Social Cohesion and Community during Periods of Change

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Friday 6th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I remind the House that I speak as a non-affiliated Member of your Lordships’ House.

It is a great pleasure to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharma, on his maiden speech. I know Reading well; indeed, I appeared at the Hexagon many years ago and, thankfully, the population of Reading has forgotten that. We will gain much from his contribution and his wisdom.

I congratulate my friend, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York, on opening this debate. Perhaps it is more worrying for him than for me that, as an atheist, I could probably have delivered 95% of his speech without flinching. I agree with everything he said.

We face very dangerous times. Politics has failed, as have politicians and institutions of state, when we choose power not to proceed positively but to punish and misrepresent. We then indulge in the politics of fear and hate to scapegoat and blame others. I believe we are better than that—we are all indeed better than that—but we are on the brink of failure, and I fear what may come. As the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York reminded us, the loss of trust takes everything in its wake.

Communities both at home and abroad are facing deep uncertainty, and we need to be radical in tackling the roots of disengagement, disempowerment and disfranchisement—the feeling of being lost, often, when you are still living in the place where you were born and where you feel you once belonged. That sense of not belonging, and loss of identity, is what others feel when they have no option but to abandon their roots, homes, families and language and seek a future elsewhere —migrants. One way or another, we have all been migrants and could so easily be again: in a mass of people who are wilfully misrepresented, tragically defamed and often presented as a threat by politicians and the media in order to gain or retain power over others.

We need to recognise at home and abroad that the problems that happen elsewhere are as important as if they are happening to us. Our communities need equality at their heart, along with respect and dignity, abiding by the same laws, with the same rights and protections that the law affords us. We must recognise that education nurtures and sustains throughout life, giving opportunities for all to change direction, and that information and education are at the centre of individual empowerment and the raising of aspirations.

We also need to recognise our historic obligations, that there is a moral imperative—and if that is not good enough, an economic imperative—in putting right the historical wrongs of our empire. We need to turn our backs on racism, fear and hatred and become the enemy of fear, hatred and racism, standing in the shoes of others, remembering that the denial of the rights of one person or group, especially the most defamed or misrepresented, is ultimately the denial of our own rights.

As politicians, we need to do more—more explaining but, above all, more listening. We need to call out what is going on in the world: to call out what is going on in Gaza, and not be accused of anti-Semitism when we criticise the Israeli Government for failing to abide by international legal obligations.

I put to your Lordships the voice of Sister Christine Frost, who has worked for 56 years in the East End of London. She says: “Community cohesion is one of the most valuable and priceless principles, which I believe politicians ignore at their peril. It enables communities to tackle racism before it can take root, so that we can re-own our common, rich humanity”. She continues: “Why, I ask my myself, do politicians sow so much discord and division? Because so few have walked in our shoes, experienced downright neglect, had to choose between heating and eating, know the cost of renting from greedy landlords or are forced to work two or three jobs, just to get by”.

I continue with her words: “Here in the East End of London, the disconnect between the rich and powerful and the voiceless and powerless can be very stark. It’s in our face. For us, community cohesion is the only glue holding us together. Our politicians could and should be using their authority—which we the voters have entrusted them with—to heal the evident disconnect and inequality of opportunity, health and care provisions, education and housing. Do you even know how unequal our society has become? Please don’t promote community cohesion as a cover-up; get down to the underlying roots and help us make this something real and lasting”.

Yesterday, reflecting on another woman who helped change the world, we gathered in Brussels to remember the Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead, who died just over a year ago. She did something: she challenged power and the institutions and religions that hold people back and deny women and minorities their rights while simultaneously talking about the good of scripture. She challenged her own Government and other Governments, her own party and other parties, to do the right thing. She stood against tyrants during her time in the European Parliament and as chair of the Afro-Caribbean and Pacific joint parliamentary assembly. Whether the obstruction, hatred or abuse was coming from a developed or a developing country, she called it out. She spoke truth to power, particularly when it did not want to be heard.

She changed the world for the better by facing down the criticism and getting on with the work, knowing that inequality is the enemy of us all, particularly those who have no voice. We gathered in Brussels to celebrate her legacy, and her work goes on. She empowered others. Arguably, that is all that we as politicians need to do: empower the next generation for all that needs to be done, the challenges we have to face and the battles that can be won only on a multigenerational basis. Then, and only then, will we truly address the problems and empower others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Archbishop of York]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has spoken today for the breadth of perspectives and experiences that we have received. I also thank again those who have made a debate happen on a Friday.

I have a few assurances to make. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, described himself, I think, as an ex-devout Catholic. My dear friend the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, was slightly concerned that he agreed with me so much. It just shows how close he is to the Kingdom of God.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

That is worrying.

[The Archbishop of York]

I remind the House, as I think I have said before, that I speak myself as a lapsed atheist, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that, because of that, I consider myself to be a sinner in need of grace. I do not pretend to be anything other and all sinners are welcome, whatever their political party. We stand as equals before God. I know that is how it feels to him, but please let him not think that. Whoever we are, we are welcome in the House of God, and all these other things, including our robes, do not matter.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, and I assure him that, although I did not specifically speak of condemning violence, I absolutely condemn all violence, as do all of us on these Benches, and support the rule of law. I hope that was implicit in what I was saying. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Bellingham, that the Church of England has acted, since the Housing Matters report, to set up a housing association and a housing development agency and I will ask colleagues to write to him with details of how that piece of work, which the Bishop of Chelmsford is leading on, is developing.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Singh, as ever, for his moving words. They showed the deep connection between peoples of faith. I am reminded that Jesus nearly always made the hero of some of his most famous stories someone of another faith—we will come to the Good Samaritan in a moment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, that we are inherently social. That is a really important starting point that immediately binds us together, one with another.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that the Church of England is the local church. What matters is the Church on the ground, serving our communities day in, day out, which is also why I have to pay tribute to all volunteers, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, including church volunteers. I for one am glad that church volunteers now do safeguarding training, because it makes the Church a safer place. I did it myself two weeks ago: I regularly do safeguarding training and it is a good development in the life of the Church.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mann, that we need to pay attention to power: it is an important thing for all of us in positions of responsibility. The Church of England needs to be a humbler Church. I recognise that I stand here knowing that our Church has been humbled by these failings and we are determined to learn from them. I therefore thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her probing questions, which she could not ask us directly, but I heard them and I want her to know that. I also want her to know that there are many bishops asking these probing questions, not just one bishop. Proposals that will be coming to the General Synod of the Church of England in February are our response to the IICSA proposals and other reports, which we have been and are working on, towards independence.

I thank the Minister for his positive responses to the points that have been raised in this debate and for his undefended approach, which is something that we all need on these issues, where we know we all have so much to do and where we can all so easily fall short.

I affirm and support the Church Commissioners for the work they are doing, which is not about trying to go back 200 years but about building a better future. If we face up to our mistakes in the past, be it mistakes in safeguarding or, in that case, the horrors and evils of slavery, and build a better future then we all benefit because we build a better and more just society.

I say to my dear friend, the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, that it sounds like we need another cup of tea, brother. We do that from time to time; it is a bit battering but, as I have been saying to people recently when they ask, “How are you, Archbishop?”, I am battered but not yet fried. Still, we are humbled, and there are many things that he has put his finger on that the Church of England needs to address. Let us have another cup of tea, because there is so much investment going on in the Church of England on the ground and we need to address that. However, it was not the Church that closed churches in the pandemic; that was the Prime Minister.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, for what he said about intergenerational community. I remind him and the House that the faith community is probably the only place left in our society where generations meet.

Lastly, I have to rise to the bait that the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, dangled before me early on about the good Samaritan. He asked himself a different version of the very question that the lawyer asked Jesus, “Who is my neighbour?”, though the noble Lord put it like this: “Is there a hierarchy of obligations?” I dare to suggest that he got his answer from his own Benches, not least from the powerful, important and moving speech by the noble Lord, Lord Sharma. We are in a climate emergency, and that teaches us that our well-being and survival are tied up with that of our neighbours across the whole world.

The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, made a moving speech—these were not her words, but they are what I heard—about building coalitions of good will across difference, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, that a lot of good work is going on at the local level with people of different faiths working together. Andy Burnham has initiated such work in Greater Manchester and I am involved in trying to get that started in York and North Yorkshire, while my right reverend friend the Bishop of Bristol spoke about the One City initiative in Bristol. All these things are based on the idea that we belong to one another.

In fact, as a Christian—sorry to go all theological, but the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, did ask—we believe that God is a community of persons. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and we who are made in the image of God are at our best when we build communities that give and receive a reciprocity of the love that we see in God and which we try to mirror here on earth.

So is there a hierarchy of obligations? When Jesus was asked, “Who is my neighbour?”, he did not actually answer that question. He asked another one—“Who is neighbour to you?”—and told a story, one that we all love because it makes fun of people in power. He said there was a priest and there was a lawyer, but they did not do what common decency and the law require. They failed. As I say, I speak here as someone who knows our Church has failed.

So, who will be the hero of the story? The people listening, who know this story, think it will make fun of the lawyer and the priest; the hero will be the ordinary man in the street—the good Jew. But Jesus turns it on its head. The hero is not who you expect it to be. The hero is the stranger. The hero is the foreigner. The hero is the heretic. Worse than that, the hero is also wealthy, just to rub salt into the wounds.

That is the person who ministers to you. So, is there a hierarchy of obligations? I would put it differently. There is the human community, of which I am a part. I have obligations and responsibilities to my neighbour, whoever they are, and I want to build a society—this, for me, is a fundamentally spiritual and Christian point—where I can love my neighbour and my neighbour can love and serve me. I welcome all in trying to build such a society.

I will finish with an illustration of the power of the good Samaritan, who is a neighbour to you when you are in the ditch. Let us imagine Donald Trump in a ditch, and that it is an illegal Mexican refugee who gives him mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. That is the power of the story, and that is the challenge before us about loving and serving each other. I welcome the conversation and the debate. I will be praying that we can rise to that challenge and build a more socially cohesive world.

Conversion Therapy Prohibition (Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity) Bill [HL]

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Friday 9th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to what I have prepared, I have to say that it is a real privilege to be in the Chamber today to listen to the brave speech by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, which was searing in its honesty, and, equally, to the evidence-based approach by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I thank those who have sent me their briefings, particularly the BMA, and Professor Paul Johnson of the University of Leeds for his advice and support.

It is an honour to offer my wholehearted support to the chief aim of the Bill, which is to prohibit sexual orientation and gender identity conversion therapy. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, for her tireless work and her introduction in bringing the Bill forward.

It is LGBT History Month. In that regard, I remind all noble Lords that what we now call conversion therapy is not a new phenomenon but something that has a very long history. As the Bill makes clear, conversion therapies are practices aimed at individuals or groups which, based on assumptions about the value—I emphasise “value”—of different sexual orientations or gender identities, attempts to

“change … or … suppress a person’s … sexual orientation or gender identity”.

As I said, such practices sadly have a long history and have taken many different forms and contexts, including barbaric interventions using chemicals, electric shocks and brain surgeries. We tend to think that those dark, brutal days are long behind us. Many of the torturous practices deployed in pursuit of converting LGBT+ people are indeed historical relics, but what is not long behind us and still very much part of our society—as sadly witnessed in the Chamber this morning—is the belief fervently held by many that some sexual orientations and gender identities are less valuable and less desired than others. It is that enduring belief that underpins today’s manifestations of conversion practices.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I will not take that intervention.

[Lord Harlech (Con)]

My Lords, I think the convention of the House is for noble Lords to give way when there is an intervention.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I say to the Government Whip that I have an advisory speaking time of five minutes. If he allows me the two minutes over that he has given to others, I will take the intervention.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord makes a most serious accusation that there are people who have spoken today who do not honour LGBT people as full members of society, worthy of respect at all times. I have no evidence of that in my conversations with anybody who has spoken today or, indeed, those who are going to speak. I know that this is not a universal society but, within this House, we should be accorded the assumption that we are with the noble Lord and that his great struggles have been rewarded in people’s attitudes.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

I note that the noble Lord is speaking after me and perhaps could have used his time to make those points.

As if the point has been made for me, there is an enduring belief that underpins today’s manifestations of conversion practices that hide out in the open and operate under the seemingly positive terms of “therapy” and “other options”, while utilising ideas of rights and freedoms to continue to harm LGBT+ people. Those operating such practices may be being emboldened in a context where there is growth in hatred against LGBT+ people.

Just two years ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe condemned with particular force the extensive and often virulent attacks on the rights of LGBTI people, sadly singling out the United Kingdom for special mention. The parliamentary assembly recognised that there is rising hatred throughout Europe and deplored the

“stagnation and even backsliding in progress towards LGBTI equality”.

Stagnation and backsliding on prohibiting conversion therapies is unacceptable and disgraceful. The Bill reminds us of the need to tackle these practices now, as so many other countries have rightly done. I therefore support the Bill as a further step towards recognising and protecting the fundamental rights of all LGBT+ people, which are not in conflict with the rights of anyone else. LGBT+ people pose no threat to themselves or others, and trans people do not pose a threat to themselves or others. The blatant misrepresentation and dehumanisation of trans people in particular must be ended.

I end with this quote: “We need to be kind to trans people. We need to be understanding of their experiences. We need to be supportive of their choices. And we need to be clear that they are welcome in our society, just as everyone else is”. This was said by Theresa May, then Prime Minister, in 2018, addressing the Conservative Party conference. Since then, matters have got worse. In the words of Brianna Ghey’s father, “the dehumanisation must stop”. If one person suffers conversion therapy, that is one person too many. Conversion therapy must end.

Infected Blood Inquiry: Government Response

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Tuesday 19th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I thank my noble friend Lord Lancaster for his comments. Of course, many people who had constituencies had similar experiences to him, including Mr Glen himself. The interim compensation scheme that we set in train last October paid out £400 million in interim compensation to a combination of infected people and their bereaved partners if they were registered on the scheme. That gives some understanding of the way we look at this—or at least how we did then —but, obviously, the report is much more wide ranging. We were able to deliver payments quickly then because of the clear parameters of eligibility. As my noble friend suggests, the final report will no doubt be much broader, which is one of the reasons why we have to do so much more work on the complexities involved.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement repeated by the Minister and pay tribute to the campaigners who have campaigned for nearly four decades. There is an urgency to this issue: as we heard, there is a death every four days, and the families and the victims need an explanation. Can the Minister explain why it has taken Governments so long to accept the moral case for compensation?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

That is a question for many previous Governments. I can speculate, as can the noble Lord, but this Government have accepted the moral case. That has implications, and we have made interim payments. This is not a difficult matter; I always go back to the need to give the victims the justice they deserve and our intention to do that.

Strike Action

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, looking at my notes, I see that it is the turn of the Conservative Benches.

Universal Credit

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 16th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Hollis on this debate and for opening it so eloquently but, I have to say, I take no pleasure in taking part in it. I wish it was a debate that we did not have to have. I wish that universal credit was working and that it was indeed fit for purpose.

It helps absolutely no one to say that universal credit is being politicised. This is not about party politics; it is about people who are suffering, who are in need and in debt and who need intervention. These people do not have a voice. I wish that I could agree with the right reverend Prelate that the Minister should listen to the claimants, but the claimants are not being heard. The Minister smiles, somewhat surprisingly, when I say that, but if they were being heard, we would not be having this debate now.

The problems are not imagined. It is almost like a parallel universe where the Government reside in one country and the rest of us reside in another. Is what we have heard today imagined? No, it is not, but do not take my word for it—let me use the words of others. I raised the negative consequences of universal credit in a debate in your Lordships’ House on housing and affordability. I was surprised by the range of concerns that I received from organisations prior to this debate: Crisis, the NUS, the LGA, Scope, disability groups and many others including, yesterday, the Residential Landlords Association, which says that it is,

“concerned about the impact that Universal Credit is having on private sector tenants …Such a situation is not sustainable for either tenants or landlords. Many landlords are becoming concerned about renting to tenants on Universal Credit as a result”.

It calls for the waiting times to apply for and receive universal credit to be addressed swiftly and asks that,

“claimants … be trusted to make the right decisions for themselves by giving them the ability to choose, where they want to, to have the housing element of UC paid directly to the landlord”.

Crisis is calling for the Government to provide £31 million for help-to-rent projects, which will help to improve the functionality of universal credit. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation says that:

“Universal Credit … has the potential to dramatically improve the welfare system”,


but then goes on to say that it is calling for three priority actions:

“Reduce the 6-week wait at the beginning of a Universal Credit claim by getting rid of 7 waiting days and giving claimants choice over payment frequency. Enable people to keep more of what they earn under Universal Credit by restoring … Work Allowances. Lift the freeze on working age benefits so incomes keep up with prices”.


Is that imagined? No, it is not. What about Centrepoint, Homeless Link, Shelter and St Mungo’s? They say:

“As four leading homelessness and housing charities, we support the principles behind Universal Credit. Yet we are concerned that Universal Credit in its current form is not working for people who have experienced, or are at risk of, homelessness”.


Yes, it is painful to listen to and perhaps in my delivery it is even more painful for the Minister to hear, but I make no excuses for describing the despair that people are facing day in, day out. It may come as a surprise to some Members that people who are deep in debt or homeless do not sit down and worry about what they read in Hansard. It is a million miles away from the lives they have to lead.

These homelessness charities recommend that:

“A money management package, including exemption from the seven day waiting period, should be developed for individuals identified as homeless or at risk of homelessness at the beginning of a Universal Credit claim”.


Their second recommendation is that:

“All individuals identified as homeless should be granted Alternative Payment Arrangements … as standard, from the beginning of their claim”.


I turn to the casework of my constituency MP, Jim Fitzpatrick—I do not receive such casework. A person was referred for help by the carers’ centre but no assistance was given. He returned to the carers’ centre, which claimed for him, but he will require long-term support to manage his claim. Another person, with poor literacy and no computer, had three separate visits but lacked support and help. For another working claimant, the payments were varied and wrong for three months before being corrected. One claimant had mental health problems that were not being taken into account by the work coach. And there are many others. These are the cases that we know of—what of the others who have slipped through the net, have faced eviction and are now homeless on the streets and dispossessed?

It takes courage and leadership to change one’s mind. I urge the Government to show such courage and leadership.

Housing: Availability and Affordability

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 12th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow that contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkham. I was born into a council flat. Just as he found, the joy of an inside toilet and bath, which was utilised once a week—the bath, that is—was an incredible luxury. My first home was a housing association flat. Those same options would not be available to people today. That is why I believe the policy has failed to deliver. Figures in report after report confirm this. As other noble Lords have said, the people sleeping in shelters, on our streets, in our parks and open spaces and on our sofas attest to the failure of housing policy and the so-called affordability of social housing.

Public housing policy, public housebuilding, has been castrated, and no amount of trying to pretend otherwise will change that fact. It is not about Governments expressing concern; if only it were. It is about making homes available for people to live in. However, I believe there is no political will in government to do the right thing, which is to build more public, affordable social housing. If central government will not build then it must allow councils, housing associations and others to borrow the money to do so—if necessary, to borrow against current housing stock, as has been referred to by other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh, whom I congratulate on initiating this debate. Such investment is called the regeneration of our towns, cities and neighbourhoods and investment in the greatest thing that we have in this country: our people and their future.

Yes, I am angry, but the anger I feel is nothing compared to the deadening anger of despair experienced by hundreds of thousands of people who live with the reality of inadequate homes, sheltered accommodation, emergency accommodation that stretches on for weeks or months, or no home at all. The utter hopelessness and worthlessness that some of these people experience is almost unimaginable, and it shames us all. It shames every single one of us that it occurs in our wealthy economy. It shames us that the basic right to a home is unachievable for hundreds of thousands of people. The right to bring up one’s family in decent accommodation and see one’s children learn and develop within such a home are basic rights that lead to other rights and obligations, but also the obligations of the state.

If people feel that I am overstating the case then I make no apology, because these people’s voices are not being heard. I recognise and applaud the activists and the organisations, but they too are being ignored as the situation worsens. Are we hearing the children in families sharing almost uninhabitable emergency accommodation with others, sleeping in the same bed as or beds adjacent to their parent or parents and siblings, having no environment in which to breathe, grow, learn and develop? The longer there is an absence of housing, the longer we will continue to blight generations yet to come.

We have failed, and there is no sense, no joy and nothing to gain from making party-political points; that serves absolutely no one in need. We must look failure in the face, accept responsibility and bring people together to build the number of homes necessary. We must bring an end to the cap on housing benefit, which traps so many people in desperate situations; we must bring an end to buy to let, which has failed to fill the gap created by a lack of public housing and affordable rents; and we must bring to an end the concept of housing as purely an investment vehicle. The Right to Buy scheme inflicted unimagined damage on public housing stock, and that stock has never been replaced. We must end the rollout of universal credit, too.

From the Government’s own website, we can see that at the end of quarter 2, 2017, there was a total of 78,180 households in temporary accommodation, and the number of children in temporary accommodation at the end of that quarter was 120,170. The total number of children in temporary accommodation has been increasing year on year. There are also specific figures for the number of households with children in bed and breakfasts, and these, too, are shocking. There was a 650% increase in households with children being in B&Bs for more than six weeks from quarter 2, 2010, to quarter 2, 2017.

It is clear that much needs to be done, and we must not forget those who are most vulnerable. In 2014-15, the Albert Kennedy Trust undertook a thorough survey of LGBT youth homelessness. It revealed that LGBT young people are more likely to find themselves homeless than their non-LGBT peers, comprising up to 24% of the youth homeless population.

In closing, I thank Crisis, Shelter, the National Housing Federation, Stonewall, the Albert Kennedy Trust and so many others for their dedication, their action and the information that they make available to us, the policymakers, that gives us the opportunity to deal with the reality of the public housing crisis in this country. In the words of the National Housing Federation:

“We have an urgent obligation—the Government, local government, housing associations and private developers—to act now, and work together to end the housing crisis”.


We cannot say that we have not been warned.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure and, indeed, an honour to support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Sharkey. They represent the culmination of work done over several years by my noble friend to secure as much redress as is practicable for victims of grave injustice, including those who are no longer alive—gay men who suffered great wrong simply for giving expression to the love that for far too long dared not speak its name but has thankfully found its full and authentic voice in our times. My noble friend kept the issue before successive Ministers and their officials. It is in part due to the polite but enduring pressure that he applied that commitment to action was included in the Conservative Party manifesto at the last general election. As my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford has already made clear, these amendments will be accepted by the Government. It is a day of great importance for gay people, a view shared by my noble friend Lord Black of Brentwood, who has also put his name to these amendments but has had to leave the Chamber.

I turn to Amendments 214H to 214L, 235A and 239C in my name. My amendments have two aims. The first is to extend the pardons for iniquitous former offences, now abolished, that will be available to living and deceased persons in England and Wales to their counterparts in Northern Ireland. The second aim is to extend the disregard scheme now in operation in England and Wales to Northern Ireland, where at present it does not exist. The first of the amendments relating to pardons, Amendment 214H, includes provision for legislation that is specific to Northern Ireland. Through this amendment and the two that follow, pardons could be granted in the same manner as in England and Wales.

Because there is no disregard scheme, the foundation on which pardons will rest in Northern Ireland, Amendment 214L, is vital. It will insert a new clause in the Bill that would make a number of amendments to the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, changing the scope of Chapter 4 of Part 5. As a result, application could be made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to have a conviction or caution in respect of an abolished offence in Northern Ireland disregarded. Since justice and policing are now transferred matters in Northern Ireland, the responsibility for designing and implementing a disregard scheme would in practice be expected to rest with the Northern Ireland Executive. Exactly how the system would work may need further consideration; it must clearly be fully acceptable in all its details to the Executive.

The impetus for the extension to Northern Ireland of the arrangements proposed in England and Wales has come from Northern Ireland itself. I am merely the spokesman and agent of courageous campaigners for full gay rights in the Province who are working to achieve complete equality with the rest of the UK. No one has done more to create support for the amendments I have put forward than Councillor Jeffrey Dudgeon MBE, who in 1981 paved the way for the decriminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland through a successful case at the European Court of Human Rights.

The five main parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly have all pledged support for the principles embodied in the amendments. I am in the fortunate position of being able to tell your Lordships’ House that yesterday the Minister of Justice in Northern Ireland, Claire Sugden, announced that a legislative consent Motion would shortly be introduced in the Assembly enabling these amendments, after any revision that may be needed, to become law in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, extending the provisions to Northern Ireland, and I shall speak to the amendments in my name. I congratulate the noble Lord on the success he has had with these amendments in relation to the announcement from the Justice Minister Claire Sugden. The noble Lord’s record on seeking to achieve equal rights in Northern Ireland, not least on equal access to marriage, is unblemished and should be celebrated because at its very heart is the concept that we should have equality and access to equal rights across the United Kingdom, not based on where we live.

I will quote from two organisations in Northern Ireland. A Northern Ireland-based LGBT organisation replied to the announcement that the measure would go before the Northern Ireland Assembly by saying:

“This is the first time that the Northern Ireland Assembly has made positive moves in respect of LGB&T legislation and we are hopeful that with cross-party support the pardons will be applicable to convictions made against … men living in Northern Ireland”.

I also join the noble Lord in celebrating the work and success of LGBT people and their allies and NGOs in Northern Ireland. Quite rightly, this is their success; and not the least of them is Councillor Jeff Dudgeon MBE, who has been a pioneer, affecting so positively the lives of so many across the United Kingdom and beyond.

Before I speak specifically to my two amendments—214S and 214R—I need to pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for his exemplary work over the years in pressing the case for equality, even when some have not wanted to listen to the arguments, noble and right though they are. My only difference with him on my amendments are on two major elements. My Amendment 214S differs from the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others in two key respects. First, it would grant a pardon to any person convicted of or cautioned for a now abolished offence, providing that they meet certain conditions, regardless of whether they are living or dead.

I disagree with the need to create two different systems for pardoning people in respect of these offences—one for the living and one for the dead. I cannot honestly see the logic of saying to a living person, “You must apply to have your conviction or caution disregarded to be eligible for a pardon,” while at the same time saying, “If you have died, you will get a pardon automatically”. That is not logical, and I am afraid that it appears to confuse the purpose of a pardon and the purpose of the disregard scheme. My amendment makes it abundantly clear that any person, subject to the specified conditions, who suffered a conviction or caution under these offences is pardoned. For those living with an historic conviction or caution, the disregard scheme is available to address any negative consequences caused by a police or other record.

The second way in which my amendment differs from that of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and others, is that it would extend pardons to those convicted or cautioned under Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 and its corresponding earlier provisions in the Vagrancy Act 1898. Let me be absolutely clear: this would not grant a pardon to any person convicted or cautioned for soliciting. My amendment makes it clear that anyone convicted or cautioned for any conduct that would now constitute the offence of soliciting under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 would not be pardoned; nor would a pardon extend to a person whose conviction or caution was the result of conduct involving any other person under 16. What my amendment would do is grant pardons for all those persons who were convicted or cautioned for what was once called “importuning for immoral purposes”. The immoral purposes, in many cases, amounted to nothing more, as the Home Office report Setting the Boundaries recognised in 2000, than one man chatting up another man. That report recommended the repeal of the offence, and that was carried through.

On a personal note, I lived through that campaign of hate and fear. I was a 16 year-old gay man when the age of consent was set at 21 and homosexual acts in private were decriminalised. I still had no protection as a young gay man who wanted to exercise his attraction and his love for others. I, too, suffered the threat of coming out of a bar or a pub in places such as Earl’s Court, where a lot of homosexual and bisexual men gathered. We felt safe together, but coming out of such a pub or a club and looking at another man and smiling at him could have possibly got me arrested for soliciting for an immoral purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able, on behalf of the Government, to warmly welcome Amendments 214E, 214F, 214G, 239A and 246, and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on bringing them forward, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who spoke so movingly.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, explained, these amendments broadly do two things. First, they confer an automatic pardon on deceased individuals convicted of certain consensual gay sexual offences that would not be offences today. Secondly, they confer a pardon on those persons still living who have a conviction for such an offence that has been disregarded under the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. It is important to note that for the pardon to apply, the conduct in question must have been consensual and involved another person aged 16 or over, which is the current age of consent. The conduct must also not involve an offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory, which is still illegal today.

This historic step is momentous in righting wrongs suffered by thousands of gay and bisexual men. It is a tragedy that people were criminalised over a shamefully long time for something that society regards today as normal sexual activity. It is time to right the wrongs of the past and I am pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, in putting forward these amendments.

It is important that we link the pardons for the living to the disregard process so that the necessary checks can be carried out to identify whether the individual in question engaged in activity that constitutes an offence today. Since the disregard scheme under the Protection of Freedoms Act came into force, eight disregard applications that concerned non-consensual activity have been rejected. It is therefore crucial that a pardon for the living should only follow a successful disregard application. This mitigates the risk of individuals claiming to be cleared of offences that are still crimes today. It takes into account and protects the rights of victims and ensures that children and vulnerable people are safeguarded from potential risks. This is extremely important and an objective with which I am sure noble Lords would agree. It is for these reasons that the Government cannot commend to the Committee Amendment 214S in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lexden seek to make corresponding provision for Northern Ireland. The Committee will be aware of the established convention that the UK Parliament legislates on devolved matters in Northern Ireland only with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Subject to observing that convention, the Government are ready to look favourably at amendments at a later stage of the Bill along the lines proposed by my noble friend.

I understand that on Monday of this week, the Ministry of Justice tabled an amendment to a legislative consent Motion before the Northern Ireland Assembly seeking its consent to the UK Parliament legislating on this matter. If the proposed legislative consent Motion can make sufficient progress over the next two to three weeks, I would anticipate that the Government will be able to work with my noble friend to come to an agreement before the Bill leaves this House. I should add that the Scottish Government have separately announced their intention to bring forward legislation in the Scottish Parliament.

I turn to Amendment 214R, which is again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. The amendment seeks to extend the disregard scheme to include convictions for the soliciting offence in the now-repealed Section 32 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Under the current disregard scheme, for the now-repealed offences of buggery and gross indecency between men, it is a relatively straightforward matter to establish whether the relevant statutory conditions are met; namely that the other person involved in the conduct consented and was aged 16 or over, and the conduct would not now constitute the offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory. In contrast, the soliciting offence in Section 32 of the 1956 Act covered a broad range of behaviours and, as such, it is not a straightforward matter to formulate additional conditions to ensure that behaviour which would still constitute an offence today cannot be the subject of a disregard. It is likely that any such conditions would entail more than simply establishing facts—for example, whether the other person was aged 16 or over—and require a shift to making judgments as to whether an activity would be captured by a range of different offences today. This creates some practical challenges in accessing records in sufficient detail to make that judgment.

[Lord Cashman]

I have listened with great interest and have two points to make. First, a pardon does not remove a conviction from a record. The criminal activity remains on the record, so any employer making a heightened check can find what the conviction was for. I see no way in which, if we issued a pardon, it would put anyone at risk. Secondly, if there is a victim in any of these cases, and if we have managed to weed it out in the discharge process in relation to gross indecency and buggery, we should have the wit and wherewithal to approach this and find out how to apply exactly the same provisions and the same terms to the immoral purposes Section 32. Will the Minister commit at least to sitting down with me and the likes of Paul Johnson, from the University of York, and Stonewall, who have had great input into this, so that instead of protracting discussion of the problem, we can seek the solution?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord reminds me of a conversation that we had the other day. I quite happily undertake to meet him, Paul Johnson and other members of Stonewall to discuss this further. I was going on to say that, despite the challenges, I am ready to consider Amendment 214R further ahead of Report.

I conclude by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, but I also signal my happiness at finishing the work started by the coalition Government in recommending a pardon for Alan Turing. As a Mancunian, the situation he faced, and the fact that he ultimately took his own life, has saddened me for many years. Legislating in this Bill will speed up the delivery of a similar pardon for the thousands of gay and bisexual men convicted of now-abolished sexual offences. I look forward to the day—perhaps in a little over a month’s time—when this Bill is enacted and these provisions come into force. That will be a day we will all be able to celebrate. I commend the noble Lords’ amendments to the House.

European Union Subsidiarity Assessment: Electoral Law of the EU (EUC Report)

Lord Cashman Excerpts

Thursday 4th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, have the honour of being a member of the sub-committee and I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about our marvellous chair. I will spare her blushes and not repeat it—he put it far better than I would anyway.

As another non-lawyer on the committee, perhaps it is helpful for me simply to put succinctly what I believe this matter is about. A case for subsidiarity was not made. We are asking for one to be made. It is really that simple and if, rather to my surprise, this does test the mood of the House, I hope we will all support that proposition.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak on this subject for the very first time on behalf of the party. Having spent 15 years in the European Parliament, it is a great privilege. The European Union Committee is regarded very highly by the Parliament, the Commission and the Council. Therefore, I see absolutely no reason why a reasoned opinion should not be sent. It would certainly be welcomed by the Council and the Commission.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put his finger right on it. What we are dealing with is an own-initiative report of the Constitutional Affairs Committee. Like the Legal Affairs Committee and various other committees, when it is not taken too seriously it jumps ahead of itself and puts forward its wish list to the European Parliament. There are some excellent recommendations in the report and I urge your Lordships to read it, as well as the draft proposal, which is annexed. Interestingly, this wish list had to be deferred from going to plenary after it was voted on in committee because there was not enough widespread support for it to gain a majority. It therefore went to the Strasbourg plenary in November.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kennedy on her chairmanship of the committee and absolutely endorse her reference to the excellent work done by the staff of that committee and, indeed, by the staff who serve us throughout the House. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his chairmanship of the EU Select Committee. During my 15 years in the Parliament, whenever the European Union Committee visited, it was taken seriously by all Members across the political spectrum.

In this instance, we have an own-initiative report that was agreed at the plenary and was duly sent to the Commission, the Council and the President of the Parliament. There was reference earlier to whether a red card would apply after the Prime Minister’s completed negotiations. A red card operates now, not for the Parliament but indirectly because the Westminster Parliament can make its views known to the Minister and the Minister will then vote against or for in committee. This proposal, if it is to be amended, will have to be agreed unanimously. Interestingly, as I said, there are some good proposals and some that are perhaps indicative of the European Parliament jumping ahead of itself. One is to shift from unanimity to qualified majority voting.

I also advise your Lordships that under the leadership of Dame Glenis Wilmott, the Labour Member of the European Parliament voted against the report, for a number of reasons: ideas of transnational lists—not national or regional but pan-European; internet voting; pan-European party names and logos on the ballot papers; and issues over the single candidate for the EU Commission President. As my noble friend Lord Judd said, all parliaments—particularly the European Parliament and the European institutions, which are so defamed and misrepresented, certainly in the British media—need to make themselves less remote. Indeed, in the body of the report which goes to make up the amended Council decision, that is the stated intention.

Issues of gender equality were mentioned. But I should point out that the proposal calls for gender equality on the list and not in the make-up of Members going to the Parliament. That is to be decided by the voters, whether the lists are open or closed. It also calls for greater openness and transparency in how parties actually select their candidates. That is to be welcomed. It also recognises that as the Parliament, and indeed the Union, has grown in size, it needs to do more to connect with its citizens and the concept of European citizenship.

It is not my intention to detain your Lordships further but I want to make these closing points. As I said, it is an own-initiative report. The moment the clock starts ticking vis-à-vis consultation is when the Commission or the Council produces its draft and then sends it back to the European Parliament to be amended. Thus, the clock starts ticking on consultation and spreading the document further afield than the Commission, the Council and the Parliament.

I welcome the reasoned opinion. It is a good, proactive measure, again signalling the importance of this Parliament not just to subsidiarity and proportionality. Equally, it warns governments, including our own, about how we believe they should proceed when amending the Council decision on European elections. Therefore, I wholeheartedly endorse the work of the committees. I endorse both Motions before us and thank noble Lords for being so patient as I have rambled through my 15 years of experience. I hope I have put it to some good use.