(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, it is relevant to emphasise that the Supreme Court in that case said that only if a substantial injustice could be established would the change in the law be relevant to any future appeal. Of course, I am very happy to meet anyone in the category the noble Baroness refers to.
My Lords, the former Prime Minister, the right honourable Theresa May, established the Race Disparity Unit precisely to identify data and figures that give rise to concern and, on the basis of that concern, to take action. This is precisely such a case. It is to her establishment of the audit that we owe the data. Will the Minister therefore undertake to ensure that there is an understanding in the department that it is not only inflammatory language that causes problems but inaction? Can we have some action on this and on the recommendations of the Lammy report, which still have not been implemented?
My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, most of the recommendations in the Lammy report have been taken well to heart by all concerned. We are discussing here charging decisions, which are a matter for the CPS. As I have explained, the CPS is taking this very seriously, with the University of Leeds advisory groups. On the pilot concerned, there are two aspects of scrutiny. There is a scrutiny panel, which met quite recently and will meet again in February. All these actions are being taken as part of the wider attempt to get to the bottom of why we have such a high proportion of persons from ethnic minorities in the criminal justice system.
(3 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, having heard the moving contributions of colleagues yesterday—and I think particularly of the contribution of the Leader of the House, my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—my wife Janet and I very much wanted to go down to Buckingham Palace and, like so many others throughout our land, pay a floral tribute to Her late Majesty. The mood and what was said and the make-up of the crowd outside Buckingham Palace said everything that ever needs to be said about Her late Majesty.
There was a sense of loss and emptiness, and of people somehow feeling that something that was stable, certain and ever-present in their lives was no longer there—something that was of value to them. Then there was also a sense of gratitude for a life well-lived, one of service and dedication to duty, and there was a sense of gratitude to her and to her family, for whom we must feel particularly at this time, in their personal loss. We have lost a sovereign; they have lost a mother, a grandmother and a great-grandmother. But there was also a sense of gratitude for the joyfulness of her reign and for the grace and beauty that she always brought to her duty. As for the make-up of the crowd, it was international—the embodiment of so many nations. I reckon that all the continents of the world were present there, with everyone feeling that she belonged to them. Yes, she was our Queen, but she was actually, genuinely, the Queen of the world.
I thought particularly, in terms of my own life, of Queen and Commonwealth. I was brought up in the Commonwealth. In the course of her long reign, the Queen made two visits to Ghana, in 1961 and 1999. In 1961, I was a little boy in the dust waving a flag on the side of the road; in 1999, I was one of her Ministers. But it is really the 1961 visit to Ghana about which I just want to say a few words. It was a problematic visit in many ways. There were many, including those on all sides in this House, who said that she should not go, that her life would be in danger and that Ghana was not a place that she should go to or be in. She went regardless. She went because the Commonwealth mattered to her, Ghana mattered to her and Britain’s place in the world mattered to her. She knew that not going would be seen as a snub, would undermine the Commonwealth and would be contrary to Britain’s interest.