Undercover Policing Inquiry

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Clark of Kilwinning]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the progress of the Undercover Policing Inquiry into police surveillance, established in 2015.

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

My Lords, the inquiry’s investigations are independent of the Home Office, and I welcomed the commencement of its evidential hearings in November 2020. The department maintains regular liaison with the inquiry on sponsorship issues such as progress and expenditure. We remain of the view that it is important for the inquiry to report as soon as practicable, as set out in its terms of reference.

[Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that answer. As she is aware, one of the reasons why the inquiry was established was that a number of women had dishonestly become involved with undercover police officers in quite an abusive way—some of them, indeed, having children by those officers. One of the calls from many of the participants in the inquiry was for the inquiry to be public and live-streamed. One of the reasons for that is that there may be many more women who have been dishonestly treated in this way—and more children whose fathers are undercover police officers. Will the Minister look at live-streaming the inquiry and at how it can be made public, so that the images and names of the undercover police officers are more readily available and activists can see whether they have been impacted in some way?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The inquiry chair has already opined on the publication of a list, and the noble Baroness will know what his comment on that issue was. I understand her point about women being involved with undercover police, and some of them getting pregnant and having children. On televising proceedings, she would need to go to the inquiry chair to request that; the inquiry is independent of government.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Clark of Kilwinning]

29: Clause 1, after “trade unions” insert “or legitimate political activity”

[Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 28, to which I have added my name. It seeks to outlaw the infiltration of trade unions. In addition, I shall speak to my Amendment 29, which would go further in seeking to outlaw the infiltration of legitimate political organisations and activities. I have tabled it as a probing amendment. Many of these issues take up a lot of what was discussed in the previous debate.

State surveillance of political organisations is of course far from new. It has been going on for many centuries. Earlier this week, we heard powerful testimony from my noble friend Lord Hain about his own experiences. I know that there has been surveillance on my noble friend Lady Lawrence of Clarendon and her family. I suspect that other Members of this House may also have been subjected to surveillance, whether they are aware of it or not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will appreciate that not every Bill contains every minute detail of issues such as this, but I hope that, with my having made the statement on the Floor of the House, the noble Lord is satisfied that there cannot be conflict. However, I would be very happy to speak to him about this before Report.

[Baroness Clark of Kilwinning (Lab)]

I am happy to withdraw Amendment 29.

Amendment 29 (to Amendment 28) withdrawn.

Violence against Women and Girls

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2015 Westminster Hall

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in the debate. I missed the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) because I was bringing in one of the young women who is attending the event organised for those in their final year of school. I was going to call them sixth formers, but that is not a term we use in Scotland.

The debate is an important one for the week of international women’s day. Violence against women and girls is an international issue. It is estimated that internationally about a third of women and girls experience such violence, but the issue is unfortunately alive and kicking in all parts and communities of the United Kingdom, across all classes. Women and girls of all backgrounds can be affected, at any stage of life. I am grateful for the opportunity to say a few words and want to focus in particular on some issues from North Ayrshire and Arran, which has some of the worst domestic violence statistics in Scotland. That does not necessarily mean there is more domestic violence there than in other areas of Scotland; we do not know. However, more crimes are reported there than in many parts of Scotland.

The issues that I want to focus on are within the power of government. Many services and support mechanisms available to women and girls have been under threat in recent years, as there have been budget cuts from all parts of government—Westminster, the Scottish Parliament and local government. Unfortunately, as often happens when public finances are squeezed, some of the services that are less fashionable or that were developed for the most vulnerable are the first to be attacked. That is happening to services that were developed over decades for women and girls who are subjected to violence and abuse. North Ayrshire is not immune to that effect.

I want to discuss the future of North Ayrshire Women’s Aid. Like Women’s Aid throughout the country, the service was set up by women concerned about the issue, with an ethos very different from that of many services in the voluntary and public sectors. It had the aim of providing support to people in difficult situations and was a women-led service.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

I am glad that the hon. Lady has brought the debate to the subject of violence in this country, important though it is to consider the matters that have been covered so far. I do not know whether she has read the “Building Great Britons” report produced a couple of weeks ago by the all-party group on conception to age two. We gave the cost of getting things wrong with respect to perinatal mental health and maltreatment of children as £23 billion. Interestingly, about three quarters of child safeguarding cases are from homes where there is domestic violence. Often, women who suffer perinatal mental health problems and parent their children badly have themselves been victims, coming from parental homes where there was domestic violence. The matter is generational. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that we need to do much more to make kids safe from domestic violence—not just the women who are in the front line of it?

[Katy Clark]

The hon. Gentleman makes his case powerfully and is of course right that it is difficult to quantify the cost of violence—to the individual and the country. However, there is no doubt that there is a vast cost to the country—millions, and probably billions, of pounds—in consequence of the effect of violence on individuals, whether they suffer it as children or in later life. A great deal of work has been done on the cost to business of people having to take time off as a direct result of physical violence in domestic situations, but, as the hon. Gentleman powerfully expressed, things are far more complicated than that. Government has an interest in addressing the matter, to ensure that all parts of society function as well as they can.

I am particularly concerned that the women’s aid services in North Ayrshire are currently out to tender. There is no guarantee that the service will continue to run as it has in the past if Women’s Aid does not win in the current tendering process.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

We experienced the same thing in Slough. Berkshire East and South Bucks Women’s Aid did not succeed with its tender; the process was constructed in such a way that it was not possible for it to win. The housing association that won has now withdrawn from providing the service. Berkshire East and South Bucks Women’s Aid has changed its name to Dash, and continues to provide a service using charitable and other funds. Those women will not allow women to continue suffering, and have carried on, but it is shocking that local government, and our tax money, are not backing an effective service. Instead there was investment in a service that turned out to be a paper straw.

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has illustrated the point I am attempting to make extremely powerfully.

Even if North Ayrshire Women’s Aid wins the tender, the impact will be a cut of 22% to its budget. My hon. Friend is correct to say that many such services began as voluntary services. Women provided them out of their convictions, in their own time. However, it is practically impossible to provide a service on a purely voluntary basis throughout a local authority area. There is a need for state support. My case is that women-led services may be the most effective among those provided for women and girls in this country. It will be a sad indictment of Members, irrespective of party, if we allow the current budgetary position and the tendering exercises that are happening throughout the service to lead to a situation in which services cannot continue operating in the way that developed over generations.

With a 22% cut in its budget, North Ayrshire Women’s Aid will no longer, if it wins the contract, be able to help with addiction or children’s issues, which are part of its core service at the moment. Workers have already been issued with redundancy notices. A cause for concern is that the tendering process is such that whoever wins the contract will have to operate differently from previously. The council will control opening times and decide the nature of the service provided to women. Historically, the service has been led very much by women. Women have been employed by it and run it, and there is a woman chief executive.

Previously, of course, it was a co-operative operation. However, pressures from the public sector have meant that Women’s Aid could not continue to work in that way, so a male chief executive could be appointed. He might be good at the job, but that does not accord with the ethos in which Women’s Aid developed—of a women-led project, with recognition of the fact that women are often best placed to provide the relevant services to women and children. Things might be different in the context of men suffering domestic abuse, which we have debated previously, but the debate today is about women. The council will decide on recruitment and selection, and there will be a more limited service dealing with housing and shelter, rather than the more holistic approach developed by Women’s Aid over a long time. That is just one example of how services are under threat as a result of budget cuts.

When the previous Administration were in power in Scotland, Women’s Aid budgets were ring-fenced; it was decided that they should be because it was recognised that when times are difficult, services of that kind are the first to go. Services that are there for the most vulnerable do not have big lobbying groups providing them with protection and so they will be the ones to go when times are tough. However, the decision was then taken in Scotland not to ring-fence budgets for such services, and we are now seeing the consequences.

As we debate the effect of these issues on women and girls throughout the world, it is important that we also remember what is going in our own backyards—in our constituencies and communities. We should make sure that we protect the kind of services that are required when women and girls are most vulnerable—the point in their lives when perhaps they are at their lowest and so need support—and that there are the resources, commitment and vision to develop better services in future.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

Passports

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 1st September 2014 Ministerial Corrections

[Katy Clark]

To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passport (a) applications and (b) renewal applications were received by the Passport Office in each (i) month and (ii) year of the last five years.

[Official Report, 30 June 2014, Vol. 583, c. 378W.]

Letter of correction from James Brokenshire:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on 30 June 2014.

The full answer given was as follows:

[James Brokenshire]

The following table provides the requested information.

Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Tuesday 15th July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Dr Huppert]

That is helpful. There is general agreement, but it was something that struck me when I read the amendment earlier this morning. I note that there are not many Members in the Chamber. Sadly, the House is often like that, however much time has been given for debate or however much notice.

There is a question as to whether it is helpful to define economic well-being. It may be that it is just too hard. Perhaps scholars of the future will look at this discussion and many others to try to work out what is meant. It should relate to things that would be catastrophic; where the effect of failing to stop something would be equivalent to a national security problem or a serious crime. It is that sort of level.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

There is a huge amount of concern that the legislation as it was previously and has been presented today could be used for political or industrial purposes. For example, it could be used to intercept information when a trade union was organising industrial action. Is his reading of the amendment such that it could be used in a situation such as the miners’ strike of 1984-85?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Brokenshire]

I thank the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for tabling the amendment and giving us an opportunity to look in detail at clause 3 and at the importance of the economic well-being purpose currently retained in RIPA. Let me set out a little more context. Clause 3 translates into primary legislation a constraint—it is intended to be a constraint—on the exercise of this purpose that is already provided for in the codes of practice issued under section 71 of RIPA. It effectively puts those statements into primary legislation. It requires that an interception warrant is only issued, and access to communications data only authorised, for the purposes of economic well-being where there is also an independent national security justification for the authorisation. It is intended to be read in that context. I hope that explanation is helpful as we explore some of the language in the Bill.

Clause 3 does not mean that economic well-being for the purposes of RIPA is synonymous with national security, but the amendment gives us the opportunity to underline the fact that there has to be that connection between the two, which obviously is relevant in determining whether or not the powers under RIPA can be exercised for the statutory purposes. Along with national security and the prevention and detection of serious crime, protecting the UK’s economic well-being is one of the statutory functions of the security and intelligence agencies, which are set out in the Security Service Act 1989 and the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

I understand and recognise the points made by the right hon. Member for Knowsley. I think that this debate has been quite useful in airing some of the cyber-security and cybercrime issues that I know he has raised in the House on a number of occasions. It has also highlighted our reliance on information communications technology, which is now a core part of our national infrastructure. I think that there is read-across into other legislation. I understand that he tabled the amendment on a probing basis, but I think that it requires careful thought.

A definition of economic well-being is reflected in the legislation I have mentioned—RIPA being the key focus for this evening’s debate—but it is also important to acknowledge its context as a well-established principle in law. Its origins lie in the European convention on human rights, which provides for exceptions to article 8—the right to a private and family life—when it is in the interest of the economic well-being of the country. Many aspects, therefore, are wrapped up in the broad context of how the definition has come about and the interpretations of it. Case law may also sit alongside this provision in determining the scope and ambit of the definition, so seeking to clarify it may have unintended consequences.

[Katy Clark]

The Minister will be aware that in the past the security services have taken a great interest in political campaigns and, indeed, industrial matters. I mentioned the miners’ strike in my previous intervention. Will he give an assurance that the proposed legislation will not be used against political activists or, indeed, trade union activists in situations similar to last year’s Grangemouth dispute and the miners’ strike?

[James Brokenshire]

It is always difficult for Ministers—not just me; this has been the case with successive Governments—to comment on security and interception matters. Perhaps it will help the hon. Lady if I explain that what we are doing tonight is strengthening the position by underlining that the purpose has to be connected to national security, so it is not simply a question of economic well-being. The fact that we are putting that into legislation is an important development, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) has said.

I am sympathetic to the amendment in principle, as it seeks to provide clarity on the meaning of economic well-being in law. In many ways, I think it seeks to address some of the points raised by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark). David Anderson may wish to reflect on it in his review of existing legislation and new legislation capabilities. Indeed, the privacy and civil liberties oversight board may also wish to address the issue of clarity. My simple point is that it needs to be done with care, given the other legislation I have flagged up and the broader context of the European convention on human rights.

[James Brokenshire]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We are putting this provision front and centre in primary legislation. I hope that that is helpful in giving an assurance. National security is clearly a pretty high bar to reach, so framing the economic well-being argument in those terms should give an assurance that this is not something that would be relied upon lightly.

[Katy Clark]

The concern that many have is that, in the past, national security has been considered to be a catch-all. Indeed, the miners were considered to be the enemy within, and much of the rhetoric we hear from Government Members considers trade union activity and people who use democratic means to assert their rights to be a threat to the state. That is what I am trying to seek assurances about from the Minister. He is asking us to pass emergency legislation, but he seems unable to provide any assurances as to how it will be used in industrial situations.

[James Brokenshire]

I am genuinely surprised that the hon. Lady has made her point in that way, because the Bill is about strengthening governance and oversight. Sitting alongside the Bill in relation to the retention of communications data, there will, in addition, be a statutory code of practice, while the Information Commissioner has the right to look at further audit and oversight of data retention, and the interception of communications commissioner can consider the use of the powers. That should give independent assurance to not just the hon. Lady but others who, reasonably and legitimately, want to know that such powers are not abused or expanded.

Our governance and oversight of communications data and interception have been strengthened and enhanced over the years, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) said on Second Reading. Equally, in relation to wanting to know that the tests are adhered to in relation to a Secretary of State effectively authorising a warrant for interception, the oversight of the interception of communications commissioner should provide a great deal of assurance.

I have always recognised that people should be able to uphold their industrial rights, including the right to form a trade union. I certainly do not in any way intend this debate to get into such an issue. Indeed, from his speech, the right hon. Member for Knowsley understands that the Bill’s provisions will tighten important rights in existing law. The point concerns whether there is a need for any further clarification. The comments of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran on the right hon. Gentleman’s amendment highlighted the tricky nature of trying to frame the Bill correctly and the potential for unintended consequences in that context.

Passport Applications

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

Of course we do not want to see strike action—nobody does—but we do want to see action by the Home Secretary to make sure that people get their passports on time and have not had to fork out in the process.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

I was very interested to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is no longer in his place. I have received an e-mail from a constituent whose son applied for a passport in March to go to Austria at the end of this month as part of achieving his explorer badge with the Scouts. Does my right hon. Friend hope that my constituent is able to get his passport like the hon. Gentleman’s constituent did?

[Yvette Cooper]

I certainly do. March is three months ago, and people should get their passports within three weeks, according to the Government’s targets. That simply is not happening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

This crisis was not only predictable but predicted. I pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friends the Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden) in raising these issues for a very long time. As a member of the PCS parliamentary group, I regularly attend its briefing sessions for MPs giving its perspective on the issues facing its members. This issue has been very much on its agenda and it has been briefing MPs about it for a very long time.

This is not just about how the Home Secretary is dealing with the problem or how she has dealt with it over the past few weeks, or indeed the past few months; it is also about how she has helped to create it. The previous Labour Government went to a great deal of trouble to open up passport offices throughout the country.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Katy Clark]

I will not, because I understand that a number of Members want to speak and we are going to have the closing speeches shortly. I would not want to take time away from someone who has been waiting here all afternoon to speak.

When the Conservative Government were elected, they introduced a policy of closing passport offices throughout the country. They closed 22 passport offices and one processing centre. There has been outsourcing of work, and it is feared that there will be more. That is very significant in this context, not only because of the numbers of staff who have been lost but because of the reorganisations that have been taking place, which, in themselves, cause a great deal of concern.

The Home Secretary spoke about the additional staff she has been bringing in to do this work over the past few days and weeks, perhaps longer. Those staff have been transferred from other parts of the Home Office, particularly the immigration and visa sections. It would usually take at least six weeks to train up a member of staff to do such work, but the people being transferred are being trained over the weekend, or in a few days, to do jobs that are incredibly important for the security of this country. It is vital that this work is done properly.

The other way in which the Government have been dealing with this issue over the past few months is to allow staff overtime—not only staff who usually do these jobs but those on far higher grades with far higher salaries who do not usually do this kind of work and, frankly, are not best equipped to do it. We have to learn the lessons of similar crises in the past. We must ensure that we have sufficient, properly trained permanent passport staff in place to deal with work that needs to be done at every point in the year.

In the last financial year, the Passport Office made profits of £70 million, so it is not a sector of Government that should be affected by the austerity cuts. The Government have treated it like other Departments by insisting that there should be cuts in staffing, but people pay for this service, and there is an obligation on Government to make sure that they get an efficient service.

My constituents, like others, are travelling all round the country to try to get a passport. Over the past few days, I have heard from constituents who have been going from Ayrshire on the west coast of Scotland to Durham, Liverpool and other parts of the country. Some have been asked to go to Belfast, although I think we have managed to make sure that they have not been required to cross the Irish sea to get their problems sorted out. We need to review the idea that closing the network of passport offices has been a success, and I hope that this debate will take that forward.

A number of constituents have already lost their holidays as a result of what is happening. I would like to raise one case of the many cases that have been raised with me. My constituent, who had lost her passport, went from Ayrshire to the Liverpool passport office on 10 June. She was due to fly out of the country on Monday 16 June but has still not done so. She is hoping that if she could fly out tomorrow or later this week, she could at least have some of her holiday. If I give the Minister the details of that case, will he look into it?

Domestic Violence (Police Response)

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 10th April 2014 Westminster Hall

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is right. I alluded to that in relation to respect for relationships and what that means. It needs to be learned by boys and it needs to be learned by girls. We are talking about another aspect of the cancer that is domestic violence that needs to be spotted early. We need to protect the victims, but we also need to ensure that we can protect the children against the long-term and highly damaging consequences of being in a home afflicted by domestic violence.

[Katy Clark (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that interventions should be brief.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2014 Westminster Hall

[Norman Baker]

The Home Office is looking at what has happened to date. We are looking at whether there are sufficient referrals, or whether there is a hold-up elsewhere, and we welcome comments from anywhere in the House about how matters might be improved. We are open-minded.

The Ministry of Justice is considering whether a civil law remedy might provide an additional tool with which to tackle FGM. The idea is that those afraid of being subjected to FGM, or friends or family of those at risk, could apply for an order so as to put the potential victim under the protection of the courts. That would be a proactive rather than reactive step. The MOJ is also seeking views from key stakeholders about the merits of a civil law measure and how that might work alongside criminal legislation. That aspect is already being considered in Government.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the Queen’s Speech is coming up. If the Select Committee is able to offer suggestions on how the law should be strengthened, will there be opportunities to make legislative changes before the next general election?

Undercover Policing

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Monday 24th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs May]

My hon. Friend is right to raise the importance not only of training for individual officers, but of the need to ensure that senior officers properly manage any deployment of undercover operatives. That is indeed one of the issues that, as I mentioned earlier, was raised in the HMIC report last year. HMIC will, of course, look at the implementation of its recommendations, and will be reporting this Thursday. Having set up the College of Policing, we now have a body that is responsible for ensuring that for police operations across the board, appropriate training is given and to the right and correct standards.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Another of the allegations that have been made is that an undercover police officer was one of the co-authors of the leaflet that led to what became known as the McLibel court case, and that another undercover police officer had a two-year relationship with one of the defendants in that case. Will the Home Secretary ensure that this is also thoroughly investigated?

[Mrs May]

I can assure the hon. Lady that the remit of Operation Herne in relation to the SDS goes very wide. It is not focused just on a limited number of cases; it looks at the whole operation of the SDS, including the reporting lines, as I indicated to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and a number of other matters. It has a wide-ranging remit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Baroness Clark of Kilwinning Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Maria Miller]

Companies such as the one my hon. Friend has identified are working actively with us on the campaigns that we run and are often partners investing cash in these campaigns as well. With 104 million overnight trips in England made by British residents, their work is successful—and that success is clear to see.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

17. Whether the draft Communications Data Bill will include provisions on media ownership.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Lord Justice Leveson's report made a number of recommendations on plurality and media ownership. This summer, the Government will explain how they plan to seek views on the issue and implement Lord Justice Leveson's recommendations. The Communications Data Bill is being led by the Home Office, and will not include provisions on media ownership because media plurality does not form part of communications data policy.

[Katy Clark]

Does the Secretary of State agree that ownership of newspapers and other media is too concentrated in the hands of too few, and that we need a cap on ownership in the different sectors of the media?

[Maria Miller]

As I have said, Lord Justice Leveson dealt with that issue in his report—albeit not in a detailed manner—and we have agreed that some issues need to be considered further, in particular the lack of clarity in regard to how plurality should be measured and what constitutes a sufficient level of plurality. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in seeking answers to questions of that kind in the coming months.