Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Committee stage
Wednesday 15th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I completely appreciate that, but I ask the noble Baroness to hear me out. There are benefits, which we would all recognise, to the side-discussions that are facilitated by being physically next to colleagues, and these are not the only considerations. It is worth my reminding the Committee that there is no restriction on in-person council meetings being filmed or webcast to allow the public to view proceedings remotely. Indeed, the Openness of Local Government Bodies Regulations 2014 extended full rights for the press and public to record and broadcast council meetings.

I have listened carefully to my noble friends and to noble Lords opposite, who have argued, often from first-hand perspectives, for the current legislation to be changed. I am afraid that the most that I can do at this stage is to say that we will keep the matter under review, and I undertake that we will do so.

My noble friend Lord Lansley, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Hayman of Ullock, asked me about the current position on the call for evidence and the government response. Conversations are continuing across government and as soon as possible after those conversations are concluded, we will publish a government response to the call for evidence, which will set out our intentions. However, for the time being, I must resist all three of these amendments.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Can the Minister explain why your Lordships’ House allows virtual contributions but does not give councils the opportunity to do the same thing?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

That is one of the considerations we are looking at. The noble Baroness is quite right—she knows that there are certain of our number whom the House in its wisdom has decided should be allowed to contribute virtually. These things should be considered in the mix, but I am afraid I cannot give the Committee a definitive answer for the reasons I have explained.

Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is joined on the Marshalled List by my noble friend Lord Naseby, brings us to a topic on which each of them has tested government policy on a number of occasions in the past, including, as I recall and as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, mentioned, through my noble friend’s Private Member’s Bill in 2019. On the latter occasion, my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham set out the Government’s response, and I therefore hope it will not come as a shock to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that my response today bears an uncanny resemblance to the one given to the House previously.

I understand and respect the case that noble Lords have articulated on this issue. However, I am afraid it is not a case I can accept, and the reason is clear and straightforward and was well articulated by my noble friend Lord Cormack. Noble Lords will be aware that although, as the noble Lord, Lord Collins, rightly said, the role of this House has changed over time, our place in Parliament still gives us a position of influence not held by other citizens. My noble friend Lord Sherbourne asked what the downside would be of accepting the amendment. Enfranchising noble Lords to vote in general elections would give Peers two ways of being represented in Parliament. Members of this House have an opportunity to debate and vote on legislation. To provide a vote for Peers in UK parliamentary elections would undermine the principle that all citizens are equally represented in politics.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Is that not true of MPs? Why should they be allowed to vote? They have two grabs.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

When Parliament is prorogued for a general election, MPs cease to be Members of Parliament. They therefore become ordinary voters, if I can put it that way.

In our democracy, everyone should have a voice, but the Government’s view is that Peers who are Members of this House have that by virtue of their participation in this Chamber. That principle has been upheld for more than 300 years, including by the courts. It has not altered over successive Governments: in fact, in the debate on his Private Member’s Bill nearly three years ago, my noble friend Lord Young reminded the House that, as recently as 1999, Section 3 of the House of Lords Act explicitly enfranchised hereditary Peers who are not Members of this House and disfranchised Peers who are.

The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, asked whether Peers who have retired from this House have the right to vote. My understanding is that they do, because they ceased to be parliamentary Peers at that point.

The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about the cost of taking parliamentary Peers off the register. I doubt that that cost has been computed by anybody—of course, there must be a cost—but it is a very considerable privilege that we as Peers have, and I for one would argue that it is not unreasonable for that privilege to carry a public cost.

Health and Care Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Wednesday 9th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the Green group would like to throw its considerable weight behind the two noble Lords who have just spoken. What we saw last night was disgraceful, and I hope we never see it again.

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friends the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, I will respond very briefly to the noble Lords who have spoken by saying that I shall ensure that the comments and questions do reach the Leader, and are treated with appropriate seriousness. We have all heard propositions from both noble Lords on the Front Benches opposite with which there would be wide agreement in the House as to the way we should conduct ourselves. In a spirit of sympathy with many of the comments made, I hope noble Lords will agree that it is appropriate that we discuss this in the usual channels.

Amendment 284

Media and Lobby Briefings

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have to say to the noble Lord and your Lordships that, having myself been briefed earlier today, it became clear to me that a certain amount of disingenuousness has entered the public debate on this matter and in some of the press reporting. Briefings to selected journalists have been common practice across government for many years. I know that myself from my time in the Ministry of Defence. We had regular selected briefings for journalists. The briefing in Downing Street yesterday that has been covered in the press was explicitly billed as one such selected briefing, and I understand that invitations were issued to between five and 10 journalists. There should have been no misunderstanding about that. There is therefore nothing unusual in briefings for selected journalists.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the mother of a journalist. Will the noble Earl take back to No. 10 the fact that this House clearly did not believe that Statement? Both sides of the Chamber were laughing at the Statement that has just been given to us. Will he take back the message that, in a democracy, a free press does not have to express loyalty to the Government? In fact, it is their job to critique it.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the Government support a free and open press, and we will continue to do so. I can only re-emphasise that there has been no attempt whatever to deprive journalists of information on any matter of government policy.

Police: Serious and Violent Crime

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, it is clear that there are several noble Lords competing for a place. It is difficult to make a judgment, but I think we should hear from the Green Party.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, in conversation with two ex-Met officers recently, they told me that good policing can reduce drug-related crime, which is obviously serious for young people, but it can never affect the scale of the problem simply because drug criminals keep being replaced. So is it time for the Government to regulate illegal drugs and take the business out of the hands of criminals?

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My concern is that this is repressive legislation, and we are already finding that peaceful protest is heavily affected by other parts of terrorism legislation. I therefore think that this would have an impact as well.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for setting out the case for her proposed new clause. I would like to reassure her that the provisions in the Bill will not impact on an individual’s right to peacefully protest. Let me say without ifs or buts that this is a right central to a free and democratic society such as ours, and one which we would all seek to uphold and defend.

The noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, argued at Second Reading that,

“there is no liberty without security”.—[Official Report, 9/10/18; col. 27.]

With due respect to the noble Baroness, I am inclined to agree.

The measures in the Bill are intended to ensure that the fundamental rights and values held so dearly by the vast majority of individuals in this country are upheld, and that people are able to express their views and stand up for what they believe in in the face of a malign and growing terrorist threat. While we saw the ultimate expression of these hateful views in Finsbury Park, Westminster, London Bridge and Manchester, these attitudes also undermine the cohesion of our communities, restrict our freedoms and diminish our rights, in particular those of women and girls.

I should make it clear that the type of conduct that the Bill’s provisions are aimed at concerns support for proscribed organisations—those which are, by definition, concerned with terrorism. There is a clear public interest in stymieing support for terrorist organisations, since the more support they have, the stronger their capacity to engage in terrorism. The Bill’s provisions, however, would not extend to support for other organisations that are not proscribed, or indeed to expressions of support for causes that are neither terrorism nor otherwise illegal.

Tackling the evil ideology of extremism is one of the greatest challenges of our time, and we need a new approach to identifying, exposing and defeating it. This year, to step up the fight against extremists, we established the independent Commission for Countering Extremism, which will be crucial to bringing new drive and innovative thinking to all our efforts to tackle extremism. Our published charter sets out the commission’s status as a transparent organisation operating independently from government, and provides it with a clear remit to support the Government in identifying and confronting extremist ideology in all its forms, whether Islamist, far and extreme right-wing, violent or non-violent. It also confirms that the commission will have no remit on counterterrorism policies, including Prevent. In its first year, the commission is engaging widely and openly and is undertaking an intensive evidence-gathering phase to inform the advice to government on new policies to counter extremism. This will include revisiting the extremism definition. The commission has now engaged with over 400 experts and activists and, in September, published the terms of reference for its study, which will be informed by an open public consultation, evidence from government and further research. I urge everyone to engage with the commission in this vital effort.

Peaceful protest is a vital part of a democratic society. It is a long-standing tradition in this country that people are free to gather together and to demonstrate their views, however uncomfortable these may be to the majority of us, provided that they do so within the law. Articles 9, 10 and 11 of the ECHR form the basis of an individual’s right to participate in peaceful protest. There is, of course, a balance to be struck. Protesters’ rights need to be balanced with the rights of others to go about their business without fear of intimidation or serious disruption to the community. Rights to peaceful protest do not extend to violent or threatening behaviour and the police have powers to deal with any such acts. However, these powers are not contained within counterterrorism legislation, but in the Public Order Act 1986. Under that Act, chief officers of police may impose conditions on assemblies and public processions to prevent serious public disorder, serious damage to property, or serious disruption to the life of the community. The directions can relate to the duration, location and size of any demonstration. If the police assess that a march will cause serious public disorder, despite conditions being set, they can apply to the local council for an order prohibiting the holding of a public procession for a period of up to three months. The council must obtain the consent of the Home Secretary before making a banning order. In the London area, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner would need to apply to the Home Secretary for consent to ban the march.

The police must not prevent, hinder or restrict peaceful assembly, except to the extent allowed by Article 11(2) of the ECHR. They must not impose unreasonable, indirect restrictions on persons exercising their rights to peaceful assembly, such as imposing a condition on the location of a protest which effectively negates the purpose of the protest. Pre-emptive measures taken by the police which restrict the exercise of the right to peaceful assembly will be subject to particular scrutiny. In certain circumstances, the police have a duty to take reasonable steps to protect those who want to exercise their rights peacefully. This applies where there is a threat of disruption or disorder from others. This does not mean that there is an absolute duty to protect those who want to protest, but the police must take reasonable measures in particular circumstances.

Following debate in Committee in the House of Commons, my colleague the Security Minister undertook to consider amendments designed to prevent charges being levied on the organisers of a public procession or assembly, should an anti-terrorism traffic regulation order be required to protect such an event. The Government brought forward an amendment to Clause 15 to achieve this, so as not to restrict the right to peaceful protest, as we believe that people should not be charged to exercise these fundamental human rights.

Prior to introduction of the Bill in the House of Commons, the Home Secretary made a statement that in his view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights—a view which my noble friend shared when the Bill was introduced to this House. Given all this, and the scrutiny the Bill has received during its passage through both Houses and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee, I am not persuaded that the consultation exercise envisaged by Amendment 62 is necessary.

I hope that, with that somewhat lengthy explanation, and having had this opportunity to debate this important topic, the noble Baroness will be content to withdraw her amendment for the time being.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I am sorry, but I am driven to say to the Minister that, as an ex-archaeologist, we have a saying: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because you do not have the evidence, that does not mean it has not happened. Does that help the Minister?

[Earl Howe]

I expect it does, but I shall need to get my mind around the point.

Of course, the statement made by the noble Baroness has to be right, but I come back to the fact that, in practice, we have not seen any miscarriages of justice against journalists or academics, or indeed any arrests. It is therefore incumbent upon us to ask why that is so, given the certainty with which some have predicted that exactly these consequences will flow from Clause 3. Could it be because the safeguards I have outlined were operating successfully? My suggestion is that this is the case. Furthermore, as the very same safeguards will continue to apply to Section 58 as amended by Clause 3, and as Clause 3 will neither narrow them in any way nor broaden the types of material caught by Section 58, I suggest that we can take considerable comfort from this.

As well as questioning the practical necessity for these amendments, I also have some concerns about the form of Amendments 15 and 16, which require the Secretary of State to issue guidance. To place such a requirement on the Home Secretary would be novel and arguably inappropriate—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made the point extremely well. While the Home Office has issued guidance on matters such as the operation of police powers, it is not normal to do so on how to apply investigative and prosecutorial discretion in the context of a specific offence and where there are criminal consequences for individuals affected. If such guidance is to be issued, I therefore question whether this is properly a matter for the Home Secretary. This concern could, of course, be remedied by placing the duty on someone else, such as the Director of Public Prosecutions. However, as I have sought to explain, we remain to be convinced that an amendment to Section 58 of this kind is needed.

Finally, it is worth noting that Section 58 falls within the statutory remit of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and this will provide a further important safeguard for its operation as amended by the Bill. I am aware that the former independent reviewer, Max Hill QC, does not agree with every aspect of the Government’s approach to Clause 3. He is, of course, an extremely eminent person whose views should be taken into account. But I would point out that successive independent reviewers have never raised a concern that Section 58 in its current form is having a chilling effect, or is otherwise not being used appropriately, despite its application, as I have said, to the bulk of journalistic and academic research into Section 58 material for much of the period it has been in force.

I hope that I have been able clearly to set out the Government’s position on these matters, and to persuade the noble Lord opposite to withdraw his well-intentioned but, in my view, unnecessary amendment.

Royal Navy: Warships

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

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

[Earl Howe]

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

UK Exports

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

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

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

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

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

[Earl Howe]

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

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

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

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

Investigatory Powers Bill: Trade Union and Political Activities

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Monday 10th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to strengthen provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill to increase the protection of data relating to trade union and political activities.

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

My Lords, the Government have already strengthened the provisions in the Investigatory Powers Bill by accepting a Labour amendment to add protections for trade unions. It is already illegal for the security and intelligence agencies to further the interests of any political party. The Bill goes further by putting the Wilson doctrine on to a statutory footing, requiring the Prime Minister’s approval for the targeting of parliamentarians’ communications in addition to Secretary of State and judicial commissioner authorisation.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I thank the noble Earl for his Answer. He has opened up all sorts of trapdoors that I would like to go down, but has he met organisations such as the Blacklist Support Group, the NUJ and Liberty, which have documented evidence of police and security service wrongdoing and illegal activities, so that we can be sure that the safeguards are strong enough?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I have had round-table meetings with a number of organisations, including those representing the journalist profession and freedom of information bodies. The adherence of any public authority to existing legislation is an issue for the commissioners and the relevant courts or regulators, and any complaints can be followed up through those channels. The Bill we are debating provides for a whole range of safeguards in addition to those that currently exist: statutory oversight of the use of investigatory powers and greater powers for the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to carry out investigations. In addition, we are creating a number of offences. I hope the noble Baroness will see that we have done our best to strengthen the safeguards that exist under current legislation.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Monday 12th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the arguments for and against a definition of national security have been considered at length both here and in the other place over the years, including in the Bill’s Committee stage in the other place. Neither House has been persuaded of the necessity of such a definition.

If the Committee will forgive me, I do not intend to rehearse previous discussions in full, but suffice it to say that it has been the policy of successive Governments not to define national security in statute. National security is one of the statutory purposes of the security and intelligence agencies. Threats to national security are, as we have heard, constantly evolving and difficult to predict, and it is vital that legislation does not constrain the security and intelligence agencies in their ability to protect the public from new and emerging threats.

The noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, made a very important point about the European convention. However, I think the key point is that to define national security in statute could have the unintended effect of constraining the ability of the security and intelligence agencies to respond to new and emerging threats to our national security.

My noble friend Lord Swinfen made an important point which was echoed by the Solicitor-General in the other place. Who could have imagined a few years ago cyberattacks of the nature and scale that now threaten us?

As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, is concerned with the purpose of national security being subject to too broad an interpretation in the Bill. I hope, however, that she will be reassured by the role of the judicial commissioners. They will oversee the use of these powers and will ensure that they are used only when it is necessary and proportionate to do so. The commissioners are the ultimate check against abuse. We need to remember that all the most intrusive powers in this Bill that may be used for the purpose of national security are subject to the double lock. That means that the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner must consider whether their use is necessary and proportionate. The activities of the security and intelligence agencies will be subject to retrospective oversight by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and, of course, the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament. Should the Government ever treat national security as a kind of blank cheque, I have no doubt that the ISC and the IPC would make clear their position in their reports.

In view of the considerable time that Parliament has spent considering this question in the past, the conclusion it reached and the arguments advanced during this debate, I invite the noble Baroness to reconsider and not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

Why was the phrase “economic well-being” included as a rather loose term?

[Earl Howe]

I do not think I would characterise it as a loose term. The meaning of “economic well-being” is well understood. Therefore, I am not sure what the noble Baroness’s worry is in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My point is simply that there was a recommendation that it was unnecessarily confusing. Therefore, there must be a reason for putting it in, and I would like to know the reason; that is all.

[Earl Howe]

It was to make it clear that economic well-being is a very distinct facet of national security.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the Minister very much for those answers. I also thank noble Lords, who obviously did not agree with me, for their comments. This definition was meant to be a prompt, guidance, not something to be set in stone. Without a definition, I find it difficult to understand how we can describe anything that is necessary for the future well-being of the country. The whole Bill is based on a definition. However, if you have not described it, how can you be sure that you are doing the right thing? Nevertheless, given the explanation provided, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Earl Howe

Tuesday 19th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, as I understand it, the Wilson doctrine committed the then Government to returning to Parliament if there was a change of policy. Clearly, now that we are enshrining what I think by common consent is a good formula for protecting parliamentarians, the need for a Government to come back to Parliament to announce a change in policy would have to be followed up, if it were done, by further primary legislation. I cannot envisage that and simply do not foresee that contingency. Through the Bill, we are now in a stronger and clearer position on the protection of parliamentarians and their communications with constituents than we were before.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

I thank the noble Lords who have made kind comments, even if they disagreed with me. We are not going to agree on the double or treble lock because, quite honestly, if you have two people from the same background or discipline agreeing with and corroborating each other—whether police chiefs or politicians—I think that there is the possibility of bias and that people outside this Chamber will see that as well.

I have heard several times in our debates the idea that we have to give the security or intelligence services the tools that they need to do the job. Personally, I heard that quite a lot with reference to the Met Police when I was on the Met Police Authority. In fact, while the Met and the intelligence services can be somewhat like a greedy child at Christmas, wanting more and more toys, it was the current Prime Minister who said “Enough” to the police. When the previous Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, wanted water cannon to be used on the streets of London, Theresa May MP said that, no, she would not authorise it. So sometimes you have to say no because it is not the right thing—the right powers or toys to give to a department.

This is a monstrous Bill which, in essence, means the end of privacy for us all. It is very important that we get these things right, so I welcome all the debate that we are having. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.