of freedom. However, over the years there has been a gradual shift to human rights law being used for more and more purposes, with elastic and innovative interpretations that go beyond what the architects of the Convention had in mind.
Therefore, I welcome the Government's consultation on reforming the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights which will ensure our human rights system meets the needs of the society it serves.
The reforms included in the new Bill of Rights, which will be subject to a three-month consultation, will strengthen home-grown rights such as freedom of expression and the right to jury trial. In addition, the proposals will increase democratic oversight by ensuring the balance between the UK's domestic institutions is right by making sure that UK courts can no longer alter legislation contrary to Parliament's express will. Where human rights have been used to frustrate the deportation of criminals, the Bill will prevent such misuse, ensuring those who pose a serious threat can be deported. Furthermore, the reforms will reduce burdens and litigation on public authorities, prevent unmeritorious claims by requiring claimants to demonstrate a 'significant disadvantage' has been suffered, and place rights alongside wider responsibilities and public interests.
The Government is committed to remaining party to the European Convention on Human Rights and continue to meet its obligations under the Convention and all other international human rights treaties.
However, I welcome the proposed reforms which will ensure that the UK Supreme Court has the final say on UK rights by making clear that they should not blindly follow the Strasbourg Court. This will be achieved by strengthening the primacy of UK case law and primary legislation, ending the requirement to follow the Strasbourg case law, and by introducing a 'democratic shield' when responding to adverse rulings from Strasbourg.
More broadly, I am encouraged that the Government is committed to protecting and respecting human rights. These reforms strike the right balance between restoring public confidence in the system and ensuring the system is not open to abuse.
The consultation and further information, including how to respond, can be found online at: https://consult.justice.gov.uk/human-rights/human-rights-act-reform/.
March 2022
Persecuted Women and Girls from Religious Minorities
Selaine's response:
Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend the event on 8 March due to other Parliamentary commitments. I do try to attend as many events as possible to represent the constituents of North Devon, however there are a great number of different causes and it is regrettably not possible to attend every meeting on every issue.
My ministerial colleagues and I are committed to defending freedom of religion or belief (FoRB) for all, and to promoting respect between different religious and non-religious communities. Indeed, promoting the right to FoRB is one of the UK's longstanding human rights priorities.
Nobody should live in fear because of their identity or beliefs, including those who have no religious convictions or beliefs. The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) monitors FoRB globally, and regularly raises concerns with national governments who are not meeting their obligations, publicly and in private, including at a ministerial level.
The FCDO also works via multilateral fora, such as the UN, G7, OSCE, Council of Europe, and the International Religious Freedom or Belief Alliance to promote and protect FoRB for all. The UK will host an international ministerial conference on FoRB in July 2022 to energise collective efforts on this agenda.
In December 2020, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment to FoRB by appointing Fiona Bruce MP as his Special Envoy for FoRB. Bruce works with ministers, officials, and others to deliver the Government's goal of seeing everyone, everywhere able to have and practise a faith, belief, or no religious belief, in accordance with their conscience. In January 2022, David Burrowes was appointed as her deputy.
Most prominently, Bruce is working with the Minister for Human Rights, Lord Ahmad, to drive forward the implementation of the recommendations from the Bishop of Truro's report on FCO support for persecuted Christians in a way that improves the lives of those persecuted for their faith, or belief, or for not holding a religion. I understand that the FCDO have achieved 16 of the recommendations, and are making good progress on the remaining six.
As noted in the campaign, women are more likely than men to be victims of religious discrimination and persecution. I am assured that the UK's human rights policy work considers the intersectionality of human rights, including the importance of addressing the specific vulnerabilities experienced by women and girls from religious minority communities. More broadly, the UK is recognised as a global leader in tackling violence against women and girls (VAWG) in all its forms, and will host a global conference later in 2022 to unite the world in action on this issue.
February 2022
Gender Recognition Act:
Selaine’s response:
I am determined that everyone in the UK should be free to live their lives and fulfil their potential regardless of their sex, gender identity, race or disability. I am also clear that transgender people should be free to proposer in modern Britain.
I am encouraged that my colleagues in the Government Equalities Office have, over recent years, looked carefully and thoroughly into the gender recognition process, including considering potential changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004. After careful consideration, it is their view that this existing legislation strikes the right balance between ensuring there are proper checks and balances in the system and ensuring there is support in place for people who want to change their legal sex.
I am committed to protecting women’s rights and freedoms. That is why I am pleased that the Government recognises the importance of the protection of single-sex spaces, as provided for in the Equality Act.
The Equality Act 2010 not only protects transgender people from discrimination, but also makes it clear that providers have the right to restrict use of spaces on the basis of sex, and exclude transgender people, with or without a Gender Recognition Certificate, if this is justified. This position is unchanged since 2010 and I continue to believe it strikes the right balance.
This is a complex area to reform and I believe that the Government is getting the balance right. Together with my colleagues in government, I want every individual, regardless of their sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity to have the confidence and the freedom to be themselves.
February 2022
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and Parliament Square
Selaine’s response:
I understand that concerns have been raised regarding provisions in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts (PCSC) Bill related to Parliament Square, in particular that it would block the Greater London Authority (GLA) from authorising assemblies in the garden if they risk blocking vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate. I would like to take this opportunity to reassure you that this is not the case.
The GLAs by-laws for Parliament Square Garden require that written permission is granted for certain acts to be conducted in the garden; organising or taking part in an assembly is one of those acts. Government reforms, through the PCSC Bill, will mean that the GLA could not permit an assembly in Parliament Square Garden if its stated and primary aim is to obstruct vehicular passage in and out of Parliament. Nothing in the proposed changes will mean that permission could not still be granted for any other assembly, even if that risks some individuals in attendance obstructing vehicles entering and exiting Parliament.
This will protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for MPs, Peers and others with business there, as recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) in their 2020 report titled ‘Democracy, freedom of expression and freedom of association: Threats to MPs’.
February 2022
Misogyny as a Hate Crime
Selaine’s response:
This country is built on historic values of unity, inclusivity and mutual respect. Misogyny goes directly against these principles; no one should face intimidation or discrimination.
As you are aware, during the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Court Bill’s passage through Parliament, Baroness Newlove tabled an amendment requiring courts to consider hostility towards a victim’s sex or gender as an aggravating factor when deciding the seriousness of cases which are not sexual or domestic offences. I understand that the intention behind excluding sexual or domestic offences is that it would prevent lower sentences for perpetrators.
I am very aware of the issue of violence against women and girls (VAWG). The horrific case of Sarah Everard started a belated, national conversation about the dangers women face at home, on the streets and online. While I welcomed the publication of the subsequent ‘Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy’, I believe there is more we need to do to enhance support for victims and survivors of abuse, bring more perpetrators to justice and reduce the prevalence of VAWG in the long-term.
Alongside the work being undertaken to formulate this strategy, the Law Commission, an independent body of legal experts, examined possible reforms to hate crime laws to make them fairer, minimise complexity and address certain challenges. The final report, spanning over 500 pages and developed in consultation with organisations including the Centre for Women’s Justice and Rape Crisis England and Wales, specifically examined the possible recognition of sex or gender in hate crime legislation, the objective of Baroness Newlove’s amendment.
The Law Commission concluded that sex or gender should not be added as a protected characteristic for the purposes of aggravated offences and enhanced sentencing. While I appreciate this is not the outcome you were hoping for, I understand this recommendation was reached after considering including long-standing questions about whether hate crime is an appropriate response to the issue of VAWG and the contested nature of the issue, particularly the matter of including “sex” or “gender”. Summarising this point, Rape Crisis England & Wales said the fact “that there is a need to exclude serious VAWG offences arguably adds evidence to the argument that a hate crime framework is not suitable for VAWG”.
The Commission also indicated that broadly including sex or gender in hate crime laws, but specifically excluding offences associated with VAWG (such as sexual offences and crimes committed in a domestic abuse context) gave rise to concern amongst stakeholders. Namely, that “the exclusion of VAWG offences might be perceived as denying the potential for these offences to be understood as misogynistic; it may be tokenistic for the law to apply in certain contexts such as harassment and online abuse; it would create added complexity in hate crime laws, when greater simplicity has been one of the key calls for reform; and it would undermine the wider aim of treating protected characteristics consistently in hate crime laws”.
Despite the Law Commission's recommendation that the hate crime framework is not the most appropriate vehicle to tackle VAWG, I am encouraged that it did recommend providing greater protection on the basis of sex and gender, including by extending the offence of stirring up hatred to cover stirring up hatred on the grounds of sex or gender. This aims to tackle the rise of extremist misogynist “incel” ideology, and its potential to lead to serious criminal offending. It also recommended that the Government review the need for a specific offence to tackle public sexual harassment.
The Government will now consider and respond to the Law Commission’s recommendations in due course. While I appreciate that the Commission's conclusions do not recommend making misogyny an act of hate crime, I am glad that its considered findings will inform future Government policy. Please be assured that I will be following developments closely.
February 2022
The Vagrancy Act
Selaine’s response:
Under the 2018 Cross-Government Rough Sleeping Strategy the Government committed to review legislation around homelessness and rough sleeping to ensure the best measures are in place. This includes the Vagrancy Act, which the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities has noted is a particularly complex issue. As a piece of legislation that is almost 200 years old, it is right that the Government considers whether it is still fit for purpose.
I am aware that, as part of the passage of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, peers voted to repeal the Vagrancy Act 1824. While I agree, of course, that no one should be criminalised simply for having nowhere to live or for sleeping rough, I do not think it is appropriate or wise to make such a drastic change to the statute book without fully understanding its ramifications. The Government is fully committed to reviewing the Act and it is important that due consideration is given to how and why it is still used by the police to tackle begging and what impact any changes may have.
The Government fully intends to repeal the outdated Act and replace it with much more modern, fit-for-purpose legislation when parliamentary time allows. Until the review into the Act is complete, however, its repeal would be premature, possibly leaving concerning gaps in legislation.
I am encouraged that work continues apace to help vulnerable people off the street for good. The Rough Sleeping Accommodation Programme (2021-22-2023-24) helps local authorities and registered providers to offer move-on homes and accompanying support services to rough sleepers or those with a history of rough sleeping. The Government has committed £433 million to this programme which aims to provide 6,000 homes to achieve a sustainable reduction in rough sleeping. This represents the largest-ever investment in longer-term move on accommodation for this group, providing some of the most vulnerable in society with a place to live and help to rebuild their lives.
February 2022
Wayne Couzens Inquiry
Selaine’s response:
I am aware that the Home Secretary has announced a two-part inquiry to investigate the issues raised by the conviction of Wayne Couzens, and below is a clear explanation of how the inquiry will proceed, given by Rachel Maclean MP.
Part one will examine Couzens’ previous behaviour and establish a comprehensive account of his conduct leading up to his conviction, as well as any opportunities missed, drawing on the Independent Office for Police Conduct’s (IOPC) investigations, once concluded.
Part two can look at any specific issues raised by the first part of the inquiry, which could include wider issues across policing, including but not limited to vetting practices, professional standards and discipline, and workplace behaviour. The final scope of the inquiry will be determined by the Chair once appointed, in consultation with other parties, including the Metropolitan Police Service as appropriate.
The Chair will be responsible for deciding if a panel should be appointed and who will be on it. Given the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible, part 1 of the inquiry will be established as a non-statutory inquiry. A non-statutory inquiry allows for greater flexibility, can be tailored to the issues and is likely to be faster and less costly.
The Government has amended regulations to make it clear that it can be a breach of professional standards, leading to a disciplinary sanction, if officers fail to co-operate with investigations and inquiries, when identified as a witness. The Home Secretary will retain the option to convert to a statutory inquiry if, in consultation with the Chair, it is determined that the inquiry cannot otherwise fulfil its functions.
November 2021
Windrush
Selaine’s response:
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Windrush generation. These men and woman came to the UK, built their lives here and enriched our communities. To put it simply, members of the Windrush generation made the United Kingdom a more successful place and are rightly a central part of our great national story.
However, over several decades the members of the Windrush generation were not treated with the respect they deserved. I fully accept that some members of the Windrush generation suffered great injustices over many decades at the hands of successive Governments. This was wrong. Recent demonstrations bring into sharper focus the injustices of the past and work which remains to be done today.
The Government has rightly stated that nothing can reverse the pain inflicted on the Windrush Generation. However, I do welcome the firm commitment by ministers to do everything possible to right these wrongs and ensure this can never happen again.
I understand your concerns regarding the need for those who deserve compensation to receive it as soon as possible. The Home Secretary has reassured me that the Home Office is processing claims as quickly as possible. It is extremely welcome that following feedback the Home Office has made a number of improvements to the scheme, which includes raising the minimum award from £250 to £10,000 for anyone who can show an impact on their life under the terms of the scheme. In addition, raising the maximum award an individual can receive for an impact on their life from £10,000 to £100,000 and options for higher awards in exceptional circumstances.
I was, and I am sure constituents will be, reassured to hear that all changes will be applied retrospectively. I sincerely hope this process can mark the beginning of a new chapter at the Home Office where no one is made to feel unwelcome in their own country.
July 2021
Puppy Smuggling
Selaine’s response:
First and foremost, I want to reassure constituents that I take the issue of illegal dog and puppy imports very seriously. This abhorrent trade causes suffering to the smuggled dogs and puts their health at risk.
I am pleased that the UK has long history of leading the way on animal welfare and now that we have left the EU, the Government is committed to improving our already world-leading standards by delivering a series of ambitious reforms, outlined in the Action Plan for Animal Welfare. This includes introducing new powers in line with the manifesto commitment to crack down on puppy smuggling through the Animal Welfare (Kept Animals) Bill.
To tackle the unethical trade of puppy smuggling, the Bill will reduce the number of pets that can travel under pet travel rules. It will also include powers for the Government to bring in further restrictions on the movement of pets on welfare grounds, for example by increasing the minimum age of imported puppies and restricting the import of pregnant dogs and dogs with mutilations such as cropped ears and tails.
I am assured that all pet animals entering Great Britain on approved routes undergo documentary and identity checks. The checks are performed by ferry, train or airline carriers or agents acting on their behalf. The Animal and Plant Health Agency also undertakes random checks of the pet animals travelling to ensure the carriers are performing their duties to the required standard. Further, the Animal and Plant Health Agency works with Border Force and other operational partners at ports, airports and inland, sharing intelligence to enforce the Pet Travel Scheme, disrupt illegal imports and seize non-compliant animals.
July 2021
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill
Selaine’s response:
I understand that some constituents have concerns regarding my support for the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. The Bill contains a large number of measures with the central aim of cutting crime and building safe communities.
At the last election, I was elected on a manifesto to restore confidence in the criminal justice system and this Bill delivers that pledge made to my constituents.
This Bill seeks to equip the police with the powers and tools they need to protect themselves and the public, while overhauling sentencing laws to keep serious sexual and violent offenders behind bars for longer, and placing greater emphasis on rehabilitation to better help offenders to turn their lives around and prevent further crimes.
I welcome the fact that this legislation builds on the work already underway across this Government to deliver a smarter, fairer justice system as the UK builds back safer from the Covid-19 pandemic. I am particularly encouraged by the hundreds of millions being invested in our court system to deliver quicker justice and reduce delays. It is also vital that victims receive the support they need and deserve, and ministers are investing unprecedented funding for victim's support services. The funding package for the police and the recruitment of 20,000 police officers alongside the £4 billion investment in extra prison places will ensure these reforms are successful.
I am confident that the measures in this Bill are necessary and proportionate. It is important to remember that the Bill is about tougher sentences for the most serious offenders, better protection for the police and a greater focus on ensuring offenders can turn their lives around and rehabilitate back into society.
I appreciate that some constituents may not agree with my views on this, however I hope this response has outlined why I believe this is a fair and balanced approach to the criminal justice system. Below are my responses to specific aspects of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which have been brought to my attention directly.
I spoke in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill debate on 5 July 2021 in Parliament on pet theft and protection for retail workers, which you can find here: www.selainesaxby.org.uk/news/police-crime-sentencing-and-courts-bill-debate-5-july-2021
Right to Protest
The Government has said that protestors' rights will be protected. When using these, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law and be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. They must act compatibly with human rights, principally in relation to protests, Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience and religion), Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Domestic Abuse
I recognise the clear and terrible effects of Domestic Abuse and I welcome the fact that the Government has committed unprecedented amounts of funding to supporting victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence during the pandemic and beyond. Ministers have been very clear that all allegations must be investigated fully and pursued through the courts whenever possible.
Regarding time limits for prosecution, in England and Wales there is no time limit for starting a prosecution for indictable offences, these are offences that can be tried in the Crown Court. However, a prosecution for a summary offence, those which can only be tried in a magistrates’ court, must begin within six months of the day when the offence was committed, unless there is specific statutory provision for a different time limit.
I understand there are two opposing considerations to balance, on the one hand the need for justice to be done and on the other hand, the right of suspects to finality and certainty.
As you may be aware, in 2020 the Ministry of Justice considered whether the six month time limit should be extended as regards summary offences related to domestic abuse. At the time, Ministers concluded that extending the limit, or removing it completely, would be limited in its benefit, as common assault, the least serious of a range of offences against the person, covering acts such as a push or shove that does not lead to injury, is the only offence likely to be relevant in this context that is affected by the limit.
It is worth noting that the other assault offences are not summary offences and there is no time limit for prosecuting them. It is also the case that there is not a time limit for prosecuting the offence of controlling or coercive behaviour, which the Domestic Abuse Act extends to post-separation abuse.
However, in recognition of the seriousness of the issue and the commitment of the Government in tackling domestic abuse, ministers have agreed to look at this matter again. The Government has not ruled out an amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and has emphasised the importance of looking into this issue.
I hope this response reassures constituents that the Government is taking action to ensure justice is done in cases of Domestic Abuse.
Gypsy and Traveller Community
The Government has made it clear that the vast majority of the travelling community are decent law-abiding people, and are committed to ensuring that there are legal sites available for travellers. As of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41 per cent from January 2010.
There is wider Government support for the provision of traveller sites via the New Homes Bonus which provides incentive for local authorities to encourage housing growth in their areas and rewards net increases in effective housing stock, including the provision of authorised traveller pitches.
Protect Retail Staff
The Home Office led work with the retail sector has identified that victims and employers not reporting offences and concerns about the police response to such are the key issues to address rather than creating a specific new offence, particularly given offences already exist that cover the behaviour that the new clauses seek to address.
The Government has argued that a wide range of offences already exists and cover assaults and other abusive behaviour against any worker (including retail workers), and sentencing guidelines make clear that any offence committed against someone serving the public should be treated as an aggravating factor when sentencing.
Ministers therefore believe that creating any further new offences for certain categories of workers creates anomalies with other public serving workers and is not the most effective way to improve the safety and protection of these vital public service workers.
Pet Theft
This Government has been clear that it is concerned by reports in the media of the rise in pet theft and I am pleased that ministers are keen to take action. The Ministry of Justice has joined forces with Defra and Home Office to create a joint Taskforce to look at pet theft end-to-end and to consider every aspect from prevention, reporting, enforcement and prosecution and ministers will make clear recommendations on tackling this problem. The Government have stated there is a need to gather, research and commission work to build a clear evidence base of the scale of this issue, so that the actions taken will have a lasting effect.
The Taskforce is taking evidence from stakeholders and experts in the relevant fields including researchers, campaign groups and animal welfare organisations. They will report in the summer, and by the autumn Ministers will begin working on the implementation of the approved policy recommendations.
This Government believes action in this area should be evidence based and there are no official statistics available to support the claim that pet theft is on the rise. Therefore, legislating in the PCSC Bill would be premature as, ministers are not yet aware of the data regarding all the issues and options available.
July 2021
Pavement Parking
Selaine’s response:
I appreciate that vehicles parked on pavements can be dangerous for all pedestrians, as it can force them onto the carriageway and into the flow of traffic. In particular, I understand that pavement parking can cause real problems for people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments.
A recent review of pavement parking carried out by the Department for Transport found that pavement parking was problematic for 95% of respondents who were visually impaired, and 98% of wheelchair users. While there is a historic ban on pavement parking throughout London, elsewhere any local authority that has taken up civil enforcement powers may introduce a ban on pavement parking where it sees fit through the use of Traffic Regulation Orders.
As part of making this easier to implement, in 2011 ministers gave all councils authorisation to use a sign indicating where a pavement parking restriction is in place, removing the need to ask Whitehall first for permission to use the sign. However, while successive Governments have recognised that there is no perfect solution to this complex problem, I believe it is time to look again at this issue in detail.
I welcome that ministers now want to go further and recently ran a consultation on proposals that would allow local authorities with civil parking enforcement powers to crack down on pavements being unnecessarily obstructed. Outside London, only the police currently have the power to enforce this. A nationwide ban would need careful consideration and would have to allow, for example, for necessary exceptions or designated spots for pavement parking where required. The approach taken would also have to be tailored to the very different challenges faced in rural and suburban areas.
I understand that the Department is currently still analysing the high volume of responses to ensure that all views are captured, and that ministers will carefully consider the consultation findings before deciding the way forward, which is why the response is still yet to be published. Please be assured that the Government response will be published in due course, and will be available to view at the following link: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/managing-pavement-parking
I look forward to the Government review and outcome and will continue to monitor this issue closely.
July 2021
Buffer Zones outside Abortion Clinics
Selaine’s response:
This country has a proud history of allowing free speech but the right to peaceful protest does not extend to harassment or threatening behaviour. The law already provides protection against harassment and intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to manage protests. Like all members of the public, protesters are subject to the law and suspected criminal offences must be robustly investigated and dealt with by the police.
Following concerns about the tactics of protestors outside some abortion clinics, a review was instigated by Government in 2018. This review revealed that anti-abortion demonstrations take place outside a small number of facilities. In 2017 for example, 363 hospitals and clinics in England and Wales carried out abortions. Of those, 36 hospitals and clinics experienced anti-abortion demonstrations. With this in mind, I support the Government’s assessment that introducing national buffer zones would not be an appropriate response given the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics.
That said, while I do not want to see peaceful protest curbed, it is completely unacceptable that anyone should feel harassed or intimidated simply for exercising their legal right to healthcare advice and treatment. The decision to have an abortion is already an incredibly personal one, without women being further pressured by aggressive protesters. I am glad that the Government keeps this area under review and I know Ministers ensure they keep up to date with any new evidence that comes to light.
July 2021
Overseas Operations
Selaine’s response:
I consider the conduct of Armed Forces personnel serving overseas to be of the utmost importance. I am proud of the fact the UK has some of the most committed and professional service personnel anywhere in the world, who not only adhere to the rule of law but who promote it through the conduct of their operations.
I have full confidence that this Bill ensures allegations of torture will continue to be investigated and prosecuted wherever and whenever there is sufficient evidence to do so.
As you are aware, for relevant offences, the Bill stipulates that once five years have elapsed from the date of an incident, there must be new and compelling evidence for a prosecutor to seek prosecution of a service person or veteran for that offence, if committed during an overseas operation.
I appreciate that some individuals wish to see offences related to torture exempted from the Bill. However, I would like to reassure constituents that it provides no impunity for torture and makes provisions for the prosecution of any service personnel found to have been involved in such acts. Under the Bill, serious offences, including of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, will still be prosecuted on the basis of the sufficiency of new evidence and whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. Furthermore, service personnel are subject to the criminal law of England and Wales, and a disciplinary framework through Service Law, and have a duty to uphold both, wherever they are serving in the world.
April 2021
Alex Belfield
Selaine’s response:
I have had a number of constituents bring this issue to my attention. Freedom of speech, the rule of law, and equal rights define us as a society, and I am determined to promote those values actively. While I am not able to comment specifically and in detail on the case of Alex Belfield, as a general principle it is important that the law protects freedom of speech.
April 2021
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Unauthorised Traveller Sites
Selaine's response:
The setting up of illegal traveller sites can be a nuisance for local communities and an inappropriate development of open space. I know that many local residents across the country, and here in North Devon, are concerned about anti-social behaviour, fly-tipping, and noise related to unauthorised sites.
After two consultations on this issue, I welcome the fact that as part of the Police, Crime, Sentencing & Courts Bill, new laws will be introduced to increase the powers available to the police in England and Wales. The Bill will introduce a new criminal offence where a person resides or intends to reside on any public or private land without permission and has caused, or is likely to cause, significant harm, obstruction, or harassment or distress. In addition, the Bill amends the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 to broaden the list of harms that can be considered by the police when directing people away from land and increase the period in which persons directed away from land must not return from 3 months to 12 months. Amendments to the 1994 Act will, in addition, allow police to direct trespassers away from land that forms part of a highway.
I believe these new measures are a proportionate and necessary increase in powers for the police. The Government has made it clear that only a minority of travellers are causing problems, such as through abusive behaviour and extensive litter and waste at illegal sites. The vast majority of the travelling community are law-abiding people, and we must ensure that there are legal sites available for travellers.
I welcome the fact that as of January 2020, the number of lawful traveller sites increased by 41% from January 2010. The Government has also given £200,000 to support projects working with Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities to tackle discrimination, improve integration, healthcare and education.
The Government has taken steps to ensure that those exercising their rights to enjoy the countryside are not inadvertently impacted by these measures, and I am confident that Government action will help to reduce the number of illegal caravan sites across the country, while respecting people’s right to a nomadic way of life.
March 2021
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill: Protests
Selaine’s response:
I understand that a number of my constituents have concerns about the proposed new powers to deal better with protests.
As I have made very clear, freedom of assembly and freedom of expression are vital rights that I wholeheartedly support, and I can reassure you that the Government is clear that the right of an individual to express their opinion and protest is a cornerstone to our democratic society.
The issue in question relates to the balance between the rights of a protestor and the rights of individuals to go about their daily business. There have, unfortunately, been examples where protests have caused unjustifiable disruption and distress of other citizens, as seen in our city centres. For example, some of the scenes we saw from the Extinction Rebellion protests in London, where ambulances were stopped from reaching hospitals, were deeply troubling and concerning.
Therefore, the measures in the Bill are not about stopping or clamping down on our right to protest, but instead ensuring the police can better manage highly disruptive protests and maintain the balance I have outlined.
It is right to ask how protesters’ rights will be protected, and it is the case that when using these powers, or existing public order powers, the police must act within the law. Importantly, the police must be able to demonstrate that their use of powers are necessary and proportionate. The police must act compatibly with human rights, in particular Article 10 (freedom of expression) and Article 11 (freedom of association).
I am aware that much has been said regarding the proposed public nuisance offence. As you may be aware, Clause 59 gives effect to recommendations made by the Law Commission in their July 2015 Report on 'Simplification of the Criminal Law: Public Nuisance and Outraging Public Decency'. The report stated that the common law offence of public nuisance should be replaced by a statutory offence covering any conduct which endangers the life, health, property or comfort of a section of the public or obstructs them in the exercise of their rights. Importantly, the new statutory offence of public nuisance will cover the same conduct as the existing common law offence of public nuisance. You can find the Law Commission report on this issue at the following link:
I fully understand my constituents’ strong feelings on this issue, and they are right to ensure I was am aware of these feelings. While we may not agree, I hope this response has outlined clearly why I am in favour of the changes in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill relating to the management of protests.
April 2021
Crime Not Compliment Campaign
Selaine’s response:
The sexual harassment of women and girls, including in public places, is totally unacceptable. No one should be forced to change the way they live to avoid harassment and abuse, and I am relieved that action is already being taken. Work on the wide-ranging Law Commission review into hate crime is well underway and the review will identify any gaps within the current legislation and determine if there should be additional protected characteristics such as misogyny and age. The Law Commission's consultation closed on 24 December 2020 and I am glad that those with an interest had the opportunity to share their views. The Government will of course consider the review's recommendations when they are complete.
The new Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which criminalises the reprehensible behaviour of upskirting, will also go to prevent this behaviour from being committed. There is no doubt that this activity is criminal and will not be tolerated, and for the most serious offences, this law will ensure that the offender is also placed on the sex offenders register.
There is more work to do, and it is therefore welcome news that the Home Secretary has appointed Nimco Ali as an Independent Adviser on Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls. Nimco Ali will advise the Home Secretary and other ministers on the government’s new Tackling Violence Against Women and Girls Strategy, and I am pleased that Ministers will be bringing forward the new strategy this year.
The Government reopened a call for evidence to further collect views from those with lived experience of, or views on, crimes considered as violence against women and girls. The consultation previously ran for 10 weeks from December to February, and it will now remain open until 26 March 2021. I would encourage my constituents to take part, if they feel able to do so.
Additionally, relationships education is now compulsory for all primary pupils and relationships and sex education compulsory for all secondary school pupils. This ensures that concepts such as healthy relationships, consent and boundaries are taught to children to ensure that future generations grow up to respect others, and to expect respect.
March 2021
Hate Crime
Selaine’s response:
I am proud that this country is built on the historic values of unity, inclusivity, tolerance and mutual respect. Hate crime, in all its forms, goes directly against these values and it is completely unacceptable that anyone in our society should live in fear of intimidation or violence. As such, we must stand up for diversity and face down discrimination wherever we see it.
Since the publication of the Hate Crime Action Plan in 2016, I have been encouraged by the progress that has been made, which has seen an increase in reporting and improvements in identification and recording of crime by the police. However, rates of attrition within the criminal justice system remain worryingly high and targeted online abuse continues to present a significant problem. While in contrast to overall trends, under-reporting still exists within specific groups.
There is a wide-ranging Law Commission review into hate crime in place. Work on this is well underway and the review will identify any gaps within the current legislation, determining if there should be additional protected characteristics such as misogyny and age.
I am committed to upholding free speech, and legislation is in place to protect this fundamental right. The Law Commission's consultation closed on 24 December 2020 and I am glad that those with an interest had the opportunity to share their views. The Government will of course consider the recommendations of the review when they are complete.
March 2021
Legal Aid
Selaine's response:
The Ministry of Justice continues to make provision of £1.7 billion a year in legal aid and that a new Legal Support Action Plan has been announced which will ensure resources are available for those who need it most. Measures in the action plan include a new focus on the individual and early intervention, as well as greater support for those who need solutions to problems before they become entangled in the legal system. The action plan will allow for an additional £3 million to support those representing themselves through the court system.
I fully understand your concerns regarding the Civil Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 and I welcome the opportunity to provide some clarity. After passing on these concerns to the Justice team, Ministers have confirmed that there will be a full consultation on these fee changes before anything is finalised next year. This is very welcome and will ensure views and opinions are heard.
It is also the case that the new, increased fee structure has been under consideration for a while and reflects the digitalisation of the tribunal system. It is important to remember that this has allowed justice to continue during the current pandemic.
It is vital to consider that these are temporary changes. Immigration and asylum practitioners have been contacted regularly and Ministers will continue to engage through the full consultation on what should replace them by June 2021.
You may be pleased to know that new fee structure will result in practitioners being paid substantially more for their work per hearing than they are currently. Fees have increased from £227 for no hearing and £567 for a hearing to £627 for both.
July 2020
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill
Selaine's response:
The end of a marriage is an extremely painful time for any couple. When a relationship ends, it cannot be right for the law to introduce or exacerbate conflict between divorcing couples. Currently, couples have an incentive to blame each other for the end of marriage based on ‘unreasonable behaviour’, adultery or desertion unless they can wait to divorce on the basis of separation for a minimum of two years, even if the separation is mutual. If one spouse objects to the divorce then the other spouse must wait five years before seeking a divorce.
As you may be aware, the Government has announced proposals which would mean that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage will remain the sole ground for divorce. At the same time, the new proposals would remove the need to show evidence of the other spouse’s conduct, or a period of living apart. A new notification process would be introduced to allow one, or possibly both parties, to notify the court of the intention to divorce. Finally, the proposals would remove the opportunity for the other spouse to contest the divorce, which serves no practical purpose.
Removing the requirements to allege fault or show evidence of separation would promote a less acrimonious process, helping families look to the future.
June 2020