Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2019

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab)]

My Lords, one does not often hear these words from the Opposition Benches, but I congratulate the Government, particularly the Home Secretary, on doing the right thing about Hezbollah.

There is no division of Hezbollah. Nasrallah has explicitly said time and again, “We do not have a military wing and a political wing”. He must get quite frustrated with the British Government for not understanding that, but he keeps repeating it. It is true; Hezbollah is one. Due to my professional past, I am the last person to criticise the Foreign Office but I feel that it is to blame for our Government not taking the correct, logical and obvious position of proscribing the whole of Hezbollah. I can see that an ambassador in Lebanon might find it difficult if the Government with whom he is trying to co-operate include terrorists.

We seem to have paid a very high price in not proscribing Hezbollah for so many years out of diplomatic convenience. There is no doubt about it: you can have perfectly normal relations with the Lebanese Government without the problem of Hezbollah being in the Government and being proscribed. The heavy price referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, included Hezbollah flags flying on the streets of London time and again in 2017 and 2018 during demonstrations. They flew under the excuse that they were for the political, not the proscribed, wing. That is unacceptable on our part.

Hezbollah is not just anti-Israel. It is deeply anti-Semitic and makes no pretence about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Deech, quoted Nasrallah as saying that it is very useful if all the Jews gather in Israel because then Hezbollah does not have to go round the world looking for Jews to kill. His deputy has also said that God imprinted blasphemy on the Jews’ hearts. That is an extreme anti-Semitic point, even for some of the anti-Semites we know about in Britain. We must accept that it is an unacceptable, nasty, anti-Semitic, dangerous terrorist organisation that threatens all our democracies, not just those in the Middle East. It is high time that it was proscribed and I congratulate the Government on doing so.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I also agree that the decision to proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety has logic and merit. It not only commits terrorist acts; as the noble Baroness just said, it wants to destroy not only Israel but Jews. It is wholly anti-Semitic. Like the Home Secretary, I was at last night’s Community Security Trust dinner, where everyone was aware of the rising incidence of anti-Semitic hate crime. That is a huge concern for not only the Jewish community but all of us.

Treating the two wings of Hezbollah as distinct has always been artificial. Noble Lords have described Hezbollah’s boldness and consistency in declaring itself one single entity. That raises the question of timing. I agree with my noble friend Lord Paddick and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that the Government owe us a rather better explanation than we have had so far.

The noble Lord, Lord Polak, said that it was due to the change of personnel. If I recall his precise words, he said that the present Home Secretary, Defence Secretary and Foreign Secretary all have integrity. Does that imply that the Conservative Secretaries of the past nine years did not have integrity? That is quite a strange argument. After all, all those posts have been filled by the same party for the past nine years. It is true that just 13 months ago the Security Minister said:

“Hezbollah is anti-Semitic and wishes the destruction of … Israel”,


but he resisted the argument that the political and military wings of Hezbollah were indivisible, joined at the hip and centrally led. He said:

“Ministers do not make up proscription decisions over a cup of coffee. We make them on the recommendations submitted to us by our law enforcement agencies, security services … and intelligence services”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/1/18; cols. 507-8.]


It is therefore fair to ask how that advice has changed.

To me, it would be a viable argument to say that it is because of the rising incidence of anti-Semitic hate crime against people and property, such as the destruction of headstones in cemeteries. Appalling things are going on both against the person and against property. In that context, it is totally unacceptable that the Metropolitan Police is unable to take action against demonstrators proclaiming their support for Hezbollah, waving the flag and putting stickers on it saying, “We are the political wing so you cannot touch us”. I would be interested to hear the argument from the Government: “It is unacceptable that on the streets of London fear should be put into the Jewish community and all of us who want to see decency and an absence of prejudice and discrimination”. But we have not heard that argument from the Government and they are being coy by not telling us what has changed. So, if I have to fall back on the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, that it is because of a change of personnel, that raises interesting questions about the attitude of the holders of those offices over the past nine years.

Lastly, I want to ask how Brexit is going to affect European co-operation in counterterrorism and things such as asset freezing. Every form of Brexit will damage that co-operation, but a no-deal Brexit will damage it even more. We are to have a mega-SI from the Home Office shortly. I attended the briefing meeting kindly held by the Minister on Tuesday. However, although we have been hearing discussions about whether or not no deal is being ruled out, I have just seen a clip of the Leader of the House of Commons, Andrea Leadsom, who this morning is still protesting that she has total support for a no-deal Brexit. That would have a catastrophic effect on our co-operation across the European Union in exchanging vital data, working with Europol, extradition and the exchange of evidence to bring people to trial, and a whole range of counterterrorism co-operation, as well as the freezing of assets. How is the Government’s attitude to Brexit—any kind of Brexit, let alone a no-deal Brexit, which the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House of Commons are refusing to rule out absolutely—consistent with an apparent stance of wanting to do everything in our power to counter terrorist organisations? That really does not quite add up.

[Lord Suri (Con)]

My Lords, I strongly welcome the announcement this week by the Home Secretary that the UK will proscribe Hezbollah in its entirety. Does my noble friend agree that this will send a clear message that no terror group will be given a free pass to operate on British soil?

Brexit: Economic Impact

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

I do not accept that, because the point is that we do not know what that final deal is. There are also significant factors that need to be put in here, such as new trade deals that could be secured with trading partners. We already had exports at record levels last year. The UK is still regarded—just last month—as the number one location for foreign investment, according to Forbes. Just in January, Deloitte said London was the world’s best city to invest in. The reality is that this country has a huge amount to offer. Once that energy is released and we get beyond Brexit, I believe we will make those figures look pretty sad and depressed.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I follow up the points made by my noble friend Lady Kramer. A statistic in the White Paper on the long-term economic analysis, which assumed much more serious non-tariff barriers than the Chequers White Paper, showed that the hit to GDP would, instead of 0.6%, be over 2%—between three and four times worse. That was reckoned to be the nearest to the actual withdrawal deal—not frictionless trade or all these fabulous unicorn trade deals we were supposed to get, but closer to the reality. I press the Minister again on the need for a real economic analysis of what the Prime Minister is actually negotiating, not a fairy tale.

[Lord Bates]

I agree with that analysis. That is why I said 0.6% was modelled on the White Paper, but then we introduced a sensitivity analysis which showed that the hit might be 2.1%. That information—which we were told was deficient and incomplete in order to make decisions—is there.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 14th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know whether the sample was easy. It was taken from the north-west of England, which I was very pleased about, and involved staff and students at 15 institutions. Of those who applied, 65% received settled status and 35% pre-settled status.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in the pilot scheme 30% were granted only pre-settled status, which lasts for just five years. One problem seems to be that the automatic checks by HMRC and the DWP are not validating a lot of people who have been here for longer than five years, particularly the self-employed. The danger is that people will find giving supplementary evidence such a hassle that they will settle for just pre-settled status—but that is very dangerous. Can the Minister look into whether the Home Office can send them reminders—as HMRC does with tax returns—that they have to convert that into full settled status?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She is right that someone with pre-settled status might forget to apply for full settled status. Of course, they have five years in which to do so—but I will certainly take back her constructive point and respond to her in due course.

Windrush Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord asked how we can prove that everyone who is the subject of the debate today is a foreign national offender. I am reliably informed—and I have asked repeatedly—that all the people who will be deported are foreign national offenders. The answer is yes. They are not only foreign national offenders but serious criminals. On the subject of people who came here as infants or children, obviously someone who was here before 1973 would have an assumed status, but just because you came here as an infant or child does not exempt you from the provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007, which the Labour Government rightly brought in to ensure that people convicted and sentenced to 12 months or more should be deported.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, will the Windrush unit, or something parallel to it in the sharing of expertise, be deployed to assist EU citizens? I am not thinking of those who have come since the free movement directive came into force 15 years ago but those who been here for many decades. One hears anecdotally about people—I saw a reference to someone the other day who had been here for 74 years. A lot of elderly people might be in a state of uncertainty and anxiety, and one sees the potential for similar issues to arise. Is the Home Office gearing up to deploy its expertise or personnel in those cases?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, the Windrush task force has stood ready to help anyone who has been here since before 1988 and would like to regularise their status. It has not precluded people from member states of the European Union, and that would include older people.

Brexit: Security

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is absolutely right. With particular reference to Europol, this is pertinent, as we would have to have a series of bilateral co-operation mechanisms. In addition, we would be moving our Europol liaison bureau to The Hague.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the case in Georgia is likely to be an example of how long extradition takes when a country is not in the European arrest warrant. On access to databases such as the SIS and Europol, the Government are going to have to seek a data advocacy decision. Is not their unreliability on upholding European human rights standards going to prove an obstacle to getting that decision?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to point out that Ireland is not part of SIS II. Of course, we used alternative channels such as Interpol up to 2015, so it is clear that alternative systems do work. Our nearest neighbour, Ireland, is not actually part of SIS II.

Brexit: Proposed UK–EU Security Treaty (European Union Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Lords European Union Committee and specifically its Home Affairs Sub-Committee for this report. I share the admiration expressed for that sub-committee and for its excellent chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. I can be objective because I am a member not of that sub-committee but of its sister sub-committee on justice. I worked on security and criminal justice for 15 years in the European Parliament, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. In fact, my last work in the European Parliament was a report calling for reform of the European arrest warrant, which, unfortunately, has not been progressed.

The bottom line is that we will be less safe if we Brexit at all—not only with no deal. The European Union Committee said in its report on the withdrawal agreement and political declaration that,

“the UK will necessarily cease to be part of the EU’s law enforcement and security ecosystem”.

That is a good term because the whole thing hangs together. The reasons for this loss of capacity are the Government’s red lines against free movement and ECJ jurisdiction. So this reduction in safety is the fault of the Government.

The police—including Lynne Owens, the director-general of the National Crime Agency, and Metropolitan Police Commissioner Cressida Dick—have been outspoken in their views. Cressida Dick was misreported because the headlines said that she was worried about a no-deal Brexit but, where her remarks covered Brexit at all, she said:

“We will have to replace some of things we currently use in terms of access to databases, the way in which we can quickly arrest and extradite people, these kinds of things, we’ll have to replace as effectively as we can. That will be more costly, undoubtedly, slower, undoubtedly and, potentially, yes, put the public at risk”.


Those remarks covered any kind of Brexit.

Malcolm Chalmers of the Royal United Services Institute said:

“The UK will have to make much harder choices between sovereign control and operational effectiveness than it has had to take while still a member state. In security terms, the full benefits of membership—combining both shared decision-making and operational effectiveness—cannot be replicated under the proposed deal”.


The noble Lord, Lord Browne, was right to ask the Government what aspect of our safety they will sacrifice.

The political declaration is vague and could be interpreted narrowly or more broadly in terms of the closeness of co-operation. The chances of getting a security partnership concluded and ratified before the end of transition, even if that is extended by two years, do not look good as in all likelihood it will be a mixed agreement, requiring ratification in all member states.

In her Florence speech in September 2017 the Prime Minister expressed the ambition for a “bold new strategic agreement” on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation which would build on,

“our shared principles, including high standards of data protection and human rights”.

Yet the Government she leads refused to incorporate the Charter of Fundamental Rights because of an ideological prejudice against it. When they implemented the European investigation order, instead of referencing the charter as grounds for refusing an EIO, they substituted the ECHR. I have mentioned this several times because I think it is a breach of the EIO; it is a wrong implementation. However, it will not be high on the Commission’s to-do list.

Now there has been an exchange of letters from which I can quote because the correspondence has been published. The Lords European Union Committee, via the Justice Sub-Committee, wrote to the Government about the discrepancy between the summary draft of the political declaration published on 14 November and the final version. The draft referred to how the relationship would be underpinned by:

“Reaffirmation of the United Kingdom’s commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights”,


and said that in respect of law enforcement and criminal co-operation there would be,

“continued adherence to the ECHR and its system of enforcement”.

However, the final document diluted these formulations, saying that the UK would merely agree to,

“respect the framework of the European Convention on Human Rights”,

although the part on JHA retains the phrase about continuing adherence to giving effect to the ECHR.

However, I am afraid that we have had a reply from the Ministry of Justice which is less than reassuring. It talks about how the Conservative manifesto,

“committed to not repealing or replacing the Human Rights Act while the process of EU exit is underway”.

It continues:

“It is right that we wait until the process of leaving the EU concludes before considering the matter further in the full knowledge of the new constitutional landscape”.


That begs the question of what is meant by,

“until the process of leaving the EU concludes”.

I am not sure what date that is supposed to be. However, the point is that this does not rule out abolishing the Human Rights Act. That ball is still in play in the internal dialogue in the Conservative Party.

Therefore, having refused the charter, saying that all our weight is on the ECHR, the final version of the political declaration talks only about respecting the framework of the ECHR, and now we are told that the Government could still abolish the Human Rights Act. This will undermine potential co-operation on law enforcement and the safety of British citizens, all because of ideological fixations. I raised this matter in the Chamber—it was that which prompted the correspondence. Once again, can the Minister give us a commitment that the Government will not abolish the Human Rights Act?

The UK has declined to take part in various fair trial measures ensuring procedural rights for suspects and defendants, including, bizarrely, the right to a lawyer, where we have the gold-standard provisions in Europe. When Mr Grayling was Justice Secretary, he told me that the UK would not opt in because we already provide a high standard, but what about the idea of encouraging others to do so?

At present, the protection of the charter—for instance, for someone against whom an EAW is issued—compensates for some of those omissions. However, the Government have refused to retain the charter, so this could well have operational consequences. The basis on which we make human rights guarantees in the context of the European arrest warrant, the EIO and so on, switches from the charter to the European Convention on Human Rights, but now that is undermined as well. The Government are being extremely short-sighted.

Others have mentioned that, although the political declaration talks about passenger name records and Prüm—of course, Prüm started as an intergovernmental instrument, so perhaps it is not so surprising that it is name-checked—there is no mention of the SIS or ECRIS. The political declaration talks only of arrangements that “approximate” those EU mechanisms and does not even offer the possibility of access, with the caveat that arrangements will be made only,

“so far as is technically and legally possible”.

The Government rail against this sometimes but there are rules. If you are an EU member state, you have certain rights to be covered by EU instruments. If you are not, things are a great deal more difficult. I remember the precedent of the Schengen visa information system. It seems extraordinary now but in 2005, as a Brit, I was permitted to be the European Parliament’s rapporteur on that measure. The UK envisaged some kind of pipeline into the visa information system but was denied access on the grounds that the UK does not participate in the migration aspects of Schengen. Therefore, there are plenty of precedents for saying, “You either sign up fully or you are in a different category”.

We all know that we will need a data adequacy decision covering both commercial data exchanges and law enforcement. However, to do that, the UK will need to agree to an ECJ role in resolving disputes. We also know that a dim view may well be taken of the degree of surveillance in this country. Extraordinarly, the Home Secretary has described SIS II as “nice to have”. Can the Government tell us whether they want access to SIS II or whether it is just some decorative add-on that is not terribly important? If we have to fall back on the European Convention on Extradition, drawn up by the Council of Europe in 1957, can they also tell us how many countries refuse to extradite their own nationals? There does not seem to be precision on the numbers; there could be 18, 19 or 22—in any case, there are a lot.

Finally, I was interested to see yesterday, among all the excitement in the other place, that one item went through without debate on a UK opt-in to the new Eurojust regulation under Protocol 21. However, the political declaration offers only the prospect of working together,

“to identify the terms for the United Kingdom’s cooperation via Europol and Eurojust”.

The noble Lord, Lord West, said that we will not have another director of Europol if Brexit goes wrong. We will never have another director of Europol if we are not a member state. We will not be able to request the setting up of joint investigation teams in Eurojust and so on.

The Government seem to believe in British exceptionalism and British specialness and think that they can buck the ecosystem of EU structures and so on. Why do they think they can do better than Denmark on Europol? Why do they think they can do better than Norway in regard to the European arrest warrant? What basis is there for the Government’s belief? Is it any more than this rather superior attitude of British specialness?

Brexit: Arrangements for EU Citizens

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 5th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. Regarding employer checks, he will know that employers already need to carry out right-to-work checks on EU citizens, and that will not change. It is clear that employers will carry out right-to-work checks on EU citizens as they already do, and they will not be expected to differentiate between a resident EU citizen and those arriving after March 2019. However, in addition, I understand that employers have been given toolkits to enable them to carry out their duties in the right way.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify that? The Prime Minister promised EU citizens that they could stay come what may—that is, in the event of a no deal—and that is repeated in the reply today. First, how can we have confidence in a Prime Ministerial assurance which is then contradicted by a junior Minister? Are the Government planning to introduce legislation in the event of no deal that could impose work restrictions on EU nationals and sanctions on employers in relation to those restrictions? I do not think that that any current legislative requirement would cover that situation. The Minister said that EU nationals are subject to employer checks at the moment. Can she clarify what those checks are, because I think that EU nationals are in a different position to non-EU nationals, who are subject to immigration control? Lastly, will there be other hostile environment checks on rights to healthcare, benefits and so on?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness will know, because my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has already said it, that there will not be a hostile environment. There will continue to be a compliant environment now and when we leave the European Union. On the Prime Minister’s statement that EU citizens can stay, I do not think that she has been contradicted by a junior Minister. I add that my right honourable friend Caroline Nokes—if that is who the noble Baroness was referring to—is not a junior minister; she is in fact a member of the Cabinet. Is that who the noble Baroness was referring to?

[Baroness Ludford]

Indeed I was, but it is even more serious if a member of the Cabinet has contradicted the Prime Minister.

Rendition of UK Citizens

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I absolutely refute the implication that the Government would provide information that would lead directly to someone facing the death penalty. As I have outlined, the guidance is very clear about not seeking assurances, as opposed to sending somebody to face the death penalty in certain circumstances. The Government are quite clear that justice needs to be served.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister shed further light on reports in today’s Telegraph that death penalty assurances were also waived in a case under David Cameron’s Government? How does that fit with the assertion that the UK still has a policy of opposition to the death penalty? She said there were strong reasons for waiving the seeking of assurances in this new case. Will she undertake to publish the assessment carried out under the policy on overseas security and justice assistance that approved the Home Secretary’s position, so that we can try to probe whether this is just angels dancing on pinheads and whether the UK has any policy whatever on this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I assure the noble Baroness that a very similar question was asked in the other place, and the Security Minister has committed to write out on matters of precedent, as she has asked. The guidance is long-standing, having been in place for eight years.

EU Settlement Scheme

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we will be a third country, as my noble friend will appreciate. On the meeting on migration to be held on Sunday, I will have to write to her because I really do not know and there is no point in pretending that I do.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, today’s Statement represents a welcome step forward, but there are an awful lot of detailed questions which remain unanswered. If my memory is correct, the group the3million has produced 150 of them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, this morning I had the advantage of meeting the Home Secretary in the EU Justice Sub-committee and we drew that to his attention. Perhaps I might also make the point to the Minister. Can she ensure that those questions are gone through and answered in some detail?

Brexit: European Union Police Databases and Extradition Arrangements

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We have a mutuality of interest, as my noble friend has just pointed out—and, as I have said, it would be inconceivable that some of the work that we have done in co-operation with our European partners, which has been of mutual multilateral interest throughout the EU 27, would be lost in our exit from the EU.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is absolutely true that it is in everybody’s interest to have security co-operation. However, when the Minister says that it is just a question of political choices, that is complacent and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, unrealistic. There are legal constraints governing that co-operation. If you are going to have mutual recognition of judicial decisions, you have to have a common legal framework and a common jurisdiction. Nothing else is going to pass the European Parliament, I can be absolutely certain.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that what is at the forefront of the European Parliament at this point in time—and I am talking about the politicians, not the bureaucrats—is the sometimes fragile security situation that we have had in Europe over the last two years. I will come on to the legal point. None of the things that we have talked about today are insurmountable. I am not arguing against a legal framework, but none of the issues are insurmountable legally.