Covid-19: International Response

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, this week, the World Health Assembly is meeting in Geneva. This should be an ideal and invaluable opportunity to exchange ideas on best practice and experiences of coping with the Covid-19 pandemic. One would have thought that, in this of all years, the WHA would wish to hear from those who have done best in tackling the crisis. By any objective analysis, Taiwan—I declare my interest as our Government’s trade envoy—has done exceptionally well. As soon as confirmation of the new virus was received on 31 December, Taiwan began implementing quarantine of direct flights from Wuhan. On 2 January, it established a response team for the disease, based on test, trace and isolate. Yesterday was the 10th successive day that Taiwan reported no new Covid-19 cases, keeping the number of those infected at 440. The number of deaths from the virus, in a country of 23 million people, is reported as just seven.

Despite this outstanding record, the WHO refuses to issue an invitation to Taiwan to take part in this year’s assembly. It is disregarding the right to health of 23 million Taiwanese people and ignoring the huge assistance being provided internationally, including the provision of 50 million masks and other medical supplies to countries all around the world, including Africa and the Middle East, and assistance to medics working with Syrian refugees. One million of these masks came from Taiwan to the UK.

Therefore, I hope the Minister will endorse what her noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said in the House on 10 February:

“we continue to support representations that the Department of Health has made directly in lobbying for Taiwan’s participation in the World Health Organization. We are also working with like-minded countries, including the United States and Australia, to ensure that, at the World Health Assembly which takes place in May this year, Taiwan is represented.”—[Official Report, 10/2/20; col. 2072.]

I hope that she can confirm that that is still the Government’s position.

Metal Theft

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they plan to counter the increase in metal theft on the railway network, from construction sites and from churches.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and remind the House of my railway interests as declared in the register.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we recognise the disruption and distress that metal theft can cause. That is why we supported the introduction of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013 and continue to work with the police and industry to further improve the response. A rise in the value of metal may be a driver in recent increases in metal theft incidences. However, recorded offences in March 2018 are still 73% lower compared to March 2013.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act has been very successful, not least because it was followed up by Operation Tornado and the activities of the scrap metal task force. However, figures for recent times, particularly the past two years, are not as good as the Minister indicated. In the case of railway and cable theft, for example, delays caused in the year up to 2019 are 83% up compared to the previous year. Will the Minister look at these figures again and pay particular attention to the need for stricter enforcement, while encouraging police forces to visit scrapyards to ensure that metal is not being sold for cash?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I entirely agree with the noble Lord’s latter point about enforcement. As he said, it is up to local authorities and police forces to do that to deter the theft which we historically saw. His point about cash is also well made, but that was covered by the Act. The task force was never intended to be a long-term group, and was disbanded in 2014, following the successful implementation of the Act. In the specific case of railways, the national crime tasking and co-ordination group brings rail and telecoms together. It is organised by the national crime tasking and co-ordination group. In addition, we have the NPCC-led theft working group, chaired by the national policing lead, ACC Robin Smith.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st March 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of exemption for clergy under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make such provision as is necessary to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to enable the Church of England and the Church in Wales to opt in to the provisions of that Act allowing the solemnization of the marriage of a same sex couple.(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.(3) Subject to subsection (2), regulations under this section must be in force by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend—(a) section 1(3) of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013,(b) section 1(4) of that Act, or(c) section 2(5) or (6) of that Act.”

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 1 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury. This amendment is similar, but not identical, to the amendment I moved in Committee. The changes I have made to it reflect the concerns expressed in that debate by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the briefing note I subsequently received from Church House.

Your Lordships will be aware that under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 the Church of England and the Church in Wales are subject to what is called the “quadruple lock”. The first three elements of that lock apply to all religions, but the fourth states that the common law duty of the Church of England and the Church in Wales to marry parishioners does not apply and that the canon law of the Church of England does not conflict with, and is not overridden by, civil law. So those churches are exempted from the general ability of a religious organisation to opt in to perform same-sex marriages. The Church of England can change those provisions through measures, and the Lord Chancellor can make similar changes in respect of the Church in Wales with its approval. My amendment gives the Secretary of State a duty to make the sort of changes that the Church might otherwise make through measures—or the Lord Chancellor, in the case of Wales—while maintaining the quadruple lock as far as possible.

This amendment differs from the amendment I moved in Committee by virtue of proposed new subsection (4). Paragraph (a) preserves the position of canon law; paragraph (b) preserves the exemption for same-sex marriages from the common law duty of members of the clergy to solemnise the marriages of their parishioners; and paragraph (c) reserves the carve-out from the Equality Act that allows religious organisations or ministers to refuse to conduct a same-sex marriage.

I hope that your Lordships, and in particular my good friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, will agree that this is a modest amendment. It simply says to the Church of England and the Church in Wales that Parliament will not stand in their way when they eventually get round to extending the right to marry in church to same-sex couples.

I also hope that this debate will have another consequence: to send to gay people everywhere the message that our society is loving and inclusive and that there is room for everyone in it. I must tell your Lordships that the main reason I persevered with this amendment was the numerous messages of support I received from the clergy. For example, I received this email from the vicar of St Peter’s Church, Hammersmith, the reverend Charles Clapham:

“I am writing as a Vicar in the Church of England to express my thanks to you for your interventions … in the House of Lords debate, and your support for the amendment to remove (in part) legal restrictions on the ability of Anglican clergy to solemnise same-sex marriages.


You will know this is an extremely contentious issue in the Church of England at present. But I hope you will also be aware that there are very large numbers of clergy and lay people who are supportive of equal marriage, and would like to be able to conduct such marriages in our churches. As things stand, these views are not being represented by our current House of Bishops.


The response to the amendment by the Bishop of Chelmsford in the chamber … was, to my mind, disappointing, and (to some extent) misleading. The Bishop made reference, for example, to the current ‘Living in Love and Faith’ project being undertaken by House of Bishops which is exploring issues of sexuality and gender. But he did not make clear that the parameters of this project are quite restrictive: it is an educational process only, and will not pronounce on the rights or wrongs of gay marriage (as the chair, the Bishop of Coventry has made clear). So this project will not result in the bishops recommending a change in current church practice regarding equal marriage.


My own parish in west London is hardly radical: we are a very ordinary suburban ‘middle-of-the-road’ Anglican church. But we have a number of LGBT people, some of whom are in civil partnerships or marriages, amongst our most valued parishioners and worshippers. It is a matter of embarrassment (to say the very least) that we are not able to celebrate their relationships formally in church, and a frustration that our bishops are unwilling to represent our views.


So I thank you for your advocacy and support, and do hope you will keep pushing the issue”.


Writing on Facebook on 8 February, the Dean of Leicester, the very reverend David Monteith, who entered into a same-sex civil partnership in 2008, said:

“I’ve had one of those weeks where the reality of being gay in the Church of England came home. I spend a lot of time with many sceptical folks encouraging them to hang in there. I find myself often encouraging others not to be daunted and to believe that one day God’s grace might actually be seen abundantly and more consistently in God’s church. But there are some weeks when it is difficult to know that deeply realised hope in practice as well as in theory. It gets no easier as a ‘senior priest’”.


That comment from David Monteith attracted more than 100 supportive messages, such as:

“With much love and prayer David Monteith. Many people are inspired by the fact that you and others in senior posts are willing to be courageous and prophetic at such personal sacrificial cost”.


Somebody else said:

“Sorry to read this David. I have found The Scottish Episcopal Church to be a kinder place”.


Unfortunately, there are still many examples of negativity in the Church. The Lambeth Conference of bishops is to be held in 2020. The most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited “every active bishop” in the Anglican Communion, and the conference planning group is to run a joint programme for bishops and their spouses. The Lambeth 2020 website says that this is,

“in recognition of the vital role spouses play across the Anglican Communion and a desire to support them in their ministry”—

but not if they are same-sex spouses. I understand that there are three in the Episcopal Church in North America who have effectively been disinvited.

The reverend canon Simon Butler, who is the vicar of St Mary’s, Battersea, and a member of the Church of England’s General Synod since 2005, asked an important question in the debate on the Pilling report on human sexuality at the February 2014 synod:

“My question requires a little context and a large amount of honesty. I’m gay; I don’t have a vocation to celibacy and at the same time I’ve always taken my baptismal and ordination vows with serious intent and with a sincere desire to model my life on the example of Christ simul justus et peccator. Those who have selected me, ordained me and licensed me know all this. My parish know it too.


My question is this: at the end of the process of facilitated conversations will the College of Bishops tell me whether there is a place for people like me as priests, deacons and bishops in the Church, rather than persisting in the existing policy that encourages a massive dishonesty so corrosive to the gospel? For my spiritual health, for the flourishing of people like me as ministers of the gospel and for the health of the wider Church I think we will all need to have an answer to that question”.


I suspect that we will not get the answer to Simon Butler’s question any time soon. However, I hope that, by debating this amendment today, this House will send a message to the Church of England and the Church in Wales—and to the Anglican Communion worldwide—that we in this House, at any rate, think it is time that they moved forward at rather more than the glacial speed we have seen so far. This amendment is intended to help them. I beg to move.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment and very much welcome the introduction by my noble friend, who has set out the issues extremely well. As we heard in Committee, this is about a journey that the Church of England in particular has been on, and there has been some movement. I certainly recall opposition in this House when I was hoping for agreement to civil partnerships going through. That opposition came from the Church of England too, and it delayed my civil partnership by a year, as it happens. However, when we came to the same-sex marriage debate, I welcomed the fact that the most reverend Primate spoke up in favour of civil partnerships. Therefore, there has been movement on the journey and I very much welcome that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)]

My Lords, I think we all recognise that this is a very sensitive issue. One cannot fail to be moved by some of the speeches we have heard, but I am grateful to the Minister and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford for clarifying the matter at hand. I hope noble Lords feel reassured by the words spoken in the debate and that these matters are being considered carefully by the Church of England and the Church in Wales as part of the ongoing debate about the nature of marriage. I hope the noble Lord feels he can withdraw the amendment so that we do not hamper the excellent progress the Bill is making on some very significant matters.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I think I can answer the noble Baroness with a reply to that very last point. I gave her my word during the week that I did not intend to divide the House at the end of the debate for the very reason she said. I would not wish to do anything that made it more difficult for the Bill to get through the House of Commons and become law. It is a very good Bill. I congratulate her on the way she has presented it. She sat patiently through a debate that was not directly on the main subject of the Bill, and I accept that. For that reason, I will not divide the House.

I would like to thank all my noble friends and other Members of the House who have spoken, so movingly and strongly, in favour of the principle contained in my amendment. I particularly thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, whose tone in this debate, I have to say, was different from that of his brother bishop, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, who accused me in Committee of being divisive. I do not think I have been divisive, either today or on that occasion. It is important that the House has the chance to say to the Church of England, as the noble Lords, Lord Collins, Lord Cashman and Lord Elton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Barker, have all said, that we want to see more progress from the Church of England in coming to its own decision, not at some point 10 years hence. My noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out that five years have already passed since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed.

If this is going to synod next year, I hope that will be the occasion when the House of Bishops takes a lead and wins over other members of the synod. I am not seeking to dictate or force the Church of England and the Church in Wales to do things that they do not want to; I want them to understand just how much support there is for a change of this sort. I particularly appreciate the words of the Minister, with whom I also had a discussion about this Bill during the week. Her message, that the Government support progress, is one I hope the Church will take on board very seriously. The support of my noble friend Lord Kennedy is also very important. I thank everybody who has taken part. The message from this House is clear: it is over to the Church of England to make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morrow (DUP)]

My Lords, perhaps I may make a few brief comments. We have had quite a number of challenges from those who have already spoken on this issue. They recognise, I think, that the Northern Ireland Assembly is the place to decide this matter, and, as a former serving Member of that Assembly, I could not agree more.

We need to keep things in perspective, because it seems to me that a number of debates are contained within one debate today. In our previous debate, about animal welfare, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, said that it would be up to the Northern Ireland Assembly to decide these issues. When asked about the position in relation to Northern Ireland, he said that it was a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I wondered then whether the next issue for debate would be a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I will repeat what I have said on other occasions in this House: give us the Assembly or give us direct rule. At the moment, we are in no man’s land, and we cannot abide there much longer. Northern Ireland deserves to be governed, just like any other region of the United Kingdom.

There was allusion to the fact that the petition of concern is the problem. Let me make it very clear: at no time did my party ask for a petition of concern to be inserted into the Belfast agreement. We believe that it is very bad government to have it and we will say that anywhere. However, it is there; ironically, at the last talks neither Sinn Féin nor the SDLP wanted it withdrawn. We believe that there is a much better way to do it.

We have to be very careful. If we start cherry picking—saying that we will do this piece of legislation but we will not do that—where will that take us? We can draw only one conclusion. When this House and the other place start to make legislation relating to Northern Ireland, irrespective of the issue—and this is where we get lost sometimes—the message will go out very clearly that both this House and the other place have given up on devolution.

I have said this before and I think it bears repeating: if devolution returns tomorrow—it is unlikely to be tomorrow, since it is Saturday, but we will take Monday—the first through the door will be my party. We will be at the head of the queue. We did not bring the Northern Ireland Assembly down, but, because of the way the Belfast agreement was constructed, one party can at any time bring the whole thing to a halt.

Let us face the elephant in the room. We were told that Sinn Féin could not continue because of RHI. But there has been a public inquiry into RHI and it will make its findings known within months or perhaps weeks—that fox has been shot. What is now holding it up? Sinn Féin has another list of things that it needs—and you can be sure that, once there is any move to bring back the Assembly, another list will appear to say we cannot have devolution because this has to be done. Remember, this is not the first time that the Northern Ireland Assembly has come to a standstill. Noble Lords will recall that there was another occasion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

Can the noble Lord give an assurance that the DUP would not block the equal status of the Irish language if it were part of a devolution settlement and the restoration of the Assembly?

[Lord Morrow]

That would be equivalent to the DUP asking Sinn Féin to give assurances tomorrow that it will never again bring the Assembly to a standstill. We do not know what the circumstances will be. Sinn Féin brought it to a standstill. The last time it did this was on social security issues; then, after a long delay, it caught on that this was a matter that came from London, and so it could not change it.

Deportation: Jamaica

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will understand that I will not comment on an individual case. She is absolutely right that deportations go on all the time. Although this flight has come to the fore in the media this week, it is nothing unusual. I cannot comment on whether this deportation has been cancelled or not.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that one of the weaknesses in the Government’s position over the Windrush scandal was that it demonstrated evidence of a “Gotcha!” culture in the immigration service and in the Home Office? Achieving a deportation was chalked up as a victory by the staff concerned. Can she reassure us that that culture has now gone and that some of the worst aspects of the Windrush problem will not recur?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right to make this point. When the Home Secretary first took up his post, he made it a central priority that that culture of a hostile environment—which had grown up over the years, if we are to be honest—would be far more attuned towards talking about a compliant environment and that the culture in the Home Office would be changed to be far more humane. That was demonstrated in the aftermath of what happened to the Windrush people. I hope this continues towards those who genuinely have a right to be in this country.

Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration Etc.) Bill

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 1st February 2019 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

2: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Removal of exemption for clergy under the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013
(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to amend the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 to remove the exemption for members of the clergy to solemnize the marriage of a same sex couple.(2) Regulations under this section must be in force by the end of the period of 6 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Baroness and to the Committee for being unable to speak at Second Reading, although I was present for a large part of the debate. My amendment is very simple and I hope it will be seen by the Committee as an attempt to build on the success of the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, which many of us in this Chamber view as one of the great successes of the coalition Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, who took it through on behalf of the Government, won huge plaudits at the time for the way she did that and for the way in which she won over some sceptical Members of the House as the Bill went forward. There was, however, a major flaw in that Act. It included what in today’s parlance would be called a backstop, but I remember that at the time it was called a “triple lock”. This effectively ruled the Church of England out of the Bill’s provisions. It continued the ban on same-sex couples marrying in Church of England churches.

I took advice this morning from the Public Bill Office, to which I express my deep gratitude, as to whether it would be possible to propose a simple amendment to the Bill to effectively change that so that, at some point in the future—I look at the right reverend Prelate, because I think that it will be in his hands and the hands of members of the Church of England—there will be an opportunity to say that, because the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act has been such an unqualified success and is already allowing thousands of same-sex couples to enjoy the opportunity to be married and live together, it should be possible for the Church of England to follow the lead set by the Anglican Churches in Scotland, the United States, Canada and other countries and permit same-sex couples to marry in church. The amendment provides the opportunity for that debate, and I hope very much that the Committee will look sympathetically on what I am proposing. I beg to move.

[Lord Cashman]

My Lords, I am pleased to add my name to this amendment and I echo the words of my noble friend. It is vital to remember that this change will not compel the Church of England to solemnise same-sex marriage. Instead, it simply means that if the Church were to change its position at any time, as some of us hope it will, and decide to authorise its clergy to solemnise same-sex marriage, it would not have to appeal to Parliament to change the law to allow it to do so. It rightly places this decision in the hands of the religious institution rather than Parliament. I have to reflect at this point that other religions are not so prohibited and are allowed to make their decisions. As a born-again atheist—although one right reverend Prelate informed me that I was not a born-again atheist but probably a “recovering Catholic”—I go to great lengths to defend the rights of religion and belief, because the basis upon which any civilised society is formed is defence of the rights of the other, even if the other is in complete opposition to you.

I have witnessed, in this country and around the world, how religious belief has been used to deny people basic equality—equality of rights, civil rights. I want us to come to a time when that history is far, far behind us. I witness how religion and personal, private religious belief is still being extended into the public and political domain to deny others basic human rights. I have to ask myself and imagine what would have happened if, instead of my wonderful civil partnership with the late Paul Cottingham, we had wanted to marry in the Church of England. I would have faced discrimination, as people of faith in the so-called LGBT, lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans community, often do, because the views of religious people are used to deny that group and other groups equality, as I said. But what about when those people of faith and of belief are discriminated against and denied their place within their own faith and belief community? It makes no sense to me whatever.

Neither does the use of religious principle, selectively implemented to justify such discrimination, make sense. I remember being mentored, before a television debate, by the late Bishop of Bath and Wells, Jim Thompson. He schooled me rather brilliantly and said, “When they use the Levitical code, remind them how the modern Church has dissociated itself from strands of the Levitical code, particularly in relation to women, people with disabilities, the eating of pork and shellfish et cetera”. When we use religious principle selectively, I would argue that we undermine those principles.

Therefore, without wishing to preach—dare an atheist do that?—I look to those progressives within religious institutions, not only in this country but across the world, and the incredible work that they are undertaking within their institutions and within those religious bodies to move forward. We need to do everything to support them. I believe that this amendment goes along that route. It is not about telling them what they should do, but telling the Government that they should remove the obstruction to a religious institution, in this instance the Church of England, if it so decides, going along the route to solemnise same-sex marriage, and thereby welcome into the body of that Church people regardless of whom they wish to love consensually.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hodgson of Abinger]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying these matters. It only remains for me to say in response to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, Lord Collins of Highbury and Lord Cashman, that the wider debate about the nature of marriage is going on right across society, particularly in the Church of England, the Church in Wales and in other churches, and it will continue. I am grateful to noble Lords for stating their views, but they are not the focus of the Bill before us, so I hope we can give it the green light and the go-ahead to move forward.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am deeply grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and to the right reverend Prelate, who clearly thought a great deal about what he was going to say to us. It has been a remarkable debate. This is the first time since the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 was passed, more than five years ago, that we have had an opportunity to talk about the attitude of the Church of England—and the Church in Wales, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, pointed out—to same-sex marriage in church. I make no apology for raising the debate because the fact that the Church is moving—at glacial speed, I am afraid to say—on this issue is because of the climate created in this House towards the whole issue of same-sex relationships. This House set the lead in passing that legislation with such enthusiasm in 2013, and I think there is a genuine move for us to give the Church a little push in the right direction.

Of course, I am aware that the General Synod has to pass its own legislation, but I cannot see the logic in us facilitating that by passing an amendment such as this and then giving the synod the opportunity to come round to thinking about whether it wants to do it. It is not mandatory; rather it is an opportunity for the General Synod to think further.

A lot could be said about the problems that the Church of England has with sexuality, particularly the sexuality of so many of its priests and other representatives. That is not a debate for today but it is something that I know the Church of England will have to come to terms with if it is not to be seen as hypocritical on issues around sexual relationships.

However, for today, and it is for today, if the Committee agrees, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I reserve the right to bring it back on Report.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

Registration of Marriage Bill [HL]

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 29th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

12: Clause 1, page 1, line 26, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations under this section must make equivalent provision for the registration of same sex marriages and marriages between a man and a woman.”

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no wish to prolong the Committee’s debate this morning, as there are two important Private Members’ Bills to follow. I was not able to attend Second Reading on 26 January, but I have carefully read the report in Hansard. I was prompted to table this amendment because I believed it would be helpful to obtain confirmation of the point made then by my noble friend Lady Gale, whom I am pleased to see in her place, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench. Supporting the Bill—as of course I do today—she said,

“we should have both parents’ names on the marriage certificates. Since we now have civil partnerships and same-sex marriages, one day some children of those couples will no doubt get married”.—[Official Report, 26/1/18; col. 1245.]

It is precisely to obtain clarification that the inclusion of both parents’ names on their marriage certificates will apply equally to the children of same-sex marriages that I have tabled this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of St Albans]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying those matters. It only remains for me to say, in response to the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Cashman, that of course the wider debate about the nature of marriage is going on right across society, but particularly in the Church of England and in other churches. That will continue. That, of course, is not the focus of the Bill today; that will come back at other points, there will be all sorts of discussions in the General Synod and so on, and they will continue. I am grateful to the noble Lords for stating their view on that, but this is particularly about registration and therefore I hope that we can give this the green light and the go-ahead to speed through.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken and for the words of the right reverend Prelate. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lord Cashman. The words of the Minister are fine with me: I accept that that is the answer to the question that was posed by my noble friend Lady Gale and I am therefore content to seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Thursday 10th May 2018 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the outcome of their review of the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by expressing my appreciation for all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who will be contributing to this short debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, for she was the sponsor of the Private Member’s Bill that became the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 2013. Almost exactly a year earlier the House was able to accept an amendment that I moved to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill that made it illegal for a scrap metal dealer to make payment in cash. That was the first step along this road of solving the problem of metal theft. The cash-free provisions, and a great many others, were incorporated in the 2013 Act.

Noble Lords may recall that at that time there were almost daily reports of lead being stolen from church roofs, metal plaques being stolen from war memorials, manhole covers disappearing, signalling cables being ripped from our railway lines, the theft of which led to trains being delayed for thousands of hours, and in one case in Dulwich, a complete metal sculpture being ripped off its plinth. The number of metal theft offences recorded by the police in England and Wales peaked at just under 63,000 in 2012-13. The Act came into force in October 2013. As well as making it illegal to pay cash for scrap metal, it set out ID check requirements and gave the enforcement authorities, such as the police and the Environment Agency in England and the Natural Resources Body for Wales, powers of inspection and access to premises. A scrap metal dealer was required to hold and display a licence issued by the relevant local authority. The lead for tackling metal theft was taken by the British Transport Police, who built on the success of Operation Tornado. That started as a pilot in January 2012 and required scrap metal dealers to request identification for every cash sale—such sales were, of course, legal until December 2012.

I pay tribute to the BTP for the effectiveness and dedication of its continued work in this field. I make the point in passing that its activities in combating scrap metal theft cover not just England and Wales but Scotland too—another powerful reason for the Edinburgh Government to abandon their attempt to remove the British Transport Police from Scotland. Its efforts were supported in the first year of the Act’s implementation by a dedicated and specially funded metal theft task force and there was a significant fall in the incidence of metal theft. This trend was assisted by a dramatic drop in world scrap metal prices. However, funding for the task force ended in October 2014 and since then there has been no funding for continued enforcement by a dedicated group. Enforcement interventions are now carried out on an ad hoc basis. For example, on 17 November last year I took part in two unannounced visits—I would not wish to use the word “raids”—by West Mercia Police and the Environment Agency to dealers in Malvern, Worcestershire.

A number of preventive measures have also been taken. A cast iron manhole cover in the street close to my home in London has been replaced by one made of plastic which carries the words “Non-metallic—no scrap value”. St Blaise Church in the Oxfordshire village of Milton had the lead on its roof stolen five times and has now replaced it with stainless steel. There are many similar examples.

The House was supposed to be adding a sunset clause to the 2013 Act but your Lordships decided not to pass that amendment to the Bill. A sunset clause was not applied but the Government were obliged, under Section 18 of the Act, to review its effectiveness within five years. At the request of the industry, that review was brought forward and the outcome was published last December. This is the first time, I think, that the review has been debated by your Lordships. The most important conclusion is on page 10:

“The overwhelming view of those who responded was that the Scrap Metal Dealers Act had improved regulation of the scrap metal industry and, by doing so, had helped to achieve reductions in the level of metal theft. The overwhelming view was that the Act should continue in force. The Government agrees with that view”.


I am sure we will have no difficulty in agreeing with that conclusion. However—and this is a significant “however”—I urge the Minister to look behind the headline figures and think seriously about a range of issues which, if they are not addressed, could fatally undermine the effectiveness of the Act in future.

Let us look first at the statistics. The Home Office review states that the number of metal theft offences recorded by the police in England and Wales in the year ending March 2017 was 12,970. That is a huge reduction compared to the 62,997 recorded in 2012-13. But the latest report from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, published by the BTP as recently as 2 May, says that there was an 11% increase in 2017-18 and notes a clear correlation between the price of copper and lead in particular and the number of incidents reported. A further indication of the seriousness of the problem is contained in figures obtained from Network Rail under a freedom of information request by the British Metals Recycling Association. These show that 62 cases of railway cable theft were recorded in 2017, which contributed to train delays amounting to 36,286 minutes.

A particular issue is the degree of enforcement. An article in the trade journal Materials Recycling World by Robin Edwards, who was the project leader for Operation Tornado and operational lead for the national metal theft task force, said:

“The future of metal theft sits on a precipice, and the recent increases in commodity prices and the lack of enforcement is all that is required to push it over the edge”.


That view is strongly supported by the British Metals Recycling Association, which represents the ethical and law-abiding part of the industry. The association has told me that for the ban on cash purchases to be effective, it needs to be enforced properly, and it is disappointed that its requests for the Act to be strengthened have so far been ignored by the Home Office. Examples of what it says are needed include the introduction of a new offence of receiving cash for scrap metal, strengthening the requirements to identify the sellers of scrap metal, expanding police enter-and-inspect powers to include stop-and-search provisions for mobile collectors, and the re-establishment of the metal theft task force.

The increase in severity has not been captured by the official figures, as the ONS data simply record the number of metal theft incidents and not their value or impact. The data do not show that the nature of metal theft has changed from predominantly a high number of small, opportunistic thefts to fewer but far larger, often gang-organised, crime-based thefts. The number of churches having lost half of their roof lead in a single night is evidence of this.

In addition, thieves are now targeting new sources of scrap metal, including foundries, with legitimate scrap metal dealers often stealing £30,000 to £40,000-worth of copper-based materials in a single night. I also hear that, while in the past thefts were seemingly opportunistic and involved small quantities, now, 50 cubic metres of lead or two kilometres of cable are being stolen at once. Worryingly, these larger crimes are more likely to be the work of organised crime gangs and may lead to the stolen items being sent overseas in secure containers. I believe that metal theft is again on the increase in part because the criminal element knows that there is no longer a dedicated metal theft task force and that metal theft is often seen as a victimless crime. But the impact of metal theft goes far beyond the cost of replacing the metal. In some cases, the theft of lead from churches is not noticed immediately, leading to far more damage to the church’s fabric.

The perception that there is little danger of detection has another consequence: we are seeing an increasing number of operators choosing openly to break the law and pay cash for scrap metal. Not only does this create an uneven playing field for the legal operators but, assuming that an operator who is willing to act illegally by paying cash is more likely to do so in other ways, it creates an easy means for thieves to dispose of stolen metal.

I conclude by reminding the Minister of the statement on page 5 of the review of the Act. It says:

“The Home Office will give further consideration to the case for strengthening the legislation in the future, in consultation with the industry, the police and interested parties, building on the representations received in response to this review”.


I hope she may be able to give us some encouragement in that respect this afternoon.

Windrush Generation

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that of course, this does not just involve the Home Office. As he mentioned, a number of departments are concerned, including the DWP, the DVLA and all sorts of other government departments. I have every confidence that the centre and the 50 case- workers across the country will provide a joined-up approach and that people will not have to go to several different places in order to solve their case. It should be resolved in one place by co-ordinating with other government departments. I thank the noble Lord for making the point because it is a very important one.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, said about the role of David Lammy MP and the Guardian newspaper, in particular the work of Amelia Gentleman in bringing this whole matter to light over the past few weeks. I feel bound to say that someone in the Home Office should have taken the trouble to read the debate on Windrush that we had in Grand Committee on 18 January, when I first raised the question of Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan, both of whom had been threatened with deportation. In the case of Mr Bryan, he was given an air ticket to go back to a country he had not lived in since he was a child, while Paulette Wilson was taken to Yarl’s Wood detention centre and obviously treated like a criminal. Had some notice been taken then—following the campaign led by the Guardian and David Lammy—we would have come to where we are today very much sooner.

Having said that, I am delighted that we are where we are. I should like the Minister to confirm that the culture inside the Home Office and the immigration department will change as a result of the Home Secretary’s statement yesterday. There are terrible reports of immigration officers playing a game in which they catch people in what is known as a “Gotcha culture”. When they think they have found an illegal immigrant, they mark it up as a victory. That sort of talk and action can no longer be tolerated. Can she give an assurance that that will stop? Also, can we now begin to have a proper debate on and give full recognition to the importance we attach to the immigrants among us? We are all immigrants in one way or another, so we should move away from the blame culture and xenophobic attitude which is colouring so much of our public debate.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that the culture is everything in an organisation and I hope that the Home Secretary’s words yesterday will have acted as a jolt to the culture not only in the Home Office but in other government departments because, in the end, everything is about human beings as individuals and citizens of this country. He mentioned our debate in Grand Committee and I will mention again what I have said: is not hindsight such a wonderful thing? If only this had come to light far sooner. It is 47 years after some of these people arrived, and indeed a lot longer for others. I understand that Paulette Wilson now has her documents and that Mr Bryan has had his status confirmed. That is an example of how, I hope, the Home Office is being proactive in its approach.

On David Lammy, I did mean to say when the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, made his point that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also paid tribute to his work yesterday. I echo those comments.

Windrush Generation

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 23rd April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

First, if I could go back to the 2014 legislation, which I assume the noble Baroness refers to, the Immigration Act 1971 already protected these people. The noble Baroness goes absolutely to the right point, which is that the public are furious with the Government. In fact, successive Governments have failed to deal with this, so this should not be an occasion—and she does not make it one—for political infighting. We need to deal with it, and we need to deal with it now. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to point out that we need experienced people in this task force, and there are. They are not dealing with this as a box-ticking exercise but in a compassionate and sensitive way, and are ensuring that people who come forward, not to apply for citizenship but to have it confirmed that they have always been citizens of this country, will have that dealt with very sensitively.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that on 18 January, on a Motion from the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the Grand Committee of your Lordships’ House debated the centenary of the arrival of the merchant vessel “Empire Windrush”? In that debate, I raised the cases of Paulette Wilson and Anthony Bryan and asked the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, if he could reply to me about the way in which they had been treated. Not surprisingly, he passed the letter to the Home Office, and on 11 April—almost three months afterwards—I got a letter from the Immigration Minister in which she said that the Home Office had acted appropriately based on the evidence. Would the Minister like to revise that view and possibly offer the apology to these two people, and the others, which I asked for in the debate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, herein lies the issue the noble Lord has highlighted. I think the two cases he refers to were dealt with appropriately. However, what was deemed as, perhaps, a blip in the system is actually a far more systemic problem that needs to be dealt with. I had not been aware that the debate had taken place, but certainly this is a generation of people whose status now needs to be regularised and regularised quickly.

Immigration: International Students

Lord Faulkner of Worcester Excerpts

Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, on his Question and supplementary, with which I agree totally, does the Minister agree with Dame Julia Goodfellow, president of Universities UK, who says that,

“it is important to remember that international students also enrich our campuses and the experience of UK students, both academically and culturally Many return home having built strong professional and personal links here that provide long-term, ‘soft power’ benefits for the UK”.

I declare an interest as Her Majesty’s Government’s trade envoy to Taiwan, which, I am happy to say, sends the UK more than 16,000 students a year.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very happy to agree with both the noble Lord and, of course, my noble friend. We absolutely acknowledge that international students enrich the economy and, indeed, this country. We have no plans at all to cap the numbers—in fact, we encourage them, hence we are expanding the pilot.