Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, with his niche points. I keep finding myself in debates with lawyers. I must say, they have some very interesting anecdotes that we all listen to with great interest.

It is fair to say that I am deeply suspicious of everything that this Government bring to your Lordships’ House. All the legislation seems to me to be based on some at times quite cruel intentions. I am actually a little bit more suspicious of short Bills, especially those that come so quickly to this House. At first glance, the Bill does seem fairly simple. It restores the law to what it was less than a year ago and so is quite sensible, but the more one looks at it, the more it appears to be designed to protect the profits of hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds, banks and other backers of these litigation funding agreements, without any consideration of the impact that it will have on the claimants being funded.

One illustration of this is 555 sub-postmasters who were awarded compensation of £57 million against the Post Office for the Horizon scandal. It is reported that £46 million of that money was immediately payable to litigation funders. That seems an extraordinary amount: 80% of the damages awarded. I accept that it was a probably a very difficult case, but at the same time, the sub-postmasters were left with only £20,000 each, when their damages were estimated to be well over £100,000 each. In essence, they got 20% of the £100,000 they were really owed.

It makes you ask why any claimant would agree to put up so much of their compensation. The truth is that normal people cannot afford to take a case to court without such litigation funders. I have heard that we are stuck with this system and that legal aid is not likely to come back, but it seems that we have a particular lack. The noble Lord, Mendelsohn, put it quite well. If he was the amuse-bouche before the meal, perhaps I can be the mid-meal sorbet. Legal aid at least had the benefit of enabling everyone to get justice or to try to get justice. This system means that that is not true for everybody.

There is an inequality of arms in negotiations between a potential claimant and a litigation funder. Without robust regulation and protection for claimants, a litigation funder can reap huge profits by doing nothing other than provide funding for the claimant to take their case to court. One might say that there are dangers in that: of course there are, but this is a business and there are always dangers in business. This, to me, is a failure of successive Governments—just the current Government, which fail in so many ways, but also previous Labour and Liberal Democrat Governments, eroding legal aid and the state’s role in ensuring access to justice.

This litigation-funding business is now worth tens of billions of pounds, and it is a highly lucrative industry for those engaging in it. Legal aid and access to justice have been, essentially, privatised and turned into yet another arena for exploitation by hedge funds and financiers.

This Bill is also extremely lazy, because what the Government have done is choose between two options: do nothing or reverse the PACCAR judgment. They did not put any energy into thinking about a better solution: something that would help the majority of people, not just the few who get taken up by litigation funders. So I would say, “All right, it’s not awful, as some of the legislation is, but really it’s not very good”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who participated in this debate. I am grateful in particular to the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, from their Benches, for the broad support they are giving. But if a financial metaphor is not inappropriate in the circumstances, I do not take either of them to have issued the Government with a blank cheque as far as this legislation goes. If your Lordships are minded that a Committee of the whole House should be established to consider this Bill, as I will move, I look forward to your contributions, and those of the whole House, in giving the Bill the scrutiny it deserves.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, opened the responses and in many ways set the parameters for the interesting debate that followed, setting up the question of access to justice and stressing from a historical perspective the medical legal cases arising out of the condition known as vibration white finger. That prompted me to recollect the importance of associations such as trade unions and others in providing legal assistance for their members when entering into costly litigation relating to the safety of the workplace.

It is quite correct that funding litigation is frightening for individuals and smaller companies who are contemplating it in defence of their right. It is for that reason that the Government have put forward this Bill to address the consequences of the PACCAR ruling. Legal Members of your Lordships’ House touched on that question, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, referred to the surprising character of the judgment. Certainly, it took lots of people in the profession by surprise. It is to deal with the consequences of that decision that the Government tabled the Bill. I respectfully endorse the characterisation of the dissenting judgment by Lady Rose, which was put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, as a powerful one.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, in a characteristically thoughtful analysis of the position, set forth what is accepted across the House with one exception—that there is no real alternative to funding of this sort in the litigation landscape as we currently find it. I do not wish to depress the House by saying that legal aid is dead. On civil cases in England and Wales, legal aid can be provided as an exceptional case funding measure, for matters out of scope where the failure to provide legal services would breach or likely breach a person’s ECHR rights. Where a matter is within legal scope or could be caught by exceptional case funding, the applicant must also pass a means and merits test.

The Ministry of Justice published the Government’s response to the means test review consultation exercise on 25 May 2023. That set out the detailed policy decisions underpinning the means test arrangement. The Government assess that their changes will increase the number of people eligible for civil legal aid in England and Wales by 2.5 million. Therefore, although there are concerns from Members across the House—particularly the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, Lord Meston and Lord Carlile of Berriew, and my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, and while legal aid will remain an important feature of how access to justice is delivered, it is the view of the Government and I think of the debate overall that we must take steps to address the necessity of third-party funding to permit access to justice for the sorts of persons, organisations and corporations which I have described.

The very interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, anticipated me in referring to the decision of the American judge who said that the alternative to class actions funded by funders of this sort was not 17 million individual actions but no actions at all because, as the noble Lord quoted, and as I am happy to repeat, only a lunatic or a fanatic would litigate over $30. The noble Lord also, along with my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot, put before the House a quote from “The Italian Job”. I wonder whether that is the first occasion when that particular work has been referred to in your Lordships’ counsels.

Both noble Lords—and my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot spoke with the immense moral authority that he carries with him as a result of his selfless and tireless work on behalf of the sub-postmasters—made important points about access to funding for litigation. As I quoted in opening the debate, the eponymous Mr Bates has referred to the importance of third-party litigation funding in enabling the process by which justice is arrived at to commence.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, referred to the manner in which, as all of us common lawyers know, definitions or concepts of enormous importance across the whole mighty edifice of the common law world can emerge from the least important-sounding or most apparently trivial causes, whether it be snails emerging from bottles of ginger beer in cafés in Paisley or other areas in which matters of huge import for the civil common law have arisen from small-scale disputes between parties.

All the noble Lords were united in their concern about the sums ultimately received by litigants and the potential sums realised by litigation funders. The best vehicle for discussion of this point will be the review by the Civil Justice Council to which reference has been made, but it is a problem of which the Government are acutely conscious.

I am grateful too for the contribution to the debate made by my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and for his informed engagement with me at an earlier stage, to which he was good enough to refer your Lordships—an earlier stage before I rose to address the House this afternoon. I am grateful to him for his analysis of the concept of retrospection in legislation, as I am for his endorsement of the constitutional position in relation to Parliament being responsible for making law.

My noble friend Lord Sandhurst referred to the importance of maintaining a situation where defenders are not unduly harassed by litigations funded by third-party funders, and he was quite correct to make that point. I am sure that this is something that the review being carried out under the chairmanship of the Master of the Rolls will consider.

A number of specialist points were made during the debate. In relation to a series of questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I look forward to engaging with the points that he made. In the first instance, I will write to him in relation to those specific points with which he concluded his submission, and I would like to do so against the basis of an understanding of the terms of reference of the forthcoming review. In relation to him and to the point echoed from the Opposition Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, as your Lordships heard from me in opening, an interim report is expected in the summer; the terms of reference under which that report will be carried out will be published in due course.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, expressed herself as suspicious of everything that comes out of the Government. I have to echo that by saying I am suspicious of everything that comes out of the Green Party. After all, I have to live in Scotland where we see the effects of government by the Green Party, and they are absurd where not actively malign.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I am sorry for intervening. It is a separate Green Party. It actually disaffiliated itself because of me, and I feel strongly about it.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

As always, the noble Baroness has fulfilled a valuable public service.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Meston, on the scope of the Bill, the view of the Public Bill Office confirms that this is a one-purpose Bill. Its scope is closely connected to the enforceability of litigation funding agreements and the Public Bill Office does not think that amendments relating to the wider category of damages-based agreements would be in scope, nor would more general issues relating to litigation funding. Again, I would be happy to revert to the noble Lord with further details on those points, as I learn them.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, along with my noble friend Lord Sandhurst and the noble Lord, Lord Trevethin and Oaksey, also posed a question on the revision of the current DBA regulations. The Government will consider the timetable to make improvements to the DBA regulations without encouraging unnecessary litigation. Any revisions to the current regulations will be subject to a statutory consultation, which is set out in Section 58AA of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990, and to an affirmative resolution, which is set out in Section 120 of the 1990 Act.

I apologise to any noble Lords whose valuable contributions to this interesting debate I may have overlooked. To sum up, I gauge the mood of your Lordships’ House as one of concern that access to the courts, the reputation of which the House is jealous of and grateful for, should not be artificially constrained. I also recognise noble Lords’ concerns that access to justice on behalf of a less well-funded party or individual should not come at the expense of excessive profits for those responsible for funding. In my own jurisdiction of Scotland, it is a matter of daily encouragement and inspiration to enter Parliament Hall in Edinburgh and pass the portrait of a notable lawyer, of whom it was said after his death that, while he lived, no poor man in Scotland wanted for a good lawyer. It is the aspiration of the whole House that that should apply today as much as it did in previous centuries. I hope that, ultimately, the Bill passes and that the House, as a whole, accepts that it is done with the intention of furthering that aspiration.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 6th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I would like to ask the Minister one question in the context of the provisions in Clause 4. Is it or is it not the Government’s policy that they will look at each individual case, regardless of any other evidence, even if it is only to decide that there are no merits in that particular person’s case?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak only once today, as I did on Monday. The Greens will vote for all the amendments that are called. Some Members of your Lordships’ House quoted the book Nineteen Eighty-Four on Monday, and I have a favourite quote as well:

“Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four”.


It is the freedom to speak truth, even when the ruling party is declaring otherwise.

That is what we are debating today. We are debating whether this authoritarian Government can declare that the objective truth of facts decided by the courts can be overruled. If we allow it, it is another big step towards a dictatorship—intentional or not. I know that the majority of people in your Lordships’ House know that the Government are wrong. I also know that many still cling to the belief that the House of Lords should not vote to stop the Government passing the most draconian of laws.

What are we going to do once we have voted on our amendments, and tried to do our job of improving the Bill, when the Government then ignore us? Will we do nothing again? We did nothing last year when a Minister overruled a vote in this House and gave the police draconian powers via a ministerial decree. It was the first time a Minister had ever used a statutory instrument to overturn a vote in this House, but the Labour Party failed to back my fatal amendment. I look forward to being told that that piece of legislation is going to be repealed as well.

We are paid more than £300 per day to come here and talk and vote, but what is the point of all our hard work if the Government ignore us? Either your Lordships’ House starts to act in defence of our liberal democracy and against the extremists at the heart of government, or we abolish this place and create an elected second Chamber with some backbone. I look forward to more defeats for the Government in these votes.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I support this amendment because it encapsulates the principle introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and me in amendments on Monday, which we subsequently withdrew and did not move. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti referred to an article by Joanna Cherry in the Times. I want to quote from it, because on Monday we on this side of the House were assured by others on the opposite side that everything was well and rosy and good in the garden of Rwanda in relation to minorities, particularly LGBT minorities:

“Last week I led a delegation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. The committee will report on our visit … but in my personal opinion the UK government’s insistence that Rwanda is now a safe country for asylum seekers is a legal fiction … On LGBT rights, I think Rwanda is where Britain was 50 years ago … According to NGOs we met, LGBT people face stigmatisation and discrimination in what is quite a conservative society”.


That chimes absolutely with the evidence I presented to the House from NGO LGBT activists in Rwanda.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 12th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, said, and I strongly agree with it. I will focus on two things in relation to what the Government are asking us to do. Before that, I apologise for not having been here at Second Reading—I, too, was abroad. I declare an interest as a member of the Constitution Committee of this House, which published a report unanimously expressing very considerable concerns about the Bill.

I have two concerns about the Bill. As a nation, we have accepted for the last 70 years that we will not deport asylum seekers to a place where they may face death, torture or inhuman treatment, and that, if asylum seekers feel that that is a risk, they can seek protection from the courts. The courts may well give an applicant short shrift if they do not think there is anything in it, but we have stood by that protection for 70 years and incorporated it into our domestic law in the Human Rights Act 1998. The Bill envisages the possibility—or indeed it being the more-likely-than-not result, according to those who have looked at it independently—that people will be sent to Rwanda, where they will be at substantial risk of being refouled, which means sent back to a place where they could be tortured or killed.

The claim made by the Government is that we have entered into an agreement with Rwanda that says it will not send anybody who comes from here to anywhere except the UK, to which the answer is that given by the international treaties committee: that the reason there was a risk of refoulement was that Rwanda did not even have the most basic system of properly assessing asylum claims. The idea that the Bill envisages—that the moment the new treaty comes into force, it will provide that protection—is absolute nonsense. Everybody appreciates that except, as far as I can see, the right honourable Mr James Cleverly, the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. If we look at the conclusions that the Supreme Court introduced, we see that, factually, it is just a non-starter.

The Government say, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will confirm it on their behalf, that they stand by the commitment we have made for the last 70 years that asylum seekers will not be exported to a place where they might be refouled. If that is their true position, how on earth can they allow this? The international treaties committee also said that, quite separately from the fact that we would need to reform completely Rwanda’s asylum system, we would have to enter into a number of other detailed provisions before it could be seen whether the provision in the new agreement prevented refoulement. Those agreements have not yet been entered into with Rwanda, and there is no requirement for them to be so before the Bill becomes law.

My first big objection to the Bill is that it goes against commitments we have made as a nation and stood by for the past 70 years. If we are looking for solutions to the problems of immigration in the world, turning our backs on all the international agreements that we have made seems a very bad start indeed.

My second big objection to the Bill is that it fundamentally crosses over the separation of powers. The noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, whom I greatly admire—he was a member of our Constitution Committee—said, “Oh, don’t worry. We’re just taking the opinion of the former Lord Chief Justice, who is the dissenting voice in the Court of Appeal”. No, that is not what the Government say they are doing. They are saying, “We’ve taken account of the Supreme Court judgment. We respect that judgment. We’re not going with the former Lord Chief Justice’s judgment; we’re dealing with the points that have been made—and, by the way, dealing with them while not letting anybody question us about that”. That is absolutely not the role of this House or the courts.

What this Bill leads to is Parliament delivering what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, described as silly, but is so much more profound than silly. I quite agree with him that the beginning of the Bill is very silly in the way that it reads—it is a cack-handed attempt to deliver a judgment, like a court would read—but it is not silly; it is dangerous.

Think of three examples. First, Parliament can say, “Even though we see Rwanda refouling people we are sending, and it is sending Afghans, Syrians and Iraqis back to death or torture, we will do nothing”. We will say that that is okay because we made our judgment that it was a safe country.

That is one example. Let us take another. Suppose the Prime Minister has a friend or a crony in the House of Commons who is convicted in a court of corruption of some sort. The Prime Minister then presents a Bill to Parliament, saying, “It is the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP actually wasn’t able to present this new evidence to the criminal court that convicted him, so it is the judgment of Parliament that Snooks MP is innocent”. That is the route this Bill takes Parliament down.

Take a third example: the Electoral Commission decides that it will not investigate some problem of, say, not complying with expenses and the courts then say, in relation to that decision, “The Electoral Commission was overinfluenced by party-political considerations”—for example, the governing party was very unkeen for there to be a proper investigation of some expenses fraud in an election, and on judicial review the Electoral Commission’s refusal to investigate was set aside on the basis there was no basis not to investigate. Once again, relying on this precedent, the Government of the day, assuming they have a big majority, can produce a Bill that says, “It is the judgment of Parliament that the courts have got that opinion wrong”—as the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, introducing a whole new concept in the law, said is the position.

That is the danger of this Bill. I am not sure that I support all my noble friend Baroness Chakrabarti’s solutions—in particular, I am not sure the reference to the United Nations commissioner on refugees is the right source—but, my goodness, if we start letting Parliament make such judgments, we open a door that will be incredibly difficult to close. We in this House surely should not give effect to it.

I have one final point. The noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, “Don’t worry, it’s all Clause 4”. It is not. Clause 4 allows appeals to be made only by people who say something different from “the country is not safe generally”; it is only if there is something specific about them. If, for example, I am a voluble member of the Rwandan opposition and I am then sent to Rwanda, where I may get tortured or killed, then I have a ground, but if I am from Syria or Afghanistan and Rwanda is refouling regularly, I have no basis for appealing.

My first point is that we should stand by our commitments to asylum seekers. My second is: do not listen to this siren song that this is not a fundamental change in our constitution. It is, and it will be the foundation of very bad things to come.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was at Second Reading. I do not know if that makes me less interesting to listen to than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and all the rest. I have heard some of these remarks before, of course, but it is always a pleasure to hear them again, if I agree with them. I will say something quite similar to what noble Lords have just heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. I will obviously say it less competently, because I do not have legal training, but what I do have is common sense. I am not suggesting that they are mutually exclusive, but they are two completely different things.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this debate, and in particular to the noble Lord, Lord German, for opening. I acknowledge the spirit across the Committee of approaching this matter by looking to see what can be amended and not setting out to wreck the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said on the first group.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would like to wreck the Bill—just so the Minister knows.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

I accept that and I did hear the noble Baroness make that point from the Benches opposite.

Since summer 2022, when judicial review proceedings in relation to the migration and economic development partnership began, the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda have worked to refine and improve that partnership. This has strengthened not only the operational readiness of Rwanda to receive and support migrants relocated under the partnership but the legal footing of the agreement and the commitments both sides undertake to ensure that national and international obligations and standards are met, having scrutinised closely and carefully all the circumstances of the country and information from appropriate sources.

Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees in the region. It has also been recognised internationally for its general safety and stability, strong government, low corruption and gender equality. I quote from what the Kigali-based comprehensive refugee response officer, Nayana Bose, of the UNHCR said in December 2021—mark the date:

“Rwanda has done an excellent job integrating refugees in the national education system, including urban refugees in the national community-based health insurance plan, providing them with national ID cards and offering them livelihood opportunities”.


As the Committee is aware, the Bill is underpinned by the treaty, Article 10 of which in particular sets out the assurances for the treatment of relocated individuals in Rwanda, including abiding by the refugee convention in relation to those seeking asylum. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 3 of the treaty, the parties agree that the obligations therein

“shall be met in respect of all Relocated Individuals, regardless of their nationality, and without discrimination”.

Under this commitment, Rwanda will treat all groups of people fairly. We have assurances from the Government of Rwanda that the implementation of measures within the treaty will be expedited. The treaty will follow the usual process with regard to scrutiny and ratification. I note that amendments tabled by noble Lords on this topic will be debated in the group to follow.

Amendment 17 would also oblige the Secretary of State to consider Rwanda safe only if it was deemed so for every descriptor of person as set out in Section 7(3) of the Illegal Migration Act. In relocating individuals to Rwanda, decision-makers will make a case-by-case decision about whether there is compelling evidence that the particular circumstances of each case would mean an individual would be at risk of serious and irreversible harm were they to be relocated to Rwanda. This means that each person’s circumstances are considered before relocation. We therefore consider the amendment unnecessary.

Amendments 24 and 27 relate to the roles of courts and tribunals. It is important that we recognise that these are considered decision-makers in relation to relocating individuals to Rwanda, and they may have a say in it.

Amendment 27 in particular would place an obligation on courts and tribunals to consider any claim that Rwanda may breach its international obligations by removing an individual to a country that was unsafe for them; that an individual may not receive fair and proper consideration of their asylum claim; and that Rwanda will not act in accordance with the terms of the treaty. This obligation is unnecessary. Rwanda is as committed to this partnership as we are. We have worked closely together to build this partnership and have trust that the commitments in the treaty will be upheld. That is why we have introduced the Bill, which reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments given in the treaty, allowing Parliament to confirm the status of the Republic of Rwanda as a safe third country.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton—I speak to his later contribution, rather than when he was assisting the noble Lord, Lord German, with legal analysis—posed the question of whether judicial review might be applicable. My noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne took up that point as well. On that aspect, I refer noble Lords to the terms of Article 22 of the treaty, which provides:

“In the event of a dispute arising out of or relating to this Agreement, including any question regarding its existence, validity, termination, interpretation or implementation, the Parties shall refer the dispute to the Joint Committee which shall meet within 14 … Working Days to discuss and seek resolution to the dispute by consultation”.


Therefore, the process by which matters will be addressed, if there is some shock to the operation of the system once it is operational, is set out in the terms of the treaty and operates on the level between the two countries.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, each and every amendment proposed to this Bill shows the sheer nonsense of it. We are being forced by this Government to deny reality. We are being forced to create an enduring piece of legislation that states the proposition that Rwanda is “conclusively” safe, which cannot be rebutted even by conclusive proof to the contrary. This is Alice in Wonderland; it is complete and utter nonsense.

I have signed Amendments 6, 20 and 26 in the name of the learned Lord—I am sorry, it is very late—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I have tucked myself under his coat-tails because they are incredibly sensible amendments. They at least require the Rwanda treaty to be given effect and to remain fully implemented for the Act to have effect.

However, even with that, I am not sure that we can legislate that Rwanda is conclusively safe, so my Amendment 93 would go further. It would require the whole Act to be scrapped on the day that the Secretary of State is presented with evidence that Rwanda is not conclusively a safe country. Noble Lords might call this a wrecking amendment; I would call it a huge dollop of sanity in the mad world of this Bill. Surely the Minister and all other noble Lords should support this. Why would anyone want a piece of legislation to exist on the statute book with a key provision that

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”,


if Rwanda is not conclusively safe? Rwanda is either conclusively safe or it is not. If it is conclusively safe, why do we need legislation to force decision-makers to treat it as such? If it is not conclusively safe, why would we force decision-makers to treat it as though it is? This clause is either pointless or plainly false. I struggle to see how this Bill was ever written. Did lawyers really write this Bill? I cannot believe that anyone is going to defend it when it is so patently stupid.

[Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise just to say that I entirely agree with those who have said that we should look carefully at the direction of travel suggested by the amendments from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and encourage the Government to do the same.

It seems to me that the Government have got themselves into a pretty strange position. In proceeding with what they want to do, they have given themselves a binary choice: either legislate a fundamental untruth or find a way of establishing a system that will bring about and give confidence on the safety of Rwanda. If they do not want to do the former—and they should not—they must investigate ways of doing the latter.

Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 28th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, we were given an admirable example by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in her brevity at the beginning. I have to apologise to the House that, because I am looking after a sick wife, I will not be here as late as I would like to be. But this is a fundamental amendment in the Bill, and to violate international law is to invalidate national law. We should all bear that in mind. We often talk of China and the violation of the agreement that we made when Hong Kong was handed over. How can we continue to do that with sincerity and determination if we pass laws in this place that violate international law?

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we have heard several times in the course of debates on the Bill that this is the will of the British people. I can assure the noble Lord sitting opposite that, if he steps outside the right-wing media, he will see that it is not. They have already been quite shocked by the egregious and often law-breaking behaviour of this Government, so now the only decent thing this Government can do is accept Amendment 5 and say that they will not break more laws. This is a reasonable request from, apparently, the whole House. I urge the Government to accept this amendment.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

My Lords, at an earlier stage in our debates I asked all the lawyers present why our judiciary and officials, in interpreting these international agreements, give 75% of applicants for asylum the right to asylum on first application. It is only 25% in France and in almost all other countries it is below ours. If we are interpreting these laws correctly, other countries must be interpreting them incorrectly. We are told that we will lose all credibility if we do things incorrectly. Why do these other countries not lose all credibility? Why has none of the lawyers answered these questions before or now?

Covid-19 Lockdown: Fixed Penalty Notices

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the circumstances on which the noble Baroness founds her question seem an inevitable consequence of the independence of police forces, to which I made reference earlier. The Home Office worked closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council on the Government’s enforcement approach to the health crisis, with engagement at both ministerial and official level. Police forces were guided by instruction and advice from the College of Policing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I have so many questions. The Minister talked about appropriate penalties, but there were people who escaped appropriate penalties—for example, at No. 10. Is there going to be any retrospective view of this? The Government gave out some very confusing messages, which may partially explain the difference in police force enforcement.

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, I repeat my previous answer: it is the foundation of policing in England and Wales that individual forces are independent of central government and not accountable to central government for decisions they take. On the specific matter to which the noble Baroness refers, in relation to events down the street in Whitehall, I think that that has been investigated thoroughly by the Metropolitan Police.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am grateful to my colleagues on that committee who have spoken. The committee looked very hard at this issue, and we came up with very clear recommendations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for having set the scene for this debate.

I want to be brief but will repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Coaker. Why are the Government doing this? On some aspects of the Bill with which I am in profound disagreement, at least I understand why the Government, in their own way, want to do what they are doing—it might be quite wrong, but I understand it. In this case, I do not even know what the case is for the Government to do this. Are they trying it on so that they can withdraw the provision and seem to be meeting the wishes of the House? There is no justification at all.

Most Members of this House will be aware that people who have been in slavery, trafficked or traumatised by sexual exploitation, often find it very difficult to talk about their ordeal. They often want to keep quiet, because the experience has been so horrifying for them that they cannot put their own case to officialdom here. I have seen this over the years when I have met people. In fairness, some of them want to talk a great deal to get their experience out of their system, but many others do not. It is a natural human reaction; one does not want to talk about one’s awful experiences; one wants almost to shut them out. Then one finds there is a need to reveal information.

I was talking to some NGOs which were working with people who had crossed the Sahara. They said that the majority of women who fled for safety across the Sahara had been raped on the journey. Many of them do not want to talk about that. It is not within their tradition and culture to talk about it, yet here we are demanding that they should.

I find it very depressing that we have to debate this at all. I urge the Minister to say that the Government will think again. That is the only way out, otherwise, when we get to Report, it will not be a nice day for the Government, because we are bound by the comments we are making today, and by having a sense of integrity in putting forward the case for people who have been in slavery or traumatised to have a reasonable chance of being dealt with. The Government should not be trying to find ways to keep them out. I ask them to think again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments; I have signed only one, simply because I am not terribly well organised. I agree with the comments about Theresa May, whom I admired for many things, including the fact that she gave me a colleague in this House; it was six long, lonely years without my noble friend Lady Bennett.

An Urgent Question was left off the Order Paper today. It was put in the other place by the honourable Member for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, who is the Green Party MP. Either me or my noble friend Lady Bennett would have liked to have contributed to that debate. I should like an explanation from the Government as to why it was left off the Order Paper. I am a great believer in cock-up rather than conspiracy, but I would like an explanation at some point and have chosen to put it into Hansard for that reason.

I return to this “shaming” part of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described it. Every time I think we have got to the worst part, I turn a page and it is even worse. The combined resources of this House will make this a difficult section for the Government to push through.

Noble Lords have spoken from a depth of understanding and experience that I probably do not have. Evidence is evidence wherever it is uncovered, and delays in producing evidence might be considered when weighing up the quality and value of such evidence. Essentially, the Government are making this an absolute requirement, which is unfair and unjust.

We are talking about the incredibly distressing circumstances of many of these people. We have already had examples. They are victims of slavery. They have possibly been groomed, tricked or kidnapped and brought to the UK. Instead of helping them or demonstrating even an ounce of compassion, this Government are treating them all as if they have done something wrong. I urge the Government to rethink this. I would hate to see another 14 votes go against the Government in one evening but, on the other hand, that was great fun and we could probably do it again.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly, because I was not intending to speak. I want first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on the way he introduced these amendments. I support the amendments and particularly what has been said in relation to victims of modern slavery.

I think I can rely on history to reinforce this, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to listen carefully. History shows us that when each of us experiences appalling discrimination and persecution, that pain and that shame are buried for decades. To revisit that sometimes takes us to an area that we never want to be in again. Therefore, with that thought, I urge the Government to think again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Of course we have considered the statutory guidance, not least because it comes from the Home Department and was issued this month. With great respect, we do think they are compatible. We do not see any contradiction between the aims of the statutory guidance under the 2015 Act and what we are proposing here. As to who will be served with a notice, individuals who will be served with a slavery and trafficking information notice are those who have previously made a human rights or protection claim in respect of removal or refusal of entry. They are therefore potentially subject to removal action.

The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, asked: why are we doing this? I think that was then refined to: why are we doing this now? That is pretty simple to state. As I have said, we want to identify genuine victims of modern slavery or trafficking within this group as quickly as possible so that they receive both protection from removal and access to the support given during the recovery period.

This may not be the best form of providing statistics, but the number of those detained in the UK following immigration offences in 2020 was obviously affected by the pandemic. However, even prior to this there was a clear rise in the number of referrals to the national referral mechanism, from 3%—501—in 2017 to 16%—1,767—in 2019. In 2019, only a small proportion, about 1%, of individuals detained in the UK following an immigration offence who made a national referral mechanism referral were returned. We published a report last year providing data on some of the concerns we are seeking to address through the Bill and outlining pressures in the system and where referrals of modern slavery are coming from. The reports are available on the government website but, to make it simpler, I will write to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, with a copy available, with the URL so they can find the relevant material.

I suggest it is right that we reduce the opportunities to misuse the system for immigration purposes and improve the efficiency of the processes, targeting resources where they are most needed to help victims recover from exploitation and rebuild their lives. We want to address concerns that some referrals are being made intentionally late in the process, to frustrate immigration action and divert resources away from legitimate claimants. It is not right that foreign criminals subject to deportation and those who have absolutely no right to remain in the UK can seek to delay their removal by waiting until the very last minute before raising new claims or putting in endless evidence or information relating to their status in the UK. So what Clauses 57 and 58 seek to do is on the one hand ensure that vulnerable victims receive appropriate and timely support, and on the other hand enable investigative and enforcement activities to take place with reasonable dispatch.

I should point out—this did not feature too much in the debate—that Clauses 57 and 58 are underpinned by access to legal advice, under Clauses 65 and 66, to help individuals understand whether they are a potential victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and to support a referral into the national referral mechanism if that is the case. As I have said before, a constant theme, particularly in modern slavery measures within the Bill, is that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, taking a needs-based approach. Therefore, turning to Amendments 151D, 152 and 155, it would be wrong in principle to create a carve-out for any one group of individuals, and to create a two-tiered system based either on age or the type of exploitation claimed. I am sure that this is not the intention of those moving the amendments, but, in the real world, which at some point we must think about, it could incentivise individuals to provide falsified information regarding their age or to put forward falsified referrals regarding timings or type of exploitation to delay removal action.

It was interesting, in the course of what was, with respect, a very forceful speech supporting his amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to 12 or 13 year-olds and not, for example, to a 17 and a half year-old. When it comes to children, if we define children as all under-18s, the approach that we want to take is to ensure that decision-makers have the flexibility to approach the claims of all children of different ages and maturities appropriately, and therefore I suggest that a blanket approach is inappropriate.

By introducing a statutory requirement to provide information before a specified date—we are not talking about neat files here—we hope to identify those victims at the earliest opportunity. Clauses 57 and 58 have safeguards built in, and I assure in particular the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that, when considering the “reasonable grounds” decision, the decision-makers in the SCA are already well experienced in taking into account the specific vulnerabilities of children. I also point out to the Committee something that the noble and learned Baroness will know but other noble Lords may have forgotten: namely, that at the “reasonable grounds” stage the threshold is lower for children due to there being no requirement to show means of exploitation. That position will not change.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I have been biting my tongue, but the Minister talked about the real world, and I do not think that this Government have any concept of what exists in the real world. The Minister has heard examples from the real world, given by noble Lords who understand what is going on. It is not appropriate for the Minister to talk about the real world when he is denying the stories that he has heard today.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am not denying any stories. I set out statistics earlier on which were absolutely from the real world, and that is the issue that we are dealing with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I reply to his points in reverse order. On the second, of course I appreciate that it is a non-exhaustive list. The point I was making is that even a non-exhaustive list is more prescriptive, when it comes to court, than absolute discretion. When you are arguing a case, even if the statute says A, B, C, D, E on a non-exhaustive basis, you are in greater trouble coming along with F, than if the discretion is free-standing. That is the point I was seeking to make.

Of course, my colleagues in the Home Office engage carefully with the commissioner and other entities in the voluntary sector. Ultimately, it is for the Government to decide what legislation to bring before the House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I want to deal with Urgent Questions again, because the Minister answered a different question from mine. I asked why it was advertised so late. He may not know this, but the Greens are excluded from the usual channels, so we would have no way of knowing.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

At this point, all I can do is pass that on, and I will.

Oil and Gas: Subsidies and Licensing

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2022 Grand Committee

Asked by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they have taken to ensure that (1) subsidies, and (2) licensing decisions, related to the oil and gas industry are not subject to undue influence from outside interests.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

First, I apologise for speaking seated; it is because I sprained my knee. Secondly, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Offord, to his first outing as a Minister, and I look forward very much to his maiden speech later.

Between July 2019 and March last year, government Ministers had 63 meetings with fossil fuel and biomass producers. That is nine times the number of meetings they had with renewable energy companies. That strikes me as slightly odd: a Government who chaired COP 26 and are meant to be switching to renewables very fast are meeting fossil fuel and biomass companies nine times more than the companies they are meant to be relying on to deliver the sustainable future they promise.

As well as the small private meetings, Ministers also attended hundreds of other larger group meetings with fossil fuel companies and their representatives. Fossil fuel producers were present at 309 of these, compared with 60 for renewable energy generators. Again, I do not understand why Ministers are focusing on a polluting industry that we need to shut down rather than renewables—with all the new job opportunities —which we need to grow very rapidly. But there is a clue, because the Conservative Party under Boris Johnson has taken almost £1.5 million in donations from the energy industry since 2019.

I mention this slightly disturbing fact because my intention in this debate is to draw attention to the fact that we live in a corrupt country run by autocratic Ministers who facilitate their friends pocketing large amounts of public money either directly, via government contracts, or indirectly, through putting holes in the regulatory system. We have seen this recently with the fast-track scheme for PPE contracts, the second-jobs scandal involving MPs, and all sorts of lobbying, such as David Cameron on behalf of Greensill. Money buys access, and access gives you everything from subsidies to licences.

The point I am making is that corruption has real-world impacts on government policy and the lives of ordinary people. If you are in the development industry, it might give you changes to planning red tape. If you are in the energy business, it might buy you another decade of profitable polluting while the planet burns.

We have a Government who are keen to support a polluting industry that is equally keen to support the Government. That might be excused if the oil and gas industry was filling the coffers of the Treasury as well as the Conservative Party, but surprisingly that is not always the case. In a recent court case brought by some climate campaigners, the judge acknowledged that in some years oil and gas companies had paid less in taxes than they received in tax breaks. The judge wrote:

“The claimants point to clear evidence of negative taxation flows in particular years; specifically negative tax flows overall in 2015-16 and 2016-17 of £2 million and £359 million respectively.”


The judge quite rightly said that focusing on single years ignored the fact that

“the tax position over the life of the concession is at worst neutral”.

We know that the UK is one of the most profitable countries for the oil and gas industry in the world, but we cannot even be sure that it pays its own way in tax.

The Government will claim that there is no subsidy for oil and gas, as they define fossil fuel subsidies as

“measures that reduce the effective price of fossil fuels below world market prices.”

In other words, the Government are giving the industry millions of pounds in tax breaks, but this is not a subsidy because it does not result in lower prices for consumers—well, that is obviously absolutely brilliant. But if the Government do not like “subsidy”, we could just call it “fossil fuel support”. Our Government do not deny the tax breaks; they just make it clear that this does not lower prices—it just enables the companies to make more profit. In fact, it is so profitable that those making money out of this polluting industry have enough spare cash to give it to the Conservative Party. That is obviously something we need to be concerned about.

Of course, if a previous Prime Minister, Cameron, had not cut what he called the “green crap”, our energy bills would be £40 lower each. Imagine how much lower they would be if he had been serious about insulating homes and expanding cheap renewable electricity, reducing our current reliance on foreign gas.

I will not go into all the details of the donations made by the industry, directly and indirectly, as we would need far longer than the hour that we have just to list them. Our self-regulatory system of government does not stop people buying influence. Civil servants are not around to take notes when a Minister attends a party fundraiser where oil executives have paid £12,000 for a seat at the table. Civil servants cannot know what conversations go on when an MP gets a huge donation to the private office a few months before they are appointed as a Minister in charge of projects that the donor wants to push through. It has happened in the past few years and, to be fair, the Minister I am thinking about stepped aside from a major decision—but only after the media contacted them.

The National Audit Office cannot even get access to Ministers’ WhatsApp conversations with party donors about favoured projects, unless the Minister self-declares that they regard the messages as relevant. Even when Ministers have been taken to court to get those messages, suddenly the phone is broken or lost—or they do a Boris, who claimed that messages were lost when he changed his phone number. It is not very nice, is it, quite honestly? It is shameful.

Last year, we chaired COP 26, but the Government are now dishing out a large number of licences for North Sea exploration. I really do not see how that can be compatible with reducing our greenhouse gas emissions. Generic conditions have to be met, but only on new submissions; as I understand it, projects already in the pipeline get a licence without reference to climate change. How is that possible?

Individuals and companies linked to the oil and gas industries have donated more than £400,000 to the Conservative Party in the past year, while the Government mulled over these new licences. There might be parliamentary rules that stop Peers like me from asking Written Questions about the influence that such donations have on the Ministers making the decisions—which I have tried to do, but was stopped—but it is clear and obvious that the influences is there.

We have an acknowledgement that corruption is rife, the negative impacts on our environment are clear, and I really want to hear from the Minister today how we are going to junk the broken system of self-regulation in favour of a more robust legal system that involves either the police or an end to large-scale donations. The days of having a Ministerial Code enforced by someone appointed by the Prime Minister really should be gone. It does not work when Ministers do not play by the rules.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

I have not looked at the profitability per barrel and the tax paid per barrel, but I used to do that every day 40 years ago. I assume that it is because our fields are now running down, whereas the Norwegian fields are still far from fully mature. As far as I know, Norway’s tax regime is not hugely different from our own; it was not then. On the question of whether we have to restrict supply as well as restricting demand, no, we do not. If you reduce demand and anyone has supply available and no market for it, they lose money—that is their problem—but if you reduce supply without reducing demand, you raise prices, increase profits to the industry and increase costs to ordinary households.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him how he thinks demand could be reduced?

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

You could do all sorts of things to reduce demand for oil and gas—requiring people to spend thousands of pounds on shifting from gas to electric heat pumps, that sort of thing. The noble Baroness knows the answer to her own question.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Except—

[Baroness Worthington (CB)]

My Lords—

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

As for Amendments 290 and 291, if the data suggested is not being collected already, then the Ministry of Justice is in dereliction of its duty. Equally, I would agree that the investigation of rape and rape complaints and the admissibility of cross-examination of complainants on their sexual history should be the subject of training, but I would be surprised to find that such training does not already take place.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I support these improved safeguards because although I have not been in court very often, and when I have been there, it has been mostly as the complainant or a witness, I do think that we need better support for victims—or the plaintiff—who at the moment are treated very much as bit players in the whole theatre. It seems that they are almost forgettable because the two protagonists are the defence and the prosecution, and they take centre stage. It was obvious when we debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, when we discussed anonymity and other techniques for helping witnesses give evidence in court, so clearly that is needed.

The witness is often treated as a sort of emotionless void, with the legal test focusing on whether the proposed measures will improve their ability to give evidence, rather than, say, protect them from the trauma, embarrassment and hurt of facing up against the accused. This is no more apparent than in the way we treat victims of sexual violence and rape. The Section 41 rules were a major step forward but still fall far short of what is necessary, and so the amendments in this group would help recognise victims as humans and not just incidental characters in the whole story. Most importantly, they would allow the complainant to have their own independent legal representation in Section 41 applications, rather than relying on prosecution counsel, who, in their role as administrators of justice, have many competing obligations to juggle.

I hope that the Minister will agree that there are still many unsolved challenges in the treatment of complainants, and they are in desperate need of solutions.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I should have opened those other amendments, and it is an error on my part that I did not. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, because he has done a bit of the work that I should have done.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

I am afraid I did understand what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. It is exactly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has put it. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, is right in the way that he analysed this amendment: it would exclude that evidence. I understand that that is the consequence, and I am saying it is a good thing.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

From a woman’s point of view, I would just like to say that there are things I would have done at 20 that I absolutely would not do now, at 70. We can all learn and adapt our behaviour, so the past may not be relevant.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

As a woman, I say that the past might not be relevant but the truth might be, if you have just said, “I would never have done this” or “I have never done this”. I do not understand why the purpose of this amendment is to send a message; the point of the law is not just to send a message. Of course, we want women to get a fair shot at seeing people they are accusing of rape found guilty, but I do not want the state to be in a position where it can find people guilty based on the fact that you cannot probe the truth of what has been said. That is condescending to women, by the way. Women do not need to be so protected; they need people to do their jobs. But we do not need to alter the law to hide the truth in order to give women a fair shot.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

278: After Clause 170, insert the following new Clause—
“Referendums on abolition of Police and Crime Commissioners
(1) A referendum is to be held for each police area listed in Schedule 1 to the Police Act 1996. (2) Each referendum is to be held on the same day as the next Police and Crime Commissioner election.(3) The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—“Do you think that your local police force should be overseen by an individual Police and Crime Commissioner, or by a Police Authority made up of a committee of local councillors.”(4) The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—“My police force should be overseen by an individual Police and Crime Commissioner”, and“My police force should be overseen by a Police Authority made up of a committee of local councillors”(5) Those entitled to vote in the referendum are the persons who, on the date of the referendum, are allowed to vote as electors in the Police and Crime Commissioner election.(6) Where the referendum results in a majority for a police area being overseen by a Police Authority made up of a committee of local councillors, the Secretary of State must by regulations made by statutory instrument make provision for the purposes of implementing the result within one year of the passing of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is intended to establish referendums to determine how each local police force should be governed.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

The two amendments I have tabled in this group are not on such a weighty issue as the sexual crimes we have been discussing. But they are on an issue of democracy, and I thank the Government on this occasion for making the Bill so gigantic that these two amendments come within scope. There are two distinct issues in my amendments. Amendment 278 focuses on the abolition of police and crime commissioners, and Amendment 279 is about abolishing the £5,000 deposit needed to stand as a candidate in police and crime commissioner elections.

Under the referendum idea, each police area would have its own referendum held on the same day as the next police and crime commissioner election. The question would be whether to keep police and crime commissioners or return to police authorities made up of a committee of local councillors. Importantly, for a referendum, my amendment also includes provision that the Secretary of State must then implement the result by statutory instrument, because this is intended to be a binding referendum, not an advisory one with no legal consequence.

The Green Party does not believe that police and crime commissioners have been a success. They have replaced a democratic, committee-based system with a directly elected position subject to very little scrutiny. Most normal people do not pay much attention to politics, and that is true across the board, but when you get as far down the pecking order as police and crime commissioners, even many political boffins probably could not name their local PCC. It was an unnecessary political experiment, and local people should be given the option to return to the old system of committee governance.

We have one former Met commissioner here, and he might be able to agree with me that the Metropolitan Police Authority and the assembly committee charged with holding the police to account worked extremely well. I am not suggesting something that has not been proved to work in the past.

Amendment 279 is about deposits and is limited to PCC elections due to the scope of the Bill, but election deposits should be abolished completely for all elections. Supposedly, they exist to deter joke candidates, allowing only serious candidates to stand for election, but it is obvious that this does not work. There are plenty of joke candidates who are not deterred by the deposit. One only has to think back to the Prime Minister’s election battle against Lord Buckethead, Count Binface, and a person dressed as Elmo. All three lost their deposits and seemed thoroughly to enjoy doing so. The 2019 general election saw 1,273 parliamentary candidates each lose their £500 deposit, totalling £636,500. The figure included 465 Green Party candidates, 136 Liberal Democrats, 165 Brexit Party candidates and 190 independent candidates.

Therefore, joke candidates were not deterred, and neither were very committed candidates who wished to stand for election to help improve their local area. However, the outcome was that the established parties—the Conservative Party and the Labour Party—kept most of their deposits, with anything that they did lose a drop in the ocean of their overall party budgets, while the smaller parties and independent candidates suffered a huge financial disadvantage. Election deposits are nothing more than an election tax on people who want to participate in the democratic process, and they should be abolished. I beg to move.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments, which are indeed timely. Back in May 2011, during the passage of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, I tabled an amendment which effectively scuppered the then Government’s wish to bring in police and crime commissioners. It was a pyrrhic victory, of course, because when the Bill went back to the other place, almost everything that the Government wanted was reinstated. They got their police and crime commissioners. However, it was very much a cross-party effort to bring forward hundreds of amendments, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, will recall.

Looking back on those amendments, it is quite clear that we were right in our condemnation of moving from police authorities, which had 17 or 19 members, to a stand-alone police and crime commissioner. I declare my interest as a former chair of a police authority and as a vice-chair of the former Association of Police Authorities. Much of what we warned has come to pass. Commissioners are political creatures. Hardly any have been independent, which was the wish of the former Prime Minister, David Cameron. We said that this would happen, and it did. We also said that there would be some good commissioners, which there have been, and others varying from not so good to downright terrible.

This has been borne out in my own area of North Yorkshire. Allegations of bullying brought against our first PCC, among other strange decisions that she made, lost her the support of her political allies, so they got rid of her. We had another expensive by-election, which was of course won by the Conservative candidate. Within a very short time, public opinion hounded him out of office because he made incredibly damaging and insensitive remarks following the murder of Sarah Everard. We are shortly to find out who will succeed him, as we have yet another election, the third in 10 years. Up and down the country, PCCs have been found wanting, which I simply do not recall happening in the days of the old police authorities, when checks and balances were shared by having local councillors—elected representatives from different parties—magistrates and lay people to help in the governance of their local police force.

Most Members of your Lordships’ House recognise the dangers inherent in politicising the police. Amendment 278, which proposes a referendum on the abolition of PCCs, or having local councillors to hold the police to account, as was the case for many years before the PRSR Bill came into being, will allow for the governance of policing to be brought back into greater local accountability, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said. Amendment 279 would remove the need for an election deposit of £5,000 for PCCs, thus enabling a wider selection of people to apply to become commissioners. Amendment 292D is also timely, as we have at present at least one PCC who has been convicted of a crime.

This experiment has not been the success that it was promised to be. As we have heard, most people still have no idea who their police and crime commissioner is, or what the cost is of running a dedicated office. Certainly, I managed with an office of three personnel. Different PCCs run many more than this, although I am happy that the former Association of Police Authorities has come through the changes with relative ease and just a slight change of name. The work that it did for us was phenomenal and I am sure that its successor organisation is equally excellent, but it has its work cut out with some of its members. This is the first time in 10 years that we have had the opportunity to return to a better system of police governance. I hope that we will take it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for giving us this opportunity to discuss police and crime commissioners and matters relating to their election. I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate.

PCCs, as directly elected individuals responsible for the totality of policing in their area, are a far more transparent and visible model of police governance than the predecessor model of police authorities. As the Home Affairs Select Committee found in its 2016 report, the introduction of PCCs has had a beneficial effect on public accountability and the clarity of leadership in policing. It concluded that the PCC model is here to stay.

The Government are committed to strengthening and expanding the role of PCCs—indeed, it was a manifesto commitment—and, earlier this year, the Home Secretary announced the recommendations from part 1 of a review into the role of PCCs to do just that. That announcement was repeated in your Lordships’ House by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on the same day, 16 March. These recommendations will further strengthen the transparency and accountability of PCCs, as well as make it easier for the public to make an informed decision at the ballot box about the record of their PCC. Part 2 is currently under way, and the Government will report on those recommendations in due course. I note in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this review will also assess the benefits and demerits of a trigger mechanism for the recall of PCCs; it is being debated.

Amendment 278 would provide for force-wide referendums to abolish PCCs. As I have said, PCCs are here to stay. The PCC model provides a clearer form of democratic accountability for police forces. The Government see no benefit in returning to a system of invisible and unaccountable police authorities. Under the old system, the public had no direct powers to elect a police authority chair or its members. Moreover, this amendment would provide for costly local referendums, siphoning funding away from front-line policing, and potentially leading—as many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, have noted—to a confused patchwork of police governance arrangements across the country. Therefore, the effect of the amendment could well be to damage public confidence in police governance at a time when it is crucial that we do everything in our power to strengthen it.

While Amendment 278 seeks to abolish PCCs, Amendment 279 seeks to make it easier for anyone to stand as a candidate for election by removing the £5,000 election deposit for candidates. I shall stick to PCCs and not expand to cover other elections, for obvious reasons.

The requirement for candidates to pay a £5,000 deposit was introduced to ensure that a high calibre of candidates put themselves forward for the role of PCC. These should be people committed to being the voice of the public and to holding their police force to account. Candidates who poll more than 5% of the total number of valid first preference votes cast in that police area will have their deposit returned, ensuring that serious candidates are not out of pocket.

I am sure that noble Lords would agree that we must protect our electoral system from abuse. The £5,000 deposit is designed to ensure that individuals who have no intention of seriously contesting the seat do not use the election process as an opportunity for free publicity.

Amendment 292D, put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, concerns the disqualification criteria for PCCs, and I fear that my ice thins a little here. I understand the noble Lord’s motivation and respect his powerful and perfectly valid examples, but the Government do not agree that we should lower the bar on the standard we expect of elected PCCs. As a PCC previously himself, I am sure the noble Lord will recognise the need for the highest levels of integrity, given the nature of the role.

Under the current disqualification criteria, a person is unable to stand for or hold the office of PCC if they have previously been convicted of an imprisonable offence. There is no bar on people standing for election who may have a previous conviction for a low-level offence punishable by a fine only. Neither is a caution, whether for an imprisonable offence or otherwise, a bar to election. These rules governing who can stand as a PCC are, as the noble Lord noted, the strictest of all rules for elected roles in England and Wales and, we believe, are necessary to ensure the highest levels of integrity on the part of the person holding office and to protect the public’s trust in policing.

This high standard was set with cross-party agreement and with the support of senior police officers There is a serious risk of damage to public confidence and the integrity of the model if PCCs are able to take office with a history of serious criminal offence. I would also suggest that were a PCC to hold office with a previous conviction for an imprisonable offence, both the PCC and the chief constable might find it untenable to maintain a professional and respectful relationship, given the role the PCC plays in holding the chief constable to account. Having said all that, I have heard everything that has been said around the Chamber this evening, across party, and I will make sure that those arguments are reflected back to the Home Office.

In conclusion, this Government are firmly of the view that, far from seeking to abolish PCCs or weaken their standing, we should further strengthen their role. On that basis, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is the Minister advising me to withdraw my amendment or asking me to withdraw it?

I made my opening remarks quite short, because I did not think that the amendment would be very contentious. I thought that people would not like it, but I had no idea that it would generate so much interest. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, for her personal recollections of disastrous commissioners. I, too, have some personal recollections of disastrous commissioners, starting with Boris Johnson, who as Mayor of London was completely useless and had to pull in people to do it for him, some of whom did not know what they were doing either.

I more or less thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his partial support. I was interested in the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, because he has five years’ experience as a PCC. I have 16 years’ experience on police committees and of PCCs, so the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, should perhaps have accepted that I might have a valid point of view on PCCs as well.

I ask all noble Lords: can you actually name your PCC? There is a shake of the head beside me. If you live in London, it is easy: it is Sadiq Khan. If you live anywhere else, it is much harder. Could the Minister name his PCC? He says yes.

I thank noble Lords very much for this debate. I find this issue endlessly interesting. I will think about the offer made by the noble Lord, Lord Bach. He said, for example, that there are better ways of getting rid of police commissioners. I would be happy to put forward an amendment with a quicker way to do that rather than having a referendum; I am not wedded to referendums. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 278 withdrawn.

Crown Courts: Outstanding Cases

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Thursday 15th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, at the Nightingale venues, we use experienced court staff who are trained to deal with the type of work heard on site. While Nightingales deal with non-custodial cases, by taking this work away from the main court estate, custody cases can be heard in our specialist facilities faster than would otherwise be possible. To expand further our capacity to hear complex cases, we have also modified around 70 courtrooms to increase the capability to hear multi-handed trials of up to 10 defendants. In addition, work has begun on a super-courtroom in Manchester, which will further increase capacity for multi-handed cases. For those on remand in custody, our systems show that the majority of such cases had their first hearing in February 2021, and those who have pleaded not guilty have been listed for trial prior to September 2021. I acknowledge the courtesy shown by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, by intimating to my department the terms of his supplementary question in order that a specific answer could be given to this important point.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Minister must be well aware that this problem has been going on for much longer than just the pandemic. The big problem is the Government’s savage cuts to court processes. The solution is not Nightingale courts but better funding. Will the Government do that?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, prior to Covid, the outstanding case load in the Crown Court was 39,000, which is well within the range of 33,000 to 55,000 over the last decade. At its lowest point, it was even as low as 33,000, in 2018-19. Immediately before the pandemic, the Government were increasing sitting days in the criminal courts to address rising demand.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]]

My Lords, I fully agree that the different treatment is justified because of the consequences of the early release of the offender. The offender must remain for the maximum sentence of 25 years as stated in the Bill.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I will speak to the whole group but I have co-signed Amendments 24 and 25 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, respectively. I signed those agreements because they seemed so sensible. It is all very well making up rules and imposing limitations on people’s liberty but, if you do not have the facts and you do not actually know what the statistics are, it all seems a bit academic. Post-legislative scrutiny is incredibly important, especially for Bills such as this which implement contentious and possibly damaging and complex arrangements. They can either work very well or be disastrous.

The Government are taking a very worrying approach to counterterrorism with this sort of “tough on crime” mentality where we just lock people up and throw away the key. We need an evidence-based, multidisciplinary approach to deradicalisation. We need to rescue people from these deeply destructive ideologies, recognising that they are pretty much groomed and brainwashed until their thinking becomes so warped that violence seems like a legitimate tool.

I agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said earlier about prisons. I have visited prisons and have spoken to a lot of people who have been in them and, quite honestly, there is a huge risk that issues and behaviours like this can spread in prison and in fact the prisons become a recruiting ground. That is pretty much how ISIS started, in the prison camps in Iraq, so we have a precedent for some quite damaging events coming out of locking people up. We have to be very careful that the Government’s attempts to imprison people indefinitely do not just make the problem much worse. Could we please have independent reviews and get the evidence base, and compare the Government’s approach with the other options, which could be much better?

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Amendments 24 and 25 struck me as setting out a number of concerns that we would like to have seen in the Bill now. I agree very much with what the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, had to say, except that I do not think that they amount to post-legislative scrutiny. Both highlight concerns that we expressed at an earlier stage, although not all those concerns. My noble friend’s Amendment 12 is rather different in that after a year’s experience of the Bill—an Act, as it will then have been—it would assess its impact. Like him, I have had a similar impression: a kind of inconsistency between the words that we see on paper in the Bill—the impression that is given about responding with even tougher sentences, which is supported by some of the debate that we have had—while privately we have had much more nuanced conversations which have encouraged me, even though I am somewhat depressed by this legislation.

I want to say a word—well, several words—about Amendment 13, which would provide for a review of the use of polygraphs. The amendment came out of amendments in Committee, not our own but those proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when he called for a pilot and a report to Parliament, including on specified matters. I understand that, with a relatively small number of terrorist offenders to whom the polygraph condition will apply, it is quite hard to undertake a useful pilot, but that does not negate the importance of an assessment of the polygraph condition which is published in the public domain.

Crucially, the review that we propose in Amendment 13 would be an independent review. Its report would include data, as set out in the amendment’s subsection (3), on the number of terrorist offenders subject to the polygraph condition and on the number of terrorist offenders recalled to custody following a test. I should mark those sentences as copyright of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer—I think I lifted them wholesale. It would also cover regulations, rules and codes of practice, and make recommendations regarding those, and the report would be made to Parliament. We have included the caveat that any material that the Secretary of State considered might prejudice public safety should be omitted.

The review would be within three years of the Section 32 polygraph condition coming into force. I understand, though I could not quite pin it down, that the Government are intending a review after a couple of years, which would essentially be the same; after two years is more or less the same as within three years.

I take this opportunity not only to argue for a review but to ask the Minister to confirm what is planned by the Government. not only as to the timing but as to the four elements that I have listed.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, nostalgia is the theme of the Government’s amendments in this group, because each of them takes us back to the wording of the original TPIM Act 2011. I am nostalgic enough for those days to have put my name to both amendments.

Amendment 14 on the standard of proof, in the name of the Minister, is a tribute to those noble Lords from all parts of the House who spoke so compellingly to the similar amendment that I had the privilege of moving in Committee. They include the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, each of whom advised—rightly as it turned out—that my amendment did more than was necessary to accommodate the Government’s legitimate concerns. Gift horses should not be looked in the mouth, still less kicked in the teeth. Ministers have listened and have acted decisively. I thank them for that and welcome the retention of a standard of proof, whether expressed as reasonable belief or as balance of probabilities—between which I see no real distinction in practice—that has by the Government’s own account caused no unnecessary difficulties and exposed us to no avoidable danger over the past 10 years.

With a little more hesitation, I put my name also to the Government’s Amendment 22. This reinstates the original requirement in Section 20 of the TPIM Act 2011 for an annual review of the operation of the Act by the independent reviewer, which in turn succeeded a similar requirement in relation to control orders. Section 20 was amended in 2015 to allow the independent reviewer an increased degree of discretion as to the timing of those reviews. That was not unwelcome to the independent reviewer at the time—I declare an interest—who had, as I recall, been given a number of commissions additional to his normal annual duties. However, I understand that the current independent reviewer is content, and on that basis I support Amendment 22 on two conditions. The first is that the independent reviewer should have the necessary resources to perform his various important tasks with the frequency that will now be required and with the promptness that is so desirable. The second condition is an acceptance that, useful as these reports are to those of us concerned with policy in this area, they can be no possible substitute for the scrutiny of individual cases on the evidence that is properly the function of the TPIM review group, to which the Minister alluded, and of the courts.

However, this group is concerned with more than nostalgia. TPIMs have moved on since 2011. These notably harsh measures are harsher than they were then and will soon become harsher still. The toughest measure of all, relocation, with or without one’s family, to a distant town or city—colourfully described by Liberty as “internal exile” and removed by the 2011 Act —was restored on my recommendation in 2015. A range of other new obligations has been added to the list of available measures. Assuming that Clause 37 goes through, notwithstanding Amendment 18, TPIM subjects will for the first time be able to be confined to their houses for substantial parts of the day, while no doubt being tagged, limited in their social contacts and obliged to report to the police station during the periods that they are allowed out. That is rather a different proposition from observing a night-time curfew only in one’s home borough, which is how things were in 2011.

The cumulative effect of numerous measures under a TPIM, even under the existing law, was explained in this way by LF—a TPIM subject, anonymised like the others into a pair of initials—in recent evidence to the High Court. That evidence was summarised by Mrs Justice Farbey in the judgment handed down on 10 February this year:

“He says that he felt as if he was being asked to do something which is not humanly possible: to fulfil multiple and often changing obligations over possibly a two-year period without making one single mistake. He felt as if he was in a trap: if he were to breach any of the TPIM, he would be convicted and imprisoned. The TPIM would then be re-imposed, perhaps with even more requirements, and he would once again be at risk of breaching them.”


For, of course, while the basis for a TPIM can include conduct falling short of the criminal threshold—support, assistance and encouragement more broadly understood than in the criminal law—even the most trivial breach of a curfew or reporting requirement is a criminal offence for which the maximum penalty is five years in prison.

That is the context in which we have to consider the remaining amendments, Amendments 16 and 17. Your Lordships have three options, and I emphasise that none of them is a liberalising option. The Liberal Democrats, with their Amendment 17, offer a continuation of the status quo: a two-year maximum limit in the absence of new intelligence, as initially proposed by my predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, save in exceptional cases, and as supported by the current independent reviewer.

The Government, with Clause 35, offer an unlimited extension, which would allow radicalisers in particular—whom the Government told the independent reviewer are

“the likely targets of enduring TPIMs”—

quite simply to endure forever, even if the intensive monitoring of the subject turns up not a single scrap of evidence or intelligence suggestive of re-engagement.

My Amendment 16 takes the middle path. It recognises that, as I reported in 2013, it is tempting to wish for longer than two years in the most serious cases. However, it recognises also that TPIMs must not be allowed to become a more attractive option than prosecution, that the authorities must be incentivised to work on an exit strategy—and not simply to warehouse TPIM subjects—and that in a free country, our fellow citizens, however odious we might consider them, cannot be indefinitely confined by the state in the absence of any attempt to put them on trial.

It is said that TPIMs of indefinite duration will in reality be no such thing because Ministers will volunteer their discontinuance and because the courts can be counted on to intervene if they do not. Yet, with respect, the evidence casts doubt on both propositions. I understand from the independent reviewer, who on his own initiative asked officials about this, that every TPIM imposed since 2015, unless revoked for extraneous reasons, such as imprisonment or a court order, has been extended by the Secretary of State on the one and only occasion that this is normally permitted under the existing law. That is hardly surprising. If a released TPIM subject were subsequently to reoffend, who in active politics would want to be the Home Secretary who had chosen voluntarily to release him from constraint?

As to court proceedings, it is not just that closed material proceedings make them slow and cumbersome, that they do not allow the subject to instruct his special advocate or to call evidence on the full national security case against him, or that the Home Secretary asks for and is generally accorded—as her predecessor was by the Supreme Court last week in the Shamima Begum case—a high degree of judicial deference for her decisions relating to national security. There is also, most regrettably, a funding and hence an access to justice issue. I am again grateful to the independent reviewer for the information that of the handful of current TPIM subjects, no fewer than three—JD, HB and HC—sought funding from the Legal Aid Agency to enable them to be represented in review hearings but were turned down, after which they requested the court to discontinue those review hearings.

It is said that indefinite TPIMs will keep us safer. On that, I first invite noble Lords to reflect on the severity of my own amendment. It would mean that the Secretary of State’s initial belief that a subject has probably been involved in terrorism is enough to justify four years on a TPIM, with every move tagged and every conversation potentially monitored. If further intelligence emerges of involvement in terrorism, at any stage during those four years, under my amendment a fresh TPIM could still be imposed, again extendable up to a further four-year limit—and so on, ad infinitum. That, surely, is draconian enough.

Would we be kept safer by the indefinite warehousing of TPIM subjects beyond the four-year mark, without the need for intelligence derived from what is, after all, not just a terrorism prevention measure but a terrorism investigation measure? Such people could readily become martyrs to a certain audience as, in a small way, one or two control order subjects did. As my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd said in Committee, by reference to the IPP regime, of which he has great experience,

“indefinite detention often makes someone more dangerous because you take away hope.”—[Official Report, 9/2/21; col. 273.]

This country has a long tradition of combining high levels of national security with a vigorous defence of individual liberty. We never imposed indefinite house arrest, relocation and other similar restrictions on those who preached communist revolution, and we have never imposed TPIMs, although we have the power to do it, on radicalisers of the extreme right wing or the Irish republican persuasion. Nor are we where we were in 2005, when it was widely feared that al-Qaeda-directed plots would take tens of thousands of innocent British lives. Existing measures have helped ensure that the total death toll from terrorism this century, in Great Britain, stands at less than 100. To introduce indefinite executive detention in response to this miserable bunch of ideologues would, I suggest, be a signal not of strength but of what the terrorists most want to see from us: fear and overreaction.

National security law must be more than a series of proportionality assessments performed by the Executive and observed by respectful courts. Something more is needed—checks and not just balances—or how else can Parliament offer guidance on where the limits should be? Your Lordships’ House has already this year greatly improved the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill, whose original version suggested that this important truth may have been forgotten. This Bill, on a similar theme, was described by the independent reviewer as

“conspicuous for its lack of safeguards.”

Amendment 16 extends the reach of these always controversial TPIM measures, but it at least retains a tangible check on the executive power to constrain—a power of which the TPIM is the strongest example known to our law. I hope that the good sense of this amendment will commend it to your Lordships. With that in mind, my intention is to test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I feel much more educated than I did half an hour ago. Today, I found myself not only supporting but signing a government amendment, which is a first for me—what a pleasure. I was in the prestigious company of two QCs and a privy counsellor. I will support any and all amendments that are moved. I find the four-year limit a little tougher to accept than that of two years, but anything that is not indefinite is an improvement.

In normal times, this issue would get much more coverage, but Brexit, Covid and everything else are taking the public’s attention away from these issues. Anything that would implement unending government surveillance and intrusion on someone’s life is, frankly, terrifying.

The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to remove various clauses, and those of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would significantly improve this Bill. I hope that noble Lords who have been involved in this Bill will continue to work with us. They have shown that they are prepared to improve the Bill and I think that further improvements are possible. I hope that they are listening and will accept these amendments.