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.