Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th May 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Blencathra]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out “the Parole Board believes” and insert “the prisoner has been certified by two registered medical practitioners as not suffering from irreversible memory loss; and
(d) the Parole Board reasonably suspects”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next in the name of Lord Blencathra would make it mandatory for the Parole Board to reject parole applications where a prisoner refuses to say where and how they disposed of a body, and the prisoner has been medically certified as not having irreversible memory loss.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, these little amendments are straightforward—at least, in my view. If passed, they would make it mandatory for the Parole Board not to release any prisoners who refused to divulge where and how they have disposed of the bodies of their victims. I have built in an exception for the minority who may have genuine and irreversible memory loss and are therefore unable to state that.

The reason for the amendments s quite simple. We all know that even when there is no criminality but a person is killed and no body is found, or someone is lost at sea, relatives find it very difficult to get closure. But where someone has been murdered, we have all seen the terrible distress of the parents—for example, of the Moors murders victims or of those murdered by the IRA—when the perpetrators will not reveal what they did with the bodies. It is, we are all told, one of the most difficult things for relatives to contend with. Can one imagine the anguish and the sheer injustice of it if a convict refuses to reveal what they have done with the victims, they continue to thumb their nose at the relatives of the victims and the Parole Board, but they can still be considered for early release?

My noble and learned friend and other noble and learned friends may say, “Well, don’t worry, in those circumstances the Parole Board would be highly unlikely to release that convict”, but why should it be at the discretion of the Parole Board based on its “belief” as to a person’s honesty and integrity?

If a convict, in full possession of their faculties and their memory, refuses to divulge what they did with the bodies of their victims, why should the Parole Board be put in the invidious position of having to come to a subjective judgment based on psychologists’ reports. Parliament should say that, in such circumstances, no one will be considered—I stress “considered”—for early release until they say what they have done with the bodies. If a convict refuses to admit that they have done anything wrong in killing someone, would they be considered for release? I believe not. Thus, if they will not talk about the disposal of their victims, they should automatically be excluded from any consideration of early release.

It is not as if the Parole Board has a great track record of coming to the right judgments, as we have seen in the Worboys cabbie rapist case. He should never have been considered for early release and is rightly still behind bars.

Only last week, Mr Justin Russell, the Chief Inspector of Probation, released a report stating that the number of murders by offenders released on probation rose from 70 in 2015 to 114 in 2018, an incredible increase and a fifth of all homicides in England and Wales. Of these, two-thirds had been assessed as “low or medium” risk on release, which meant that there was a lesser level of supervision and checks by probation officers and police.

This is not the time or place for me to set out my views on the naivety of many on the Parole Board, who swallow any old guff that the psychologists put in front of them: that a convict has seen the error of their ways and is now safe to release. Indeed, I do not have to make that observation, since the statistics that I have just cited speak for themselves.

Sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers and rapists such as Ian Brady, Worboys and Joseph McCann are incredibly devious and calculating. If they can qualify for consideration for early release by keeping quiet about what they did with the bodies, why on earth should they own up? By doing so, they might trigger a further investigation which could lead to a further charge for another murder. Also, there might be such revulsion at how they disposed of the bodies that no Parole Board would ever dare consider them for early release. Therefore, there is an incentive for them to keep quiet and let everyone think that they killed their victims nicely and gave them a Christian burial.

We should use the certainty of no consideration for early release as the only weapon we have to get those people to talk. The Parole Board cannot do that, since the Bill allows them to consider their application and come to a belief judgment. If we remove that possibility, there is a chance of getting them to talk about what they did to the bodies. For the sake of grieving relatives and for the sake of justice, I beg to move.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments because of the change that took place when the challenge to the right of the Home Secretary went through the judicial system and the safeguard that existed was therefore withdrawn. I do not share the view that the Parole Board is full of naive people. It has an incredibly difficult job and needs all the support and guidance it can get. I have my own disagreements with it, including on the case of David McCauliffe, who has been in prison for 32 years and did not commit murder or rape, although he did commit some totally heinous crimes.

I speak to this amendment because, like other Home Secretaries, I had to deal with Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. When Keith Bennett’s aunt, on behalf of the family, made her appeals to me to see if we could get an identification of where the little boy, Keith, was buried, my heart went out to the family. It was one of those distressing moments that Home Secretaries and now Justice Secretaries have to deal with in cases of murder, particularly where the body has not been identified and there is not therefore the opportunity to grieve properly or to lay the remains to rest. Winnie Johnson, Keith’s mother, died in 2012 without ever knowing where he was. No parent should have to put up with that.

As I have spoken about already, like my predecessors I was able to block the release of the Moors murderers because the power then existed with the Home Secretary. For reasons relating to human rights—it was not to do with the incorporation of the ECHR into the Human Rights Act but with the appeal that went through the judicial system—that power was taken away and, as described, now rests with the Parole Board.

In the circumstances, we are asking the impossible of the Parole Board: to make a judgment on a situation in which somebody has knowingly refused to identify the place in which they put the body of the individual they murdered. For the parents of a child, that is so horrendous as to require a much more rigid approach than we would normally take in giving judges and the Parole Board, quite rightly, the discretion they need to deal with cases. That is why I am in support.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to reply to the debate.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his response and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I shall try to comment briefly on all the points raised. I cannot say that I am disappointed with my noble and learned friend’s reply, since I had no expectation that our Ministry of Justice would countenance the radical proposal that some convicts not deserving of leniency should stay locked up.

Consideration for early release is not a fundamental right; it should be earned by a whole range of factors. Some of these may be subjective and judgmental, such as reports on the convict’s behaviour in prison, his attempts at learning a skill or trade, anger management and so on. Others, I believe, should be a simple statutory bar that removes any discretion from the Parole Board. One would be that a convict who admits that he killed a person but refuses to admit that it was wrong should not be considered for release until he is willing to make that admission. The other case, in my opinion, is the one before us today: no one should be considered for release if he has not given details of how and where he disposed of the bodies of his victims, with the exception for the minority who have genuine memory loss.

My noble and learned friend said that if a prisoner lies about the location of the body and it turns out to be false, he forfeits his right to consideration for early release. I am not suggesting that we take the prisoner at his word; we would not be so naive as to say, “Okay, you’ll get early release; you’ve told us where the body is”, and then a few weeks later discover that he has lied about it—of course not. Nor do I accept that a bar on early release would necessarily be in contravention of Article 5 of the treaty. My noble and learned friend said that it could—I think these were his words—“potentially put us in that territory”. That is far from certain.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who spoke with considerable authority on this matter. If my arguments are not convincing, I hope that the House will in due course listen to him. I was also moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. He, too, had experience of the pain of the families of the Moors murder victims, who were deprived of closure because the killers kept that power. He stressed the word “power”, which is a very good term. If a prisoner can still be eligible for parole and not divulge information about the bodies, he retains that power over the relatives, the victims and the Parole Board.

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for his kind and typically overgenerous comments and, as usual, his very thoughtful and learned contribution. I hope that the Government will explore his idea of a proper court hearing to decide on disclosure, despite what my noble and learned friends the Advocate-General and Lord Mackay of Clashfern said. I take the point that my two doctors suggestion is another attempt to get some certainty when a prisoner may not be able to recall. I accept that getting certainty may be difficult for a wide variety of reasons, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern highlighted. However, I hope that he would agree with me that, where a prisoner considered to have memory recall simply refuses to divulge information, parole should not be considered in any circumstance. That is a quite different matter from a prisoner who is unable to recall, however that is determined.

Covid-19: Prisons and Offender Rehabilitation

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I take a generally different view from all the comments expressed so far. We all accept that coronavirus causes difficulties in prisons, since physical distancing is difficult if not impossible. Even if prisoners were locked in individual cells for 24 hours per day, coronavirus would still spread, and I think that is inevitable. I reject the view that we should release as many prisoners as possible and not send any more to prison for short sentences. First, it is our prime duty to protect the public. Courts these days send only fairly serious and habitual offenders to prison. If a judge at present thinks that someone should be in prison for even a few months, you can bet your bottom dollar that that person deserves it. Giving them a community sentence instead is not an alternative: it never has been, and it never will be.

Secondly, we must do all that we can to protect prison officers, who are far more deserving of protection. I do not know how to do that, but they are a greater priority than prisoners. Whether that means some sort of PPE, when it is available, or keeping prisoners in lockdown—the proper use of that ghastly word—then so be it.

Thirdly, it is perfectly acceptable and desirable to release pregnant women and minor offenders who are near the end of their sentence early. That should be under licence and not until they are tagged.

Finally, I read yesterday—and not in the Daily Mail —that the Ministry of Justice is considering putting released prisoners up in Travelodges or Premier Inns. That is unbelievable, as was an approach made by the Ministry of Justice to Butlin’s a few weeks ago, also looking for accommodation. I appreciate the desire to ensure that released prisoners are not wandering the streets committing more crimes, but how will the British public see it? This year, millions of our people will not be able to afford a few weeks in Butlin’s or nights in Travelodges, and they will be appalled that released prisoners should get treatment that they, as honest people, cannot afford. I urge the MoJ to drop this idea and I ask my noble and learned friend to say that it will not happen.

Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 24th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, I support the Bill, as it is an essential stop-gap measure. When one looks at the offences in Schedule 1, it beggars belief that these terrorists can automatically be released half way through their sentences even if they are still a threat, spouting fundamentalist hate and vowing to kill again on release.

Let us face it, the law on sentencing both generally and for terrorists and serious offenders is a mess and has been for some time. In my opinion, Governments have made two main mistakes over the years. The first is that maximum sentences are too low. The second is letting courts decide on the sentences served rather than introducing mandatory minimum sentences for categories of terrorist offences that the courts would have to apply if someone was found guilty.

The Minister has said that the Bill applies to standard determinate sentences where convicts are released automatically at the halfway period. That will now be increased to two-thirds of their sentence with a Parole Board review. That is still grossly inadequate, since there should be no release until they are safe or deradicalised. That is why indeterminate sentences were so good and I regret that we have lost them.

My noble friend says that there will be a proper counterterrorism sentencing and release Bill coming soon. I welcome it—it is long overdue. At the moment, only the worst offenders get a life sentence, but what does that mean in reality? When capital punishment was abolished, we were told that, in the absence of the death penalty, people would get life in jail instead. No, they do not. We all know that most sentencing in our courts is a lie and a life sentence is, on average, 15 years. Of course, we hear of the occasional 40-year sentences for vile child killers, such as Huntley, but the vast majority of killers are out in 15 years.

On terrorism sentencing, there is the sentence for offenders of particular concern, who are eligible for release after half their sentence. If someone is regarded as a criminal of particular concern, why in the name of God is he even considered for early release? He should serve the whole term. The problem is—as noble and learned Lords, who are much more learned than I, have said—that the system of sentencing in our courts is based on a big lie. Judges may say to the convicted person, “You are a dangerous criminal and I sentence you to 10 years’ imprisonment”. Everyone in the court, except the victim, knows that this is a lie—it is in fact only five years. We must get back to honesty in sentencing, as was advocated by my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne when he was Home Secretary, where convicts serve a whole term, with a maximum of, for example, 10% off for good behaviour or 20% off for exemplary behaviour, however we may define that behaviour, which could of course include successful deradicalisation, rare though that will be.

My opinion on the whole problem is that sentencing is too soft generally. Last week, a Member of the other place got Answers from the Ministry of Justice—I consider that a misnomer if ever there was one—saying that two serial offenders with 390 and 291 previous convictions were spared jail. What planet were these judges on? The courts are failing again and again to lock up serial offenders. Of course, community sentences must be tried for first-time and minor offenders, but habitual, serial and terrorist offenders must receive sufficiently long sentences to protect the public. Too many of our courts are obsessed with rehabilitation and have forgotten that the first rule of sentencing is punishment, then protection of the public and then, ideally, rehabilitation. As my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne said some time ago, “Prison works”, and I look forward to that doctrine being advocated when we get the terrorism sentencing of offenders Bill in due course.

Finally, I admire the enthusiasm of those who try to rehabilitate convicts. Rehabilitation can work for many categories of people, except two: paedophiles or sex offenders and Islamic fundamentalists. You cannot change or rehabilitate a person’s sexual mores. Would anyone dare to suggest that you could turn a heterosexual into a homosexual or vice versa through therapy? Of course not. Those who advocate such so-called cures are rightly condemned. Why then do we persist with the belief that someone who believes that rape is the normal sexual behaviour or that sex with children is okay can be cured by talks or therapy? It cannot be done.

My experience of four years in the Home Office is that many young males get into crime and escalate upwards, from petty stuff to theft and robbery. Many grow out of it by age 25 and others can be rehabilitated with training, a job and housing. These people, however, do not have a deep-seated belief in the fundamental rightness of theft or robbery, nor are they part of an ideology or theocracy where many of their elders praise it as their sacred duty to steal or rob. But Islamic fundamentalist terrorists are in a totally different category. With very few exceptions, they cannot be deradicalised or rehabilitated out of their deeply held beliefs, especially when there are tens of thousands like them around the world with similar beliefs.

Let us not be naive about our ability to rehabilitate terrorists. They are a serious threat and, in the vast majority of cases, will continue to be so. They should serve very long prison sentences. This Bill is a small but necessary step to protect the public, but I look forward to that more overarching legislation with minimum mandatory sentences set down by Parliament for different categories of offence—five, 10, 15 or 40 years, as appropriate. Parliament should set minimum mandatory sentences, with no automatic release for anybody, and the courts should implement them if someone is found guilty. I believe that it is time for Parliament to properly protect the public. If that means a dozen or so new supermax prisons, I understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has a bit of spare cash to splash around at the moment.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Wednesday 8th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is an honour to participate in this gracious Speech debate, because one has been able to hear outstanding contributions from my noble friends Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay and Lord Davies of Gower. I hope that in due course they will like my amendments to scrutinise appointees to the Supreme Court and toughen up prison sentences.

I am able to give a warm welcome to this Queen’s Speech, not just because it will finally get Brexit done, and not just because of the other Bills that I support. No, I am pleased, because it comes from a Government who now command a decent majority, because the people have purged the most rotten and disreputable Parliament—or Commons, to be exact—I have ever seen in my 35 years in this place. Over 300 years, the people of this country have consistently proved that they are supreme, not Parliament, nor the Supreme Court.

Turning now to the gracious Speech, indeterminate sentences for terrorists work and we should never have dropped them. But if we cannot have them back, we must have long sentences where the person is not released automatically halfway through. Indeed, there should be no automatic early release for any convict, but only when earned.

I admire those who try to rehabilitate convicts, but we have to recognise that Islamic fundamentalists are like paedophiles and sex offenders—they cannot be converted or rehabilitated. They are not like lads who get into a bit of petty crime and then move up the scale of criminality and who often by the age of 25 have stopped offending. These people can be rehabilitated by training, getting a job and housing, but Islamic terrorists, like sex offenders, believe in the fundamental rightness of what they are doing and think that it is society that is wrong, not them.

Also with sex offenders, can we please stop the obscenity of the Prison Service sending male convicts to women’s prison wings because they have decided to call themselves women? It is an appalling indictment of the Prison Service that it permits male convicts, in full possession of all male physical attributes, to call themselves women, get moved to female wings and then carry on raping and assaulting. They should all be moved back to male wings until such time as they are fully converted medically to women.

We need honesty in sentencing. It is not right that a judge tells a criminal that he will serve 10 years but everyone in the court, except the victim, knows that it is just five years. That is a cruel con on victims, and it should stop. Thousands more habitual offenders need to be locked up. We have just seen appalling official data, which shows that some offenders had up to 60 convictions for theft before they got a prison sentence. One person had 53 previous convictions for fraud before going to prison. Another had been convicted for 12 previous attacks on police officers before eventually being jailed. There is something fundamentally wrong with our judicial system when judges are not sending criminals like these to prison. What planet are they on? Does no one care about the tens of thousands of victims, because these people are out on the streets committing serious crimes instead of in prison?

That is why we need to look at our constitution and the role of the courts, especially the Supreme Court. Many of us, but probably not on the Benches behind me, or possibly immediately under me, were struck by the perverse judgment of the Supreme Court in the prorogation case that overturned Article 9 of the Bill of Rights that proceedings in Parliament cannot be challenged in any court. The court usurped the role of the Prime Minister when it said, in paragraph 58 of the judgment, that he had to have a good reason for Prorogation.

While I welcome the proposed commission, I can offer my noble friend a much speedier solution. The Government can take up my Private Member’s Bill, which I shall introduce shortly, which proposes a joint Select Committee to interview three candidates proposed by the Judicial Appointments Committee so that Parliament can vote on them and one of them will be on the Supreme Court. I am sure that will get unanimous support from all sides of the House, because it replicates the system in the European Court of Human Rights, which everyone says is a wonderful system.

While it is bad enough to have the Supreme Court rewriting our laws, we now have some idiotic employment tribunal doing the same by adding “ethical veganism” to the protected characteristics in the Equality Act. Will my noble friend assure me that the Government will reverse this crazy judgment at the earliest opportunity? This Parliament set out the protected characteristics in Section 4 of the Equality Act. Any changes must be made by this Parliament, not by a low-level employment tribunal in Norwich. If we do not get rid of this nonsense, we had better recruit an extra 5,000 police officers, since they will be running around investigating vegan hate crimes from those who claim they could not get a Greggs vegan sausage roll in their canteen.

That is not as far-fetched as it sounds, because we have just published statistics showing that the police have investigated 87,000 non-crime hate incidents. They have been wasting their time on that. I want the police running around catching criminals, not soothing hurt feelings. I am looking forward to seeing all these Bills when they come forward and moving a few little amendments to toughen them up a little bit.

Civil Liability Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 3 in this group is in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Marks and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for whose support I am very grateful. Following the two preceding and eloquent speeches, I can be very brief. The point of the amendment is simply to put a definition of whiplash in the Bill. There are rival definitions in various other amendments, and there is now also a government definition contained in the draft SI published yesterday. At first glance, this government definition seems to provide a sound basis for discussion, but it is in the wrong place. It should be in the Bill.

As the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, has already said, our Delegated Powers Committee said clearly in its 22nd report that,

“it would be an inappropriate delegation of power for ‘whiplash injury’, a concept central to a full understanding of the Bill, to be defined in regulations made by Ministers rather than being defined on the face of the Bill”.

At Second Reading, many noble Lords strongly agreed with this conclusion and it is disappointing, now that they have a draft definition, not to see the Government bringing forward an amendment to put this in the Bill.

In his Second Reading reply and in his subsequent letter to us of 30 April, the Minister did not respond substantively to criticisms of using secondary legislation to define whiplash. He merely noted that he did not entirely agree with the DPRRC recommendations and that noble Lords were anxious about the definition of whiplash.

In fact, the Government had already set out elsewhere in correspondence with the Delegated Powers Committee their case for using secondary legislation. The DPRRC helpfully summarised this by saying that, first, whiplash must be defined accurately; secondly, there must be extensive consultation; and thirdly, the definition must remain accurate. The Delegated Powers Committee agreed with these propositions but said,

“it does not follow from them that the definition of ‘whiplash injury’ should be contained in regulations rather than the Bill. Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Ministry of Justice is best placed to make this determination”.

We agree with the conclusions of the Delegated Powers Committee and invite the Minister to explain why the Government have rejected them and are still pursuing the statutory instrument route.

As to the Government’s definition itself, as I have said, it seems to provide a sound basis for discussion but we have not had enough time to make a proper assessment and to canvass the opinion of other stakeholders. We will want to return to this issue on Report.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, as chairman of the Delegated Powers Committee, which published a report on this Bill, I would like to make a few comments. First, I have a purely personal comment. Colleagues may be interested to know that I have made a full recovery from the serious accident I had in the last few days—not that I recall having had a serious accident, but my mobile phone tells me that I did and that I should pursue a claim. I say to my noble friend the Minister that this racket is still happening again and again. I had thought, as a passionate supporter of the Government, that we had nailed this down and stopped the grabby racketeering lawyers pursuing these claims. I hope in future we will be able to put a stop to it.

Going back to the Bill and the amendments, the Delegated Powers Committee looked at this and said we were becoming rather familiar with skeletal Bills. By any standards, this Bill is skeletal. Then we went on to say, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, so very kindly pointed out—the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also paid tribute to our work—that:

“In this Part ‘whiplash injury’ means an injury, or set of injuries, of soft tissue in the neck, back or shoulder”,


and then the description stops to say that the rest of the definition will be,

“specified in regulations made by the Lord Chancellor”.

I am not revealing committee secrets but half of us on the committee thought that the parliamentary draftsman had been distracted—he was half way through writing the definition and stopped and forgot to complete it—because it seemed an elementary thing to complete.

I have not seen last night’s regulations—I shall look at them carefully—but I did a quick Google search last night on the definition of a whiplash injury. Even the NHS website states that:

“Whiplash injury is a type of neck injury caused by sudden movement of the head forwards, backwards or sideways”.


Wikipedia has a much more detailed definition, which I assume from some of the spelling is an American one. There is a fascinating point in it:

“Cadaver studies have shown that as an automobile occupant is hit from behind, the forces from the seat back compress the kyphosis of the thoracic spine, which provides an axial load on the lumbar spine and cervical spine. This forces the cervical spine to deform into an S-shape where the lower cervical spine is forced into a kyphosis while the upper cervical spine maintains its lordosis. As the injury progresses, the whole cervical spine is finally hyper-extended”.


That is not skeletal. It may be a bit too much fat on flesh on the bones but I quote it because I think it important that we have a technical medical definition, by physicians, relating to the distortion and flexing of the spine and not just a list of symptoms. If we merely make a list saying that people feel dizziness, nausea, headaches and so on, we could include everything. After a good night’s dinner one could feel those symptoms and not necessarily have been involved in an accident. If it is simply possible to get some definitions from Google and to look at the excellent definition from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and from my noble friend—who is not a lawyer—these definitions seem to me to be a very good starting point. If the Government’s definition in the regulations is even better, let us go with that. My committee was at an absolute loss to understand why it was not in the Bill. There is no justification for it not being there. Of course, there can be an order-making power for the Minister to tweak or amend it in due course as medical science changes.

We said that there should be extensive consultation. If I go outside the Chamber right now and phone the Royal College of Physicians, within 10 minutes it will give me a pretty good definition. The doctors who deal with this issue are the experts, not the Lord Chancellor or the lawyers in the Ministry of Justice. We must let the doctors come up with the definition and put it in the Bill so that we have complete certainty in the future.

[Lord Ribeiro (Con)]

My Lords, I agree entirely with that last point. I too searched on Google and Wikipedia and saw the rather extensive definition of the diagnosis. That makes the point that none of these claims should be accepted unless a medical opinion has been sought and a report given. It is for the physicians to make the diagnosis. This Bill is very clear about confining the list to motor vehicle accidents rather than all the other ways in which whiplash injuries can occur. In the context of a motor vehicle accident, the very injuries that have been described and the mechanisms and consequences relating to those injuries can be defined only through a proper medical assessment. As explained in the Minister’s letter to us all after Second Reading, it is essential that a medical report is provided before taking this matter further.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 26th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Hailsham]

So there is an overlap, and the question is one of remedies. As my noble friend will know, the remedies under the charter are probably more effective than the remedies under the convention, and that is the point that the noble and learned Lord was making.

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My noble friend seems to be saying that we need to incorporate this into British domestic law to protect ourselves from an extremist, wicked Government, but surely if such a Government were elected, one of the first things they would do would be to scrap this law using their parliamentary majority.

[Viscount Hailsham]

That would have to get through both Houses, which would be at least some check on the process. The point I am making is not quite the point that my noble friend has interpreted. I am saying that, if the charter is to be incorporated into domestic law, it has to be the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, and that is the only basis on which the charter should be incorporated into domestic law.

I accept the noble and learned Lord’s point that a number of aspects of the charter are entirely irrelevant and are hinged on our membership of the Union. Articles 44, 42, 43 and 39 are examples of that. There are also articles in the provision of the charter that many of us would disagree with. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has indicated that she does not like many of them, and I happen to agree with her. I heard my noble friends Lord Howard, Lord Lamont and Lord Blencathra chuntering away, and I agree with them: there are many things in the charter with which I disagree. But I am saying that if it is to be incorporated, it should be incorporated in such a way as to enable this House to scrutinise each and every one of its provisions and amend as appropriate.

I remind the Committee that one reason many noble Lords and others wish to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights is that the judge-made interpretation of the text is incapable of amendment by Parliament. I wish to avoid that criticism being made of the charter if it is to be incorporated. The suggestion in my amendment to make the charter, if incorporated, subject to parliamentary scrutiny and amendment is perhaps the only example in this sorry business of being able to cherry pick, or to have your cake and eat it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Listowel]

I am sorry; it is late. I would like in principle to retain the charter. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is not part of British law, and the charter has been a means of channelling the principles of the UNCRC into British law. We need that. The minimum age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 years old; we can lock up children of 10 years of age. Even in Turkey—with respect to Turkey—it is 16, and 14 around the continent. We are really harsh with our children and we need such protections.

[Lord Blencathra]

My Lords, as the tail-end Charlie in this debate, I too shall be brief. I believe that there is nothing fundamental about this so-called charter. It was a political wish list cobbled together by the EU in the year 2000, incorporated into the Lisbon treaty in 2009, and opposed by every Labour Government Minister. In fact, Gordon Brown would not even go to Lisbon on the first day to sign it. He wanted to distance himself from it. It includes such meaningless waffle as the right to “physical and mental integrity”, and such wonderful new rights as the right to marry and the right to freedom of thought. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, so cleverly exposed, my right to freedom of thought seems to apply only to the 20,000 EU laws. If I am thinking about any other UK laws, the charter does not seem to apply.

Of course, the charter contains the fundamental right to a fair trial. Well, 803 years ago, this noble House put the right to a fair trial in Clause 39 of the Magna Carta. That is the most important fundamental right of all, which we have had for more than 800 years. The Magna Carta was also known as the “Great Charter of Freedoms” and the late Lord Denning called it,

“the greatest constitutional document of all times—the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot”.

That is what our predecessors in this House did—not the King, not a foreign court but this noble House.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Does the noble Lord recall that the Magna Carta was in 1214, and that the first Parliaments began to sit in the 1270s?

[Lord Blencathra]

The Magna Carta was imposed on King John by the Barons, as I understand it—the Barons being Members of this noble House. The House did not exist in that form, but it was imposed by the Lords and the Barons. The House of Commons passed the Bill of Rights 350 years ago and imposed it on the sovereign, guaranteeing our rights to free elections, no taxes without parliamentary approval and free speech. The Bill of Rights passed 350 years ago by this Parliament formed the basis of the United States Bill of Rights and Bills of rights of other countries around the world.

Then just 70 years ago, we used our unique experience to write the European Convention on Human Rights—largely written by British lawyers. We wrote that for countries which had no history of our fundamental freedoms and had suffered the evils and degradations of National Socialism. What I am saying is that the worst indictment I make of the EU is that it seems to have destroyed the belief among parliamentarians, noble Lords and Members of Parliament that we are capable of governing ourselves and writing our own law.

There is nothing of any value in the Charter of Fundamental Rights which is not already covered in UK law or the European convention. If we find some great new right in the future and decide that freedom of thought must become a law, are we incapable in this House, in the other place and as British parliamentarians of drafting that? Are we so enfeebled and incapable that we cannot do it? If the Barons could do it 800 years ago, Members of Parliament 350 years ago and the British Government and parliamentarians did it for Europe 70 years ago, are we so incapable that we cannot do it now?

The people of this country voted to bring back control of our laws because they believed that Parliament was capable of making better laws than the EU. They believed that we are better at deciding on our essential rights than an ECJ judge from Bulgaria who has a law degree in Marxist-Leninist law—I have checked on that, and he has got a degree from Sofia on Marxist-Leninist law.

I happen to agree with the British people. I see the incredible wealth of talent in this House, with noble and learned Lords and Law Lords, and I trust our courts. We do not need nor want this charter. Let us wear once gain the mantle of our predecessors in the Lords and Commons, who gave us every freedom that has been worth fighting and dying for for the last few hundred years. We need the courage of the electorate, who trusted us to make our own laws once again. We should not let them down.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)]

My Lords—

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Lord Blencathra Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 27th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blencathra (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to support the noble Baroness in this very important Bill. I too pay tribute to her persistence in keeping these gross injustices perpetrated against women to the fore. She is the undoubted expert in this area and I urge the Government to implement this Bill as soon as possible. In my opinion, the measures needed to prevent women being treated as chattel go well beyond this modest Bill, but I accept her judgment that the changes she proposes are so reasonable that no fair-minded person, or man or Government, should sensibly oppose them.

I take the view that in commercial transactions, businesses, companies and individuals who are equal can agree any arbitration system that they wish. We know that our English commercial courts are regarded as the finest in the world and are usually the place designated in contracts for dispute resolution. Other contracts may stipulate arbitrators from professional institutes. The key point is that where parties are equals, they can select any system for civil dispute resolution that they like, so long as it is not in breach of a country’s civil or criminal law. I do not pretend for one second to understand the theory of how sharia law should work. But I have read the case studies circulated by the noble Baroness and I am appalled at what is happening in our country today. It is clear that Muslim women are not being treated as equals. I have not heard one word to say that the case studies circulated by the noble Baroness are false or exaggerated, and we can assume that these are not just 30 isolated instances but rather the norm, when male religious leaders ignore national law and decide cases according to their interpretation of religious law.

Here I think we have to judge matters not on what a highly educated, fair imam implementing proper principles from the Koran should in theory do, but on what happens in reality in dozens of sharia courts where less-well-educated and biased judges are imposing their bigoted judgments on women who have no ability to fight back. Where is the justice in all those cases where a woman complains about being repeatedly beaten and the sharia court takes the man’s word for it but asks the woman to produce two witnesses? Where is the justice when a judge laughs at a woman and says, “If he beats you, why did you marry him in the first place?”, or tells a woman that he does not want to hear her side of the story, only the man’s? Where is the justice in that wicked pronouncement that, “the husband was entitled to beat her because she was disobedient”?

The problem we have in this country, and possibly in our parliamentary bubble, is that we respect religious systems of marriage and divorce. Of course people should have the right to go through a form of religious divorce, if they want to. However, we may have made the mistake of assuming that all religious divorces treat women as fairly as they are treated in a UK civil divorce, and that is simply not the case. Any UK divorce judge who behaved in the way or said the things that some sharia judges have would be removed within 24 hours, never allowed into a courtroom again and possibly prosecuted for hate speech—and rightly so. We must remove the blinkers from our eyes that sharia divorces are equal to UK civil divorces. They are not, and women are being ruthlessly discriminated against.

This Bill is modest and seeks to tackle some of the injustices. However, I hope that the Government review of sharia law will go much further. I hope we will see a recommendation that no sharia religious divorces will be valid unless, in every case, a civil court also pronounces on it. That is not part of this Bill, but it is a very serious problem that will have to be addressed sooner rather than later.

Time does not permit me, so I have deleted from my speech all the paragraphs on police failure to act on the actions of Muslim women. Largely, that is because the police do not like to get involved in domestic disputes. Unfortunately, because of that, Muslim women are suffering a great injustice.

I conclude, if I may, by making a practical suggestion to your Lordships. I suspect that after the next Loyal Address, the House of Commons will have one major Bill with which to deal—the so-called great repeal Bill. This House may have very little to do and we may have time on our hands. I suggest to all parties and all groups that we gang up and present the Leader with a suggestion: that this Bill, or one very like it, should be government legislation, starting in this House after the next Loyal Address, when your Lordships will have ample time to get it perfectly correct. I believe that my noble friend’s Bill is absolutely meritorious in its own right and deserves to succeed. The Government should implement it as soon as possible or, if not, take it over as government legislation. Let us get it through this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Keen of Elie]

I am perfectly prepared, as I represent the Government at the Dispatch Box, to take forward further discussions on this matter. Those discussions could most constructively be held once we have the sharia review available and once we have our response to the Casey report in the spring. The noble Lord might want to contemplate further discussion in that context. We are not seeking to delay; we are seeking to get this right.

We have not left the matter there, either. I do not wish to detract from the immediate focus of today’s debate, but there are other areas in which we are taking matters forward. Many noble Lords have spoken on the issues of understanding, of education and of the appreciation of rights which underpin many of the difficulties that Muslim women face in the context of sharia councils. We are now spending substantial amounts each year on assisting people to integrate into our society, particularly by arranging for the teaching of English. That is but one step, I appreciate—but it is a step in the right direction.

Turning again to the issue of unregistered religious marriage that underlies much of the recourse that women have to sharia councils, I note that there is no consensus on the issue—or, indeed, on sharia councils themselves—even among Muslim women’s groups. Several divergent suggestions have been put forward on the matter of marriage. One, for example, suggests regarding Islamic marriages as void, so that parties can seek financial remedies. Another suggests requiring religious ceremonies to be preceded by a civil ceremony, as in some other jurisdictions. The Casey report emphasised the importance of registration of marriage. All these issues will have to be considered.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, moved an amendment a few months ago in Committee on the Policing and Crime Bill. It required celebrants of religious marriages to comply with marriage law and to register the marriage, as well as introducing a criminal offence of failing to meet the requirements. However, as my noble friend Lady Chisholm said in the debate, it is unclear how many unregistered marriages would continue. Marriage is not a straightforward area of law, as these divergent suggestions show, and particular difficulties arise when women are unaware that their marriage has no legal effect.

My noble friend indicated that the Government will consider unregistered religious marriages in light of the sharia review which is expected to report this year. That remains the case. It is clear from Dame Louise Casey’s report that integration, education and understanding are significant in how we address the issues we have been debating today—many noble Lords acknowledged that. We await the Government’s response to the report so that we can take this matter forward.

I turn to particular points made by noble Lords in the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, referred to the continuing fight for women’s equality. I do not intend to engage in a fight with the noble and doughty Baroness, but I see women’s equality—indeed, all aspects of equality—as more than just a goal: it is a journey. As any wise traveller knows, when you are on a journey you constantly and regularly check your progress, your destination and the obstacles in your way. The spikier parts of inequality have been addressed, but the issue has not been resolved, and it will be a continuing journey.

On the question of the independent review, I indicated that that will report this year. As for the Law Commission, we are considering its report in conjunction with that of Dame Louise Casey. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, among many noble Lords, referred to the subtle pressures that are brought to bear on women in the present context and the need to identify the reality of consent. Again, that goes back to the theme of education and understanding, rather than sharp-end legislation. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey of Clifton, talked about the need for sharia courts to comply with civil law. I do not even recognise the concept of a sharia court, but I take him to refer to sharia councils—and, yes, they are bound by the rule of law, and the law is there to correct abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, assured us that he agreed with himself—I am sure we all take comfort from that. He talked about the judiciary making women aware of what their rights are. Yes, that is important, but it should be more than just the judiciary: we should all be making an effort, whether it be central government, local government, social services or police forces, to make women aware of their true rights and what their families’ true obligations amount to.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, whom I was pleased to hear from behind me—if perhaps a little too far to the right—also talked about the need to intervene in circumstances where there is an abuse of alternative dispute resolution. Such alternative dispute resolution, as many noble Lords said, is to be welcomed, but it must operate within the law, and we must make that clear.

A question was raised about the extent, if any, of central government funding to sharia courts. Again, I say that I do not recognise the existence of sharia courts. I am not aware of UK government funding to sharia councils. It is possible that there is funding for particular projects carried out by such councils. Although I do not have such details to hand, I undertake to write to my noble friend Lord Bridgeman to confirm such details as we have of any alleged UK funding for sharia councils.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spoke of all those rights that we enjoy, or that we are at least entitled to enjoy, within the United Kingdom. But those rights also include the right to religious freedom. That is why it is so important to ensure that we do not upset a delicate balance between rights and obligations. That is why the Government will look at this matter with great care in light of the sharia review, the Casey report and the recommendations of the Law Commission.

[Lord Blencathra]

I think my noble and learned friend has acknowledged that the cases quoted by all noble Lords who have spoken are real and genuine—there is grave injustice there—but he has shot down every suggestion in the noble Baroness’s Bill to deal with them—and he has just said that the Government will look “with great care” following the sharia review. I hope your Lordships will forgive me for being cynical, but that sounds like kicking this into the long grass again. Looking at it “with great care” sounds like rather slow motion. If the sharia review suggests there is a problem, can we have a guarantee that there will be government legislation sooner rather than later?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The noble Lord will appreciate that, even at the Dispatch Box, I cannot give guarantees of government legislation.