Brexit Negotiations

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Faulks

Monday 11th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour Benches and I suggest that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours.

Sexual Offences: False Accusations

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Faulks

Thursday 10th March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to review the law concerning those making false accusations in relation to sexual offences.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, there are no plans to review the law in this area. It is a very serious matter to make a false allegation relating to a sexual offence and there are strong sanctions against those who do.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, should we not now consider the reform of the law which allows someone like this man, Nick, who, hiding behind a wall of anonymity, makes allegations of a sexual nature against reputable public figures such as Lord Bramall, the late Lord Brittan and the late Mr Edward Heath, the former Prime Minister, and others, with not a shred of forensic or corroborative evidence whatever? It is simply unjust. Is it not now time that the whole issue of anonymity for the accused, and in particular the defence of the falsely accused, was put back on the national agenda and considered here in Parliament?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will accept that this is a very delicate issue. Parliament in 1976 decided that there should be anonymity both for complainant and for defendant. Parliament then abolished that in 1988. In 2010, the coalition Government considered the matter and decided, in balancing the various public interests, not to take further action. The noble Lord refers to a well-known case, and of course legitimate criticisms can be made about the handling of that matter, although we must allow the police some operational freedom. But I can say that Sir Richard Henriques, a retired High Court judge, is looking into the matter, an IPCC complaint has been made, and in due course the Government will respond to any recommendations or publications on that matter. But one must remember how difficult it is to make these allegations, and while I entirely accept what he says about those people in high places, of course no one is above the law.

Ministerial Code

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Faulks

Tuesday 3rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

Justice Scalia is an originalist on the American Supreme Court and has a particular view of America’s position. Our position is that all Ministers are obliged to abide by the law, including, in so far as it is ascertainable, international law in this country.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Why can the Government not transfer responsibility for carrying out investigations into the conduct of Ministers to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in the House of Commons and the House of Lords Commissioner for Standards in the case of Lords Ministers? Surely that would restore some confidence in the system, which has been discredited by recent cases.

[Lord Faulks]

The Ministerial Code sets out clearly what the Prime Minister expects of his Ministers. If they depart from that code, it is evident that they have departed from it and there are modes of dealing with that. I take the noble Lord’s suggestion, but at the moment the situation seems to be satisfactorily dealt with.

Housing: Commonhold

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Faulks

Monday 10th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Baroness is no doubt right, although I cannot confirm that there is nothing in that Bill that adds to the rights of potential commonholders. The position is that, although it has been available, it simply has not been taken up by professionals who might be considered to be aware of it—solicitors or surveyors. It has not been the subject of articles in journals. There simply does not seem to be genuine enthusiasm for it. That is regrettable, but it is a fact and the Government do not believe that people should be forced to go into these arrangements if they do not want to.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

Having listened to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Best, will the Minister join me in suggesting to him that he applies to the Liaison Committee for an ad hoc committee to consider the matter?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is very experienced in parliamentary matters. No doubt that is a matter for the noble Lord, Lord Best, and he will have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggested.

Justice: Non-custodial Sentences

Debate between Lord Campbell-Savours and Lord Faulks

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of non-custodial sentences on the safety of the public.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

My Lords, those who commit serious and dangerous offences should expect to receive long custodial sentences and this Government have ensured that tough sentences are available. Less serious offenders can be effectively and safely punished in the community. However, we have amended the law so that sentences served in the community combine punishment with effective rehabilitation. Since 2010, those who break the law are more likely to go to prison, and to go to prison for longer.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

I find that very hard to believe. How can the Government claim to be tough on crime when a Ministry of Justice Answer in the other place revealed that in 2012, of 16,000 criminals convicted of rape, sexual assault, manslaughter, grievous bodily harm and robbery, all crimes characterised by violence, according to the government figures 9,600 of them—that is, 60%—walked free without even a custodial sentence and sometimes without even a tag, while nearly 40% of those convicted actually served less than 24 months in prison? These are serious crimes. How can people feel safe in their home or on the streets of Britain in the light of these statistics?