Joint Enterprise: Young Black Men

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Thursday 19th October 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, it is relevant to emphasise that the Supreme Court in that case said that only if a substantial injustice could be established would the change in the law be relevant to any future appeal. Of course, I am very happy to meet anyone in the category the noble Baroness refers to.

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, established the Race Disparity Unit precisely to identify data and figures that give rise to concern and, on the basis of that concern, to take action. This is precisely such a case. It is to her establishment of the audit that we owe the data. Will the Minister therefore undertake to ensure that there is an understanding in the department that it is not only inflammatory language that causes problems but inaction? Can we have some action on this and on the recommendations of the Lammy report, which still have not been implemented?

[Lord Bellamy (Con)]

My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, most of the recommendations in the Lammy report have been taken well to heart by all concerned. We are discussing here charging decisions, which are a matter for the CPS. As I have explained, the CPS is taking this very seriously, with the University of Leeds advisory groups. On the pilot concerned, there are two aspects of scrutiny. There is a scrutiny panel, which met quite recently and will meet again in February. All these actions are being taken as part of the wider attempt to get to the bottom of why we have such a high proportion of persons from ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng (Lab)]

My Lords, having heard the moving contributions of colleagues yesterday—and I think particularly of the contribution of the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—my wife Janet and I very much wanted to go down to Buckingham Palace and, like so many others throughout our land, pay a floral tribute to Her late Majesty. The mood and what was said and the make-up of the crowd outside Buckingham Palace said everything that ever needs to be said about Her late Majesty.

There was a sense of loss and emptiness, and of people somehow feeling that something that was stable, certain and ever-present in their lives was no longer there—something that was of value to them. Then there was also a sense of gratitude for a life well-lived, one of service and dedication to duty, and there was a sense of gratitude to her and to her family, for whom we must feel particularly at this time, in their personal loss. We have lost a sovereign; they have lost a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. But there was also a sense of gratitude for the joyfulness of her reign and for the grace and beauty that she always brought to her duty. As for the make-up of the crowd, it was international—the embodiment of so many nations. I reckon that all the continents of the world were present there, with everyone feeling that she belonged to them. Yes, she was our Queen, but she was actually, genuinely, the Queen of the world.

I thought particularly, in terms of my own life, of Queen and Commonwealth. I was brought up in the Commonwealth. In the course of her long reign, the Queen made two visits to Ghana, in 1961 and 1999. In 1961, I was a little boy in the dust waving a flag on the side of the road; in 1999, I was one of her Ministers. But it is really the 1961 visit to Ghana about which I just want to say a few words. It was a problematic visit in many ways. There were many, including those on all sides in this House, who said that she should not go, that her life would be in danger and that Ghana was not a place that she should go to or be in. She went regardless. She went because the Commonwealth mattered to her, Ghana mattered to her and Britain’s place in the world mattered to her. She knew that not going would be seen as a snub, would undermine the Commonwealth and would be contrary to Britain’s interest.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, patronage has oiled the wheels of the Palace of Westminster since time immemorial, and we should not inveigh too much against it, particularly those of us who have been its beneficiaries—and quite a few on all sides of the House have been. Nevertheless, these amendments are important, because they are not against patronage per se—it has its place—but they seek proportion; that is all. They seek balance in order to prevent the abuse of patronage, which we have to be vigilant in guarding against.

Those of us who take our friends and former constituents around these august halls always stop at perhaps the most important picture in the Palace of Westminster—that of Charles I being gainsaid by the then Speaker when he came to arrest the five Members. It is a wonderful picture, not least because it embodies the principle to which traditionally we have adhered ever since those times: at the end of the day, what matters above all in this place is the capacity of the Back-Bencher to make a difference and to hold the Executive to account.

We live in different times from those of Mr Speaker Lenthall, the five Members and Charles I. None of us will lose our heads as a result of how we vote. None of us will be put in the same peril as Members were in those days. Nevertheless, the exercise of the power of patronage and the threat of the withdrawal of patronage—and I am cognisant of where I stand in relation to those who sit behind me—is a real power in the hands of the Executive. We seek with these amendments to make sure that that power is exercised proportionately. As my noble friends have said, that is an important constitutional point, and this House has given considerable attention in recent weeks to the importance of upholding our constitution and its traditions. The Palace of Westminster has sent more constitutions to more countries than any other Parliament in the world. That is something of which the House should be proud, because in the main the export of constitutional democracy has been to the advantage of our world. However, I cannot think of a single instance—perhaps the Minister will help me on this—when this House has sent a constitution to a former colony or dominion and not required that at least two-thirds of those elected to power under that constitution have supported it before it comes into effect. Yet I fear, on this as on many other issues, that the strictures of the Constitution Committee have been cast to one side, the previously expressed opinions of the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister on the validity of the substance of the amendment have been cast to one side, and we are about to see something of profound constitutional significance railroaded through this House. That must be a matter of regret and I hope that noble Lords on all sides of the House will think twice before they fail to support the amendments.

Legal Aid and Civil Costs Reform

Lord Boateng Excerpts

Monday 15th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

My noble friend’s question points to many of the problems that we face. If legal aid is automatically given in many of the areas that we are removing from scope, it becomes almost a first stop. We are actively trying to promote a different, cheaper and quicker mechanism for settling disputes. A dispute between someone suffering from autism and the local social services department almost automatically ends up as a battle between lawyers in court. We have got something wrong somewhere. We have taken tough decisions; we have taken people out of scope; and we shall look at different ways of getting advice. We propose that legal aid be retained for community care cases and for judicial review in community care cases. As I said before, we are not hiding the fact that this is a removal of legal aid from areas and cases that have previously been covered. We seek to encourage the alternative resolution of disputes, partly because, as the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, successive Governments have found that the creep of legal aid makes it very difficult to keep overall control of it.

[Lord Boateng]

My Lords, no one would seriously suggest that we should not reform the legal aid and civil costs regime. However, citizens advice bureaux and the law centre movement have long played a distinguished part all over our country in providing access, not just for the most vulnerable but for the middle classes, to the law and to legal advice. It is cost effective and involves paid volunteers, lawyers, mediators and experts from a whole variety of sources who are needed to ensure that people get justice. The Minister’s right honourable friend has been silent in his Statement about the role of citizens advice bureaux and the law centre movement. Can he give some words of encouragement and support for the contribution that they currently make? Can he indicate whether they will have an opportunity to play an enhanced role in the future and perhaps do something about the crisis in funding that CAB centres face up and down the country, even as we speak?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, I can give some limited encouragement. It is true that the law centre movement and other such bodies, which rely on certain cases of legal aid, will have difficulties with this Statement. I also think that there are likely to be difficulties for the CABs which, as the noble Lord indicates, face the problem of the impact of cuts in local authority funding and the likely loss of legal-aid work in the legal advice that they cover. My right honourable friend the Lord Chancellor is fully seized of these problems and is very willing, during the period of consultation, to talk to those bodies and to explore alternative assistance and funding. The noble Lord points to the real impact made by the decisions that we have taken.