European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 7th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think I am a frog or a lemming, but I was one of the Ministers at the Dispatch Box when we took the European Union Referendum Bill through this House and I think we should have regard to what we decided in Parliament in that Act. A number of amendments were tabled but, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, there was no amendment about thresholds, no amendment to nuance the simple question that was posed, no amendment to say that we would only leave if we stayed within the single market, and, in particular, no amendment saying that there would be a second referendum. Why not? Was it because the alternatives were too complicated? There were only two outcomes of the referendum: either we remained or we left. Was it political negligence by parliamentarians not to table these amendments, or were they content with the Bill and its binary question?

We are having this debate contrary to what was generally considered to be the law, which was that it was the right of the Government, exercising the royal prerogative—

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

These amendments were tabled in the previous Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, as a surrogate for the Government. If they were tabled and defeated or withdrawn on that occasion, some people may have felt that there was no point in raising them at a later stage.

[Lord Faulks]

I find that remarkably unpersuasive.

As a result of the decision of the people, most thought that there was a power for the Government to negotiate and do the best deal possible. We then had the Gina Miller case, but there is nothing in the Supreme Court judgment, in my view, which either expressly or impliedly endorses the amendment advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Newby.

This is opportunism motivated by the perfectly understandable view, which I share, that we should not have voted to leave the EU. However, if we vote for this amendment, we will be ignoring what we decided in the European Union Referendum Act, we will be ignoring the vote and we will be ignoring the House of Commons. It is time for a little constitutional modesty on our part.

Crown Dependencies

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 12th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, in April, the Government secured an agreement with finance centres in the Crown dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man—Guernsey is yet to sign—to provide the UK law enforcement and tax authorities with unrestricted and near-real-time access to information on beneficial ownership of companies from a central register. This is part of the Prime Minister’s anti-corruption drive. They are playing their part and it is important that they do so.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have asked repeatedly in this House for a regular air service to start to one of our overseas dependent territories—namely, St Helena—but on each occasion the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, has said, “Come and see officials in my office”? I have been in touch with her office and she says that they cannot see me before October. As a distinguished lawyer and well-respected Minister, will the noble Lord use his good offices to find out how I can get an answer?

[Lord Faulks]

It is very difficult to refuse the noble Lord anything. I will, of course, speak to my ministerial colleague and try to ensure that appropriate meetings take place when they can.

Queen’s Speech

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is a privilege for me to open the debate on Her Majesty’s gracious Speech in which we will be considering the Government’s priorities on the matters of home, legal, constitutional and devolved affairs in the year ahead. Underlying all these priorities, I should emphasise, is our commitment to be a one-nation Government who seek to extend opportunity wherever they can and help everyone in this country reach their full potential.

I turn first to the Government’s legal business. The prison and courts reform Bill included in the gracious Speech is, above all, part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce crime. It will reduce reoffending by making prisons places of education and purpose and ensure that our court system is accessible and proportionate. There is no doubt that our prison system is in need of reform. Those who work in our prisons—prison officers, governors, probation officers, charity workers and volunteers—do so tirelessly to support the individuals in their care and address the causes of their offending, and yet the system they work in hinders, rather than helps, their commitment to rehabilitation. They have to deal with an ageing estate, elaborate and centralised rules and regulations and increasing levels of violence and self-harm.

Those barriers to rehabilitation are reflected in reoffending figures. At present, nearly half—46%, to be precise—of adult prisoners are reconvicted within one year of release. The Government must therefore act to reduce those figures, cut crime and make our streets safer. The public would expect nothing less. However, an effective criminal justice system cannot afford to ignore the evidence on the causes of crime. We know, for example, that prisoners come disproportionately from harsh and violent backgrounds. Around two-fifths of them observed domestic violence as children, nearly one-quarter were taken into care and 47% do not have a single school qualification. So there will be a new emphasis on rehabilitation, based on a belief in the innate worth of every individual. Offenders, the Government argue, should be seen not simply as liabilities but as potential assets—people who can redeem themselves and contribute fully to society.

To achieve that, we need to unlock the potential not just of those in prison but of those supporting them, giving those at the front line the freedom to pursue what works. We will start by creating six reform prisons, where governors will be given more freedom over budgets, staffing and their relationships with business and charities. The Bill will support the creation of new reform prisons and provide that they are independently run and legally separate from the Secretary of State. The lesson of other public service reforms is that greater autonomy generates innovation. By giving such freedoms to governors we will allow them to choose the best education, training, healthcare and security for their prisoners. Reducing violence and self-harm will be a high priority since a calm, orderly environment is critical to the opportunity to rehabilitate.

These reforms will also allow for better accountability. There will be comparable statistics for each prison on reoffending rates, employment on release, and levels of violence and self-harm. That is how we will identify successful innovations and replicate them. These new freedoms for governors sit alongside our commitment to replace 10,000 places in ageing and ineffective prisons with new establishments better suited to the needs of prisoners today, to be built with £1.3 billion of investment announced at the spending review.

We also need to make sure that our courts and tribunals are operating efficiently and effectively and are able to deliver a system that is just, proportionate and accessible. The Bill will make justice more accessible to users by digitising the courts and tribunals system, making our systems easier to use and built around those who use them, while supporting those who are digitally excluded. It will enable us to get cases out of the courtroom that should not be there, so that a judge and a courtroom are used only where necessary. Across all jurisdictions, trained case officers will carry out routine case management, and technology will help to progress cases more efficiently and resolve more of them online. This will make for a more efficient courts estate.

We are making our family courts more focused on outcomes. More collaborative problem-solving approaches will be used, promoting better outcomes for families in the public and private family courts. We are also continuing the drive to make it easier for disputes to be resolved through mediation.

I turn now to the rule of law and to a crucial aspect of it: human rights, here and abroad. The Government remain committed to human rights, but we are committed to reforming domestic human rights law so that we can have a system that protects people’s rights but also commands the confidence of the public. This country has a proud tradition of respect for human rights, which stretches back centuries—long predating, I should stress, the Human Rights Act 1998. With that tradition embodied in Magna Carta, the Petition of Right, the Bill of Rights, the Claim of Right and other statutes, this country has always been a beacon for liberty and democracy. Indeed, our rights tradition has been exported all over the world.

That continues today. The UK has played a key role in dealing with the human costs of the conflict in the Middle East. We have contributed £2.3 billion to the Syrian crisis since 2012 and have committed to taking in more than 20,000 Syrian refugees by 2020. We have transformed the fight against sexual violence in conflict, persuading more than 150 states to agree for the first time that sexual violence should be recognised as a grave breach of the Geneva Convention.

That commitment to human rights and civil liberties is matched at home. The coalition Government scrapped ID cards and cut pre-charge detention. This Government brought forward the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The Government were elected with a clear mandate to reform the UK’s human rights framework. I know that noble Lords have eagerly awaited our proposals for a Bill of Rights, and I hope they will not be waiting much longer.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

Having spoken about treating prisoners more humanely, the Minister is now talking about human rights. Why do the Government not accept the decision of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to prisoners’ votes?

[Lord Faulks]

The noble Lord will know that both Houses of Parliament have had a chance to consider this issue on more than one occasion. The House of Commons has decided by a significant margin that it does not wish prisoners to have the vote, and that remains the position.

As I indicated, the Government have a clear mandate, but I want to address some worries that have been raised and talk about what our proposals will not do. Our reforms are not about eroding people’s human rights. They are not about walking away from the list of fundamental rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Government are and will remain committed to the protection of those rights.

The problems that have been highlighted by many—all over this House and in the other place—about the way in which human rights have been applied are not to do with the text of the convention itself. Rather, they are to do with its interpretation, which has been extended far beyond what those who drafted it ever planned.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 14th December 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this afternoon we return to the question of the voting age. Since we last debated the Bill, only two weeks ago, it has been considered in the other place. It agreed to all of the amendments made by your Lordships, with the sole exception of Amendment 1, which would lower the voting age to 16.

This House has now discussed the question of the voting age many times since the election in relation to this Bill and the Cities and Local Government Devolution Bill, so this is now well-trodden ground. The Government’s position is therefore well known. We do not believe that it is appropriate to lower the voting age to 16 and, even if it were, this Bill would not be the place to make such a change. That applies as much to the amendment before the House today in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely. I recognise that she has done what she can to minimise the charge on the public purse but that does not change the principle of the Government’s position.

Before I turn to the substantial arguments, I will set out the Government’s position on financial privilege and procedure. Along with the decision to disagree with Amendment 1, the other place has sent us its reason:

“Because it would involve a charge on public funds”.

This is a reference to the financial privilege of the House of Commons. There has been a great deal of discussion and speculation on this issue, so I will endeavour to set out the Government’s position. When this House amends a Bill sent to us by the House of Commons, our amendments are assessed by the clerks in another place in order to establish whether they engage the financial privilege of the House of Commons. That important process is carried out under the authority of the Speaker, and the Government—any Government—have no say in it.

The fact that a Lords amendment to a Bill has been deemed to engage the financial privilege of the House of Commons is announced to that House before it considers the amendment, but it does not prevent the House of Commons from agreeing to that Lords amendment and thereby waiving its privilege: indeed, this happens routinely. However, should it disagree to the Lords amendment, financial privilege is the only formal reason that it can give for doing so.

It should come as no surprise that the original amendment that we sent to the House of Commons, lowering the voting age, was deemed to engage the House of Commons’s financial privilege. The Government estimate that extending the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the referendum would cost at least £6 million. But, as my honourable friend the Minister for Constitutional Reform, John Penrose, explained to the House of Commons last week, that is not the reason why the Government invited the House of Commons to disagree to this House’s amendment. The Government disagree with the principle. We disagree with the proposal to extend the franchise to 16 and 17 year-olds for the referendum for the reasons I made clear to this House when we considered the original amendment, and which I will again set out briefly this afternoon.

I turn now to those arguments. Given the number of times your Lordships have considered this, I of course do not intend to rehearse every part of the argument. However, I will set out briefly why we firmly believe that the voting age should remain at 18 for the referendum. Society has drawn numerous lines for when a young person is able to take various decisions. A 16 year-old may join the army but not use a sunbed. An 18 year-old may be deployed in a war zone but not drive a bus. Only a 21 year-old can supervise a learner driver or adopt a child. For many activities, parental consent is required; in England and Wales, joining the Armed Forces and getting married require the agreement of a young person’s parents. It would hardly be appropriate to require parental consent to cast a vote.

The state also requires that young people in England remain in education or training until the age of 18, and in Scotland young people will soon apparently enjoy the protection of a state-appointed guardian until the age of 18. Indeed, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as a person under the age of 18, unless national laws set a lower age of majority. The Committee on the Rights of the Child goes further and recommends that if a country’s age of majority is below 18 it should be reviewed, and that levels of protection be increased for all people younger than 18. Similarly, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, led by Dame Lowell Goddard, has defined “child” to mean anyone under the age of 18.

These distinctions are, in the final analysis, a matter of judgment. There is no single answer to the question of when a young person should be able to take one decision or another. But it is at 18 that society generally views a young person as becoming an adult. The line has to be drawn somewhere, and we suggest that 18 is the logical, consistent place to choose.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab)]

The Minister knows that in Scotland in the Scottish referendum, 16 and 17 year-olds were allowed to vote. I spoke to many of them during the course of that referendum and found them intelligent, well-informed and exercising their right to vote with great enthusiasm and sense. Therefore, it was a successful experiment. Why does the Minister not agree that it was successful and why does he think there was something wrong with doing that?

[Lord Faulks]

I do not suggest that it was unsuccessful, nor do I for a moment cast aspersions on the intelligence of 16 and 17 year-olds in Scotland or in England and Wales. Enthusiasm is of course to be welcomed at any age. Equally, there may be 15 year-olds who are very well informed and intelligent, whether they are in Scotland or in England and Wales. But, although Scotland took the view that it did about the voting age because of the devolution arrangements, most democratic societies have made the same judgment as this Government makes. In every EU member state but Austria, the voting age is 18 for national elections, and referendums where they take place. The 1975 referendum proceeded on that basis, as did the referendum on AV—and, as your Lordships may remember, the EU Act 2011would in the event of a transfer of power on competences have triggered a referendum according to the franchise that is used for general elections.

European Union Referendum Bill

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Wednesday 28th October 2015 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate, with strong feelings expressed on all sides. I hope noble Lords will forgive me if I do not recite all the different amendments and what they purport to do because in effect they come down to one issue: whether or not we should allow 16 and 17 year-olds to vote in this referendum. The voting age for UK parliamentary elections is set at 18. This is the voting age which was used in the 1975 referendum on EEC membership and the 2011 alternative vote referendum and it is the voting age that is used in most democracies, including most member states in the EU. Only Austria in the EU allows voting at 16.

Let me deal with some of the issues that have been raised in the debate. Noble Lords have said that young people are or will be engaged and politically active. That may certainly be true of some 16 year-olds but equally it is true of some 14 year-olds and not true of some 50 year-olds, and political engagement or a lack of it cannot be enough justification for giving or denying the vote.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was an early enthusiast for politics and elections and would have been capable of making a decision even before the age of 16. In his Second Reading speech, my noble friend Lord Ridley was far more modest about his capacity to make a decision at 17 or 18, as was my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Enthusiasm has been observed, particularly in the Scottish referendum, but I adhere to the point that it would be odd if enthusiasm of itself created the right to vote. The appetite for this change is in question, as it seems that young people are split on the issue. Recent YouGov polling indicates that although 56% of 16 year-olds want to be able to vote, only 42% of 17 year-olds and 36% of 18 year-olds want the voting age to be lowered.

Another point that has been raised is that people will live with the outcome longer and therefore it is important that younger voters are involved. Of course, 15 year-olds will have to live with the outcome even longer, even if the change proposed in the amendment were made. So will 14 year-olds and those even younger than that, but no one is proposing that we extend the vote to these age groups. I agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson that those who are older are concerned for their children and grandchildren and have an important desire to serve their interests.

The development of the adolescent brain is a complex area. It might be thought that to deny 16 year-olds is to be in some way a killjoy. I have noted the enthusiasm that several noble Lords have shown for the appetite of 16 year-olds to be engaged politically—many of those who have been involved in the Lord Speaker’s visits in particular; the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, spoke well about that, if I may say so. There is no one clear point at which we categorically say that a person becomes an adult. Research into brain development has yet to provide us with an obvious point at which we can distinguish between adolescents and adults. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, talked about difficulties in decision-making. Although Professor Laurence Steinberg argues that 16 year-olds are as capable as adults of making measured decisions, Dr Jay Giedd argues that the human brain does not reach full maturity until at least the mid-20s. Clearly, this is an issue that requires careful consideration, and deserves to be considered as part of a stand-alone debate.

Noble Lords have pointed to a number of things that a person can do when they turn 16 and suggested that this means that they ought to be able to vote. These claims do not bear much scrutiny. It is true that a person can marry at 16, but this important and life-changing decision cannot be made in England without parental consent. Of course, it is inappropriate for parental consent to be required to cast a vote. Similarly, although 16 and 17 year-olds can join the Army, parental consent is required, and it is not until a person turns 18 that they can be deployed in a conflict zone. My noble friend Lord Blencathra listed a number of things that 16 year-olds cannot do and, in those circumstances, I do not propose to list them.

There is no clear point at which a young person becomes an adult, but the restrictions that I have listed and were referred to by several other noble Lords acknowledge the simple fact that it is generally at 18, not 16, that society draws the line. It is at this point that we deem a person to be fully capable of making important decisions. We must draw a line somewhere. Of course there is always an element of arbitrariness: what about the person who is 17 years, 11 months—or, as some noble Lords would have it, 15 years, 11 months?

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

The Minister speaks of being capable of making decisions. Will he think carefully about that, and think about adults in the first stages of dementia?

[Lord Faulks]

I will indeed think carefully about that. As I conceded, a number of people, often through no fault of their own, may find it difficult to make decisions, but we are talking about those who, in old-fashioned parlance, used to be considered not to be capable of making a decision by reason of infancy. I entirely accept that to describe 16 year-olds as children may be inappropriate, but we should not assume simply because of the speed at which the world works, access to the internet or the capacity for travel, that this necessarily brings the wisdom to take decisions before the age of 18.

Queen’s Speech

Debate between Lord Faulks and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock

Monday 1st June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

Who said “Thank God”? I never did like some of the Liberal Democrats but now they are on our side I am told that I have to like them. However, even the Liberal Democrat who said “Thank God” might agree with what I am about to say. For some time I have been an advocate of first past the post for election to the House of Commons. The strong argument in favour of it, which I think even those who are sceptical about it are agreed on, is that it maintains a good constituency link and that Members in the other place are interested in their constituencies, run surgeries and are very much involved in their constituencies. That is a good thing which does not always occur in other systems that we have. However, we have got into a muddle on this as well. I take Scotland as the worst example again. In Scotland we have four electoral systems: in local government, we have STV; in the Scottish Parliament, we have the additional member system, which is a combination of first past the post and lists; in Westminster, of course, like the rest of the United Kingdom, we have first past the post; and in Europe we have the closed list—the worst of all, by the way. I do not know how we ended up with that.

I have now come round to the conclusion that that muddle could also be looked at by the convocation or the convention. If a Neanderthal like me—a dinosaur like me, one of the great first past the post advocates—can come round to that point of view because of the mess we are in, surely the Government and those who are sceptical about looking at this in a comprehensive, coherent, systematic way, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and others have suggested, can also think again. I know the pressures from civil servants. I sat in exactly the same office in Dover House that the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, is now occupying. It is by far one of the best offices in Whitehall, by the way—it has the best view. When Trooping the Colour takes place everyone comes in and looks out; it has a wonderful view. But I remember going again and again to Cabinet committees and Labour Ministers—yes, Labour Ministers—coming up and reading out briefs that had been prepared by their departmental officials. Fortunately, because I was the Minister of State for Scotland, we did not have such a vested interest. I would say, “Wait a minute. We are here as Labour Members to implement Labour Party policy, not the departmental policy”. That is why I think we need Ministers like our new Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, and the noble Lord, Lord—

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

Faulks.