Police Officers: Recruitment

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

It is important that we have stability. Very often, when I was a Member of Parliament, the police chief in the local area would be in post for two years and he or she would either retire or would be promoted and go up the ladder. We need to have some stability. Part of the purpose of neighbourhood policing is to try to get stability and local intelligence, including from police support staff on the ground.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was on the police authority when Boris Johnson took an axe to police numbers. I remember it very clearly and it damaged the Met because it took out a swathe of officers, and then other officers had to go and do backroom jobs. I remember it clearly, so I think it is a bit hypocritical of this side of the Chamber to start complaining to the Government. My question is: will all those new officers have really good training in dealing with domestic assault against, mainly, women, and in understanding that it can lead to much worse crimes?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The Government have a strong commitment to halve the level of violence against women and girls over a 10-year period. We had a Statement last week on some aspects of that in this House, and we will be looking at developing further policies to reduce the level of violence against women and girls. Key to that is police understanding of the sensitivities and potential escalation of that violence, and probation and monitoring the effect on individuals who commit—in inverted commas—low-level crime initially, which can then escalate into sometimes tragic events. The point that the noble Baroness makes is extremely valid, but it is on the Government’s agenda, and I hope she continues to press me on that as time goes on.

Respect Orders and Anti-social Behaviour

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that it is important that people know who their police officers are, see them visibly and have the trust and confidence to give them information that might help reduce anti-social behaviour or other criminal activity. It is important that police engage with the community in a way that gives them confidence for that information to come forward and that, as they have done in the past, at a local level police use their antennae to pick up on information that needs to be addressed by the wider policing family in tackling criminal activity.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, magistrates’ courts are a fantastic resource, but at the moment there is a backlog of 370,700 cases. What will the Government do to make magistrates’ courts viable to deal with the sort of cases we are talking about?

Rural Crime: NFU Mutual Report

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 12th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. Organised crime gangs are muscling in on this in a serious way. It is absolutely vital that the police—through the National Rural Crime Unit, the Home Office generally, the Serious Fraud Office and the National Crime Agency—look at how organised crime gangs are operating. Last year, the cost of rural crime increased by 4.3% to £52.8 million, and that quad bike and terrain vehicle crime increased by 9%. These crimes are often led by organised crime groups, who use organised crime to disperse material. They need to face long jail sentences. They need to be caught and put before the courts and action needs to be taken. That needs co-ordination and I assure the noble Lord that we will do that.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was on the Met Police authority for 12 long years of its existence. In that time, I asked many times for a category of rural crime to be on crime reports. I was told this week that that still does not exist and if you cannot count it, it is very difficult to know what resources to throw at it.

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

There are a number of aspects to rural crime. What we do count, and what the National Farmers’ Union counted in its report, are things such as the cost of GPS theft, vehicle theft, equipment theft, the number of farm animals killed each year and the number of respondents who thought rural crime was increasing. We have statistics on that. We also have statistics on a range of matters such as the number of instances of badger baiting, hare coursing and other types of wildlife crime, such as dog fighting, that occurs in rural areas. There are obviously continual problems with shoplifting, burglary and theft in rural area, just as there is in towns and cities, but there are specific areas that we can measure and examine. Through the National Rural Crime Unit, we can begin to co-ordinate activity to reduce the instances of that and ensure that people are arrested, put before the courts, sentenced and ultimately jailed.

King’s Speech

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I welcome our three new Peers this evening. I also welcome our new Labour Government. I think they have made some moves in the right direction, for example the Hillsborough law and appointing the noble Lord, Lord Timpson. I hope he is given the powers to do his job properly.

However, there are a few issues that were not covered in the King’s Speech that ought to have been. I shall raise those and would like to hear the Government’s response and, hopefully, what they plan to do about them. The first on my list is civil liberties. As many noble Lords will know, a lot of repressive laws were passed in this House by the former Government. Just recently, Just Stop Oil activists were treated abominably in court and given very long prison sentences—much longer than many sexual predators get. The judge who jailed them said that

“the end of the world is neither here nor there”.

Personally, I disagree about that. He showed how draconian the sentencing guidelines are, given that 60% of the population think that an average imprisonment time of four and a half years for these people is simply too much.

That judge has ensured that, the next time a case like this goes before a jury, the jurors could ignore the judge and find the defendants not guilty, which they are entitled to do according to their conscience. That right was established in the early days of Quaker dissent and is inscribed on the walls of the Old Bailey. Jurors can use their common sense to defend the actions of ordinary people when the law is being used to suppress their beliefs or actions. That judge has also highlighted the stupidity of throwing climate protesters in prison at the same time as we are releasing thousands of criminals early because of overcrowding.

I am not keen on putting huge numbers of people in prison—just the violent ones—but we have not yet jailed anyone for the Post Office scandal, Grenfell Tower or the infected blood scandal. What about the obscene rip-off of taxpayers over the PPE ministerial fast track, or the parasites in our water industry, with companies making billions from poisoning our rivers? People are seeing their taxes go up and the NHS collapsing, while those who walked away with our money stay free to spend it. I see trauma and long years of suffering for sub-postmasters, while those who let them down get to keep their corporate pensions. I remember the flames at Grenfell Tower, but the building and development industry that allowed the cladding scandal to happen is as profitable as ever. Clearly, I do not blame the new Government for this, but they have to deal with it. We have scandals, inquiries and taxpayers picking up the bill for compensation, but those responsible at the heart of these scandals get to keep their money and rarely face jail time.

So I do not understand why there is a draconian clampdown on climate protesters, at a time when the climate crisis is accelerating. Essentially, it is because the oil and gas industry bought the last Government. The corruption of dirty money being pumped into the political system via party donations, MPs’ second jobs as lobbyists and Tufton Street think tanks means that we have a polluted system. So it is time to ditch those sentencing guidelines and the whole package of laws passed by the last Government. We need our civil liberties restored. People have voted for change, so please do it.

My second issue is the problem of misogyny, which we heard about earlier. The “spy cops” inquiry has been fascinating because it has demonstrated the appalling misogyny shown by many police officers, some very senior. Now the Treasury is pushing for that inquiry to be closed down because it is costing so much and has gone on for so long. That is mostly because there has been so much damaging material on the part of the police, and the police themselves have blocked disclosure. There are a lack of prosecutions for rape and sexual assault and threats to women politicians, and daily violence against women and girls has reached record levels. Misogyny must be made a hate crime as fast as possible.

My third topic is the scandal of IPP prisoners, which I raised with the Minister earlier. The criminal lawyer Peter Stefanovic has made films about this issue that have had 20 million views, and the people who have seen them are appalled at the persistent persecution of IPP prisoners. This was a Labour Government’s terrible mistake, and the new Labour Government have to fix it. No one should get 11 years for stealing a mobile phone; that is outrageous. We need to see a government action plan as fast as possible, and perhaps resentencing to get these people out of prison.

Finally, I want to make a bid for restoring the refugee scheme of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—we urgently need safe routes for refugees—and I would like to hear more from this Government on restorative justice.

I wish this Government well and I look forward to offering them many more constructive Green Party ideas in future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Oh, that’s terrible.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

They are just catching on.

I do not know whether the noble Lord occupies my old room at the Ministry of Justice, but we share a firm commitment to justice and the justice system. There is of course an overlap with yesterday’s debate on the constitution, because the rule of law is not actually a law at all but a constitutional principle. In that sense we should all be declaring an interest, because we all have an interest—a financial one—in the maintenance of the rule of law. Without the rule of law there would be no security in transactions, no enforceable right to property. But it goes well beyond matters financial. Without the rule of law, there is nothing to separate or protect us from despotism on the one hand or anarchy on the other.

That brings me to the first of three short points arising out of the King’s Speech. The first is the safety of public venues and keeping the public safe from terrorism. The Minister referred to what he called the appalling and horrific terrorist attack in the Manchester Arena, which he also called senseless. I am afraid, however, that there are too many people who see in their warped and twisted vision some sense in that sort of attack, and that means our response to terrorism must go beyond merely steps to keep people safe. We must be unyielding against those who commit terrorism, but also those who fund terrorist attacks; those who advocate for them; those who explain them away; those who equivocate about them; or those who fail to assist the authorities in their efforts to thwart them. That means we need to engage with those in all communities—and they are the majority in every community—who support the rule of law and stand against those who seek to subvert it.

The second point concerns leasehold and commonhold reform, the draft Bill on which I await with interest. We must ensure that we have a system of land ownership which is fit for the 21st century. I remember from my university days that in land law, the devil really is in the detail, and it changes slowly. I remember talking about my land law essays with my father, who still referred to the Law of Property Act 1925 as the new property legislation. No doubt any change will be viewed with horror in some parts of Lincoln’s Inn, where they still have flying freeholds—a concept which is too arcane for discussion at any time, but certainly at a quarter to 10 at night. I hope the proposed legislation will be clear, concise, modern and will provide us with a useful system of ownership of land.

Finally, a short word about the Arbitration Bill. I welcome this very much. When I was a Minister, I helped the Law Commission set up its work on arbitration. London is the global centre for international commercial arbitration. The 1996 Act is the gold standard, but like many things made of gold, it does need a bit of polishing from time to time. There is one point which I was going to mention about the Arbitration Act, but my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate warned me that if I mentioned again what he regards as the esoteric legal topics of monism and dualism, he might not be responsible for his actions. I do not know how he would react if I more than merely mentioned tonight the difficulties presented by an arbitration agreement having what lawyers call a floating governing law, but I am not minded to find out. I will take that up with the Minister offline, and leave the detail for another day, although I suspect it will be a day on which my learned friend finds he is unavailable to attend your Lordships’ House.

Peaceful Protests

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 25th April 2024 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Practical toolkit for law enforcement officials to promote and protect human rights in the context of peaceful protests, published on 7 March by the UN Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and association, and how they intend to ensure that the United Kingdom aligns with United Nations standards on the use of surveillance technology at protests.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, what a select little bunch of Peers we are. Clearly, we all know our stuff on this.

A few years ago, I introduced what I think was the first ever debate on facial recognition here in Parliament. At that time, I recognised it as part of a wider package of changes that were on the route to dismantling parliamentary democracy here in the UK, because, when you combine facial recognition and other technologies with the draconian laws passed in the police Act, the Public Order Act and by ministerial decree, a full-scale clampdown on any form of effective protest is now possible. We are a very short step away from what happens in Russia on a regular basis as the authorities here attempt to stifle protests.

If you add to that the plans for the Government to spy on pensioners’ bank accounts, to promote their own digital currency and to link an array of biometrics to a digital ID card, we enter a very different world where the state can switch on and off your access to the basics of life. We have already given the Home Secretary the power to banish anyone with a dual passport from this country, with no right of appeal in this country, and laws that allow the police to stop named individuals attending a demonstration are in place. Is the UK state going to set up the technological infrastructure that will allow for the internal banishment of people with views the Government do not like, with the denial of privileges that we currently see as rights?

We are entering this new era of a Big Brother state at speed, and democracy will be the victim of the inevitable crash. The UK police charged with combating extremism now have similar powers to the Russian police combating extremism. I was once called a “domestic extremist” by the Met Police; it watched me for 10 years because I was clearly a threat to democracy—and it lied about it as well. The differences are dependent on which police officer interprets the law; the vigour of groups, such as Big Brother Watch, which seek to defend our rights; and the spirited independence of those lefty lawyers whom the Government complain about so often.

In Russia, more than 2,000 protesters against the war in Ukraine have been arrested or detained using facial recognition technology; they include people visited at home and questioned after a peaceful protest. This has also become standard practice by the Met Police, which trawls through video footage to identify people it wants to arrest. Most importantly, facial recognition is now used in Russia to detain those on their way to a protest after being spotted by the metro camera system. This mirrors the new laws in this country allowing the authorities to ban protesters ahead of demonstrations by issuing control orders or the new serious disruption prevention orders. The Met Police also has access to much of Transport for London’s camera network, yet the only political party to have ever pressured for constraints and safeguards to be put in place is the Green Party.

These deployments of facial recognition have turned our city streets into mass-scale police line-ups, with hundreds of thousands of innocent people subjected to biometric identity checks. Yet, eight years after UK police first rolled out this invasive technology, there has been no democratic consent to live facial recognition and biometric surveillance in Britain. No legislation to approve or ban the use of live facial recognition technology in the UK has been passed or even seriously proposed. Instead, the police operate in a grey area, enabled by a democratic deficit to use rights-invading technology with minimal oversight.

That is why we need to apply the UN standards as a minimum. Those standards make it clear that such technology should not be used to identify people participating in peaceful protest and that protests should not be used as surveillance opportunities. The UN model protocol prohibits the use of facial recognition to identify those participating in peaceful protests. These are standards designed for the likes of Russia, Zimbabwe and Uganda, but we actually cannot meet them here in the UK.

For example, Cheshire Constabulary has stated that it intends to use facial recognition technology to monitor, track and profile individuals. There are no safeguards in place to protect individuals’ rights and the right to protest. This is hardly surprising. How many times, in recent years, have we heard senior politicians and Home Secretaries saying that they believe in the right to protest—“Ah, but not for those particular protesters or protests”?

We need a charter of democratic freedoms that enshrines the right to protest and to assemble. We must never have another situation like the Sarah Everard vigil, when senior officers at New Scotland Yard decided on a clampdown against people who were coming together to remember a woman murdered by a man nicknamed the “rapist” by his colleagues in the Met, while they allowed him to remain in their ranks.

Our authoritarian Government are proposing the abolition of the existing scant oversight of facial recognition and other forms of advanced surveillance through its Data Protection and Digital Information Bill. You cannot use a system designed to protect consumer privacy to protect you from state intrusion. My big concern is that we contest each of these new laws and technologies in isolation, rather than seeing the big picture of what this Government are out to achieve. The ban on strikes, the granting of legal immunity to undercover officers who spy on campaigners, and voter suppression are all part of a rapid slide into an authoritarian country.

I hope that the next Government aim to restore the freedoms that we have lost and replace the safeguards that have been dismantled. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord the shadow Minister on that. I will be pressurising the next Government to make that happen and for our freedoms to keep pace with the technologies used by the state to restrict them. Will the Government accept these UN standards?

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by saying straightaway to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, since he asked me what we would do, if—and I emphasise “if”—we win the next election: we will repeal the Bill. We have been quite clear about that, but that is not what we are debating this evening. We are debating the Bill that we have before us and, in particular, the two Motions A1 and B1.

I think it is important that we dispel some of the myths around the debate that has taken place today, started by the Prime Minister this morning in his press conference. He seemed to imply that the debate in this Chamber is between those who want to stop the boats and those who do not, whereas I have made the case continually, as every Member across this Chamber has done, that we all agree that we need to stop the boats; the dispute in this place is about exactly the right way to go about that and to do that. That is the important distinction that lies between us.

We believe that the Bill as it stands is inconsistent with the principles and traditions of our country and, as such, that is why we oppose it and the various arguments that have been made. Never have I stood at this Dispatch Box and at any time said to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, the Government Chief Whip or the Leader of the House that we will block the Bill. That has never been the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition, and never been something we have said from this Dispatch Box; indeed, we voted against a Motion that was put before us some weeks ago to do that. But we have also said that we would stand up for the proper position of this House. The proper role of this Chamber is to argue, to debate, to revise, to suggest amendments and to put forward that case. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, I hope he is in a position, in a few months’ time, where he is stood here doing exactly the same as I am, and being as a frustrating and challenging as I am trying to be to him, because that is the proper role of the House of Lords. Therefore, it is important that we do that.

I cannot remember which noble Lord said this, but if the Government were as worried about the delay as they say they are, why on earth did they not sort all this out before Easter? All their own side were whipped to be here on a Monday after we debated on the Wednesday, only to have a further email go out to say they would no longer be required. That is how much of an emergency the legislation was. The Government could have cleared this before Easter, and yet they did not, presumably because the Prime Minister could not guarantee that everything was in order for the Bill to work. Let us not talk about the House of Lords delaying the legislation; let us look at the Government’s timetabling of their own business and their inability to get that right. Even today, the Government in a press conference to the lobby, as I understand it, could not give any detail of the numbers that they expect to be subject to the provisions of this treaty—the numbers of flights they expect or, indeed, the exact date when it will take place.

This has never been an argument about the integrity of this Chamber. I do not believe that there is a single Member of this Parliament, in the other place or this Chamber, or any of the journalists who report our proceedings, who does not have proper integrity. I would not have gone on the radio, as a Government Minister did this morning, and accused this House of bordering on racism in the way in which it debated the Rwanda treaty. That is a shocking and appalling comment to make. I do not believe that that is what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, thinks, and I do not think that anyone in here has been bordering on racism in anything that they have said. I have heard detailed arguments and positions espoused by many, but nobody in here—or in the other place, or anybody who reports on these proceedings—has been anywhere near racist or racism. There is a legitimate difference of view, but we should not resort to those sorts of things being said.

I object also to what the Prime Minister did this morning, when he suggested that those of us who opposed the Rwanda Bill before us lacked compassion—that somehow there was anybody who was not opposed to the drownings or some of the appalling things that we see. Of course, we are all opposed to that—there is not a single individual in this Chamber, in the press or in the other place who does not abhor some of that which takes place. But that is the context in which we have been debating this issue.

We are quite right to turn to around and say that we should look at what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is saying, and what my noble friend Lord Browne is saying. But it is not just about Labour Peers. Again, the Prime Minister and other people have gone on saying, “Labour is blocking this—Labour Peers are blocking this”. We do not have a majority in here to block anything; we have to have the support of Cross-Benchers, Tory Peers abstaining or disappearing, as well as the Liberal Democrats voting with us and everybody else.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Greens!

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

Sorry, I missed out the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. It is like being at a wedding—you know that you are going to miss somebody out. You go through all the aunts and uncles and all the other relatives and you see the glower of Aunt Mabel from the back—not that that is you, Lady Jones! But seriously, that includes the Greens, of course. It is about all of us who believe that the Bill is wrong standing together. That is why it is important.

If the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, chooses to put his Motion A1 to the vote, of course we will support it and will be pleased to support it. It is a sensible amendment—it does not block the Bill; it simply says to the Government that they should let the monitoring committee that they themselves have set up talk to the Secretary of State, who can then make a Statement to Parliament saying that Rwanda is safe. That also gives the Government a get-out clause by saying that in future the Secretary of State, presumably on the advice of the monitoring committee, can say that Rwanda is not safe—whereas under the Bill at the moment, whatever happens, they are compelled to believe that it is safe. It is a perfectly sensible amendment.

I come to my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment. It is a meaningful concession on the part of the Government, and that is a really important statement to make. Let me say to all those who are listening that when people question why it is important sometimes that the Lords stands firm and challenges the Government of the day, whatever Government that is, and why it sometimes says to the Government, “You’ve got this wrong and you need to think again”—in this case, thanks to tenacious noble Lords and the brilliance of my noble friend Lord Browne in what he has done—the reason why it is important is because sometimes the Government give way. That is what has happened. If we had not pushed this last week, this concession would not have happened. If we had given way two months ago, it would not have happened.

So far from this being about the Lords blocking anything or delaying anything, it is the Lords performing its proper constitutional function and bringing about change from the Government. That is what it is about—and it has been done in a way that actually gets the Government themselves out of a bind. We know that many on the Government’s Back Benches and Front Benches, including many in this Chamber, thought that what the Prime Minister, one presumes, was saying was wrong, and they needed the Prime Minister to change his position. So the strength of what was proposed in this Chamber by my noble friend Lord Browne forced the Prime Minister—and we presume that he supports all this—to change his mind and come forward with that concession.

The concession that the Minister read out is significant and important, and it is something that my noble friend Lord Browne can be proud of. It may not be everything that everybody would want, but sometimes in politics you have to do what you can and achieve what you can. In the face of what my noble friend was facing—an absolute refusal by the Government to make any concession at all, with the Prime Minister standing in Downing Street and saying that he would not change a single word of the Bill—that has now been proved to be false, in the sense that my noble friend Lord Browne and your Lordships have changed the mind of the Government.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, I am so grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, whose father famously coined the phrase “elective dictatorship” in his Dimbleby lecture of 1976.

The fundamental problem with the Bill, unamended by the proposed new Clause 4, is that it allows the Executive to dictate the facts. It allows the Executive to defenestrate domestic courts—not international or, some would say, foreign courts but domestic courts—including in their ability to grant in extremis interim relief.

The amendment turns the conclusion for all time that Rwanda is safe into a rebuttable presumption based on credible evidence. It therefore incorporates the earlier work of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. It also incorporates earlier amendments by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lord Cashman in including a person’s membership of a persecuted social group in the examination of whether they would be safe—not just their most particular individual circumstances but their membership of a social group, which is probably the basis for most refugee claims in the world.

As I have said, it restores that vital ability in extremis to grant interim relief. In understanding of some concerns on the Benches opposite and of the Government, a court or tribunal under this measure, as amended, would have to have heard from the Secretary of State or taken all reasonable steps so to do, and to grant such an injunction only where the delay would be

“no longer than strictly necessary for the fair and expeditious determination of the case”.

This does not prevent a policy of transportation to Rwanda, no matter how much I loathe that policy in its utility, morality and expense. It is a reasonable compromise to which the other place has given no serious respect or attention and, therefore, it has given no serious respect to your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I want to extend—

[A noble Lord]

No.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Yes. I want to extend my heartfelt sympathy to the Benches opposite, because I know there are many people there who are very unhappy about this Bill. It is an absolutely vile Bill, and part of that is the fact that the Tory Government are abusing not just human rights, and not just the rule of law, but democracy itself. The fact is that they have wasted this House’s time over these weeks—many hours and many days—and then taken everything out in the other place. That is an abuse of democracy. What is the point of your Lordships’ House if it can simply be ignored by the Government?

Shame on the Government. If they think the public support this Bill, they should call a general election. I think they will be unpleasantly surprised that they do not. Let us have a general election now, please.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests. I am supported by the RAMP project. I looked carefully at the House of Commons Hansard report about this first amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, looking for some rationale as to why the Government would not accept it. It was a single sentence, in which the Government said:

“We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international obligations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; cols. 80-81.]


On the basis of that sentence, they rejected the amendment that this House passed about seeking to observe national and international law. If that sentence stands on its own, and that is the only reason why we are being asked to change our minds, what dangers, exposures or difficulties do the Government believe are in the amendment—which is even more restrictive and tightly specified than the last—that stand in the way of anything they wish to do? Why can they not simply accept it?

If the concern is the ECHR, I am sure the Government will have seen that the threshold for granting interim injunctions has been considerably raised to a level described by former Justice Secretary Robert Buckland last night as

“vanishingly small—in fact, non-existent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/4/24; col. 99.]

So why do the Government not accept the amendment? We will certainly support it.

We will also support the other amendment. That one does the job of dealing with part of the problem that people have seen with the Bill, which is that it changes the balance in our country between our judiciary and the Executive. That balance is what we are trying to maintain, even in the very limited circumstances. This does not take away from our belief on these Benches that the Bill is entirely wrong, cruel and inhumane and will not work, which is clearly demonstrated by the numbers we have seen so far. It seems to us that the Government have no rationale, and have not given one, for refusing these amendments.

Asylum Claims

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has asked that question before—and last time I got myself into a bit of hot water by sort of agreeing with him, so I will not do so again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, a Member on the Benches opposite recently said that Rwanda was safe as long as one did not oppose the Government. Is that the way that this Government are going—so we are all safe as long as we do not oppose them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I point the noble Baroness to Scotland, where of course the Green Party is propping up the SNP Government. Are we safe there?

Asylum Seekers: Rwanda

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, if Rwanda is a safe country, can we have an explanation of why we are taking Rwandan refugees here in Britain?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have discussed that many times from the Dispatch Box. The fact is that we take refugees from many countries, some of which are safe.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lipsey (Lab)]

My Lords, the phrase “the elected House must prevail” is a meme around this place. We have certainly heard it from both the Government and the Opposition, and we heard it again from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, this afternoon. Most of the time, it is completely right that we bow to the will of the House of Commons. But is it always right?

On the basis of the 25 years I have spent here, I would say that this House has three roles. There are two very obvious ones: one is amending Bills, at which we are jolly good; the other is setting up Select Committees, quite a number of which I have served on, and I would say that we are jolly good at that too. There is a third one, which very rarely comes into place, and that is this House as a backstop, challenging the Commons when it goes too far and flirts with breaking international law, usurping the role of the courts or behaving unconstitutionally in general. Does this Bill, without the amendments being put forward this afternoon, pass that threshold? I would say that it comes perilously near it.

There is also a matter of timing, which troubles me. Obviously, this was not in the Government’s election manifesto, so the Salisbury convention does not apply. How can the Government argue that they have a mandate to legislate for this policy now, forced through in the face of huge opposition in this House and elsewhere, when in six months’ time they will face the people of Britain in an election which will decide what their manifesto should be? Let them put the Rwanda Bill in their next manifesto—let them put it before the British people. The British people, who are much gentler and more sympathetic to people in the situation of those who are to be exported, will give their verdict. I may be wrong, and if the Government win the election they can bring back the Bill and it will sail through without any opposition, because it will be a manifesto pledge. To do this now, when there is more than a suspicion that it is just a device by No. 10 in a desperate attempt to pull a lost election out of the fire, cannot possibly be justified.

If the amendments are defeated today then that is the end of the story, but I hope they will not be. I dare to hope that the Commons will think again. If not, it will be for each individual Member of the House—guided, in our case, by the Whips—to decide whether or not to keep blocking the Bill.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, what a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, with whom I agree. I felt that the Minister’s opening remarks were so full of mistakes that I shall go through them tomorrow in Hansard with a red pen and pass them back to him, if that is all right, so he can see exactly where I think he went wrong.

It was expected that the other place would take out all our important amendments, but at the same time you have to say that it was not the move of a democratically minded Government but that of an authoritarian, tyrannical one. This Government are choosing tyranny over democracy in this instance. We now have the job of revising the Bill again. As the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, the British public are actually kinder and more concerned than this Government. The Government do not represent the public any more, and it is time they went.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am not a fan of the Bill but I think it is time for it to pass.

I want to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, who asked if it is always right that the elected House must prevail. The truth is that the elected House must prevail and that yes, that is always right. We are an unelected House. We have a job to do, but at some point it has to be the elected House that decides in a democratic society.

I want to comment on the remarks made about compassion. I too disapproved of Members of the other place who tried to suggest that anyone arguing against the Bill lacked compassion. That is a ridiculous accusation and does not hold. However, I also make the point that the inference in reply—that anyone who is trying to push the Bill at this point lacks compassion—is equally low politically. It is irritating to have a situation where people start to try to compete with each other in the kindness stakes. The big political issue is that this country has lost control of its border and the asylum system is not fit for purpose. This Bill—not one that I support—is trying to tackle that. No one is doing it because they are lacking in compassion.

There are double standards here. I have heard that anyone who supports this Bill must be verging not just on the right but on the far right, does not care about anyone crossing in the boats and is actually a racist. I have heard that said by people active in political life. I ask that, for the remainder of the discussion that we have, we take each other seriously enough not just to dole out insults but to say that, if we are genuinely committed to tackling the problem of border control, this is the Bill that is on the table now and has been accepted by the House of Commons a second time, and, even if we disagree with it, we have to go along with it.

As for the people who have argued that this was not in the manifesto, the suggestion that there is no public concern about control of the borders has no finger on the pulse of any public. However, it is true that there will be elections shortly. It seems to me that people who feel strongly that this is the worst piece of legislation ever passed will stand on that in their manifesto and will commit, here and now, to overturning the Bill once it goes through. Then we will see where the votes lie and, if the Opposition become the Government, whether they stick with that and tear up the Bill. Fair dos if they do.