Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I cannot do justice in five minutes to what needs to be said, suffice it to commend the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Rosser from the Front Bench, and the first five speakers, who covered the challenge comprehensively. I have been here 20 years ago—as has been mentioned several times—in examining overseas processing. I have been here on accommodation processing internally. I have been here in getting rid of those who have committed crimes. I have been here in reducing unwarranted asylum by two-thirds by the time I left the Home Office.

It is really important to understand what has happened previously and to learn from it. Signalling without solutions is virtue signalling while misleading the public. Anyone who believes that this Bill will be successful in implementation is delusional. When it fails, the Government will presumably blame somebody else rather than themselves. A two-tier asylum system will fail. Withdrawal of citizenship without notification or explanation will be immoral. As has already been described, breach of international conventions, including Article 31, is totally unacceptable for a democratic nation.

Promising resettlement programmes that have actually been curtailed is also a delusion which will come home to bite. If you promise that there will be other resettlement routes—other than for Hong Kong and those who are eventually resettled from Afghanistan—when, as has already been said, you have withdrawn the routes in respect of family reunion and not put alternatives in place, you will end up with what happened last year, with not a single person resettled from Yemen as their country of origin and only one from Iran. Please, if we are going to preach morality, let us at least be honest about it.

In the time I have, I want to ask the Minister to clarify, via her officials in the Box, whether—seeing as we are talking about morality and the intentions of this Bill—the Home Secretary said, as was reported extensively on 17 November from her visit to Washington, when speaking to journalists about migrants:

“These people have come to our country and abused British values, abused the values of the fabric of our country and our society. And as a result of that, there’s a whole industry that thinks it’s right to defend these individuals that cause the most appalling crimes against British citizens, devastating their lives, blighting communities”.


I want the Minister to come back this evening and tell me what was incorrect in those newspaper quotes.

It takes me back to WH Auden who, in his 1939 poem “Refugee Blues”, talks about the endeavour to be able to get into a country without documentation. The consul’s words are:

“‘If you’ve got no passport, you’re officially dead’”

and the answer from the migrant is:

“But we are still alive, my dear, but we are still alive.”

Today, he might have written that the manifest demanded it, the border official commanded it, but in the refugee camp they removed it—my identity, my sanctuary, my everything.

Removing the right to come here unless you have a passport and visa is fraudulent. It creates a two-tier system which says that if you get here legally and have the right to be here, we will deny you asylum, because of course you do not warrant it. However, if you do not have the documentation and arrive here illegally, we will imprison you for four years. What sort of Government, what sort of nation, what sort of opportunity are we talking about this afternoon?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness, and I know she would not have made that suggestion.

We are talking today not about the lawful migration which has so enriched our country, but about illegal migration, which only makes it harder for us to do what we all want, which is to protect those in greatest need of our help.

As I said, I cannot touch on every point that was made, but I hope to touch on some of the key issues. To quote my noble friend Lord Wolfson again, we have to start with the basic reality that the current system is not working. We need real, practical solutions, not just another outline of the problems, so I offer particular thanks to noble Lords who have today shared some suggestions of what we can do. Reform is desperately needed, and the Bill will enable us to deliver it.

I turn first to the deprivation of citizenship, because that has been so widely mentioned, including by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Paddick, Lord Blunkett, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Dubs, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Hannay of Chiswick; the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Lister and Lady Uddin; and my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lady Warsi. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that, irrespective of his name—mine also starts with a “W”, so I know where I stand—I listened to his concerns on the clause very carefully. I assure him of the Government’s continuing commitment to righting the wrongs of Windrush. We have been very clear on that, so, to echo what was said explicitly in the other place, the Bill does not widen the reasons for which a person can be deprived of their British citizenship. The change is about the process of notifying the individual.

Picking up on some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in particular, the clause is necessary to ensure that we avoid a situation where we could never deprive a person of their British citizenship just because there is no way of communicating with them, or where to make contact would disclose sensitive intelligence sources, including a last known address—if we even have one. This is vital to protect the security of the UK from those who would wish to do us harm.

Rightly, this power is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK and those who obtain their citizenship by fraudulent means. Decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and in accordance with international law. It always comes with an appeal right. The Government do not seek to extend deprivation powers—I want to make that absolutely clear. The grounds on which a person can be deprived of their citizenship will remain unchanged. We also do not want to deny a person their statutory right of appeal where we have made a decision to deprive, and the Bill preserves that right. The change is simply intended to ensure that existing powers can be used effectively in all appropriate circumstances and in no way represents a policy change in this important area of work. Instead, the scaremongering that we have seen around this clause from some quarters is unacceptable, irresponsible and highly regrettable.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made some thoughtful contributions on the importance of organisations such as the RNLI, and I share their sentiments about them. I want to reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not change the Government’s approach to existing obligations under international maritime law, including that first duty to protect lives at sea. I might say that I am delighted that the RNLI has received additional contributions, because I see the work that it does down in Cornwall. The Government tabled an amendment to the Bill in the Commons on Report to make absolutely clear that organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI will be able to continue to rescue those in distress at sea, as they do now.

Perhaps I may move on to differentiation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Ludford, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws and Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke about provisions that differentiate between groups of asylum seekers. I know that there is a difference of opinion about these provisions, but I do not make excuses for doing everything possible to deter people from making these dangerous crossings. I should like to provide reassurance that family reunion, which I know is an issue of particular concern, will be permitted for those in group two where refusal would breach our international obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I should also like to pick up specifically on the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on female judges from Afghanistan. She and I have talked about that and how they will be considered under the new differentiated asylum policy. As she set out, in August we announced the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, one of the most generous schemes in our country’s history, with up to 20,000 people at risk being given a new life in the UK. The scheme will explicitly prioritise those who have assisted the UK’s efforts in Afghanistan and stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights and freedom of speech or the rule of law. I hope, therefore, that I can assure the noble Baroness on that. The scheme includes women’s rights activists, journalists and prosecutors.

Individuals granted settlement under the ACRS will not be subject to any differential treatment and will be granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That sits alongside our other safe and legal routes, including the UK resettlement scheme and community sponsorship, which I am delighted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford mentioned, because it is a scheme that I am very keen on and I hope to have more discussions with her on it. Other safe and legal routes include the mandate resettlement scheme, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the immigration route for BNO status holders from Hong Kong.

I move on to modern slavery. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord McColl, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Rooker and Lord Morrow, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked about Part 5, which relates to modern slavery. The Government are totally committed to tackling this terrible crime, one that seeks to exploit and do harm. This requires active prosecution of the modern slavery perpetrators.

Noble Lords asked why we are legislating for modern slavery in this Bill. The fact is that there is an overlap between some individuals who enter the immigration system and the national referral mechanism, so it is right that we make sure that those individuals have their full set of circumstances considered together. We also want to make sure that vulnerable individuals are identified as early as possible so that we can ensure that they have access to the right support.

That is why this Bill makes clear, for the first time in primary legislation, that where a public authority, such as the police, is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceedings, confirmed victims who are co-operating in this activity and need to remain in the UK in order to do so will be granted temporary leave to remain. The legislation also makes it clear that leave will be granted where it is necessary to assist an individual in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from the relevant exploitation, or where it is necessary to enable them to seek compensation in respect of the relevant exploitation. It is right that leave is granted only to those who need it. This is both firm and fair.

Additionally, as part of our ongoing commitment to victims, we will continue to explore opportunities to enhance our support for victims through the criminal justice system through our review of the modern slavery strategy. Having as clear a definition as possible of the relevant eligibility criteria is the best way to give victims the clarity and certainty they need.

I assure noble Lords that we remain in line with our international obligations and will continue to support, via a grant of temporary leave to remain, those who have a need to be in the UK to assist with their recovery from physical and psychological harm caused by their exploitation. All those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We will set out further details in guidance in due course.

I turn to the concerns about the steps we are taking regarding the wording of the reasonable grounds threshold in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Our purpose here is to ensure that this mirrors our obligation under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. We remain committed to ensuring that the NRM effectively identifies and supports genuine victims to recover.

Lastly, I turn to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the recent joint statement of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I assure him that we are fully considering the issues raised and that we are currently engaging with both commissioners on these important issues.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am sorry to do this to the Minister, but the context of the Bill has to be seen in the light of the pronouncements of the Home Secretary. When I was Home Secretary, I knew and was reminded constantly by my special advisers that what I said constituted government policy, the direction of government and the context within which legislation was provided. I need her to assure the House that what I read out five and a half hours ago as being the views of the Home Secretary in November either constitutes the view of the Government or is refuted by her.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I cannot read the mind of the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord is absolutely correct that that was a quote from her. On the point that she was making, I think the article he referred to was in relation to the Liverpool bomber. I think the Home Secretary gave that as an example of someone whose asylum claim had been refused. That person then went on to do potential harm to the people of this country. In fact, through the actions of the very brave taxi driver, he blew only himself up, but she was reflecting on the harm that a broken asylum system can do to the people of this country. That is why we need to give refuge to those who need our refuge and to make sure that we deter illegal migration and come down hard on those people who would wish this country harm. I hope that encapsulates my right honourable friend’s estimation of the situation and satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.

In terms of the impact of provisions on women, which I touched on earlier, I was very interested to hear the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, about the experiences of women and girls including those fleeing sexual violence, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about the experience of vulnerable people who may be experiencing physical or mental ill health. These must be quite traumatic experiences, particularly if you are in a war-torn country.

We recognise that people who have experienced those traumas may feel unable to provide evidence relating to their protection or human rights claim. That is why the Bill makes very clear that, where late evidence is provided and there are good reasons for that, the credibility penalties relating to late evidence will not apply. We will set out in guidance what can constitute good reasons to allow decision-makers the flexibility to take a case-by-case approach depending on a person’s specific situation and vulnerabilities. Looking at the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and his potential case study, it might apply in that case.

We have heard many views expressed on our proposals to make it possible to remove protection claimants to a safe country while their claims are processed. I note in particular the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord German and Lord Dubs, and my noble friends Lord Horam and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. While people are placing their lives at risk making perilous journeys, every possible option must be considered to reduce the draw of the UK. The Government have made their position clear throughout the debate: people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. We are also clear that this Bill is fully compliant with all our international obligations and we will not act in such a way which means that a person’s life is at risk or which places a person at risk of persecution, torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.

I move on to the British Hong Kong service personnel. I hope noble Lords will indulge me for an additional minute or two because I was intervened upon. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised concerns about the former British Hong Kong service personnel, and I think, to be fair to him, has been doing so since I have been a Home Office Minister, so I must give him credit for that. We remain extremely grateful to those former British Hong Kong service personnel. Under the British nationality selection scheme, a limited number were settled in Hong Kong and could apply to register as British citizens, as he knows. I can confirm, as he requested, that the Government have identified a potential solution to this issue and are currently investigating proposals that could see this cohort treated in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel. That would be in addition to other pathways that they may already be eligible for. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the ramifications and impact of the policy; however, we aim to provide further details as soon as we can with a view to a solution being provided before the end of this calendar year. Given that he has waited nearly six years—under my tenure anyway—I know he has got an awful lot of patience.

More broadly in terms of international co-operation, my noble friend Lord Balfe, the noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord German, Lord Davies, Lord Liddle and Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, have spoken eloquently about the need for us to work with our international partners to tackle what really are shared global challenges. I totally agree; all countries have a moral responsibility to tackle the issue of illegal migration. Most countries have got the challenge of illegal migration.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, we have already had an extensive debate so I will be brief. I must note that I have heard my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb talk about this issue often; it is something that she is extremely passionate about. I have no doubt that she would have attached her name to this amendment had space been available under our systems.

We have heard some terribly powerful contributions, particularly from the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond. I really hope that the Government were listening. I am not sure that the point has been made that restorative justice should be the foundation of our justice system. It should be fundamental to what it is all about. At the moment, by contrast, it seems to be an afterthought added on at the end. This means that we have seen a loss of funding for some really practical things, such as restorative justice training for all prosecutors, including the independent Bar, so that they can better identify opportunities for restorative justice when handling cases. We also need to see restorative justice training for magistrates and judges so that they can be fully involved in facilitating it. Just as judges have a central role in enabling alternative dispute resolution in the civil courts, in the criminal courts, they should promote and encourage a restorative approach all the way from the initial arraignment right through to sentencing.

What we are talking about here is coming out after the awful event of a crime and repairing, restoring and making things better. We know well from our criminal justice system—a system at the end of which everyone comes out feeling worse about it—that what we have at the moment is not working for the people involved. It is not working for victims. It is not working to provide change for perpetrators. It is not working for the entire community.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I realise that I am breaching protocol because I was not here at the beginning of the debate on Amendment 265. I apologise profusely to the House and to the Minister. On a lighter note, one day we will have a Braille annunciator and an audible signal that I can pick up. I would not be here at this time of night if I did not care about this proposition and had not pledged to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that I would support it, so please forgive me; I shall be incredibly brief. I hope that the noble Baroness is recovering well.

Some years ago, I took part in what could be described as a slightly bizarre and almost unreal television programme, “Banged Up”. It was a five-part series in which real ex-prisoners, real ex-offenders, real victims and an ex-governor, who is now a criminologist at the University of Birmingham, took part in an experiment to see how people would react to understanding what they have done and being able to relate to their victims. It was remarkable: it brought home to me, and I hope to all those viewing, that restorative justice could make a difference to the victim and how they felt and to their future, and, crucially, to the perpetrator, in understanding the impact of their crime and how to then redeem themselves and put things right. It was crucial to both their futures.

I commend the initiative in demonstrating in this short debate how vital it is to remember that putting things right, and getting restorative justice to ensure that perpetrators do not repeat their crime, is far more important than punishment.

Police: Recruits

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Blunkett]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many recruits to the police service were taken on as (1) uniformed officers, and (2) community support officers, between 1 April 2020 and 31 August 2021 in the 43 police force areas in England and Wales.

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

My Lords, the latest police officer uplift statistics, published yesterday, show that police forces in England and Wales recruited a total of 17,872 officers between April 2020 and September of this year. There are now 139,908 officers in total, of which 11,053 can be attributed to the Government’s police uplift pledge. The most recently published data shows that forces recruited 1,198 police community support officers between April 2020 and March 2021.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I know the Minister will join me in congratulating the police and services across England and Wales on what is a very impressive recruitment programme, taking us back to the figures we had in 2010. However, given the incidents that have occurred recently, including the committal of a serving officer to custody on the accusation of rape yesterday, what guidance is now being given to forces on the vetting of those they are recruiting, the monitoring of those under training and access to social media accounts in order to protect the public from those who should be protecting them in the first place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask that question, which has already been raised this week. New recruits are subject to a rigorous vetting and assessment process to assess suitability for the role of police officer, including testing against core behaviours and values. The College of Policing sets the standard through the vetting statutory code of practice. We utterly recognise some of the anxieties around vetting and have commissioned HMICFRS to carry out an urgent thematic inspection of force vetting arrangements, which will help to identify any areas to address.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 14th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I have often reflected that I thought ghosts were walking the corridors of the Palace of Westminster, some with their head tucked under their arm. I am reminded of that because I think we have a poltergeist; when the Minister lost part of her notes, I noticed that a pile of Braille notes that were next to me before my noble friend sat down next to me had gone missing, and I have no idea where they are. But I will suffice with the one that remained in my hand.

This afternoon, there are many things to welcome in this legislation, but there are so many things we are concerned about that it is inevitable we will concentrate on the things that worry us most. What is it that we are seeking to address? Does it require new powers or sentences? Is it proportionate and clear? Will it achieve the desired outcome? Will it lead to confusion, mistrust and more challenges in the courts? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to what is going on around us? All those questions are absolutely crucial as we address, through Committee and Report, the detail of this Bill.

I can deal with only one or two parts this afternoon. Part 7 in relation to sentencing may be an opportunity, under point 8 of the 11 key points that my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer outlined earlier, to put right the mistakes made, including by myself, in relation to incarceration for public protection—IPP—where the revolving door that has just been referred to affects a large number of prisoners and where, with a bit of common sense, we might be able to put some of it right, not least by using tagging instead of a return to prison for minor infringements of the licence conditions. We could put right the silliness of giving people a 10-year sentence relating to what they do to statues, when we should be concentrating on what we do as a society to each other.

I want to concentrate, however, on public order in Parts 3 and 4. I did not disagree with quite a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, said—which I am sure she will be surprised to hear. There is a challenge for us to get right in the 21st century. With modern communication technology and the expression of anger in new ways, we need to be able to address those issues, particularly where anarcho-syndicalists take over legitimate protests and either manipulate or confuse those who are taking part in peaceful protest. But I do not believe that what is before us in this Bill actually achieves that. To paraphrase Lewis Carroll, “‘Words mean what I say they mean,’ said Priti.”—and she is pretty uneasy and quite annoyed most of the time, particularly by the noise of dissent around her. So getting the words right really does matter because, otherwise, the unfettered use of discretion described by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will come back to bite us in a very big way: once mistrust takes hold, respect for the law and consent in our policing system will disappear.

I am wholly in favour of being able to take action against those who believe, or appear to believe, sincerely that the ends justify the means when the means do not justify the ends and, in particular, when the means are in fact damaging the ends they are seeking. Stopping people being able to legitimately use public transport is unacceptable. Let us try together, as we do so well and have done over recent months and years, to use the facility of this House to get this legislation right and achieve the outcomes most noble Lords would want to succeed.

Passport and Visa Measures

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I know that many schools have arrangements. When my children were at school there were children whose parents could not afford to send them on school trips, of which there were many, or perhaps to another country. There are generally provisions within schools to help out in such situations.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, this is not a matter of upsetting the European Union, but a matter of geography, history and educational connectivity and is about the reputation of our country. You can get into this country if you have £2 million whatever your circumstances, never mind whether we really want you or not, but you cannot come here under present arrangements from 1 July with a school party on the existing provisions if you come from those countries that historically we have welcomed. Surely the Minister, who is the conduit rather than the cause of our concerns, might back to the Home Secretary and say: “Yes, I know there’s a policy, which is to prevent as many people as possible coming to the United Kingdom, but at some point, does this not have a major detrimental effect down the line when people who were forbidden to come under existing arrangements remember?”

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is not a question of forbidding people to come to this country, nor one of not welcoming children from all over the world, but it is a situation where the EU and the rest of the world are now all being treated the same way. Collective passports are in place and I am sure that there are arrangements within many schools to help children who cannot afford them, but we are not forbidding them. I just want to correct the noble Lord on that.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group; I put my name to the ones that I thought were more appropriate for me but I agree with them all. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has said, it is of course true that these amendments are supported by the Magistrates Association. My reason for supporting them, apart from the fact that I am convinced that they are right, is that they come from the Magistrates Association, of which I had the honour to be president for almost 10 years. However, that experience is rather elderly and I am therefore very happy that these amendments are supported by an active, front-line, authoritative magistrate today.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we are doing very well this afternoon so I will try not to delay your Lordships’ House very long. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said, one of the great advantages of being on the front line as a magistrate at the moment, as in the case of my noble friend Lord Ponsonby, is that you literally have current hands-on experience. One of the burdens you carry as a former Home Secretary—including one who had what is now the justice ministry under that umbrella—is that you ask yourself, “What would I do if I were the Home Secretary today?”

My response would be something like this. The amendments are logical, rational, humane and very difficult to argue with, but the one relating to a five-day timeframe is in the present circumstances unrealistic. We currently have a backlog of 64,000 outstanding cases, including many people on remand. We have a justice system that has been described in this House over recent days as being “justice delayed, justice denied”. I do not think it is realistic to specify five days, although there should be a timeframe within which the response is required in court with the person present.

That leads me to the second element. I want to come back and speak on Amendment 81 but, for now, I will just reflect. When I had responsibility for drugs policy, I was very clear that you needed the consent and commitment of the individual if they were to be offered treatment as opposed to punishment. However, when you offer people a positive road forward and require their genuine commitment to taking that up, you also need a fallback position when they do not do so. I hope that the Minister, when she responds, will be able to reflect on how we might meet the genuine rights of individuals in this case, with the imperative not to be taken for a ride.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I find myself in broad agreement with what he said about the need to broaden the categories of “personally connected” as set out in the Bill.

My first reaction on reading this part of the Bill was that we certainly need to be more inclusive of other relationships. My second reaction, I must admit, was that there were some relationships that should probably be excluded, as they would dilute the impact of the focus of domestic abuse legislation. For example, the relationship of landlord and tenant, without more to support a clear connection between them in a domestic setting, should not be within the scope of the Bill per se. I think that was a point was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Amendment 6, in the name of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, would extend the legislation explicitly to guardians. I listened carefully to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, about the fact that this is probably, or may well be, covered by the legislation. I suspect that is true in relation to children in Clause 3, but I think it does not deal with the situation between A and B in Clause 2. I think that was the point the noble and learned Baroness was making, unless I am mistaken. Maybe I have misunderstood that; I look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the noble and learned Baroness, in concluding this part of our discussion, say in that regard.

But it seems to me that guardianship certainly needs to be included quite obviously for both areas. I just wonder whether it should cover the situation where A or B has been a guardian and is no longer a guardian, because I would expect the close nexus—the close relationship—to continue.

I have much sympathy with the case put forward on Amendment 7, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Wilcox of Newport and Lady Watkins of Tavistock, and my noble friend Lady Altmann; with Amendment 11, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which was so ably, emotionally and correctly supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton; and Amendment 12, in the names of my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.

Essentially, consideration of this part of the Bill relates to what relationships the domestic abuse legislation should cover. Like the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, I think that the starting point should be: would we want to exclude anything where people are in the same household? As I said, some relationships, such as landlord and tenant, should maybe be excluded, but otherwise I see no reason to exclude anything where there is a close and trusted relationship, as there would be in the context of carers. Indeed, we really should recognise the realities of abuse today and the society in which we live, and that, in this pioneering piece of legislation, we are setting out the principles and frameworks of the law in this area for years to come. We should get it right and be bold.

I say that too in the context of Amendment 8 on forced marriages, so ably set out by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. Some of the scenarios may possibly be caught by the Bill’s provisions where a forced marriage has already taken place, but there might be problems if the marriage was null and void . Clearly, it does not cover the situation where the marriage has not yet taken place. There is a very powerful, almost unanswerable, case to extend the definition of “personally connected” to cover this situation.

The same is true of Amendment 9, on domestic servitude, tabled by the noble and learned Baroness and by my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge. No doubt there are provisions in modern slavery legislation to deal with that scenario, just as there would be provisions relating to forced marriage and so on, but there is a powerful case for extending the protection and all the measures of the domestic abuse legislation to these situations.

As I said, we need to recognise the realities of life in Britain and the country we are governing today. I will listen to my noble friend’s response with interest, but there is a clear case for extending the definition of “personally connected”, which we are debating.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bourne. I find myself on the horns of a dilemma. At Second Reading, I tried to set out how important it is that this legislation encapsulates, as far as we humanly can, all the possibilities that, if not included, would be felt to have let down the people we seek to help in years to come. I used the example of the first effort back in 2003, in the domestic violence and victims Act, for which I was responsible as Home Secretary, where we clearly took a step forward but a very tentative one. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, for understanding and supporting what I was trying to say.

My dilemma is this. While I very clearly understand the thrust of the amendments and the critical nature of getting right the definition of “personally connected” to make the Bill work and watertight, and to enable the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary to use it as an effective tool, there are real dangers in some of the amendments—not in the essence of what is sought but in the extent to which they make it difficult to decide which Act is to be used, first by the police in filling in form 124, then by the Crown Prosecution Service, and subsequently in our adversarial court system, where a substantial case has been made and knocked down because of the detailed nature of the definitions involved.

So I have some sympathy, as I normally have, with the Minister in how to get this right. For instance, I agreed wholeheartedly with the description given by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and with the very thoughtful and powerful presentation from the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell, reflecting the desire of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to see carers involved, and I cannot see any reason why we cannot involve them. But we then drift into the situation of a friend who regularly comes round to the house and seeks to sexually abuse someone. Surely that would fall under the Sexual Offices Act 2003, for which I was also responsible. The wider you make the definition, the more difficult it will be to get a successful prosecution if you use the wrong piece of legislation.

The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, knows more about this than I ever will, because, although I was responsible for trying to develop policy, she had to implement it. It seems that we should try to do what we tried to do recently in another Act: the Minister should, once again, get people to come together to look at how the very sensible amendments being moved this evening can be tightened up, so that the legislation is broad enough to encapsulate the concerns that have, quite rightly, been raised. At the same time, it should not be loose enough to allow a very clever barrister—we have a number of them in our House—to run rings round the prosecution.

Tonight has been an excellent example of how the real concerns that exist out there can be reflected, as were the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in commencing the Committee stage this afternoon, when she referred to the organisations and campaigners, all of whom are helping us to get this legislation right.

[Lord Cormack (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I am delighted to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have virtually unqualified admiration. I have seen what he has done over a long period of years and have agreed with a very great deal of it.

It is important that this landmark legislation is able to deal with abuse involving relationships between those who live in the same domestic setting or where there is a dependency within a domestic setting. That is why I give great support to the noble Baroness, Lady Campbell of Surbiton, who spoke with great eloquence, force, lucidity and passion. What she said convinced me entirely. I hope that, when the Minister comes to reply, he will indicate a willingness to incorporate the amendment that she spoke to, or something very like it.

I want to concentrate my brief remarks mainly on Amendment 8, spoken to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has just said, she speaks with an authority that none of us can begin to emulate or rival in any way.

It seems absolutely crucial that this landmark Bill, as I call it, covers forced marriage. I say that for one reason above all others. I have been privileged to attend a number of meetings arranged by another formidable Baroness—the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, who has been conducting a campaign to underline the dangers of sharia law in the context of marriage. At those meetings, some quite exceptionally brave women—mostly very young—who have been forced into marriage, or who are threatened with being forced into marriage, have given testimony to colleagues from your Lordships’ House. What I have heard at those meetings has been not only moving but sometimes tragic, because a number of those who have given evidence to us have suffered bereavement within their family circle. I implore my noble friend to make sure that forced marriage is very much included.

It is very good to be able to give virtually unqualified support to a Bill, and I am delighted to be able to do so. However, I sincerely hope that this will be as comprehensive an Act of Parliament as possible when it comes into force, that so far as possible all domestic abuse will be included and that high on the list will be forced marriage.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 11th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Hain in his admirable description of what has happened historically and what we need to avoid in the future. Our previous debate was cracked before Christmas because we had a break and started again on another day. I shall try to be brief because I hope that will not happen this evening and that we can move forward with some form of consensus.

In commending the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Hain, I have to say that we are getting ourselves in a real muddle. Having sat through the earlier debate on the previous group on the very reason why this Bill is necessary, I feel incredibly sorry for the Minister. Not only does she have three major Bills on her hands and all the other day-to-day questions and activity, but she must scratch her head about why something that was taking place without the framework we are trying to develop is now being criticised when a framework is being put in place.

I have a great deal of sympathy with her, and I am grateful that she was prepared to talk to my noble friend Lord Hain and me about this. I was also grateful to the Met, the counterterrorism branch and the security services for the discussion I had with them, refreshing my memory—as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has—about what has taken place over the years since I was Home Secretary and the improvements that have been put in place, including the order passed in 2013 that the noble Lord referred to. I think it was Statutory Instrument 2788.

The other part of the muddle seems to be this: the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is right, in my view, to say that it is probably not appropriate for a judge to make the pre-review, and therefore the authorisation of criminal activity. I too think it is not appropriate, not for the reasons he gave, but because I do not think that judges should authorise criminal conduct and criminal activity. They are then in an entirely different role to the one they were trained to undertake and have our confidence in carrying through independently. That is why the Minister is almost certain to agree to Amendment 33—spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, today and in its previous iteration before Christmas—to make some progress. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, with whom I often agree, that I think there has been some move behind the scenes and that we will see that carried through on Wednesday.

I can understand the concerns of those operating in the field that we should distinguish between, for instance, those taken on as what used to be called “snouts” or informers and placing someone, as a police officer, in a situation of potential criminal conduct, which is very different. I understand that very well. At a higher level, it is really important to see the implications of placing an officer in those situations, which might have a major knock-on effect in terms of the reputation of the Government, never mind the policing and security services.

In those circumstances, it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to authorise the clearance prior to the activity beginning, as happens with phone taps and surveillance. In those circumstances, while this amendment is much tighter than the previous one that I, my noble friend Lord Hain, and others signed, it is desirable to have that level of authorisation for very specific placements of trained officers while giving greater flexibility to what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has talked about and must have experienced on a day-to-day basis when he operated in the police service.

This is so complicated because these elements do not sit easily with each other. It is not easy to sort out what would be the most appropriate way forward. I simply ask the Minister to consider whether a higher level of authorisation is required for very specific activities where an officer, whether in the police or security services, is placed in circumstances and situations that could lead to considerable reverberations down the line, taking into account the strictures made on human rights and, of course, our duty of care.

I am not sure that I feel comfortable with the amendment moved and supported by my own side, and I will finish on this. There is a wonderful feeling at the moment that politicians are not appropriate for, or capable of dealing with, high-level situations, even though they have been elevated to the highest possible level. I understand that, particularly at the moment, but I cannot for the life of me understand why my own party is so taken with giving the judiciary roles that are not about judgments of criminality or even carrying out reviews, both of which judges are perfectly capable of because that is their role. What is this love of the belief that we should hollow out the state, as we call it in the academic world, so that politicians are seen as incapable of making decisions and taking responsibility for them, but judges are not? I worry about this, because we are getting ourselves into a terrible mess, where eventually politicians will dance to the tune of Covid but very little else.

[Baroness Wheatcroft (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who speaks with deep personal experience and authority. I listened to the passionate debate on the previous group of amendments, and now on this group. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, made his case for Amendment 5 in his usual persuasive manner, but I favour a slightly different approach, not least for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Hence I will speak to Amendment 16, as introduced so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cormack.

If the state is to grant advance pardon to individuals to commit serious breaches of the law, this should not be a common occurrence, and it is a decision that should be taken at the highest level. To my mind, that should be at the level of government. I accept that there might be occasions when, for matters of national security, criminal acts will need to be committed, but I have not been convinced of the need for change in the status quo regarding the way these authorisations are given. However, as the charity Justice says, it is inconceivable that the Government should not be accountable for serious criminal offences committed with their approval—but if that approval is delegated to officials, who will be accountable?

I have many qualms about this legislation. As many have remarked, the Government have repeatedly failed to make a convincing case as to why such a drastic abandoning of moral norms should be sanctioned. They have certainly failed to provide convincing arguments as to why such a broad set of agencies should need access to criminal conduct authorisation. What undercover activity does the Food Standards Agency, for instance, envisage having need of? However, while I am not comfortable with aspects of the legislation, I have no doubt of the Government’s determination to press ahead with it. It is therefore down to this House to try to make it more palatable.

As ever, the Government are keen to embrace anything that will show contempt for the European Court of Human Rights, and this obviously presents an opportunity to do that. But it is imperative that we try to stop these powers being used with impunity—and how better than by making government directly accountable? It would clearly be wrong for officials to have the power to grant immunity from prosecution to undercover agents on the basis of what they perceive as necessity without external authorisation.

The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, believes that the judiciary could provide that authorisation; the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out the flaws in that. I would prefer it to be the Government: the shift in responsibility from Ministers to officials has become a worrying trend. It seems that senior officials are deemed dispensable these days, but Ministers are not; ministerial resignations are now very rare, although I am sure that most of us have a little list of those that we feel are long overdue. The issuing of these orders is a very serious decision, with potentially enormous effects; it would surely be appropriate for a Minister to take ultimate responsibility.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)]

I have received two requests to ask short questions from the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Hain, who I will call and then call the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I congratulate the Minister on her tenacity and her grasp of detail, which is reassuring and refreshing. Would she consider providing a regular quarterly update to the Home Secretary in addition to the annual report to which she has referred—part of which is redacted and part of which is on public record? In that way, there is at least some responsibility in the political arena as an ongoing feature of the new pattern, which is clearly going to involve Amendment 33 and the consequentials.

Antique Firearms Regulations 2020

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I appear to be stalking the Minister, as I turn up on all occasions when she presents, as she did yesterday on the important domestic abuse legislation. On every occasion I find myself reflecting on the past and wishing that I had done more in the areas she addresses. That is true today.

We are iterating as we go, because the changes the Minister described this afternoon build on what has been done over many years since 1968. I remember the terrible events at Dunblane and the actions we had to take under the then Conservative Government, and the changes we made when I was Home Secretary. On each occasion there appeared to be a loophole and something else that needed to be done. As I said yesterday in the Chamber, I appreciate that this is inevitable because we are learning as we go along, and so are criminals and perpetrators. They learn how to adapt and to adopt new methodologies as we close a loophole.

I am strongly in favour of the regulations. It may appear to be a very small measure but I am clear, as the Minister said, that we are attempting to close loopholes on risk. If anything puts people at risk—and use of these historical weapons has grown—we should try to close the loophole.

My only comment is that there is absolutely no real inconvenience to collectors, whether in the public sphere such as museums, or individuals who have developed a collection over the years. There is no real harm in asking them to register what they have because criminals will redeploy their skills on those historical weapons and in some cases make them operable, although it is more difficult with the ammunition. We sometimes create a bureaucratic barrier that does not really exist and would not be a problem for people registering. I put that on the table.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 5th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]]

I am very pleased indeed to follow my noble friend Lady Armstrong and commend the work that she has done over so many years in this important field. I want to reinforce one or two of the points that she has made. To start with, I will indicate my support for the words used both by the Minister in introducing this debate and by my noble friend Lord Rosser about those who have campaigned individually or in organisations to bring about change over the years.

I also make my own appeal to the Minister to fight within government to allow amendments that are being proposed by so many noble Lords contributing today to be taken on board. The reason for that is very simple. Back in 2003, when I was Home Secretary, we introduced what became the first Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act. Now, 18 years later, I see just how inadequate that Act was. It will, of course, be for future generations to build on this new Bill, and the measures taken in the Serious Crime Act 2015, but the more we can get this right now, the fewer victims there will be in future. The more good we can do now, the more we will protect people now and in the future. That is my first appeal.

My second is to commend what the Minister said about Claire Throssell and her terrible loss back in 2014, which took place in what is now the Sheffield City Region, and the work of Independent Domestic Abuse Services in Yorkshire. So many of these organisations have, over many years, campaigned to get to where we are today, and I do hope that will be reflected in a willingness from government to listen and learn. I also commend the Minister for her own campaigning inside government to get to this place today.

My noble friend Lady Armstrong mentioned what has happened during lockdown. It is timely, albeit somewhat late, that we should debate this today at the beginning of yet another lockdown, when I suspect many people will be at more risk than they were back in April, May and June. Clare’s law, which was mentioned by the Minister in introducing this debate, will be strengthened, and I welcome that. The right to ask and the right to know are absolutely crucial, but so are so many of the amendments that have been mentioned already.

I heard Nicole Jacobs this morning thankfully supporting the measures that many Members will be seeking to add to the Bill as well as to strengthen existing clauses. I heard one of the victims of non-fatal strangulation spelling out clearly what that meant. It was something that I had not been aware of before the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove—a campaigner of her own and to whom I am grateful—as Victims’ Commissioner drew my attention to it. It is critical to ensure that we hear the voices of children and victims, and take the necessary actions now, not later, to make the Bill as effective as possible. I hope that there will be a response by all Members of the House to ensure that that happens.