Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a practising barrister. Yesterday, in rejecting an application to stop the flight to Rwanda, the President of the Supreme Court, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reed, said:

“In bringing that application, the appellant’s lawyers were performing their proper function of ensuring that their clients are not subjected to unlawful treatment at the hands of the Government.”


Do the Government agree with that? Will the Minister deprecate the criticisms of barristers and solicitors who have acted for asylum claimants in these proceedings, wherever they have come from?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord knows I am on quite delicate territory, because legal proceedings are ongoing. I repeat the earlier words of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who described our legal system as

“the best in the world.”

Mike Veale: Police Conduct Report

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am afraid that I must disappoint my noble friend by telling him that we do not have any plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into the allegations made against Sir Edward Heath or the findings of that investigation.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has emphasised that there is an ongoing inquiry into the conduct of Mr Veale. Does she accept that, in many areas of public and private life, persons against whom serious allegations are made are suspended from their office, employment or other contributions to public life while an investigation is conducted? Why is that not happening here?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I understand that, having been appointed as the Cleveland chief constable in March 2018, Mr Veale resigned in January 2019 following the allegations that he had behaved inappropriately and acted in a discriminatory manner.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Lords Hansard - part one & Report stage
Monday 13th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I thank the noble Baroness for answering my earlier question. As I understood her answer, it was that there can be no reasonable excuse for causing significant damage or significant disruption. I point out to her that the defence under new subsection (6) is that the defendant would have a defence if they have

“a reasonable excuse for … failing to comply as soon as reasonably practicable with the request”

to leave. It has nothing to do with whether they have caused disruption, distress or damage; they have an absolute defence if there is a reasonable excuse for not leaving the land when asked to do so. That is why I put to her that, surely, it could be a reasonable excuse that there is nowhere else they can go. Would she like to reflect on that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As the noble Lord probably knows, that will be a determination for the courts to make.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I am simply anxious that the matter is not left on the basis that the Minister put it, because I respectfully suggest that that is not right.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Perhaps we could discuss this further if that is amenable to the noble Lord, but I accept his point that it is not right to just leave it like that. In determining what is a reasonable excuse, it would be for the police and the courts to determine whether the excuse was reasonable.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that question and for the conversation that we had the other day on this matter. On whether the inquiry could be on a statutory footing, one change since February 2020, when we amended the law, is that police officers are now under a duty to co-operate as witnesses with investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings under the revised standards of professional behaviour. They are guilty of a disciplinary offence if they fail to do so. On the fundamental question, should we assess it necessary, the inquiry can be converted into a statutory inquiry where witnesses can be compelled to give evidence.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a practical measure which would enhance the confidence that women have in the police force would be for any officer against whom a credible complaint of sexual misconduct is made to be immediately suspended, and that it is not good enough for this matter to be left, as it currently is, to the discretion of chief constables?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Officers can be and are suspended for allegations of misconduct. Every case is different, so it is left to the discretion of police chiefs to decide on a case-by-case basis. I would not want to make a blanket determination because there may be spurious allegations. It would be up to the police chief in question to determine whether a suspension was relevant or appropriate.

Policing: European Championship Final

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I totally agree with my noble friend in praising the police for the exemplary job they do, and I will take his point back.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, people who attended the match told me that the chaos, the threats and the violence caused by thousands of drunken and ticketless fans outside the stadium, many of whom forced their way inside, made this a frightening experience. That was especially because there were very few police officers to be seen. I do not understand how the Minister can say that the police did a good job on this occasion. It is surely all very well for the Minister to say that lessons need to be learned, but I suggest to her that the lesson that should be learned is that someone in the police service should take responsibility for all this and should resign.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as regards the chaos outside, the noble Lord is absolutely right. In fact, I understand that many of the people who did not have tickets had no intention of watching the match; they came to cause trouble. On the numbers of police, I understand that almost 2,000 officers were deployed to Wembley on Sunday. To put that in context, it is the size of an average police force.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we did vote to leave the EU, and I do not think anyone can be in any doubt about some of the reasons. People voted for a variety of reasons, but the noble Baroness will totally understand that I am not going to get into a debate about why people did or did not want to leave the EU. I will leave it there.

[Lord Pannick (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her careful response to Amendment 3. It was very thoughtful—not a response off the top of her head. I am also grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I will happily take up.

The Minister gave an example of a provision in the regulations that she said was inconsistent with the immigration Acts. I accept that there may well be many such provisions. My point is very simple: spell them out in Schedule 1. Do not use this vague language of drafting which means that people cannot identify what their rights and obligations are. My amendment is not designed to keep or remove any particular right; it is simply designed to require the Government to instruct the parliamentary draftsman to produce a provision that implies basic standards of legal certainty. I hope the Minister has noted the substantial concern around the House at this lack of certainty in the drafting of Schedule 1. It is simply not good enough and it needs to be addressed. I look forward to discussing this with the Minister prior to Report.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I totally understand the point that the noble Lord makes about certainty. In addressing this, I should like to meet him, because I totally get what he is saying. He is not being difficult; he is just asking that we lay out the law and provide certainty.

Operation Midland

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have just explained, the Government would not usually instigate an inquiry in this sort of situation. It would be up to the police to do so, should that be appropriate.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister has said several times that lessons have been learned. What are those lessons and how have they been implemented?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I said at the beginning that HMICFRS was undertaking an inspection to see whether lessons had been learned from Operation Midland. That report is due out at the end of March.

Public Spaces Protection Orders

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Thursday 11th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Policing is only one aspect of dealing with rough sleeping and homelessness, which are different things. The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need police on the streets, hence my right honourable friend the Home Secretary’s ambition to have far more of them. The rough sleeping initiative has allocated £46 million this year to 246 areas. This has funded an estimated additional 750 staff and more than 2,600 bed spaces across England.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that the Home Office keeps these powers under review. Can she explain how that is being done, given that she also said in answer to the noble Lord that no central records are kept of when these powers are used and for what purposes?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On keeping things under review, of course the Government keep all legislation under review. While we do not hold that data centrally, local authorities hold the data. How effectively legislation works is played out in the effect of the legislation in question.

Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Monday 10th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that asylum claims on the grounds of gender identity or sexual orientation raise specific difficulties and sensitivities? Is there a special unit in the Home Office containing individuals with particular expertise who look at asylum claims on such grounds and, if not, why not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The answer to the noble Lord’s question is: yes, absolutely, these claims are very sensitive, both when they are being determined and, if the individual in question finds themselves in detention, there are further sensitivities around the detention estate, particularly with those from certain countries. I acknowledge that. The training undergone by case workers both outside and inside the detention estate is specific to the issues mentioned by the noble Lord.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I know the matter to which the right reverend Prelate is referring. I met the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and other noble Lords to discuss the issue in question. It was a productive discussion in which we talked about better training for people making decisions and—in the case we are talking about—better religious literacy. Yes, we have to learn lessons from the sorry Windrush episode and make more consistent and proper decisions as we go forward.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

I have a similar question. Can the Minister assure the House that there will be sufficient officials dealing with these applications to ensure that they are decided speedily? Does the Home Office have a target time for dealing with these applications?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The target time is as quickly as possible, but the noble Lord makes the right point and I know the episode to which he refers as well; I worked with him on it. There are several levels of assistance for claimants. We are about to contract with a third party so that our advice can be given online or by phone. As I say, the application form has been designed to be as simple and to provide as efficient and speedy a response as possible.

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right, especially given the events of the past few weeks,

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, are there guidelines which restrict the use of children in this way to cases where the suspected offences are very grave indeed and where there are no other means available to obtain necessary evidence?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will appreciate that I cannot talk about operational matters. I hope he will be comforted by the fact that the use of a juvenile as a covert human intelligence source is only in exceptional circumstances.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for these amendments. My noble friend has been clever about weaving back into last week’s debate on statutory guidance and the one that we have just had on the trusted trader scheme.

I can see that Amendments 81 and 82 attempt to provide further clarity for manufacturers and suppliers of kitchen utensils and to limit the impact of Clause 18 on such companies. As noble Lords will know, I met representatives of some knife manufacturers in Sheffield and I heard at first hand their concerns about this provision. Amendment 81 seeks to assist manufacturers, retailers and others by providing for statutory guidance on which items are covered by the definition of a bladed product. Amendment 82 clearly goes further and excludes from that definition any product “intended for domestic use” that requires a blade to function. As I understand it, the intention is that items such as food processors, and perhaps bread knives and steak knives, could be sent to residential premises if they have been sold remotely. Food processors and similar items are clearly not the sort of things that can be used as offensive weapons and it is not intended that they will be covered by the prohibition on arranging delivery to a residential premises or a locker. Products such as table knives are also excluded from the definition of bladed products because they are not capable of causing serious injury by cutting a person’s skin.

I turn to the wording of Amendment 82. The term “intended for domestic use” perhaps lacks clarity. Although most people would accept that kitchen knives are intended for domestic use, there may be some doubt as to whether hobby knives, camping knives and DIY tools can also be said to be intended for domestic use. I worry that amending the definition in this way could lead to sellers of fairly nasty knives marketing them as purely for domestic use to get around the delivery prohibition. That said, if a prosecution was brought for this offence, it would be for the seller to show that the product did not fall within the scope of the offence as it was intended for domestic use. The approach in Amendment 82 is therefore not without risks and there may be issues around defining what is meant by “domestic purposes”. However, I agree with my noble friend that this is certainly an area where guidance for retailers and others will be beneficial and it is our intention to provide such guidance, exercising the power conferred by Amendment 106, which we debated last week.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Why is it thought that guidance is less likely to lead people to seek to evade the purposes of this legislation than putting a definition in the scope of the Bill itself?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

If I understand the noble Lord’s question, he is asking whether guidance is less likely to make people abide by the law and why we do not just put it in the Bill. I am struggling to answer that question.

[Lord Pannick]

The Minister has expressed concern—she may well be right—that, if the Bill were amended to make clear what is and is not covered, there is a risk that sellers would seek to use that definition to try to get around the contents of the Bill. Given that she says that these matters will be dealt with by guidance, is there not the same risk? Would it not be better to define in the Bill what the Bill covers and does not cover, not least because guidance will not bind the courts? It is for the courts to interpret. The problems of uncertainty will inevitably arise if the Government rely purely on guidance. That is the point.

Zimbabwe: Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Both might go on. I am not trying to say at this Dispatch Box that the situation in Zimbabwe is in any way ideal. It is not. The Government have made representations through our embassy in Harare on the situation in Zimbabwe. I am not trying to pretend that the situation is in any way ideal.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

The Minister has repeatedly said that the Home Office looks at the circumstances of the individual case in deciding whether to return a person to Zimbabwe, but surely it must have a policy as to whether it is safe to return to Zimbabwe a person who is an active opponent of the regime there.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cited that as the one example, whereby someone who opposed ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe might be at risk if they were returned to that country.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, I am far less clear than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that it would be a breach of our obligations under the European Convention for us to supply information abroad in circumstances where it may be used in a prosecution that may lead to a death penalty. As he well knows, all the cases concern extradition. They concern circumstances in which this country is removing a person to face possible trial abroad where that person may be executed. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly made it clear that that is a breach of our obligations. I am far less clear on whether the same would apply where all we do is provide information, which is under the control of the authorities in this jurisdiction, to assist a prosecution abroad.

A particular reason why I am far less clear is that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned the one example where there was a challenge to the decision of the Secretary of State to do precisely this: to provide information abroad to the United States in circumstances where it was said, accurately, “These people may face prosecution which may lead to the death penalty”. My recollection, which I would be grateful if the noble Lord or the Minister could confirm, is that the Home Secretary’s decision was the subject of a legal challenge and—again, please confirm whether I am right or wrong—the High Court rejected that challenge. It held that it was lawful for the Home Secretary to act in that way.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is correct.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful. I do not have immediate access to that judgment, but perhaps the Minister can provide the House with some assistance in relation to it. Can the Minister also confirm what I understood her to say: no information will be provided abroad under the Bill, unless and until there is an agreement with the relevant state—here the United States? My understanding—again, I think the noble Baroness said this, but I should like her to confirm—is that before any such agreement has practical effect, it must be put before this House and the other place for approval. Ratification cannot take place unless and until, under CRaG 2010, Parliament has had that opportunity. It seems that is the time at which both Houses of Parliament can consider whether they wish to approve such an agreement, if it does not contain the sort of assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is seeking.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Thursday 31st January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, this is nothing to do with placating the DUP; it is about the laws that are currently in place. Let me get back to what the Bill does: it tackles domestic abuse in all its forms. The matter is devolved. I recognise that it is an incredibly sensitive issue on all sides of the debate. Abortion legislation is devolved. I hope that a Northern Ireland Executive are established as soon as possible so that they can take on this legislation through a legislative consent Motion if they wish.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Could the Minister identify whether there are any provisions in this draft Bill which, in the Government’s opinion, are not appropriate for enactment in Northern Ireland? Could she also confirm that this draft legislation was announced in the Queen’s Speech in June 2017? Can she give the House some indication of when she thinks this legislation will be enacted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The draft Domestic Abuse Bill will be discussed for pre-legislative scrutiny in a Joint Committee of both Houses. That process should take 12 weeks, and thereafter the Bill should be introduced. As to whether any provisions are not appropriate for Northern Ireland, it is a devolved matter through legislative consent—as I have said. Northern Ireland can take up the provisions in the Bill, and that would be the process.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is never nice to stand up and feel defeated on a matter. I shall outline the various points on proscription. As noble Lords will know, the effect of proscription is that the organisation is added to Schedule 2 to the 2000 Act, and that a number of offences bite in relation to membership and support for it. In practice, the Home Secretary is responsible for proscriptions relating to international and domestic terrorist groups, and the Northern Ireland Secretary for Northern Ireland-related terrorist groups.

Under Section 4 of the 2000 Act, either a proscribed organisation itself, or a person affected by its proscription, may apply to the Secretary of State for it to be deproscribed. Section 5 establishes the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission to consider appeals against refusal of an application under Section 4, and there is a route of appeal on a point of law from the commission to the Court of Appeal.

Amendment 59 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to review every proscribed organisation on an annual basis, to determine whether it continues to meet the legal test for proscription. The Secretary of State would, further, be required to decide whether each organisation should remain proscribed or should be deproscribed, and to publish that decision. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has explained, his amendment reflects recommendations he made in his former role as Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—a role which he performed with great eminence and authority, and in which he made a great contribution. I do not think that he will agree with me just because I have said that.

The noble Lord will, of course, be familiar with the Government’s long-standing policy on removing terrorist organisations from Schedule 2 to the 2000 Act, from the responses of successive Home Secretaries to his reports as independent reviewer. However, for the wider benefit of your Lordships, I will, if I may, spend a short while setting this out. The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription interferes with individuals’ rights—in particular the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights: freedom of expression and freedom of association. That is why the power is exercised only where necessary.

We should recall that organisations are proscribed for a reason—because they are concerned in terrorism. Our first priority is to protect the public and support our international partners in the fight against terrorism, and the power to disrupt a proscribed organisation by preventing it from operating or gaining support in the UK is an important one in this struggle. Where the Home Secretary has decided on advice, including from operational partners, that this test is met, with the serious consequences that flow from that, we consider it appropriate to continue to take a cautious approach when considering removing terrorist groups from the list.

While we take extremely seriously our responsibility to protect the public and to prevent terrorist groups from operating in the UK, it is not the Government’s position that once a group has been proscribed that should simply be indefinite, without the prospect of ever being removed from the list. To this end, Parliament provided a clear route for any proscribed organisation, or any person affected by an organisation’s proscription, to submit an application to the Home Secretary for the organisation to be deproscribed. Indeed, three groups have been deproscribed following such applications.

This, I believe, is the most appropriate and balanced way to deal with the question of deproscription. It ensures that any person who believes that any proscription is inappropriate has a clear route to challenge that proscription, so that groups which are not concerned in terrorism and no longer pose a risk to the public can be deproscribed. But it also avoids placing the public at risk, or causing alarm, through precipitate decisions to lift restrictions on organisations with a significant terrorist pedigree but which may have, for example, become less visibly active in recent times. It is an enduring feature of the terrorist threat that both individuals and organisations with a terrorist mindset can disengage and then re-engage in terrorist activity, potentially without warning. Such individuals and groups will continue to pose a threat, and to be properly characterised as terrorist, during both their fallow and active periods, and it would not be responsible for the Government to remove the prohibitions and stigma that apply to proscribed organisations unless we are truly certain that they have changed and no longer pose a threat.

The Government are committed to ensuring that the right groups are proscribed and that the public are protected. But we are not persuaded that introducing regular formal reviews of past proscription decisions would in practice prevent any injustice, particularly given the existence of a review system on application, whereas such a system of formal reviews could lead to perverse outcomes and would have a significant operational impact in terms of diverting investigative and intelligence resource from current threats to public safety in order to carry out the reviews.

[Lord Pannick]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Her argument appears to be that there is a power to apply for a review. She will be aware that under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which Parliament approved earlier this year, where a person is subject to sanctions, they can apply for a review, but nevertheless there is an obligation on Ministers to conduct a periodic review to ensure that the process is properly applied, and that sanctions are continued only against those who deserve to continue to be sanctioned. What is the difference in this context?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure. They are different procedures. I shall write to the noble Lord on the difference because he makes a valid point.

Immigration: Appeals

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I appreciate what the noble Lord is saying, and on face value it looks sensible, but quite often new evidence is presented just before the tribunal which is not available to the original decision-maker. For that reason, the noble Lord’s point would not be valid. The consequence of information being presented too late is that it is often too late for the Home Office to then withdraw the case.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there would be fewer appeals if the immigration department was prepared to adopt the policy that, where it rejects an application because of inadequate documentation, it should then be open to the applicant to supply the missing documents rather than undergo the expense and delay of either appealing or making a fresh application. The Minister knows of my interest in this subject because she has been making heroic efforts to get an answer from the immigration department as to whether or not it is prepared to adopt such a practice in the case of Ramie Smith and Gideon Cohen, who married recently, as well as in other cases. When does the Minister think she will get an answer from the immigration department to this very basic question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is a shame the immigration department is not at the Dispatch Box. I agree with the noble Lord; we have had several discussions on this. My right honourable friend the Immigration Minister is absolutely aware of this and is trying to make improvements in the process. What the noble Lord and I have been talking about is that the process is not entirely clear in some of these cases.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Pannick

Tuesday 13th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. The chairman and the whole inquiry have the support of the victims’ and survivors’ group. As I have stated, the aim is to produce an interim report by 2018.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Does the noble Baroness agree that, for the inquiry to make so-called findings of fact about the alleged conduct of the late Lord Janner, and to do so without any intensive process of cross-examination of the witnesses, is grossly unfair to the reputation of someone who is unable to defend himself? Does she recognise that the inquiry is purporting to do more than look at institutional failings? I declare an interest as a friend of the late Lord Janner’s son, Daniel.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is for the inquiry to consider the best way to conduct its investigations and hearings, and it would not be appropriate for me to comment. I understand that counsel to the inquiry set out the inquiry’s position on this issue at the preliminary hearing of the investigation into Lord Janner in July.