Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

One of the issues that has not been mentioned—very briefly—is the suitability of the accommodation and the facilities to accommodate the needs of pregnant women. How can the places promised for detention—barges, barracks and even marquees in the middle of runways—be suitable for pregnant women? The power is created in this Bill and any promises from the Minister that implementation will be different are not sufficient when the power is being taken under the Bill. We need time-limited safeguards on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I have not spoken earlier on the Bill, but I hope the House will forgive me for speaking for a couple of minutes now.

This debate takes me back 25 years to when I chaired a hospital trust. Pregnant women prisoners from Holloway were brought in wearing handcuffs and were chained to beds when receiving treatment and giving birth. We fought a battle with exactly the people who are supporting this amendment to stop that practice. It left me with an overwhelming long-term view that, in all but the most exceptional circumstances, pregnant women should not be in prison in the first place—and those were pregnant women who had been convicted of crimes. Here, we are talking about the detention of people who have not been convicted of crime in that way: they are migrants who are extremely vulnerable. It would be a terrible, retrograde step to take away the protections they have at the moment, so I support the amendment.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, enforced equality, no matter where, cannot be right. To say that everybody must be treated precisely the same under this Bill—which is the only substantive argument that has been advanced—is something that I just could not accept.

Public Order Act 1986 (Serious Disruption to the Life of the Community) Regulations 2023

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 13th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Noble Lords]

Front Bench!

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

I am extremely grateful to the House, and I will be very brief.

No one has mentioned the last time we had a debate, with great passion, on the issue of statutory instruments and voting them down in 2015. I was torn on that occasion between what was a rather elegant delaying Motion, rather than one defeating an SI, and the standard regret Motion. I find myself in a very similar position now. I will not repeat the constitutional outrage that I think this statutory instrument is, or the arguments for maintaining the precedent, protocol and conventions of this House in not defeating statutory instruments, but this cannot go on for ever.

X-Rays: Child Refugees

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 6th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I think I heard the Minister say about a report that a decision on publication will be made in due course. Can he tell the House whether that is a decision on whether to publish or when to publish?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

At the moment, the answer is both.

50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

I am delighted to follow the noble Lord and to join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Popat, on instigating this debate and the one 10 years ago and on the quality of his contribution in this House and beyond, as well as thanking him for giving us the opportunity to reflect on the events of 50 years ago.

This week has made me feel very old. Not only do I have two sons older than the Prime Minister, which is quite a thought, but it reminds me of where I was 50 years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, told of his work as a young Conservative—fighting Enoch Powell, if I may use the shorthand. Fifty years ago I was selected as the prospective parliamentary candidate in my home town, Wolverhampton, for Wolverhampton South West, Enoch Powell’s constituency. Thereafter followed a vigorous campaign. The one thing I had to be profoundly grateful for was that there was no social media then, so the abusers had to take the trouble to buy paper, envelopes and stamps and send the abusive mail to you. But it made me profoundly aware of the racism current in the country.

While I was doing that politically, professionally I took on the role of director of the Ugandan Evacuees Co-ordinating Committee for Welfare. It was the group that brought together 75 voluntary organisations to provide support and work in parallel with the Uganda Resettlement Board. I remember going to the West Malling camp referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, where we supplied the liaison officers supporting the individual families. We did a great deal within the communities, and much of that was done not in the black or white but in the red areas. I absolutely agree with those who say that a principled decision was made and that we should pay tribute to the Prime Minister and Cabinet who took that decision, but we have to recognise that the fears of being seen to be soft on immigration were very strong in the policies of the Uganda Resettlement Board.

The wonderful staff in the Library found the report that I co-authored, a year after the final camp was closed, on the work that was done. The Prime Minister had referred to the co-ordinating committee’s work as “a job well done”. We published a report, A Job Well Done?—with a question mark—and it went through the difficulties that those people found. They were not entitled to social security if they went into red areas and resettlement was often in areas where there was no employment and no support from communities. People therefore gravitated to where there were communities but they were not entitled to what the Government gave to people who went to green areas. There was a great deal of frustration and indignation in the report. It only goes to show two things: first, how fantastically the community succeeded, despite those early difficulties. The other is how dangerous and wrong-headed it is for Governments to run scared of racism in their immigration policy.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of the Daisy Programme, a project for survivors of domestic abuse based near to where I live, in Norfolk. Daisy provides support and confidence-building for women and men who have been in an abusive relationship. My connection with the charity has taught me how long-lasting and far-reaching are the effects of domestic abuse, and how great the need is for continuing support. Even after immediate danger has passed and a relationship is over, there is much to rebuild, practically and emotionally, for the victims of abuse. The work of Daisy, like many other such organisations, is run on a shoe-string and depends a great deal on volunteers, 75% of whom, impressively, are themselves past service users.

Like many others who have spoken, I welcome the Bill in general and am sympathetic to many of the specific issues that have been raised, particularly the creation of a specific offence of non-fatal strangulation. However, I want to spend my time this evening, as others have done, on the seemingly technical, but in fact very practical and important, issue of extending the limited definition of those to whom the existing law on coercive control gives protection.

I am grateful for the briefing from Cassandra Wiener of Sussex University, a leading authority in the field, whose book, Coercive Control and the Criminal Law is due to be published this year. I am grateful for her work and her briefing. She has pointed out that the residency requirement for protection under Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act means that an abused partner is not protected under the Act when the couple stop living together. Yet there is mounting evidence that violence, the danger of injury and even death, actually increase at the point when an abused partner leaves the shared home. While some continuing abuse can be pursued by police through legislation on harassment and stalking, not all forms of abuse are covered, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, particularly in relation, for example, to financial abuse and coercive control around childcare arrangements.

Clause 1 of the Bill we are discussing today provides a definition of those protected under the law without that residency requirement. If we are to give all victims full protection from all forms of domestic abuse, including coercive control, we need to align the provisions of Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, with those in this Bill. I hope that, when she replies later this evening, the Minister will indicate that the Government are willing to think again and respond more positively on this point than they did on an amendment raised in the other place. I hope too that, with her customary courtesy and openness, she would be willing to meet those of us interested in this issue to discuss suitable amendments to the Bill.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, mine is the last in a long and varied set of Back-Bench contributions. I return to an issue raised in his customarily elegant opening contribution to the debate yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton: the absence from this year’s legislative programme of measures on reform of your Lordships’ House that were,

“more modest but more practical”,—[Official Report, 8/5/13; col. 7.]

than those unsuccessfully put forward by Her Majesty’s Government in last year’s legislative programme. Before I deal with that issue, I wish to deal briefly with three other sins of omission from the gracious Speech. My language must be influenced by the fact that I am sitting next to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Carey. I very much regret the absence of the expected legislation on the plain packaging of tobacco and minimum alcohol pricing. Both measures were mentioned earlier and both could have played an important part in public health policy and the prevention of illness. Not including them in the gracious Speech is a lost opportunity for improving health in this country, which is of great significance.

I also regret the omission of enshrining in legislation the Government’s commitment to spending 0.7% of GDP on overseas development. I have enormous respect and admiration for what this Government have done in overseas development in both quality and quantity. Their achievement is more impressive having taken place at a time of such strict economic circumstances. It is therefore a sadness that they have not carried through into legislation their commitment in practice to the 0.7% target. To have done so would have ensured the sustainability of spending, but not just that; it would have encouraged other countries to follow the UK’s example. It would also have added to the huge respect that other countries have for us and our influence if we had shown in legislation that we intended this to be not a one-off but a continuing commitment to the developing world—an issue which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, talked about. We have gained tremendous international respect for what this Government have done, and I hope that they will reconsider that decision.

The final legislative proposal to which I wish to refer is a Private Member’s Bill on assisted dying for the terminally ill, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, will seek leave to introduce in the House next week. I am one of the 80% of the British public who support a measure that would enhance the choice and control available at the very end of life for terminally ill adults. I have to say that as a parliamentarian I understand very well the need to avoid unintended consequences and to safeguard against abuse. However, my experience as a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships’ House on the previous Bill, including our visits overseas and the very detailed work that has been put into the safeguards in the proposed Bill, reassure me that those safeguards are robust. I will be supporting the passage of that Bill.

I return to my main theme, which I am afraid is a matter on which I spoke in last year’s debate on the gracious Speech. I said then that in my criticism of the Government’s proposals I was in no way trying to support the status quo in your Lordships’ House. I hope I made it clear then, and have done so since, that there is a substantial agenda of reform—some of it legislative, some within the control of the House itself, and some which the party leaders could support and enhance. That would make us a better, more effective and more defensible Chamber as part of our bicameral Parliament. If we are to be that, we have to make some progress. I hope the Government will now accept that for the extent of this Parliament we are not going to see major reform along the lines of the previous Bill.

Indeed, the point has been made by several speakers in today’s debate, including the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Soley, that there are good reasons not to attempt the stand-alone reform of your Lordships’ House on that scale at a time of great constitutional uncertainty and possible change, and given the importance of looking in that context not only at both Houses but at all the nations of the United Kingdom. However, to my mind, that is not a reason for doing nothing.

Some of the proposals for reform—the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, always likes to call it housekeeping, and something in my feminist genes somehow responds to that; I call it incremental, evolutionary reform—have been discussed at great length in your Lordships’ House during debates on the Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, who did the House a great service by his thorough and absolutely steadfast commitment in his attempts to gain support for that Bill. He did gain support for the Bill in this House, and I believe that he could have gained support for it in another place but for the attitude of the Government.

I would have said that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, was tireless, but I feel that perhaps he is just a little tired of taking this legislation forward. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I intend to bring forward a Private Member’s Bill next week to try to promote the agenda of incremental change. I shall not weary the House tonight with a Second Reading speech—there will be time for that. All I will do is make a heartfelt plea to the government Front Bench to accept that, with the failure of last year’s Bill, there will be no major changes to the composition of this House in this Parliament, and that it would not be responsible or grown-up politics to set their faces totally against progress in areas where there is if not nemine dissentiente then widespread consensus. I hope that that will be the atmosphere in which the Private Member’s Bill is discussed.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Verma, said she would deal with international issues when she wound up and so, tempted as I am to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in political anecdotage by talking about the revolution I have seen in women in politics in the UK since being one of 27 women Members of the House of Commons in 1974, I shall in fact stick to my last and speak about women in the developing world.

I do so because today’s debate may be a week early for International Women’s Day but it is perfectly timed for me. I am less than 48 hours out of Kathmandu and a parliamentary placement with VSO, volunteering in Nepal. I would like to record my thanks to VSO for enabling me to undertake that work—it has been in that country for nearly 50 years now—and particularly to record my admiration for the young volunteers, most of them women from the UK, who I saw working as part of the International Citizen Service scheme in deprived and remote isolated communities in Nepal, teaching sexual and reproductive health, far from their own comfort zones, in partnership with Nepali volunteers in a way that was truly impressive and made me extremely proud of then. I also declare my non-financial interest as a trustee of the Sabin Vaccine Institute.

That visit to Nepal reinforced my belief that the empowerment of women is a hugely powerful driver of growth, both economic and general. One has only to look at the contribution of women in the tiger economies of Asia to understand how that has happened. Yet within the context of the developing world, I hope noble Lords will forgive me if today I speak less about economic empowerment in action and more about the barriers to that economic empowerment. There are women with debilitating, disfiguring and blinding neglected tropical diseases; women who are tied to water and fuel collection for hours every day; girls who never make it to the start of primary education, let alone the completion of secondary education; women who are trafficked; women whose migrant husbands infect them with HIV; girls who are married off at obscenely early ages and bear children when barely in their teens and then suffer from obstetric fistula or prolapse—and are then rejected by those husbands. These women have no opportunity to pursue their aspirations, or to contribute to the economic development of their communities.

I would like to say a word or two about forced marriage, a fundamental breach of the most basic rights of self-determination. It is a global problem, on every continent, with perhaps 10 million cases a year, including an estimated 8,000 in England alone. Too often and in too many countries the legal age of marriage is a number on a statute in a capital city, but far from the reality of life for girls in the villages in that country.

I pay tribute to the work that the FCO, DfID and the Government Equalities Office are doing to combat forced marriage throughout the world, and I particularly welcome the Prime Minister’s personal commitment in this area. Forced and early marriage cannot be written off as simply a cultural or religious practice that we should avoid confronting out of some misplaced sense of respect. No major world religion condones forced marriage, and silence serves to keep the issue hidden and unchallenged. Predominately, forced marriage reflects and drives poverty. Families struggling to get by may see it as a way of reducing the number of children to feed or receiving a dowry for those who remain.

We must build on the progress that was made at CHOGM last October and with the recent call for action at the UN in New York. Countries from Sierra Leone to Pakistan are passing relevant legislation, and international NGOs are working to ensure that our collective efforts prevent forced marriage and do not just prosecute it. I pay particular tribute to the work of Plan UK; in countries such as Bangladesh it has worked with local people on a sustainable campaign to achieve community support for the right of young girls to a childhood and thereby the chance of an education, health and, ultimately, economic empowerment.

I came back from Nepal intensely conscious not only of the affluence and comfort of my own life but of the barriers that women face and of the tremendous use that they make of opportunity when it is given to them. I saw a project run by an NGO, the Social Action Centre, where women had been encouraged to be open about their HIV status, to gain treatment and then to undertake livelihood projects and thus revolutionise their lives.

However, I also heard of women and girls who are banished from the home to the cowshed every month during menstruation and who sometimes freeze to death when they are there. I heard of women who are trafficked to brothels in India, women who never make it to school because of hookworm, elephantiasis, trachoma or other neglected tropical diseases that are cheap to treat. It is only when we achieve the basic rights for those women that we will allow them the opportunity to contribute economically to the development of their own communities and countries.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodhart]

My Lords, I have supported the statements of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, at Second Reading and in Committee. I will take the same position yet again on Report.

I agree that terrorism is a great threat to the United Kingdom and that steps must be taken to prevent it. I agree that those steps may include civil penalties that restrict the activities of those who are probably involved in terrorism. But there are conditions that should be applied to those requirements and included in this Bill. The most important of those conditions is that the rule of law must be applied and observed. A fundamental rule of the rule of law is that penalties must be imposed only by people who are independent—either judges or, in the case of serious criminal proceedings, by a jury. In particular, the prosecutor should not also be the judge. Under this Bill, that is exactly what happens. The Secretary of State is both the prosecutor and the judge. That is doubly objectionable, not only because the Secretary of State imposes the penalty but because the defendant cannot give his own story in defence of the prosecution being brought against him.

It is true that under Clause 6 the court must give permission to the Secretary of State to impose measures that she has decided to apply. But as is stated by Clause 6(6), the court is applying a judicial review, which is not the same thing as a trial of the evidence. This means that the court cannot, in effect, question evidence supplied by the Secretary of State; it must refuse permission to impose the measures that the Secretary of State proposes, if, as is said in Clause 6(3),

“relevant decisions of the Secretary of State are obviously flawed”.

But what on earth does that mean? To whom must the flaw be obvious? I question the whole concept of something being obviously flawed, when more than one person may well be applied to in deciding whether the flaw is obvious or not. As I said, to whom must the flaw be obvious? Can counsel for a defendant argue that the flaws are obvious? I think probably not but one does not know. The fact is that the court has only a limited power over the imposition proposed by the Secretary of State. It is pretty clear that the court has no power to examine the facts of the case as presented by the Secretary of State.

This simply does not satisfy the rule of law. The rule of law is not wholly inflexible. We accept that, in certain circumstances, it is necessary in the interest of the nation to exclude relevant evidence from the presence of the defendant. But there is no justification for denying the court the right to consider the adequacy of that evidence. If it deals with this matter simply by a review process, that cannot happen.

I refer again to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on 19 October. Paragraph 1.6 of the report, which I quoted in Committee on that date, states that,

“the well-established principle is that executive restrictions on liberty are such a radical departure from our common law tradition that they always require prior judicial authorisation after proper legal process. It is for the Government to justify this Bill’s departure from that fundamental principle”.

That is a statement with which I entirely agree and which I think those who were responsible for drafting this Bill should have taken into account. It does nothing to prevent procedures being taken up against the person who is understood to be involved in terrorism. It does not make the matter seriously more difficult for the Government. I do not think it does at all. The Secretary of State will clearly have come to a view that this person is liable to be prosecuted and made the subject of an order. I believe it is really a matter for the Secretary of State not to impose the measure herself but to present the evidence that she has to the member of the court who is in charge of this. It is for the member, or the members of the court, to take this up.

I will add one reason which might actually encourage the Government to accept the amendments. Having the judgment made by the court on the basis of an application by the Secretary of State—if the judgment is actually made by the court in all respects—would make the situation simpler or cheaper. In particular, since the court would not need to give itself permission to make the order which it wishes to make, the need for a directions hearing under Clause 8 would simply disappear. It would not only be a more justified and proper treatment of the evidence, it would also make it a simpler system for the Government.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments and, given the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I can be relatively brief. I certainly will not challenge them in terms of legal expertise, having ended my legal career with a first degree in 1969, but I feel strongly on this issue because of my own experience as a parliamentarian. I had the honour to be a member of the Privy Council committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who I am glad to see in his place, which reviewed the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, particularly Part 4 of that Act, which was considered by us and by many others to be unsatisfactory. The Government paid little heed to the results of that committee’s deliberations until the courts made them do so. We ended up with the 2005 Act, in which I played some part on the duration of control orders, an issue to which we will return, mutatis mutandis, later in today’s Report stage.

I came out of that experience, particularly the experience of the Privy Council review committee, with two clear views. One was that there was a problem that needed to be addressed and that there was some justification for going beyond the normal criminal legal procedures in terms of the threat of terrorism. Some of that was in terms of creating new offences—we saw the offence of “acts preparatory to terrorism” that came out of that review, which I believe has been helpful—but even that was not enough and there was the need, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said, for measures that were extraordinary. I do not need convincing on that score.

The other thing that became clear to me was that we should, as legislators, try to make those extraordinary measures deviate as little as humanly possible from the fundamental principles that we normally apply, through the criminal justice system and the whole of our legal processes, to the deprivation of liberty and to constraints upon movement and actions—the fundamental human rights of those living within our country, particularly our citizens. I look at the provisions of the Bill, which I believe are an improvement on control orders—limited but an improvement—and ask myself whether we are deviating as little as humanly possible.

I believe there would be a great improvement, without a balanced increase in risk to security, if we transferred that initial decision on the imposition of such measures from the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary—to the courts. That is the fundamental and simple reason why I support these measures. I was emboldened to do so partly because of the comments made by the chairman of the Privy Council committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, as I always pay great respect to those who have been my chairs on committees. Perhaps we will hear from him later. However, I remember that, when we were discussing the 2005 Act and talking about analogous issues and the role of the judiciary, one of my colleagues who was not in sympathy with the position that I was taking turned on me and asked, “What’s so special about the judges?”, to which I replied, “They’re not the politicians”. That fundamentally remains my position today, and it is why I added my name and give my support to this group of amendments.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, on this occasion I have not actually been tempted. I had hoped to come in anyway, although I was a little late getting here, and I apologise for that. I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that I much appreciate the remarks she has just made. I well remember the experience we had together and the hugely valuable contribution that she made to that committee. I can also say that I share her views on absolutely everything that she has said, so I will not speak at great length. I agree also with what I have heard since I came into the Chamber. The Minister ought to know—if he was in any doubt—that there was not complete unanimity on this point on the Benches immediately behind him, even though the voices so far have come from elsewhere.

The arguments adduced on the previous occasion in Committee to which the noble Baroness has referred were, frankly, unbelievably thin. I do not blame the Minister for that—I suspect that they are inherently thin, and unless they are a lot thicker this evening then I will find myself in some difficulty, and he needs to know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

It is still a matter of national security. That is why we believe that it is for the Home Secretary to make the appropriate decision and for that to be reviewed by the courts. The noble and learned Lord mentioned the 2010 Act, with which he did not agree and which he opposed. I mentioned that but I also mentioned the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 and the financial restrictions under that. That is another example. I accept that the other matters concern immigration decisions but they are important. I also mentioned the fact that the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe organisations which she believes are involved in terrorism. Again, that matter can be reviewed by the courts, as can the one we are discussing. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the earlier matters concerned only immigration, as the noble and learned Lord put it. These matters go beyond that. They involve national security. I will give way to the noble Baroness in a minute when I have finished this point. Therefore, I think it is right that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary should be involved in those decisions.

[Baroness Hayman]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Until I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, I had not been aware of the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, as regards the executive nature of the terrorist freezing orders to be made, that there was a distinction and that these were justifiable because they dealt with financial matters, not individual liberties. Will he comment on that argument?

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness is right to mention what my noble friend Lord Sassoon said on that occasion. He drew a distinction between financial matters—that is, property—and individual liberties. However, both are matters that affect one’s human rights. Despite the noble Baroness’s socialist background —I am sorry if I make her laugh—I presume she would accept that the rights to property are matters which involve one’s human rights, just as the rights to liberty do. My noble friend Lord Sassoon drew the distinction that both of them are matters relating to one’s human rights.

[Baroness Hayman]

I would not wish the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, to be tarred with the brush of having a socialist background because he seemed to distinguish between the two sorts of intrusions on individual liberty.

[Lord Henley]

There is obviously a distinction but both involve one’s human rights. That is the importance. The noble Baroness may have noticed that when my noble friend Lord Sassoon noticed on the television that the noble and learned Lord was making these points, he came in to have a quick word with me to make clear what he had discussed, and I will try to convey those feelings to the House. I hope that I have understood what my noble friend whispered to me on the Front Bench, and I hope that the noble Baroness will accept it.

As we also made clear, we believe that it is not just the view of the Executive that is crucial in these matters. That is why I quoted earlier the view expressed by the courts. It is consistent with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal in the case of MB, which the noble and learned Lord also referred to, in which the court said that,

“the Secretary of State is better placed than the court to decide the measures that are necessary to protect the public against the activities of a terrorist suspect”.

In the same judgment the Court of Appeal also noted that the principle that the courts should pay deference to the Executive on matters relating to state security has long been recognised by the courts in this country, including the Law Lords, and by the European Court of Human Rights.

As I said at the beginning of my speech—in asking, as it were, for something approaching an Occam’s razor to be put to this argument—it is just getting it down to the simple question: which do you think is the appropriate body to make this decision?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, your Lordships have come to the final amendment on Report. Amendment 53 in my name and in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would require an annual review of this legislation in Parliament as is currently the case with control orders.

Our debates at Second Reading, in Committee and today on Report have confirmed that the Bill addresses a fundamentally difficult problem for a free society, which is afflicted by the scourge of terrorism. The Bill, regrettably but necessarily, confers powers on the state to impose substantial restrictions and detriments on persons suspected of involvement in terrorism but against whom no proceedings are brought in the criminal courts. These orders will be imposed by the Secretary of State as an administrative matter, given that your Lordships rejected the amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. On any view, these are exceptional measures in a free society.

It is vital that the continuing need for such exceptional measures be examined every year. This will serve three important purposes. First, it will impose a discipline on Government. Civil servants and Ministers will need every year to consider the continuing case for the provisions and they will need to defend them in Parliament. Secondly, this will provide a means by which the continuing need for the measures can be explained to the public every year, and in particular to those sections of the community that are doubtful as to the need for the measures and their fairness. Thirdly, of course, it will give us—Parliament—an opportunity to express our view every year as to whether the measures continue to be justified. Both your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have supported the amendment. Indeed, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee in its Report questioned whether it is constitutionally appropriate not to have annual reviews of what it described as a scheme of “extraordinary executive powers”.

In Committee on 1 November—I refer to Hansard cols. 1131-1132—the Minister made three main points. First, he said the Bill contains adequate protection because it provides for a sunset clause after five years. However, 2016 is a long way away, and annual reviews are needed for all the reasons I have given. Secondly, the Minister said the Bill is the product of detailed scrutiny and has struck the right balance in its substantive provisions. The point is that the Bill contains exceptional measures, the need for which will depend on the nature and extent of the threat posed at any particular time. However confident noble Lords may be that the contents of this Bill strike the right balance, this is a context where annual scrutiny is essential. Thirdly, the Minister emphasised that the Secretary of State has power under Clause 21(2) to repeal the powers. However, that is no substitute for an annual obligation on Ministers to come before Parliament so that we can debate, and Ministers can explain to us and to the wider public, whether these wholly exceptional measures are still needed. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has spoken with his usual clarity and force and that means I can be very brief. It was the issue of time limiting the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 that six years ago brought me into conflict with my then own—and then government—Front Bench. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has put his name to the amendment. I have to say, however, that like the noble Lord, Lord Newton, I was disappointed at his attitude on Amendment 1. He invoked the principle of consistency. I think he ought to be careful about that when we review this particular amendment, given that the Labour position then on time limiting was consistently to oppose any form of time limiting on the 2005 Act until two thumping defeats in this House and some fairly vigorous ping-pong.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am most grateful to my noble—and, dare I say, socialist—friend for raising that. The point I raised on our debate on the first amendment was consistency with the legislation, which we took through and which we were operating.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I have always felt that consistency was a dangerous principle for politicians to invoke. I make a serious point here. Of course there is a virtue in consistency, but there is also a Galbraithian view on thoughtless and mindless consistency. I have always felt that the overwhelming obligation for politicians was to be willing and able to justify their inconsistencies as well as to have underlying consistency of principle. However, this is all by way of an aside and I hope the House will at least feel that I am consistent in my view.

As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has said, when we are departing from the normal procedures and principles of the criminal law—and there are reports of various committees, both Joint Committees and committees of your Lordships House about the exceptional nature of the provisions in the Bill—there is an obligation upon us as parliamentarians to keep that under review, and always be willing to reassess what we have done and how we have done it.

In the words of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, in our debate in Committee—I hope that I am not paraphrasing him—we have got it basically right in the Bill and there is no point in having an annual squabble about it. However, I do not see this as an annual squabble. I see it much more as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, did, as the opportunity to reassess both the need and the efficacy of what we have put in place. These are difficult balances to strike. We do not get them right and perfect every time. There is a discipline imposed by Ministers having to justify each year the continuation of provisions that all of us recognise as important and exceptional and departing from principles that are equally fundamental to how we conduct ourselves as a society.

I feel very strongly that it is not an overwhelming burden to put on Ministers to ask them to have the respect for Parliament and the recognition of the departure from the norm that the measures in this Bill contain once a year, to reassess and bring before Parliament a renewal order that asks whether we have got it as good as we can get it. Therefore, I hope that the House will support the amendment tonight.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I would like warmly to support this amendment. It is absolutely clear that this procedure is a very special one, outside the ordinary system of courts of law and the like. It is justified on the basis of need by those familiar with the terrorist threat that our nation faces. In the nature of things, that threat must vary, and it must be right that this Parliament should have an opportunity annually to review such special procedures as these. However satisfied we may be—and, obviously, different people will be satisfied to different levels whether the balance is right—it is an altogether exceptional procedure.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, said earlier that justice must be seen to be done. This is not a procedure in which that is going to happen; in the nature of the procedure, it does not have that characteristic. Therefore, it is highly important that we have a provision that enables us to review each year whether or not this type of procedure is still necessary and efficacious. I agree with everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said about this. I found valuable her exposition of how politicians should be consistent, and if they happen to be inconsistent they should have an explanation for it—not just that they have changed sides.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, these provisions followed a lengthy counterterrorism review and represent the views of the Government as to where the line should be drawn between the necessary powers, by way of TPIMs, and the liberty of the individual. This legislation has been through the other place and is going through your Lordships’ House in a thoroughly orthodox way, and the provisions are being carefully scrutinised. TPIMs contain a considerable number of safeguards, which have already been discussed in Committee, and they reflect a considered compromise between the various arguments. The Bill does not represent a response to the immediate crisis, as the 2005 position did, and has not gone through Parliament by way of accelerated procedures; it represents the result of lessons learnt.

The provisions can be repealed by an order-making power or in the way that any other legislation is repealed. It is tempting with extraordinary powers—and I readily concede that they are extraordinary powers—to suggest that they should be under more or less constant scrutiny. But where the Bill represents a considered response, five years is an appropriate time in which Parliament and the Government can consider this particular take on a particularly difficult situation. At that juncture, the Government and Parliament can think again. For the moment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd suggested, squabbling every year about this would not improve matters, and we should rest with the provisions as they are.

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, that an annual review would simply be squabbling about the provisions of this Bill. I am tempted to speak, despite my resolution not to speak on controversial issues for several months after leaving the Woolsack, because the issue of a sunset clause was one on which in 2005 I abandoned loyalty to my Government and put forward the amendments to have a sunset clause, which eventually transmuted into the annual review of the Prevention of Terrorism Act.

I would be saddened if these measures, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, said, are less draconian in some ways than control orders and represent a considered view, were considered the best that we can do. I am not certain about that, but we will have further debates on Report on some of those issues. I wonder whether that exonerates us from the responsibility of devoting what is not a great deal of time every year to looking at these extraordinary provisions in both Houses of Parliament. It seems to me to be a proper recognition of the retreat from some of the processes that we have held dear for centuries in this country in terms of the administration of the criminal justice system. I do not argue against the premise or fact that there is a need or problem that is not easily solved by the normal criminal justice system; I argue that, because of the extraordinary nature of these measures, it is incumbent on us as parliamentarians to keep them under review. I do not think that that is a dreadful burden.

However, I am delighted to see the opposition Front Bench such enthusiastic supporters of measures which I remember they were not quite so enthusiastic about when I proposed them six years ago.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

I strongly support the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It seems to be highly desirable, to put it at its very least, that, as problems change, there should be an annual review of the existing law dealing with terrorism. Like all previous speakers, I, too, support the amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Baroness Hayman Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Strathclyde]

Before the noble Lord continues, there is no point in having this debate on whether the amendment is admissible. The advice from the clerks is clear. Now the House will need to take a view as to whether the noble Lord should continue.

[The Lord Speaker (Baroness Hayman)]

Perhaps I may be of assistance to the House. At the moment, no other Motion is before the House and the noble Lord’s amendment has been called. Normal procedure would be for him to move his amendment.

[Lord Richard]

Perhaps the Leader of the House could help me. From the muttering around the House, it would seem that there is a feeling that perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris, should not move his amendment in view of the clear indications given by the clerks. However, I am not clear about what the procedure should be now. Should there be a Motion before the House as to whether the amendment should be moved, on which, if necessary, the House can divide? How does it work? I never came across this particular type of issue when I was Leader of the Opposition or Leader of the House, or since. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could enlighten me.