Prison Officer Pension Age

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

The Government are unable to agree with the somewhat colourful language used by the noble Lord. The Government have the highest regard for our prison officers, who stand on the front line in prisons and are some of our finest public servants.

However, it is as well to remember that the pension contributions paid by prison officers are much lower than those paid by other uniformed services—between 4% and 6% for prison officers, as against 12% to 15% for other services. These days, if you are a young person in your 20s or early 30s entering the prison service, you are not necessarily thinking about what you are going to get when you are 68. You may be more than satisfied with a lower pension contribution now.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, undoubtedly, people want prisons, but they should not forget about the people who have to run them. It is a very dangerous profession. There was a settlement in 2016 which, unfortunately, because it was wrapped up in other settlements, was rejected by the prison officers. Last year, it was indicated that the Secretary of State would hold talks about talks with the Prison Officers’ Association, but there does not seem to have been much movement towards negotiations since then. Does the Minister agree that this section of the benefit—mainly pensions, including, if necessary, increased contributions—should be revived in the interests of these most hard-working servants of the state?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it was a great pity that the arrangements negotiated in 2016 were rejected by the Prison Officers’ Association in 2017. Since then, Ministers have done their best to reopen the matter. As my noble friend Lord Attlee said in opening, it is a matter ultimately for the Treasury. The Treasury is currently besieged by many calls on its resources, including in the pensions sphere, with very large sums of public money being taken up by the McCloud Remedy, which I can explain to noble Lords in more detail—if your Lordships would remain awake. The overall position is that, of course, this matter should continue to be pursued.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bach (Lab)]

My Lords, what rights people have when they come into this country—unlawfully, the Government claim, although some of us would disagree—is surely an essential part of this Committee’s consideration of the Bill. I know the Minister is a member of the Bar and has practised in criminal courts and elsewhere, so he will understand instinctively how important the question of rights is for people who have just come into this country, often in a destitute state.

We know that later in Committee we will debate legal aid and the Lord Chancellor’s duties. Those are important matters to be considered then but I wonder, given the speeches that have been made on this group, whether he has something to say about the Government’s attitude towards the rights of people whom he or others may not like, but who do have rights when they arrive in this country. Do we just say that there are no such rights—no right to any advice or legal aid, if that is necessary, because they deserve what comes to them—or do we take the more sensible and British attitude that anybody who ends up on our shores and is in trouble should be entitled to some advice?

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, broadly speaking, I support this Bill, but there are many things in it which give me cause for concern and we have now hit one of them. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned it—the extent to which the state can co-opt unwilling people to implement its legislation. Regarding those who happen to be the driver of a train or pilot of an aircraft that has on board what we are now going to determine is an illegal immigrant, how can we force such people to act as agents of the state in detaining them?

The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned that this will come up in the next group but it is an important, fundamental point. I am not talking about the refugees but the many trade unionists who will be horrified at the thought of being co-opted as almost part of the police. This is not on. Before the Bill moves to the next stage, I hope the Government can come forward with some proposals which will exempt ordinary workers from becoming its policemen.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group all seek clarification of various issues. My noble friend Lady Hamwee rightly asked what priority is to be given to removals under the Bill, bearing in mind that the uncertainty is very corrosive of people’s mental health. She asked how P will give notice to the Home Secretary and spoke about the dangers inherent in oral notice being given. She said that that could easily be regarded as giving notice that they do not intend to make a suspensive claim, and she spoke about the danger of language difficulties, misinterpretation and so forth.

My noble friend Lord German and other noble Lords raised the question of requiring private individuals to carry out enforced removals. Most, if not all, will not have been trained in or compensated for undertaking the risks associated with forcibly removing people from this country. He also asked a very important question about consultation. Who has been consulted: trade unions, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, referred, or the commercial organisations that are going to be required to undertake this work? There are other uncertainties, as my noble friend Lord German set out. It would be most helpful if the Minister provided answers to these questions.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has a habit of saying what many of us are thinking, but we may not be prepared to stand up and use her exact words. What I would say about Clause 7 is that it smacks of desperation.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not want to keep repeating the comments of my noble friend Lord Davies, but what impact assessments have the Government made of these proposals? Will transport workers be prosecuted? These are really important questions that need to be answered, especially when, as has been mentioned, the employers themselves, who are obviously at the heart of all this, were not consulted and do not support the proposals. I look forward to the Minister’s response and hope he will make sure that workers are not held responsible for carrying out these outrageous proposals.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register. As noble Lords will know, I frequently get up to speak on the rights of trade unionists. I am also president of a trade union affiliated to the TUC.

The purpose of this discussion is to encourage the Minister to go away and, we hope, say, “Well, they made some good points there. We had better bring forward some amendments. We ought to change same of the provisions of this Bill because it really doesn’t work.” Hence, I am speaking in support of the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Davies.

In Amendment 57B, the noble Lord is seeking to delete the phrase

“the captain of the ship or aircraft, the train manager of the train or the driver of the vehicle must"—

not “can”, “should” or “might consider”, but “must”—

“if so required by an immigration officer or the Secretary of State prevent P from disembarking”.

Immigration officers are also in trade unions. They have a very difficult life. Who is going to decide what they actually order the captain of the aircraft to do? Anyway, if the aircraft is up in the sky and it is suddenly discovered that someone is on board who should not be, what is the captain supposed to do? The captain of the aircraft has two principal jobs: to bring the passengers safely to the destination, and to do the same for the plane. They are not prison warders.

In many cases, of course, if this happened mid-air, they would not have realised the situation when they took off. Those of us who have been around a long, long time and can remember the hostage crises of many years ago will know that the situation became apparent only when aircraft were actually in the air. I am not asking the Minister, “will they be prosecuted?” because the Bill says that they will. I want to know under what circumstances it is envisaged that prosecution will be brought, and by whom it will be brought. Will it be the DPP, the department or the Minister? What will be the aim of the prosecution?

Amendment 58A would delete, amongst other things, the phrase

“knowingly permits a person to disembark in the United Kingdom”.

What is someone in that situation supposed to do? If a train comes into a station, it is very difficult to stop people getting off it. Noble Lords who have travelled to Brussels will be well aware of the number of times it is announced over the Tannoy that “You must not disembark at this station”. If someone does disembark, however, has the driver knowingly permitted them to disembark simply because they have gone into a station? Should they have stopped in the middle of the countryside? I ask the Minister to look at whether there should be an indemnity for transport workers, so that these provisions are not used to prosecute them. If they are, why should any pilot take the risk of flying an aircraft that might have an asylum seeker on it? Rostering is voluntary: you do not queue up and say, “you go there”. That is where the weakness lies—I diverge slightly—in the minimum strikes legislation. You cannot order people to do things, not in a free society; and that is where we live.

I ask the Minister to talk to the transport unions and to his own department about what it is trying to do with this and whether it will actually work. What concerns me about this Bill, as with the minimum strikes legislation, is that we are progressing rapidly towards a fairyland where pass legislation that just will not work. It is not a good thing to do, because it does not breed respect for legislation. I, and many people in Britain, want illegal immigration to stop. There is a general feeling out there in the country, particularly among the trade union members that I deal with, that you should not be able to cheat the system. But you have to make this Bill work to achieve that, rather than just achieving headlines for the Daily Mail, and for us all to look smart. The challenge is to make this work, not to make it look good.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this provision, because when I read the Bill and saw it, I genuinely thought that it must have been a drafting error on the part of civil servants that Ministers had not noticed. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies, move his amendment, and to the other noble Lords who have spoken, it seems very sensible to me that this be taken back by the Government before Report. I am amazed that there was no consultation with the trade unions on this issue, which really does affect their members’ livelihoods. If this went through, I can imagine how workers on planes, ships and other forms of transport would react, knowing that it could be used against them.

It right that this Chamber address this issue, being an advisory, revising Chamber that gets things changed that we think are obviously wrong. In addition to what has already been said about consultation, why has this not been discussed properly? As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has said, many trade union members believe that the way we deal with illegal immigration has to change, but this is not the way to do it. This bit of the Bill must be taken out. The Minister should accept that there will not be support for it in this House, and that the other place has not, perhaps, thought about this in a sensible way.

Prison Officers: Retirement

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Grand Committee

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I do not have extensive experience of the prison estate, so I do not come here with that hat on, but I do have a background in the trade union movement stretching back to when I was 16 years old, and I was for some years the trade union envoy for David Cameron when he was Prime Minister. Our aim at that time was not to convert the trade union movement, because its leaders are not going to suddenly say, “I’d like to support the Conservative Party”. Our job—or my job—was to make clear to them that something like one-third to 40% of serving and active trade unionists voted for the Conservative Party, and that we were not their enemy but wanted a constructive relationship with them. That is what motivates me to be here today.

The current Prime Minister has made it very clear to me—most recently, last Monday night—that he wishes to have a good relationship with the trade union movement. Obviously, we cannot give it everything it wants any more than we can give anyone else everything they want, but we can have a good and civilised relationship with it. As such, I am sure the Minister and many other people would agree that having a pension age of 68 is rather high. Indeed, I see from today’s papers and releases that Mel Stride, the Pensions Minister, is looking again at whether and when we should move to the age of 68. I think that is a jolly good idea.

My noble friend Lord Attlee has made reference to the pension contributions and pay, and he is absolutely right. I served for many years as a trustee, and indeed as a chair, of pension funds. A rate of contribution of 5.4% is, frankly, laughable. In the pension funds that I ran, we were looking at 12%, 13% or 14%. That is not far out of line with the police at 12% and the fire brigade at 14%. However, to achieve those contribution rates, you must have the salary to back it up. Those contribution rates cannot be paid from the current salaries, and the whole system really needs a good look at.

As I often do when I come to debates like this, I looked up on Wikipedia the Minister’s background and saw that he began his career in the Monckton Chambers. Walter Monckton was widely regarded in the TUC as probably the best Minister of Labour since the war. He was the Conservative Minister of Labour from 1951 to 1955, and his approach was based on industrial peace, talking to the unions and trying to reach a common accord within the resources of the state and the demands of the union. So, the Minister comes—as we would say in my horse racing part of the world—from a pretty good stable. I hope that some of the atmosphere of the Monckton Chambers is still within him these many years after.

I realise that a Minister can ask only for a certain amount, and a Minister in the Lords is doubly constrained, to an extent, so I have a very simple but, I believe, acceptable request. Will the Minister ask his responsible ministerial colleague to initiate informal talks with the POA to ascertain whether there is enough common ground to resume official discussions on just the retirement age in the rejected Liz Truss package of December 2016?

I am told that, of the three elements in that package, the retirement age was rather dominated by the pay increase issue. If we could manage to sort that out and set it aside, there may be some room for moving forward. To quote one of my early heroes, Harold Wilson, I am sure that “talks about talks” could be quite useful in this regard. I hope that the Minister, given the new atmosphere that is coming from No. 10 and our desire to have a good relationship with the trade union movement, will find himself able to agree to my modest request.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, we have lost a remarkable monarch. As I see it, there has been no one like our late Queen in the history not only of Britain but of the rest of the world.

As many of your Lordships know, I spent many years in the European Parliament and came across many Heads of State, although none as respected or as well informed as Her late Majesty. Of course, she built on a long tradition. My late grandmother, who was born during Queen Victoria’s reign, always held that Stanley Baldwin and George V were responsible for Britain being in the state that it was: they held it away from revolution because they understood the necessity of dealing with all the people and not being overidentified with any class or group. Her Majesty succeeded in that as well. One of the things that struck me first when the sad death was announced was that the trade union movement called off its strikes and very early the next day, the TUC called off its annual congress. We often forget that when the country faces tragedy and difficulty, it comes together, and it does so regardless of class. It is incumbent on this Government to remember that in the very difficult times ahead, when we are facing a major economic crisis that is not going to be easy to solve. There is no easy solution. However, our new King Charles is adequately briefed and will be good at the tasks that lie ahead of him.

I want to give just one anecdote about the Queen. She was not overkeen on the European Union, although she kept it well to herself. I was there for 25 years and for the first few, they were trying to persuade her to visit Strasbourg. It was only when she became the last Head of State not to have visited Strasbourg that she agreed to do so, and I must say that she carried off the visit with enormous panache and feeling. At one point during the visit we were all invited to meet her, and in order to make things easy—because of all the back-biting about precedence and so on—we were lined up alphabetically. Therefore, I met her very early on, and she whizzed down the line, saying, “Hello, good to meet you; you’re doing a good job”, until she got to the letter L and Alf Lomas, who was probably the most left-wing member of the British delegation and was the only one in the line who was not wearing a tie. She stopped, and it was obvious that they were having a great conversation, until she was virtually pulled away by her courtiers and whizzed down the rest of the line and off. At the end I went up to him and said, “Well, Alf, is she in the campaign group now?” He said, “No.” I said, “What on earth was it about?” He said, “Oh, I knew what to say, so I greeted her with the words, ‘Ma’am, we’re both racehorse owners, aren’t we?’” All she wanted to talk about was the horse he had a part share in, her horses and where they were stabled, what they were fed, how they chose which races they went into, and whether he always bet on his horses in the race. He said that in the end, they had to more or less tear her away.

That was typical of Her Majesty, who was very capable of relating to all her subjects without distinction as to how important or unimportant they were. I am not saying that Alf Lomas was unimportant; he had been leader of the group, but he was not exactly the British vice-president of Parliament or a committee chair. In fact, at that time he was the ex-leader of the group and very much in the doghouse with a certain Mr Kinnock—God bless his memory—who was the leader of the Labour Party at that time.

I believe that the new monarch will do an excellent job, and I have no difficulty at all in saying God save the King.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, it is impossible to do justice to such an amazing and astonishing person and such an amazing and astonishing life. I am also conscious of the hour, so I will keep my reflections light but give some memories from Scotland, Royal Deeside and Balmoral.

I was once the Member of Parliament for Balmoral, but my reflections go much further back and my memories start much earlier. I used to stand each year in the village of Bieldside, which is at the beginning of the journey up to Balmoral Castle, with my grandmother and mother. We knew this spot where the Queen’s car—one of the high-top cars with lots of glass—would slow down because the Queen knew there was a particularly beautiful garden there, and she would ask the driver to stop to have a look at it. We would stand there and she would give us her big smile, which has been mentioned a lot, and the kind of wave that I had never experienced before in my life as a young child.

We did that every year, until one year she slowed down and the beautiful garden had been completely removed and replaced with climbing frames and swings, because a young family had moved into the area. Sadly, her habit of slowing down stopped after that. She would continue on that journey up to the castle, and I think everyone knows just how much she was loved and respected in Ballater, Braemar and the village of Crathie. All the talk in my early years was about the possibility of bumping into the Queen or another member of the Royal Family in a shop or on a country walk, and just how important it was to respect them and allow them to have as close to a normal life as possible when they came, at this time of year, to Royal Deeside.

Fast-forward to the State Opening of the new Scottish Parliament, where I was one of the new Members. It is important to remember that the Queen played a very positive and central role in the early days of the Parliament and its establishment. After the ceremony, my two year-old daughter Mirrhyn was the first to go down the steps of the new Chamber and to sit on the Queen’s chair. We told her that it was a throne, but in truth it was the best-looking chair that parliamentary officials could find for that day.

When we went outside for the fly-past from Concorde and the Red Arrows, my daughter was still very excited by it all and insisted on knowing which of the dignitaries was the Queen. She was too young to recognise her, and nobody was wearing a crown that day. We said, “Can you see David up there in the Royal box—David who was feeding you crisps in our dining room the other week?” This David was Lord Steel of Aikwood, the new Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. She said, “Yeah, I can see him, dad.” We told her, “Well, the Queen is the lady sitting next to David.” Of course, David liked this story a lot and dined out on it for quite some time. He even managed to tell the Queen the story. He confirmed that she laughed a lot when she heard it.

I saw the Queen at so many sombre occasions, very often in churches or at official ceremonies. I remember being quite nervous and intimidated when I was asked to be Minister in attendance at one of her Holyrood garden parties. My wife was standing in the tea and cucumber sandwiches tent with the Countess of Airlie, the Queen’s very good friend and one of her most senior ladies-in-waiting, when up to the two of them came the Earl of Airlie, who accidentally knocked my wife’s hat clean off. When this story was duly recounted to the Queen, she laughed out loud and gently scolded the Earl with the biggest of smiles. It was a different side—something lighter and closer to normality in a life less normal.

Of course, in this place it was the exact opposite. Here in front of us, the Queen’s Speech, the Crown, the orb, the sceptre, Black Rod marching on her no, through to summon the Members of Parliament—there is nothing normal in any of this; it is pomp and ceremony at its peak. However, even on these grand and sparkling occasions, there were insights. The Queen and Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh, were determined in their 90s to walk up the staircase from their ceremonial carriage to the Royal Gallery, under the glare of television cameras and completely unaided, and then into the Robing Room, which always looks so immaculate—except, you work out, when the Queen is there. All those tables and chairs from the Royal Gallery are piled high and it looks cluttered and chaotic, like backstage at a theatre.

Then there is that classic story about the Queen and Prince Philip leaving in the lift with Black Rod. He pressed the button to go down to the ceremonial carriages and instead the lift went up to the second floor. When the doors opened, there was a young lad with his paper cup of canteen coffee, waiting to step into a lift which he quickly realised contained Black Rod, Prince Philip and the Queen. I suspect that in the midst of Black Rod’s huge embarrassment, she was stifling mischievous laughter.

She was the quintessential Queen, unquestionably, the like of which we will never see again. Tomorrow, her journey through Bieldside will not be to Balmoral. Instead, she will go slowly in the opposite direction. Hundreds will stand there in sombre sadness but also in a show of their love. May she rest in peace.

Criminal Justice System: Equal Treatment of Deaths and Injuries

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right when he says that the purpose of criminal law generally is to look not only at the consequences of the behaviour but, far more importantly, at the culpability of the offender. That is the same in the context of driving as well. Where the driver intends to kill or commit serious injury by driving deliberately at somebody, it is right that they should face homicide or similar charges. But, in other cases, the problem with driving offences is that a relatively small driving error can lead to catastrophic consequences.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the Vienna convention on diplomatic immunity is to protect diplomats in doing their duty. It has been used to escape prosecution for road traffic offences—not only for one very sad death but also for injuries. Could the Minister communicate with his colleagues in the Foreign Office and ask them, first, to get agreement where possible from missions that they will not claim diplomatic immunity for road traffic offences, and, secondly, to seek an amendment to the Vienna convention?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I have some experience of this; in a former life, I argued a few cases against some other Members of your Lordships’ House relating to the Vienna convention and the consequences of it. I fully understand the point that my noble friend makes, and I will pass it on to the appropriate department, as he suggests.

Public Health (Coronavirus) (Protection from Eviction) (England) (No. 2) Regulations 2021

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Thursday 18th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

I join in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The more decent lawyers we have in this place to call the Government to account, the better.

The Explanatory Memorandum to this SI beggars belief. It states:

“The purpose of this instrument is to protect public health and reduce the public health risks posed by”,


Covid-19. This is a complete and utter nonsense. Perhaps I may mention that the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack is very sound. We need a proper committee to look at these SIs before they come into force, not when they are almost at the date of expiry.

Most of all, we need to get back to normal. The way in which this House has functioned in the past year has, frankly, been sub-optimal—to put it mildly.

We are now asked to endorse this measure. It provides for limited occasions when people can go to court to get possession. However, what it does not say is that the whole court system is in chaos and meltdown, and it is almost impossible to get a date in a court. Can the Minister tell us what is being done to free up the courts for landlords?

There is a small amount in the budget—£3.8 million—and, we reckon, something like a hundred times that much is needed. How will that gap be covered? Finally, is this system being played by people who just do not want to pay their rent? Have the Government made any estimates, and if so, what are they?

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 9 and 20, in my name, which are linked to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and are aimed at achieving the same objective. We have all seen a number of different proposals for doing that, but there seems to be a broad-based feeling that, for this purpose, the vote should be extended to 16 and 17 year-olds throughout the United Kingdom.

Many of the arguments have been ably put by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, on the basis of his experience of the Scottish referendum. I too campaigned in the Scottish referendum—although I am sorry to say that we were not on the same side, and that I probably campaigned less successfully than he did. One thing that we could all see, whichever side we supported, was the enthusiasm that was there and the willingness to engage. I am sure that a lot of young people will take what they got from that referendum campaign with them through the rest of their lives. I very much hope that the lessons from Scotland will be borne in mind, and that even if we do not come to a conclusion on this matter tonight at Committee stage, they will be borne in mind on Report.

Another factor that has not been mentioned is the way in which the interest and enthusiasm of 16 and 17 year-olds, and other young people, can affect older people. Older people find that they have to engage with arguments that perhaps they have not previously thought through themselves. Some may be led to follow the line taken by 16 and 17 year-olds and some may not. Certainly in Scotland many families were divided—and not necessarily on an age basis. I accept that we cannot say which way young people’s votes went, but my goodness, they made a difference to the process of holding a referendum, and the longer-term benefits were that people would be more active citizens as a result of their experience, whatever the outcome of the referendum might be.

I remind noble Lords that for a possible referendum in Wales on tax-varying powers—I believe that my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas could confirm this—powers have already been passed over to the National Assembly by Westminster, so that any such referendum that may take place could be open for 16 and 17 year- olds to participate in. So the principle is being extended for the purpose of referenda. If it is valid in the context of a referendum on tax-varying powers, how much more so is it when such far-reaching decisions are being taken in the context of the relationship with Europe?

There has been talk in Scotland among some people—I do not necessarily agree with them—that there should not be referenda too frequently. I certainly feel in the context of Europe that we should not be having referenda too frequently, and a decision taken now is likely to stay with those 16 and 17 year-olds for the rest of their lives. It is very far reaching, and whichever way it goes, it will be with them.

The other consideration is whether they are equipped to make a decision. I feel that 16 and 17 year-olds—indeed young people generally—are more likely to be equipped to take a decision on this than many older people, if we are trying to come to a conclusion on capacity to take a decision. We have heard of three factors and I want to underline and stress one of them. We have heard about tax-paying and the ability to enrol, if not directly to fight, in the Armed Forces. That is the question and it was the basic rationale behind the creation of the European Union two generations ago. There were people with a vision that never again would our continent tear itself to bits with two bloody civil wars. These young people’s future can be determined by that. More than any other argument that we will pursue from now until the referendum, there is the question of holding this continent of ours together and not fighting each other in future. That must be basic. For that purpose, if for no other, those young people should have the vote.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, earlier this year I tabled a Private Member’s Bill that came so low down the list that it is never likely to be debated. It sought to extend to European citizens the right to vote in British elections, on the basis of no taxation without representation. If people pay taxes to the British Exchequer, the fact that they hold a different passport should not preclude them from exercising a say in how their money is spent. Having tabled that Bill, I went into the electoral system that we have in great depth. I did not realise exactly how complex it is. That certainly led me to conclude that a debate on the European Union Referendum Bill is not the place to start extending the franchise.

All my life I have heard guff about young people. When I was 16 years old and I became an official in the local branch of my trade union, everybody was saying, “Isn’t it marvellous. We really need young people here”. There is a sort of idolisation of the young. Of course, we need young people but we also need mature people. I spoke in our group meeting not so long ago against the idea of throwing all noble Lords out of this House when they get to 80. I am some way short of 80 but I do not propose to support something that disfranchises people because they have reached a certain age. I know some people of 60 who are nowhere near as bright as our good and noble friend Lord Plumb. He is not here at the moment, but at the age of 90 he gave one of the best speeches I have heard in the European Parliament recently when he spoke at the Former Members’ Association.

To get back to the point, when this was proposed initially, I thought it was tabled because the “yes” side thought that more young people would vote yes than no. I am not sure that that is the case now, having looked at the evidence. I now ask, why are we extending or changing the franchise on the back of a Bill about the European Union? Why are we making these changes when we consider the difficulties that we could have in registering the said people? I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to respond to that. This is not like Scotland where there was a long lead-in to the referendum between the Act and the voting date. This referendum could take place within a very short time. For the moment, I am not convinced that the age and wisdom of a small group of people spanning just two years is worth making a fundamental change to the electoral system.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

When the noble Lord is canvassing, I wonder whether he has had the experience, as I have, of knocking on a door and having a conversation with somebody who really does not know what you are talking about. They then sort of talk back at you, and when you say, “Where did you get that information?”, they say, “I read it in the Sun”. I am afraid to say that a lot of 16 and 17 year-olds who have citizenship lessons at school and who live in a world where there is information coming at them from every which way, are more able to take decisions than many people who currently have the vote.

[Lord Balfe]

I note the noble Baroness’s point. I would say that it is a matter of opinion, not a matter of fact. Of course, I have had many conversations on doorsteps.

[Baroness Crawley]

It is not a matter of opinion when we are talking about the maturity and capacity of young people, as my noble friend said. If we look back over the span of 40 years since the last European referendum, we will see some astonishing changes. I have figures from the House of Commons Library showing that the number of young people going into further and higher education in the year I was born was just over 3% of the population. Today, all that time later beyond 1950, it is now coming up to 50%—it is 45% or around that figure. Young people today are more fit for purpose than they have ever been. They are fit for purpose on higher education, travel, literacy, computer literacy and cultural awareness, and are the best and most fit-for-purpose generation of young 16 and 17 year-olds that we have ever had.

[Lord Balfe]

I also thank the noble Baroness for her intervention but this is a Bill not about extending the franchise but about a European referendum. I intend to vote yes in this referendum unless some dreadful tragedy happens in the renegotiation. I am not persuaded that extending the vote is part of the purpose of this Bill. It is as simple as that. It will lead to a lot of problems. It may be within the noble Lord’s prerogative, as he appears to be responding to this amendment, so I ask him to raise with his colleagues the need for a fundamental look at the electoral system in this country.

I was recently monitoring an election in a place called Kyrgyzstan, on the border with China. It has introduced biometric testing for being on the electoral register. I learnt when I was there that Mr Ban Ki-moon, the Secretary-General of the UN, believes that this is a way of having votes without fraud. There are all sorts of ideas out there and I believe that these amendments, which I might be prepared to support in a Bill extending the franchise, are none the less not right for this particular Bill. I ask the noble Lord to communicate to his colleagues the desirability of a look at the way in which the franchise works. It seems to me odd, and has done for a long time, that people can pay tax and not have a vote, and people can pay no tax at all, can be living in, for instance, Brussels with highly paid jobs for many years, and according to some noble Lords be completely out of touch with reality and the world, yet they can vote in a UK election.

I suggest that we need a fundamental look at the franchise. I have steered three children successfully through the gap from 16 to 18—they are now well beyond it—and they vote for a variety of parties. I look round and see that all three of the major parties represented in this House have had votes from our family in the recent past, so they are certainly capable of making up their minds. I end where I began: I do not think this Bill is the place to extend the franchise.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, my name is on an amendment similar to the one introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I agree with him in saying that the amendments seek to achieve the same objective by the same method.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Lord Balfe Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)]

My Lords, perhaps I may add one point which the union raised and which I think is the reason why the Government are having undue difficulty. It is an inconsistency which relates to semantics. These people are serving the public—they are in public houses after all. If you are a public servant, you seem to be protected in a way that these workers are not, yet they are in more direct, physical contact with the public—with many injuries sustained. I ask the Minister—I know that the matter has been brought to his attention in private conversations—how it is that these workers have less protection under a lesser criminal offence than applies to violence done to workers in the public sector who have an interface with the public. These workers are effectively in a private space, not in a public space, and the law works differently for them.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I support the principles of the amendment, which shows how belonging to a responsible union such as USDAW can benefit workers. As I have said in this House on previous occasions, it would be wrong for the Opposition to believe that all union members are adherents of their party. Indeed, one of the USDAW executive, Mr John Barstow, a member of the Conservative Party, keeps me informed of USDAW and its doings, which are generally very beneficial and certainly of value to its members.

In a debate earlier this evening—I do not normally intervene in this sort of debate; I generally stick to foreign affairs—I noticed all the statements made about knife crime and it being argued that just being found with a knife should be a reason for a custodial sentence. I was at the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, the other day when we listened to USDAW. We heard some pretty horrific accounts. One of the most horrific things to me was the absence of prosecution by the police even in the face of CCTV evidence and other quite clear evidence that assaults had been committed. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us not only his views on the clause but also how we intend to get the law, as at present, implemented because what was done is already an offence—and was an offence in many of the incidents put before us. We do not need this new law. What we are facing is a crisis of the police deciding that the law should not be enforced as it stands.

Having said that, I see no reason why we should not afford these workers the level of protection that they justly deserve. After all, as Mr Foulkes—sorry, I have known the noble Lord as Mr Foulkes and George for a bit too long, I reckon—as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said, these workers are actually upholding the law that we have passed. In many ways they are as much agents of the law as the police. When they are assaulted as a result of upholding the laws that this Parliament has passed, they should benefit from the protection that the law should afford. On that basis, I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a very positive response.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am delighted to be able to support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock; it seeks to protect shop workers from assault when they are doing their job and refusing to sell alcohol after the permitted time as required by law. The amendment has the support of the shop workers’ union, USDAW, which is a campaigning union standing up for its members. It also has a reputation as a hard-working professional organisation that works with employers and wants the businesses that its members are employed in to be a success. It is respected in the industry as a whole and the amendment is typical of the way USDAW works. The amendment has the support of not only the union but the organisations that represent the businesses in the sector and the staff who can find themselves at serious risk of assault for just doing their job, as many noble Lords have already said.

In Committee, I told the House that USDAW has run its Freedom from Fear campaign for many years. That campaign seeks to highlight the unacceptable situation that shop workers can find themselves in just for doing their job. Shop workers are among some of the lowest paid workers. They deserve the right to go to work without the risk of being verbally abused or even physically assaulted. People come into shops that sell alcohol, often late at night, usually the worse for wear having drunk far too much, and when they are told that they cannot buy any more alcohol as it is past the licensing hours, the poor shop workers can be subject to abuse and, in many cases, actual physical assault. We should also remember that these offences occur late at night, often when there are only one or two members of staff on duty in the shops concerned.

As my noble friend Lord Foulkes said, we recently met with the Minister and Mr John Hannett, the general secretary of USDAW. The Minister was very courteous and was concerned about what we heard from our friend John Hannett. Clearly the Government have not been prepared to move so far and that is somewhat regrettable. I hope that today when the Minister responds he can signal how unacceptable the situation is and that the Government take this matter really seriously and quite rightly expect people to be able to go to work and earn their living free from the fear of attack.