Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Merron (Lab)]

My Lords, in death, as she did throughout her long life, Her Majesty the Queen is present in every aspect of our daily lives: on buses that say, “Thank you, Ma’am”, at their destinations; on billboards emblazoned with her regal image; and on social media, which is flooded with people changing their picture to a sketch of the Queen with Paddington Bear. As so many noble Lords have said, we are shocked by how deeply we have been affected. It is difficult to explain how the loss of a person you may or may never have met can have such a profound effect, but perhaps it is because we lost not only the person but that part of our lives that we thought was constant and safe, no matter what.

As a vice-president of Liberal Judaism, I want to express our deep gratitude for an exceptional life that was unfailingly devoted to the service of her people and every community in her realm. In their grief and sorrow, we wish a long life to His Majesty King Charles III and all the Royal Family.

Every week, in synagogues across the UK and the Commonwealth, Jews pray for the welfare of the Royal Family and all those who influence the quality of our national life. We have prayed for our sovereign lady, Queen Elizabeth—who has never fallen short—for 70 years, and this week, for the first time, we prayed for our sovereign, King Charles. That is continuity, and that is change.

This week, a special prayer written by our president was recited at Liberal synagogues throughout the country. I would like to share some of these words with noble Lords today:

“During the 70 years of her reign, during which she saw many upheavals and changes, she served her people with enduring devotion and grace, uniting races, creeds and tongues with outstretched hand and cheerful countenance … In times of turmoil and distress, she sought comfort from her faith and led by example, speaking truth, abiding by her oath of majesty, accepting the discipline of her sovereignty and serving God with humility and intent. She worked with abiding and conscientious duty for the good of all her people, overcoming her own trials and tribulations to unite us as one humanity, whose purpose it is to do God’s will for the good of all people … May her reign remain an example to guide King Charles with integrity and truth, promoting freedom, justice and righteousness, so that all may be blessed with prosperity and peace. We pray for the health and well-being of the new King.”


May her memory be for a blessing. Long live the King.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to be able to take part in this tribute today. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, pointed out, everything that could be said has probably been said already by far greater people than me, but she has been my Queen all my life and I, possibly selfishly, do not want to leave this life myself without paying tribute to the greatest sovereign of all time.

I was born in May 1953, two weeks before the Coronation, and, like the vast majority of British people, I have known no other sovereign. As others have said, we knew this day was coming, but an irrational part of us wanted to think that with her extraordinary vitality she could somehow avoid the mortality of ordinary people. She seemed to me to be indestructible, and I was left shocked and speechless on Thursday.

I first took an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty as an officer cadet 60 years ago, and I think I have taken it about 12 times since then in the other place and in this noble House. From the first one as a junior soldier and then my parliamentary and Privy Council oaths, I always considered it not just a sacred duty but a source of pride.

I am afraid that I have no funny stories to tell about Her late Majesty, just that I was in terror after Privy Council meetings, when she always had an informal chat about the issues, and I was afraid she would ask me something about the obscure and complex order that we had passed and I would not have a clue about it.

Her late Majesty has rightly been described in this place and elsewhere as the rock or anchor of our democracy and constitution, and the words used again and again over the past two days describe her life as duty, selflessness, fortitude, service, humility, love, kindness, resilience, humour, fun, courage, faith and consistency. Some of us may aspire to some of those characteristics, but she embodied all of them.

Not only do I believe that those qualities come from the childhood teachings of the late Queen Mother and her father, George VI, but I credit a lot of it to her military service, since these are the same qualities that we see in our military. I suspect that her devotion to all things military and her colonel-in-chief roles were not done just because it was expected, but because she loved the military life and the military family, where she felt at home.

I know that in 1957 she said,

“I cannot lead you into battle”,


but I am certain that if she were a 20 year-old today, she would not settle to be an Army truck mechanic, important though that was at the time, but she would be a front-line soldier like Princes William and Harry and demand to serve in battle zones, probably in the cavalry, of course.

It was an extraordinary achievement for a young woman in 1952 to become the Head of State of the greatest democracy and constitutional monarchy in the world. For over 70 years as Head of State, she has never put a foot wrong, nor said a wrong word, while operating under one of the most complex, unwritten, convention-based constitutions of any country, and, right to the end, she fulfilled one of her most vital constitutional duties on Tuesday by appointing a new Prime Minister.

We can all cite a handful of US Presidents as possibly being great, but can anyone cite any country in the world whose presidential system has provided better Heads of State than our late sovereign, Queen Elizabeth? I speculate that if these political presidents had served more than their four or eight year and gone on for 10, 20, 50, or 70 years, they might not have been regarded as so great by the end of their period. In these days when political promises are regarded rather cynically, Her late Majesty was revered because she made a promise as a 21 year-old that,

“I declare before you all that my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”,


and she kept that promise faithfully for every day of the next 75 years.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

104G: Clause 44, page 38, line 43, at end insert—
“(4) Part 6 of Schedule 4 does not have effect unless the College of Policing is re-established under an Act of Parliament.”

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I say to my noble friend Lord Sharpe that I am sorry that Ministers in this House once again have to take the brunt of my ire over Home Office matters for which they are not responsible and entirely blameless. I also say to the Government that I am not a natural rebel. I made the mistake of sitting in on the last debate and was utterly convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, but nevertheless as a former Chief Whip felt that I had better support the Government, only because I had not told them in advance that I would rebel.

The College of Policing employs more than 700 people, and last year spent more than £47 million. The Bill, like others before it over the last seven years, gives the college the right to prepare guidelines to be implemented by the police, which will affect the public. In this case, it is pre-trial bail. Your Lordships may have assumed that a body called the College of Policing to which the Home Office has been granting regulatory authority is a statutory body set up by Parliament, and that perhaps you had missed the Bill setting it up when it went through this House. That is what I thought until recently, when I discovered that it has no statutory authority whatever but is a private limited company, limited by guarantee. Not many people know that, as the great Sir Michael Caine denies he ever said. It was announced by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, on 24 October 2012, and this is what she said—sorry, this is not what she said; it was merely a Written Statement, with no questions asked:

“My Department has now legally incorporated a company limited by guarantee under the name ‘College of Policing Limited’. The college will become operational in December 2012. The college will be established on a statutory basis as soon as parliamentary time allows.”—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/12; col. 62WS.]


Nine years and 20 Home Office Bills later, there has apparently been no time to put this powerful arm’s-length body on a statutory footing. Do your Lordships believe that this is simply an oversight? I am afraid that I am a cynical person, and I do not. I suggest that it is a deliberate attempt by the Home Office to avoid parliamentary scrutiny for this organisation.

I serve on two arm’s-length bodies and they, like dozens of others, were created by statute. It is not rocket science for the Home Office to simply copy the usual format of 10 to 15 clauses setting out the general powers of the organisation and a schedule with the technical stuff about salaries, appointments and all that sort of thing. Our statute book is full of such creations of statutory arm’s-length bodies. Indeed, the Home Office has done all the homework already; this private company, of course, has a memorandum and articles of association, which Companies House requires. It is not rocket science for the Home Office simply to lift all that from the memorandum and articles of association and add it to a Home Office Bill such as this Christmas tree one, or introduce a new one. I can conclude only that the Home Office has deliberately not done it, and it cannot say that it has had no time to do that after nine years of this limited company operating.

Let me make it clear that I do not challenge the honesty, integrity or desire of the police officers and civilians running this organisation to try to do good and reduce crime. Indeed, in my time as a Police Minister I never met a policeman who did not believe that if he or she had that little bit of extra power—to be able to take the fingerprints and DNA of everyone and keep them on file in case they are needed—they would make a huge difference in cracking down on crime. They are right, of course, but if one were to grant those powers it should be done by Parliament. I do not challenge its honesty and integrity, but I challenge its right to exist as a powerful arm’s-length body without a single minute of parliamentary time, either in the other place or in this House, devoted to considering its establishment, powers, rights and duties.

If I may say so, it gets worse. In a recent Parliamentary Answer, the Home Office confirmed that the college has put in a bid for a royal charter. Can your Lordships imagine that—a private limited company, already exempt from parliamentary creation, getting a royal charter? Who do they think they are? Of course, if it got it and if MPs or Peers—someone like me—then began to question its activity, it would say that it had a royal charter and was above repute, and how dare I question them and to mind my own business. My instinct tells me that this is simply not right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Blencathra for explaining the amendment, which in substance relates to the power conferred on the College of Policing to issue guidance about pre-charge bail. I recognise that my noble friend has made a wider point about the appropriateness of the College of Policing in its current guise issuing any operational guidance to the police.

The set of reforms in Schedule 4 to the Bill, known collectively—as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned —as Kay’s law, aims to establish a pre-charge bail system which is fairer and more efficient, with the removal of the presumption against bail and changes to pre-charge bail timescales. My noble friend’s amendment would require the College of Policing to be placed on a statutory footing before it can issue guidance on pre-charge bail. In practical terms, this would mean that the guidance, and therefore the whole pre-charge bail reform package, would need to be delayed while an appropriate legislative vehicle was found for this fundamental change to the college’s status.

Guidance to underpin these changes is essential to secure the effective implementation of the reforms, and I think I should stress again that the guidance is about pre-charge bail, not court-ordered post-charge bail. Policing partners have made it clear throughout the drafting of the provisions that clear statutory guidance aimed at operational experts is required to build a system which is consistently applied across all forces.

I understand that my noble friend’s amendment probes the issue of the College of Policing’s status, but it is important to note that a number of the college’s functions have statutory underpinning. Among other things, Sections 123 to 130 of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 enable the college to issue codes of practice for chief officers and guidance about the experience, qualification and training of police staff. The provisions in Schedule 4 to the Bill enabling the college to issue guidance about pre-charge bail would thus be an extension of these existing powers.

As the college is the professional body for policing, the Government consider it entirely appropriate that it should be able to issue guidance which police officers are required to have regard to when exercising functions to which the guidance relates. The Government do not believe that the fact that the college is not a body established by statute alters that fact. It is relevant, however, that the guidance to be issued under Part 6 of Schedule 4 is subject to the approval of the Home Secretary, who is, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, accountable to Parliament, and must be laid before Parliament. It is therefore open to either House to scrutinise the guidance at any time.

The college does hold the long-term aim of achieving royal charter status, as my noble friend noted, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, asked whether its status was being considered in any other ways. It is. The college chair, my noble friend Lord Herbert of South Downs, is currently undertaking a fundamental review of the college, which may include recommendations about its status. Obviously, the Government will consider the recommendations flowing from the review when it is published, but I am afraid I do not know when that will be, to pre-empt any questions.

As I indicated, regardless of the college’s legal status, we believe it is entirely proper that it should be able to issue guidance of this kind to which police officers must have regard. I should reiterate that the practical effect of this amendment would be unacceptably to delay the implementation of these necessary reforms, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, noted, have wide support and would better help protect the victims of crime. It is crucial that Kay’s law is delivered in a timely way, supported by robust guidance issued by the professional body for policing, and the current provisions do exactly that.

I am afraid that I cannot answer my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s specific question about when space may be found to alter that. I would be surprised if that answer surprised him, but I hope that, having had this opportunity to debate the role and status of the College of Policing, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I think that my noble friend has inadvertently answered the question of when it will be done. It is quite clear, reading between the lines, that the Home Office does not intend to do it ever. So do the Home Office, he and the Home Secretary still stand by the promise of the then Home Secretary in 2012 that this would be put on a statutory footing?

If I may say so, the Home Office, in drafting my noble friend’s speech, has been a bit disingenuous. It knows fine I am not opposed to the schedule. The schedule was the mechanism by which we could debate the principle of the college not being on a statutory footing. I discussed this with the Public Bill Office. I looked at various ALBs, including the two of which I am a member, and asked the staff whether I could lift 12 clauses from one of them, change the name to the College of Policing and lift the schedule. They said, “That would be 12 clauses to debate. It would be easier, Lord Blencathra, just to find a mechanism to say that the college must be put on a statutory footing before this schedule is approved.”

I am not opposed to the schedule—no one is. It was a mechanism in order that we could debate the principle. I must say that I am rather concerned by my noble friend’s reply—but also how delighted I am that, on this occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I are on the same side, despite some strenuous disagreements in the past few weeks. I must say to my noble friend that, if I had realised, and had had the nous and wit beforehand to discuss with the Lib Dems and possibly the Labour Party what this amendment was about, we could have had agreement tonight and I could have forced it to the vote and won it. Of course, I am not going to do that tonight, but I can tell the Home Office that this issue will not go away. I detect the mood among other parties here, and I hope among my noble friends as well, that we must honour the Home Secretary’s promise to have this body put on a statutory footing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

As the Minister said, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is unable to be in her place tonight. She has asked me to say that she joins me in thanking the Minister, who has engaged with us sympathetically on this topic and secured this welcome change in the law. That is a tribute to his persuasive powers not just in this House but in government.

I hope that the Minister’s remarks tonight will receive as much publicity as his speech in Committee, which, as he said, featured not just in Hansard but elsewhere. He mentioned his appearance—or his remarks’ appearance—on “Have I Got News for You”; well, the news tonight is that this amendment has achieved a welcome change in the law that will be appreciated not just by breastfeeding women but by their partners and relatives.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I intervene to ask my noble friend a question. I listened carefully to what he said and I completely support the amendment, but does it go far enough? I cannot find any excuse or justification for anyone who is not a family member to take any photographs of a woman breastfeeding. It would seem from what my noble friend said on the amendment that mens rea has to be proved—there has to be a proven intent to get sexual gratification from it—but why should that be the case? In my view, there can be no justification for anyone outside the family—a stranger—to want to photograph a woman doing this. This is a simple question from my simple little mind.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 15th November 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

214: After Clause 124, insert the following new Clause—
“Sex-specific incarceration for violent and sexual offenders
After section 20 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 insert—“20A Sex-specific incarceration(1) Where a person with a gender recognition certificate is serving a conviction for a violent or sexual offence, that person shall be treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to the sex registered at their birth.(2) Where a person with a gender recognition certificate is remanded in custody for a suspected violent or sexual offence, that person shall be treated with respect to housing on the prison estate by reference to the sex registered at their birth.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amends the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to ensure that prisoners with a gender recognition certificate who are suspected or convicted of violent or sexual offences are treated as their sex registered at birth with respect to housing on the prison estate.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I am moving this amendment in my name and those of my noble friends to defend the rights of female prisoners. This is not something I ever imagined I would have to do. In my 38 years in Parliament, I have always supported the rights of women, but I was never a champion because a large number of parliamentarians were far better qualified than me and I thought that women’s rights were generally headed in the right direction—not as quickly as they should be, but in the right direction nevertheless.

Now, I find that the rights of women are under the greatest threat I have seen in my lifetime. It is not just about their rights to safe places such as bathrooms, changing rooms, NHS single-sex wards and in prison; their whole existence as biological women is under existential threat as some people—nearly all men—seek to erase the word “women” from the lexicon or commandeer it for the use of men who identify as women. Let me be crystal clear: I completely support the right of men, as guaranteed in the Equality Act, to change their gender and identify as women. They must not be discriminated against. However, let us be equally clear that men who identify as the female gender are not biological women because, as has been said before, only women have a cervix and a womb, and only women bear children. It is not transphobic to point out that elementary biological fact, which has been at the root of human existence for countless millennia.

I believe that the threat against women is increasing daily. Young lesbian women are being condemned as transphobic if they refuse to have sex with men who claim to be women. What a perversion of common sense and reality that is. However, it is worse than that. The police say that there has been a doubling of crime by female paedophiles. That is a big fat exaggeration. Sexual abuse by women has increased, but it is still infinitesimally small in comparison to that by men. Lynne Owens of the National Crime Agency says that the problem of male paedophilia may be seven times higher than first thought. There has been a huge increase in male paedophiles, some of whom then describe themselves as women; of course, a thoroughly woke police force swallows that nonsense and records it as if the rape and sodomy of children was done by real women. Some of our police forces are trashing the reputation of women by accusing them of crimes committed by men. I believe that the message should go out to the police service that when a male is arrested or commits a crime, he should be recorded as male and never as female, no matter how he designates himself.

I turn to prisons, the substance of my amendment. I am afraid that the situation there is just as bad. Although I suspect that I am in a minority in this House—as I am on many things—I am not one of those who believes that women should not be sent to prison. When the crime justifies it, women should go to prison and be punished. However, that punishment should not include the threat of rape and violence from big, brutish rapists who have decided to identify as women and get sent to a women’s unit. The female prison estate is currently run as a mixed-sex institution because the MoJ’s policies permit prisoners of the male sex, where they identify as transgender and fulfil certain criteria, to be allocated to the female estate and held in women’s prisons alongside vulnerable female offenders. Eligible males include those convicted of the most serious, violent and sexual offences and those with intact male genitalia.

Among others in prison at the moment, there is a vile man—I would describe him as vile—who raped two children, got his gender recognition certificate while in prison and is now swaggering around a female prison wing. I cannot name him or his prison. I believe that women’s prisons should be separate, single-sex facilities for the safety, dignity and privacy of women in prison. Since the Corston report in 2007, it has been acknowledged throughout the criminal justice system that women in prison exhibit patterns of vulnerability that distinguish them from both women in the wider community and male offenders. Female offenders report disproportionately high rates of previous experience of violent and sexual abuse; they also experience high rates of mental health problems. Indeed, in the previous debate, I heard the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, say that three-quarters of women in prison had suffered male violence before being sent to prison. A recent study of prisons in Scotland found a high prevalence—almost 80%—of significant head injury; these injuries were most often caused by repeated incidents of domestic abuse occurring over several years.

For many female prisoners, time in prison is often the first opportunity to tackle the complex issues around their offending, improve their health and access the services they need. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent assault, prison is often the first time they can be confident that they will be away from their male abusers. Where women in prison have been the victims of sexual and violent abuse at the hands of men, the presence of any offender of the male sex may have an inherently traumatising effect, regardless of the nature of offence committed. It is for good reason that approaches to tackling female offending have consistently emphasised the need for trauma-responsive services.

The Ministry of Justice policy that permits prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate is called The Care and Management of Individuals who are Transgender. The policy states that all male prisoners who identify as transgender and who are in possession of a gender recognition certificate must be allocated to the female estate. The conviction, offending history, risk profile or anatomy are of no consideration.

Theoretically, a decision may be made to transfer to the male estate after risk assessment. We know of no situation where this has happened. Even the most high-risk male prisoners have remained in the female estate, including those convicted of violent and sexual offences against women and those with intact male genitalia. In respect of male prisoners who identify as transgender and who have no gender recognition certificate, initial allocation is to the male estate. The prisoner may then make an application to be transferred to a women’s prison.

In March 2021, a judicial review was brought against the Secretary of State for Justice, challenging the lawfulness of the MoJ’s policies that permit prisoners of the male sex to be housed in the female estate. Judgment was handed down in July and found that these policies are not unlawful. It would be quite extraordinary if the MoJ was found to be operating an illegal policy. However, the judgment was clear that the court had been called on to rule as to the lawfulness of the policy and not its desirability.

Lord Justice Holroyde acknowledged the negative impact of these policies on women in prison. He said

“I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence. I also readily accept the proposition … that some, and perhaps many, women prisoners may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender women who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

He also said:

“I fully understand the concerns advanced on behalf of the Claimant. Many people may think it incongruous and inappropriate that a prisoner of masculine physique and with male genitalia should be accommodated in a female prison in any circumstances.”


I agree with Lord Justice Holroyde that it is both incongruous and thoroughly inappropriate. If it is lawful to house prisoners of the male sex who have been convicted of the most serious violent and sexual offences alongside women who have been the victims of violent and sexual assault, that law must change. It is wrong.

Under the Gender Recognition Act 2004, people who fulfil certain criteria are able to obtain legal recognition of their acquired gender. Legal recognition will follow from the issue of a gender recognition certificate by a gender recognition panel. A new birth certificate is also issued, with the sex marker changed to reflect the acquired gender and the name changed to the newly adopted name. There is no requirement for surgery or medical treatment to obtain a GRC.

GRCs have been obtained in prison by males convicted of violent and sexual offences who have then transferred to the female prison estate. I do not consider that the original intention of the Gender Recognition Act was to enable violent or sexual offenders of the male sex to be housed with women in prison, much less those who retain fully functioning male genitalia. I also make this point: these male prisoners want to identify as women. That is perfectly okay. Apparently, they do not want their male bodies, but every single one of them have retained their male genitalia as they swagger around female prison units. I suggest that those men, particularly those in prison, are simply faking being a woman to get access to real biological women in a female estate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I hear and understand what the noble Baroness says. However, on this amendment, I am clear. We oppose Amendment 214 from the Front Bench. We do not support the noble Lord’s amendment, but we understand completely the concerns that he and other noble Lords have. However, we feel that the risks that the noble Lord seeks to minimise are already minimal, and that other risks that need to be managed are not covered by this amendment.

The amendment seeks to amend the Gender Recognition Act to reduce the risk that transgender prisoners present to others. This is neither necessary nor desirable for the following reasons. First, there are very few transgender prisoners. In a data collection exercise between March and May 2018, only 44 of 124 public and private prisons said that they had any transgender prisoners at all. The fact that there are so few transgender people in prison is also an indication of the level of offending by transgender people, the seriousness of that offending and the extent of the threat that they pose.

Secondly, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is far greater among the transgender community than it is among those who are not transgender. Clearly, in a prison setting, the risk of mental health problems, self-harm and suicide is likely to be higher for all inmates; for transgender prisoners, it is likely to be very high indeed. In November 2015, an inmate who said that she would kill herself if she was sent to a male jail was found dead. Vicky Thompson, aged 21, died a week ago at the all-male HMP Leeds. Friends said that Thompson, who was born male but had identified as a woman since she was a teenager, had asked to be sent to a female jail in Wakefield. This is the sort of impact that having an unbalanced amendment, such as the one proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, can have on transgender people.

Thirdly, if the Prison Service thinks that the risk presented by a transgender prisoner is such that they should be housed in a prison contrary to their legal gender, it can allocate them to a part of the estate that does not match their legally recognised gender. The decision must be taken after consultation with experts and at a high level, but it is possible.

A number of noble Lords have referred to the High Court judgment in July 2021, where lawyers for a female inmate in the female prison estate brought a judicial review against the MoJ. The MoJ argued that the policy pursues a legitimate aim, including

“facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people’s mental and physical health.”

It is interesting that I am actually quoting from the same case as other noble Lords have quoted from. Lord Justice Holroyde said:

“It is not possible to argue that the defendant should have excluded from women’s prisons all transgender women”—


as this amendment proposes. He continued:

“To do so would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.”


The case was not actually about excluding all transgender women; it was about challenging how policies applied to those who had been convicted of serious or violent offences against women—as the noble Lord’s amendment does.

The Lord Justice went on to say that trans women’s offending history was a factor that the existing policies were required to consider. He said:

“the need to assess and manage all risks is repeatedly emphasised”

throughout existing MoJ policies. He continued:

“In an exceptional case, a high risk transgender woman, even with a GRC, can be transferred to the male estate because of the higher level of security which is there available.”


Therefore, there is a mechanism to do exactly what the amendment is seeking to do, but on a risk-assessed basis.

The court also heard that expert panels are also involved in the process when allocating transgender prisoners and are “expressly required” to consider the trans woman’s offending history, her anatomy and her sexual behaviours and relationships. The Lord Justice said:

“They can in my view be expected to be astute to detect any case of a male prisoner who, for sinister reasons, is merely pretending to wish to live in the female gender.”


He concluded:

“the policies require a careful, case-by-case assessment of the risks and of the ways in which the risks should be managed. Properly applied, that assessment has the result that non-transgender prisoners only have contact with transgender prisoners when it is safe for them to do so.”

This is the same case that noble Lords have been quoting from.

Yes, the Lord Justice said:

“I readily accept that a substantial proportion of women prisoners have been the victims of sexual assaults and/or domestic violence.”


He added that some women prisoners,

“may suffer fear and acute anxiety if required to share prison accommodation and facilities with a transgender woman who has male genitalia, and that their fear and anxiety may be increased if that transgender woman has been convicted of sexual or violent offences against women.”

This amendment says nothing about whether the person has had sex-reassignment surgery, and there are trans women with gender recognition certificates who have not undergone gender reassignment surgery. The amendment, therefore, is not fit for purpose.

There are two sorts of risk that need to be managed here. There are the risks to the transgender prisoner, either from themselves, in terms of mental health, self-harm and suicide, or the risk from other prisoners, such as the risk of a transphobic attack or an attack based on their acquired gender if they present as a woman in a prison housing men, for example. There may be risks that the transgender person poses, perhaps because of a previous history of violence or sexual offences, but those falling into this category are few and far between and can be dealt with under the law as it stands. Any attempt to stereotype all transgender women as a threat to women flies in the face of the facts and needs to be robustly challenged.

The implication that transgender women are a threat to children reminds me of the sort of abuse that was directed towards me as a gay man a few decades ago.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

The noble Lord is looking at me and implying that I suggested that transgender men were a threat to children. I said no such thing at all. I quoted the case of a male rapist who had raped two children. I was not suggesting that this was endemic in the transgender community, or that they are a threat to children at all. That is not what I said, not what I implied, not what I intended.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful for the clarification that the noble Lord has given, and I will allow noble Lords to read the official record and draw their own conclusions from what he said.

The noble Lord’s amendment manages only one of these risks—arguably the much lower risk. Each case should be, and is currently, managed on a case-by-case basis, and that should continue. We oppose the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is customary for every Peer who has moved an amendment to say that it has been a worthwhile debate. I genuinely think it has been a worthwhile debate because, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said, this subject has not been properly debated in this House or in Parliament before. It is a policy invented by officials that past Ministers have signed off on. It is certainly worthy of debate.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that the reason so many men spoke is that so many noble Baronesses who normally sit behind her are afraid to speak on this issue. They have spoken to me privately, as have some on the Lib Dem Benches and the Cross Benches, and said, “Please raise this issue; we dare not speak out.” That is not right. It should be possible for noble Baronesses on all sides to raise this issue of women’s rights.

In some ways there has been a certain degree of consensus on three issues. There is agreement that, first, the rights of transgender prisoners must be protected; secondly, that the rights of women prisoners must be protected; and thirdly, that my amendment is a blunt instrument that fails in certain aspects and, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, that I ought not to bring it back on Report. I think that, with proper discussion, I will need to bring back a radically revised amendment on Report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, for suggesting that we need to get the balance of rights correct.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said that the numbers are small, but I dismiss the view that because the numbers are small this does not matter so much. The number of transgender women in prison may be small, but the fear they create in the women’s estate is quite considerable. This is about not just the number of attacks that have happened but the fear women have of being attacked. Their rights need to be defended too. I would welcome dialogue with the Minister, my noble friends and noble Lords opposite on getting that balance right.

Since the numbers are small, why can we not have special units for men who identify as women so that they are not, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, rightly pointed out, forced into the male estate where they would be victims of violence in some cases, or into the women’s estate where women fear, rightly or wrongly, that they will be attacked? Since we already have some specialist units, can we not have units for men who identify as women so that they can have their own accommodation with their own like kind, people who also want to identify as women?

I urge the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to read what I said very carefully. I did not accuse transgender women of being a threat to women or children. I quoted the case of one man who was a rapist and raped children and who, after he went to prison, decided that he wanted a GRC and to identify as a woman. That is a totally different case from what the noble Lord inadvertently suggested I said.

On this occasion, I intend to withdraw this amendment, but I would like to pick this up with the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, my noble friend Lord Cormack and possibly the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, if she is permitted to do so, and discuss an amendment which would try to get the balance of rights right, so that we protect women and transgender women and so that each can feel safe in their own prison space. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 214 withdrawn.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. As a Scot involved in the Better Together campaign last year, I saw first-hand 16 and 17 year-olds taking this responsibility very seriously. I had robust debates probably more with 16 and 17 year- olds than with their parents. They were not necessarily on our side, so this is not about manipulating the position. They were one of the most knowledgeable groups because they had literally done their homework. As your Lordships have heard, more of them voted. The facts are that 75% of them turned out and voted compared to 54% of 18 to 24 year-olds.

We often criticise young people for not getting involved in the political process but I think, having spent many years in television, that we, too, were part of that problem. We could not get young people to engage in the political process but now we have a great opportunity. However, surely we are putting out mixed messages. We want them to engage but we do not want to give them the vote.

The Scottish referendum showed that young people are knowledgeable and can be trusted with the vote. They take this new responsibility seriously. This House has already decided to lower the voting age for local government elections to 16; 16 and 17 year-olds will be given the vote in the Scottish Parliament and I believe that Wales will follow suit. Do we really want to say to 16 and 17 year-olds that they are old enough to be involved in the debate but not old enough to be involved in the election. These elections will have more impact on them than they will on any of us.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may step into the lion’s den and say that I strenuously oppose these amendments and believe that we should stick with the current age of majority of 18.

Two arguments have been advanced by the proponents of 16. The first is that this decision may last for another 40 years and will affect a whole generation of young people. That is true. However, in that case, should we not push the age down so that people younger than 16 and 17 can vote, because it will also greatly affect 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds, 13 year-olds and 12 year-olds? There is an argument that it could go down to as low as 10. I am not suggesting that it should, but if one adopts the logic that this decision affects young people disproportionately and that young people should have a say, at 10 years old they have reached the age of criminal responsibility and, if we can assume that from that age onwards they have that reasoning ability, there may be no reason why they should not be able to vote. Logic dictates that there is nothing magical about lowering the age to 16 and sticking at 16.

The second argument is that young people are much more mature these days: they are more sophisticated; they understand politics and the world; and they would be enthusiastic voters. I do not deny their enthusiasm but that is not a good enough ground per se for extending the franchise. If we change the voting age based on maturity, I suspect all the behavioural experts would give the vote to girls at age 10 and to boys at age 25. Making a judgment on who is mature enough to vote is more subjective than picking an arbitrary age.

However, my main objection is that everything we have done in Parliament over recent years has involved raising the age at which young people can do things because we, in this House and in the other place, have concluded that under 18 year-olds cannot be trusted to do things on their own and do not have the maturity to make decisions. With the assistance of our wonderful Library, I have looked at the minimum ages we have set for young people to do certain things. This is in accordance with English law, I stress. Those who favourably quote Scotland should be aware that Scots law has traditionally permitted young people to do some things at an earlier age, such as marry without parental consent. That is perhaps one reason why lowering the voting age in Scotland was not such a big issue.

We know that young people under 18 can marry in England only with parental consent.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord one simple question: what arguments and rationale is he going to use when explaining to the young people of Scotland aged between 16 and 17 that they are not going to be able to vote in this referendum, when they have voted previously? I would like to hear the persuasive arguments he is going to use with these young people.

[Lord Blencathra]

They did not have the right to vote in a referendum previously. They may have the right to vote in Scottish elections but this is a United Kingdom referendum. I would be quite happy to explain to young Scots that while they may have the right to vote in Scotland, it does not automatically follow that they have the right to vote in a United Kingdom election.

No one under the age of 18 can gamble: we passed that law in 1934. No one under 18 can get a tattoo: we passed that law in 1969. No one under 18 can serve on a jury—a 1974 Act. No one under 18 can watch a violent or pornographic film—a 1984 Act. In 1985 we banned anyone under 18 from buying solvents. No one under 18 can buy alcohol. Interestingly, the Scottish NHS and Government have been trying to push the age up to 21. They tried that in 2008 and are keen to do so again.

Under a 1987 law, no one under the age of 18 can sign a property agreement. In 1996 my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne and I increased the age at which one can buy a knife from 16 to 18. In 2003 we banned anyone aged under 18 from buying paint stripper, and in 2005 we banned anyone aged under 18 from possessing fireworks in a public place. In 2007 we raised the age at which someone can buy tobacco to 18, while in 2010 we banned anyone under the age of 18 from using a sunbed.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Everything he has mentioned concerns banning people from doing something. This amendment is about permitting people to do something. I do not think that the analogy works.

[Lord Blencathra]

I beg to differ with the noble Lord. I have almost concluded my remarks on the timescale on which we ban things and I am trying to show that, over the years, this House and the other place have been raising the age at which young people are permitted to do things. It is quite incongruous to suggest that, as we raise the age bar every year because we do not trust the ability of young people to make certain decisions, we should suddenly say that we will lower to 16 the age at which people have the right to vote in this referendum.

On 21 July this year we banned anyone under the age of 18 from buying fireworks. Without listing all the other legislation through which we have prohibited under 18 year-olds from doing things like opening a bank account, making a will or appearing in an adult court, the trend is pretty obvious. Rather than Parliament acknowledging that young people are growing up faster and can be trusted with decisions, rightly or wrongly, we have been going in the opposite direction. Almost every year we have been raising from 16 to 18 the age at which young people can do things. I simply say that we cannot have it both ways, as the proponents of this amendment are arguing. We cannot say that young people should be permitted to vote at the age of 16 because they are more aware and mature—and then push the age up to 18 for almost everything else.

I conclude by saying that if under 18 year-olds are not fit to serve on a jury and judge the fate of an individual human being, I submit that they are not fit to decide the fate of a nation.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I tabled a detailed amendment in Committee to make this provision, but I am very happy indeed to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness.

Against the background of the constitutional referendum in Scotland last year, it strikes me that a principle has been established that we as a House and the Westminster Parliament are willing to consider, at the very least, that in constitutional matters, this may be appropriate. The rationale as I understand it in Scotland was that the decision was so far-reaching with regard to the future of Scotland that everyone who could make a reasonable contribution to that decision should be encouraged to do so, and that 16 and 17 year-olds were seen in that context. Surely the decision we are about to take with regard to the future of the United Kingdom, inside or outside the European Union, is equally far-reaching. It is going to affect those young people and people of all ages for the rest of their lives.

Of course we have to draw a line somewhere, but saying that it is all right for people aged 16 and 17 to vote does not mean that we must then necessarily say, “What about 15, 14 and 13 year-olds?”. That reduces the argument ad absurdum. The principle has been acknowledged, not only in Scotland but also in Wales with regard to some of the changes to the powers of the Assembly that we may make. How on earth can we say that it is all right for young people in Scotland and Wales to vote, but not for young people in the context of the United Kingdom? Is the relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union going to be seen as something that looks to the past and to a type of Britain that some people might identify with, but I suspect that the majority, both in this Chamber and certainly in these islands, might not? If we are looking forward, if we are outward-looking and positive and if we want our young people to play a role in that sort of community, surely we should trust them with regard to this vote. I hope very much that this Chamber will give them that opportunity.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Monday 2nd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I cannot see how any reasonable person could possibly object to the amendment, in terms of getting the information that is needed to enable people to come to a balanced decision. Of course, whichever way they vote, the information should be neutral and factual.

My Amendments 28 and 29 are linked to this group and refer to two specific areas, including agriculture, which the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, addressed a few moments ago. Amendment 28 raises the issue of European Union structural funds. This area is of great significance to two-thirds of Wales, which are within the structural fund area and which, since 2000, have received several thousand million pounds, first from Objective 1 funding, then convergence funding and now the current round that runs to 2020.

Currently many organisations in Wales in the public and private sector look to these sources of funding to make a vital difference. If leaving the European Union during this time is going to change the entitlement to such funding, it clearly has a direct, immediate effect on such organisations, whether universities, local government or people in the private sector. They have a right to know about this.

It is not unreasonable to ask for an assessment in the generality but also specifically with regard to the regions that have a direct entitlement to such funding. Some areas, such as South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Cornwall and Northern Ireland and, in the past, the Highlands and Islands of Scotland have benefited from such funding. It is of material consequence. It is made available on the basis of the low level of the economic performance in areas such as Wales. Our GVA per head now stands below 75% of the UK average, because of the failure of successive economic policies. We will not go into whether that failure is on account of what has been done here at Westminster or in the Assembly, but the funding is because of that failure. We are entitled to such funding to try to trigger the economy. Cornwall has undoubtedly succeeded to a considerable extent by using this funding, perhaps better than we have in Wales. Although the authorities in Brussels say that the way in which Wales has used the funding has been an example to other parts of Europe, none the less, we still have these economic problems. People in Wales deciding whether to vote to leave the European Union or to remain in are entitled to some assessment of what effect a loss of this funding might have.

I take the point that was made in the context of the earlier exchanges that perhaps the Treasury would make up for this loss. But history does not fill us with a lot of confidence about that. Until 2000, we were not getting anything at all, because the Treasury refused to put forward proposals to Brussels that would entitle Wales to such funding. It drew a map, divided from north to south, and made sure that neither side of that line was entitled to get the money. It was only when a new map was put forward that we got our entitlement.

Then there was the experience even after we started getting money from Brussels. In 2000, when the Objective 1 money was coming through, we found that it was not being passed on by the Treasury to the National Assembly. We were expected to spend the money but were not getting the contribution from the Treasury because we were already being looked after very well indeed. I went off to Brussels with a delegation to see the then Commissioner for Regional Policy about this. When we explained the situation to him, he turned to his officials and asked in French, “Could this possibly be true?”. His officials confirmed that, yes, Brussels was passing the money over to the Treasury in London and it was not being passed to those areas that were entitled to get the funding. It was outrageous. To his credit, the Commissioner took the matter up with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Gordon Brown, and in the financial review a few months later—in July 2000 or 2001, if I remember right—an adjustment was made of the £442 million that had come from Brussels which was meant for Wales but had not been passed over. How on earth can we be expected to have full confidence that London will step in and fill the breach when that has happened in the past? At the very least we should have an assessment made as to what the effects would be, not just in Wales but in the other areas that might be affected by this.

Amendment 29 moves on to the question of agriculture. Whatever the pros and cons in various parts of the United Kingdom of the common agricultural policy may be, the farming unions in Wales have no doubt whatever what the impact will be, as 80% of farm incomes in Wales are dependent on Brussels. Of course, we will be told, “Ah well, that will be made up for again”. Are we going to go back and have something like the Milk Marketing Board regime or the type of sheep meat regimes that we had prior to the European Union? So much of our market for sheep meat is in Europe and the dependency of sheep farmers in particular on the European Union is very considerable indeed. I am not saying that I know all the answers to these arguments—I do not—but the farmers and those in the universities and other sectors of the economy are entitled to know them. At the very least, clear and unbiased statements about the factual reality should be put out by a Government who have looked at both sides of the argument.

At present, Wales gets a net advantage of some £40 per head per annum from the European Union. It is not a tremendous sum but it is an advantage—other areas will no doubt have a disadvantage. People should know, to the best of our ability to tell them, what the effect of pulling out would be. That is the point of these amendments, which have the same objective as the earlier amendment that has been moved. I very much hope that the Government will give some firm commitment on these matters.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that this group of amendments and the consequences of leaving or staying in are among the most important that we shall debate in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, has moved an amendment asking the Government to report on the possible consequences to the UK if we vote to leave. I believe it is equally important that we have an assessment of the likely consequences if we vote to stay in. Some might ask how one can report on that when one has no idea what the EU might agree to in a future treaty. That is true, but only to a certain extent. There is a track record here; the EU has a bit of form on this. It is not as if we have not been here before on numerous occasions.

In 1989 we had the Delors report, calling for full European integration. It was pooh-poohed by the UK Government and press as something that was never going to happen, but that ignored the inexorable drive to ever-closer union—though that was not the terminology then—that led to the Maastricht treaty. We got qualified majority voting and the start of interference in justice and home affairs measures, as well as a host of other unexpected consequences. Of course, the British people were given no say in a referendum. So we got the Delors report, warts and all.

About 10 years later, we had the Valéry Giscard d’Estaing grand report, the draft treaty establishing a constitution for Europe. This, again, was pooh-poohed by EU supporters as not being a radical change, and nothing to worry about. If I recall, the UK Government and press condemned it and said that it should not and would not happen. It was vetoed by France and then the EU did what it always does; it reintroduced it in slightly different clothes as the Lisbon treaty. Some 95% of the EU superstate constitution proposed by d’Estaing was incorporated into the Lisbon treaty and the name was changed from “constitution” in order to deceive the electors of Europe. Once again, the British electorate were given no say.

The point I am trying to make with these two examples is that that there is a track record of the EU taking ever more power from national Governments and vesting it in the Commission. Now we come to the core of my amendments, based on the five presidents’ report, published in June or July this year. If we say to the British people, “Look at this report; this is what you can expect if we stay in”, the response of the BSE campaign will be that it is just some vague suggestions; it may not happen and if it does, it will be years away and will apply only to the eurozone members in any case. In other words, these are the same lines we were spun about the Delors report and the d’Estaing report, but a few years later they became binding treaties.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)]

The noble Lord might not know that this House’s EU financial affairs sub-committee is looking into the five presidents’ report. He might like to see the conclusions of that before he draws these conclusions here.

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank the noble Baroness. I would be delighted to see the conclusions of any of our august Select Committees. I was privileged to serve under the notable chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for a while, but I am afraid that the conclusions that this House may draw as to what will happen to the five presidents’ report may not accord with the opinion of the five presidents—Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk, Jeroen Dijsselbloem, Mario Draghi and Martin Schulz. I am sure that the noble Baroness will show her conclusions to them; I only hope that they will pay some attention to some of them. My amendment does ask the Government to look at the five presidents’ report. My worry is that it is not a question of if some day it will happen but of when it will happen, because that is the track record of previous reports.

A key objective is EU representation on the IMF in place of nation states. Theoretically, the UK, not being part of the eurozone, would keep its seat and independent voice, but that is not the case. We might still have our seat but we would have to sing the EU tune. Under Article 34(2) of the Treaty of European Union, member states are required to,

“concert and keep the other Member States and the High Representative fully informed ... defend the positions and the interests of the Union, without prejudice to their responsibilities under the provisions of the United Nations Charter. When the Union has defined a position on a subject which is on the United Nations Security Council agenda, those Member States which sit on the Security Council shall”—

I thought it might continue with “obey”, but it is not quite that—

“request that the High Representative be invited to present the Union’s position”.

That is the position on the United Nations Security Council, where our independent voice now has to be somewhat muted to comply with the EU position. Exactly the same would apply to the IMF.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I think I might have been responsible for some of the language there and I have to tell him that it was explicitly put into the treaty to safeguard the British position as a permanent member of the Security Council. If he reads it carefully, he will see that we are under no obligation whatever to follow a European decision unless we participate in it ourselves, and these decisions are adopted by unanimity. The saving clause is that our responsibilities under the UN charter are preserved despite the move forward on common foreign and security policy. So I am sorry to say that this fox is just about as dead as it could be.

[Lord Blencathra]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, and of course I bow to his incredible knowledge of the workings not just of Europe but of the United Nations. Nevertheless, part of the treaty of the European Union has conditions asking all the contracting states, the members of the union, to concert with the EU high representative. That is not the position that we had 20 years ago, and it shows the inexorable move to the EU wanting to take more and more power. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

I see this as quite a difficult amendment because it asks the Government to speculate. The amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, introduced a moment ago asks the Government to give information; this one is asking them to predict the future course of the European Union. Down the years men have dreamt dreams and had visions, and an awful lot of it has not happened.

The direction is not all one way. If the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, looks very carefully at the draft constitutional treaty that was rejected by the French, for example, he will discover that it does not include any aspiration to ever-closer union. Does he really think that the French are about to give up their seat in the IMF or on the United Nations Security Council? Many think that there should be reform of the Security Council but the day that the French give up their seat, flying pigs will be seen over Whitehall.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, that is the one safeguard we may have: the French will always want to retain their seat on the Security Council. I think that we can detect that the day the French wish to give that up, we can rest assured that the whole EU foreign policy will be dictated by the Élysée Palace. I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that it is no more speculative to ask the Government to report on what is in my amendment than it is to ask them to report on, as subsection (2)(c) of the proposed new clause states,

“the rights, following withdrawal, of United Kingdom citizens living in another country”.

We have no idea what those rights may be. I do not think there is any EU law at the moment that says that the moment Britain or any other country withdraws, citizens living in that country will be immediately expelled or that conditions X, Y or Z would apply. It would be negotiated.

[Lord Spicer]

Is the answer to the intervention on my noble friend’s speech not that the factual evidence of things moving one way is the embedding in the treaty of the acquis communautaire, which insists legally that we move in one direction?

[Lord Blencathra]

I agree entirely with my noble friend. And it is one thing for a treaty to say something, but we know how the European Court interprets treaties—towards ever-closer union. I give way to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

The noble Lord is very generous. Actually, the Government could publish what the effect would be on citizens’ rights of our leaving the European Union. It is completely clear what their rights would be: they would no longer be EU citizens. Therefore, British citizens resident abroad would no longer benefit from the right of being EU citizens. Similarly, of course, citizens from other EU countries in this country would no longer benefit from any rights that we chose not to confer on them. It would be for the Government to say what would be conferred. The principles of the negotiation with the EU—which would be with the EU collectively, not with individual member states—would be international law, not EU law, and reciprocity. It would be reasonable for the Government to tell us what they would be trying to secure for British citizens in EU countries in the knowledge that exactly the same rights, under reciprocity, would have to be granted to EU citizens living in our country.

[Lord Blencathra]

I think I detected a slight change in the noble Lord’s argument as he was talking. Of course, the Government could easily say that if we leave the EU we will no longer be EU citizens and 56 million people will say, “So what? What are the consequences of that?”. The noble Lord went on to say that the Government could then spell out what they would aim to achieve in any renegotiation of people’s rights, but that is speculative. That is the point I am making. Of course we can say that people will no longer be EU citizens, but we have no idea, if we were to stay in or leave the European Union, exactly what the rights negotiated by the British Government and EU countries would be. I do not want to get bogged down. I have perhaps given way too much to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, because I really like his accent.

Where the EU has a position under European law, we are under an obligation to co-operate with it and support it. For years we have watched the EU desperately trying to take over the negotiating positions of member states in all international fora. That is a trend. It has taken our place at the World Trade Organization. The result is that we have free trade agreements with little countries but nothing with the big power blocs that matter—nothing with the ASEAN countries, nothing with Japan, nothing with India, nothing with the Gulf Cooperation Council and nothing yet with the USA, although we are apparently close. These are all things that the UK could have negotiated years ago on its own.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I do not know whether the noble Lord reads the newspapers, but has he seen the recent speech by the US trade representative who said they would have no interest whatever in a separate trade negotiation with the UK?

[Lord Blencathra]

Absolutely. I saw that and one must distinguish between US political talk and UK factual reality.

[Lord Dobbs]

Does my noble friend not agree that officials and bureaucrats are there to do as they are instructed by their political masters, not to lay down the rules for everybody else?

[Lord Blencathra]

I have to agree with my noble friend. The United States will do what is in the financial interests of the United States and its companies. It may talk tough about not doing a trade deal with the sixth largest nation on earth—the United Kingdom—but, when it comes to pounds, shillings, pence and dollars, the Americans will trade when it is in their financial interest to do so.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

Will the noble Lord consider carefully whether he is falling into the best-known trap for British commentators on American policy, which is to think that we know what American interests are better than they do? In fact, that statement last week was made by a member of President Obama’s Cabinet. I happened to be at a conference at the weekend at which people from both sides of the divide in the United States—in quite senior positions—made it clear that the policy reflected a cool and careful judgment of where the United States’ interest lay. If we choose to ignore it, we do so at our peril.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I am not suggesting we ignore it but I am suggesting that we analyse it and possibly take it with a pinch of salt.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

Does my noble friend not agree that the position of the United States seems clear? There is a great deal of anti-Americanism in many parts of the European Union, including in France, where I live. The Americans see us as the most pro-American member of the European Union, therefore they are desperately keen that we should remain within it. If I were an American, I think I would take the same view but it does not mean that, because it is in the interests of the United States, it is necessarily the right thing for this country.

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He has considerable experience in these matters and I agree with him entirely.

To conclude, we need the Government’s forecasts of the competitive position of the UK if we stay in, tied to a European economy that is becoming progressively uncompetitive in world markets. We know Herr Juncker wants more Europe and more of the social dimension, as he said to the European Parliament. That would be all very well if the USA, China and the Asian economies were also awarding themselves more pensions, more paternity leave, shorter working weeks, higher pay and more social benefits, but they are not and Europe is in slow decline against their economies.

[Lord Liddle]

Has not what the noble Lord just said shown the need for an objective analysis of the facts? Britain has a trade deficit of something between 5% and 6% of GDP, whereas the euro area has, I think, a small trade surplus with the rest of the world. Germany and the Netherlands have massive trade surpluses. Frankly, what the noble Lord is saying is nonsense.

[Lord Blencathra]

I thank the noble Lord for his support. We need a factual analysis of a whole range of things. However, I merely suggest to the Committee that if the Government are tempted to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, or a similar one, on producing a report on the consequences of leaving the EU—some of that would be speculative, as I have attempted to suggest—we also need a report on the consequences of staying in. In many ways that would be equally speculative, although no more so than the outcome of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Therefore, we must have the Government’s analysis of the consequences for the UK if that decline in the European economy continues.

The five presidents’ report envisages competitiveness authorities taking over wage and work conditions. I will not quote from the Commission press release of 21 October, but it talks about deepening the EMU, getting social fairness and paying greater attention to new macroeconomic adjustment programmes, as it did in Greece. We all know that worked very well. Therefore, we need the Government’s view on that aspect of the report.

The report goes on to say that we need adequate access to,

“adequate education and … an effective social protection system … in place to protect the most vulnerable in society, including a ‘social protection floor’”.

I therefore suggest that we need a UK government analysis of the consequences of those proposals when they are incorporated into a treaty. It is no good for the BSE campaigners to say that they will apply to eurozone countries only. The Commission will use the excuse, justification and treaty base of the single market, as it usually does, to make them apply to us, and we will not be able to stop it since the eurozone countries will have an in-built majority.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I declare that I am currently chairing the inquiry into the five presidents’ report, which I mentioned. The noble Lord is misrepresenting the black ink on white paper in that report. They are national competitiveness authorities for the eurozone; they do not apply to the eurozone-outs. However, I will give the noble Lord a broader point: he is asking the Government to produce their assessment of this. The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report—it is just a matter of time. His amendment is more or less redundant, given the information I have just laid before the Committee.

[Lord Blencathra]

The Government will respond to the Select Committee’s report, but that is different from an analysis of what the situation would be in this country if it were to take place. There may be similarities in the report we would make, but we still need that analysis of staying in the European Union.

I am almost concluded, noble Lords will be pleased to hear; at least I have provoked a bit of controversy in this debate. The five presidents’ report also talks about harmonising insolvency law, company law and property rights. We need an analysis of the dangers of that point.

In his speech two weeks ago, the Governor of the Bank of England noted that being in the EU had benefited us in the past. However, in the referendum we will be voting not on the EU’s past record but on what it will do for us in the future. What was most interesting in Mr Carney’s speech was the clear warning over further eurozone integration and its impact on the UK economy. He noted that the five presidents’ report states that there is “unfinished business” over further fiscal and financial integration in the euro area. The Bank’s report cautioned that the “necessary deepening” of integration, coupled with the,

“weight of … the members of the single currency”,

would impair the ability of the Bank to,

“meet its financial stability objective”.

I trust that the noble Baroness will question the Governor of the Bank of England on that statement in the Bank’s report. I look forward to reading the analysis.

[Lord Liddle]

As I understand it, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is going to Berlin today to explain that Britain supports this increased integration in the euro area because we have a strong national interest in the eurozone being an area of more dynamic growth. I just do not understand where the noble Lord is coming from, because his own leadership is arguing for this integration.

[Lord Blencathra]

The leadership is entitled to do so. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are negotiating hard for changes on behalf of the British people and the country. When the Government set out the deal they achieve, if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is accepted and the Government set out the consequences of leaving, my amendment merely suggests that they should also set out as far as they can the consequences of staying in.

My very final point is that the EU has made it clear that there will be no treaty change before 2017 and possibly not before 2020. In that case, I should like to know how the Government will guarantee that the deal that the Prime Minister brings back will be incorporated into a binding treaty change. Any promises not in a treaty are not worth the wasted breath, in my opinion. So I want to see a section in the government report explaining how we can guarantee that we will actually get the changes that the Prime Minister secures.

I am sorry that I have taken so long. Again, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. His amendment is important. I think that all the amendments in this area are important, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in intervening briefly on this group of amendments, I apologise for doing so after having been unable to speak at Second Reading or in Committee last week, because of a serious family illness. I hope that the Committee will permit me to make a brief intervention, despite that absence.

I want to say two things. One has been said more than adequately by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. This concerned the point in Amendment 21 that stresses that the report on withdrawal should cover law enforcement, security and justice. The noble Lord is right: we should listen to the police and others in front-line operational roles. This indeed happened with the exercise of opting back in to 35 measures and that is what was so persuasive. That has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Secondly, in supporting this group of amendments, particularly Amendment 21, may I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart? He suggested that those of us who are perhaps on the inside have a lack of confidence in the UK. I deny that charge. It is not about lacking confidence in Britain, with its overtones of almost being unpatriotic, a charge I also deny; it is about living in the real world.

May I also take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra? Earlier, we heard that somehow we know better than the US trade representative. Mike Froman, a senior and serious person, has, in the words of the Financial Times, “poured cold water” on the prospect of the UK negotiating its own trade agreement with the US or with other major trading partners, such as China. He said that the US would have little interest in doing so and that the UK could face the same tariffs as China, Brazil or India. With respect, the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, suggested that we know better than the US what the US would want to do.

[Lord Blencathra]

I am sorry if I gave the impression that we know better. I am not suggesting that; I am suggesting that we should distinguish between political rhetoric from a member of the US Government, who wants the United Kingdom to stay in Europe for a host of other reasons, and the reality that Americans would face should Britain decide to leave.

[Baroness Ludford]

I had some contact with Mike Froman when I was vice-chair of the European Parliament’s delegation to the US. He is an extremely hard-headed and tough character. I rather doubt that he is just indulging in politics. He is talking about the real world and what is actually negotiable.

This debate on the report on our withdrawal from the European Union has strayed into the set of amendments beginning with Amendment 24, on the alternatives and our future relationship with the EU, which is what I really intended.

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Lord Blencathra]

23: After Clause 5, line 5, after “from” insert “and staying in”

[Lord Blencathra]

I can be brief, my Lords, because the key issues of principle were thoroughly debated in the previous group of amendments—the key issue of principle for me being that if the Government were minded to go down the route of publishing a report setting out the dangers of leaving then there should also be a report on the consequences of staying in. I noted very carefully what my noble friend the Minister said. I congratulate her on winding up such a controversial and difficult debate. I look forward to seeing that amendment and hope that it will be impeccably neutral. She will have noticed that the Government would be stepping into a political quagmire if they went into the details set out in my amendment or even the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay.

The Office for Budget Responsibility describes itself as one of the,

“independent fiscal watchdogs around the world”.

It has five main roles: to produce a five-year forecast for the economy and public finances twice a year; to use its public finance forecast to judge the Government’s performance against their fiscal targets; to scrutinise the Treasury’s costing of tax and welfare spending measures; to assess the long-term sustainability of the public finances; and to assess the Government’s performance against the welfare cap. I am therefore not certain that the OBR has any real role in forecasting the consequences of leaving the EU, but again I make the point that if the Government are minded to accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, it should have a parallel duty to forecast the consequences of staying in the Union.

If the OBR is going to make such a report, I hope it will look at three little things as the EU continues its attempts to harmonise social security legislation—and there is talk about the need to change pension rules. In those circumstances the OBR should report on the financial consequences for British tax and welfare budgets. If we were to stay in, then it should report on the lost opportunities to utilise our £12 billion Union contribution, which would be completely at our own disposal if we were to leave. Since the Union, as I have said very boringly before, is in relative decline compared with the American and Asian economies, we should have a report on the dangers to the UK economy of being held back by the slow growth of the EU.

There are many other issues that I could add to that à la carte menu, but we do not need to go through them again tonight. However, I suspect that it is better for the credibility and independence of this fiscal watchdog that the OBR should not attempt to report on the consequences of either staying in or leaving. If it does one, though, it should do the other. I beg to move.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, I normally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, and I have the greatest respect for him and indeed the Treasury. He is right to say that the Office for Budget Responsibility has been a success. I would therefore be very concerned if we were to accept the amendment and taint the reputation of the OBR by giving it this impossible task. Perhaps the noble Lord could contradict me but if I were to take the Bank of England, for example, an organisation that has a formidable reputation, and I were to look at the forecasts it has made about the progress of the economy over the past 20 years—indeed, over most of my lifetime—the only thing that has been consistent about those forecasts is that they have been consistently wrong. The notion that this body called the Office for Budget Responsibility can look into its crystal ball—I am reminded of that character that used to appear on the National Lottery, Mystic Meg—and predict the future is asking a very great deal of it. As my noble friend Lord Blencathra has said, it is hard to see, given the existing responsibilities of the OBR, how it would be able to set about this task—with the necessary expertise, at any rate. As he listed its responsibilities, it seemed to me that the OBR has quite enough on its plate without adding to it.

I support my noble friend, though, and indeed my noble friends Lord Hamilton and Lord Flight, in the amendment that seeks to bring a balance to this. I am not going to repeat the arguments that we had in considering the previous amendments, but if you are walking in the woods and you see a bear trap, it is probably not a good idea to put your leg in it. None of the arguments that one hears about the EU is couched in terms of, “If we weren’t in it, we would want to join it”. That was what struck me about the Prime Minister’s remarks about Iceland and Norway over the weekend. No one in Iceland or Norway wishes to join the European Union.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle]

No, I do not agree. Britain should not push unreasonable demands in the next 12 months on top of the very real issues the European Union has to deal with: resolving the long-term issues arising from the euro crisis—the short term has been resolved—and putting together the more Europe that we need effectively to tackle the migration crisis. Those are very serious problems, and Britain is getting in the way of solving them. That is an added reason for the Government to be honest with the people about the feasibility of the fundamental reforms that some noble Lords appear to think are possible—they are not.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

I support my noble friend’s amendment because I do not believe that the British public should be bounced into a snap poll. There has been talk by some spin doctors—probably around the edges of the staying-in campaign—that a quick poll in 2016 would be advantageous. They seem to feel that the longer the electorate has to consider whatever deal the Prime Minister brings back from Brussels, the more likely it is that the electorate will vote against it. I suggest that some people may perceive that there is an incentive for the Government to try to rush the poll as soon the Prime Minister says that he has a deal that we can sell to the British people and we should stay in.

Everyone rightly says that this is the most important vote in 40 years—and maybe for the next 40 years. Therefore, the pros and cons must be given very careful consideration. The Government will have to set out their case. There are amendments on the Order Paper asking for a White Paper-type document which sets out not only the facts of the deal that the Prime Minister has achieved but the consequences of staying in and the consequences of leaving.

That document will not be like party-political manifestos, which set out the already well-known policies of the political parties. Manifestos may have a few nuggets of new information but no real surprises on the political direction of each party. Thus, one can get away with publishing a political manifesto two or three weeks before an election and the public are not really kept in the dark by that short timescale. The document that the Government will publish on the EU referendum will not be like a party-political manifesto. It crosses all party boundaries and there is no clear policy decision known in advance of the deal that the Prime Minister will get.

We have no idea what the deal will be. There may be big concessions or there may be small, trivial, cosmetic ones. The consequences of staying in or leaving will be immense, and both campaigns will have to issue their own views on the deal and conduct big public debates on it. That process cannot be rushed; we would be doing a huge disservice to the public. Nor does my noble friend’s amendment call for an indefinite delay. Announcing a date 10 weeks hence seems to be a reasonable period of time for all the relevant documents to be published and the debates to be held. It does not hold up any poll indefinitely.

We have all been discussing the possibility of a referendum on Europe for years. When this Bill becomes an Act, we might just be a minimum of six months away from a poll, and it may possibly be on a date two years from now; so in relation to that long timescale that we have been discussing and that we might face, a period of 10 weeks to give proper consideration to the deal and its consequences is nothing in comparison. I support my noble friend’s amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I had not quite finished my remarks. I will do the noble Lord the courtesy of replying to his intervention. We both agree on the need for coherence. I totally agree that we do not want to make another piecemeal change, which is why I suggest that we make a universal change. In my view the Government should take the opportunity to say that they will legislate as soon as possible and bring forward legislation that will enable us to reduce the age of the franchise for Westminster elections—indeed, for all elections in this country.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I oppose these amendments. I appreciate the Government’s position that they had to select an electoral register that would be appropriate for this referendum. No one register is perfect. Clearly the one used for the EU elections is not appropriate, nor is the one for local government elections. Therefore, I accept that the one used for the last general election is probably as good as any because it is based on the age of majority.

I believe that, whatever amendments we make, we should stick with the age of 18. We have to pick an age somewhere and there is nothing magical about reducing it to 16. One of the arguments advanced is that this referendum will affect that generation for 40 years. If it affects 16 and 17 year-olds for the next 40 or 50 years, then it affects 15 year-olds, 14 year-olds and 13 year-olds, many of whom are equally switched on and with it and know what is going on. Yet there is no suggestion that it should go down to that age. If the argument is based on the referendum affecting millions of young people, there is no logical reason to stick at the age of 16.

The other argument used is Scotland. The argument that we have heard tonight is that there are so many enthusiastic young Scots. Scotland is recommended because it made young people enthusiastic for voting and for change and that we should therefore follow the Scottish example. I profoundly disagree. Just because Scotland did it does not make it wise or right. When I was aged 16 in Scotland in 1969 I was heavily involved in politics. I was enthusiastic, keen and reasonably well informed. I had absolute certainty, not just on how this country should be run. I even had suggestions on how Chairman Mao should amend some of his little red book. I knew what Mr Brezhnev should do to make the Soviet Union better. I had a wide range of enthusiastic views, but thank goodness I was not in a position then for the Government to be inflicted with my vote or for my childish enthusiasms to be put into law or enacted.

There are very few areas where we treat 16 as the age of majority. That is quite telling. Indeed, we treat 16 and 17 year-olds as children with no real say of their own in a large number of areas. What are those areas? Sixteen year-olds can get married, but only with their parents’ consent, although Scotland is different. While 16 year-olds can marry, they cannot buy a kitchen knife until they are aged 18. I know that for a fact because I was the Minister who put that law through, for some reason or another. Sixteen year-olds can join the Army, but only with their parents’ consent. They cannot go into combat until they are aged 18.

So what can they not do until they aged 18? They cannot buy tobacco or alcohol. They cannot gamble. They are too young to be sentenced to a young offender institution because the law regards them as children. They cannot legally watch a film with an 18 classification. That is a telling point. If our law considers them too young to watch a violent or pornographic film, how can we say that they are capable of making a decision on major political issues? They cannot serve on a jury. If they are regarded as incapable of exercising judgment there, why are they able to exercise judgment on national political matters?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Did the noble Lord make exactly the same speech when the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18?

[Lord Blencathra]

I did not make that speech. I was in no position to make it. I cannot recall what my views were. I was not a Member of Parliament then and I certainly was not in this place. My point of view now is based on what the law currently is for the age of majority and why Governments and both Houses of Parliament have accepted 18 and granted all these rights to people only when they reach the age of 18.

Let me briefly conclude on this point. Until you are aged 18 you cannot open a bank account in your own name. You cannot even get a tattoo, buy fireworks or make a will. You cannot even carry an organ donor card or use a sunbed for tanning. You cannot stand as a Member of Parliament until you are aged 18. If we lower the voting age to 16 are we then going to allow people to stand as a Member of Parliament when they are 16? There are a range of other examples but I will not bore the House with them.

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

I was born in Scotland and I was brought up in a Scottish Conservative household. When I was 16 I thought that the election result, when a Labour Government was returned after 13 years of what is now known as Tory misrule, was the end of the world. I had been taught to believe that. Two years later I was canvassing for Labour in the election.

What changed me was that at the age of 16 I could get pregnant. At that time I could not get birth control in this country at that age. During that period, when I was aged 16 or 17, the first Brook Advisory Centre opened in Edinburgh. I could then go on the pill. Quite frankly, it was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. The knowledge that I could not get proper support for being sexually active—I had had a good Scottish diet and was very precocious for my age—was what politicised me. I have no qualms about announcing that here tonight. It is a real insult to people aged 16 and 17 to believe that, when they are in a position where they make crucial decisions about their own future, they cannot make a crucial decision about the future of this country in Europe.

[Lord Blencathra]

There is a lot of detail there and it is a route that I dare not step down. Whatever language or terminology I try carefully to choose, I will inevitably offend someone somewhere. That is not a risk I wish to take. I simply say that the fact that one can get the pill at the age of 16—rightly so—is no justification for saying one should therefore have the right to vote.

I concluded with a list of all the things that Parliament has decided that people can do only when they are aged 18. Some sound so trivial, but if that is what Parliament decides, it is perfectly legitimate to say that the age of majority is fixed at 18 and that we should not lower it for the purposes of this referendum.

Just because young Scottish people aged 16 and 17 were enthusiastic, it is irrelevant to deciding on this matter. Politically, we know why the SNP Government lowered the age. It is because their private polling suggested that 16 and 17 year-olds would be twice as likely to vote for independence as for staying in the union. You can bet your bottom dollar—or your pound Scots—that if their private polling had been the other way around, the Scottish Government would not have lowered the voting age to 16. They would have kept it.

If these amendments are passed, accepted by the other place and become law, we will have 16 and 17 year-old Commonwealth and Irish citizens also being granted the right to vote, because they are included on the register. If some noble Lords’ amendments to include European citizens were passed as well, we would have 16 and 17 year-old children from European countries also being allowed to vote. If we get a close result with that scenario, I think a lot of British people would be outraged that a majority of 200,000 to 300,000, either way, had swung the vote, because of the inclusion of 16 and 17 year-old European, Commonwealth and Irish citizens. That is a rather dangerous route to go down. However, we may be able to talk about that later.

I oppose these amendments because the age of majority is 18. It should stick at that but if we want to change it we should do it in a general Bill relating to the franchise. We should then take a close look at all the other things that these 16 and 17 year-old children cannot do, because, if we lower the age of majority to 16, we should change the law on a whole range of things from buying knives to buying a pint.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I feel passionately about this issue. I have been wondering why that is the case, especially as so many people that I respect hold exactly the opposite position to myself. Principally, it is because I have often seen, over many years, young people in care being allowed to make decisions that are not age-appropriate. A local authority will, quite commonly, offer a 16 year-old in care a flat of their own and a sum of money or the choice to stay with their foster carer. Many choose to take the flat and the pot of money. We are told that in many cases, drug dealers befriend and move in with them, or they cannot manage to meet the rent and they lose the flat. I spoke to a foster carer who said that her foster daughter was doing so well in school before a local authority offered her a flat of her own; now she is doing very badly in school and the carer does not know how she is doing in her flat. One of the reasons I feel so strongly about this amendment is that I am concerned about whether this is an age-appropriate decision—although clearly children are not going to harm themselves, in the way that children in care apparently can often be harmed by being giving decisions too early, in this particular case.

I listened with great interest to my noble friend. I have sympathy for his concern that this is a very long-term decision that we are coming to as a nation, which will affect the young people in question particularly. But I am afraid I disagree with him; I heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, differently. I respect the great depth of knowledge and the effort that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has put into this issue; I have heard him speak about it on many occasions. My sense, is that for him, at least, this is part of a project—not just an issue for this particular referendum Bill but more generally—to lower the franchise. I feel really concerned about that, although there are many people I respect who think it is the right thing to do. Some child development experts would agree with them, while others would be concerned.

There is concern about the impressibility of 16 and 17 year-olds. Some of your Lordships may remember the film “All Quiet on the Western Front”. It begins in a schoolroom, with a teacher talking to young people and enthusing them with notions of the greatness of their country and the importance of fighting for it. It then follows their careers in the Army. Your Lordships may remember that in the Chinese Great Leap Forward young people were targeted and used as the force for taking that forward. Your Lordships may also remember how effective, in the 1930s, some nations were at manipulating their youth to do things none of us would agree with.

There has been concern about growing nationalism across Europe and there are increasing pressures. Thankfully—and tribute should be paid to the Government and the coalition Government before them—we have avoided the serious unemployment which is a large contributory factor to this. But at some future date we may not be so fortunate. It concerns me that we are painting a target on the back of our young people by giving them the vote at the ages of 16 and 17. There are people who are very good at using the internet to manipulate people, and 16 and 17 year-olds, as we know, have been vulnerable to this in various ways.

I am also concerned about the wider ramifications for children around the country. Noble Lords have spoken from experience, which I cannot yet do, about their own children. Of course, many children will not have had the support that I hope your Lordships will have had—I hope I am not speaking out of turn. I am thinking particularly about the work the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, took forward recently during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill. The noble Lord listened to the concerns of parents of 17 year-olds who had been held in custody in police cells. They were sometimes held over the weekend for two nights and, regrettably, a number of those young people had taken their own lives after that experience. The noble Lord listened to those concerns and acted promptly to change the law. I was pleased to learn, recently, that it had changed and that 17 year-olds in custody will be treated as children.

The last time that we debated this matter, Barnardo’s produced a briefing in which it sought to change the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. In that Act, the age of majority is 16 and Barnardo’s wanted to see it raised to 17. In aid of his approach, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, put forward the argument that if you are old enough to marry and join the Army at 16, you should be able to vote. Others may say that if you are old enough to vote at the age of 16, you do not need to be treated as a child and can be put in a police cell at the age of 17. If you are old enough to vote at 16, maybe it is not so outrageous to have an age of criminal responsibility of 10—the lowest in Europe: I think the average age is 14. I am concerned from that angle.

I conclude with my concern about child development issues. These children are in the middle of adolescence, which is a very interesting period. I do not want to be too technical and maybe this will be quite obvious to most of your Lordships. Young children are very attached to their parents and to their siblings. In adolescence, they make a move from that attachment to an attachment to their peers and eventually to a romantic partner of their own. That is a huge change, which will play out in many different ways. Partly, they will react against their parents. Quite often they will take polar opposite views and values to their parents—for some time, at least. I can think of that in my own family history. My father grew up in a landowning family; he was an aristocrat. When he went to private school, he became the school’s only socialist, reacting very strongly against the ideals of his parents. He moderated over time.

We are not talking about young people voting Labour or not, but I worry that if we set this precedent it will be used on other occasions. Young people may be more likely to vote for Labour or the Liberal Democrats—parents tend to be more conservative, so their children may be reacting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

It may be that 15 million people go to Spain every year but none of them gets the right to vote in its elections.

I am probably more naive than my noble friend Lord Hamilton, but maybe not quite simple. I am not suggesting this is a deliberate ploy to stack the electoral register to help the stay-in, BSE campaign. That may not be the intention but there is enormous cynicism out there in the country about politics, politicians and a fear that we will somehow, as politicians, stack things so that we stay in. That is why there is concern about whether Europe will spend money on the campaign and whether Ministers and others will use their position to campaign for an in vote?

They may not, and there are purdah rules to stop it, but the view in the country is a rather cynical one that politicians cannot be trusted to have a proper, fair electoral referendum. If there is a majority of 10 million either way it will not matter, but if the majority to stay in or to leave is 1 million or 1.5 million, and 1.5 million EU citizens have voted, it will not take much to see that the British public will say it was rigged, they “woz robbed”, and the whole election result was unfair.

I repeat, as many others have said, that no other EU country permits non-nationals to vote. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who is expert in these matters, tried to draw a distinction between this referendum, which could result in Britain leaving, and other national referenda on less important issues. I beg to differ on a couple of occasions. When the Danes voted against Maastricht it was a nuclear bomb under the EU at that point. The Danes were told to think again and keep voting until they came up with the result that the EU wanted. That is me being cynical on this occasion. If Denmark had not voted again—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Will the noble Lord address the point that I made in my intervention a moment ago? Although it is true, as he says, that no other EU country grants the right to British citizens who are resident there to vote, it is also true of Commonwealth countries. No Commonwealth country grants British citizens who are resident in their country the right to vote, so why does he justify the anomaly that we are extending under the regime that he is defending—the right to vote in this referendum to Commonwealth citizens but not to citizens of fellow EU member states?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

The noble Lord is little premature. If he is still here in half an hour, he may hear my speech supporting the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, as he seeks to remove Commonwealth and Irish citizens from the register. I hope that the noble Lord will be here to support that amendment.

I was concluding by saying that the vote on Maastricht would have been a devastating change to the EU. I had no idea what the consequences would be. Denmark would not have been thrown out, of course, although I heard one EU commissioner at the time saying that it would be if it did not comply. That noble Lord is no longer with us.

When the Irish voted against Lisbon, again that was mega bomb under the EU and the Irish again had to vote until it came up with the right conclusions. I speculate, if Ireland had not voted again on the Lisbon treaty, would the treaty have gone ahead or would Ireland have been put into a second-class category? I do not know but it was a mega decision that Ireland and Denmark took, so I do not think that we can say that this referendum that we are having in Britain is more important than some other European referenda.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

This situation is completely different. In the case of the Danish and Irish referendums, had those negative results been upheld, the only consequence would be that a treaty called Maastricht or Lisbon would not have come into force. Nobody would have had any rights, privileges or advantages removed from them. The whole of the European Union would merely have stayed where it was.

The noble Lord is quite right in saying that Denmark and Ireland would not have been chucked out. At that time there was no machinery to do that. There was not even a withdraw clause, but it would not have happened. The point is very simple. The result would have simply been—as was the case in the vote on the constitutional treaty in France and the Netherlands—to negate something that might have come into effect had it been ratified. This is completely different. Here, you are taking away various important rights and privileges that European citizens here have as a result of our membership of the European Union. You are depriving them of those things. It is honestly not like for like.

[Lord Blencathra]

I do not accept that if there is a decision to leave we will be taking away some fundamental rights from European citizens who are living in this country and that they should therefore have a right to vote in the referendum to protect those rights. On Report we may have a list of what those rights may be. I can understand the noble Lord’s point that there is a difference in quality or perhaps in quantity in these referenda, but I do not accept that the referenda in Denmark and Ireland were of a vastly different magnitude to this one. We could not vote in the Danish referendum and rightly so. I did not want the right to vote in the Danish and Irish referenda, and I do not see how this referendum is so different that other non-British nationals should have the right to vote in it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

There are two fundamental differences. One is in terms of ratification of a treaty. Each member state gets to ratify the treaty according to its own rules, be that by referendum or through Parliament. In this case we are talking about the rights of people who are resident here. There are different immigration rights for EU nationals versus third-country nationals. People who live and work here as EU nationals on the basis of free movement are surely in a different situation from other residents of the UK. What will employers be required to do if Britain leaves the European Union? Are EU nationals going to be allowed to work here?

[Lord Blencathra]

If Britain votes to leave, a whole range of things would need to be decided and negotiated. No one is suggesting that on the day or within a couple of years of Britain voting to leave, all EU nationals working here would be slung out and not allowed to work. A British Government would make a determination by looking at each case of employment and refugee status—at a range of issues that could be decided on individually. It is not right to say that we are back at square one and that if we vote to leave, all the rules related to other people working in this country go back to 1973.

[Lord Liddle]

If decisions are taken individually, that implies that some EU nationals will be thrown out. Is it the Government’s position that if we vote to leave the EU, some EU nationals may be thrown out?

[Lord Blencathra]

I do not want to get totally bogged down in this argument. I was asked a hypothetical question: what would happen to those people if we voted to leave? I was given a hypothetical answer: it would be up the Government of the day to decide the rules on employment in this country for people from any other country. I was not suggesting that the Government would throw people out. They may decide unilaterally that all 1.8 million should stay and maybe we should add a couple of million more. It is a totally hypothetical issue but it does not detract from the argument that no other country allows non-nationals to vote in important national referenda. We should follow that example.

[Lord Liddle]

It is not a totally hypothetical issue. If you listened to Mrs May’s speech at the Conservative Party speech, you might have thought that there was a certain desire to throw out people who were not British citizens. There is a real question: what is the future for EU nationals in this country if we vote to leave? If the Government are not prepared to give an honest answer, of course people are going to demand a right to vote in this referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Viscount Ridley]

If we vote to leave that argument will continue, but as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, that is when we will deal with it.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend. I could not say it better myself so I shall shut up and conclude my remarks.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I said at Second Reading that there was a very important principle at stake in this issue: that those who will be directly and personally affected by the outcome should be entitled to a say in the decision. I stick by that principle because it is exceedingly important.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who tabled Amendment 13, which defines the five-year rule, because I had wondered whether it was justified for shorter-term or seasonal workers to have the right to vote. In the Scottish referendum people who had lived in Scotland for less than five years had the right to vote because the local government franchise and electoral roll were used. I am unaware of any trouble or problems caused by the fact that EU residents living in Scotland had the right to vote.

The compromise proposed in Amendment 13 is entirely reasonable. It gives the franchise to those who can demonstrate a longer-term residency commitment to the UK. I assume that it means five continuous calendar years, as opposed to any five calendar years, but on that basis—and the fact that people will have to prove residency for five years, which in itself might be a complicated task for some—it seems entirely reasonable.

I noticed that in the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, we had the accusation that no other country does this and that we therefore should not. Of course, nothing ever changes if you always have to abide by what other people do. As we heard, Austria permits votes at the age of 16. Somebody took the lead there. It seems to me that there is nothing wrong with the United Kingdom deciding to make its own decision about how it wishes to conduct a referendum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I want to give tentative support at this stage to the noble Lord, Lord Green, and his amendments. Some of us argued in the previous group that there is no justification for non-British citizens, such as EU citizens, to vote in a British national referendum. Indeed, I think that is the Government’s position. All logic, therefore, would suggest that other people who do not have British nationality should not be permitted to vote either. I understand that there are about 3.4 million Commonwealth, Irish and British Overseas Territories citizens in the UK with a right to vote. However, about 1.8 million of these are British citizens and have British nationality. I have no problem with that whatever; indeed, I warmly welcome it. If more people who came to live in this country took British nationality it would possibility reduce some of our other integration problems. To me it is quite simple—maybe noble Lords would say simplistic: if you live here and do not have British nationality then you should have no right to vote in British national elections on a national referendum.

We know how this has come about with the Commonwealth. Many of the Commonwealth voting rights were granted a bit shambolically and haphazardly as Britain decolonised and withdrew from Empire. We understand that. It is a legacy of imperial times and should have no place in our democracy today. We cannot justify a Commonwealth citizen with no connection to the UK, arriving in the UK, registering straightaway and getting a right to vote a few weeks later. No other country in the world does that except ours.

I am now going to make a slightly contrary argument and this is why I say my support is tentative. I think the Government have probably got the right policy in sticking with the electoral roll they suggested. However, and it is slightly hypothetical, if by the end of this process, after ping-pong with the other place we end up with 16 year-olds and EU citizens allowed to vote, it would be outrageous then to allow Commonwealth citizens who are not British nationals to vote. That would be perceived by the British public as really stacking the election. If the 16 year-old vote goes through and is accepted it would then mean that young Commonwealth citizens aged 16 arriving in the UK could quickly register and vote.

I go back to the point that has been made a few times in this House tonight by me—I apologise for making it again—and my noble friends. We want this referendum to be seen as valid, fair and with no jiggery-pokery. If the result is close at a few hundred thousand or a million, then people in this country will look for scapegoats and will blame the various foreigners or young people who have been allowed to vote. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, is not in his place. He was right to raise the spectre of racism. In the last year because of immigration, asylum and the huge movement of people around Europe we have seen more antagonism in this country towards foreigners than ever before—people perceived as coming here from Europe without any right to do so or the fear of a “swarm”. If the message goes out after this referendum that young people from Europe or Commonwealth countries who are not British citizens had the right to vote and that vote is close I am afraid we will have more trouble than we bargained for. It is not a risk worth taking. If we stick with a voting age of 18 and the current electoral register I think that is a workable solution. That is why my support for removing the Commonwealth citizens who are not British nationals is only tentative at this stage.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard]

I can remember the days when the Conservative Party was a very strong believer in the Commonwealth and I rather wish that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, was here to join us and give us his views. I am in favour of maintaining Commonwealth ties. My father-in-law, a New Zealand Rhodes scholar, came here as a young man, spent 70 years here, wore the King’s uniform in the war, paid his taxes and never failed to vote. He voted in the 1975 referendum. I would think it a pity if people of that kind were denied a vote in this referendum.

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whom I have known for 50 years and regard as a close friend, is completely wrong on this issue. It is uncomfortable to be caught between the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Green of Deddington, but we are a rough lot in the Foreign Office and I have learned to put up with it. In my view, there is a very serious immigration issue in this country but the issue is how best to integrate immigrant communities, and that is not best pursued by curtailing their rights.

The strongest argument against the amendment is the Irish one. We all know the long, sad history and the importance—and futility—of the settlement. I think that it would be most unwise to think of reopening that issue now, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Green, will withdraw his amendment.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on once again raising this issue. She has campaigned ceaselessly for the rights of women who may be disadvantaged by the application of sharia law to their divorces.

When the noble Baroness, whom I now regard as a friend, asked me to participate in this debate, there were only five of us on the speakers list and I had drafted a fairly long speech. Now that we have a list of distinguished and learned Peers taking part—I shall be followed by a very learned Peer—I have decided to follow the advice of my favourite great actor, Mr Clint Eastwood, when he said as Dirty Harry:

“A man’s got to know his limitations”.

Well, I know some of mine, so I can now be brief.

When the noble Baroness raised this issue in 2012, I think that the view of the Government was that there was no real problem since women could have access to the normal civil courts as well. But the evidence that we have heard today in the examples cited by the noble Baroness shows a huge chasm between what is the technical, legal position and what seems to be happening on the ground in reality. I have also read of numerous other examples provided by the noble Baroness which all show discrimination against women who have undergone a sharia law court or council of arbitration.

It would seem to me that the fundamental principle in divorce, after consent or non-consent after a defined period, is fairness. Both parties should be treated fairly. That does not necessarily mean “equally” in terms of division of goods and finances at the end of a divorce, but “fairness” as determined by an impartial court or judge under British law.

It seems that the Home Office has now recognised that there is a problem. Paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Counter-Extremism Strategy, published this week, state:

“Many people in this country of different faiths follow religious codes and practices, and benefit from the guidance they offer. Religious communities also operate arbitration councils and boards to resolve disputes. The overriding principle is that these rules, practices and bodies must operate within the rule of law in the UK. However, there is evidence some Shari’a councils may not follow this principle and that Shari’a is being misused and applied in a way which is incompatible with the law … There is only one rule of law in our country, which provides rights and security for every citizen. We will never countenance allowing an alternative, informal system of law, informed by religious principles, to operate in competition with it”.

That last sentence is pretty powerful stuff and my question to my noble friend the Minister is: will the Government legislate if their inquiry identifies a problem? Paragraph 48 of the strategy states:

“We will therefore commission an independent review to understand the extent to which Shari’a is being misused or applied in a way which is incompatible with the law. This is expected to provide an initial report to the Home Secretary in 2016”.

That sounds a wee bit vague. Why just an “initial” report? It is not too complicated surely to goodness; let us have a full report. And when will we have it in 2016? I would like the Minister’s assurance that if a real problem is identified in 2016, then we will have legislation in the gracious Speech of 2017.

Finally I say this, and I choose my words carefully. UK divorce law now treats both parties very fairly, but was that the case 30 years ago or 50 years ago? I think not—the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, touched on that same point. The law then was biased in favour of men, despite the fact that Christianity had moved on from Old Testament teachings. However, we know that Islam, perhaps not as written in the Koran but as practised by some in this country who are not learned Koranic scholars, is many years behind the modern view of turning the other cheek and loving one’s neighbour as oneself. Therefore, I cannot believe that sharia divorce law treats women fairly. Surely it is still operating in the United Kingdom timeframe of the 19th century when, under English and Scots law, women were treated as chattel with no rights. Again, if that view is wrong, then a proper inquiry can reveal the true situation.

I commend my noble friend on her Bill. It will not become law this Session but I hope that all the evidence she has produced and the comments in this debate will be taken on board by the Government so that we have government legislation in the next-but-one Session. I congratulate her, once again, on her fortitude and perseverance.

Crime: Home Protection

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Blencathra]

To call attention to the protection of home and person from intrusion or assault; and to move for papers.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, in introducing this debate I am conscious that there are many deeply held views on these subjects and a great deal of misinformation in the media but nevertheless I believe that the balance of our laws is wrong because the law is, in my opinion, built on a nonsense. It is built on the concept that a person awoken from sleep at 3 o’clock in the morning and fearing for his or her life will be able to exercise a judgment on using reasonable force in a moment of sheer panic, when lawyers in a cosy courtroom many months later have difficulty in ascertaining, with all the time in the world, what is “reasonable”. To expect a householder at that moment to be awake and lucid enough and in complete command of his or her faculties, in my opinion, is wrong and unjust.

The CPS guidelines state:

“Anyone can use reasonable force to protect themselves or others, or to carry out an arrest or to prevent crime. You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment”.

This year the CPS in Manchester, in the north-west, decided not to prosecute three householders who killed burglars while struggling with them and fighting to protect their homes and family. That was the right decision, but it was taken a month after the householders had been arrested. People who thought that they were going to be murdered in their own homes and fought back should not then be put in fear of being prosecuted, and left hanging for such a long time.

We should not have to decide whether the force was reasonable, but assume as a starting point, in my judgment, that any force used by a householder against an intruder is legal and appropriate. The message must go out to the police and public that householders have an absolute right to protect themselves, their family and home from intruders and that intruders leave all their rights behind the moment they climb through the window.

If the concept of “reasonable” cannot be removed, we must have a completely different understanding of what “reasonable” is at three o'clock in the morning. Envisage the situation where a person, believing that he or she is safe and secure at home, wakes up to find an intruder in the room. It must be one of the most terrifying things imaginable. I suggest that their reactions in all cases will be instinctive. It will be Pavlovian. It will not be reasoned. It may be to lie quivering in terror, to scream the place down or to retaliate and attack. I suggest that one of those reactions will come automatically; not as a process of reasoned thought. The innocent householder who instinctively lashes out at the intruder will be judged on the amount of force he used and whether it was reasonable in the circumstances. That puts an unfair burden on the innocent householder.

A few weeks ago, 140 service men and women received awards, among them 16 Military Crosses. When you read the citations you see that we still produce young men and women of mind-boggling selflessness and courage, but in all cases, what they did was illogical, irrational, and clearly not what a reasonable person would do if they thought about it. They did not think about it, they just reacted instantly, spontaneously, to save the lives of their comrades. That sheer selfless courage has been rightly recognised. Nor were they doing what they were trained to do. The infantry manual does not state that when you come under heavy machine-gun fire, you single-handedly charge the enemy, firing your weapon, lobbing every hand grenade you can get your hand on and take out the enemy position while receiving wounds in your legs and gut, but that is what those lads who won the Military Cross a few weeks ago did—instinctively, when surprised and taken by shock by the enemy.

I therefore suggest that a householder similarly suddenly confronted by a potentially life-threatening situation should be permitted to use all the force he is capable of to deal with that situation and should not be at risk of prosecution afterwards. I would also like assurances from my noble friend that a householder will have a complete defence even if he could have locked himself in a safe part of the building. The fact that one could theoretically retreat to a safe room must not be used as an excuse by the CPS to prosecute the householder who decides to stand and fight. I appeal to my noble friend to demand of the CPS that it comes to decisions in these matters much more speedily. Where there is a clear-cut case of genuine defence in one's home, the householder must be cleared with all possible speed. It is unjust to leave them waiting.

The most fraught area is when to stop defending oneself and one's property, especially if one chases the intruders from the home. I say “property” because the defence of oneself and one's home should extend to the defence of one's property in one's home. On when to stop defending oneself, the CPS guidelines state:

“The situation is different as you are no longer acting in self-defence and so the same degree of force may not be reasonable”.

The trouble is that the CPS often does not follow its own guidelines. The scandalous treatment last year of Omari Roberts is a case in point. He was a young apprentice builder with a perfectly clean record who came to his mother's house for lunch and found it being ransacked by two teenage thugs. In the struggle which followed, one burglar was stabbed and died. Omari was charged with murder based on a pack of lies told by the other burglar, who survived, who claimed that Omari chased him down the street. However, on the day that the case came to trial, the CPS dropped the charges as its key witness had by now forgotten his original pack of lies and had invented a completely new set. The CPS dropped the case not because it realised that it was acting entirely contrary to its own guidelines, not because it realised that Omari acted lawfully, but because it thought that it just might not win and that a jury would be 12 times more sensible than it was.

The surviving burglar’s original statement said that Omari chased him down the street, and this is the bit that the CPS used to bring a charge of murder against Omari. The CPS said that the time spent chasing the boy could have been used to summon the police. But hang on. The boy he allegedly chased and attacked lived. The boy Omari killed never left the house. So how can the chasing of the second boy result in a murder charge?

The biggest problem with this case is that the CPS’s entire argument revolved round a teenage burglar’s testimony, a teenage burglar with an ASBO and a number of previous convictions. Why is a burglar’s testimony given more consideration by the CPS than the victim’s statement? So although the guidelines are okay as they stand, it is sometimes, and often, the wrong-headed, misguided prosecution by the CPS of people like Omari which does tremendous damage not just to this innocent victim, but it sends a signal that the law is on the side of the thug and the burglar. That is where the damage rests.

This idea that there is a fine cut-off point when there is a threat and force is permissible, and then the second the threat is over force is not permissible, is also wrong. For some householders who instinctively fight back that adrenaline rush may last 30 seconds, for some it may last two minutes, for others it may last 20 minutes. It will be different for everybody and reason just does not come into it. If a householder continues his retaliation on the intruder even after the threat is theoretically over, he should not be prosecuted provided it was all part of that same psyched-up adrenaline rush that gave him the courage to fight back in the first place. I suggest that that is entirely different from a scenario where the householder has calmed down and half an hour later or the next day he decides to get revenge and go and beat up the burglar. That is not acceptable.

Let me quote one very sensitive example. Six years ago a highly trained, armed police officer was told that a person was wired up with a bomb and that innocent civilians were at risk and he could use lethal force. Leaving aside the incompetence of the command and control procedures of that operation, I have every sympathy for the officer who had to execute that order. Time was critical. He had to act fast. If the bomb was detonated, dozens would die. That officer psyched himself up to neutralise the problem and when he pounced on Mr de Menezes, he shot him in the head and again and again and again and again and again and again. Rightly he was not charged with any offence or disciplined because there was recognition that at times of severe stress a person taking action, even a highly trained officer, will go on taking that action long after the threat may be over because there is no rational or reasoned cut-off point when one is acting under extreme stress. I believe that the law must recognise that householders should not be expected to make rational judgments about when they should stop defending themselves by attacking the intruder when they are caught up in what is an entirely irrational situation in the first place.

I turn now to the protection of one’s home from theft. The time is long overdue when this should be made a criminal offence enforced by vigorous police action. Why is this most serious of thefts still a civil matter? If I steal the smallest item from a shop, it is a crime. I might not be prosecuted and I may get a slap on the wrist but it is a crime. If I think the restaurant meal was appalling, why should my dispute with the chef not just be a civil matter? It is not; it is a crime if I make off without paying for it. But if I come home from holiday and find that my house has been stolen from me, the criminal law does not care. The police do not want to know and I will have to spend months in the civil court system trying to get my property back. The people illegally occupying my house, of course, will get legal aid because they have no assets or property except my house. I will not get legal aid since I own a home which I cannot occupy and it will be a wrecked mess when I do get it back. The most valuable physical possession one has, apart from one’s health, is one’s home and it must be a criminal offence for anyone to misappropriate it.

It should apply to council housing and business property, too. If a council is failing to rent property quickly enough, the solution is for the Government to penalise the council. Occupation by squatters inevitably delays the day when that home is available for someone to legitimately rent. Of course, the police must not go around looking for people to evict. They should act only on a complaint from a property owner or tenant. If a person goes to the police and says that their property has been taken over, and produces prima facie evidence of their ownership—their name on the electoral roll or on a council tax demand—the police must be under an obligation to take recovery action immediately. That means evicting and arresting the squatters that day, with no right of appeal or judicial review at that time to delay the process.

If the Government go down this route—I hope that they do—and make this a criminal offence, I hope that the message will be clearly understood by chief constables that the main remedy Parliament wants is the immediate return of property to the lawful owner. In order to safeguard against suggestions that an unscrupulous landlord would lie to the police to get them to evict a tenant he did not like, we could build in a safeguard procedure: for example, that everyone calling for police assistance should sign a declaration stating that they are the legal owner or occupier. The penalty for a wrongful claim could be a £10,000 fine and two years’ imprisonment; or, for a landlord trying to get rid of a tenant, a £50,000 fine and five years’ imprisonment. That would stop any abuse of the system and reassure the civil liberties lobby.

The law should apply also to all commercial property, where legitimate owners at the moment are losing millions to illegal squatting. However, if noble Lords think that this is a bridge too far today, let us change the law as soon as possible on domestic premises being squatted and review the situation after a year. If we find that there is no abuse of the system, I suggest that the Government should push on with extending the criminal law to commercial property. The principle is the same: illegal occupiers of commercial property are no more moral than those who steal domestic property.

In both these situations, I have described how we need to change the law not just to correct injustices but to send a clear signal that it is instantly on the side of the law-abiding, the innocent, the decent, the righteous and those who fight back. I mean instantly—not months later when the CPS drops the charges; not years later when the Court of Appeal reduces the sentence; and not months later when a civil court might give you your property back.

In this, as in many things, perception is everything. There are lawyers who will say, understandably, that the law of self-defence is reasonable when applied by an intelligent court; but that is not the perception in the minds of innocent householders. That perception can be radically changed by small changes in the law, and I look forward to my noble friend telling me that he will bring in some of those changes instantly, and others in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords who participated in this short debate and I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his masterful exposition of English law over the past 250 years and to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. There is only one question I have for him: did he win his defence case?

[Lord Bach]

I half won it.

[Lord Blencathra]

I feel in a similar position today: I feel I have half won on something. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his statement of what the Government intend to do, I look forward with interest to the proposals on squatting and I urge on him my halfway-house solution: let us tackle the problem of domestic premises being taken over first. If the Government’s changes to the law there work, then one can look at commercial premises afterwards.

On self-defence, yes, I was trying to push my noble friend further than I know the House wants to go, or the Government want to go. I have no real objection to the concept of reasonable force, if the CPS guidelines are followed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, and other noble Lords, I am entirely supportive of the jury system; we must keep that. I am merely suggesting that there are some cases I have read about where the CPS should not have taken someone to the jury stage, but should have exercised the judgment to drop the case—Omari is a case in point. I also note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, made that, in a trawl, there were only about 11 cases, maybe slightly more, which the CPS did advance.

I conclude by saying that I hope my noble friend will urge the CPS to make a rapid decision in such circumstances. Those of us who are addicted to “CSI: Miami” are used to Horatio confronting a highly complex, horrific crime scene, with 20 different suspects, reaching clarity within 24 hours and deciding who the bad guy is and who is innocent. I rather want the CPS to do the same in all these cases. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in the debate and look forward to hearing the Government’s proposals in due course. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.