Criminal Legal Aid Services

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord is right that whatever the change in policy, it is important that we are satisfied that there are firms of solicitors that can represent people in whatever part of the country they are needed. When the replacement contracts come to be considered, that is clearly one of the factors that will be taken into account. The noble Lord also asked about the scope of legal aid generally and the exceptional funding provisions. They have been the subject of litigation and further clarification. One of the difficulties was that the forms that had to be filled in were perhaps not as clear as they might be. There has been considerable improvement in that regard, and the percentage of cases where exceptional funding has been obtained as a result of an application has increased considerably.

As a Back-Bencher looking at the LASPO Bill as it went through, I found the provisions on exceptional funding somewhat opaque, referring, as they did, to the Human Rights Act and Article 6. It was not always easy to know quite what the coalition Government were driving at. I think there is increased clarification of that. There has been a decision, although it is subject to appeal, but the noble Lord is right to draw our attention to exceptional funding.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that it is extremely refreshing and encouraging when a Secretary of State listens, not least to the voice of this House, and makes an adjustment and a change of policy? None of us should be churlish in welcoming this very real change. Not the least of its advantages is that it has produced a situation where we have a legal profession that is in tune with the Secretary of State and a Secretary of State who is in tune with the legal profession.

[Lord Faulks]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. He is right that this House has always held the Ministry of Justice, in particular, to account with the galaxy of legal talent that is available around the Benches. I am certainly aware that any policy change is subject to great and close examination by all those here, not least this particular policy, which I have been asked about a number times in specific debates and in the course of Question and Answers. I reassure my noble friend and the House that the Secretary of State listens to what is said in this House and will continue to do so.

Age of Criminal Responsibility Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 29th January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad to add my support and congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, on his persistence and for the calm and moderate way in which he has introduced the Bill, and for recognising in his speech that amendments might have to be made. My own inclinations march with his; nevertheless, these issues will have to be examined in detail in Committee. But the broad thrust of his argument is one with which I can closely identify myself.

We had a debate in your Lordships’ House last Thursday, introduced by my noble friend Lord Fowler, on the subject of prison reform. It was a good debate and a number of us who are here today took part in it. I think there was universal admiration for the way my noble friend introduced it and for the proposals he made. Another theme ran through the debate, which I would categorise as a collective sigh of relief at the change of direction of the Ministry of Justice since the present Secretary of State took over. He has already shown himself to be a sensible and sensitive man, and indeed we have had further evidence of that this very day in the Statement made by my noble friend on the Front Bench just before this debate started. So I hope that we are to some degree pushing at an open door. Although I do not expect, because I am fairly case hardened, my noble friend on the Front Bench to get up and metaphorically embrace the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, I hope he will be able to give us some indication that the powerful points made in the noble Lord’s speech will be reflected upon.

I do not think anyone is saying that young children who commit wicked acts—and some do—should not be adequately dealt with, which of course involves a degree of punishment. The punishment is separating those young people from the environment which has perhaps inculcated, or certainly increased, that wickedness. No one is suggesting that it would be sensible to have sent the killers of James Bulger immediately back into the community. That would be utterly absurd. But was the paraphernalia of a full trial wise? I think not. What is important is that young people who do wicked things should be adequately dealt with. I agree with the advance to the age of 12. It is important to note that, if they are under the age of 12, putting them into the criminal justice system is not very sensible or even cost-effective.

One of the points that came up time and again in last week’s debate was reoffending. I have personal experience because I had a young offenders’ institution, Brinsford in South Staffordshire, in my constituency. If we had suffered from the same sort of background and lack of upbringing that many of the young men in that institution had had, we might have gone the same way. When once they become institutionalised, those young people tend to reoffend again and again. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, is nodding. How glad I am that he has his present role, because he understands these things. If young people under the age of 12 commit crimes, the whole thrust and emphasis of their treatment —I used that word advisedly—should be to try to ensure that they do not offend again.

Several times in last week’s debate, the famous remarks of Churchill when he was Home Secretary were quoted. He said that within every person there is some spark of goodness. You judge a civilised society by the way in which it treats offenders. The punishment is being sent to prison. The whole purpose of prison is to rehabilitate. Children should be sent somewhere where they can be nurtured as well as rehabilitated. Many who commit these dreadful crimes have no home to speak of. It is not being soft to say that one supports the proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. One is being realistic. One is recognising that the age of criminal responsibility, which is determined by the state, must be determined with real regard for what children under the age of 12 can properly be able to answer for.

In a sense, I am thinking aloud in making these points. As one who has children and grandchildren, spent 10 years as a schoolmaster and 40 years as a Member of the other place, and over 30 years with prisons in my constituency, I really believe that Churchill was right when he said that in almost everybody there is a spark of goodness. If a child goes astray, the whole emphasis must be on trying to ensure that that child does not grow up into a hardened criminal. As I see it, that is at the root of the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and his crusade—it has become that, as he has come back to this issue again and again.

I hope that when my noble friend—he is a man of real sensitivity and understanding—answers the debate, he will say that he will discuss the matter with the Justice Secretary. I hope he will indicate that he understands what exercises those of us who believe that the age has been set far too low. I slightly dissent from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for whom I have great admiration. In a throwaway line, he referred to other countries as being civilised without suggesting this one is. We are a civilised country and we are all proud to live in it, but every civilised country can make itself better and more civilised. This would be a small step in that direction.

Prison Reform

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I very rarely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and I shall certainly not begin to do so today, because he made a powerful and convincing speech and I agree with every word. I also endorse most strongly all the comments that have been made about the admirable opening speech of my noble friend Lord Fowler and, again, endorse what he says. As I am in the business of endorsements at the moment, let me say how much I agreed with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. How privileged I was to be with him, as well as the noble and learned Lords, Lord Phillips and Lord Judge, when we went to see my noble friend the Minister last week to talk about indeterminate sentences. He made a powerful plea, which I hope will be heeded and will lead to a speeding up of dealing with these appalling stains on our justice system, because that is what they are.

In his opening speech, my noble friend talked about the Prison Service and how, if the squalor of the prison system was replicated in any way in any other aspect of the public service, there would be a massive public protest. One of the problems is—and I am afraid that I am rather old-fashioned on this matter—that the Prison Service is not entirely a public service. One decision that I have deplored over the years is the privatisation of prisons. It should be the duty of the state. Again, I refer to Winston Churchill, who in effect said that one of the hallmarks of a civilised society is how it treats its prisoners. There is a public responsibility, exercised by the Government of the day, and I believe that it has been detrimental to farm it out on economic grounds to private providers. That is not to say that there have not been some admirable people involved and that some of the prisons are not well run, but I do not like the principle.

I had considerable experience of prisons, with two in my constituency—Featherstone, and Brinsford young offender institution. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is only too familiar with both of them. He made reports on them, and his report on Brinsford is one of the best that I have ever read on any penal institution. Going to those two institutions, I discovered two things. First, many of the young offenders had such an appalling private background of deprivation that they needed rehabilitation in a way that was not always provided. I agree so much with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in his remarks about the falconry course, and so on. In Featherstone itself I ran for a considerable period a surgery for lifers, which brought me face to face with men who had committed the ultimate crime, many of whom could not be categorised as criminal people. They had done something—sometimes provoked and sometimes not—of an appalling nature. Of course they deserved a prison sentence, and they all recognised that, but they were human beings and there is very much good in the worst of us, just as there is very much bad in the best of us. I became very conscious of that in those visits.

As chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in another place, I conducted an inquiry into prisons. One thing that convinced me more than anything else of the need for change was the experience that we had of the restorative justice system. It has been referred to during this debate, but I would like to underline its importance. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, and others have talked about keeping young people out of prison. A well-run restorative justice system on which proper money is expended would save a lot of money—it would not cost £36,000 per person per year—and do a great deal to help to implement the five Fowler proposals. I endorse all of them.

In Lincoln, where I have the privilege to live, we have just completely restored Lincoln Castle, which contained within it two prisons—a Georgian debtors’ prison and a Victorian prison. The latter was based on Pentonville, and they operated there the separate system whereby every prisoner was kept separate from another, even in the chapel, where each prisoner occupied a cubicle. This is a pretty scary thing when you go to see it, but of course the motivation was entirely decent, because they wanted to try to ensure that people would not reoffend. It was a crude, simplistic and unsuccessful system that deserved to be castigated as it has been, but the motives were right. The motives here in this debate are all right, but we need to convince the admirable new Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor that he has our support in his reforming zeal. May he keep it up—and I am sure that he will have the good wishes of every Member of this House if he does so.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but is not the nub of the matter our saying to Members of the elected House that we know more than they know about what the franchise should be? We are even flying in the face, if we are misguided enough to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, of the latest pronouncements by the Electoral Commission. This is about the constitutional place of this House and the constitutional supremacy of the elected House.

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

Of course we understand that the other House has spoken on this issue, but it has also invoked financial privilege. I am trying to address the issue of costs in this amendment. The problem is that there is no threshold—or we do not know what it is. What does that mean for the ability of this House to engage at all, in any way, with the Representation of the People Act?

Perhaps I may continue. The people we need to focus on are those who will attain the age of 16, the new age of voting in the referendum in the forthcoming year. Let me emphasise, in response to the comments of the Electoral Commission—I shall come to the point made by the noble Lord—that our amendment does not preclude electoral registration officers from chasing up 16 and 17 year-olds and it does not stop them using all available methods to identify and encourage registration. The Association of Electoral Administrators does not think it would be difficult to make changes to the electoral registration service. A relatively simple—and, I emphasise, extremely cheap—way of registering young people would be writing directly to schools to ask for help in sending out emails with the registration form attached, as is currently done with university students. I do not know of many, if any, secondary schools that do not provide their pupils with a school email address. The costs of registration would therefore be absolutely minimal.

Nor would this be a tremendous increase in work for electoral registration officers. If, as has been suggested, we are talking about an additional 1.5 million voters, given that there are 380 electoral registration officers—one for each relevant local authority—we are talking about each ERO registering on average only an additional 4,000 voters, which is not an enormous new burden. The organisation Bite the Ballot is co-ordinating a national voter registration drive which aims to inspire hundreds of thousands of 15 to 24 year-olds to register this February. It will include a national network of schools, colleges, sixth-form teachers, school leavers, student unions, youth clubs and charities, so this is being done anyway at no additional cost. The Electoral Commission itself has noted that EROs should be working with schools and colleges in their area because this is a key activity that we need and expect all EROs to explore. We are asking EROs to do only what they are expected to do anyway.

I turn now to the issue that seems to be vexing the Government: that this is not the right place to make such a change and that it should be debated seriously as part of a wider debate on franchise. We are happy that the Government agree that there is a need for a wider debate on franchise, and it would be useful to have a timetable for such a debate. Can the Minister give me a concrete answer to that specific question? The Government say that this should not be done in a piecemeal way. We on the Labour Benches believe that there should be a comprehensive constitutional convention to address this and other issues relating to our democracy. But I was under the impression that the Government enjoy piecemeal change. It was this Government who gave permission to 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in the Scottish referendum campaign. It was this Government who allowed the Scottish Parliament to determine whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be able to vote in its own election, and it was this Government who allowed the Welsh Assembly to determine for itself whether 16 and 17 year-olds should be allowed to vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, that is not absolutely true. First, it has not specifically rejected the amendment proposed by your Lordships’ House. Secondly, as I thought I had just explained, the issue of an amendment in lieu means that it is no longer necessary. If the Government had decided on such an amendment to express their apparent view that a general review is required, and that it should not be in this one Bill, financial privilege would not have been triggered in any way. That is the process that should have been undertaken.

The issue before your Lordships’ House today is no longer simply whether the electorate for the EU referendum should or should not be expanded, important though that is. I have given a lot of time and effort to trying to make sure that this referendum is one that we can be proud of because it has the same electorate as the one that was so successful in Scotland on a similar issue of the future of that generation. However, this matter has now been deliberately escalated by Ministers into an insidious attempt to undermine the constitutional role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House. We must stand firm, pass Amendment A1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and reject this attack.

[Lord Cormack]

We have heard a frankly terrible speech from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. How does he have the brass nerve to lecture your Lordships’ House, coming, as he does, from the most grossly overrepresented party, which, moreover, allegedly believes in proportions and proportional representation and most of whose members, including the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, would, like Samson, like to bring this Chamber down about their ears? Indeed, I heard a noble Lord from those Benches say only recently, “It does not matter what we do so long as we destroy the House of Lords and replace it with an elected House”. However, those of us who do not believe in an elected second Chamber and believe passionately in the supremacy of the elected Chamber at the other end of the corridor, believe that what we are now embarking on is an extremely dangerous course of action. If we accept the supremacy of the elected Chamber and accept that your Lordships’ House, of course, has the right to invite the elected Chamber to think again, but, if the elected Chamber, by a majority far in excess of that enjoyed by the Conservative Government, says no, who are we to persist, particularly in a matter concerning the franchise?

Many noble Lords on the Labour Benches do believe in this House and believe that an unelected and appointed House, with its accumulation of experience and expertise, adds value to the constitution without challenging the unambiguous elected authority of the other place. I appeal to those Members on the Labour Benches, many of whom I am privileged to count as personal friends, not to play this game and not to go along with the destructionists on the Liberal Democrat Benches, most of whom do not believe in this place and would use almost any spurious and specious reason and excuse to damage it.

We have exercised our right and a number of my Conservative colleagues voted for votes at 16. I did not, but a number of them did. I respected their integrity but now the time has come to say, “You haven’t decided to think again. We must move on”. I urge all your Lordships to recognise that we have reached the limit. We should not seek once more to overturn the mandate of an elected House with a majority of 50. As I said earlier, that is far larger than the 12 that the Government nominally enjoy.

Noble Lords may have a brief moment of euphoria if the Government are defeated tonight, but it will be followed by the danger of a real constitutional crisis arising between our two Chambers that could do enormous damage to the standing of Parliament in general, and of this House in particular.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, if I understand it correctly, the House of Commons, through the Speaker, has said that this is a matter of finance. If that is correct, it is the short answer to what we are dealing with tonight. I cannot understand why noble Lords are banging on about all the other subjects if we really cannot deal with this matter because it is a financial issue. I find it very difficult to understand what we are spending time on at the moment.

Restorative Justice

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, to clear the blockage, apart from other steps, the new victims’ code, which was published two days ago, now requires the police to pass on victims’ details to RJ service providers unless asked not to do so—in other words, an opt-out. This is in line with the mechanism for referral for other victims’ services. We are working with the Association of Policing & Crime Chief Executives to ensure that its toolkit on information sharing is up to date and are making connections between areas where there is good restorative justice take-up and other areas where there is not such a good take-up.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, have the Government taken carefully into account the experience of Northern Ireland, where there have been some remarkable schemes over the last decade or more?

[Lord Faulks]

The Government are aware that there are a number of schemes, in not only Northern Ireland, but Australia, New Zealand and parts of North America. There is no standardised way of delivering restorative justice but the Government are committed to continuing this as a significant way of improving reoffending rates and providing victims with a reasonable involvement with the criminal justice system.

European Union Referendum Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Wednesday 18th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I will tell the noble Lord why we should start at 16: civic education finishes at the age of 16. By the age of 16, young people have been equipped to deal with these measures; that education has not finished by the time that they are 14 or 15. There are also several examples of them taking responsible decisions at that age, such as being able to get married, choosing their vocation and choosing their A-levels. Those are responsibilities that they take seriously, and that is why we would introduce it at 16 and not at a younger age.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does the noble Baroness believe that 16 year-olds should be allowed to drink, drive and smoke?

[Baroness Morgan of Ely]

I am not getting into this debate now. There is a much broader discussion. I think that what 16 to 18 year-olds are allowed to do is a dog’s breakfast, frankly—the fact that you can have sex but not watch sex is completely ridiculous. Obviously, we need a broader debate on these issues. I do not think this is the place to have that. Let us take note of what the people in this House are thinking, take note of what the people in the country are thinking and take note of the fact that young people in this country, if given the responsibility, will take it seriously. It is time to give them their opportunity to have a say in the future of their country and the future of this country’s relationship with the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, the terrible events in France of course have provoked an enormous public debate. What seems to be emerging is that younger people are more inclined to take a broad view of these atrocities—not simply to indulge in an instant response of a punitive kind but to see the broader relationship between these terrible events and the social and other inequalities that have inured in France in this period. Comparatively, we have every basis for having faith in young people, not dismissing them—not using the fact that, as many noble Lords have rightly said, the law is inconsistent and perverse and treats categories of our society in different ways; as my noble friend behind me observed, so does our constitution, which is similarly fragmented. It would be in every way an educative and civilised thing if we supported this amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Morgan, but I cannot agree with him. I am one of those who hope that we will have a referendum with an emphatic result in favour of remaining within the European Union. Unless there are some extraordinary events between now and holding the referendum, I believe that I shall be campaigning—I hope vigorously—on that front.

Last year, my 16 year-old grand-daughter, who will be 18 tomorrow, voted—with my encouragement—for Scotland to remain within the United Kingdom. I was delighted that she did. She and her classmates took an intelligent and very sensible approach to the whole issue. But the fact that they considered it carefully does not, I believe, give your Lordships’ House the freedom to indulge in what my noble friend Lord Forsyth very persuasively called piecemeal change. As the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, pointed out, this House recently decided—on his initiative, and I gave him my strong support— that 17 year-olds should not be detained in police custody overnight. He made a quietly passionate speech in that sense and I was delighted to make a brief speech supporting him.

We are all over the shop on this one. It is not coherent or sensible to argue that on the one hand you cannot smoke or drink, or do all those things that my noble friend Lord Blencathra set out in his very amusing speech, but on the other that you can vote. We need to look at two issues and this Bill is not the occasion for so doing. We need to look at the age of maturity—what one can and should be able to do at the age of 16 or 18. Have we got it right? Have we been sensible in creating more and more impediments, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra pointed out, or have we been wrong? We also have to look very sensibly and coherently at the franchise.

[Lord Kinnock (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Cormack]

Perhaps I may just finish, then of course I will give way. The Bill takes the UK franchise as it is, which seems to be an entirely logical and sensible thing to do. I give way to my old friend.

[Lord Kinnock]

I am grateful to my old friend, the noble Lord, for giving way; I would expect nothing less. I also applaud him for introducing to the debate a specific instance in the case of his grand-daughter to illustrate that fact that youngsters in Scotland voted with great responsibility and not a little insight in casting their vote in the referendum there. His grand-daughter may not be as grateful as I am to him for introducing her into this debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that she is a very grown-up young woman. Can he tell us what arguments he would deploy in convincing an 18 year-old who voted when she was 16 in the Scottish referendum, in good conscience and with good judgment, that she should not now be able to exercise the same right to vote in this referendum—presuming, of course, that she had not reached the age of majority at that time? What argument would he have used, say, on the day before her 16th birthday when she would have been entitled to vote? Can he impart those arguments to us now?

[Lord Cormack]

As I have already said, my grand-daughter is 18 tomorrow and she will be entirely free to vote, as I hope she will, in this referendum and every other election, and at every other opportunity when she can vote.

There was nothing inconsistent—the saying of course refers to foolish consistency as the hobgoblin of small minds, not the hallmark—in saying as I did at the time of the referendum, “You have been given this responsibility; I hope that you will exercise it responsibly; but I do not believe in general that what is being done is right”. I argued that in this House when we discussed the matter. No one who was present when I argued on these things before would be at all surprised by what I am saying. My noble friend Lord Tyler—I still call him that—and I clashed several times on this issue when we were talking about the Scottish referendum and other things. The fact is that it is perfectly possible to say, “If you have been given this responsibility, exercise it, but I do not believe that we are wise”. I certainly did not believe that the Prime Minister was wise to concede this in the case of the Scottish referendum, any more than I think that he was wise recently to say what he did about 16 and 17 year-olds voting in the Scottish general election. One wonders whether they will have to be accompanied by guardians—but that is another matter entirely.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I am getting bids for alternatives, and the latest is that consistency is the bugbear of a mediocre mind. Perhaps I can help my noble friend with his grand-daughter. Surely the point is that his grand-daughter would have been able to vote in the Scottish referendum but not in the general election that we have just had.

[Lord Cormack]

Yes, indeed: she thought that was inconsistent, and I agreed with her; of course it was. I do not think that one needs to prolong this argument. We should be getting the Bill on to the statute book as soon as possible. I hope that we will have a referendum in which I will be able to campaign for membership of the European Union by the middle of next year. This thing is dragging on far too long. We should look separately at the question of the franchise and the question of maturity and decide whether we have got it right.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am a signatory to Amendment 3, in common with not only the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, but Members on the Conservative Benches and Cross-Benchers. It is genuinely across the House that we now feel that this moment has arrived. Having deployed the argument for this extension of the franchise so often in the past, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, so kindly said, I can be very brief. I certainly do not need to repeat the noble Baroness’s excellent exposition of the advice we have now had from the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators about the practicalities.

In Committee, I thought that the most persuasive contribution of many was from the Conservative Benches, from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, who said:

“So the question I am struggling with is: how can it be right to allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in a referendum on Scotland but not in a referendum on Europe? There has to be some sort of consistency”.

We are back there again, as the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, has so admirably emphasised. The noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, went on to rubbish the official explanation that somehow the extension of the franchise in the Scottish independence referendum did not originate with Conservative Ministers. He said,

“although the coalition Government and the Prime Minister did not specifically approve votes for 16 year-olds, they did acquiesce in votes for 16 year-olds”.—[Official Report, 28/10/15; cols.1227-8.]

He and others, notably now an increasing number of Conservative MPs, have warned that we simply cannot pretend that Scottish young people are somehow more mature, well-informed, responsible or capable of exercising common sense than their English, Welsh and Northern Irish counterparts. Several colleagues from this side of the House have challenged anybody from the other side to produce that argument, without any success.

The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, referred to the United Kingdom. He is right: in the long term, we have to address the consistency of the franchise, the bedrock of our representative democracy across the United Kingdom, but we have a particular issue at the moment. We have a Bill. We have a referendum coming. It is on that issue that we need specific consistency. That was very much the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and he had no problem whatever with my quoting his contribution in Committee. As an avid fan of both versions of his “House of Cards”, I am very disappointed that he is not able to be here today. I do not know whether I am being as cynical or conspiratorial as some of the characters in those great productions, but I wonder whether there has been some encouragement for him not to be here today. I wonder whether the Government Whips may have encouraged him to stay away, reassuring him that nothing controversial was to be discussed or decided.

One of the key lessons of the Scottish referendum was that the 16 and 17 year-old age group registered—well over 100,000 of them—and voted in larger numbers than those aged 18 to 24. Why? It is very interesting. The reason why that has been identified is that the younger cohort were often still at school and in their local, family environment, where they had much more encouragement to take the issues seriously. When they got away from home to their first job or further or higher education, they lost touch with some of the issues and concerns that might otherwise been part of their consideration.

There is hard evidence—looked at very carefully by Bite the Ballot and others—that there is a good case for a direct link between citizenship courses and electoral registration. Indeed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, said, there has been a successful pilot in Northern Ireland in that regard.

Arbitration and Mediation Services (Equality) Bill [HL]

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Friday 23rd October 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, the ninth speaker in this debate, has made the job of my noble friend Lord Faulks, who will reply, easier by the minute or more difficult. If my noble friend Lord Faulks does, as we would all wish, give a warm welcome to the Bill and promise to act upon it, he will leave the Chamber basking in reflected glory. If he has to give the sort of disappointing response we suffered last time, there will be a collective sigh, and it will be heartfelt.

We all owe an enormous debt to the courage and persistence of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. She is a shining light for us all. She goes to places where others fear to, she reports to this House with graphic simplicity and she embraces causes that we should all be glad to make our own. I have had the privilege of attending a number of the meetings convened by the noble Baroness, where I have met some truly remarkable women—women whose courage emulates hers. It is different, though: she observes, they suffer. She has brought their suffering to our attention, and we would be a churlish lot if we did not give this Bill a fair passage.

The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is one of those who has referred to Magna Carta. Because of Lincoln’s possession of one of the prime originals, I have been much involved this year in Magna Carta commemorations and celebrations. There could be no better commemoration and celebration as we approach the end of Magna Carta year than by giving this Bill, or something very like it, a fair wind. I say “something very like it” because Governments always nitpick and often like to bring in their own version. Fair enough, but a version there must be.

The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, quoted the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. I am bound to say, although I am one who is very admiring of the Bishops, that it is a pity that we have a Bishop speaking in the next debate and in the final one but not in this one. I think we ought to hear the voice of the established church. A Bishop for whom I have enormous regard—I will not name him so as not to embarrass him—said to me, “Freedom of religion should not extend to barbarous practices”. It should not. What we are talking about today are barbarous practices. Whether those barbarous practices are the work of an obscure Protestant sect or the work of those adhering to a mainstream religion, they should not be tolerated.

It would be a travesty if we entered 2016 and people could still be treated as chattels. That really is the nub of this matter. These women are being treated not just as second-class or third-class citizens but as possessions. We passed an anti-slavery Act, and I am delighted that we did; I rejoice in the fact that my parliamentary hero was William Wilberforce. This is another form of slavery, in a way. The noble Baroness has done the House a great service by her persistence, and I hope it will be rewarded.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

The Government wish people to make free choices on these matters. If someone wishes to make a choice of their own volition, it is no business of the Government to interfere with that. But we also wish to have a system where women, and men if necessary, feel free to make those choices without undue pressures of one sort or another.

Let me be a little more specific about the legislative provisions. The Equality Act 2010 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of gender. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 prohibits the intimidation of all witnesses, including victims of domestic violence. The Arbitration Act 1996 allows parties to an arbitration to agree any system of law or rules other than the national law to be applied by the arbitral tribunal to that dispute. I ought to declare an interest as a fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, although I have never arbitrated on the sorts of disputes which this debate has been focusing upon. Religious law considerations may be applied in the context of an arbitration only where, first, the parties have specifically agreed to the arbitral process, and secondly, where all the parties have specifically chosen to use religious law considerations. But even then the decisions of such tribunals is subject to review by the courts of England and Wales on a number of grounds. If any of the decisions or recommendations were in direct conflict with a mandatory provision of national law, the law of England and Wales must always prevail.

The Arbitration Act sets out a number of safeguards, including a duty for arbitrators to act fairly and reasonably between parties. No one should feel pressured or coerced into resolving their dispute in a particular way. Any member of any community has the right to refer to a civil court in England and Wales at any point, particularly if they feel pressured or coerced to resolve an issue or to accept a decision that is unfair or unlawful. If there has been coercion, the outcome of any mediation or arbitration cannot be enforced.

I return now to the point made by my noble friend Lord Elton. That is not to say that all our citizens have equal knowledge of access to their rights within the national law or that other measures cannot be taken to improve the situation. It is the Government’s view that the problems raised by the noble Baroness are due to a lack of awareness of rights, unequal access to the law and barriers to integration rather than a lack of protection within the current law. Integration requires changes to society, not necessarily changes to the law. The issues and barriers involved are often complex, and solving these problems is not just a job for the Government. It is also important that communities and community organisations take the lead in supporting equality and integration and help to raise expectations and awareness so that the rights of women and of all citizens are understood and protected.

[Lord Cormack]

I am grateful to my noble friend, who is disappointing me a little. Does he not feel that the Government have a duty to promote awareness? It is all very well saying that people should be more aware—we can all agree on that—but do not the Government have a role in this?

Humanist Marriages

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

Certainly humanists are key stakeholders. They took a significant part in the consultation. More than 60% of responses were from humanists or individuals who responded as part of a perfectly appropriate campaign, and I can assure the noble Lord that they will be consulted.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, as a Christian who found the changes we made to the meaning of marriage in the previous Parliament somewhat difficult, I completely accept that the law has now been changed. I find it difficult to understand any logical objection to what the noble Baroness is calling for this afternoon. I hope that we can have an early decision on this and hope that my noble friend can reassure me.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords—

Queen’s Speech

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, it is an enormous privilege to be able to follow the noble Lord—my noble friend—Lord Lisvane. I congratulate him on a truly remarkable and splendid maiden speech. There is no word more misused in the English language than unique, but the noble Lord brings unique qualities and experience to this House. At a time when we are facing very real constitutional problems, to have him among us gives me at least great comfort. It is often said that such and such a person has an encyclopaedic knowledge of something but it is rare to be able to follow that by saying, “And he wrote the encyclopaedia”. I would just commend to your Lordships the seventh edition of How Parliament Works, which was written by the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and Rhodri Walters, who used to be the Reading Clerk in your Lordships’ House. It is an absolutely riveting read and I defy any Member, however much he or she thinks they know about Parliament, to put that book down without having gained some real new insight. To me, along with Erskine May, which is a little more turgid, it is the indispensible guide to Parliament and its practices.

I would also like to say how much I enjoyed the maiden speeches of the right reverend Prelate, who is no longer in his place, and my noble friend Lord Dunlop, who has certainly taken on a formidable task. My noble friend said something which made me very gratified and encouraged. He said that there is ample opportunity for your Lordships’ House to involve itself in debate. One of the unfortunate aspects of the past couple of weeks has been those who have approached the position of your Lordships’ House with a degree of timidity. Supremacy rests at the other end of the corridor, in another place, in the elected House, but recognising that does not mean we have to abdicate our responsibility to scrutinise. We have a duty to scrutinise. If that means that on occasions we say to the Government, “You haven’t got it right; think again”, we do not have to feel inhibited by that. I speak particularly to my colleagues on this side of the House. Of course, I am delighted that we have a Conservative Government and that we have a majority—I am particularly delighted because I put money on it and won something—but we have a duty and this House has no point or purpose unless it says from time to time to the Government of the day, “You’ve got it wrong”. At the end, we have to concede that the elected House has its supremacy. When we have said, “Please think again” and it says, “No” and we perhaps say it a second time and it says no again, that is that. But we must not feel inhibited or cowed in any way.

There are some extraordinary issues that we have to face. I share many of the concerns about the suggested abandonment of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was much encouraged by what appears to be the Prime Minister’s very sober and sensible view, as given in this morning’s papers. But here is an issue where time must be taken. We have a Joint Committee on Human Rights, which should be asked to report to both Houses and be able to take evidence before we have a Bill. Perhaps the Government should produce a White Paper for it to consider and discuss during its deliberations. That is a sensible way to approach things.

Several noble Lords in all parts of the House have talked about a convention. I am broadly in favour of a constitutional convention but only if it comes after proper preparation. How will it be drawn up? Who will be in it? There is an overwhelming case for a Joint Committee again of both Houses to look at this issue, how it should best be constructed and what its remit should be. My noble friend Lord Forsyth made a splendid speech—and I agreed with so much of it—about the problems in Scotland. I can see the noble Lord, Lord McFall, who also made a very thoughtful speech, nodding.

I believe passionately in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I believe that a dangerous way to advance the interests of the union is to move in the direction of English nationalism. “English votes for English laws” comes trippingly off the tongue. The Government, with their acceptance that at Second Reading and Third Reading every Member should vote, recognise this. But it is crucial that it should be recognised.

Again, there is talk of the northern powerhouse. Anyone who has an interest in the history of England—we are talking in this context of England—must look with admiration at the achievements of our Victorian forebears in the great cities in the provinces; namely, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester. You have only got to go to any of the great civic buildings in those cities to realise that. But that progress came from the people, and a model was not thrust upon the people. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made a good point when she referred to the position of elected mayors. There is something alien in the concept of a presidential figure having executive authority over a great town or city. If the people themselves wish it, then so be it, but do not suggest that that is the only model, the only way forward, because, most emphatically, it is not.

We have to beware of splitting England because that is no way to advance the cause of the union. England is so predominant in its size and its economy that everything done here has repercussions in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. The whole business has been made more difficult by devolving, but we have done that; we cannot go back—and that is where the noble Lord, Lord McFall, was right when he gently chided my noble friend Lord Forsyth. My noble friend and I might wish that we were not here, but we are and we have to respond to the circumstances as they are. It is crucially important that we recognise that, because England is so predominant in its size and its economy, the United Kingdom is not a template for a federal constitution and cannot be so.

That is why—I come back to a point I made earlier—the preparation for any constitutional convention must be thorough and carefully done, and I think it should be done by Members of both Houses working together. Then we will move forward. In all those deliberations we have something to contribute, not least in the vast experience of people such as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, the noble Lord, Lord McFall, many others and, on this day of all days, the noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, who could inform every discussion on the basis of an unrivalled experience.

Lords Spiritual (Women) Bill

Lord Cormack Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely sorry that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is not able to take part in this debate, because I am sure that she would have added enormously to it.

I speak with a degree of diffidence. As I made plain when we debated the ordination of women bishops Measure just before Christmas, I think it was, I am a member of what is loosely called the traditional integrity within the church; and I am one of those who takes some comfort from the fact that the Catholic Church in general, embracing the Roman Catholic and the Orthodox Church, does take that traditional line. But I fully accept, as I made plain then, that the Church of England has, by a large majority—not an overwhelming but a very large majority—decided that it is right to have women bishops. There is a significant minority, and I stress it is a minority, within the Church of England which takes a different line. I think it behoves all of us to be gracious and to accept the differences between us, but that there is a unity that unites us which is far deeper than any superficial difference. That is why I was so glad that we had those scenes at the consecration of the first woman bishop, the Bishop of Stockport, and also that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York behaved with such appreciative sensitivity both at the consecration of Libby Lane and at the consecration of the Bishop of Burnley. It was also very good to see those two bishops embrace each other in Christian love and charity and mutual understanding.

I completely accept that this is a decision that has been made, first of all, in the church, and particularly in the House of Bishops. I salute my very good friend the Bishop of Lincoln for his extremely magnanimous statement. When he does come to this House, he will add significantly to the breadth and quality of our debates, and he will indeed be a splendid spokesman for greater Lincolnshire, which, as he himself whimsically remarked, is not overrepresented in your Lordships’ House. He has very generously made the statement that he has, quoted today by the most reverend Primate in his very cogent and admirable speech.

I will make three points that it is important for us to bear in mind. First, we are endorsing a measure of positive discrimination. There may be very good reasons for that, but no one can deny that that is what we are doing in approving the Bill.

Secondly, we have to bear in mind that very few men attain the rank of diocesan bishop within 20 years of ordination, and it is only just over 20 years since women were ordained priests. We should also bear in mind that most bishops—the most reverend Primate the Archbishop is a notable exception—have a period as a suffragan bishop before they take on the responsibilities of a diocese. Therefore, to have a number of women bishops appointed in the near future is entirely right and proper in view of the line the Church of England has taken, and I utterly and completely accept that. However, it is also right that a number of them should be appointed—as has the right reverend Libby Lane—to suffragan bishoprics.

I now come to my final point. Of course I look forward to the day when the serried ranks, of which we have a large number today—the collective noun cannot be “a Bench” as we have three Benches of Bishops—are augmented by women bishops. However, it is important that there is total equality among bishops. That was repeated in debates in Synod and in this place and, therefore, if there is to be total equality, we have to recognise that a woman becoming a diocesan bishop will, as a bishop said to me not very long ago, be confronted with a wholly different set of challenges that are not faced by a priest, an archdeacon, a dean or any other of the eminent positions within the Church of England that women honourably, and in many cases extremely successfully, fill at the moment but with a whole range of new challenges. I put it to your Lordships that to add to those responsibilities the responsibility of being a national figure in your Lordships’ House will be a significant extra challenge for someone who, by very definition, cannot have been ordained for more than 20 years.

I have no intention of opposing the Bill; I am merely putting forward points that the House, which is a debating Chamber, should properly address. We must recognise that those women, as they come, will need from among those of us who are members of the Anglican Church our prayers and from all of us in this House our welcome and our understanding. Inevitably, they will come in for criticism that they are spending too much time here and not enough time in the diocese, or the other way round. We have to bear those points in mind as we pass the Bill—as I believe and hope we will.

[Baroness O'Cathain (Con)]

I hope that we are not going to start saying that it will be much more difficult for a woman to become a bishop than it was for a woman to get a senior position in the Army or the Air Force, or indeed in business. I was the first woman on many boards I sat on, and of course I felt nervous, but that was not because I was a woman. I just thought, “This is a new experience”. Anybody coming into this House, even a man, will find it hard. I can see it—they wobble. Every man I have spoken to about his maiden speech said it was the worst experience in his life. They will not find it more difficult because they are a member of the church.

[Lord Cormack]

No, but a first is a first. I speak as someone who voted for the first woman leader of my party and who rejoiced in her success as Prime Minister, as well as someone who rejoiced in the success of the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, as one of the most eminent Speakers that the other place has ever had. Oh, she is here! I am delighted that she heard that. Nevertheless, it is important that we recognise some of the points that I made. As I said, this is a debating Chamber and, when there are reservations, it is incumbent on those who have them to voice them—I hope, graciously, but to voice them.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my intervening, but perhaps he would reflect on what he has just said about the two women to whom he referred and note that neither of them has yet been succeeded by another woman. One of the virtues of this Bill is that it protects the women who come forward and are ordained bishops from the possibility that there will only ever be one of them on these Benches.

[Lord Cormack]

I do not want to prolong this. I end where I began. Positive discrimination is something that we all have to take carefully into account. Without putting words into her mouth—because I would hate to do so, especially in her presence—I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Boothroyd, has always had views on that, as indeed did Margaret Thatcher. Let us make sure that those who are appointed are appointed on merit. Let us welcome them when they come and let us give them a forum here. I do not wish to say any more, but I think that it is important to put these things on the record.