Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 11th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 386 seeks to enable police officers, after a lawful stop, to ask a member of the public to exit the vehicle. I support the work of the Police Federation of England and Wales, and I have tabled this amendment for four obvious reasons.

First, the amendment seeks to close a clear operational gap. In a world of keyless and electric vehicles, removing the key no longer guarantees that the vehicle is disabled. Officers need a law to reflect this reality. Secondly, the amendment would create a modest and practical power, not a sweeping new stop power. It would apply only after a lawful stop has taken place and would allow officers to control the scene more safely. Thirdly, it is about the safety of officers, passengers and the wider public. Requiring occupants to exit a live vehicle can reduce the risk of sudden flight, injury, interference with evidence and escalation at the roadside. Fourthly, the amendment contains proper safeguards. The tests of reasonableness and proportionality are built in, and the Secretary of State may issue guidance linked to the PACE codes.

This is a sensible, limited and necessary amendment that I hope the House will support. We are now living in an era when many police officers and members of the public are being harmed, because people can simply drive away as police officers do not have the right to make the situation safe by asking them to step out of the car. I have been through the reasons why this is a proportionate and useful amendment that fills a gap that needs to be filled. I commend it to the House.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 387A. Let me begin by explaining the reason and intent behind this simple amendment. On 20 January, further to an Urgent Question regarding business rates in the hospitality sector, I asked,

“are any of the many thousands of Turkish barbers, as they are so called, vape shops and nail bars—which are all cash only and which have infected our villages, towns and cities—paying any business rates? … We know that most of them are about money laundering, organised crime and county lines drugs”.

In his response, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, stated:

“I agree with a great deal of what the noble Baroness says. HMRC has announced substantial measures to crack down on some of the businesses she mentioned, and I think she will have seen several of them closing in recent months. She is quite right that more needs to be done”. ”.—[Official Report, 20/1/26; col. 139.]


The Labour MP Joe Powell stated recently:

“The crackdown on dodgy shops across the country is something the public cares deeply about. Our high streets are being hollowed out by illegitimate businesses that often don’t pay the tax they owe, sell illicit goods and have links to serious organised crime. That has real consequences for those that play by the rules, and for communities fed up with seeing illegal activity in plain sight”.


In response to an Oral Question on 5 March in your Lordships’ House regarding growth in cash-only businesses, the Labour Peer, the noble Lord, Lord Watts —to whom I have given notice that I will be referencing him in this debate—stated that the businesses

“are not there for the customers’ benefit but, in some cases, for the business to avoid tax and other things”.

The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, in response, stated that

“the Government are very aware ... HMRC has recently engaged in increased enforcement activity around those exact points”. —[Official Report, 5/3/26; col. 1415.]

There is clearly cross-party support for the intention behind this amendment. In addition, I have been informed that the Chartered Trading Standards Institute very much supports this amendment, stating that it would be extremely helpful to the trading standards profession and other enforcement agencies. If ever there was a case for sharing intelligence across Whitehall and HMRC together with the Home Office, the National Crime Agency and trading standards, this is it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 385 is the face covering amendment, in which I note that motorcyclists strangely are not covered but scooter riders are. I am not sure I see the need for a new general stand-alone police power to require someone to stop, and I see real dangers in requiring someone to remove a face covering.

The police already have, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, referred to, a discretionary power under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 to require any motorist or anybody propelling a mechanical vehicle or a cycle to stop—and a mechanical vehicle would include motor scooters and motorcycles. That power is very wide. It is generally considered to be directed to enable the police to conduct traffic checks. That is perceived as part of the compact between Governments and road users: if you use the roads, the corollary is that police officers can require you to stop as part of performing their function of regulating the traffic. An extra power to stop is entirely unnecessary.

The noble Lord, Lord Jackson, has rightly drawn attention to the specific case of mobile phone theft, reckless riding, riding on the pavements and so forth, but his amendment does not refer to the need for a reasonable suspicion that anyone required to remove a face covering is committing a crime. It seems to me that that was the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and ought to be an essential part of any new offence. As has been pointed out inventively, lots of people wear face coverings on cycles or scooters. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, referred to the need to keep warm, and others referred to the need to avoid fumes.

In terms of wearing helmets which conceal identity, there is the safety aspect. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, considered the avoidance of germs, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, had additional and inventive reasons for wearing face coverings, including the avoidance of ingesting insects. However, the serious point is that there can be dangers and there can be fear caused by people nefariously covering their faces. If there is a reasonable suspicion of crime, then that may be a reason for taking action. Without that, this amendment is hopeless. For my part, I am not happy when delivery drivers call at people’s homes completely covered up, because you never know whether their purposes are honest or not. At least a home owner can refuse ingress, but I would not support a general power to prevent people from wearing face coverings or a power to stop that was specifically directed at that.

On Amendment 386, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bailey of Paddington, it may have surprised some of us that police officers do not have a power to ensure that keys are taken out of ignitions, and that this amendment was directed at keyless or driverless cars. I should have thought, along with the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that it was sensible for police officers to ask people to get out of cars if they think that the cars that they have already stopped under Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act ought to be vacated in the interests of public safety and the avoidance of crime. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, that sometimes it is sensible not to get them to get out of the car if they look particularly big or threatening; nevertheless, I see the reason for this amendment, but I would have thought it goes wider than driverless or keyless cars.

As to Amendment 387A from the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I suspect that the whole House has a great deal of sympathy with her speech about organised criminal networks and driving unacceptable businesses from our streets, villages and towns—she even covered the quiet lanes in our villages—but her amendment, on which I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is not directed to anything that would necessarily achieve a great deal in respect of driving that kind of illegitimate or non-tax-paying business from our streets. The amendment is limited to extending the existing periods of closure notices and closure orders. For my part, before that amendment could be approved, I would want to see serious evidence that it would have some impact on these offences. I would also like to hear the Government’s view. At the moment, there is very little evidence as to why the existing periods for closure notices and closure orders are insufficient.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, and also addressing the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, I am concerned that the noble Lords feel, “What’s the point?” That is one of the reasons we are where we are in this country, which is in a terrible place. What I am suggesting is a small amendment that would make it a bit more of a deterrent to these guys; to start making life more difficult for them; to extend these closure orders so that we are being a little more efficient about use of police time and our courts. We are hearing that we are going to lose our juries because of lack of court time. This is an example where, if we had longer periods of closure, it would allow our enforcement agencies to actually start doing something other than just the few attacks that Machinize has carried out so far. We need to find as many opportunities as possible within the criminal justice system to start taking this on. What message will it send to the public if we do not bother to do some of the easy bits to get this going?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I will just say that was quite a long intervention, particularly for Report stage.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Buscombe]

387A: After Clause 160, insert the following new Clause—
“Duration of closure notices and orders: extension(1) The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 77 (duration of closure notices)—(a) in subsection (2), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”, and(b) in subsection (3), for “48 hours” substitute “7 days”.(3) In section 80(6) (power of court to make closure order), for “3” substitute “12”.(4) In section 82 (extension of closure orders)—(a) in subsection (7), for “3” substitute “12”, and(b) for subsection (8) substitute— “(8) The period of a closure order may be extended for another 12 months after the original extended 12 month period has elapsed, and there is no maximum duration of the closure order.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would extend the period in which the police and the magistrates’ courts may make closure notices and closure orders, to 7 days and 12 months respectively.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will be brief. I heard what the Minister said and I support everything that the Government are trying to do to attack the scourge on our society, and all our villages and towns. I am sorry to say that the noble Lords, Lord Marks and Lord Pannick, seem rather defeatist. If this is not a panacea—which it is not—it is a nudge to keep us finding different ways to intimidate these people and say to them, “Stop doing this and destroying our villages, towns and cities”. I thank my noble friend Lord Goschen and my noble friend on the Front Bench for their support and I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Child Trafficking

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Monday 16th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I hope that I have explained that the broader context shows this country to be incredibly generous. The FoI might be looked at again to provide that broader context analysis. I am sure that it will be placed in the Library for noble Lords to see.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con) [V]]

Can my noble friend confirm whether the Home Office removes unaccompanied children, including victims of trafficking?

Gender-based Violence

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I pay tribute to all the women’s centres and women’s groups, such as Women’s Aid, and all those people who provide so much support to women whose voices otherwise just would not be heard and who would feel too frightened to come forward. I have outlined some of the funding that we are putting into tackling domestic violence, and I look forward to the fruits of that funding.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, will my noble friend take on a practical solution here with regard to those women in religious-only marriages, who are so often misled as to their legal status and therefore extremely vulnerable? Will she take up what has been suggested in the Casey review: that all marriages, regardless of faith, should be registered, so that the union is legally valid under British law and those women, at least, are more protected?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a very good point. Prior to the Casey review, as my noble friend knows, a sharia review is taking place. One of the worst things I have ever seen is a woman—several women, actually—who had escaped domestic violence from a marriage that was not recognised in law, had no leave to remain in this country and were powerless to do anything, so I fully take on my noble friend’s point.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

I reiterate that the amendment does not specify any faith tradition. If women from different faiths experience comparable problems of systematic discrimination, its provisions would also be available for them. I also repeat that this is a probing amendment, seeking to highlight totally unacceptable situations in our country, with women suffering in ways that I always say would make the suffragettes turn in their graves. I hope the amendment will receive a sympathetic response from the Minister and open up discussion for consideration of urgently needed and effective remedies for the problems it seeks to address. I beg to move.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and begin by paying tribute to her amazing record of courage and tenacity in confronting some of the most difficult issues in society, including and in particular the rights of women and equality of their rights under the law.

It is important that I repeat what the noble Baroness said concerning context. The amendment does not identify any specific faith tradition, yet it does have relevance for Muslim women who are adversely affected by the discriminatory rulings of sharia councils. The amendment seeks in principle to ensure that all women have access to full rights under the law to confront those many situations referenced so eloquently by the noble Baroness—situations which isolate and separate women and subject them to living in appalling circumstances here in the UK. We have been turning a blind eye to this discrimination for many years, even though the evidence is out there. This has been chiefly because we would be called racist or intolerant of different cultures. In fact, we have been acquiescing in the disrespect, outright abuse and denial of equal access to our rule of law and it is time to put that right.

In addition to the arguments put by the noble Baroness, I have two key points. The first relates to current inquiries into sharia law and the second concerns references to and comparisons with religions other than Islam. On the first, there are currently two inquiries, one of which is by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I have to ask: where has this committee been on this issue for the last 40-plus years? That we have more than 80 sharia councils across the UK meting out a system of justice that can choose to ignore our rule of law is extraordinary, although I assume that most MPs, if they are active in their constituencies, must have known and know what is going on, or at least have their suspicions, and yet have preferred to promote the rights of women in other parts of the world and in conflict zones. Why, when so much that is wrong is happening here in the UK? In contrast, in Pakistan, family law has been regulated according to its rule of law since 1960 and is not sharia-based. I ask my noble friend the Minister: how many sharia councils exist across Europe? I am told none, so can my noble friend confirm that there are no other sharia councils across Europe other than here in the UK? It would be helpful to have that confirmed.

The second inquiry, referred to as a review of sharia councils, launched by the Home Office, while welcome in principle as a step forward, has drawn criticism from various quarters, including Muslim women, mainly on the grounds that its focus is upon the application of sharia law and is seeking examples of “best practice”. In other words, its focus is on how sharia is applied and how that application might be incompatible with our public law, not whether sharia itself is incompatible with our public law—a subtle-sounding but fundamental difference. In essence, by accepting sharia law in principle, we are and have been accepting that one body of people living in the UK may ignore the rule of law where it believes it conflicts with its views and beliefs, particularly with regard to the treatment of women. I am not quite sure why we need this review to work that simple fact out.

In addition, there is genuine concern about the make-up of the review panel. Why, it is asked, are there two Muslim religious advisers and no non-Muslim expert on Islam, nor experts on human rights? It is interesting to note that the chairman of the inquiry, a Muslim academic, Mona Siddiqui, makes the following clear in her book My Way:

“For a lot of women from Islam even just making their voice heard is a big jihad”—

meaning struggle—

“It means they’ve gone against so many moral codes”.

This recognition of the difficulty among Muslims of speaking out gives me hope that evidence to the inquiry will not just be accepted at face value. However, I am less encouraged by Ms Siddiqui’s admission that if she had had any daughters, she would have been more conservative with them than she is with her sons. That is a worrying bias.

I hope my noble friend the Minister will not feel constrained in her response to the amendment by deferring to either of the inquiries, particularly given that, while the latter was announced in May of this year, for some extraordinary reason it is not due to complete its deliberations until next year.

My second key point in support of the amendment relates to the often-used erroneous references to other religious practices when seeking to defend the existence of sharia councils, in particular Beth Din. Jewish couples who wish to complement a civil marriage with a religious one, or couples undergoing a civil divorce who wish to complement this with a Jewish law divorce, can ask Beth Din to oversee this. I have been assured by several experts that in neither circumstance can Beth Din override our public law. I understand that the same applies for the Quaker religion and Quaker ceremonies, in that all religious ceremonies must be ratified by our public law. Anything else is subordinate and any arbitral awards remain subject to English law.

In her otherwise excellent article in the Evening Standard on 3 November, Rosamund Urwin, in highlighting this issue, said of sharia law that its rulings,

“are sometimes at odds with the spirit of British law”.

With respect, I beg to differ: sharia law breaks our law.

Take the existence here of polygamy, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred. If my husband, who happens to be a Christian, committed bigamy—never mind polygamy—he would be in prison. What are we doing allowing this absurd situation to continue here in the United Kingdom? How can we have the nerve to try to tell others across the world how to live their lives when we let these illegal, disgraceful practices happen here? We are, in effect, legitimising violence against women.

This important amendment is about equal rights and equal treatment under the law—our rule of law. There is absolutely no point in talking about, or spending yet more taxpayers’ money on, efforts and projects to improve integration, social cohesion or social mobility. It will not happen as long as we stand by and allow these practices that subjugate women’s rights to continue.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome this amendment and congratulate my noble friend Lady Cox both on her persistence in raising these issues and on her courage. I have had the privilege of travelling with my noble friend to some out-of-the-way places such as North Korea; but—perhaps more importantly in the context of this debate—before my daughter went up to university, I told her that the person she should travel with, and get to know a little of, if ever she wanted to think about going into public or political life, was my noble friend Lady Cox. She therefore accompanied my noble friend to Nagorno-Karabakh—a war zone—and I hope that she will one day be a chip off my noble friend’s block.

The House might not be aware of it, but my noble friend has arrived back today from Nigeria, which is not such a bad place to start, because we know that my noble friend travels to dangerous places to see things for herself. In Nigeria, look how Boko Haram—words that mean “eradicate western education”—treats young women. Look at what happened in Chibok. Look at the seizure of those girls. Look at the denial of education for young girls, such as those who were seized in Chibok, and then ask yourself some serious questions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, has rightly done in her remarks a few moments ago. Look at the nature of sharia law, and ask, “Is that something we would want to have operating as a parallel law system in the United Kingdom?”. It is a system, after all, that says that a woman’s evidence in a court of law is worth only half that of a man. That is surely intolerable in our society and we should resist it with every means available to us.

I attended a meeting organised by my noble friend Lady Cox a few weeks ago and became interested in this issue as a result of that meeting, which was held here in your Lordships’ House and was addressed by some formidable Muslim women and others. They highlighted the risks of having parallel systems of law in the same jurisdiction, a situation that put at risk the equality of Muslim women and failed to protect them. The principle of equality before the law should always be a central pillar of our democracy, yet we know from countless testimonies—such as those I heard that evening and others alluded to today by my noble friend—that many Muslim women in Britain are not experiencing the legal rights by which they should be protected. We heard that in the context of things such as polygamy a few moments ago. They are not treated equally; they are not living freely, and they are inhibited from getting the help they really need.

Take, for example, the story of A’aisha—a pseudonym, of course—from the West Midlands. Upon the breakdown of her own Islamic marriage, she discovered that she was not entitled to the same rights afforded to other British divorcees. Like so many others, she had wrongly assumed that, because her religious wedding ceremony had taken place in the UK, it did not need to be accompanied by a civil marriage in order for it to be recognised under English law. As my noble friend Lady Cox has already said, this amendment seeks to protect women such as A’aisha, and to help those who might be duped into believing that they were married under the law of the land, only to find upon divorce that they have few rights in respect of finance or property. It is intolerable that women should be treated in this way.

I recognise, as my noble friend has said, that this is a probing amendment. It may well indeed need tweaking and improving, but I trust it will promote a positive response from the Front Bench. I hope that when the Minister replies, we might at least start to think about how we can bring forward more comprehensive measures to address effectively concerns such as those raised by my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in your Lordships’ House this evening.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood]

I, for my part, am entirely content with Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin. I marginally prefer it to Amendment 2. It may be doubted whether either is strictly necessary, but let us have the simpler one. With the greatest respect, I regard Amendment 1 as entirely superfluous. It unnecessarily overcomplicates things and in large part it overlaps with other provisions in the legislation. It just is not a good idea. It is all very well to treat this legislation with some element of scepticism, but, please, not cynicism. That is the way this is approached in that context.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, I think that, in respect of Amendment 1, it is necessary to stand back and remember and recognise that this has got to be practical. If a public authority were presented with a list including, “the rule of law”, “necessity”, “proportionality”, “the need for restraint”, “the need for effective oversight” and statements such as “multilateral collaboration”, it would probably end up being terrified and do nothing. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said, this is all dealt with in the Bill. It is entirely otiose.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has been absolutely showered with garlands and bouquets. I am sure they are extremely well deserved and I am very reluctant to strike a discordant note—and I will not. However, I wish to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on the guidance notes. Everyone is talking about academic freedom but in the Bill it is not just about academic freedom; it is also about freedom of speech on campuses and meetings held in universities. I am concerned about this because recently a degree of intolerance has sometimes been shown, with people trying to ban meetings in universities. Therefore, I have been a little worried about some of the things in the guidance notes.

The Minister will recall that I was puzzled, as was the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, by his concept of non-violent extremism. I was not altogether convinced by the Minister’s reply as to what that meant. However, what really alarmed me was the substance of the guidance notes. I come to this very fresh, compared to people who have been looking at this for a long time. I drew attention to this business of having to give advance notice of what your speech was going to be about, and rating speakers from seven to 10—or one to 10—on how much risk there was of them causing a disturbance on campus. How do we rate David Irving or Marine Le Pen? These are very difficult judgments to make.

I went through a number of the provisions. In reply, the Minister just said, “Some people made a lot of fun of the guidance notes”. He did not answer any of the points. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, a lot of this is pretty unworkable. It reminds me, as I think it reminded the noble Lord, a little of some regulation put forward by the FSA and the FCA. There is a lot of box-ticking in this.

I am sure that the concessions the Minister has made on academic freedom are very important. I am sure that they have satisfied a lot of people. That is thoroughly to be welcomed, but I very much hope that the points made about the guidance notes will be taken into account in any reconsideration of them.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I also congratulate my noble friend the Minister on putting the Bill into far better shape than it was in when it left the Commons, as is so often the case in your Lordships’ House. It shows your Lordships working brilliantly together, as we do.

I agree with everything that my colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and Lady Lister, said about the clauses we are looking at now. I also say to my noble friend Lord Lamont that if he had been with us at Second Reading and in Committee, he would have been rather more assured that some of the aspects that concerned him about the guidance have already been debated at great length. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will have taken those issues on board.

On substance, I also say to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, that this is about clarification, which will make all the difference to perception. Perception is hugely important; I think of the 500 signatories who attached their names to a letter in the Guardian only last week. The Minister has responded with clarity, which is exactly what we all asked for. I thank him for that.

Finally, and with respect to my noble friend, I remind all noble Lords of the need to put pressure on whoever is in government after the forthcoming election to bring back to the House debate and legislation regarding data retention. This is an aspect that remains in the forefront of many noble Lords’ minds. It needs to be addressed further and as quickly as possible.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, an acknowledgement of the Minister’s hard work, openness, patience and availability in numerous meetings applies not just to these clauses but to the whole of the Bill. He has been so helpful, as other noble Lords have said.

Having said that, I think it is right to say—noise from behind me suggests that I might be about to criticise the Minister; I am not—that there is a lot of work for the Government and local government, at all levels and in all sectors, to do. I will not be the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has had a number of emails this morning saying that the writer is very concerned about the Bill, or making points about the need for tackling radicalisation to be done from the bottom up. Such emails also mention issues around discrimination and all the things that many of us have voiced at some length during proceedings on the Bill. At this point, while giving ourselves a pat on the back for having got to here, it is only right to remember that the work done outside the legislation is probably more difficult than the legislation itself.

I gave very brief notice to the Bill team of one question. If the Minister is not able to answer it, since it arises from his most recent letter, which is not on the record in Hansard, I will of course understand if he would prefer to answer it by letter. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about due regard, particular regard and so on. The letter says, in terms, that the particular freedom of speech awareness and the principle of academic freedom are not elevated above the Prevent duty. On the last day of Report, I think, we heard a very helpful explanation of what “due regard” meant. Having said that, the letter goes on a couple of pages later to say that particular regard is stronger than due regard. I found it a little difficult to reconcile the two parts of the letter. The Bill team started to explain it to me, but I needed to get into the Chamber for the start of these proceedings. If that is better dealt with by letter, to have the same status as the letter that gives rise to the questions, perhaps that would be the way to do it.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Afshar (CB)]

My Lords, I should like to speak in defence of the amendment, because, more and more, parliamentary legislation is identifying Muslims as “the others”, or the enemy within. The “otherisation” of an entire community through insensitive approaches which do not give them the leeway to fit in is the surest way of driving them away and towards actions that are undesirable on all sides, and which their religion forbids.

If people are defined by their religion, and if the strategy is such that they cannot find a person to whom they can comment or a position to which they can adhere, then, given the difficulty of the alienation created by these labels, I fear that violence will become an alternative. I hope that the House will take heed and offer a far more inclusive approach rather than one which is intent on labelling certain groups and faith groups as “others”.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend the Minister as I suspect—I do not know—that he will not agree to the amendment.

First, I say to the noble Baroness who has just spoken that there is no mention of a particular community in the legislation. It is because, as we all know, it is predominantly people from the Muslim community who have been carrying out these appalling atrocities that those labels are being banded about. The Muslim community has to accept and understand why that is.

Furthermore, the other day I heard about something which I think amplifies why what the Government are seeking to achieve is incredibly difficult. I understand why they want to put this duty on a statutory basis. What I am going to say is almost more shocking to me than what happened in Paris. Somebody I know quite well was telling me the other day that his wife was shopping in a supermarket about three weeks ago in Manchester. She was scouring the shelves, as we do, when she stopped because she could not help overhearing a group of young British Asian Muslim girls talking about going to Syria.

This makes my heart jump when I talk about it and when I think about it. What does that say? It says that there are young people out there of different ages, and probably from different financial backgrounds, who have varying exposure to other faiths and so on and who, we are now hearing, find the idea of going to Syria quite cool. In other words, the importance of Prevent and of the need to try to deter these young people from thinking that somehow it is the right thing is absolutely paramount now. Therefore, we have to find every which way to send out a message, even though it may seem rather severe because it is on the face of the Bill. The threat that we face is severe.

Some of the people coming back from Syria now have carried out the most appalling atrocities. We do not want them talking to these girls, whether it is in supermarkets, in schools or in clubs—wherever it is—and encouraging them to think that it is cool. There has to be another point of view. There has to be a way that we encourage—we urge—all public authorities to do what they can to help these girls and many others like them who may be taken down the wrong path. I understand where my noble friend is coming from and the spirit of these amendments, but I do not think that we should shy away from sending a powerful message through this legislation that we have to do everything to support young people in preventing harm.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 13A and 13B. I want to comment on my noble friend Lady Buscombe’s contribution a minute ago. I am not sure that it helped the Minister. I think it explained why we need Amendments 13A and 13B, because the most important thing about implementing Prevent is to recognise that each of our communities differs and that each community, area and specified authority should have due regard to the impact in order to understand it and to pass that message back to central government to understand the change in the nature of terrorism and radicalisation.

That is why I believe that Amendment 13B is valid. It is an extra tool in the box to make sure that we are monitoring what is happening, at whatever level and in whatever specified authority, to the range of people it is going to affect—including, interestingly, pupils who are under sixth form and under student age. What is happening is not consistent across the country. There may be young girls in one area talking about going to Syria; there are young Muslim British girls in other areas who are appalled by that. As a society we need to understand the nuances of that. The briefing that we have had from the Muslim Council of Britain sets that out very clearly. The one thing that we must do is to make sure that we do not have alienation on a grand scale. We need to understand that what is happening is not the same in every single community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly on this. I was reflecting on my own student days when we had serious problems with extremists in Leicester, but extremists as referred to in the Prevent draft guidance—from the extreme right-wing. We had numerous problems and things were at times quite frightening. I also recall attacks on gay bars in London by extremists who were anti-gay. We have to be very equal and balanced when we talk about extremism.

I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, when he talked about Muslim communities as being as broad and wide as any other communities that share a set of beliefs or religion. I can equate that with some Muslim friends of mine who do not all think the same. I was slightly disappointed by the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. In my experience, when there have been attacks where Muslims have been blamed or some Muslims have been responsible, the greatest condemnation has come from those who are Muslim.

[Baroness Buscombe]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I never in the least bit insinuated that that was my point of view. I was just trying to explain why people out there have applied labels to the people who have carried out these atrocities. That is nothing to do with my point of view. I would never label that community as being one. I think that various noble Lords misunderstood me and I am sorry if they have misunderstood me. That was not what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that this legislation does not actually mention any particular community—that is nowhere in the Bill—and therefore presumption should not be made in that regard.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That clarification is helpful and I am grateful for that. I did not know that the noble Baroness was able to intervene on Report and was unsure whether to accept the intervention, but it was a very helpful clarification.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, I first raised this issue about the impact on communities when talking about the Privacy and Civil Liberties Board. On this issue the Minister and other noble Lords have in numerous contributions made it clear that the views of communities and the impact on them must be taken into account. Looking again at the guidance we are debating—I sent out for copies—it goes some way to doing that but, given the comments that have been made, it may be that the guidance could be a little clearer and more explicit on this issue. I am sure that when exercising this duty under Prevent we will all be seeking the same objective, which is to prevent people turning to or being drawn into extremism that could lead to violent behaviour. The sentiments are exactly right and what every Member of your Lordships’ House has said since the beginning of the debate, but if the noble Lord could clarify that and put it on record, and perhaps consider how the guidance could be made more explicit in that regard, that would be helpful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 14. This is one of those moments when I feel, as I suspect other noble Lords also feel, quite frustrated by the procedures of this House. In a way, it is a pity that we cannot hear from my noble friend the Minister about his amendment ahead of the debate. If that were possible we could perhaps give our reasons why some of us feel that, although we are hugely grateful to him for tabling it, his amendment is still—to put it politely—a little timid. There remains a lack of clarity. But there we are; we have the situation as it stands.

Obviously, I support Amendment 14. As a fellow member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I will not seek to repeat everything that other JCHR members—including the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady O’Loan and Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—have said already. We looked at this subject extremely carefully when we considered the legislation as a committee.

Although we are, as I say, grateful that my noble friend has brought forward his amendment, he will not be surprised to hear that there is still a lack of clarity. I think that that was demonstrated by the letter in the Guardian yesterday. It was sent by 500 signatories who are genuinely concerned about academic freedom. I would point out one part of the letter in particular. It states:

“Ensuring colleges and universities can continue to debate difficult and unpopular issues is a vital part”—

of responding—

“to acts of terror against UK”,

citizens. It said that it is important,

“to maintain and defend an open, democratic society in which discriminatory behaviour of any kind is effectively challenged”.

We want to be sure that when this legislation leaves your Lordships’ House, there is real clarity and an acceptance and understanding among the academic community and others that we have done all that we can to ensure that the Prevent duty cannot be used to prevent lawful speech. As I said on Second Reading and again in Committee, for so many young people, university is their first opportunity away from home to be able to debate openly and freely and to hear other points of view from different cultures. Therefore, to send out a message that that possibility has been diffused in any way would be a great mistake.

I wonder why—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has said—my noble friend the Minister’s amendment does not deal with Scotland. Perhaps that silence is due to the Bill team’s lack of time to respond to our request for referencing Scotland. Perhaps it is to do with negotiations; perhaps it is because the Minister has a strong argument for why Scotland should not be included. We are, as I said, somewhat compromised, because although we will hear from my noble friend, we will not be able to respond.

I hope my noble friend is able to take on board the fact—I think that this feeling is shared around your Lordships’ House—that we have come an awfully long way since the meeting that took place only, probably, three weeks ago. My noble friend as well as the Minister from another place came and gave us and others in another part of your Lordships’ House the time to listen to the concerns of the academic community and others about these clauses. I should perhaps declare that I am not a member of the academic community. We very much hope that we can be more persuasive today.

[Lord Morgan (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a long and fascinating debate and, like other speakers, I pay tribute to the Minister for his rationality, willingness to conciliate and awareness of the seriousness of these issues. Like my noble friends who have spoken, I wish that we were able to go further and to have a government amendment which expressed terms such as “statutory duty” and “the role of university personnel” with much greater clarity. As on previous occasions, I wish our Front Bench had not been less than wholehearted on this matter and taken a view, which many of us knew nothing about, which apparently has guaranteed academic freedom—so that is all right then. It is not a satisfactory position.

I speak not as a party person but as someone who has spent his entire career in the university world. I was a university teacher—I am a university teacher now in my retirement in King’s College—and I was a vice-chancellor for seven years. Universities are a unique marketplace for ideas—that is their ultimate purpose. They may additionally assist with creating wealth and giving local employment but their main function is to be uninhibitedly and courageously involved in ideas, particularly language. If we are talking about terms such as “terrorism” or elements which are conducive or similar to terrorism, you need extreme clarity, including the capacity to debate these matters.

I was concerned when we had a helpful meeting the other day that the reasonableness of the Minister was not paralleled by his government colleague, who talked not about terrorism but about pathways to terrorism. It seems that if you produce a concept which is in the mind of terrorists you are automatically creating a pathway. However, pathways cover many things. They can emerge in an unexpected way and can lead nowhere or everywhere. My friend, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, referred to the University of Wales, where he knows I had the pleasure of working with him, and how a pathway, when we were talking about the theme of nationalism, led to one or two misguided people blowing up buildings. That was not a necessary consequence of that debate. The effect of opening up the theme of what nationalism was—its different political and cultural expressions and so on—had a civilising effect and nationalism resulted not in bombs but in devolution being debated in this House and on the statute book. Pathway is a dangerous concept. Non-violent extremism has been dismissed as nonsensical by other noble Lords and I need not stress that again.

I wish to make two more points: this duty is unworkable and it is wrong. It is unworkable because I can say that as a vice-chancellor—perhaps other vice-chancellors will disagree—it would not have been possible to carry out this role, this statutory duty: we would be obliged by the nature of our professional role not to apply it. As I say, the purpose is for universities to be free to debate ideas. You would be forced to discuss with student societies who they were going to invite, whether alternative views would be presented and what the general tone would be. You would, in effect, be censoring or monitoring the interchange of ideas in a way which is not compatible with being the head of or a senior figure in a university.

The nature and the force of the statutory duty and the way in which it would be exercised are still not clear in the Bill. It appears to have satisfied our Front Bench but it has not satisfied me or people such as my noble friends who have first-hand experience of working in universities. So, first, it is completely unworkable. It would destroy the very essence of collegial collaboration within a university institution and the element of trust which is absolutely essential to the way in which a university operates.

Finally, this duty is wrong. It is trying to undermine precious, unique and special institutions in this country which are honoured all over the world. These institutions do different things: they are impressive for their intellectual standards, which are widely acknowledged and admired, and for their internationalism. The whole point of being in a university is that everyone is equal there; you do not identify or marginalise any particular minority groups. To even suggest that universities should do anything other than what they do and act as a kind of thought police is deeply damaging to something which has been a pride of the history of this country for many centuries.

I hope that the Minister, with the tolerance, rationality and courtesy that he has shown, will feel able to go further and pursue the path suggested by other noble Lords of removing universities from the Bill.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, Schedule 1 to the Bill provides for the seizure of passports from persons suspected of involvement in terrorism. Paragraph 2 deals with the seizure of passports at a port, and paragraph 2(8) sets out what the officer undertaking this exercise must tell the person. He must tell him that he is suspected of intending to leave Great Britain or the UK—there is a slightly different provision for Northern Ireland—

“for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity”,

and that the officer is entitled to exercise the power to seize. Reciting those statutory grounds does not seem to be enough. There is no provision on the face of the Bill for the person to be informed of at least the gist of the reasons for the suspicion.

The draft code of practice, which has been out for consultation, includes some notification requirements but it does not include this one. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the draft code provides that,

“where a senior police officer authorises retention”—

this is at a different stage—

“the individual must be given a written notice which should … inform the person that they may … request reasons for the retention of their travel documents … Elsewhere, the draft Code provides that a police constable exercising the power … must issue the person with reasons for its exercise … ‘if requested’ and if travel documents are returned within the”,

first period which is provided by the schedule,

“they are to be accompanied by a notice reminding the individual that they may formally request reasons as to why their travel documents were seized and retained”.

None of that addresses the need to tell the person straightaway.

I should like to see in the Bill the JCHR recommendation,

“that the Code should provide that a person subject to the exercise of the power should be informed of the reasons for its exercise at the earliest opportunity in every case, and not merely where the individual makes a request”.

That is very fundamental, not only to the exercise of the power but as to how it is perceived. We rightly spent a good deal of time in Committee—and will, I am sure, spend more time—on the difficulties of perception and perceived discrimination against certain groups, which perhaps is a different issue from actual discrimination but is a very real issue.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, supported my point. He said:

“No one would suggest that all detailed reasons must be given, but if someone is told that their passport is being taken away they should be told the essence of the reasons why if this power is to be acceptable and not criticised as obviously unfair”.—[Official Report, 20/1/15; col. 1236.]

It was building on that phrase “the essence of the reasons” that I have provided in my amendment for a summary of the reasons and not for the detail. I am aware that there may be security issues around that.

In Committee, the Minister gave a very long response to the group of amendments of which this was one—I think that there were 24 amendments—so it was quite an achievement to cover the ground. I fear that I did not manage to extract from the response a reply to this specific point. At the end of his reply, I asked him whether some comments he was making applied to gisting, and he said that they did not. Therefore, it seemed to me appropriate to bring the matter back at this stage in the hope that I will hear that we could include something like this in the Bill but certainly in the hope of hearing a detailed defence of the Government’s position. I beg to move.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and I should like to say strongly that I do not support this amendment. There was a very good reason why we said that reasons should be given “at the earliest opportunity”. We absolutely accepted that there will be occasions on which it simply is not reasonable, either on security grounds or because of the speed with which the information is travelling in relation to the possible perpetrators from whom the passport is being taken, to expect the police to have reasons to hand. The phrase “at the earliest opportunity” leaves it sensibly open for the police to be able to respond in good time with some information as to why this has taken place. The committee discussed at great length that to expect a summary there and then on the spot—which is what the noble Baroness is asking for—would probably be too difficult in certain circumstances.

We have to accept that some of the information will probably arrive without much notice to those who have the difficult task of removing the passport. Given that the person will already be at a port or an authority in order to leave the country, surely it is right that in such cases we give trust and time to the security services and the police to do what they have to do in an emergency—that is, to remove the passport—and then, at the earliest opportunity, state the reasons.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I meant to ask the noble Baroness a question before she sat down. My noble friend Lady Hamwee emphasised that this is about providing a summary of the reasons for the suspicion. That is not proof or anywhere near it—it is not even a great deal of detail—but a summary of the reasons for suspicion. The requirement has quite a low threshold and would at least provide a basis on which a person may comprehend why these powers were being exercised. It seems reasonable and not too high a threshold to expect of the security services and the police.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, this is the Report stage and in order for me to speak a second time it has to be accepted that the noble Baroness asked me the question before I sat down. The whole point of this is to allow for a reduced bar, in a sense, which is not sufficient for the power of arrest but is something less. It is wrong in any way to box in the security services and police in a difficult situation where, because of security reasons, they may not even know whether they can give the information.

I am trying to set the scene. We are talking about a different world from the one in which it is accepted that there would be a warrant for arrest and reasons given, where there would be understanding and matters would be beyond suspicion. All I am saying is: “Please can we give the security services and the police the freedom to act, sometimes with extreme speed, to stop someone leaving the country—someone who may want to do something on the mode of transport—without having to give such information?”. In any event, the summary probably would not satisfy—it is not meant to satisfy—the person from whom the passport is being taken.

[Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment and wish to address the comment made by my noble friend previously. It is quite a serious matter for a family, who may have spent a great deal of money purchasing tickets and planning a holiday, to arrive at a port or an airport to leave and then to have their passports, or one family member’s passport, seized. It seems to me quite reasonable to provide that person with a summary as to why their passport is being seized.

There is also the issue that there needs to be some accountability; otherwise, there is a danger of the whole system being seen as racially profiling people for whatever reason. We have learnt lessons from what happened with stop and search—there was not always sufficient intelligence or reasons given for people being stopped and searched. Further, a report published in 2013 by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary documented the poor training of officers who are exercising the power. It seems eminently sensible to have an extra layer which provides a safeguard and a degree of accountability around what is a no small matter of a passport being seized.

Recently I was travelling back from Paris with my son, who happens to have a Muslim name. He was questioned when we got to immigration control and we almost missed our Eurostar back home. He was asked whether he had been to Turkey recently. He does have family in Turkey and it would be entirely reasonable for him to go there, but he was singled out because of his name; there was no other reason. As it happens, he has not travelled to Turkey in the past year, but we were detained for some time and it was a worrying thing. His passport was not seized or anything like that, but the incident indicated to me that because of my son’s name, and for no other reason that I could see, he was questioned. My son is not a frequent traveller to Turkey and we had been on a day trip to Paris. He was questioned very seriously and we were within a minute of missing our train back. That showed me that this can be done quite randomly and with no proper intelligence.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Lords Chamber

This new statutory duty should not be made applicable to universities. The Bill should be amended to remove universities from the list of specified authorities and to exempt the exercise of academic functions from the application of the duty.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 104, 105, 107, 109 and 115, to which my name has been added. I also speak as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Much of what I feel about these amendments has already been articulated by Members opposite who are also on that committee. I also thank the Minister and his colleague from another place, the Home Office Minister James Brokenshire MP, for the meeting on 15 January. It was clear when we met to discuss this very issue that there were serious concerns, particularly among the academic community. In the letter in today’s Times that has already been referred to this afternoon, there is reference to a concern that the proposed measures could be counterproductive, leading to mistrust and alienation. The difficulty is that a considerable degree of alienation already exists among some young people well before they attend higher education. This alienation is too often caused by separation by their parents at a very young age from fully, or in some circumstances even partially, socialising with their peer group of other faiths and cultures. The truth lies, I believe, in what different people perceive to be the meaning of integration and until we make much more effort in that regard, such that young boys and girls are allowed to grow up fully and freely socialising in our towns and cities whatever their faith, we will continue to have a serious problem—a problem we have been largely in denial about for years for fear of upsetting people in the faint hope that integration will just happen. This is also one reason why I am vehemently against faith-based schools which may allow and even encourage separation rather than integration.

Universities create for many the first opportunity for a natural separation from home, giving young people the freedom to socialise beyond their comfort zone. University life provides a catalyst for encouraging free speech and strong, open debate away from cultural and religious restraints. All that said, I understand that the Government are genuinely trying to find practical ways of countering terrorism and extremism because, as the Minister in a letter dated 27 January informed us, a significant number of individuals who become radicalised at some point attend university. This therefore provides a window of opportunity to prevent those vulnerable to extremism from that pathway during their time at university.

Part of the difficulty here lies in what is in the Bill. It appears too restrictive and prescriptive and does not take account of some of the practical difficulties of implementing these measures without attacking academic freedom, together with certain legal obligations. The Prevent duty guidance offers some help although, as my noble friend has already stated, these measures are very much in draft form and we all await the imminent outcome of the consultation. It is difficult to debate this subject fully without reference to that outcome but I agree with the Minister, who refers to some aspects of the duty guidance in his recent letter. For example, in paragraph 66 there is a suggestion that those who are going to make a speech or give a talk at a university should give:

“Sufficient notice of booking (generally at least 14 days) to allow for checks to be made and cancellation to take place … Advance notice of the content of the event”,

and so on. It is very prescriptive.

If noble Lords will bear with me, I shall give an example of a different subject to illustrate why such prescription just does not work. Four or five years ago, I chaired an Oxford Union debate regarding animal rights—a very different subject. I well recall approaching all the speakers an hour or so before the debate was due to commence to get a feel of what they intended to say to make sure that I could manage the debate, given that it is a controversial subject. One of the speakers, Heather Mills, was due to speak, alone, for the motion. She had in the past been known for making quite controversial statements. Heather did not give much away, and certainly not the fact that part-way through her speech her sister would leap forward on to the stage and produce from under her large woolly jumper a laptop showing a short, very violent film of an animal cull. A mini riot ensued among speakers for and against the motion, together with some of the audience, in spite of my best and extremely vocal efforts as the chairman. It became apparent that some members of the audience were not students of Oxford University at all; they were seasoned animal rights campaigners and activists, and absolutely content and keen to make trouble.

I make that point as a good example of where freedom of speech and freedom to offend were such a positive, as they produced a lively exchange of views among the audience, many of whom, having listened and watched and been genuinely appalled by the behaviour of those on one side of the debate, were almost all entirely turned off the animal rights movement.

However, there is another side to this issue and it is why I reference that experience. I must admit that, as an outside guest at the university, I was rather amazed, particularly given the subject matter, that there was nowhere to turn and no one to turn to when the situation became uproarious and extremely unpleasant. Therefore, I believe it is right to ensure that there is a mechanism for managing incidents and to recognise that universities, while allowing academic freedom, have a strong, albeit subtle—that is the important point—role to play in managing these events. Indeed, as proposed in the draft Prevent duty guidance, I could have done with a mechanism for managing incidents, even though the debate was very much on campus.

My message to my noble friend the Minister is that he should do all he can to reassure all those concerned that nothing in the Prevent duty guidance will restrict legitimate debate or academic research, that the Government are genuine in their view that universities’ commitment to freedom of speech represents one of the most important arenas for challenging extremist views and ideologies, and that therefore the Government support the existing duty in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 on universities to promote freedom of speech. Will my noble friend also take note of the work of the National Union of Students in encouraging dialogue between different faith and belief groups? As the NUS states in its briefing on the Bill, which it has sent out today, it helps student unions to understand their responsibilities under charity law and ensure that they have strong procedures in place so that the risk from extreme and external speakers is mitigated.

I say that in particular to emphasise that there is a general acceptance that work has to continue. How that work is done is the challenge. I hope that, following consultation on the Prevent duty guidance, the “how” will become clearer and go some considerable way to allay genuine concerns. Therefore, I encourage the Minister to seriously consider accepting Amendments 104 and 105, which would give reassurance on the face of the Bill in support of academic freedom and freedom of speech.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Baroness Buscombe Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, on Amendment 2, can the noble Lord opposite explain whether there is any particular reason for choosing two years for the sunset clause, after which time, subject to an affirmative resolution, there would be a permanent continuation? What is the logic behind that two-year split? Why is there not, in a sense, a rolling sunset clause every two years? If there is a rationale to it, perhaps the noble Lord can explain the reason for that two-year review and then no more, as it were, apart from the normal rules that apply to primary legislation.

[Baroness Buscombe (Con)]

My Lords, I, too, would like to understand from the shadow Minister opposite why a period of two years has been chosen. What is the logic? In seeking to explain Amendment 2, he appears to have concluded that there is a strong chance that this measure may not be necessary at the end of a two-year period. I wish that he was right on that—even if he had a hunch that it could be right—but all the commentators that one has been listening to, some more expert than others, have explained to us, as have the Government, that we will probably face great difficulty in the area of counterterrorism for a number of years. In that case, I suggest that a two-year period is far too short, indeed unreasonable, given that an affirmative resolution of both Houses takes time and energy away from the job in hand.

On Amendment 3, I made clear at Second Reading that I support the independent reviewer having the opportunity to review this legislation in the fullness of time. However, I think that producing an annual report is far too onerous and unnecessary. I do not support these amendments.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)]

My Lords, I do not understand the two-year period contained in these amendments. The issue which we are dealing with and which is covered in this clause is, unfortunately, going to last for more than two years. Does the Minister agree that having a two-year sunset clause—even if there were to be a sunset clause at all—would send out a completely incorrect message to those who are minded to go abroad and participate in jihad? We have to show some enduring determination over this issue.

My second concern is that these amendments are too prescriptive for the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Can the Minister confirm that the independent reviewer is able to look at all provisions relating to counterterrorism legislation? Surely it is right that the independent reviewer should be able to focus on those issues which are revealed during the course of a given year as causing concern and report on those, rather than being required to report on too many specific issues? We heard at Second Reading that the current independent reviewer is doing something like 180 days per year. When I started as independent reviewer in 2001, just after 9/11, I was doing 40 days per year. By the time I finished, in early 2011, I was doing 140 days per year. Prioritising the independent reviewer’s work should surely be left to that person.

My final point is this. A great deal of respect has rightly been paid to the current independent reviewer. If the independent reviewer highlights a provision that is not working, surely that is at least as powerful as any sunset clause ever could be?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead]

I think that has to be done by the end of this year—which I believe is too short.

[Baroness Buscombe]

Can the Minister also tell us now, or at a later stage, whether sunset clauses were imposed by the then Labour Government in the anti-terrorism Acts of 2000 and 2001 and, if so, what the terms were?

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, we have had a very good, short debate on this, with a lot of contributions that in many ways highlight the difficulties that there are in this area when it comes to reaching any common ground as to what the position should be. I am grateful for the two amendments which have been introduced calling for a sunset clause on Chapters 1 and 2, and will outline the Government’s position on this. As was touched on before, it cannot of course be about whether this is a matter of principle, because clearly it is something that the Government have looked at in respect of other chapters of the Bill.

I will give the Committee the reasons why we have come to the position that we have on these particular amendments. The problem that we are seeking to address with these powers is not of a short-term nature—a point very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. We do not know how long it is going to be there for or how the threat that we are facing might mutate into different fields and theatres. From that point of view, we felt that having a set date and time on which those powers fall would send the wrong signal. I will come back to the reasons for that. Terrorism-related travel is a serious and ongoing issue, and we can expect the threat posed by British citizens returning from fighting alongside terrorist groups abroad to be present for many years to come. It is important that our law enforcement agencies are equipped to protect the British public from individuals who pose a risk.

Amendment 2 seeks to introduce a sunset clause to the temporary passport provisions. It would ensure that the power would be repealed in two years’ time, unless both Houses pass a resolution that it should continue. The precautions we have established should ensure that the temporary passport seizure power will be used in a fair, reasonable and lawful manner. They are aimed at striking the right balance between our civil liberties—which the right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to focus on—and our right to safety and security, which a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Buscombe, referred to. The House of Commons considered these factors very carefully, as your Lordships have, and it came to an overwhelming view that it did not feel that a sunset clause was necessary in relation to Chapter 1.

Amendment 55 would introduce a sunset provision to the temporary exclusion power in Chapter 2 of Part 1. Your Lordships will be aware that the Government have tabled amendments to introduce strong judicial oversight of the use of this power. The courts will have a number of opportunities to review whether each temporary exclusion order is imposed appropriately and to ensure that the power is used proportionately against individuals suspected of terrorism. In the light of these strong safeguards on the use of both the temporary passport seizure power and the temporary exclusion power, the Government do not think that it is necessary to bring the power to an end after two years. Indeed, introducing sunset clauses to these powers in two years might, as my noble friend Lord Carlile said, inadvertently send the wrong message to would-be jihadist travellers by suggesting that we lack the intent to deal with the threat that they pose to us.

There are two points here. I reflect on the views and the great experience that my noble friend Lady Warsi has in this area through her excellent work in office. She led for the Government on this, and therefore I listened very carefully to what she said about civil liberties, but there are two sides to this. There is of course the side that deals with the ability of people to travel, and the disruption of travel, which effectively is what we are talking about here. Measures are available under the royal prerogative, under which a passport is not seized but can actually be cancelled, and there is no sunset clause and no basis of appeal for these measures. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, too, there are powers to disrupt and deal with passports. Again, they are not subject to a sunset clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I spoke earlier and will not repeat what I said. Listening to this debate, I agree entirely with what was just said by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Lady Hamwee. It is essential that the independent reviewer has the flexibility to report on any issue that relates to counterterrorism legislation in the order in which he deems it appropriate, subject of course to commissions being given by the Government, or possibly by Select Committees or others, from time to time.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, I will add to what my noble friend Lord Carlile said. Speaking as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, it is certainly my understanding that we kept this aspect of our report purposely broad to ensure flexibility and to leave it to the experience and expertise of the independent reviewer in supporting a role for them in reviewing this and all other counterterrorism legislation, ensuring that he or she should not be pinned down by prescription, in either content or time limits.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the need for both broad scope and flexibility in powers for the independent reviewer. On Amendment 4, can the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, say whether there is any further detail on the requirement that:

“The Secretary of State shall publish figures on the usages of powers”?

What sort of degree of detail or scope was envisaged?

On Amendments 41 and 41A, it may just be that I am a little befuddled, coming back from much less complicated EU legislation to more complicated domestic legislation. However, as I read those amendments, they seem to refer only to a review of the arrangements for food and accommodation, because they are specifically inserted after paragraph 14 of Schedule 1. I am not sure that that refers to a review of the whole powers under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 because it seems to be rather specific about just the powers in paragraph 14. Indeed, the term “arrangements” seems to refer only to the arrangements appropriate for the person, which, according to the draft code of conduct, relate to food and accommodation, and so on. It may be that I am completely on the wrong track here; if so, I will be most grateful for the noble Lord’s clarification.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I, too, will speak to Amendments 42 and 43, which I strongly support and to which my name is also attached. The draft code of practice refers to the need for an objective basis for the constable’s state of mind and how such information must be specific to the personal conduct of the person and not formed on the basis of assumptions about attitudes, beliefs or behaviour of persons belonging to particular groups. Training in equalities would want specifically to address the danger of stereotyping or behavioural assumptions. There has been a great deal of concern in the last decade and a half about what might sometimes be called racial, ethnic or religious profiling. One of the things that distinguishes this country from, for instance, France is that we believe—and this also relates to the need to record statistics on the use of the powers—that it is a useful exercise to record statistics which include, as indeed does our census, a voluntary question on ethnic identity and religious practice because it helps inform social, economic and, in this case, legal lessons to be learnt. It is not helpful, as is sometimes done in other countries, to pretend that we are colour and identity blind, because that actually means that we are blind in terms of the policy conclusions drawn. The need for training to avoid discriminatory behaviour and stereotypical assumptions and to record how the constables and other qualified officers behave and perform their duties is a useful addition to the Bill.

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, listening to this debate and a debate on the previous amendments, some of which I was listening to on my screen elsewhere, I say we must not lose sight of just what an incredibly difficult task our intelligence services and police face in relation to counterterrorism. As I said at Second Reading, we do not know all that the intelligence services know. We must not tie their hands too much and be too prescriptive. I suggest that these powers are not being sought lightly. We have to be really careful when we debate “how many hours” and “as soon as possible” in Committee to step back now and again to remind ourselves why we are here and what we are debating.

With specific reference to these amendments, I have some sympathy with my noble friend Lady Hamwee in relation to “possession” or,

“under his or her control”.

That sounds more all-encompassing; perhaps that comes from my legal background as well. It would be good to hear the Minister’s view on this.

In relation to Amendment 11, “evidence”, “as soon as possible” and “12 hours” have been mentioned. We need to give the security services the freedom—if that is the right word—to be able to do their job and need to trust them to some considerable degree to do the right job. I worry about the reference to statistics and so on in relation to later amendments in this group. Of course we must be concerned about discrimination but at the same time how can we know—and how can my noble friend the Minister, with respect, stand here today and say—how many times we think these measures will be sought or used? We are in an incredibly difficult place at the moment on a global level. We have to do all we can to protect our citizens and collaborate with others across international boundaries to ensure to the best of our ability that we can counter terrorism. In that case, we should not ask for statistics at this stage. I understand where and why statistics look good and that we can look back and say that this made sense or that did not, or that it looks as if we have overused this or that power. Let us give the freedom necessary for the security services to do the job properly or to the best of their ability in the most difficult circumstances, remembering also that the circumstances have changed considerably since our last counterterrorism Bill. We are now in a situation where the speed to be able to act is absolutely of the essence, given that so much of this relates to information and evidence coming from possibly multiple sources and often digitally, in which case with enormous speed. We are asking our security services to act in response to that speed and the speed with which the perpetrators, those who we are seeking to prevent from carrying out terrorist acts, are able to act against us.

[Baroness Warsi]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Buscombe makes some incredibly important points, many of which I agree with. Like her I pay tribute to the huge work done by our intelligence services, which are overseen by a very thorough oversight process. Noble Lords will be aware that not all services are perfect and mistakes can be made and it is therefore important that all our services, including our intelligence services, work within parameters.

The lawyer in me always says when I look at legislation, “What is the mischief we are trying to fix?”. When we pass legislation it is important that we bear that in mind. While I accept that these are difficult times and it is important to make sure that we are protected, it is also important that we ensure that we do not make the challenges we face worse. Huge progress has been made under this Government with the reform to stop-and-search powers. There has been progress in the right direction with many communities that felt alienated by the use of such powers and felt that their co-operation with, for example, the police would have been so much better had the powers not been exercised in a way that led to profiling and discrimination. We are all aware of arrests made under terrorism legislation that did not lead to charge and charges that did not lead to convictions. The numbers were so overwhelming at one moment that it appeared the powers were being in used in a way that was doing more harm than good. In those circumstances it is important for us to ensure—not just because discrimination is wrong and we should fight it—that in exercising these powers we do not discriminate and make the problem worse. In those circumstances I support many of the comments made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Harris.