Ministerial Code

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure my noble friend will read and hear what the noble Baroness has said. I said in my original Answer that Ministers are personally responsible for deciding how to justify their actions and conduct to Parliament and the public.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister that allegations do not constitute evidence, but is he suggesting that this is an allegation of a forgery?

[Lord True (Con)]

No, my Lords—I am saying that there is a set of allegations which have been made in many respects and in many circumstances over the last few weeks, in relation not only to this alleged incident but to others, which are allegations and not proof. We well know the impatience that your Lordships have for the conclusion of the Sue Gray inquiry and the Metropolitan Police investigations, but these matters need to be investigated, the facts established and the truth revealed.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord True]

I will have to read my words to understand how the noble Lord interpreted them in that way. Our position is that such an office is not necessary for the implementation of this agreement, and that remains our position.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, reference has been made to consultation, but largely for the future. What consultation has there been so far in arriving at this White Paper, and have stakeholders, particularly the business community, confirmed that they regard the procedures as not being burdensome?

[Lord True]

My Lords, the response from business groups in Northern Ireland to the White Paper has been extremely encouraging and positive. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his colleagues have an ongoing engagement and dialogue with the business sector, which is vital. I have affirmed again today that that will be a core part of carrying forward discussions on how we will implement these proposals, having told the House of the new Business Engagement Forum that I hope will begin its work shortly. But that is not beginning of engagement with business; it is the next stage of it.

EEA Nationals (Indefinite Leave to Remain) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Friday 19th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for putting into legislative form a mechanism to enable those citizens to whom we want to say, “We’re so glad you’re here, please stay”, to stay without encountering the problems that have been and are the subject of such concern and anxiety. In that sense, in “Please stay”, perhaps we have another form of remain—certainly something that is humane, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said. I wish I could be confident that it would find its way onto the statute book: I have less confidence about that than the noble Lord, Lord Cormack. I say that as the sponsor of a Bill introduced in this House in June 2017 and passed by the House in July 2018—since when I have written down, “dot, dot, dot”. But it gives us the opportunity to fulfil reassurances and pledges given in 2016—as a matter of honour, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said—and to raise some weaknesses, which, the more one considers the settled status scheme, the more one becomes aware of.

Ministers say at every opportunity that they want to find reasons to accept, not reject, applications. By definition, an application-based scheme is bound to lead to some rejections; my noble friend Lady Smith made that point. The Bill is rights-based, which is much more appropriate for a country concerned to uphold the rule of law. It can also be a safety net for the current scheme, as has been pointed out.

Earlier this week, some Members of the House were at a discussion arranged by the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law about this model of administrative justice, which has at its heart automation—the rule of technology, not law. The work that was reported was on the settled status scheme, but the point applies more widely. I know that caseworkers—human beings—are involved in the scheme, but it represents the acceleration of a trend towards quick justice at the expense of important safeguards, and therefore has wide and lasting significance.

I will quote the conclusion of the Public Law Project’s report; noble Lords will understand that there is a lot of analysis behind it. It comments on the,

“growing gap in individual experiences of administrative justice. For those who get positive outcomes, they will—likely with the growing support of increasingly advanced and integrated technology—get their positive outcomes more quickly. This could be a great benefit, reducing the problems associated with waiting and delay. For those who do not get positive outcomes, however, their fall is less likely to be protected by effective redress and support systems. For those in a position of social and economic advantage, there is a greater possibility of accessing high-quality advice services to cushion the fall. For those in a position of social and economic disadvantage, the landing is likely to be much harder. Given the impact that an incorrect immigration decision can have on the lives of individuals and families, this effect ought not to be underestimated”.

It is fundamental to, and a crucial part of, the Bill that there is no cut-off date. Under the settled status scheme, an EU national who does not apply during the operational period will become illegally resident. The EU Justice Sub-Committee of this House, of which I am a very new member, is interested to know how the Home Office will deal with these people, who will range from prisoners—I understand that none of the organisations funded by the Home Office to assist applicants works in prisons—to people who have been granted pre-settled status and do not take it further.

As noble Lords have observed, it seems that pre-settled status is currently given in most cases when an application for settled status does not succeed. The Minister for Immigration told the sub-committee that the Home Office would consult the Cabinet Office on how best to “nudge” people who need to convert. The likelihood of misunderstanding—“I’m okay now, I’ve got status”—among people whose status is actually a precursor to settled status, is very high. We also heard that the Home Office will not agree to a physical document, because a computer record is the “most secure” form of evidence. “Digital first” has become “digital only”—and I do not need to refer to recent history here, which noble Lords have mentioned and which we could all talk about with considerable emotion.

I dislike the term “vulnerable”. To me, it sounds patronising, but it is widely adopted. The Public Law Project refers to people,

“in a position of social and economic disadvantage”.

I refuse to accept that elderly people are, by definition, vulnerable, and I think that the House will support me in that. Under the government scheme, people who we know fall into that group will, if they fail the application test—and many of them will struggle with it—become vulnerable to the Government’s policies. Whether hostile or compliant, or whatever you call them, these policies will affect you badly. People will be denied access to services and will be at risk of deportation.

Obviously, looked-after children and young care leavers fall into that category, and the right reverend Prelate drew our attention to that. I congratulate Coram Children’s Legal Centre and other organisations on the work that they undertake on this subject. In the time available, I can mention only a few of the issues that they have identified. One is the suitability criteria: is the applicant suitable for status? To quote a recent Coram report:

“Statistically, looked after children and care leavers are more likely to engage the suitability criteria than other children and young people”.


The report refers to the number of children aged over 10 who were looked after for at least a year and who have been,

“convicted or subject to youth cautions or youth conditional cautions”.

The Department for Education recognises these figures. The report also states:

“These children and young people will need to receive advice on the impact of any criminal record on their settlement scheme application before an application is made”—


and I want to stress those last five words. Looked-after children and care leavers will also need advice on nationality routes. They may have complex cases that fall outside the competency of an adviser accredited to the basic level introduced by the OISC for the scheme.

Then there are children who are eligible for the scheme but who do not have evidence of nationality or length of residence. Coram gives a number of case studies, such as that of Joao:

“Joao is a child whose estranged father is Portuguese. Joao’s mother (who holds a passport from Guinea-Bissau) fled his father, who was violent, in 2014. Joao’s mother has a biometric family member card that was issued in 2014 but Joao has no documents at all. The agency supporting Joao and his mother advised absolutely no contact between Joao/his mother and Joao’s estranged father due to the previous violence. Joao is unable to get a Portuguese passport without the active participation of both his parents in his nationality registration application”.


I could give a number of other examples, but in view of the time, I will not do so.

I will, however, refer to some of the recommendations made by Coram. It states:

“The Home Office should consult with the EU Commission on problems with accessing nationality documents and should have regard to its findings in guidance produced for both local authorities and for caseworkers on the exercise of discretion”.


It says that,

“the government should consider introducing a separate system that would ensure all children in the care of local authorities and care-leavers are granted settled status without having to meet the requirements of the EU settlement scheme”.

Reference is made to the statement of intent and to the fact that,

“the government ‘will accept alternative evidence of the EU citizen’s identity and nationality where the family member applicant is unable to obtain or produce the required document due to circumstances beyond their control or to compelling practical or compassionate reasons’, but further guidance on what constitutes compelling practical or compassionate reasons is required. Where necessary, the Home Office should take a pragmatic, flexible approach”.

I hope that the Home Office is familiar with all the recommendations made by specialist organisations, which identify the complexities of the scheme. The numbers affected may be small—although as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out, they may not be that small—but each person affected is an individual to whom we have a responsibility.

The Home Office wants to find reasons to accept. My noble friend’s Bill gets much nearer to achieving what most of us understand that to mean, having not necessarily initially understood the implications of the term “accept”. The Bill is much more inclusive to our friends, co-workers and fellow citizens, an approach that all noble Lords want to see, both for other EU citizens—I can still call them that—whom the UK says are welcome and for the 1.3 million UK citizens elsewhere in Europe. Like other noble Lords, including the noble Earl, I share a sense of shame at the position we are in the moment.

Mobile Phones: Public Alert Systems

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 13th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Again, I understand the noble Lord’s impatience which, for all he knows, may be more widely shared than he thinks. What has changed over recent years is that previous trials were based on an outdated technology, 2G. Now that we have 4G and the arrival of 5G is imminent, it is possible to have a scheme which was not possible three or four years ago. As I said a moment ago, we are testing a public trial of cell broadcasting later this year, which could then be developed into the sort of scheme proposed by his noble friend.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, one problem which is common to terrorist attacks and environmental disasters is the anxiety of friends and family about those whom they are concerned might be affected. Their phone calls, using mobile systems as well as landlines, put a load on the whole system. That was obvious in 2005. Does the work which the Government are doing take account of the need to ensure that that load is minimised?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Cell broadcasting does not run the risks of congestion on the network that the previous system, SMS, did.

Immigration Statistics

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The point made by the noble Lord was also made by the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. One of the recommendations echoes what he just said:

“We also recommend that the Home Office examine how all entries and exits from major ports in the UK, including for non-visa travellers, can be recorded and that all entry and exit information is then used to aid the analysis of migration flow and to better inform policy decisions”.


The Government will respond to that recommendation before Easter and I am sure that they will take on board the support expressed for that policy by the noble Lord and indeed by others.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that statistics do not exist in a vacuum and that it is important to work on them to show a clear picture both of the contribution made by immigrants and of the competition, if that is what it is, that they may present to UK nationals in the labour market. The noble Lord mentioned information from HMRC. Does he agree that it would be useful to be clear about how much tax immigrants working in this country pay towards our society?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. Speaking from memory, I think that tax revenue from the cohort that she mentioned exceeds the amount of benefits paid to those people. I do not have the exact statistics in front of me, but I am sure that one can make available the net contribution of migrants to this country to the labour market.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. I will not repeat what I said in Committee other than to emphasise the importance of the amendment for promoting the integration of young people who have been granted humanitarian protection.

In Committee, the Minister, the noble Viscount, Lord Younger, responded that this issue,

“is already addressed within the student support regulations”—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 725]

in that, as we have heard, this group is eligible to obtain student support and have home fee status after three years’ residence. But he then acknowledged that those with refugee status are allowed to access student support immediately, and the implication seemed to be that three years is really not that long to wait. Three years may not be very long for us older people, but for a young person it is a lifetime. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, to a young person in this situation three years is absolutely crucial.

The Minister also said that people with humanitarian protection under the Syrian resettlement scheme,

“are not precluded from applying for refugee status if they consider they meet the criteria”,—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col. 725.]

as if this was a straightforward thing for a young person to do. Neither the noble Viscount nor the Minister in the Commons would provide us with a satisfactory explanation for denying this group of young people access to higher education without a three-year wait, which, as I said, could feel like a lifetime.

I am encouraged by what my noble friend Lord Dubs said about what the Home Secretary has said. I would like once more to press the Government, through the Minister, to look again at the issue more generally, and I hope that part of the conversation with the Home Secretary was about this. There are one or two other ways in which humanitarian protection does not provide the same rights as refugee status. I know that this is being looked at in government, as I have been having a go at it in a number of ways. In answer to an Oral Question of mine a while ago, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, pointed out that the reason for humanitarian protection for the Syrian resettlement scheme is to enable them to move very quickly. I can understand that but, once they are here, surely it would be possible to review the situation and see whether full refugee status can be granted once the paperwork and everything can be looked at.

I hope that the Government will look at this. They say that they are looking at it, but nothing ever seems to happen. In the meantime, this amendment is the very least we can do to help this vulnerable group of young people to fulfil their potential and build a future in our country.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, having checked with my noble friend Lady Garden, I can say from these Benches that we support this amendment. The Minister referred at the last stage to keeping the issue under active review. I was going to ask what that meant and whether there had been any activation since.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has to be optimistic. We all do, because it would be very depressing if one could not be optimistic on this subject; one would so rapidly go downhill on it. He referred to the situation as an anomaly. Indeed it is, as well as being intrinsically important. Only very small numbers of people must be affected by this, given the numbers who have humanitarian protection and those who might seek university education. I am quite puzzled as to what three years’ residence proves and what relevance it should have to an entitlement to that education or the ability to profit from a course.

As so often when we talk about higher education, the Bill has been a basis for our referring to the soft power of international links through higher education and so on, and to the contribution to the UK’s economy as a result of people benefiting from higher education. This cohort of people would contribute to the UK in just the same way as a result of it, and be one of those further links in good international relations. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has brought the matter back, and I look forward to some good news.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment as well. As the noble Lord said, this is a modest amendment, seeking only a review as set out in the amendment—although of course, if the Government were to tell your Lordships that they are about to announce an independent reviewer of the whole of Prevent, as David Anderson and others have called for, I do not suppose the noble Lord would object to that.

The UN special rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association is among those who has commented on the operation of Prevent in educational institutions. With other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I met the special rapporteur. It is quite a facer to be in a meeting with someone in that position and be told that your own country is not behaving quite as it should and quite as the UN rapporteur thinks it should, given that we are so used to criticising other countries in human rights areas.

I do not want to repeat everything that has been said on this and other occasions; I appreciate we have other things to get through tonight. However, it seems to me that universities are precisely the places not just where views which are not illegal by definition should be challenged, but where there should be the opportunity for those who are confused, interested or whatever, to hear, to listen and to join in the debate. Prevent cannot work without confidence and trust in its reliability and its effectiveness. For these reasons, the proposal to review its operation is entirely sensible.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who, as she noted in Committee, joined the Joint Committee on Human Rights just as I left it. In Committee, I reminded noble Lords of the concerns raised across the House during the Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill about the application of the Prevent duty to higher education institutions. As we have heard, the present amendment does no more than call for an independent, authoritative review of how the duty now operates in those HE institutions. This would respond to concerns raised more recently by a range of organisations, including, as my noble friend Lord Dubs said, the Home Affairs Select Committee. These concerns include: possibly discriminatory impact; the question of the adequacy or otherwise of the training given to academics; and the human rights implications, echoing earlier concerns of the JCHR.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, said that,

“we welcome discussion about how to implement Prevent effectively and proportionately, but … we consider blanket opposition to the duty unhelpful”.—[Official Report, 25/1/17; col.762.]

As we have heard, the amendment no longer proposes blanket opposition. Surely, in order to have a well-informed discussion, as called for by the noble Baroness, it makes sense to have an independent review of how the policy is operating, as called for in the amendment, to inform that very discussion. I can understand why the Minister opposed the original amendment, even though I disagreed with her, but I can see no justification for opposing this much more modest, and I hope helpful, amendment as a basis for the discussion that she said the Government would like to see.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the powerful speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin. As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said, this amendment is more focused than the one we tabled in Committee, but it is essentially about the same issue: giving the licensing authority a few more teeth by way of the licensing objectives to ensure that disabled people can access as many licensed premises as possible.

We are not being unreasonable. The key phrase for what a licensee should do to allow disabled people to access their premises is still only to make a “reasonable adjustment”. A licensed premises which, for example, is entirely upstairs with no lift available would still not be caught by this addition to the objectives. I dare say the Reform Club would not be either, because it is up a flight of stairs, as many of us who cannot access that premises know.

Crucially, the amendment would transfer the onus to the licensing authority from disabled people themselves. If a disabled person cannot get into a pub, club, or restaurant, or any other licensed premises, why should they have to take action themselves which might mean taking the licence holder to court? Our lives are hard enough now without having to enforce the law too. This is a golden opportunity to do what many organisations think should have happened years ago—to have licensing officers who are able to take action beyond writing a licensee a letter or having a word in their ear.

Does this mean extra work for the licensing authority? No, because we are told that it visits licensed premises all the time. Are we putting an unfair burden on licensees? No, because we are talking about only a reasonable adjustment, not an unreasonable one. The whole point is to take the burden off the shoulders of the disabled person who, under present circumstances, is made to feel guilty for making a fuss, or even for not being able to join a group of friends for a drink or a meal. It happens all the time.

I believe the tide will turn one day when there are even more disabled people out and about than there are now. This is a perfect opportunity to act now.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

We support the amendment from these Benches. I congratulate those who tabled it on their persistence and on taking forward the work of a Select Committee to seek to translate it into legislation. That is an example of how this House can work so effectively.

As others have said on many occasions, we should not have to legislate, but it seems that we do in order to change attitudes. Sometimes we have to make something enforceable before people come to understand that the subject is actually a right. The amendment has been described as anticipatory. Unfortunately one often sees that it is too easy for someone who infringes a rule not to take the sanction seriously. It can be regarded as an operating cost. If you are caught out and have to pay a penalty it is tough, but it is part of the costs of the business.

The value of the amendment is that bringing the issue into the licensing process will concentrate minds at the right point. I slightly take issue with my noble friend Lady Thomas, who talked about teeth. I say that it is about a mindset—so minds rather than teeth —but I think that is the only difference between us.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said, it is about mainstreaming the issue, making sure that everyone approaches it with the right objectives in mind. It is very harsh—almost offensive—to expect the objectives of the amendment to be met by individuals who find themselves unable to get into a set of premises, to use that as the example, not having known beforehand that there would be a problem, and to put the burden on them, in retrospect, to take it up—and we know that these rights are difficult to enforce, because individual rights are not easily enforced.

The Minister said in Committee that it would be inappropriate for licensing conditions to refer to specific legislation, because there is already an obligation to comply with that legislation. The new formulation is very neat. The current objective is shorthand, in just the same way as the other four licensing objectives are shorthand—one of them is for protection of children, safety is another. Indeed, the Minister gave examples of that in Committee. There would not be a call for the amendment if guidance worked and if good practice, which is no doubt observed by the good practitioners, was observed by those who have made the amendment necessary. We are very enthusiastic in support of the amendment, although it is sad to have to be enthusiastic for it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I support the amendment not because I am disabled but because like most of our population I am getting older. Although I can still run for a bus, there is going to be a time when I shall not be able to. So this is not only for disabled people—it is for us all. It is for the whole population, and I think that we have been incredibly flabby as a nation in not putting this into practice before. I was astonished to find that there was this let-out and gap in our legislation and that people can still exclude and discriminate against an important section of society. If we do not all support this amendment today, I think that we are being thoroughly wet and flabby and not living up to the ideals of an enlightened society.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2016

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Thursday 24th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

My Lords, this statutory instrument will extend the Secretary of State’s powers within the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 for a further five years.

The first and foremost responsibility of the Home Secretary is to keep the people of this country safe. As noble Lords will be more than aware, the threat from terrorism is very much present. The events in France, Belgium and other parts of the world in recent years bring home to us the very real danger posed by terrorists who would seek to do us harm.

The Home Secretary is absolutely clear that the police and security services should have the powers they need to disrupt terrorists. We should, of course, always ensure that wherever possible we prosecute those individuals who would seek to harm the people of this country to ensure that they are brought to justice. In a very small number of cases, this is not possible, so the police and Security Service need alternative powers to disrupt terrorist-related activity.

This is why I am here today seeking parliamentary agreement to extend the powers available to the Secretary of State in the TPIM Act 2011 for a further five years. The Act first came into force on 14 December 2011. It introduced a new framework for placing restrictions on individuals where appropriate to do so. TPIMs are civil preventive measures intended for use only when the prosecution—or deportation in the case of foreign nationals—of individuals considered to be involved in terrorist-related activity is not possible.

The Act allows for the imposition of restrictive measures on an individual where the Secretary of State is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the person is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity. Available measures under the original Schedule 1 to the TPIM Act 2011 are: an overnight residence requirement; a ban on overseas travel and holding travel documents; exclusion from specific places; restrictions on the use of financial services; restrictions on ownership or transfer of properties; limits on the use of telephones and computers, including the internet; limits on association; restrictions on the individual’s ability to work and/or study; police reporting; a requirement to be photographed as required; and a requirement to wear an electronic tag. Under Part 2 of the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015, a TPIM notice can also: require the individual to reside in a property up to 200 miles away from their residence without their consent; ban the individual from possessing certain weapons; and require the individual to attend appointments arranged by the Secretary of State.

A key objective of the Act was to introduce a more focused regime which protected the public from the risk of terrorism but increased the safeguards in place to protect the civil liberties of those subject to the measures. Built into the legislation is an automatic right of appeal which allows individuals subject to TPIM notices to challenge through the courts the decision of the Home Secretary to impose the TPIM. However, unlike the previous control order regime, no TPIMs have been quashed by the courts.

In accordance with Section 21 of the Act, the director-general of MI5, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Intelligence Services Commissioner have all been consulted, and they all recommended the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers. I commend the order to the House.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches we thank the noble Baroness for explaining the order, and we will not oppose the continuation of TPIMs. In the current climate, I am not surprised that they are to be extended, but it is a shame that the extension is for five years—I will come back to that.

I note the Government’s assessment for the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Act as amended in 2015 met its objectives and that the amendments incorporated most of the changes recommended at the time by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. The amendments that were not included were changes the Liberal Democrats called for, so I will mention them briefly again.

The first change is the proposal that the Home Secretary should be required on review to persuade a court—I stress, a court—that, on the balance of probabilities, a TPIM subject was involved in terrorism. The independent reviewer, commenting on this, said:

“Both the Home Secretary’s decision to impose a TPIM notice and the review by the court will be considered on the balance of probabilities that the individual is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity”.

That is intriguing in the light of the Government’s comment that the court will ask whether the Home Secretary has acted reasonably and proportionately.

The second change is a statutory bar to the use as evidence of information given during compulsory deradicalisation interviews—appointment measures. In 2015, the Government considered that the existing power of the criminal courts to exclude evidence where it would have an adverse effect on the fairness of proceedings was a sufficient safeguard. Now, as then—again, this point was raised by the independent reviewer—as soon as there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, the judicial process should take its course and the TPIM be ended.

I do not know whether the noble Baroness has in her briefing evidence that having TPIMs in place has led to more prosecutions. At the time of the creation of these measures, the Joint Committee on Human Rights commented that the “I” in TPIM—for “Investigation”—might be something of a misnomer. The debate around the Prevent strategy, in which many noble Lords have taken part, and will take part, has been rightly concerned about alienating communities. I have expressed the same concern about TPIMs: that they may increase the risk of the very thing they seek to avert. The measures have been changed and they are lesser measures than control orders—although they crept towards them. A considerable impact was noted in connection with control orders on both the subject and his family.

Policing and Crime Bill

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

This is my central question. I accept that the Government have published papers on this prior to the setting up of this ad hoc committee. However, they then took a decision to publish the amendments in September. Why, given that this committee is meeting? Secondly, why do they not deal with the 70:30 split? From what I can work out from the evidence that has come to us, that is the reason that most local authorities or licensing authorities see no need to take this up and see no bang for their buck if they do.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I had assumed when I saw these amendments that there must be quite a degree of urgency to the matter, given that they were being introduced at quite a late stage in the Bill. I had not appreciated that the House had set up a Select Committee to look at the issue. I can well understand that a lot of points will have been raised. I remember the debates about the 70:30 split. I remember debates about whether that was the correct split: whether it should be 50:50 between the police and the local authority or indeed 70:30 in favour of the local authority. I am pretty certain that I moved some of those amendments.

The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is being mild in her request to the Government not to implement these changes before the committee reports. Any amendments must pre-empt the committee’s decisions. Given the degree of confusion to which my noble friend referred and which I well accept, to have further changes to the regime on the statute book but not commenced cannot make the matter any easier for any of those involved. The proper approach would be for the Government not at this stage to proceed with the amendments unless there is a degree of considerable urgency—and I have not picked up that that is the case.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, briefly, I am also one of the members of the Select Committee under the great guidance and wisdom of our chairman. I share the views that have been expressed and I shall not repeat them. Why was this particular area selected from the document on modernising the police? Why have a host of other amendments not been tabled to pick up the other recommendations that the police want to see implemented? There is almost enough here for a package rather than picking out individual bits. Why were other recommendations not acted on?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I cannot go further than I already have in saying that we will of course look very carefully at the findings of the committee before coming to any final conclusions. That is as far as I can go. Everything else is rather hypothetical at the moment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness can assist this Committee with the timing. I imagine that the Select Committee will probably be required to report in February, but this Bill is likely to have concluded its passage before then. As a result, I am unclear how recommendations from the committee can affect the content of the Bill, but she may have information about the relative timings that could help this Committee.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

We will not pre-empt what the committee is going to say, so we have to wait until we hear from it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Hamwee]

214DA: Clause 140, page 154, line 17, after “citizenship” insert “, or where a person is not in possession of such a document, alternative documents which are sufficient to provide that such a document would normally be issued by the relevant authorities”

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Clause 140 provides for a requirement to produce a nationality document in the case where,

“an individual has been arrested on suspicion of the commission of an offence”,

and,

“an immigration officer or constable”,

gives,

“the individual a notice requiring the production of a nationality document”.

This amendment comes from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member. The committee regarded Article 14—the anti-discrimination article—as being engaged. The organisation Liberty has argued that if these powers,

“are to operate in a similar fashion to powers in the Immigration Bill”,

which a number of us will recall,

“immigration checks would become a routine aspect of every police engagement with a suspect. It is difficult to think how suspicion”,

which is required,

“will be generated if this is not the intended model, short of the police making assumptions about an individual’s status on the basis of appearance or accent”.

The committee noted the risk in this provision that requirements to confirm nationality could have a differential impact on BAME UK citizens. As our report says:

“We also questioned whether a person asked to produce a passport or other nationality document should instead be entitled to supply documentation sufficient to demonstrate an entitlement to such a document”,

since not everyone has a passport. We contacted the then Minister for the subject, who told the committee in the summer:

“Before deciding to issue a notice requiring a nationality document to be produced, as a matter of operational best practice, officers should check whether or not there is an immigration interest with Home Office Immigration Enforcement. If, having undertaken these checks, it is confirmed that the individual is not a UK national (or it is suspected the person may not be), it is a proportionate response to require the production of a document in order to properly establish identity. Should a UK national not possess a passport but are able to produce evidence (documentary or otherwise) that they are entitled to one under the terms of published guidance, it is reasonable that officers should take that into account. We”—

the Government—

“do not consider it necessary that such eventualities are set out on the face of the Bill, but will instead issue guidance to officers in that regard”.

The Joint Committee made the following point:

“If the Government accepts that alternative documentation may be required in circumstances where an individual does not possess a passport or driving licence, it is not clear why this fact should not be stated on the face of the Bill”.

This is a safeguard, after all, and something more than operational guidance would be appropriate. I beg to move.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the other members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for their consideration of the Bill. It is accepted that there may be situations where a UK national does not possess a passport and should be able to produce other documentary evidence to satisfy an officer that they are entitled to one under the terms of published government guidance.

The Government’s view is that this matter can properly be addressed through guidance, but in the light of the Joint Committee’s recommendation, I am content to take this amendment away and consider it further in advance of Report. I trust that, on that basis, the noble Baroness would be content to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, four minutes has achieved more than I might have expected. I realise that perhaps, in reading the content of the report fairly quickly, I might not have sufficiently stressed the risks of discrimination with which we were particularly concerned. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 214DA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, told the Committee, this clause confers lifelong anonymity on the victims of forced marriage in England and Wales. The first amendment, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, extends that provision to cover Northern Ireland as well. I understand that this is at the request of the Justice Department in Northern Ireland. That is welcome, and we on these Benches support these amendments. Amendment 215 is the main amendment, while Amendments 237 and 241 are consequential and would bring the provision into effect.

Amendment 219CA is in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. She makes a powerful case to right an injustice that leaves the victim unable to seek redress. That is not right, and the Government should come forward to correct this. I will be interested to hear what the Minister will say in her response to this amendment. She made a persuasive argument; I hope that we will get a positive response from the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm, and that the Government can deal with it, either now or on Report.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, we on these Benches very much support the noble Baroness’s amendment. She has obviously been working at this for some time—I see from her face that she has—and her explanation is clear and obviously based on the experiences of which she is aware. So we give her our support.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen]

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for explaining the purpose of her amendment. The Government are mindful that forced religious marriage may be a deliberate attempt to avoid financial consequences in the event of the break-up of the marriage. The existing position is that the financial orders provided for in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 are available only where a marriage is capable of legal recognition in England and Wales and where it is being brought to an end—or where judicial separation is ordered. However, where a marriage is not capable of legal recognition, parties have the same recourse to the court as unmarried cohabiting couples on the breakdown of the relationship. This applies to the division of any property and to financial provision for any children the couple have.

For those in a marriage that has no legal validity, the pressure from families and communities to stay together is no less strong because of the fact that the marriage has no legal consequences. It does not make it any easier for an individual to escape an abusive relationship, and we share my noble friend’s concern that it leaves women in particular vulnerable to hardship when the relationship breaks up, since there is no recourse to the court for the financial orders available to divorcing couples. The Government take this issue very seriously, and it is central to the independent sharia law review launched by the current Prime Minister in May this year. The Government will wish to consider the issue further in light of the findings from the review.

None the less, the law governing marriage, divorce and matrimonial property is complex, nuanced and finely balanced, reflecting as it does the wide range of personal circumstances in which people find themselves. The amendment would introduce a disparity with unmarried cohabitants and with those who are in unregistered marriages that are not forced. There is no evidence at this stage that the amendment—

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Hamwee Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, picking up on the last comment made by the Minister, so much is affected—or, indeed, infected—by the debate on the EU and all things European, including the issue of prisoner voting, to which my noble friend referred. However, I hope that your Lordships’ calm and rational consideration may help us progress this in this Session, perhaps with amendments to the votes for life Bill or the prison and courts reform Bill. The issue is our relationship with the Council of Europe and the European Court of Human Rights against the background of prisoner voting.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, recently visited Strasbourg. Hearing from politicians from Azerbaijan, Georgia and Poland was very powerful. The point was raised too by the Commissioner and by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe—not the merits of whether prisoners should be able to vote but the UK’s non-compliance with the court’s judgment and how the UK is invoked by other countries against which there have been findings.

The Commissioner, in a memo to the Joint Committee mentioned by my noble friend, wrote:

“If the UK, a founding member of the Council of Europe and one which has lost relatively few cases at the Court, decides to ‘cherry-pick’ and selectively implement judgments, other states will invariably follow suit”,

and they do,

“and the system will unravel very quickly”.

We must find a way to satisfy the judgment. It will not take much—maybe enfranchising a prisoner in the last six months of his sentence or one whose sentence is very short. A blanket ban need not be replaced by blanket enfranchisement.

This is also part of the rehabilitation issue. On that, I want to mention a recent report of the Standing Committee for Youth Justice on the treatment of criminal records of children. Childhood cautions or convictions have a devastating effect throughout life as they are treated not in a way that assists those children.

The voting change would be easy to draft; much less easy is the definition of “extremism”. The Bill that we are to expect, we are told, is to,

“prevent radicalisation, tackle extremism … and promote community integration”.

Would that this could be achieved by legislation. Indeed, would that one could feel confident in how legislation will respond to non-violent extremism and potentially heavy-handed procedures. And would that we might reclaim the term “radical” as a compliment.

In April, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and of association made a statement following his visit to the UK. He referred to the focus on countering non-violent extremism without a narrow and explicit definition as,

“treading into the territory of policing thought and opinion”.

He said that:

“Innocent individuals will be targeted. Many more will fear that they may be targeted—whether because of their skin color, religion or political persuasion —and be fearful of exercising their rights. Both outcomes are unacceptable”.

I read a press report recently that the vague nature of extremism is preventing Muslim students engaging in student politics because they fear that this will jeopardise their future careers. The rapporteur also said that the effect of Prevent,

“dividing, stigmatizing and alienating segments of the population”,

means that it could end up,

“promoting extremism rather than countering it”.

It was put to me last week that “welcome” is a better way to talk to Muslim and other communities than “prevent”; this from someone who works with migrants and refugees. On that issue, I appreciate that the Government—and not only the Government—have a formidable task in welcoming refugees. I hope we can make use of good people who want to do good by being part of that welcome project. I know that work is going on, but it is important to see results.

I will quickly refer to two points of unfinished business to which we will return. I do not wish another Immigration Bill on anyone, but there is still no answer to the question asked in 2013 by Medical Justice: if pregnant women are only ever put in detention centres under exceptional circumstances, why were so many being released into the community? In the words of a statement by members of the all-party inquiry into the use of immigration detention, of which I was one:

“In the weeks and months ahead we will be closely monitoring the implementation and impact of the Government’s reforms … If they are not met, we will push for further legislative changes. We will continue to argue for a maximum time limit and for the absolute exclusion of pregnant women from detention, defending the United Kingdom’s proud tradition of upholding justice and the right to liberty”.

I end on what I hope is a less controversial note. I hope that we will see from the Minister’s department a Bill to deal with the property of people who are missing. That is another piece of unfinished business—I am glad to see the Minister nodding. The Government have consulted and I understand that they have a Bill. This is wanted by financial institutions and needed by those who are left behind.