Sex Offenders Register

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

“The sex offenders register has existed since 1997. Since that time it has helped the police to protect the public from these most horrific of crimes. Requiring serious sex offenders to sign the register for life—as they do now—has broad support across this House. However, the Supreme Court ruled last April that not granting sex offenders the opportunity to seek a review is a breach of their human rights—in particular, the right to a private or family life. These are rights, of course, that these offenders have taken away from their victims in the cruellest and most degrading manner possible.

The Government are appalled by this ruling, which places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected from the risk of reoffending, but there is no possibility of further appeal. This Government are determined to do everything that we can to protect the public from predatory sex offenders and so we will make the minimum possible changes to the law in order to comply with this ruling.

I want to make it clear that the court’s ruling does not mean that paedophiles and rapists will automatically come off the sex offenders register. The court found only that they must be given the right to appeal. The Scottish Government have already implemented a scheme to give offenders an automatic right of appeal for removal from the register after 15 years. We will implement a much tougher scheme.

Offenders can apply for consideration of removal only after waiting 15 years following release from custody—in England and Wales there will be no automatic appeals. We will deliberately set the bar for those appeals as high as possible. Public protection must come first. A robust review, led by the police and involving all relevant agencies, will be carried out so that a full picture of the risks to the public can be considered.

The final decision on whether an offender should remain on the register will be down to the police and not, as in Scotland, the courts. The police are best placed to assess the risk of an offender committing another crime and they will rightly put the public first. There will be no right of appeal against the police’s decision to keep an offender on the register. That decision will be final. Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life, if necessary.

Where we are free to take further action to protect the public, we will do so. We will shortly be launching a targeted consultation aimed at closing down four existing loopholes in the sex offenders register. We will make it compulsory for sex offenders to report to the authorities before travelling abroad for even one day. This will prevent offenders from being free to travel for up to three days as they are under the existing scheme. We will force sex offenders to notify the authorities whenever they are living in a household with a child under the age of 18. We will require sex offenders to notify the authorities weekly as to where they can be found when they have no fixed abode. Also, we will tighten the rules so that sex offenders can no longer avoid being on the register when they change their name by deed poll.

Finally, I can tell the House today that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Justice Secretary will shortly announce the establishment of a commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights, for it is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts, that the rights of the public come before the rights of criminals and, above all, that we have a legal framework that brings sanity to cases such as these. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the noble Lord’s last point about the attitude of the Government to the courts. Of course the Government respect the role of the courts. It is precisely because this is a law-abiding Government who respect the rule of law that we do not regard it as a practical option not to bring forward legislation to ensure that we are compliant with a ruling of the court. Nevertheless, there is extremely strong sentiment in the country, which the Government share, about the need to protect the public against the marauding activities of sex offenders, who display great ingenuity in the way in which they go about their offence. It is extraordinarily important therefore to have in place a robust system for the management of those offenders who are not in custody.

The noble Lord raised a number of practical points, which I shall try to answer. We certainly agree with him that priority should continue to be accorded to the safety of the public, which is the purpose of today’s Statement. We certainly agree that rights of families remain paramount. Damage can be done to young people by offenders of this kind which lasts for the whole of their lives. We must bear in mind these considerations when we look at the management of offenders in this category.

The noble Lord asked about the factors that would be taken into account in any review process. Perhaps I might explain how that might work. The offender will have the right under this scheme to ask for a review after 15 years. That review will be conducted by the police—it would obviously be a senior policeman—taking into account all the information that they have at their disposal about the behaviour of the individual, what assessment they are able to make of the likelihood of further offence, the gravity of the offence in the original instance and any other relevant consideration before coming to a view.

If the police reject the application for removal from the register, the individual will have the right to ask for that to be looked at again, but there will not be recourse to the court. They will be allowed to present any further factors that they consider the police have not taken into account in coming to their view. The individual concerned will therefore have an opportunity to say why they should be released from the obligations involved in being on the register.

The parliamentary process will be accomplished via remedial order in relation to the Human Rights Act. It will be a remedial order of a non-urgent kind. That means that an order will be made available for public examination as soon as the Government are able. The Joint Committee on Human Rights will have the opportunity, as will Members, to make comments and put across their viewpoint during that process. The Government will then take into account the views that have been put forward. The order will then be laid for another 60 days, after which there will be a normal parliamentary process by affirmative action before the order in whatever form it emerges is adopted. We expect that parliamentary process to be completed sometime in the autumn.

We are looking at the desirability of guidelines for the police. I agree that it would be sensible to have them.

I think that I covered the various points made by the noble Lord. If I have not done so, other Members of the House will no doubt pick me up on it.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I have the same concern as that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about the language used in parts of the Statement. We know how important language is in this area—for example, those who hear what they want to hear manage to ensure that paediatricians are driven out of their homes. One has to be terribly sensitive. On the review and the consultation, I hope that the language of the Statement does not indicate that the outcome of the review is entirely predetermined. Will the views of the trial judges—who, after all, have heard the facts of each case—and of NOMS, whose job, in part, is to assess prisoners for parole, be considered? The offences of those who are covered by the Sexual Offences Act and subject to inclusion on the register cover a very wide range; it must also be the case that there is very wide range of risk of reoffending.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

It will be a proper consultation and, obviously, noble Lords and others will be free to put forward their views. On the evidence and information that will be taken into account by the police in the review, I can confirm straightaway that the MAPPA process, NOMS and those who have relevant information will be involved. It is right that NOMS has considerable experience of probationary periods, and the police will be under an obligation, which I am sure they will understand, to make the review both fair and thorough.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, it is deeply depressing to revisit this way of dealing with decisions made by the courts. It is familiar to those of us who are lawyers because we had to endure it under the previous Government, when tomorrow’s headlines dictated the way in which they responded to a wholly reasonable decision by the courts. In this case, the court decided that there should be an obligation to ensure that people have the right to appeal. It in no way suggested that paedophiles should be removed willy-nilly from the register.

There are occasions where someone should be able to appeal. For example, a young man in his 20s has sex with an underage girl and is put on the sex register. When he is a man in his 40s—married, with a family and holding down a job—it may seem reasonable to him that his name should be removed from the register on which it was placed for something that he did with an underage girl when he was in his early 20s. That is the kind of offence that the court envisaged when it said that there should not be a blanket situation where there can be no appeal whatever.

The reasonable response of the Government would have been to say clearly that an opportunity to appeal should be available, that it will be rarely used but that they support its existence. That is the position that the Government should have taken. I always get the feeling that there is something in the drinking water at the Home Office that makes sensible people lose their nerve and good sense when it comes to these matters.

As to the comment on the need for a Bill of Rights, how would the situation be any different if, as I have heard government Ministers say, all that is contained in the current European Convention on Human Rights would be in a British Bill of Rights, but with additional matters included? If that were the case and the Article 6 protections of due process, under which this kind of appeal, in given circumstances, is available, were included, how would it be any different? I suspect that this would be available in a British Bill of Rights, as it is now. Surely good sense should have been the response of the day.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The Government regard what they are doing as bringing them into compliance with their obligations under the Human Rights Act. Therefore we do not envisage that the work of the Commission—and of course the terms of reference have yet to be agreed—would be affected by what we are doing here.

The Government have put in place a review process. Sex offences are extremely difficult to make judgments about and we believe that those who are involved in their rehabilitation, NOMS and the police, who will have had the obligation to supervise their conduct in the interim, are better placed to do that than the courts. That is why we have instituted the review of the process that we have put in place. I also rely on London tap water—I find it keeps me entirely sane.

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden]

My Lords, I ask my noble friend to come back once again to the last sentence of this Statement and its rather combative tone, where it says that it is time to assert that it is Parliament that makes our laws, not the courts. Will she accept from me that I know of no case whatever in which a court has questioned, let alone rejected, that statement of constitutional functions; and that the court’s function is to apply laws, either made by Parliament or specifically adopted by it?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Indeed, and we are saying that it is the correct moment to reassert the constitutional principle.

[Lord Prescott]

There is no doubt, as has just been said, that it is Parliament’s right to make the laws and the courts’ to interpret them. However, what worries me most of all, as with the Statement in the other place regarding prisoners, is the difficult issue about private and personal rights and about freedoms. In our Human Rights Act, that is a balance between Article 8 and Article 10 as well as other articles. That is to be interpreted by the courts—in this case, our Supreme Court. Presumably they will not be saying similar things about the judges in this particular case as they said about the Council of Europe.

If a new bill of rights is to be considered, presumably that balance between the public and private interest has to be established. Who will determine what that balance is? Will it be the Government, reacting to the publicity about certain unpopular cases? Or will we leave it to the judges to make their decisions, and, if we disagree, change the law? At the moment the Government seem to be running before the publicity, and then, as with the prisoners’ case, saying, “We back the Court of Human Rights”. That is the judgment we are facing today. I worry about the attitude of this Government in respect of personal rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Perhaps I could point out to the noble Lord that this piece of legislation, which the courts have decided is not entirely proportionate, was passed under our predecessors, the Labour Government. This Government, in the light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, are now putting in place a mechanism that we believe will restore proportionality that evidently the courts thought was lacking.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I apologise to my noble friend for interrupting her earlier. Given the real and perceived importance of this issue, will my noble friend help the House by explaining why the Government feel that it is best to deal with this by a remedial order, which, although there would be consultation, is not capable of any form of amendment? We have until the end of the year to deal with this and the matter could better, one might suggest, be dealt with by addition to primary legislation currently going through Parliament, which would be open to amendment by Members of both Houses. Furthermore, does my noble friend agree that the one thing the Government cannot and would not wish to do is to exclude the potential for judicial review, where a decision has been taken that is perverse or otherwise Wednesbury unreasonable?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, ideally, the police will be aware of the fact that their judgments in any given instance could be subject to judicial review. The law has not changed in that respect. As for the previous question about the alternative legislative route, I am not a lawyer and I hesitate to get terribly far into this terrain. I was advised that this was regarded—as there is no obvious legal vehicle in which to incorporate this particular bit of legislation—as related to our obligations under the Human Rights Act, and that it was a speedy and sensible way of bringing us into compliance.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I have to say that I was rather depressed by this Statement. I had not intended to speak at all. When I was a Minister, I tried to produce things not for the Daily Mail but for the House. I have a feeling that this is for the Daily Mail, not for the House. On a number of occasions, I was pretty grumpy about decisions made in the courts, but I do not think that I would ever have allowed a piece of paper like this to come out. Some of the wording used is quite intemperate, and I think that that is very unfortunate. I know the noble Baroness well and I know that she would not have drafted it in this way. I do not know how we can go about tackling this in some way so as to make it clear that this is not the view, because what is being said about the courts is really quite stark. A number of noble Lords have spoken about this, and there is no doubt at all that it is up to the courts to interpret the law. I do not think that there is any doubt at all that Parliament makes laws, not the courts, as the noble and learned Lord said. That has never been disputed. I find this quite extraordinary. Is there some way in which to temper this Statement, because I do not think that it is the sort of Statement that should be made? I think it is very unfortunate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord made his point several ways round. The Government are acting in conformity with the principle that they must be in conformity with the law, which is why they have brought in this amendment to the law. We perfectly well recognise that the courts interpret the law and are acting on that principle.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

Will my noble friend acknowledge that there is great disappointment on these Benches, too, at the tone of this Statement? Some of us had hoped that the days when these sorts of Statements would be made about the judges and the courts had gone with the new Government, and are very disappointed to see that, perhaps, they have not. Why do the Government appear to believe that, with regard to appeals against the inclusion on the sex register, the police are better placed to do justice than the Queen’s courts?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that I explained in response to an earlier question that it is very hard to judge the merits with these particular offences, particularly in relation to expectation about future conduct. Therefore, we feel that those closest to the individuals or offenders concerned, who have been monitoring their conduct, are best placed to take an informed view and come to an informed decision about the balance that needs to be struck thereafter between the freedoms that can be accorded to the individual and the rights of the public to safety. This is a very practical view of how to come to the best decision possible.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

Can the Minister please explain to me—because I do not understand—why the Government in their Statement make the assumption that individual police officers in particular places will necessarily, or even ever, have detailed knowledge of the individual who is making the appeal? I have some limited experience in local government. The only time I have actually ever cried in your Lordships' House was on reading the story of the north Wales child abuse inquiry. The people who may be the most dangerous are often the most mobile and disappear all over the place, reappear and then get lost. Why the police? I am particularly concerned about that aspect.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, individuals on the sex offenders register are very closely supervised—and quite rightly. Therefore, the police, NOMS and others have very detailed knowledge of the behaviour of the individuals concerned. We keep on coming back to who is best placed to make what most people would regard as a fairly difficult judgment about likely prospects for the future, given the nature of the offence and the sort of people involved. It is for those very reasons that we feel that this is the best place to do it. The noble Baroness is quite right that people do try to disappear. That is precisely why, in severe cases, limitations are placed on people’s freedom of movement and why they have to notify before they go anywhere. That is one reason why the Government are taking the opportunity to strengthen that provision.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

My Lords, can I express my sense of shame at hearing the language that has been used in this Statement? It is precisely the sort of thing that we attacked for years when we were in opposition and I am very sorry to hear that this headline-grabbing language is being used again. Like the noble Baroness, I simply do not understand why applications for the removal of a name from the register should not be made in an open and transparent way before a court. After all, it is the court that imposes the sentence of 30 months, which is the threshold when a person is placed upon the register for life. I see no principle—I see nothing—in this Statement that would assuage my feelings about it.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord has certainly made his point. I fear there is very little that I can add to what I have already said, by way of explanation to the House, on why the Government have taken the view that they have about the right place to take this decision.

Crime: Media Reporting

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will review the rules for reporting the arrest and questioning of individuals by the police before they are charged with any criminal offence.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the principle of a free but responsible press without state intervention is fundamental to our democracy, but the right reverend Prelate’s Question raises a number of important issues. On Friday, during the Second Reading of the Anonymity (Arrested Persons) Bill in the other place, the Government undertook to consider whether the contempt laws and guidance on pre-charge reporting contain any gaps that may impede justice.

[The Lord Bishop of Chester]

I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer. I acknowledge that this is a complex area, as emerged in the debate in the other place on Friday, but will the Government at least consider extending the post-charge restrictions on reporting contained in the Contempt of Court Act to pre-charge questioning of suspects?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, on the whole the Government take the view that we want to maintain a free but, as I said, responsible press. I do not wish at this stage to go any further than to say that the Government think that there is a potential gap in our protections and that they are more than prepared to look at whether the contempt laws and police guidance on reporting contain omissions that need to be remedied.

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Yes, my Lords. I think that the police would agree that they need to be scrupulous in applying the guidance that they have in such cases. Indeed, they should apply it in relation to a person who has been detained by them but not charged. They should take care not to impugn that person’s reputation.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, while the press are usually economical in the reporting of an arrested person, would I be right in surmising that the Attorney-General would have expressed some anxieties about the extent of the reports on the arrests in the Bristol case? As Attorney-General, I sometimes had to refer to the courts cases about which I was anxious. I did so not always successfully, as it was not easy to judge where the line had been crossed. In discussions between the Attorney-General and the press, would there be any merit in revisiting the boundary lines of what is fair reporting without prejudicing an arrested person?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Attorney-General will obviously take his remit extremely seriously. I do not know whether he will choose that route; the view has certainly been expressed, so I have no doubt that he will take notice of it. I can assure the House that the Attorney-General is quite clear that he needs to examine this issue seriously, because it has considerable ramifications.

[Lord Soley]

My Lords, is the Minister worried by the increasing—

[Lord Borrie]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is usually unwise to act to change the law because some unfortunate individual has been embarrassed or irritated? Does she also agree that, in this type of case, questioning and the publication of the questioning by police often encourage potential witnesses to jog their memories and assist in the successful prosecution of somebody, not necessarily the first suspect?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right that this can be of assistance. It obviously has to be balanced with the rights of individuals who may have been detained and subsequently not charged. The Attorney-General has not chosen to act immediately precisely because he wishes to look at the issues involved, not necessarily just at this case. The Private Member’s Bill was not supported by the Government and has been withdrawn, but he is going to look at the issues.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

My Lords, in these days of severe attack, one has to be careful about these rules in the interests of the whole country. To some degree, does one not have to trust the police to exercise a fair discretion and not put everything in writing?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the police of course have guidance in writing, but the noble Lord is quite right to say that they have to interpret that guidance in light of the operational circumstances of any case. I am sure that that is what they try to do. Clearly there are tensions in the whole question of the freedom of the press, the need for the police to conduct an investigation and the rights of individuals who may be affected by that. It is that balance that we need to strike.

[Lord Soley]

All good things come to those who wait. This is a much wider problem and it needs to be faced. It is not just the trashing of people’s private lives but also the increasing use of fishing expeditions to invade people’s privacy. Is it not time that the Government said to the press that we need to discuss this in a much more serious way? It is a balance between the rights of reporting and the rights of privacy and how that is dealt with. The Government need to take the lead and maybe put it on the agenda of the next meeting in Downing Street.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I think that many of your Lordships would agree with the proposition that there are wider issues involved. Indeed, there are wider categories of people involved, not simply the persons whom we have just been talking about. The Attorney-General wants to look at, first, the question of balance and, secondly, where you draw the line in relation to categories of people.

[Baroness Harris of Richmond]

My Lords, can the noble Baroness say why the Government changed their decision and dropped the proposed anonymity for those accused of rape?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the noble Baroness asks a question that I cannot entirely answer—I do not have the depth of knowledge. I will seek an answer in writing for her. The Government have certainly been looking at this issue for some time and, in the light of this case, have decided that it needs to be gripped.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2011

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 8th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the draft order laid before the House on 17 November 2010 be approved.

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 14th Report from the Merits Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 25 January.

Motion agreed.

Police: Officer Numbers

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 1st February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the fall in the numbers of police officers and police community support officers.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, it is for the chief constables and their police authorities to make decisions on the numbers of police officers and police community support officers within their available resources. We remain confident that police forces can make the necessary savings through reductions in middle and back office functions, while retaining and enhancing their ability to protect and serve the public, with a particular focus on maintaining the front line.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the Minister for her reply. With approximately 2,000 fewer police officers and a similar reduction in PCSOs since May this year, and given the estimates from the Police Federation that this figure could rise to 20,000 in the next few years, is it not the case that the ordinary family is less safe under the Conservatives?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, there is no simple link between police numbers and their impact; what matters is how the police are deployed. It is there that we look to see reforms in police forces so that they deploy their resources more effectively than is the case at the moment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that police officers and PCSOs are used for what they are trained for and not in roles that can be filled by civilian staff, who may well bring their own special skills?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has just said, as do the police. Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, told the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee that it is not a question of police numbers but one of deployment and that we need to replace those who are being used in back offices and get them out on the front line.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government are creating a very turbulent atmosphere for policing by the combination of cuts, which are understandable against the background of the economic situation, the forthcoming review of pay and conditions, which is due to be announced soon, and the reorganisation of policing through elected commissioners and reorganisation generally, and that these changes, cumulatively, will require inspired political management and leadership from within the service if the public are not to suffer?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government have great confidence in the leadership of the police and their ability to manage change. The police have grasped well the agenda that is before them. Of course the question of police remuneration is being looked at independently and we await the outcome of that.

[Lord Rosser]

In a Question for Written Answer two months ago my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath asked for a definition of “front-line police services”. As of yesterday, he still had not had a response. Why not? Can the Minister now give the House the Government’s definition of the front-line police services that they said they would protect from the cuts? Does the definition include the many specialist units, including the rape and domestic violence units, all actively involved along with officers on the streets in the fight against crime, which fell by 43 per cent under the previous Government? Can the Minister give the House an assurance that none of the approximately 2,000 full-time police officers already lost since the election was involved in those front-line police services? Finally, in the light of the Minister’s previous answer, is she aware of the recent surveys that clearly show the link between numbers of police officers and levels of crime?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the number of police officers has been reduced and the level of crime continues to fall. There is no simple link between the numbers of police officers and the levels of crime. The services that the police themselves wish to deliver to the public clearly include the prevention and investigation of crime and would obviously include the specialist forces dealing with certain different kinds of crime.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton]

My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that she will listen if the public, looking at the data on the incidence of crime that are being made available to them today, decide they would rather have officers from their local police service responding quickly to an incident of crime than a new-fangled commissioner of police? Are the Government listening to the public? I have yet to meet a member of the public who sees little connection between the number of officers in the police service and tackling crime.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for mentioning the Government’s initiative on crime mapping, which was announced today and which in our view will enable people in their own localities to be much better informed than hitherto of the real state of crime in their localities and to have a direct relationship therefore with the police. It will be helpful to them that the police commissioners will have direct accountability to the localities and not upwards to the Home Secretary.

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

Is it not quite fatuous to keep on repeating that there is no relationship between numbers of police officers and good policing? Obviously effective policing depends on efficient deployment of the police and it should be the responsibility of any Government at all times to make sure that deployment is optimised. However, once you have the optimised deployment, surely more police automatically means better policing?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to enlighten us as to what the optimised level is. I did not say there was no link; I said there was no simple link. It is very clear that there is no simple link. Numbers of police officers began to decline before this Government came into office and the level of crime continues to decline. The level of crime began to decline in 1995, well before our predecessors came into office, and when police numbers were stable. There is no simple link between these two things.

[Lord Rooker]

How many briefing meetings has the noble Baroness had in the Home Office about a Question that has been awaiting answer since 1 December? It would be quite normal for a delayed Question like that to be the subject of considerable ministerial questioning, so why has it not been answered? How many briefing meetings has she had?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am afraid I am at a loss to know to what Question the noble Lord is referring, but I will look into it.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I wrote down very carefully the answer that the Minister gave to a previous question. She said that there is no link between the number of officers and the level of crime. Does it therefore follow that if we had no police officers that would not affect the level of crime?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I made it quite clear that I said “no simple link”.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, in answer to a previous question of mine, the Minister said that the responsibility for cuts in policing was solely with the chief constables, which I agree is correct. There are, however, a number of functions and skill sets that the police have that are nationwide. Will she agree to ensure that the Government look at these skill sets and capabilities to ensure that chief constables do not inadvertently remove those capabilities?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that we will certainly be looking at the maintenance of national level capabilities and that is of course why we have taken such care in the case of counterterrorism, where the funding has been kept stable. One of the tasks of the National Crime Agency is to ensure that national capabilities are maintained.

[Lord Imbert]

I understand it will cost a £1 million or so if the new elected political commissioners are put into position to oversee and to hire and fire chief constables. Would it not be better to spend that money on employing more police officers or PCSOs?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government believe in the notion of elected commissioners and direct accountability to localities. It is for that reason that we are introducing this reform. We believe that it will result in more effective policing and more direct accountability to the people the police serve.

Counterterrorism Review

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.

“With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a Statement on the outcome of the review of counterterrorism and security powers.

The review has taken place in the context of a threat from terrorism which is as serious as we have faced at any time. In dealing with that threat, it has been the consistent aim of this Government not only to protect the security of our citizens but also the freedoms of us all. We reviewed counterterrorism legislation because too much of it was excessive and unnecessary. At times it gave the impression of criminalising entire communities. Some measures, such as the extraordinary attempt to increase the period of pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects to 90 days, were rightly defeated in Parliament. Others, such as the most draconian aspects of control orders, were defeated in the courts. These measures undermined public confidence. So I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that he will support me in preventing the excessive use of state power.

I make no apology for the time that this review has taken. It has rightly been deliberate and thorough to ensure that we safeguard both security and our freedoms. The review has taken account of all sides of the argument. It has received evidence from academic experts and civil society groups, from communities across the country and from the law enforcement and security agencies. I have, of course, consulted regularly with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, has provided independent oversight of the process. He has had access to all relevant papers and has played an invaluable role in ensuring that all the evidence was given proper consideration. I should like to thank him for his contribution in ensuring that the recommendations of this review are not only fair but seen to be fair. I am laying the review, a summary of the public consultation, the equality impact assessment of these measures and Lord Macdonald’s report in the House.

On pre-charge detention, the Government announced to the House last week that we would not renew the current legislation on extended pre-charge detention. This means that the sunset clause inserted by the previous Government has now brought the maximum period of pre-charge detention down to 14 days. The review sets out the detailed considerations leading to this conclusion.

The police, prosecutors and the Government are clear that the normal maximum period of pre-charge detention should be 14 days. However, we recognise that in exceptional circumstances this might need to be temporarily increased to 28 days. We will therefore draw up draft primary legislation to be introduced for parliamentary consideration only in such circumstances. We will therefore publish a draft Bill and propose that this be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I should make clear to the House that until it is repealed by the Freedom Bill, Section 25 of the Terrorism Act 2006 will remain on the statute book allowing the Government to increase the maximum period to 28 days in an emergency, subject to Parliament’s agreement. There has therefore been no gap in our ability to seek Parliament’s consent to increase the period of pre-charge detention should the need arise.

On the use of Section 44 stop-and-search powers, I have concluded that the current provisions, which were found unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights, represented an unacceptable intrusion on an individual’s human rights and must be repealed. But the evidence, particularly in Northern Ireland, has demonstrated that where there is a credible threat of an imminent terrorist attack, the absence of such powers might create a gap in the ability of the police to protect the public.

We therefore propose to repeal Section 44 and to replace it with a tightly-defined power which would allow a senior police officer to make an authorisation of much more limited scope and duration for no-suspicion stop-and-search powers to prevent a terrorist attack where there is a specific threat. This targeted measure will also prevent the misuse of these powers against photographers, which I know was a significant concern with the previous regime.

On the regulation of investigatory powers, we will implement our commitment to prevent the use of these powers by local authorities unless for the purpose of preventing serious crime and unless authorised by a magistrate. In this context, surveillance—the most controversial power—will be authorised for offences which carry a custodial sentence of at least six months.

On the wider question of communications data—the who, when and where of a communication, but not the content—the Government intend to ensure that, as far as possible, it is only accessed through the revised Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. We will bring forward specific legislation to this effect in a future communications data Bill.

This Government are committed to tackling the promotion of division, hatred and violence in our society. We must expose and confront the bigoted ideology of the extremists and prosecute and punish those who step outside the law. The review considered whether counterterrorism legislation should be amended to tackle groups which are not currently caught by the law but which still aim to spread their divisive and abhorrent messages. After careful consideration, we have concluded that it would be disproportionate to widen counterterrorism legislation to deal with these groups, however distasteful we find their views. To do so would have serious consequences for the basic principles of freedom of expression. We therefore propose to use existing legislation, as well as tackling them through our wider work to counter extremism and promote integration and participation in society.

On the deportation of foreign nationals suspected or known to have been involved in terrorist activity, the review found no evidence that this policy was inconsistent with the UK’s human rights obligations and found that it was legitimate and necessary to seek to extend the arrangements to more countries which would include independent verification. As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, says, the Government’s engagement with other countries on these issues is likely to have a positive effect on their human rights records.

Finally, on control orders the Government have concluded that, for the foreseeable future, there is likely to be a small number of people who pose a real threat to our security, but who cannot currently be successfully prosecuted or deported. I want to be clear that prosecution, conviction and imprisonment will always be our priority—the right place for a terrorist is in a prison cell. But where successful prosecution or deportation is not immediately possible, no responsible Government could allow these individuals to go freely about their terrorist activities.

We are also clear that the current control order regime is imperfect and has not been as effective as it should be. We therefore propose to repeal control orders. Instead, we will introduce a new package of measures which is better focused and has more targeted restrictions, supported by significantly increased resources for surveillance and other investigative tools. Restrictions that have an impact on an individual’s ability to lead a normal life should be the minimum necessary, should be proportionate and should be clearly justified. The legislation we will bring forward will make clearer what restrictions can and cannot be imposed. These will be similar to some of the existing powers used in the civil justice system; for example, to prevent sexual offences and domestic violence.

These terrorism prevention and investigation measures will have a two-year maximum time limit, which will clearly demonstrate that these are targeted, temporary measures and not to be used simply as a means of parking difficult cases indefinitely. The measures will have to meet the evidential test of reasonable belief that a person is, or has been, engaged in terrorism. This is higher than the test of reasonable suspicion under the current regime.

Curfews will be replaced by an overnight residence requirement. Forcible relocation will be ended and replaced with the power to order more tightly defined exclusions from particular areas, such as particular buildings or streets, but not entire boroughs. Individuals will have greater access to communications, including to a mobile phone and to a home computer with internet access, subject to certain conditions, such as providing passwords. They will have greater freedom to associate. They will be free to work and study, subject again to restrictions necessary to protect the public. We will add the crucial power to prevent foreign travel.

These measures will be imposed by the Home Secretary with prior permission from the High Court required except in the most urgent cases. The police will be under a strengthened legal duty to ensure that the person’s conduct is kept under continual review with a view to bringing a prosecution and they will be required to inform the Home Secretary about the ongoing prospects for prosecution.

I have asked the incoming independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson QC, to pay particular attention to these issues in his first report on the new regime and to make recommendations that he considers appropriate to ensure the new regime is working as intended. I am also today laying a Written Ministerial Statement outlining the next steps in the work to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept as evidence in court. We will repeal the current provisions which permit control orders with restrictions so severe that they would require the United Kingdom to derogate from the European Convention on Human Rights. I cannot imagine circumstances in which the Government would seek to introduce such draconian measures. So the review I am announcing today will create a more focused and flexible regime. However, in exceptional circumstances, faced with a very serious terrorist threat which we cannot manage by any other means, additional measures may be necessary. We want to prepare for this possibility while ensuring that such powers are used only when absolutely necessary. So we will publish, but not introduce, legislation allowing more stringent measures, including curfews and further restrictions on communications, association and movement. These measures will require an even higher standard of proof to be met and would be introduced if in exceptional circumstances they were required to protect the public from the threat of terrorism. We will invite the Opposition to discuss this draft legislation with us on Privy Council terms. These powers would be enacted only with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament.

All of these measures will be accompanied by a significant increase in resources for the police and security and intelligence agencies to improve their surveillance and investigative capabilities. This will underpin the effectiveness of the regime and support the gathering of evidence admissible in court which could lead to a successful prosecution.

We will bring forward legislation to introduce the new regime in the coming weeks. We want to give Parliament the opportunity properly to scrutinise our proposals. I am sure the whole House would agree that in the past too many laws in this area were rushed through without the opportunity for adequate debate and consideration. So while Parliament considers that legislation, we will renew the current regime to the end of the year. Many of the other measures I have outlined will be brought forward in the forthcoming Protection of Freedom Bill.

I should like to finish by thanking the police and the security services for the tremendous work they do to keep our country safe. The measures I have outlined today will help them to continue to ensure our safety and security at the same time as we restore our civil liberties. They are in keeping with British values and our commitment to freedom, fairness and the rule of law. They will restore public confidence in counterterrorism legislation and it is my hope that they will form the basis of an enduring political consensus. I commend this Statement to the House”.

My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I will take the noble Lord’s last point—that this is somehow delayed and confused—first. As I said the other day when we were talking about pre-charge detention, the review has undoubtedly taken us longer than we originally thought it would. That is because we have taken great care over it. We do not intend to present Parliament with a series of differing proposals, such as was presented to us by the Opposition when they were looking at the question of pre-charge detention, eventually falling back on something that they had certainly not proposed in the first instance. We have tried to do a thorough job so we are confident of the rightness of the proposals. It is right that a Government should consult inside in doing that. We know the consequences when Governments inside fail to consult each other. I make no apology for the time it has taken, or the care with which this review has been conducted.

The noble Lord raised a number of detailed points and I will try to answer them. I was asked whether we are confident of the powers remaining in relation to Northern Ireland. One of our main concerns was to ensure that this was not a GB policy, but a UK policy. On stop-and-search powers, we felt it particularly appropriate to take due account of the situation in Northern Ireland. The new power has been fashioned to enable us to maintain a high level of security throughout the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland.

The question of legislation for pre-charge detention was raised. Noble Lords will not find us dilatory in bringing forward the legislation. There is a problem of being at fault whether you do or do not. We want to try to consult heavily on this legislation so that it has general acceptance. One of the things that we are most concerned to do with this review is to lay a stable and accepted basis for the legislation and the provisions that we have in law governing our approach to terrorism. We want to involve the House as much as possible. Noble Lords will find that we will not be slow in bringing forward the necessary measures. In the mean time, Section 25 is not a perfect way of doing things, but it is certainly there, it remains and it is the power that we will resort to if we need to. We will certainly get on with the legislation.

The question of the House being able to legislate applies also to the question of whether we might have to introduce control orders in extreme circumstances. It is notable that if there is a consensus Parliament can act extremely fast and both Houses can enact the necessary legislation within one day; that is why we want to try to establish one. I do not think that we will be faced with a situation where we are not able to take action if we need to in an extreme situation, which I imagine that all sides of the House would recognise as being so. Parliament will act to protect the people of this country.

On the three individuals who are still under control orders, I remind the House that the legislation does not cease to have effect until new legislation is passed. Clearly, for the rest of this year, broadly speaking, because we will renew for the end of the year until such time as the freedom Bill goes through, we will have the existing regime and review cases under that. As the House knows, each control order has to be reviewed on an annual basis.

On surveillance, the emphasis on the ability and the duty of the police to increase the likelihood of bringing a successful prosecution is an important feature of these new measures. We do not believe that they are merely a new brand of control order. If noble Lords take them in their total substance, they constitute a different regime with a different emphasis. Undoubtedly we need to continue to have legislation on the statute book that enables us to take measures to protect the public, but there is an important emphasis on two things. We need to balance that protection with the rights of those individuals, because it has been demonstrated through the courts that we need to respect those rights; and we must increase the chances of a successful prosecution. That was not the effect of the previous control order regime, which we intend to reform. These are not like regimes. I was asked whether there would be new money for the extra surveillance. I can confirm that there will be new money available during the CSR period.

I hope that I have dealt with the various points that were raised. No doubt other noble Lords will have points that they wish to make.

[Lord Lloyd of Berwick]

My Lords, I have two questions for the noble Baroness: one on control orders and one on 28 days, and that is all. I congratulate the coalition Government on getting rid of control orders at long last, if that is what they have done. We shall see how this works out. No one can say how much damage control orders have done to community relations over the past six years. Only one thing is clear; control orders have done great damage to our reputation as a country that values freedom and the rule of law.

Does the noble Baroness agree—I think she does from what she has said—that if credit is due to anyone in this whole unhappy affair, it is due not to us in Parliament, I am sorry to say, but to the judiciary? In particular, it is due to the judges sitting in the administrative court in keeping control orders within reasonable limits so far as they could and forcing the Government on so many occasions to think again.

On the 28 days, I opposed the increase from seven days to 14 days as long ago as 2003 when ACPO was asking for 14 days and got it. I opposed any increase in 2005 when ACPO asked for 28 days and got it. I opposed any increase in 2006 when it asked for, but happily did not get, 90 days. Has ACPO now accepted that it never needed 90 days or anything like it, despite the advice that it gave the Government at the time? Does ACPO accept that it was never, as it put it in 2007, “up against the buffers” with only 28 days? If so, how much faith can we put in the advice of ACPO in these affairs?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, one reason why the Government were determined to deal with control orders before they even came into office was precisely because of our perception that they were damaging to community relations. In the evidence and the responses to questionnaires and surveys, stop and search comes up quite as often as a source of grievance, if not more so, than control orders, but the Government accept that they were harmful. The Government respect the role of the judiciary, which is one reason why we are bringing this regime into line with what we believe is legally acceptable.

On the question of the number of days needed to bring a successful prosecution, I have not asked ACPO the specific question posed by the noble and learned Lord. However, like the rest of us, ACPO has learnt from experience about the time needed in practice to bring successful charges, and made it absolutely clear to the Home Secretary—as indeed have the intelligence and security services—that it is content with the proposals.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I remind the House of the benefit of short questions so that my noble friend can answer as many noble Lords as she can.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am happy to give a general welcome to the Statement. In confirming that this is not a mere rebranding of control orders, will the noble Baroness point to requiring the permission of the High Court, which seems to take us into a completely different legal structure? I suspect that many of us will wish to explore the evidential test that she mentioned and whether we can move towards a criminal test beyond reasonable doubt. Will she and her officials continue to work actively on that? Secondly, does she agree that arrangements that enable a person subject to the measure to work or study are very significant indeed? That control was extremely offensive.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am sure that the last point would be very widely accepted. It does not particularly facilitate observance of the law or good behaviour on the part of someone who is under a measure of this kind if they cannot occupy their time usefully. One of our objectives has been to bring the daily life of people who are under such restrictions as near to normality as it can be, while being compatible with the security of the rest of the community.

On the question of whether we are rebranding, I hope I made it quite clear to your Lordships that this is not a rebranding exercise. There are significant differences in the measures that we are putting into place. They have a purpose that includes the need to continue at all times to open up the maximum opportunity for actual prosecution. One of the chief complaints about the previous regime, in our view, was how it made that extraordinarily difficult.

As the noble Baroness will be aware, we have raised the test to reasonable belief. We want to work in co-operation with the High Court. One thing that has clearly been learnt through experience is that to get into a situation in which any measures that we put in place are subsequently demonstrated in the High Court or in a court to be unacceptable does not add to their credibility. We want to get into a situation in which there is a clear understanding. We believe that it is necessary for the Home Secretary to be able to act in emergencies without seeking prior agreement with the High Court because, as I am sure noble Lords can imagine, in practical circumstances there may be a great need to do something extremely fast.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead]

That is me. Thank you very much indeed. I congratulate the noble Baroness and the coalition on actually having a review, because that is needed. Indeed, we need to have one constantly. No one was ever happy with control orders; they needed to be looked at. I am also delighted that it has seen that they were necessary for the very small number of people who were a threat to this nation. To try and pretend that they are not now control orders is pushing things a little. I would be interested to know what these new restrictions will be called. My advice would be not to call them anything, or else they will become another shy that people will throw things at.

I am also very concerned about resource. A very limited resource is available, both in manpower and in money. We know that there are real problems with money across all areas of government and I am concerned about the full amount of resource that will be required. Also, if we go for these slightly lesser periods of people being in their homes and so on, we will go back to the period before I became a Minister when people actually absconded. Will the Minister reassure us that she is absolutely certain that that will not become a feature again, because clearly that is a real risk with this very tiny number of people?

I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, that there is no doubt whatever that many other countries use other mechanisms to stop very dangerous people from being on their streets, some of which would be quite abhorrent in this country, so I do not think that we need to feel ashamed. I also thank the coalition for reassuring me; I began to feel that I might have been authoritarian and trying to have a police state. The people who were formerly Lib Dems certainly made me feel that. Now, I am delighted that the coalition clearly understands how important these security issues are and, as I say, I congratulate it on keeping measures in place for that tiny number of people who wish to do us harm.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I thank the noble Lord for the generosity of those sentiments. As I say, they are not going to be orders. I cannot emphasise too much that the total package really is different from the control order regime. These measures will be called terrorist prevention and investigation measures—note the insertion of “investigation”; it is part of their purpose.

The noble Lord is quite right to stress that resources need to be taken seriously. We do so, and, clearly, while control orders are still in place, it will be important that resources are made available such that one can increase the capacity and capability of those involved. I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not go into more detail, but we are mindful of the need to make a reality of the extra mitigations that we are putting in place.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Howard of Lympne]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend and, through her, the Home Secretary on striking the right balance in this very difficult area between the need to protect the public and the need to safeguard personal and individual liberty. May I ask about the emergency legislation to extend the period of pre-charge detention? Given what my noble friend has said about the Government’s ability to put that in place very quickly, do they intend this emergency power to be available not simply in a general period or emergency but for an individual suspect under detention, in respect of whom the police, and perhaps a magistrate or a judge, are convinced that a longer period of detention is necessary?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks, which I will pass on to the Home Secretary. On the question of emergency legislation, the intention is really to cover an emergency. I suppose that I can imagine—this is hypothetical territory—two broad categories, for instance, where the general threat level had risen even further. Those will be very dire circumstances in which we might be in a real emergency. There is also the possibility that one or a number of complex conspiracies come together and it is clear that a different approach is needed to the amount of time for, say, pre-charge detention. However, we stress that we believe that these kinds of measures, which at the moment are the norm, should be reserved for really exceptional circumstances.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

Thank you, my Lords. I need to declare an interest in that I was a former member of ACPO and of the police service in the metropolis. I thank the noble Baroness for the Statement. I merely carry on from the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, which is: how can Parliament legislate on the back of a police and Security Service operation? One reason why ACPO brought up the question of the length of detention in a period when we had no atrocity immediately before us was so that Parliament could debate it in an open atmosphere. I do not suggest that it cannot be done, but an enormous amount of thought has to be given to how both Houses of Parliament could decide that the situation had reached the point at which emergency legislation had to be brought in, particularly if it was not after an atrocity but merely because of a series of desperately significant operations going on. I do not understand how this House or the other place could debate that in the open.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Lord raises a perfectly fair question. The choices that we have made are not easy. In fact, I suggest to the House that there is no ideal solution here. Why have we gone for this method? I remind the noble Lord that we are not just going to place something in the Library or, indeed, suddenly bring the matter to the House without having gone through an important part of the process—pre-legislative scrutiny with the House—so that some of the conditions that would be needed to build consensus so that we could act rapidly and in agreement in an emergency were actually understood between us and in place. That process will be important in building the underlying consensus on which legislation can be passed in an emergency of that kind.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the independent overseer of the counterterrorism and security powers review. Would the Minister agree that the review has made good progress in meeting its objectives of recommendations that, if implemented, would roll back state power consistent with public safety, and that on stop and search, surveillance powers, pre-charge detention, the removal of relocation and curfews, and house arrest powers, important reforms are signalled?

Would she also acknowledge that more work needs to be done on the precise circumstances in which restrictions may be placed on those who are not charged, prosecuted or convicted of crime, and that some quite tough decisions will have to be made before legislation is brought before this House?

Finally, will she indicate whether the Government will consider the proposal in my report that any regime of restrictions should be much more closely linked to a continuing criminal investigation so that the primacy of prosecution is protected and that prosecution is the prime aim of public policy in this area?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I take this opportunity to reiterate my thanks to the noble Lord for his contribution, which is very significant to the work of the review. He makes some important points and has outlined more eloquently than I have the effect of reducing the measures in relation to individuals that constitute a new balance between public protection and the rights of the individual. We believe, however, as the noble Lord acknowledges himself, that it remains necessary that measures of this kind are available in the interest of public protection. He is right that there is more work to be done on some of the detail, and as we work through the legislation and subsequently its implementation, I am sure that more detail will come into effect.

On the question of the regime of restrictions and the need for a closer link to criminal investigation, the Government share the view that it is important to increase the possibility within this regime of bringing successful prosecution. We are mindful of that being the proper goal. As the Home Secretary said in her Statement, terrorists should be behind bars in a prison cell. At the same time we draw back from the notion that one would not be able to introduce a measure of this kind in the absence of a close link to and a realistic prospect of being able to introduce a prosecution. We do not wish, therefore, to claim that we can do that, given that it might not be an honest claim. What I can say on the part of the Government is that we will try very hard to ensure that the maximum possibility for bringing prosecution in any given instance is a clear objective.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to pre-legislative scrutiny. Will she confirm that all the measures she has mentioned today will be subject to full pre-legislative scrutiny?

Secondly, she mentioned intercept evidence. The previous Government were looking at it and her Government have been looking at it. When are some positive proposals likely to come forward, because if we can accept the use of intercept evidence, some of the other measures will not be necessary?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

On the noble Lord’s first point, that is certainly the case with the legislation relating to the possibility of having to revert to a longer period than 14 days. We are not going to introduce the legislation relating to control orders. We are, however, going to discuss it with the Opposition on Privy Council terms.

On the question of intercept as evidence, I am a proponent of being able to introduce intercept as evidence. Serious work is still going on on it. The issue is not entirely without complexity, but we take it seriously and we share the previous Government’s view that it will be highly desirable to be able to introduce intercept as evidence in such cases.

European Arrest Warrant and Investigation Order

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Vinson]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government to what extent the European Arrest Warrant and European Investigation Order conform with the principle of habeas corpus.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

The UK’s transposition of the European arrest warrant complies fully with the concept of habeas corpus. UK implementation of the European investigation order will also be fully compliant. However, I understand that the noble Lord’s principal concern is the separate issue of European arrest warrants being issued for trivial offences. The Government share this concern and are talking to other EU countries, bilaterally and through the European Union, to stop this happening.

[Lord Vinson]

I thank the Minister for her considered reply, but I am not as optimistic. The fact remains that hundreds of UK citizens are being compelled to appear before any EU court without the merit of the often frivolous charges being first assessed. They can be locked up without pre-trial. Is she not concerned that this totally overrides the ancient liberties of the British citizen enshrined in Magna Carta and habeas corpus? Will she assure the House that this will be resolved? Three member states of the EU have already declared the European arrest warrant unconstitutional. We should do the same. It really is time that we started to say no to damaging EU legislation.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the Government are concerned, as I have just said, with the disproportionate use of the European arrest warrant for trivial purposes. That is one of the reasons why we have asked Sir Scott Baker, with the panel that he is heading on extradition, to look specifically at the operation of the European arrest warrant. He is able to take submissions from Members of this House and others and I hope that the noble Lord will take advantage of that.

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, of course one must share the Minister’s concern about the civil liberties principles at stake, which sometimes are being breached, as the noble Lord said. On the other hand, will the Minister confirm that some serious criminals charged with terrorism or other equally serious offences have been brought back to Britain to face trial through the use of the European arrest warrant?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

Indeed, my Lords, and I suspect that that is why our predecessors signed up to this measure when they were in office. It is the case that it has facilitated the return of prisoners to jurisdiction, so the noble Lord makes a perfectly valid point.

[Lord Campbell of Alloway]

What exactly do the Government propose to do about this? The situation as it stands is obviously unjust and unsatisfactory. What will the Government do?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I hope that I have just indicated what we are doing. We think that we need some expert advice, so we have asked Sir Scott Baker to look at the operation of the European arrest warrant. He is due to report in September of this year and the Government will take action in the light of his report.

[Lord Thomas of Gresford]

Does not the Minister agree that habeas corpus is a process and not a principle? It is designed to make sure that a person who is in custody is there legally. If a European arrest warrant has been issued improperly, a writ of habeas corpus will succeed and, if not, it will fail. It is a simple issue and there is no conflict between the principles.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, in this House of legal eagles I hesitate, as a non-lawyer, to get on to the grounds, but I understand that the principle of habeas corpus is indeed a legal remedy against unlawful detention. It is therefore right to say that the European arrest warrant in principle is compliant. I accept entirely, however, that there is dissatisfaction with the warrant’s operation, which is what the Government have asked Sir Scott Baker to look into.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

Can the Minister give some indication of how many people have been extradited from this country and to this country in recent years?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that I will have to write to the noble and learned Lord about that. There are figures but I do not entirely have them to hand. The numbers are not huge, but they are sufficiently significant, and we wish to know how well this remedy is operating.

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that one of the prime duties of government is to protect the interests of the citizen, particularly when abroad. She will be aware that members of the British public have been extradited to other countries without the production of any prima facie evidence at all. Moreover, they often go to countries that do not have the same respect for law and individual interests as we do in this country. The Government were warned about this when the Bill was discussed in Grand Committee. It is a serious matter and I hope that the Government will understand the level of concern about it throughout the country.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the point that the noble Lord makes about the Government having been warned at the time of the passage of the legislation is perhaps to be directed at the other Benches. We are concerned about the operation of the European arrest warrant, which is precisely why we believe that it needs to be looked into. I would add one point about the European supervision directive—I may not have the title quite right. There is a framework agreement on an arrangement that will come into operation whereby individuals who have been summoned for jurisdiction can nevertheless return to their country of origin during the period of bail and, if sentence is passed on them, can also serve that sentence there. Extra remedies are coming into operation to protect people’s rights.

[Lord Tebbit]

My Lords, could my noble friend not take some advantage of the provision of European arrest warrants? We also have the problem of control orders. Perhaps she could get some friendly European country to take those who are currently subject to control orders and bang them up in a jail somewhere, without the need ever to bring them to trial. That would seem to be a most convenient solution.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we will be discussing this topic shortly. All I would say is that, of course, control orders arise when there is insufficient admissible evidence to bring a successful prosecution.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the Question refers to the European investigation order. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government are satisfied with the operation of that order and whether the demands placed on UK police forces as a result of such orders are proportionate?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the European investigation order is, of course, not yet in operation; it is still being discussed. Its objective is to facilitate mutual legal assistance between sovereign legal systems. We are endeavouring in the negotiations on this to ensure that its operation, when it comes into effect, will be satisfactory from the point of view of the traditions and the standards of this country.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes A, B and D) Order 2011

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Grand Committee

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and 14th Report from the Merits Committee.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the order 2011 obviously relates to the codes of practice that are in operation under the 1984 Act. Under Section 66 of that Act, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has a duty to issue codes of practice to regulate the police in the exercise of their powers. The proposed revisions to Codes A, B and D will keep the codes of practice in line with legislative change and are, obviously, part of the Government’s programme to modernise the police and to reduce bureaucracy in policing. I will explain some of those changes.

On 20 September, under Section 67 of the 1984 Act, my right honourable friend prepared and published drafts of the three codes of practice for statutory consultation. Representations on the content were taken from a number of independent organisations, such as Liberty and StopWatch, as well as from professional bodies such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Police Federation.

I am aware that the Merits Committee has raised a question about the length of the consultation period, but I stress that the process extended well beyond the normal four weeks. Individual discussions were held with concerned parties following their responses so, although the formal process may have ended at that point, discussion continued on the responses. Indeed, individual forces are conducting their own consultations on how the changes will affect the communities that they serve and on how the changes should be implemented. In particular, the Metropolitan Police is beginning an engagement programme shortly on exactly that issue.

I shall deal with the PACE Code of Practice A first and with Code B and Code C subsequently, given that Code A is the most substantial and will, I suspect, be the code that we focus on. Many of the proposed changes to Code of Practice A follow from the need to reverse the increase in paperwork that hampers police operations and leads to encounters with the public that are unnecessarily prolonged and bureaucratic in character. For stop and account, draft Code A removes the national requirement to complete a form recording each encounter. That potentially frees up many hundreds of thousands of hours of police time, both on the street and in the back office, and will allow officers to increase the quality—and shorten the duration—of those encounters, which should be no more than brief.

It is understandable that some worries have been uttered about that change, particularly in light of the origin of the current national recording requirement. Your Lordships will recall that the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report of 1999 raised awareness of the impact that the police have on the people whom they encounter, particularly in black and minority-ethnic communities. However, since recording was implemented in 2005, we have seen little evidence of widespread disproportionate use of stop and account in relation to black and ethnic-minority communities and a vast increase in police bureaucracy. When examined at a local level, many forces show little evidence of any form of disproportionate use of stop and search as a tactic in dealing with BME communities and consultation with community groups has not really raised concern about the use of stop and account. That is why we propose to remove the national requirement for recording stop and account and leave the decision on whether to continue to record the ethnicity of the person stopped to be decided locally, according to perceptions of local need.

By that, we mean that there will be some communities in which the question of ethnicity is sensitive, so the local police force will judge whether, in the light of that, it is right to continue to record, but the force will not be obliged to do so. In communities where ethnicity is not particularly an issue, we see no need to continue that burden. As the House will know, we take the view that individual police forces know their own communities better than Whitehall and are best placed to analyse their own statistics and understand how they might use the tactic and what its impact on ethnic-minority groups might be.

On the other hand, given the intrusive nature of stop and search, we think it right to continue to have a national requirement governing the minimum level of recording of stop-and-search encounters. Therefore, we are making a distinction between stop and account and stop and search. The proposed changes to Code A do not diminish the importance of recording these encounters or the monitoring of the use of the powers. In accordance with Section 1 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, we are reducing the number of pieces of data to be completed on a stop-and-search record from 12 to seven. We are reducing the quantum of information, but we are not saying that no record needs to be made. We believe that leaving out some of the pieces of information currently demanded, and having others recorded automatically by the new technology, will save many hundreds of thousands of hours of police time.

Key information about each encounter, including the self-defined ethnicity of the person stopped, will still be recorded. Mobile technology is being encouraged and minor amendments have been made to the language of Code A to encourage its further use. The sorts of things that we envisage are airwave radios and BlackBerrys, which could enable the police to reduce the amount of effort and time that they put into each encounter. The outcome of a stop and search will be recorded as part of the custody record for those detained as a result of a stop and search. That means that we will not have, as at present, two sets of records, as everything will be incorporated in the custody record.

Code A also details the changes in the use of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 stop-and-search powers, which I set out to the House on 8 July last year when I repeated a Statement made by the Home Secretary. The inappropriate use of this power has ceased in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Gillan and Quinton case. Clearly, more will be said about this in your Lordships' House tomorrow, when we look at Section 44 along with other elements in the counterterrorism review. I very much regret that, due to a hazard of timing, it will not be possible to have a more detailed discussion of those items today, but I have no doubt that there will be further opportunities to take up any issues that remain outstanding.

Comments have also been made concerning the draft guidance that was put in place on the Section 60 stop-and-search powers following the Gillan and Quinton judgment about Section 44. In the light of responses from those concerned, the Home Office amended the September draft of Code A—the draft that we put out for consultation—to make it clear that there is no ethnic profiling or unlawful discrimination in the use of this power. All authorisations under this power must be supported by clear intelligence. Recording of race or any other protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010 may on occasion be relevant but that must never be the sole reason for stopping someone under Section 60. This is how we arrived at the outcome that we did in order to emphasise, among other things, that consultation does have effect in real life.

Others have suggested that Section 60 should be amended in line with the changes that we have made to Section 44 following the Gillan and Quinton judgment. We have not done this, as we consider that the Section 60 power can be distinguished readily from the provision in Section 44 that the ECHR declared incompatible with Article 8 of the ECHR. We do not think that the relevant section fell foul in the same way. Moreover, there is currently an application for judicial review of a Section 60 stop and search before the High Court, on which it would not be appropriate to try to predict the outcome or to take the debate on the issue further today.

However, Section 60 is used differently across England and Wales. Many police forces authorise the power for use on only one or two occasions a year, whereas others may never use it at all. As a national document, Code A should not restrict the use that forces make of the power based on how other forces operate but should simply cover national requirements and allow local practical application of the power to continue. As I say, this is an area where there is significant variation in use. We should not judge the use of a tool such as Section 60 purely on the basis of national statistics.

Here I want to make an important point. Figures are quoted in the press to the effect that black people are 26 times more likely to be stopped and searched under Section 60 than white people. We regard such statistics as potentially extremely misleading because of the distribution of the actual use of the power. Some 76 per cent of all the Section 60 stop and searches in 2008-09—before this Government came into office—were conducted by the Metropolitan Police in London. I suggest that that means that measuring the use of the power against the ethnic composition of the national population as a whole gives a false impression of what actually goes on. When we compare that 76 per cent with the cosmopolitan population of London—obviously, leaving the remaining 24 per cent for the rest of the country—the results are much less disproportionate.

I turn briefly to the other two codes. Code B governs the searching of premises and the seizure of property. The changes bring the code up to date with changes in legislation and the relevant judgments of the higher courts and are largely technical in nature. The proposed changes provide guidance on the powers to search the premises of individuals subject to control orders as well as on the police’s power under Section 18 of PACE to enter and search premises occupied or controlled by a person under arrest for an indictable offence.

The majority of the changes to Code D, on identification issues, reflect the amendments to the power of the police to take DNA and fingerprints for recordable offences that are made under Sections 2 to 7 of the Crime and Security Act 2010, which was passed early last year. The changes fill existing gaps in the ability of the police to take biometric material in connection with criminal investigations and ensure that the national DNA and fingerprint databases are populated primarily with the profiles of those who have been convicted of offences by the courts rather than with unconvicted people. The detail of how the Government will meet the commitment to adopt the protections of the Scottish model for DNA retention will be outlined in the freedom Bill that is to be introduced shortly. Clearly, that will require amendment to the code in due course, but what we have done is bring the code into line with the existing state of the law.

Code D also provides the police with necessary guidance on the use of mobile fingerprinting equipment, which is a fairly recent advance and is not intended to be used routinely or on a whim in investigations. The equipment must be used only when the police already suspect a person of committing a crime and only when they have a need to confirm a person’s identity, following the example set down in guidance designed to prevent abuse. If an officer is unable to confirm a person’s name or has reasonable grounds for doubting the name given, it would be right and proper to use the devices in those circumstances. An image of one or two fingerprints may be taken and checked against the existing fingerprint database. This reduces the need for arrests purely for the purpose of confirming identity, which will save valuable time and resources both for the police and those whose identity is in doubt. I want also to emphasise, because it really is important, that the fingerprints taken on those devices are automatically destroyed by the devices themselves, so there is no way in which, covertly or inadvertently, fingerprints taken under those circumstances, where they are not available for retention, could be retained. As soon as the search is concluded, the prints are explicitly excluded from the police’s wider powers to take and retain fingerprints on arrest.

Concerns have been raised about how we will ensure that these codes are interpreted and applied in a consistent manner across all forces in England and Wales. The codes need to balance the requirement for central guidance with the freedom for forces to operate specific processes and procedures in the way that meets local needs. We have been trying to strike such a balance, and the Home Office continues to work closely with a range of interest groups on these issues.

The revised codes of practice follow important principles, such as reducing bureaucracy and increasing efficiency as well as protecting the civil liberties of our population at large. I think that the House will agree that the landscape of policing is always evolving. It is important, therefore, that the codes of practice, which are a key source of guidance to the police, are kept up to date and that the public know the position. The changes are fully supported by the police and I hope that they will have a real impact on day to day policing. I commend the draft order and the attendant codes to the House.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Before the debate on the order commences, perhaps I may ask noble Lords please to be kind enough to turn off their phones. The rather curious noise is caused by having mobile phones still switched on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bradshaw]

I am not going to speak for very long; I merely want to ask one question about local accountability. Does local accountability refer to the whole of a police force or does it mean that different things can happen in different places? For example, if the police superintendent in Slough decides that he needs to record things because there is a large—not just ethnic—population from other countries, and the police superintendent in Whitney, which is a long way away but still in the same police area, decides that there is no need to record them, does “local” mean that discretion goes down that far? If not, how far within a police force does it go?

As someone who was involved in one of the many attempts to reduce police bureaucracy, I have spent time speaking to an assistant chief constable about stop and search, and was quite horrified by what has to happen when someone is approached under stop and search or stop and account. There is a constant complaint about police bureaucracy. It actually happens and it eats up a huge amount of resources. I should like to see those resources expended on real police work rather than bureaucracy.

I read the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry very carefully, and it exposed irresponsible and very badly organised policing. I do not believe that it showed that stop and search or stop and account needed to be recorded in every case as thoroughly as it is now. Generally speaking, I support these changes, but I would like to know that discretion really is going to move down to the meaningful local level.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their helpful and thoughtful contributions. I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for expressing the willingness of the Opposition to support these orders. Let me take the points that have been made and allay any anxieties that there may be.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the end of his speech about the need to ensure that there is no unnecessary bureaucracy but that valuable information is not lost is extremely pertinent and quite right. What we are trying to do in modifying—it is no more than that—some practices is to try to strike that balance. I shall spend a little more time on stop and account than on stop and search, but I should say on the latter that everyone agrees that stop and search is a much more intrusive activity on the part of the police, so it is really important that, when it takes place, it is fully and properly recorded. For that reason, we have no intention of changing practice on stop and search.

On stop and account, it is certainly the case that not all those who were consulted were as convinced as the Government are that change would be desirable. However, let me say straightaway that, if it is demonstrated that the changes are not helpful, it will be right and proper to think again, and consultation is still going on. One effect of instituting more local obligations on the part of the police will be to ensure that questions will be raised about whether such measures are accepted—which seems to me to be the criterion that we should look at—and whether they give the local population confidence that their security is being protected and that justice is being served. With the police and crime commissioners that we will have in due course, the vehicle for both the obligation and the means for local accountability will be much more clearly stated.

On the question whether discretion will extend to the local level, it is in the logic of giving the obligation to local police forces—in the first instance, to the police and crime commissioner working with the chief constable—to decide exactly how, given local circumstances and the distribution of the local population, recording should take place. The whole point of our proposal is that recording need not be uniform to be helpful in serving the interests of protecting the public and of justice and in gaining the confidence of the local population. That is why we take the view that uniformity and efficiency are not necessarily quite the same thing, given the need to ensure that the systems are not only efficient but acceptable and just.

I should also say that stop and account, unlike stop and search, should be a brief matter in which the policeman simply says, “Why are you here?”. It should not develop into an encounter that is remembered on both sides. That is partly why we think that stop and account should be restored to the normal relationship between an individual and a policeman. If, say, a crowd is building up, the policemen present will want to retain the confidence of the people on the ground. Reducing the bureaucracy associated with stop and account is justified both by the nature of the encounter and because it will help such encounters to be seen as less intrusive for individuals than they might otherwise be. As I said, if it is demonstrated that these changes are not helpful, I have absolutely no doubt that that will be thrown up in the consultation process and that it will be right to respond. Clearly, codes of practice are never the last word.

The arrangements with communities will deliver the necessary monitoring. I was asked whether we would do anything as regards the NPIA-run stop-and-search panel, which has been abolished because it was not inciting any great engagement—community members were not turning up and it did not seem to be very useful. The NPIA is looking at whether a replacement should be instituted. Perhaps noble Lords will not be surprised to hear that we regard the local consultation as an important part of what would replace something that was run by the NPIA and certainly would contribute to it. That issue is still being looked at.

I hope that I have already explained that our approach to consistency is that it should relate to local conditions and not to numerical equivalents at a national level. Having said that, we take seriously the need to ensure that the outcome serves the public interest.

I am wondering whether I was asked about any points that I have not covered.

[Lord Rosser]

I asked the Minister whether she had any further comments to make, in addition to those in her opening speech, on the concerns that are expressed in the Merits Committee report both by the Merits Committee and on behalf of the organisations that it had contacted directly, which, while welcoming the changes that the Government have made to their original proposals, were clearly still unhappy with the situation.

Since consistency of application seems to be an issue, perhaps I may come back to the point that the Minister made about that. I appreciate that the Minister has said that there will not be national consistency across the board as forces will have to reflect what may be happening in different areas. Does she think that that is the cause of inconsistencies at the moment, as opposed to police forces taking different approaches and perhaps very different interpretations, which may not be based on what local communities think?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that we all have learnt. I would not try to claim that there was never any disproportionality, for instance, in the way in which different ethnic groups have been stopped and searched. The way to regulate the proper use of these powers is with the involvement of the local community, which will be extremely aware of whether the local police are using their powers disproportionately or improperly. That is why we believe that that kind of consultation will have a much more direct and helpful effect on the police using their powers in a proportionate and proper way than waiting to collect a lot of national statistics and then deciding that it looks as if there is something wrong.

I suppose that we are offering a different and, I hope, more practical approach to ensuring that the use of powers is regulated in a proper manner, but I believe that our approach will be effective. Of course, clearly the forces will have to record what they are doing overall and we will get to know over time whether the variation represents satisfaction in local areas.

The Merits Committee was concerned about the relative shortness of the time allowed for consultation. I hope that I have explained that the reality was that the time was rather longer. The committee also remarked on the fact that not all the groups supported all the proposals that we have decided to make. Liberty feels that the powers under Section 60 remain too broad. As I said, a case before the courts at the moment is an element in the situation. Perhaps I should also remind noble Lords that the Section 60 power can be used for only very short periods; it is not in the Section 40 category.

Justice’s concerns were also mentioned. I think that Justice is worried about the absence of statistics—I am afraid that I cannot read the note—but, if there is a problem, we will need to look at that and make sure that absence of information does not lead to improper outcomes. We are clearly embarking down a slightly different road and I assure the House that, precisely because we are doing that, we will watch the outcome carefully. I hope that the House will feel sufficiently reassured that the changes that we are making are intended to have a favourable outcome and that we will monitor their use in a way that will ensure that that is the outcome.

Motion agreed.

Counterterrorism

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made earlier today in another place by my right honourable friend Damian Green, the Minister of State for Immigration. The Statement is as follows:

“Mr Speaker, the Home Secretary is currently in Budapest at an informal meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council, and so I will be responding on her behalf.

As the Home Secretary, Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister have made clear, the first duty of any Government is to protect the British public, and we will not do anything that puts our security at risk. The arrests of individuals for terrorism-related offences before Christmas, the cargo bomb plot in October and the bombings in Stockholm in December have all demonstrated that the threat from international terrorism remains a serious one.

On 13 July last year, the Home Secretary announced that she was renewing the current order for 28 days’ pre-charge detention for six months whilst the powers were considered as part of a wider review of counterterrorism powers. As the Home Secretary will be giving a full Statement to the House on Wednesday on the outcome of that review, it would be wrong of me to pre-empt her statement by giving details of the review today.

This Government are clear that the power to detain terrorist suspects for up to 28 days’ detention before they are charged or released was meant to be an exceptional power. This has always been Parliament’s intention, but under the last Government it became the norm, with the renewal of 28 days repeatedly brought before the House. This was despite the power rarely being used; since July 2007, no one has been held for longer than 14 days despite the many terrorists arrested since then. This is a testament to the efforts of our prosecutors, our police and our intelligence agencies. As I said, the Home Secretary will next Wednesday announce to the House the findings from the wider review of counterterrorism and security powers.

The Home Secretary will set out the detailed considerations of the Government in determining whether the current regime of 28 days should be renewed and, if not, what should be put in its place. In the interim, I can announce that the Government will not be seeking to extend the order allowing the maximum 28-day limit and, accordingly, the current order will lapse on 25 January and the maximum limit of pre-charge detention will from that date revert to 14 days.

We are clear that 14 days should be the norm and that the law should reflect this. However, we will place draft emergency legislation in the House Library to extend the maximum period to 28 days to prepare for the very exceptional circumstances when a longer period may be required. If Parliament approved, the maximum period of pre-charge detention could be extended by that method. In our announcement on the wider review, the Home Secretary will set out what contingency measures should be introduced in order to ensure that our ability to bring terrorists to justice is as effective as possible.

This country continues to face a real and serious threat from terrorism. That threat is unlikely to diminish any time soon. The Government are clear that we need appropriate powers to deal with that threat, but those powers must not interfere with the hard won civil liberties of the British people. There is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting our security and defending our civil liberties; the outcome of our counterterrorism powers review will strike that balance. It is this Government’s sincere hope that it will form the basis of a lasting political consensus across the House on this fundamentally important issue”.

I commend the Statement to the House. That concludes the Statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I welcome the Opposition’s intention to support the Government so far as they can in this very important policy area. When the full Statement has been made and the review published, I hope they will feel able to support the Government’s position and proposed legislation in their entirety.

I will say something about the review. As the House would expect, I have been fully involved in it. The word I would use to describe what we have been doing is “painstaking”. It has undoubtedly taken us longer than we thought it would. I make no apology for that. It is much more important to get the outcome right, get the balance right and go into all the possibilities. As we did the work, we found that there were more angles and aspects that we needed to consider than we had realised at the outset: otherwise, we would not have stated in public the timetable that we did. We have been at pains to do extremely careful work, and to ensure that all those involved in government agreed with the outcome. The Home Secretary will set this out in detail on Wednesday.

The noble Lord asked a number of questions. I will endeavour to answer them. First, there will be a full Statement. The police and security services have made it clear that they are able to work within the limits that have been set. I do not wish to go into great detail because it would be wrong to anticipate the Statement. However, we will set out the considerations that lie behind the contingency that we will put in place because, like everyone else, we realise that the terrorist threat can change and therefore that it is right and proper to have an arrangement to enable us to respond to that, but with the sanction of Parliament. That will be one difference between the arrangements that we will put forward and those that were previously in place.

There has undoubtedly been significant and considerable press speculation about what the Government were going to decide. I have no doubt that journalists talked to people. However, there has been no leak and no statement by the Government of a kind that anticipated what they were going to say to Parliament. It is in response to the Urgent Question put down in the other House that we have chosen to respond to the part of the CT review that is urgent—the part that relates to the expiry of the pre-charge detention period—and to make it clear that it is the Government's intention to allow the 28-day limit to lapse and to revert in normal circumstances to 14 days. The evidence since 2007 shows that this has been sufficient time for valid charges to be brought.

[Lord Owen]

Is the Minister aware that although there is no collective view on the Cross Benches, we on these Benches, after a very difficult period in which our civil liberties have been threatened by suggestions at one stage that this period could go up to 90 days, then to 48 days, will greatly welcome this decision by the coalition Government? It is a decision on which this House can claim to have had a considerable influence. It is also the end of a rather shameful period in which many of us feel that we reacted to the undoubted threat of terrorism, which was and remains great, by reducing our intrinsic and long-standing respect for civil liberties.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his statement. This House has indeed striven to be a guardian of civil liberties, and many noble Lords have played an important part in that role. As a House, we shall always strive to do that with due regard to the security of this country.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, this is indeed welcome news. I welcome, too, the proposal to put forward draft emergency legislation. There may be other contexts in which having legislation on the stocks could be useful. I hope the Minister will take back the view, which I suspect not only I take, that it would be useful to have an opportunity to scrutinise the draft legislation and not simply publish it, leave it there and hope it is okay. There needs to be a formal opportunity to scrutinise it.

On the 14 days, which will “be the norm”, detention on the basis of suspicion for as long as 14 days is significant and must have an immense impact on an innocent individual. Has any progress been made on work, particularly intercept evidence—the noble Baroness will not be surprised by that question—that might enable a reduction to less than 14 days?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I thank my noble friend for her sentiments. On the 14 days, more detail will indeed be set out about the context in which 14 days will become the norm. Perhaps she will forgive me if I do not go into that now. Some of the detail will respond precisely to the points that she just made.

I have no doubt that the Home Secretary will have something to say about the use of interceptors’ evidence. All I will say to the House at the moment is that the work that is being done on that subject—and a new round of work is being done—is continuing.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I apologise to the House for arriving late for my noble friend’s Statement. As one of the survivors of the 90-day ping-pong between the Houses, when fortunately the robust position of so many of your Lordships at that time ensured that a very serious error was not made, I welcome the Statement that my noble friend has repeated today and look forward to further details that will emerge next Wednesday.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I thank my noble friend. In making the Statement on Wednesday, I hope that we will be able to give the full context in which the 14-day decision rests.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2011

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Thursday 20th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 January be approved.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the terrorist threat to the UK and its interests abroad remains severe and sustained. The Government are determined to do all that they can to minimise that threat. Proscription of terrorist organisations is an important part of the Government’s strategy to tackle terrorist activities. We would therefore like to add the organisation Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan, the TTP, to the list of 46 international terrorist organisations that are listed under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary firmly believes that the TTP meets the statutory and discretionary tests for proscription. This is the ninth proscription order amending Schedule 2 to that Act.

Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 provides a power for the Home Secretary to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is concerned in terrorism. The Act specifies that an organisation is concerned in terrorism if it commits or participates in acts of terrorism; prepares for terrorism; promotes or encourages terrorism, including the unlawful glorification of terrorism; or is otherwise concerned in terrorism.

The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation only if she believes that it is concerned in terrorism. If the test is met, she may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. In considering whether to exercise that discretion, she takes into account a number of factors, which were announced to Parliament during the passage of the Terrorism Act in 2000. The factors considered are the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; the specific threat that it poses to the United Kingdom; the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas; the organisation’s presence in the United Kingdom; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.

Proscription is a tough but necessary power. Its effect is that the proscribed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. Proscription means that it is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, or invite support for, a proscribed organisation. It is also a criminal offence to arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation or to wear clothing or to carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Given the wide-ranging impact of proscription, the Home Secretary exercises her power to proscribe an organisation only after thoroughly reviewing all the available relevant information on the organisation. This includes open-source material as well as intelligence material, legal advice and advice reflecting consultation across government, including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. Decisions on proscription are taken with great care by the Home Secretary, and it is also right that both Houses must approve the order proscribing a new organisation.

Having carefully considered all the advice, the Home Secretary firmly believes that the TTP is currently concerned in terrorism. Although, as noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to go into much detail on the evidence, I am able to summarise. The TTP’s stated objectives are: the enforcement of Sharia, resistance to the Pakistani army and the removal of NATO forces from Afghanistan. The group is a prolific terrorist organisation which has frequently perpetrated attacks in Pakistan. For example, an attack in July last year on a meeting of tribal elders in a marketplace in the Mohmand Agency killed 104 people and injured 120. Two recent suicide attacks on army vehicles in Lahore killed 57 people in March last year. Although the majority of attacks have been against military and governmental targets, the TTP is known also to target crowded areas and places of worship; for example, an attack on the two Ahmadi mosques in May 2010 which killed more than 80 civilians.

The group is also known to target and claim responsibility for attacks on western targets; for example, in June 2010, an attack on a NATO convoy just outside Islamabad killed seven people and destroyed 50 vehicles and, in April 2010, an attack on the US consulate in Peshawar killed at least six. The TTP has also threatened attacks in the West and was implicated in the failed Times Square car bomb in New York last May.

The proscription of the TTP will contribute to making the UK a hostile environment for terrorists and their supporters, and will signal our condemnation of the terrorist attacks that the group continues to carry out in Pakistan. Proscription will also support the emerging international consensus against the organisation. The TTP is already designated by the United States and Pakistan, and I understand that proscription is being considered by a number of other countries.

Proscribing the TTP will enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any supporters in the UK. It will also send a strong message that the UK is not willing to tolerate terrorism either here or anywhere else. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social grouping, but it is based on evidence that the organisation is concerned in terrorism. It is clear that the TTP is not representative of Pakistani or Muslim communities in the UK. The organisation has carried out a large number of attacks in Pakistan resulting in mass casualties. I know that the vast majority of British Muslims joined us all in condemning those abhorrent acts of violence.

Finally, I have already said that the Government recognise that proscription is a tough power that can have a wide-ranging impact. Because of that, there is an appeal mechanism in the legislation, and any organisation that is proscribed or any that is affected by the proscription of an organisation can apply to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be de-proscribed. If the application is refused, the applicant also has a right to appeal through the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission, which is a special tribunal that is able to consider the sensitive material that often underpins proscription decisions. A special advocate can also be appointed to represent the interests of the applicant in closed sessions of the commission. This is a fair process.

There is ample evidence to suggest that the TTP is concerned in terrorism, and I believe it is right that we add it to the list of proscribed organisations under Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. I commend the order to the House.

[Lord Scott of Foscote]

My Lords, I have no doubt whatever that the House should support this order, and I rise simply to ask why it has taken so long for the order to be sought. It appears from the contents of the letter that the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Goodlad, the chairman of the Merits Committee, in anticipation of the meeting that the committee had to peruse this document, that information has been in the hands of the authorities indicating that since 2007 the TTP has carried out mass-casualty attacks in Pakistan and Afghanistan, that it was implicated in an attempted Times Square car bomb attack in May 2010, and that there were other atrocities in the first half of 2010, as referred to by the noble Baroness. Although I thoroughly support the making of the order, I wonder why it has taken so long for it to be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am extremely grateful to noble Lords who have spoken for the support that they have given to the action that the Government propose to take. I believe, and I hope I am right, that it represents the broad opinion of the House.

I have been asked a number of questions, to which I shall attempt to respond. In reply to the last question, we will certainly proscribe only on the basis of relevant criteria. I was asked a number of questions about our intentions for proscription in future. If I may, I will leave that largely to next week's Statement. We will continue to conduct a regime that is rigorous in its demand in the circumstances in which an organisation is liable to proscription—that it is related to terrorism. We believe that that is an important line that should be drawn when proscribing organisations.

The question was asked: why not sooner? Some noble Lords felt that we had taken too long to do this; others felt that we need to take our time when doing something so serious. Of course, the possibility of proscribing the TTP was available to the Government before this Government came into office. I take the view that proscription is a serious action to undertake. I agree with those who said that it is a propaganda coup for the other side if an appeal against governmental action of this kind succeeds and that one needs to be absolutely certain of one’s ground. As noble Lords are aware, the grounds are broad terrorism grounds and not others, but it does not just affect the UK, although that is obviously relevant. It also has an affect abroad and on our allies.

Police: Protest Groups

Baroness Neville-Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 12th January 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the police about the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, decisions on intelligence gathering are operational matters for chief officers working within the relevant legal framework. The Government do not discuss with the police the use of undercover operations in relation to environmental protest groups. The Home Office has spoken to Nottinghamshire Police about the next steps in this case, which has been referred to the Independent Police Complaints Commission. It is talking to ACPO and HMIC about which body is in the best position to undertake a review of the wider lessons to be learnt.

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her reply and I hope that we can have an inquiry into the workings of these police units. I am sure that she would agree that we cannot have a situation of overtly having freedom of speech and freedom to demonstrate but covertly demonstrators are in fear of agents provocateurs and of being spied on and put on databases held secretly when they have no idea what is going on. Does she agree that there is far more to this than the one simple case? We need to clean up the position so that people can demonstrate. If they commit criminal acts, they will be prosecuted, but if they demonstrate in good faith, they should be able to do so without fear.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, it is fairly clear that Nottinghamshire Police wish to have this episode investigated. They are aware that something is not quite right. We ought to await the outcome of that investigation, and indeed, if there is a wider investigation into the longer-term consequences, what HMIC will do. It is clear that there are governance issues, which ought to be looked at. The Government have already done certain things in relation to the governance of such matters. We are in favour, as is the whole House, of the right to peaceful protest and we will certainly not resile from that, but unfortunately not all protests are peaceful and in those circumstances the police need to benefit from good intelligence. Key to good policing of protests as a whole is ensuring the right to protest of those who are peaceful and limiting the activities of those who wish to do damage.

[Lord Mayhew of Twysden]

My Lords, is there a code of practice that describes the legitimate use of undercover police officers? Do not these officers, in going about their very important, difficult and often dangerous work, have to be very careful not to pressure, persuade or instigate the commission of an offence so as not to lead to their ultimate evidence being excluded by the trial judge on the grounds of unfair entrapment? If there is not a code of practice, would it not be a good idea to have one? If there is, is it being followed?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My noble and learned friend makes a very important point. As I mentioned, governance in this area is a very important element. I must say that the police agree. The chief constable of West Midlands himself has said that the line is not to be crossed between infiltration to gather intelligence and the agent provocateur. He is quite right.

As to the codes of practice, the legal framework is provided for by regulations contained in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. There is also a code of conduct and practice, which has been published by the Home Office under the previous Government, on how covert human intelligence sources should operate. The independent Office of Surveillance Commissioners has also provided procedural and interpretational advice.

[Noble Lords]

Too long!

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I am telling the House what I think that it would like to know: what the governance arrangements are.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, although I have not been briefed on this issue. Can the noble Baroness confirm that all such operations would require RIPA authorisation, and what level of authorisation is required? Can she also tell us whether there is an expectation that such operations would be subject to regular internal review at a senior level regarding whether they were still appropriate and proportionate in the light of circumstances?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

RIPA—the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—specifies how that should be done. The authorisation has to be by a senior officer. There has to be a regular instruction and record kept and there are various other procedures in the Act which are designed to manage and control the operation. I do not think that it is the framework that is lacking.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that undercover policing is an essential resource that has resulted in many dangerous criminals and criminal gangs being brought to justice—thanks, in large part, to the courage of the individuals involved in that work—and that it would therefore be an enormous pity if public confidence in that technique were to be diminished or undermined? In those circumstances, does she agree that undercover policing needs to be firmly controlled and used only in the most appropriate cases? Although she does not want to comment on individual cases, in general terms can she think of any circumstances in which it would be appropriate for an undercover police officer to be embedded for seven years among a group of climate change campaigners?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I think that there is widespread agreement in the House with what the noble Lord has said, for which I thank him. I do not want to comment on the individual case, but clearly the length of time would need to be looked at.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned the possibility of a wider review following discussions with ACPO. In view of the debate today, does she agree that there ought to be a wider review? Can she also reassure the House that the outcome of that review will be made public?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, Nottinghamshire Police are in direct contact at the moment with ACPO and HMIC. The question is who does it: who is best placed to do it. I would have thought that that is a matter that would be made public.