Prevent Strategy

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, given that Prevent is a safeguarding measure for young people—usually—who are vulnerable, “tip-offs” is not necessarily the correct term in this context. If authorities are in any way warned that somebody is vulnerable, they will take action to ensure that that person is protected. We have seen over the last two years that sometimes—in fact, oft-times—Muslim communities have been the biggest victims of terrorism and suffer the worst aftermath of its effects.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest, having been involved in the original conversations that started the concept of Prevent. Will the Minister make sure that those conducting this review—nothing should get in its way—recognise that, when the British came up with the idea of a system to engage with communities so that they could protect themselves, there was nothing like it in the world? There still is not. Law-enforcement communities across the world regard Prevent as the gold standard for working with communities to protect them against terrorism. I ask the Minister to make sure that that view is represented in the review.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I look forward to hearing his views when the review comes. If we look back at the start of the process—I am talking way back—integration and counterterrorism were sometimes muddled. I think that is what started some of the accusations that came with Prevent, but he is right: we are looked upon across the world as a model for this sort of intervention.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

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

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Lord reminds us about the draft code of conduct. It spells out considerations that relate to the threat of hostile activity and lists a number of factors, one of which, in the context of the stop not being arbitrary, is to have consideration of “possible current, emerging … hostile activity”, which is understandable, and “future hostile activity”. Can the Minister explain the distinction between emerging and future hostile activity?

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

I support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. As long as these powers are restricted to the extreme circumstances of national security and are not a passport to a widening of stop and search without justification, I think this is about hanging a notice around the UK—particularly, as he said, in relation to clean skins and travelling companions—saying that this is a hostile place for people with deeply malign intent.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have raised a number of important issues relating to the ports and border powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. While it is incumbent on the Government of the day to keep the people of this country safe and respond to a range of evolving threats—as the noble Lord, Lord Blair, says, that is what it is all about—it is also critical that we are mindful of the wider impact that these measures can have if exercised arbitrarily or without due care.

As noble Lords will be aware, the powers under Schedule 3 have been introduced to address a gap in our capability to tackle the threat posed by hostile state actors. As with the equivalent powers under Schedule 7 for counterterrorism purposes, they will provide the police with the tools that they need to counter the threat from hostile states. I have listened carefully to the points made at Second Reading and today about the powers and the concerns about how they might be used. The Government share the view that the arbitrary use of any police power is objectionable, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, which is why they will be subject to a number of checks and balances.

Amendment 64 would ensure that an examining officer may exercise examination and detention powers under Schedule 3 only where he or she has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is or has been engaged in hostile activity. Amendments 42 and 46 would make similar changes to Schedule 7. Noble Lords may recall that in relation to the powers under Schedule 7 the Government have consistently rejected the introduction of such a threshold. We share the view of our operational partners that to amend the legislation in this way would fundamentally undermine the utility of capabilities that the police rely on to keep the public safe.

There are three key reasons for that and they apply to Schedule 3 in equal measure. First, we would risk disclosing to hostile actors the extent of our intelligence coverage and capabilities, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out. These powers are and will be used to examine individuals who have been identified by operational partners as working with or for terrorists or hostile actors, which could also include foreign intelligence operatives or agents of a foreign intelligence service. Any person examined under a power subject to a suspicion threshold could infer that they were of active interest to the police and intelligence agencies and the tradecraft behind that intelligence coverage. Port officers may also be required to explain to these individuals the reasons for stopping them. In such an event, it is likely that terrorists or hostile actors would use this information to reverse-engineer our methods, bypass future security checks and increase their reliance on clean skins, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out.

Secondly, requiring grounds for suspicion would in effect remove a key tool to identify and disrupt previously unknown terrorists or hostile actors. In giving evidence to the Commons Public Bill Committee, Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu explained that the police are often in possession of intelligence that is “fragmented” or “incomplete” and is not always focused on a specific individual. Such intelligence may instead point to trends or patterns of travel, or an active threat linked to a particular destination and timeframe. The introduction of a suspicion threshold would limit the availability of these powers to known individuals, or those who have demonstrated suspicious behaviour at a port. It would prevent port officers from selecting individuals for examination who are potentially exploiting travel routes that have been uncovered by intelligence or are heading to a specific destination within an identified threat window.

Sexual Offences

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to apologise to the noble Lord because, although I read the Sunday Times, I did not read that particular article. But nobody can be in any doubt about the commitment of this Government commitment to tackling this type of abuse, and in particular that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Child sexual abuse has been declared a national threat and the Government are investing millions of pounds to enable officers to actively seek out and bring these types of offenders to justice. Last February, the Government published our tackling child sexual exploitation progress report and we have announced a £40 million package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and to crack down on offenders. This has included £7.5 million for a new, ground-breaking centre of expertise that will identify, generate and share high-quality evidence of what works in preventing and tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation. We have put a significant increase in resources into the NCA, leading to a near doubling of the CEOP command’s investigative capability, and an additional £20 million has been committed up to 2020 to maintain this. There is a further £20 million of transformation funds going into the regional organised crime units, which do a superb job in bringing to justice perpetrators who target children online.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, this Question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, is actually just a provincial equivalent of the discussion we had on the first Oral Question. The simple fact is that the Minister is explaining small penny-packets of money that are being put into a particular problem. My successor but two as commissioner, Cressida Dick, has 20% less money than I had when I left 10 years ago. Will the Minister accept that it is simply impossible for the police service to go on with 20% less money without something giving? Something is already starting to give and the Government must take action.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I have made it clear, in response to both this and the earlier Question, that there are certain types of crime patterns, such as knife and gang crime in London, which are worrying and into which the Government have sought to put specific types of funding, but also that this type of child sexual abuse and exploitation requires a dedicated approach to a specific problem. But I do not resile from the fact—and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognises this, as does the Policing Minister—that considering all the things that the police have to do and the strain they are under, they have significant burdens on them. Both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister are very aware of this as we go into next year.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Minutes of Proceedings - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, like others, I think that this has so far been an excellent debate, and I shall try not to spoil that record. It is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit. His views and mine do not normally coalesce in any way whatever—except on terrorism.

As far as I can see, I welcome the Bill in its entirety. We all remember with sadness the lives lost and the lives horrifyingly changed by the attacks in Britain in 2017. This Bill is part of our nation’s response to those events. I thought that the decision by the Government, MI5 and the police to put in train the operational improvement review—carried out by the then David Anderson QC, now my noble friend Lord Anderson of Ipswich—was wise and proportionate, and this Bill reflects that position.

In the same way as the noble Lord, Lord King, said, I appreciate the bipartisan approach taken by both Houses to this matter. It has not always been thus. As a rather famous namesake of mine once said, I have “scars on my back” from the times in which there was not a bipartisan approach to terrorism.

The Bill recognises that terrorist behaviour and terrorist threats are changing, particularly, as my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller said, in the way in which terrorists are using less sophisticated methods, radicalising more quickly and more often acting alone. The Bill takes account of the increasing number of ungoverned spaces in the world and of the evolving nature of the internet, from downloading to streaming. In addition, the background to the Bill is that not all the changes in circumstance represent the new. We are seeing old threats returning, particularly the rise of the far right, which we should not underestimate, and the presence on British soil of state agents with malign intent.

Perhaps the most important feature of the Bill, however, is its implicit recognition, as the present Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the noble Baroness both said, that what is happening in the UK is not a spike in terrorist criminality but a shift to what appears to be a long-term, higher intensity of activity, with more than one arrest a day for terrorism occurring in the year to March 2018. Even with all the passion and doubts expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, I welcome the way in which the Government, faced by this and by the speed with which individuals can move from being at risk of radicalisation to direct action, have continued to support the Prevent arm of the world-leading Contest strategy. I really look forward to the involvement of non-central parts of government in that endeavour. I thoroughly agree with that proposition and I will explain why.

I was involved at the very beginning of the discussions about what became Prevent. I passionately argued that it was inappropriate for the police to have fundamental responsibility outside government for making Prevent work. It seemed to me absurd that communities, especially at that time Muslim communities in the aftermath of 9/11 and 7/7, should be asked to report suspicious behaviour to an arm of the police when that might mean that another arm of the police—literally an armed unit of the police—might eventually respond to what they had said. I argued fiercely that local authorities and education authorities should be co-responsible for Prevent, and I am really glad to see that happening.

However, in addition to that, our past comes back to haunt us as previously convicted terrorists are now being released, having served prison sentences for which too short a maximum sentence had been prescribed in earlier legislation. I welcome the increasing length of sentences for preparatory behaviour short of actual action. I am not normally in favour of lengthening maximum sentences for anything, but I am when we talk about terrorism. Beyond that, I still believe that the terrorist prevention and investigation measures, TPIMs, remain of too short a duration, and I hope that the Government will look again at that issue during the passage of the Bill through the House.

I congratulate the Government on their decision to keep this important legislation coming through both Houses in the middle of the tensions of Brexit, and I hope that the Bill completes its full legislative passage as soon as possible. I also hope that, by the time its provisions come into effect, they do not do so in a Europe in which Britain has lost most of its ability to co-operate effectively with EU countries on security and policing, particularly on the European arrest warrant, Schengen and the Prüm arrangements—but that is probably for another day.

Operation Conifer: Funding

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, perhaps I may return to an issue that I raised during the recent debate on PCCs initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and turn the issue into a direct question to the Minister. Can she explain to the House why the Home Secretary or his predecessor have not asked Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary to send one of Her Majesty’s inspectors to Wiltshire to examine and report back on Operation Conifer? HMIC is funded by the Home Office, so this is essential to the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. As I made clear in the previous debate, such investigations are part of the historic mission of HMIC, which will be much diminished if such action is no longer part of its remit. If the noble Baroness does not know the answer, will she write to me and place a copy in the Library of the House?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thought I did know the answer and that I had reiterated it on several occasions. On the question of why not HMICFRS, the Secretary of State can at any time, under Section 54(2B) of the Police Act 1996, require HMICFRS to undertake an inspection on a specific police force or forces, which can be limited to particular matters or activities or a particular part of the force that he or she is concerned about. This power enables the Home Secretary to commission urgent inspection activities, and such inspection reports must be published. The Secretary of State also has powers under Section 54(3) of the 1996 Act to direct HMICFRS to carry out,

“other duties for the purpose of furthering police efficiency and effectiveness”.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, on securing this debate. I shall now widen it away from Wiltshire.

This is not an ad hominem speech; I am sure that most police and crime commissioners are decent people doing a decent job, and I certainly think that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, will be one of those. However, the creation of PCCs has had presumably unintended but certainly unfortunate consequences. It was an unnecessary reform; no one really knows why they were created, and certainly no one is claiming credit for their creation. The reform Act, which introduced PCCs, allows central government to wash their hands of controversial police investigations, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, has repeatedly said in this Chamber. Equally repeatedly, the Minister has said that the question raised by the noble Lord—whether an investigation should be inquired into—is a matter for the local PCC. The local PCC has equally often stated that they are not going to do anything about it. Apparently, that is okay by the Government, but it used not to be okay.

At one stage in my career I was principal staff officer to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. In the past, HMCICs would have intervened after consultation with the Home Secretary, as they did in the Stalker inquiry in Northern Ireland and the Soham murder inquiry. Equally importantly, HMCICs had the power to call out failures of governance. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, then an inspector of constabulary, three times in the 1990s declared Derbyshire constabulary to be inefficient—a finding not used against any force for many decades. This led to legislation replacing the then police committees with police authorities with a new class of independent members. This was a Conservative Party reform in the face of the failure of a Labour county council, based on the idea that police and politics—especially local politics—is an unhealthy mixture. The successors to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, do not have any authority over PCCs, whereas they could inspect police authorities.

The main job of the principal staff officer to HMCIC was to co-ordinate selection for chief officers. In the 1990s that job was managing down shortlists to five or six. Now the shortlists are two at most, even in great forces, because the PCC has almost untrammelled power to sack a chief constable by press release. With the advent of PCCs all centralised planning for career progression has ceased, as the Minister knows well because I have talked to her about it. The reason given for the introduction of police and crime commissioners was that police authorities were invisible to the public. Do you think that people living in Slough feel any more represented by a single PCC based north of Oxford than they did by a police authority that was based in the same place but which had Berkshire councillors on it? I do not think so.

A bit like the Brexit bus, the reform was partially also sold on a false prospectus that independent members of the public would become PCCs. Not any longer. Worst of all, leaders of local authorities—of all parties—are complaining loudly that their services are on the point of collapse. Where are the PCCs saying exactly the same thing? What was offered was supposed to be an exercise in the delegation of central government power, but it has turned out to represent an abrogation by the Government of national responsibility for a vital public service.

Every couple of years there is a defence review. Every few years there is a health service review. The last strategic review of policing reported in 1962. This is a total failure of strategic oversight by the Home Office. It simply has no overarching central and coherent strategy for the future of policing and, apart from some rather curious statistics about police numbers, Labour does not seem to have any voice in this matter either. This represents political failure of a serious degree for the public, the victims of crime and the men and women of the police service. The case for a royal commission on the future of the police has never been clearer or more compelling.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, along with all my colleagues, I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, for proposing this debate and winning the ballot. I fully support his position in relation to Wiltshire.

I have to confess that when police and crime commissioners were introduced, in a Bill in this House, I was highly suspicious of the whole idea, but I have come to realise that they can be—although they are not always—a force for good. Clearly, they all need to learn from the terrible situation in Wiltshire, and, indeed, the other warnings that noble Lords have given this morning. I have been particularly impressed by Ron Hogg, the PCC for the Durham constabulary. He and Mike Barton, the chief constable, have shown that a PCC can think outside the box and support his chief constable to follow sensible but radical policies. If I dare say it, I think that chief constables can be a bit conformist. I am surrounded by three former chief constables and feel a bit hemmed in here—I do not want to misbehave.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

Whisper the next bit.

[Baroness Meacher]

I want to talk about Durham police service’s excellent drug policies—that will be no surprise to anybody—in the context of the recognition of Durham as the leading police service in this country. For three years Durham has achieved an “outstanding” rating for effectiveness in reducing crime and keeping communities safe, and Durham has the third-highest level of public confidence of all police forces. This outstanding performance has been achieved while leading the way with policies that could be described as being soft on drug users and even soft on low-level drug dealers, something I think police services generally are not keen to be reputed to support.

PCC Ron Hogg continues to call for drugs to be decriminalised, so that users will not fear being treated as criminals when considering whether to seek medical advice to help with their addiction. Portugal has proved the success of this policy over 20 years and I think we need to take it seriously. Increasingly, other PCCs are supporting the call for drug policy reform and this has to be welcomed. Durham has lots of other innovative programmes and I shall refer to just two. The Checkpoint diversion scheme has reduced reoffending by about 10%, releasing resources, of course, for more police officers. Under the Checkpoint initiative, introduced in 2015, offenders are selected for diversion to non-criminal justice interventions. The chief constable, Mike Barton, has proposed putting all drug addicts who are arrested through Checkpoint in order to stabilise their lives and get them into treatment. Even some low-level dealers and those caught up at a low level in trafficking are included in Checkpoint: this is really radical stuff, I would say. These people will have been intimidated, pressured or coerced into working for the big guys—we all know about that. This is truly humane, but again, it is a massive resources issue.

Durham’s other target for reform is long-term heroin users: it recommends heroin assisted treatment centres, pioneered very successfully in Switzerland. This programme is costly but highly cost effective. On average, heroin addicts commit 80 crimes a month, according to the Swiss research. Does not treatment, rather than locking someone up in a cell, sound like a good idea for this group? The new Home Secretary has made clear his determination to achieve reform, at least for medical cannabis. I hope our Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will invite the Home Secretary to visit Durham police, if he has not already done so, and urge him to encourage all PCCs and their chief constables to follow Durham’s example. He could cut crime drastically and save huge resources, as well as saving lives.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I repeat the assertion that I made earlier: the police are operationally independent of government. On this matter it would be for the PCC, perhaps in conjunction with the chief constable, to commission an inquiry.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, did the PCC reply to the Minister’s letter, and what was the reply?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I know that the PCC has been in correspondence with other noble Lords. I am reluctant to talk about individual correspondence at the Dispatch Box. I am sure the noble Lord will understand why that is, but I think he will also understand why this Question has come up again today.

Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2018

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the House to my registered interest as a councillor in the London Borough of Lewisham and as a vice-president of the Local Government Association.

The regulations before the House this afternoon make a number of changes as a consequence of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 coming into force. These changes, as we have heard, cover reform of the governance of fire and rescue authorities in England, including the abolition of the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, known as LFEPA. The regulations also makes changes to the police disciplinary framework and pre-charge bail. They extend the powers of police civilian staff and volunteers and strengthen the powers of cross-border arrest.

Dealing with LFEPA first, I am happy to support the proposal to abolish it and replace it with the London Fire Commissioner. It will then be for the Mayor of London to appoint a deputy mayor for fire as he puts in place the governance structure that is needed to deliver these vital services for Londoners. The governance structure being abolished was set out in the Greater London Authority Act 1999, which established the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. It is important to put on record our thanks to all the members of this body, past and present, for the service they have given over the last 17 and a half years of its existence.

It is of great credit to the authority, and the firefighters and other staff who work for it, that during its existence, with an increasing population in London, the number of dwelling fires has reduced. This reduction is attributed to the success of community safety initiatives and the increase in smoke-alarm ownership. One of the first actions of the LFEPA was the introduction of the first community safety strategy, approved in September 2000. This strategy changed the focus of the London Fire Brigade from being a mainly reactive emergency response service to a proactive service with fire prevention at the core of its activities. Since then, London has enjoyed a long period with the number of fires falling. In 2000, there were around 50,000 fires every year in London, which is now down to around 20,000.

I pay particular tribute to the outgoing chair of the authority, my good friend Dr Fiona Twycross AM, who has led the authority for the last year and has met and delivered on many challenges in that time, but who also, in the previous four years, led the robust opposition to the cuts in the fire service proposed by the previous Mayor of London, Boris Johnson. With the election of Sadiq Khan as Mayor of London, we have seen a much more pragmatic and sensible attitude to the fire service in London, and that is very welcome.

The regulations also make various consequential amendments, inserting the London Fire Commissioner where LFEPA previously had statutory responsibility, and I am content with those proposals.

The regulations make further amendments to governance arrangements outside London. If possible, can the Minister say a little more about how many PCCs are taking over the control of the fire and rescue services? I know she mentioned a number of them, but how far have they gone to take over these services? I know that the paper makes reference to Essex—and again we put on record our thanks to members of all those fire authorities that will be abolished as a consequence of PCCs taking over responsibility for fire and rescue services. These are challenging times, and we should thank those who have served on those authorities.

The amendments to the Contempt of Court Act 1981 give individuals the protections that they would have received to ensure that they receive a fair trial, if the matter comes to trial, by ensuring that the course of justice is not impeded by political prejudice or adverse publicity. I recall our debates on this issue when the Act was passing through Parliament. I support the changes today, but it would be good to know from the Minister how many fewer people would need this protection if the Government had listened to the police and others, including Members of this noble House, who suggested that 56 days rather than 28 days was a more realistic timescale for releasing individuals on police bail, as the machinery of investigations and things like forensics just cannot complete their work in a majority of cases within 28 days. That leaves people released while under police investigation, not police bail, and potentially at risk of action which is prejudicial to them being taken against them. No one wants to see anyone on police bail for extended periods, but if we have just substituted being on police bail with being under police investigation, it begs the question what has been achieved here.

The other provisions in the regulations make fairly minor amendments in provisions concerning disciplinary procedures for former members of police forces and former special constables, the powers of police civilian staff and volunteers and the closing of a gap in the cross-border powers of arrest, which I am content to agree to. With those points that I have raised, I am content with the regulations today.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

Before the Minister steps up, I would like to echo the comments of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, about the 28-day rule. Would the Minister be prepared to agree that the Home Office or the inspectorate should examine in a year’s time, after the enactment of all this, as to whether this limit works? Intuitively, it does not; intuitively, certainly when we look at the stuff that we have heard recently about rape cases collapsing because the material had not been looked at, 28 days is almost an impossibility in a serious case, if there was only one case. We know that rape investigators in London are carrying 25 cases simultaneously, which means that they have to deal with all this in one day, effectively. There is something very honourable in the attempt to keep people off police bail, but, intuitively, this may go absolutely wrong. I would like the Minister to agree to seek agreement from the Home Office or HMIC that this matter be reported back to this House in 12 months’ time as to the effects of this well-meant provision.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, and wish the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, well. I hope that he does not spend the whole of the Recess in his sick-bed.

I am grateful for the support for the draft regulations, although it is fair to say that some of the debate has touched not on the provisions but on some of the substantive reforms made by the Policing and Crime Act. I welcome the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has reiterated the Opposition’s support for the establishment of the London Fire Commissioner. The current governance arrangements in London can lead to confusion, with the mayor being accountable for setting the annual budget but decisions relating to fire and rescue provision being determined by the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority. Previously, this has led to a breakdown in decision-making, with the previous mayor having to repeatedly use his direction-making powers to resolve conflicts, which is time consuming and costly. That was clarified by the noble Lord’s comments. The changes in the 2017 Act will strengthen democratic accountability by giving the directly elected mayor greater responsibility for fire and, crucially, streamlining decision-making to assist in making future demands on fire and rescue services in London.

The mayor, both now and in the future, should be able to appoint the best available candidate to the office of London Fire Commissioner. The changes made in the draft regulations to firefighters’ pension arrangements will ensure that this is the case. Indeed, failure to make the changes provided for in the draft regulations is likely significantly to reduce the pool of suitably qualified candidates for the post in the future.

Deceased Individuals: Allegations

Lord Blair of Boughton Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Until someone is charged, they cannot be accused, only questioned, in my limited knowledge of the law. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made an eloquent argument that in some cases anonymity might prevent questioning and interviews from taking place and may be to the benefit of someone who may be guilty.

[Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)]

My Lords, it would be fair to say that this is a pretty knife-edge issue. There are circumstances in which it is appropriate to name a suspect. That is usually when the person is incredibly powerful. The naming of deceased people is a different issue, but I will give your Lordships two examples of live suspects and ask the Minister whether she agrees. The first is at home: Stuart Hall. If there had not been an announcement that he had been arrested, the chances of a number of other victims coming forward would have been very limited. He is now in prison for a long time. The other one, which is quite topical, is Harvey Weinstein.