Ukraine

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 9th February 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on behalf of the two Greens on these Benches. I am sure that that is a first. It was a good speech and I thank him. There was just one jarring note, which was that after 35 years in the other place the noble Lord had no understanding of the value of us—how wonderful we are in your Lordships’ House. Perhaps he can take that revelation back to his former colleagues in the other place and explain just how valuable we are, and what a wonderful job we do. I also very much enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord McDonald. It was impressive for him to speak for that long without notes. It was very good.

On the issue of the Russian embassy listening, it is a real pleasure to think that it is showing a lot of interest in what we are doing here—more, obviously, than at the other end. I tweeted yesterday about the speech that we had heard and the President’s visit. It was remarkable that within moments abusive tweets were directed back at me. They were abusive towards me, the President, Ukraine and the Green Party. It struck me that most of them were anonymous with few followers. I do not know how many noble Lords are on Twitter, but that sort of thing—the lack of followers and anonymisation—is often from bots, people who do not exist. That suggested that the tweets were from fake accounts and were probably pro-Russian propaganda. They have failed. I am sure that they are doing their best, bless them.

Ukraine has presented a persona for the President and the country right from the start of a united Government, of opposition and bravery. Even the look of the President has been very carefully thought through, wearing his military colours and always speaking out and being heard by the people, with clear updates on the war. Ukraine has allowed journalists to report from the front lines but also in towns and cities. That sort of thing has given us a very positive image of Ukraine and its President. If any noble Lord has not watched “Servant of the People”, which is where the former actor Zelensky showed us what he could do as President of Ukraine if he ever got there, I really recommend it. When I see him now, there are still times when I see “Servant of the People”.

Since Russia began its illegal and, I hope, futile war, it has weaponised energy supply. It has tried to punish Ukrainian society in many ways, and those indiscriminate strikes trying to hit energy supply have definitely been part of it. Hitting the energy infrastructure has meant that innocent civilians have not only died but gone without heating and water at a terrible time of year—the winter is very hard there. NATO has placed much emphasis on the continuation of military supplies. Although new Challenger, Leopard and Abrams tanks provide some hope for Ukraine possibly to repel a spring Russian offensive, they do very little to keep women, children and old people from freezing to death.

The noble Lord, Lord Collins, outlined that the West needs to think long-term. That is not easy to do when events are happening so fast, but we have to do it. Just as Truman engineered the economic revival of post-war Europe through a comprehensive plan, the West needs to devise a green Marshall plan—a strategic plan that offers Ukraine the economic capability to secure its survival. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, made a very good speech as well. She actually stole my thunder—so thanks for that—because an energy-secure Ukraine is perhaps Europe’s best safety net against future Russian aggression.

However, the West cannot simply throw money at the problem and potentially burden Ukraine with debts that it cannot pay. Green planning and investment must be at the heart of Ukraine’s reconstruction. Ukraine has set a target of sourcing 25% of its total energy generation from renewables by 2035; it currently has 15%. Solar infrastructure projects must be built in southern Ukraine, where solar irradiance is highest, and, of course, wind farms.

I have not been to a war zone, but I worked as an archaeologist at Axum near Eritrea in the 1990s when the civil war had paused temporarily, so I know the difficulties that a local population can face after war and the sort of assaults individuals have to face—violence, rape and torture. The hardships they face after the conflict has stopped are sometimes almost worse, because they do not have anything else to distract them. In Eritrea at that time it was very hard to eat. I was not very fat to start with and I lost half a stone within a couple of weeks, simply because we could not feed ourselves—and we were the privileged people. The Eritreans wanted us to be there to excavate Axum to find out even more about their heritage, but we could barely get enough food to survive ourselves. I was a vegetarian when I went there, but when I left I had eaten a lot of goat—boiled goat at that—which I would not advise anyone to do.

All the infrastructure and rehabilitation is put at risk by a major obstacle: landmines. Ukraine is littered with them already. Ukraine’s Government estimate that 160,000 square kilometres of land is contaminated with landmines. That is astonishing, and of course the actual figure is likely to be much higher because it is difficult to see things that are buried underground. Schools and local infrastructure cannot be physically built in such a dangerous environment; it renders any plan to reconstruct Ukraine futile. As much as the West might fund Ukraine’s military defence against Russia’s invasion, it needs to simultaneously fund and support the demining effort with equal conviction. The US has already pledged $89 million for demining, but Ukraine needs much more financial support on this front because demining is labour intensive and extremely expensive.

Given the enormity of that challenge, demining has so far been more of an afterthought than a central priority. The UK can help by directing funds and equipment to the demining effort. It should use the British Army’s training facilities here to train Ukrainians in demining procedures, and it should send a fleet of demining machines. Demining the areas where the urgently needed energy infrastructure can be built should be a priority today rather than later, to help a green Marshall plan to be implemented as soon as possible.

Royal Navy: Ships and Frigates

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

If I may answer the last part of the noble Baroness’s question first: yes, there will be. That is a logistical calculation that we constantly make and review. We are going to have people to man these ships—disappointed though I shall be not to see the heroic form of the noble Lord, Lord West, at the helm of something that is floating.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, defence of the realm is obviously incredibly important, but so is defence of the planet. Yet the MoD is exempt from the duties that all the rest of us have to fulfil of cutting carbon emissions. These vessels will be highly polluting. Does the Ministry of Defence know that there is a climate emergency?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Of course everyone in the United Kingdom knows that there is a climate emergency, not least the Ministers of this Government. It is evident from the measures being brought forward how seriously we take that challenge. Modern engineering technology is greatly contributing to more efficient use of fuel and reducing emissions. In relation to the defence estate, which is massive, I have seen at first hand some of the excellent measures now being taken to optimise our contribution to improving the environment.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support Amendments 1 and 2. As I did not take part at Second Reading, I must resist the temptation to cover a whole range of subjects in my contribution to this debate.

As an old Defence Minister, and, indeed, an old soldier who served in Germany as an infantry subaltern and was involved in courts martial there, I broadly welcome the aims of the Bill to introduce a measure of protection against unfounded claims against military personnel, some of which go back many years. I deprecate the cottage industry in the growth of claims.

Let me say immediately that when there is wrongdoing, no person is above the law. Torture is a typical example where we should never propose exemption. I have argued before at the annual conferences of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Cape Town and, more recently, in St Petersburg to persuade all countries to accept the need to ensure that there is no exemption for this offence.

As a law officer, I played a very small part in encouraging the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under Robin Cook to create the International Criminal Court. As John Healey MP said in the other place on Third Reading of the Bill, the risks of

“British troops being dragged before”—[Official Report, Commons, 3/11/20; col. 277.]

the ICC are there. There may be an argument about this, but that is what he said and we should always bear it in mind. Perhaps the Minister could give an assurance on that very point of what—if any—the dangers are of going before the ICC.

The wise words of Professor Michael Clarke, the former director-general of the Royal United Services Institute, on the dangers of an idea gaining

“international traction that the UK operates a ‘quasi-statute of limitations’”,

and hence might be in danger of being indicted before the International Criminal Court, should always be borne in mind. They need rebuttal, and they need clarification.

When the Government launched their consultation on the changes to the legal protection for our Armed Forces serving overseas, the consultation included proposals to create a statutory presumption for alleged criminal offences which occurred more than 10 years ago. I repeat: 10 years was the issue that went out for consultation.

The Bill is a major departure from the norms of our international obligations

“under international humanitarian law … international human rights law and international criminal law.”

These are not my words; they are the words of Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights. They are words that we should bear in mind and rebut if it is possible to do so.

That is the background, and hence it is a basic requirement that any provisions in the Bill need thorough justification. Therefore, I support Amendments 1 and 2 to change the presumption against prosecution from five to 10 years. My question, very simply, is: what is the Government’s justification for the change from 10 years in the consultation document to five years? I would like an answer before the end of this debate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, before I start my remarks about the Bill, I would like to say that nothing I say over the next few days in any way impugns the integrity of the Minister. I have every respect for her, but I think that the Bill is a terrible piece of legislation—worse than terrible. It is actually quite shocking. It is the international version of the “spy cops” Bill, which granted broad legal immunity to state agents who commit criminal acts. How can that be right?

It is one of those Bills that I think is so bad that we need to scrap it entirely. That is why I am joining the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Massey and Lady Smith of Newnham, to oppose the question that Clauses 1 to 7 stand part of the Bill. If a “delete-all” amendment were in order, I would do that instead. I hope that we can build an alliance to oppose the Bill’s Third Reading.

It struck me listening to noble Lords who have spoken already that the support for the Bill is actually based on fake news. The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has written to our Joint Committee on Human Rights, chaired by Harriet Harman. In a letter, she says that the number of vexatious claims has been “exaggerated”—by our Government, obviously—to justify the proposed legislation. We do not have a whole heap of vexatious, baseless claims, which is what the Government seem to be suggesting.

The Bill clashes with the whole point of our justice system. I know that there are noble Lords in this Chamber who know a lot more about the law than I do, and I am sure they know that that is true. The whole point of our justice system is that the guilty are found guilty and the innocent are found innocent—that is obviously what we have to do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, mentioned the strain of all these vexatious claims, but in fact they do not exist, so the argument for the Bill is extremely weak.

I consulted two ex-generals and an ex-admiral of my acquaintance about the Bill, and they all had severe qualms. They all felt that this could backfire quite seriously on our service personnel and that it would make things worse. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, demolished the argument for the Bill, but he said as well that service personnel could be brought to the ICC, which would be much worse than being dealt with here.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committee (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn from this group, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, that was quite interesting, actually, because of course these amendments are trying to create some sort of accountability for the Attorney-General. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, was going to say something about the Attorney-General being rather more political than in the past, because of course the office of Attorney-General has been sadly undermined in recent years, particularly last year with the Attorney-General’s quick defence of Dominic Cummings’ unlawful behaviour. That was, I fear, just one example, and the fact that she then so quickly rowed back from her position to a position of it being only her political decision and not a legal opinion shows how easy it is for an Attorney-General to step over that increasingly faint line. In that, I think that she mistakenly excused illegality in the name of political expediency. We, of course, cannot become complicit in that, so I was extremely pleased to sign the shadow Attorney-General’s Amendments 10, 11 and 12.

I am concerned that this triple lock in the Bill can actually lock justice out. Even if the power of justice is strong enough to overcome the first two locks, we have to trust the Attorney-General to make the right decision on the third lock, which of course would be very difficult. The Attorney-General therefore has to publish their reasons when making decisions, because these decisions should be made according to normal standards of administrative propriety and should rightly be subject to judicial review. Where the reasons for the decisions are irrational, unlawful or irrelevant, they should be able to be overturned. Where the decision is purely politically motivated and has no foundation in facts, the law or the interests of justice, equally it should be overturned. These amendments are essential to ensure that this is the case.

Such important decisions as those envisaged in the Bill must never be made on a whim or be purely political. Justice has to be done and be seen to be done. I would just like to add that various noble Lords have suggested that some things are impossible to understand if you have not experienced warfare or action of that kind. Of course, that is absolutely true, but we are not talking about a lack of sympathy for service personnel; we are talking about criminal acts. That is the basis of what this law is about; it is not to do with whether we have sympathy or not, it is about criminal acts, and it is important to remember that.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer and to the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Jones, from whom we have just heard, for tabling these amendments. They have cemented in my mind concerns that I expressed at Second Reading about the role of the Attorney-General as the third lock in the architecture of this Bill.

In response to comments made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, about how, if it is such a problem, we have a problem with the role of the Attorney-General in the constitution per se, I would say not quite. We know that the Attorney-General wears different hats—sometimes legal adviser to the Government and sometimes to Parliament—and sometimes acts in a separate role in relation to the public interest. Those hats are capable of being worn at different times. No doubt it takes a bit of skill to get the balance right, but in normal, civilian prosecutions, I suggest that an Attorney-General is very unlikely to have been giving legal advice on, for example, the investigative process; they would be very unlikely to have given advice directly to the police on the search that gave rise to the prosecution.

This is not the case in war and conflict, where the Attorney-General, as legal adviser to the Government, has undoubtedly been involved in the rules of engagement; they have quite possibly given very detailed advice on those rules and, as my noble and learned friend said, on matters concerning detention and so on. To make potentially the same person who advised on the legality of an operation the third lock on whether alleged criminality should be prosecuted seems to me unlikely to give confidence—the word “reassurance” has been used a lot—to anybody, whether that be civilian members of the public or military personnel. After all, this could be an Attorney-General who advised on the operation or one from a party that was very much opposed to the operation before it came into government. I have real concerns about the politicising of these prosecutions. One has only to think about the controversies in recent conflicts around the world to see that potential damage to public confidence, including among members of the Armed Forces on the front line and their families.

If the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, will forgive me a quick word, there was a little having of cake and eating it in his remarks. He referred—I do not think as a criticism—to the ICC as quasi-political. Given these various hats, someone might well say that of the senior law officer involved in these matters who sits in or comes to Cabinet, including war Cabinets. In terms of accountability, to give this role to the Attorney-General is to give it to a political person who is appointed directly by the Prime Minister—quite possibly, as I say, the Prime Minister who authorised an operation—and for that all to be in the shadows. The Attorney-General’s original advice on the legality of the conflict and perhaps specific operations is currently in the shadows and now the Attorney-General’s veto of the independent prosecutor’s decision will quite possibly be in the shadows as well. That is highly problematic.

I am grateful for these amendments, which I think are probing. In any event, I think the Attorney-General should not be involved in this way at all. It seriously risks politicising already very delicate matters.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB) [V]]

My Lords, the purpose of these amendments is familiar by now: to ensure that our service personnel are protected from the risk of prosecution in the International Criminal Court. To anyone who believes that this risk is illusory or negligible, I recommend not only the legal opinions variously expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope, by former Judge Advocate Blackett and by the Joint Committee on Human rights, but the 184-page final report of the outgoing prosecutor of the ICC, dated 9 December 2020 and entitled Situation in Iraq/UK.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, has already mentioned this report, so I will refer to only two things in it: the conclusion that there was a reasonable basis to believe that war crimes including torture were perpetrated by British forces in Iraq between 2003 and 2009, and the last words of its final page, an ominous warning that the prosecutor’s office would in the future consider

“the impact of any new legislation on the ability of the competent domestic authorities to consider new allegations arising from the conduct of UK armed forces in Iraq”.

The prosecutor’s words are reinforced by the recent letter referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, and echo the Australian Brereton report of November 2020—which I mentioned at Second Reading—which pointedly observed of this Bill:

“There is a large question as to whether such a law would meet the requirements of Article 17 of the Treaty of Rome.”


Of the approaches we are offered in this group, I prefer Amendment 14, on two grounds: first, as my noble and learned friend Lord Hope has pointed out, because of its less vulnerable position in the body of the Bill; and, secondly, because Article 14, if I am not mistaken, maps more precisely on to the jurisdiction of the ICC. It applies to war crimes as broadly defined in Section 50 of the ICC Act 2001 and Articles 5 and 8.2 of the Rome statute.

Amendment 39, by contrast, would exclude from the presumption against prosecution only war crimes falling within Article 8.2(a) of the Rome statute: grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. That would leave within the scope of the presumption against prosecution the 26 categories of war crimes in international armed conflict that are listed in Article 8.2(b). Therefore, under Amendment 39 there would appear to be at least some risk of ICC intervention in any case that could be brought within those categories.

That was the dry contribution of just another lawyer to a debate that has seen the case for these amendments advanced with astonishing force on the very highest military, legal and political authority. The contrary case seems to be made only weakly in the Minister’s letter of the other day. Like other noble Lords, I admire the Minister greatly, and for that very reason permit myself to wonder whether the Government will really persist in opposing these amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is very unusual for a Green to be among the majority. I will take great delight in that.

I cannot compete with the erudition and rationale of noble Lords who have spoken already, but I will draw attention to the fact that the Government are trying to create this triple lock against prosecution as a safe harbour for military criminals—regardless of how serious their crime—and then, out of nowhere, the Bill says, “Ah, well, these protections apply to any crime, but not sexual offences.” I am fascinated to find out the real reason for excluding sexual offences in this way. Five years after their offence, a murderer, a torturer and a thief all get protected, but an accused sexual offender gets prosecuted regardless. Even if the murderer, torturer or thief actually did it, they can get off, but an innocent person accused vexatiously of sexual offences would be prosecuted. It really does not make sense to make this exception of one category of offences.

It is not just rape; the list in Schedule 1 includes things such as

“possession of extreme pornographic images”,

“outraging public decency” and any offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, such as Section 71, which criminalises sexual activity in a public lavatory. A soldier could have consensual sex in a public toilet, kill their partner and face the outrageous prospect under this Bill of being prosecuted only for having sex in the toilet—they might be protected from the murder charge.

Likewise, the Bill singles out slavery, but only slavery for sexual exploitation—take as many slaves as you like, after five years you will probably get away with it, but you might get prosecuted for any slaves who are sexually exploited.

It staggers me that the Government have chosen this specific exemption to their messy triple lock. Of course I support it, but we must have those other exemptions as well. I ask those noble Lords who have spoken so strongly on this issue: where were they during the spy-cops Bill, when we heard criminals—police spies and police agents—being given immunity from all these crimes? In any case, it all loops back to the obvious conclusion that this Bill is ridiculous. It creates obvious and unacceptable injustice and needs to be scrapped entirely.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, with every Bill this Government present to this House, we see a further erosion of civil liberties, the rule of law reduced and, of course, a constant attack on parliamentary democracy—and this Bill is no different. It is pretty terrible. I am really heartened to have listened to the comments so far, which clearly indicate that there is a lot of dissatisfaction about the Bill, and I presume that it will be very heavily amended.

The Bill is very much at odds with the United Nations special rapporteurs. The Government, Ministers in particular, have consistently expressed some horrific sentiments over the years which seek to marginalise and undermine the UN special rapporteurs as being somehow politically motivated. This has come up in relation to the Government’s treatment of people who are in poverty or homeless, people with disabilities, and now victims of torture and other crimes at the hands of British troops. It undermines any claim that the United Nations might be a global leader for peace, justice and human rights.

Beyond the United Nations, many other experts have warned about how the Bill undermines the UK’s so-called commitment to human rights and a rules-based international order. Indeed, today in the Daily Mail there is a headline: “Theresa May blasts Boris’s ‘moral failure’”. She has criticised Boris Johnson, our Prime Minister, “for abandoning British values” and

“slammed his threat to break international law and tear up foreign aid.”

The article says:

“The former prime minister says the two actions were not ones that ‘raised our credibility in the eyes of the world’. If Britain is to lead internationally, she says, we must live up to ‘our values’.”


The Bill clearly does not live up to our values. It is based on fiction and conspiracy theories—it could have been written by the Daily Mail comment section. It stems from a false assertion that there is some sort of crisis of vexatious claims against UK forces, although in truth, hardly any criminal prosecutions have been brought against service personnel in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. On the contrary, the inquiry into the death in of Baha Mousa in September 2003 revealed torture, unlawful killing and the use of prohibited techniques by British soldiers. It makes harrowing reading.

Instead of fiddling with prosecutorial discretion and the statute of limitations, Parliament should instead be implementing a comprehensive, effective, independent system of investigation of complaints against military personnel. Repeat investigations are ordered by courts because the original investigations were so shoddy that they needed to be conducted again. We are talking about interference by the chain of command and refusal to pass on to military police and prosecution. Service personnel would be greatly helped if they knew that future allegations would be fairly, reasonably, independently and rigorously investigated within a sensible amount of time, and one way or another resolved. However, this legislation does not address any of that, and the provisions in the Bill are nonsense.

The courts already have a very wide range of case management powers. They can throw out unmeritorious and vexatious claims at a very early stage and can make court orders against vexatious claimants. The Government must explain why this is not sufficient to deal with these claims, and then explain why the military needs a special system of dealing with unmeritorious claims which is not available to other defendants in legal proceedings.

Then there is the downright stupid fact that this legislation, rather than protecting service personnel, would in fact be likely to open up British forces to the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as other noble Lords have already mentioned. This prospect renders the whole Bill counterproductive and downright dangerous. Rather than face investigation and prosecution in the UK, troops would be exposed to the risk of international arrest and, of course, prosecution and trial at The Hague.

I asked a former general for his advice on the Bill. After some thought, he gave a considered answer, saying that it could be dangerous for our troops because it might mean that other regimes and the troops of other countries would be more inclined to torture our troops or treat them badly, in return for our lack of concern about torture.

I therefore feel that the Government should pause the Bill and start to think quite seriously about whether it is needed and, if it is needed, about how to improve it.

Parliamentary Buildings (Restoration and Renewal) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 22nd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and some of the later ones, particularly those in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Bethell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon. I was sad that I was not able to take part in the Second Reading but I hope to make up for it now.

For me, the pertinent questions are: who is the restoration and renewal project for, and what is it intended to achieve? The Bill is incredibly unambitious. It is designed to keep things roughly as they are—or, in some cases, exactly as they are—to serve those people who currently occupy the building, whether MPs, Peers or staff. I love the idea of a coffee bar in the Royal Gallery—it might warm it up—because it is almost unusable at most times of the year. However, it is only partly right if we look to MPs, Peers and staff for what is appropriate for the future.

Public engagement has to be at the heart of the project. If we do not engage the public properly, they will not see this as a good use of money. We are talking about billions of pounds of public funds from the Treasury and it must not look like an upgrade for our offices; it has to look like part of the national fabric. We must therefore involve the public in renewing the heart of our democracy.

It is a fundamental principle of our parliamentary democracy that no Parliament can bind its successors in law, and yet this Bill will do exactly that. This building will be set in stone for decades. It will take a decade to start the work and a decade to complete it and in that time we will not take into account the fact that our society is moving on. The public can be more radical than we are. We tend to get stuck in mud with our processes. We have a new clock, a new system with the Lord Speaker and so on, but these changes have been incredibly slow. Public engagement will suggest more radical things than we do here.

Once the building is done, there will be no opportunities for moving on, changing our systems or doing anything new or perhaps more democratic. Whether it is introducing an elected Chamber, electronic voting or whatever, it will be much harder because people will say, “We cannot do that because we have just spent billions on recreating what we had before. It will not fit and we cannot spend any more money”. This country has undergone massive constitutional changes over the past couple of decades and it is illogical to persist in the way we are going when society is moving on. We cannot afford to be blinkered about what is happening around us. For these reasons, the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, are essential. The sponsor body must have as one of its central purposes the duty to ensure that its work accommodates future concerns, changes and political developments. If it does not do that, it will be seen as a huge waste of money.

I would go even further with public engagement and say that we should parallel the sponsor body’s work on restoring and renewing the building with establishing a citizens’ assembly, which is what Theresa May should have done with Brexit. Such an assembly could offer a way in which to restore and renew our whole political system. A Government with vision past the next few months would breathe life into a new era of citizenship and change public engagement for the better. This place is not a museum but a working building, and we have to accept that work sometimes changes.

These amendments are vital. I regret that they have been watered down—I would have supported the unwatered-down version—but I will support them at any further point in our work.

[Lord Norton of Louth (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support to the amendments, which are important. I also endorse everything that has been said about citizenship and education, and the role that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has played in that.

The Bill is unfortunately titled. The title is somewhat misleading because it places the emphasis on restoration and renewal of a physical entity—the Palace—rather than the restoration and renewal of Parliament as an institution. That should be at the heart of informing the debate as we go forward because we have to configure the Parliament in order to fulfil the functions that both Houses fulfil.

In its recent report the Liaison Committee endorsed the view that we have a number of functions which are not confined to the legislative-Executive relationship but encompass as well the legislative-public relationship. We should see this through the prism of not only the relationship between Parliament and government but the relationship between Parliament and those outside who the institution serves. I endorse the point that we are trustees. We need to look at it in that perspective and consider how we can configure or reconfigure space to fulfil those functions. That should be the driving force. We should look at it dynamically in terms of our functions, not as some fixed physical entity.

Reinforcing that—this point has been touched upon—is the context in which the discussion is taking place: how people outside see the institution, which, at the moment, is not positive. The recent audit of political engagement by the Hansard Society tracked the extent to which there is dissatisfaction with the way our system works. The proportion of respondents who feel that the system of governing needs a great deal of improvement stands at 72%—the highest level it has been in the audit series. The level of distrust has been a change of kind and not only extent. By that I mean that people used to distrust MPs; now they distrust the House of Commons. That is a challenge that we have to face up to and address. We have to see it in that context.

We need to think about how we relate to those outside the House in the way that has been stressed, and I agree with most of what has been said. That encompasses not only seeking to educate but, as has been stressed, engaging with people outside Parliament—not only in terms of restoration and renewal but how we craft an institution that can continuously engage with people outside.

The noble Baroness who has just spoken seems to think that we are going to be stuck with whatever the fixture is. However, one can anticipate that and have flexible space that is adaptable to needs as they change over time. In that context we need to anticipate and address the, if you like, known knowns and think about the known unknowns and the extent to which the Palace may be configured on that basis.

We need to configure space so that we can enable greater interaction between Members and those making representations and, has been stressed, those who wish to be present for proceedings. I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said. It reinforces my point about not just seeing the Palace as a fixed body but that dynamic of how we relate to people outside, creating space here for that purpose but thinking how we can configure it in such a way so that we can engage with those outside who cannot come here as well.

I wholly endorse what has been said. It is important that it is in the Bill, for the reasons that have been given. It should be at the forefront of what we are doing. My noble friend Lord Bethell referred to it basically as a secondary function, for reasons I understand, but we should stress it as a primary function in terms of what this institution is about. That has to be at the forefront throughout the work that is undertaken and, for those reasons, I endorse the amendments.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out “is supportive of” and insert “supports”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak at rather more length than I do normally. I thought that my amendment was explained clearly in Committee yet I had to table another amendment for today because the problem still exists. Therefore, I will try to explain it carefully, although I am not a lawyer. This issue depends on clear thinking and some common sense.

As I made clear in Committee, I am completely opposed to people encouraging the membership and support of terrorist organisations. I am also deeply opposed to the terrorism bogeyman being used to justify laws that are disproportionate and which undermine the rights of law-abiding citizens without good justification. The Minister did not adequately address my concerns in Committee, which reinforced my view that Clause 1 is currently far too broad, represents an unacceptable breach of human rights and risks criminalising a range of perfectly innocent speech. Amendments 1 and 2 in my name would make the new criminal offence a reasonable one. I believe that not making significant changes to this clause would be a clear breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. As drafted, the offence is too vague to accord with the law and too broad to be a proportionate way to achieve a legitimate aim.

The Minister confirmed to the Committee that the clause is a direct response to the case of R v Choudary, in which the Court of Appeal considered the existing Section 12 offences. The Explanatory Notes state:

“The Court of Appeal was clear that a central ingredient of the offence was inviting support from third parties for a proscribed organisation and that the offence ‘does not prohibit the holding of opinions or beliefs supportive of a proscribed organisation; or the expression of those opinions or beliefs’ … This clause therefore provides for a new offence which criminalises the expression of an opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.


I covered the case in some depth in Committee so I will not repeat it in detail here, but the fact that the Government made it clear that the new offence is in response to the difficulties of prosecuting Choudary means that your Lordships’ House must understand Clause 1 in the light of that judgment. Let us not forget that Choudary was found guilty and his conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeal, so it is not as though there is some loophole through which he was able to slip.

I tabled two amendments to Clause 1 with the purpose of tightening this new offence to ensure that only people guilty of some wrongdoing will be guilty of a crime. The purposes of law and justice are not only to convict the guilty but to ensure that the innocent go free. In Committee, it was telling that the Minister, in response to my example of a political activist expressing support for an independent Kurdistan, had only,

“a very high level of confidence that they would not fall foul of the Clause 1 offence”.

Anything short of absolute certainty is proof that the new offence is far too broad and will criminalise perfectly innocent behaviour.

The new subsection is best understood when contrasted against the existing Section 12 offence in the Terrorism Act 2000. There are three key differences between the two offences: there is no requirement to “invite” in the new offence; the expression of an opinion which “is supportive of” rather than “supports”; and the watering down of the guilty mind from intention to recklessness. In my analysis, each of these three changes represents a significant broadening when compared to this existing offence. The proper change is the first: the legal requirement of having to invite support was too tight and allowed people such as Choudary to rigorously support terrorist organisations, as long as they did not invite anyone else to do so. The other two changes make this new offence far too wide, in a way that goes beyond the Government’s stated purpose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had to say, but I do not agree. I hope that the reasons I set out explained why I do not agree.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the Minister for her assurances. I do not accept that Amendment 1 nullifies Clause 1; that is not true. I thank the other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon.

I feel that I represent in this House someone against whom the law has been used illegally on other occasions. I am very law-abiding, I am extremely respectful of the law, but, at the same time, I have been targeted by the police. Therefore, I come from a particular perspective, which is that if definitions are not tight enough, they can be used against the innocent. This is personal. I have been in your Lordships’ House for five years and feel passionately about a lot of issues and have moved amendments to many Bills, but this is the first time that I am moved to divide the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I want to put on record my thanks to the Government for listening to the concerns expressed in Committee on this issue and welcome the amendment with the caveats that we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

[The Marquess of Lothian (Con)]

My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister will know, the committee which I have the honour to serve on behalf of this House along with the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, produced a report 10 days ago on the lessons to be learned from terrorism incidents last year. One of the points that we made was that in most of, if not all, those incidents, the perpetrators had had access to the type of extreme material covered by this Bill and clause. We therefore support the way in which the Bill is being amended and developed today, because it provides another safeguard against one area where radicalisation can take place leading to terrorism incidents in due course. That is the position of my committee—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, would accept that.

Can we have a definition of “academic”? I presume that it is not limited just to professional academics, because that would be very restrictive. There is a lot to be said for learning lessons from terrorism incidents, with those doing that type of work, including the committee of which I am a member, having access in order to see what type of material is leading to the radicalisation taking place. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me that “academic” would cover that area.

My other point relates to “journalist”. I may be behind the times and not know how it is defined in law, but “journalist” seems a very broad definition. There are professional journalists—I quite accept that this amendment should cover them—but there are in my experience other journalists, some of whom call themselves bloggers and others who call themselves contributors to particular types of publications. It might not be in the interests of security that those people have access to such material. Can the Minister respond to those two points?

Royal Navy: Warships

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we have been quite open about the pressures that we face. The defence equipment plan summary, published yesterday, acknowledged that the equipment plan emerging from the MoD’s current year budget contains a high level of financial risk and an imbalance between cost and budget. It is exactly those risks and imbalances that we aim to resolve in the programme that is now under way.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that, in answer to a parliamentary Question in the other place from SNP MP Ronnie Cowan, the Ministry of Defence said that it had spent more than £100 million on a study to explore options for a potential future warhead and whether to refurbish or replace? The noble Lord, Lord West, told me that he would have done it for much less money. Did the Ministry of Defence consider that option?

[Earl Howe]

I am sure that the Ministry of Defence could well have done with the advice of the noble Lord, Lord West, in this context—which we, too, are always keen to have. But I can assure the noble Baroness that, in all work undertaken by my department, cost-effectiveness and affordability are key.

UK Exports

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, there is time enough for two more questions. We can go first to my noble friend and then to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Mobarik]

I agree with my noble friend that services are an important part of our economy. However, we work in a whole range of different sectors and we have market sector priorities; for example, every year we consider which country sector combinations the Government can add most value to. Services are of course a huge part of that. We have to keep it in mind that the UK is the fifth-largest economy in the world. We have leading universities, low tax, low regulation, an economy fuelled by some of the most skilled workers, and the World Bank continues to rank the UK as the highest major economy for ease of doing business, which is one of the reasons so many firms, such as Snapchat, Rolls-Royce, and Nissan, are choosing to invest in the UK.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, according to the Office for National Statistics, the exports for low-carbon businesses fell by £1 billion between 2014 and 2015. Can we assume that the Government have no interest in promoting such low-carbon businesses?

[Baroness Mobarik]

I can reassure the noble Baroness that we are promoting all parts of our economy.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Prescott (Lab)]

My Lords, this measure is not only diversionary, it is an attempt to finish off everything that Leveson proposed after an inquiry that lasted years. Everybody agreed that the hacking which occurred was terrible, particularly me as I was one of those who were hacked. I complained to the police, who did not believe me, to the Press Complaints Commission, which did not believe me, and then to all the bodies concerned with the issue, even the Crown Prosecution Office. They did not believe me. Eventually, I had to go to court to find justice on a human rights matter. Only then did all these bodies admit that they were aware of the evidence but did not declare it to me. I do not think the situation has changed. If the Government are saying that something will be different, will they please spell out what that difference is? What would happen if that situation were to occur now? I might add that the Investigatory Powers Bill will allow an awful lot more hacking than we have at present, as that is what it is designed to do. We talk about terrorism but what is to stop the police pursuing the matter, given their new technology, and perhaps not do so properly? Those affected by that action should then have a right to complain. If abuse occurs through the use of the technology, what do you do then? To whom do you complain?

The consultation went on for years under Leveson and those who played a part in it. We do not need any more consultation to work this out. I listened to the debate in the House of Commons and to all those people who agreed to this legislation and to the royal charter, every one of whom is now saying that we should start consultation. What happened? This started when Mr Whittingdale told the press that he was not minded to implement Section 40. He did not tell Parliament as by then he had moved on from the office of Secretary of State. This is a step-by-step process to get rid of Leveson’s recommendations. That is what it is really about. The next stage is to quash what he said about having a second inquiry into the relations between the police and the press. That is still ongoing. If anybody does not believe that, they can read it in the press every day of the week. The new IPSO, or whatever it is called, not only makes a judgment but also complains in the press. It made a judgment about me a few months ago when I made a complaint. That situation has not changed. Recommendations were made regarding having a new authority, but we have done nothing about it. We are locked in dispute on this. Therefore, to that extent I do not think anything has changed. When the Prime Minister met Murdoch in New York, they might have just thrown it into the conversation whether we should make these changes. It happened before with the previous Prime Minister—meeting secretly and then doing a deal. That is not acceptable. What I find most offensive of all is that we all agreed in this Chamber, and in the other Chamber when I was there, to take action. Admittedly, they wrapped it up in the royal charter. I did not agree with that royal charter argument. I always thought we wanted to keep the Queen out of politics. She is right in the middle of it now, is she not, with the royal charter?

There is a dispute among politicians about what is to be implemented. That is the reason I resigned. I was the only one to resign, apparently, from being a privy counsellor—that is, one who had not been to jail or got caught in some scandalous situation. That was a view of mine about the charter. That was the first weakening of the case for implementing Leveson. That was the first mistake we made.

We now appear to be discussing what we have already passed. We have already agreed it. I listened to the debate yesterday, in which it was said, “This is the wrong Bill”. We said it was the wrong Bill in this House; we recognised that. But it is the wrong Bill because the Government did not carry out what is already in legislation. It is there, we discussed it and we voted on it in both Houses. Nobody, as I understand it, voted against it. Then, we were told that the Minister, like all her MPs yesterday, is saying, “This isn’t the Bill. This is a serious matter”. I understand what they mean by that, but it came about only because they refused to carry out what they had voted for. That is what we are dealing with today. Now we are questioning what we in Parliament are supposed to have made a decision about, and saying that we are going to have a consultation. But it is a consultation to get out of the obligations that this House and the other place agreed to. That is unacceptable.

We have started the battle again about the reality of the press. We talk about freedom of the press, but does anybody complain about the freedom of the victims? No. They have a lot to say but I do not hear their voice. I did not hear them mentioned much in the House of Commons yesterday.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

You are here.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

100ZA: Clause 58, page 48, line 9, at end insert—
“( ) An authorisation may be considered necessary on the grounds falling within subsection (7)(b) or (f) only where there is a reasonable suspicion that a serious criminal offence has been or is likely to be committed and it is reasonably believed that the communications data sought will be relevant to the criminal investigation.”

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, with this amendment I make a further attempt to introduce into the Bill a requirement on the authorities to demonstrate reasonable suspicion of a serious crime and a nexus between the communications data that are sought and the crime suspected before a targeted surveillance warrant can be authorised.

As I pointed out previously when speaking to Amendment 20, one of the greatest problems with the Bill is the lack of a requirement for reasonable suspicion in order for surveillance powers to be authorised for the purpose of preventing and detecting a crime. At the moment, intrusive powers can be authorised to prevent and detect serious crime, but this general purpose is left wide open to very broad interpretation, and therefore to abuse, without requiring the authorising authority to verify the existence of reasonable suspicion of criminality. A requirement of reasonable suspicion when the purpose of preventing and detecting serious crime is invoked would prevent the potential abusive surveillance of law-abiding citizens, which we have seen in the past, without unduly limiting the legitimate use of surveillance powers.

The threshold of reasonable suspicion has long been an important safeguard for both citizens and law enforcers against the risk of the arbitrary use of police powers. The “necessary and proportionate” standard invokes an important assessment of the extent of the intrusion but does not necessitate a threshold of suspicion. Although would one expect that in practice targets of surveillance would meet this very modest burden of proof, in my view it is a great mistake not to include the threshold of reasonable suspicion in the Bill, and it leaves these powers ripe for abuse. Therefore, I make no apology for returning to this issue once again.

The amendment simply requires, first, a threshold of reasonable suspicion that a serious crime has been planned or committed and, secondly, a factual basis for believing that the targeted communications data will contain information relevant to the criminal investigation. This would reassure the public that intrusive targeted surveillance could be used only where there was reasonable suspicion of a serious crime. To that end, I hope the Government will accept the amendment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

Indeed, but until we have seen and read what that judgment is, our view is that the Bill is compliant.

In view of the very significant impact that would flow from this amendment, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank all noble Lords who have given me some support: it is something that I feel very strongly about. I thank the noble Earl for his full reply. Needless to say, I am not convinced because all of the issues that he talked about are in fact potentially serious crimes, so the threshold would be satisfied.

If the noble Earl had spoken to some of the people who had been blacklisted, for example, and whose lives were basically destroyed because of illegal surveillance and co-operation by the police with various organisations, it is possible that he would have been influenced in the same way that I have been. However, in view of the noble Earl’s answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 100ZA withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

My Lords, I was a member of the Joint Committee conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, along with the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger—I am not sure whether anyone else in the Chamber was. I remember a discussion which was genuinely open and uncertain about the practicality of this above all. The issue of privacy has been raised very powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Oates, and others from the Liberal Democrat Benches. We thought at the end of the day that the whole Bill was about reaching a balance, with a degree of compromise over issues of privacy alongside the really quite robust safeguards which are in the Bill, such as the role of the judicial commissioners, as all set out in Clause 86. Our real issue was over practicality and cost. When the Minister comes to respond, it would be helpful if we could have a bit more guidance as to what this is going to cost. The cost will not fall on the companies; it will fall upon the Government, who will have to fund it.

However, we were persuaded that under Clause 84, the retention notice may be more specific than has been suggested in the speech from the Liberal Democrat Benches. It is not necessarily every connection to every website: the provision could be targeted to particular websites, for example, which is all set out in Clause 84. We should also emphasise that these records would not be of the content of what was happening: it would be where you had made contact, not the content of the connection as such. That is an important factor which has not been mentioned in the contributions.

That said, a representative from Denmark came and explained to us why the Danes had given up on this, simply on the grounds of cost and practicality. It is the practicalities that I would like to hear about most from the Minister when he speaks, alongside of course acknowledgement of the points that have been made by others in the debate.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, which I strongly support, so I will be brief. Even I understand the need to balance civil liberties and national security, but comparing this with stopping a few cars simply does not hold water and is not a comparison that we can make—and, personally, I am totally in favour of stopping cars, so that is not an issue.

It is almost as if the Government went to the intelligence and security services and said, “What do you want? What can you imagine wanting to keep us safe?”, and they came up with a huge list. It is like asking children what they want for Christmas: they want a huge list of things and it is not always good to give them everything they want. In this instance, it is certainly not good to give the intelligence services what they want. Indeed, they do not even want some of what the Government are offering them, so the Government have actually gone one step further and offered them more, which to me is totally counterintuitive.

There is also the issue of practicality. When you have this much information coming through, it is incredibly difficult to pick out the vital points and the important things. This could be counterproductive and make us less safe as a nation than we are already. I feel very strongly about this amendment and deeply regret that there is not more support in the House.

[Lord Rosser]

The effect of this amendment, as has been said, would be to leave out internet connection records from the definition of “relevant communications data” in Clause 84, which covers powers to require the retention of certain data. The Bill has had extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and we supported it at Third Reading in the Commons subject to, among other things, amendments being made which addressed the issue of access to internet connection records not being used in relation to minor crimes. Our amendment on the definition of “other relevant crime”, which raised the threshold from six months to 12 months, has been accepted by the Government. We will be opposing an amendment that now appears to weaken the effectiveness of the provisions relating to internet connection records, at least under Part 4 of the Bill, specifically Clause 84.