Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Temporary Class Drug) (No. 3) Order 2015

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, I start by echoing that last sentiment of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, about the importance of the smooth running of the usual channels. It is, of course, somewhat strange, having spent a very happy time as co-conspirator with the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, to be now spending a certain amount of time, with mixed success, planning his and his colleagues’ downfall. It is, however, a source of continuing pleasure to work with the noble Lord, and indeed with the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in such a civilised way, even though we often disagree on matters of great importance to the country. However we manage to do it in what I suspect most people would think of as in the best traditions of the House of Lords.

I, too, am paying tribute to several staff who have served your Lordships’ House very well. Zulmiro Trigo, known to her colleagues and your Lordships as Zizzi, started in the House of Lords in September 1997 as a member of the service team. She worked in all areas, including the Home Room, Attlee Room, Cholmondeley Room and Terrace, the Peers’ Dining Room and Gift Shop. She retired in April and is now enjoying life between Portugal and UK with her husband Umberto who also retired in April.

Umberto himself joined the House in November 1999 and worked as a waiter in banqueting in all areas, including the Attlee Room, the Cholmondeley Room and Terrace, and also the River Room. We wish them both very well.

Oye Acolatse joined the House in January 1993 as a junior chef working in the main kitchen. She worked in all areas and then specialised in the very busy pastry section for a number of years working as chef de partie—and winning the department’s employee of the year award in 2007. She was promoted to lead the section as sous chef in 2008 and decided to retire in April this year after 22 years’ valued service to the House to spend time with family and friends.

Biagio Lammoglia joined the House in June 1993 as the manager of the Peers’ Dining Room, the Peers’ Guest Room and Bishops’ Bar. He was a House of Lords institution. He was a valued member of the senior catering and retail services management team and shared his many years of experience in other areas of the department, as well as running a tight ship in the Principal Floor outlets.

As a new Member to your Lordships’ House, I was rather in awe and dread of Biagio because I felt that I probably already had broken, or was about to break, one or more of the rules of protocol in the Peers’ Guest or Dining Room. Of course, when I did, Biagio was always far too polite to point it out. But my sense of foreboding never completely disappeared. Biagio retired in July this year and is now spending time between Italy and the UK with family and friends.

James—Jim—Donoghue joined Lords Hansard in December 1984, having previously worked as a reporter in the law courts and Commons Hansard, and, after 31 years, retired in May. When live television broadcasting of the Lords began in January 1985, he was the first ever Hansard reporter to appear on television.

Jim still recalls an alarming encounter he had in the Chamber with Lord Denning, the recently retired Master of the Rolls. During the passage of the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill, Lord Denning raised the legal definition of “battery”, and said:

“We have to go to the common law to know what is battery. The least touching of another person is a battery. So I just have to put my hand on the shoulder of the Hansard writer, like this, and I would be guilty of a battery”.—[Official Report, 4/6/85; col. 622.]

Jim was the Hansard writer in question, and vividly remembers the force that Lord Denning used to make his point; fortunately, no lawsuit resulted.

Jim was an assistant editor on his retirement and said at his retirement party that he would miss the chimes of Big Ben on the quarters and on the hour, the beauty and serenity of Westminster Hall, and listening to the parliamentary choir through the Hansard office window as it rehearsed. He also shared that he would not miss annual appraisals, Thursday debates—which seemed to go on for ever—or waiting for the lift to the third floor, West Front. He calculated that during the 31 years he worked here, he spent eight months waiting for it. We certainly have sympathy with some of those sentiments!

Since retiring, Jim has been indulging his passions for travel and good food and wine, and spent four months in Greece. Jim’s hard work, passion for detail and rich grammatical knowledge are a big loss to the Hansard team, and he is sorely missed.

I have read out several tributes but the qualities of the staff to whom I have just referred apply to all the staff in your Lordships’ House and we wish them a peaceful Christmas and happy new year.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, on behalf of the Cross Bench group, I associate myself with the very well-earned tributes that have been expressed by other Members of the House.

I add a personal word of thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Newby, for the welcome they have given me as the newest member of the rather special group—the usual channels—of which I have not been a member before.

It is a privilege for me to take part in this important tradition, when the House quite rightly takes a moment to express its gratitude to the many staff who have served us so well over so many years. My appreciation of what the staff do for us goes back to when I first entered the House 20 years ago last February. I can look back to my 13 years as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, and to the excellent and devoted service we received on the Committee Corridor from our own dedicated team of doorkeepers, one of the last of whom was Jackie Mouzouros, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has just referred. They were with us when we sat in the Committee Rooms and they were with us, too, when we came into the Chamber on Wednesday mornings to deliver our judgments. I still recall their call “Counsel”, when the door opened and the lawyers were admitted to the presence of the Law Lords in the Committee Room, and their equally impressive call, “Clear the Bar”, when the day’s hearing was over. They added a dignity and sense of order to our proceedings which we could not possibly have achieved without their assistance.

It has been another very busy year for us in this House. We have had to work very hard, continuing to hold the Government to account through a wide variety of questions and debates and through our widely respected Select Committee structure. All this has been achieved during a period of continued financial constraint. More has had to be done with no increase in our resources. It is a real achievement, and a tribute to the dedication and resilience of our staff, that we have all continued to enjoy such a seamless service from them.

We have also seen a number of new Members introduced on all our Benches. It is always a real pleasure to hear the tributes paid in maiden speeches to the kindness of the staff and all the help they give new Members in coming to terms with their new surroundings. We know that those words of thanks are not empty, and that the tributes are expressions of gratitude sincerely meant. I believe that we are very fortunate, and that it is entirely appropriate that the staff should be recognised in this way this afternoon.

I should like to mention two former members of staff who have served the House in different, but equally important, roles. First, I mention Lenny Lenaghan, who served as a doorkeeper here for 15 years. Lenny joined the House after a 30-year career in the Metropolitan Police, which included a period as part of the police force that protects us here in the Palace of Westminster. I shall always remember an incident one afternoon when he spotted me, seated just outside the Bar of the House, in need—I am ashamed to say—of being kept awake. He thrust an Order Paper into my hand, which I still have, on which he had written in capital letters the words, “The TV camera will have you on it”. When I apologised to him the next morning for falling asleep, he replied, “Just thinking deeply, my Lord”. This was typical of the firm but tactful way in which he kept us all in order. Lenny retired as one of the four senior doorkeepers in July this year, and we wish him and his wife, June, a very long and happy retirement.

Next, I should like to mention Gail Munden. Gail joined the House in June 1998 as a temporary personal secretary to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, and myself on the Law Lords’ corridor. We both thought very highly of her and were delighted when she was made permanent in July 2000. In 2006, as the plans for the transfer of the judicial function of the House of Lords to the Supreme Court were being put in place, she was faced—like others, including Jackie Mouzouros—with a very difficult decision: should she move, or should she stay? Gail decided to stay here and accept a position that was then on offer in the office of the Clerk of the Parliaments. This proved a very happy choice as, shortly afterwards, she was promoted to senior personal secretary. She remained in this post, where she made many friends, until her recent retirement in October. Gail is a trustee of the Archer Community Centre, a community building near where she lives in Essex. The building was recently saved from a state of disrepair by Gail and other volunteers, and I understand she intends to continue to devote much of her time to that project in her retirement. We wish her well.

I end by adding my own thanks to all the staff and wishing them, and all noble Lords, a very happy Christmas.

House adjourned at 5.05 pm.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

I hope that, by the time this Bill reaches the other place, the Minister and his colleagues will find language which delimits and denotes much more precisely and exactly the drugs which are the evil that we are trying to protect our young people’s health and lives from.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, is right to avoid the use of the word “novel” or “new”. The problem is that what may be new or novel today may not be so next year. What we are seeking to do in this legislation is to create a series of criminal offences, and the prosecutor will need to be very precise in leading evidence to satisfy the requirements of the definition. A solution along the lines suggested by the noble Baroness, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, avoids that word, which lacks the precision that is needed. Of course, the word new or novel is widely used in common parlance, but that is not really the test that should be applied for legislation such as this. I am therefore sure that the noble Baroness was right to find some other form of wording, and the one she has suggested avoids that difficulty.

[Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope (LD)]

My Lords, I want to make two quick points as a codicil to this important group of amendments. I strongly support the attempt of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, to insert the word “synthetic”. As a former pharmacy graduate—non-practising—who studied such things, to me, the word “synthetic” makes perfect sense in this context, and it would make the Bill a lot clearer. I also support the amendments in this group that would reintroduce the concept of harm, which the 1971 legislation introduced in a way that has stood the test of time. Indeed, I am behind the thrust of all these amendments.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to the Committee stage of this Bill, which the ministerial team dealt with in an exemplary way; it listened very carefully and did the best it could. But any Member of this House who has had the advantage, as some of us have, of reading the recent letter from Professor Les Iversen and the Home Secretary’s response of a few days later, will be left, as I certainly am, with a real concern about the difference in tone between the two approaches taken. I and many others expressed the concern in Committee that the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs was being written out of the script. I use that harsh language deliberately, although I am not blaming the Minister.

On the second page of his letter, Professor Iversen says:

“The ACMD … wishes to present its concerns that the Bill, as drafted, may not achieve its aims”,

which is a pretty fundamental thing to say,

“and may produce serious unintended consequences”.

The heading of the subsequent paragraph states:

“The omission of the word ‘novel’ has widened the scope of the Bill”,

which all of us on my side of the argument were arguing against with the Government Front Bench. The heading of the next paragraph states:

“The psychoactivity of a substance cannot be unequivocally proven”.

Again, with my academic background, I support that view, which is the one taken in Committee. The heading of the next paragraph states:

“The Bill uncouples the concept of harm from control of supply, importation and production”,

which is the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and others were making.

What relationship do the Government really have with the ACMD, given that they seem to be so far apart? We had a manifesto commitment which talked in yellow journalese about,

“a blanket ban on all new psychoactive substances, protecting young people from exposure to so-called ‘legal highs’”.

That is the kind of language we would see in manifestos, and a few short weeks or months afterwards we get this Bill, which seems a long way away from Professor Iversen and his colleagues. That is a concern to me. I do not blame the Minister, by the way, but that is a concern that this House is right to reflect on Report. Admittedly, there are proceedings in the House of Commons and I am sure that the Minister’s approach in Committee—the way that he was prepared to pick up points and reflect on them—will continue. I have been in this business a long while and I can see a long distance between these two bits of correspondence. The Minister has some work to do to persuade this House on Report that that gap is not dangerous and that people may not get hurt unless this is sorted out before the final passage and Royal Assent of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, I have a very small question to ask relating to the definition of harm, which is qualified by the word “social”. I wonder what in fact that constitutes. If a drug results merely in the inability of the user to sleep satisfactorily or if it interferes with his learning but does not, as a general effect, cause him to disrupt those about him, is it still a social harm? It seems to me that self-harm is a dangerous product of these drugs and it would be a great pity if individuals taking them were not protected when we have the opportunity to do so by a definition which included that which harms the individual as well as society. This is a lawyer’s question. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, might be able to lay my fears to rest; otherwise, either the Minister or the mover will doubtless do so.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I am not sure if I am allowed to speak again on Report but I am challenged here. The words in the amendment are “social problem”, not social harm. I think that may be an answer to the noble Lord. They are different phrases, with different meanings.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, I have no particular difficulty with the first amendment concerning “synthetic”, and I think I indicated that to the Minister some time ago before it was actually formulated as an amendment.

However, I have considerable difficulty with the second amendment and how it is going to work. If somebody produces this material and that production is to be a crime, in the general view I have about the law he must at least have the means of finding out whether what he is doing is criminal. The difficulty that has been expressed before in relation to these psychoactive substances is that they are produced so quickly and changed so quickly and the harm is done so quickly that the Misuse of Drugs Act can hardly catch up with them. That is a very serious problem.

I agree very much with what the inspector has said in his report about the difficulty of prisons. Indeed, I have been told before that there are considerable difficulties with the input into prisons, by whatever means, of these legal highs. They certainly seem to have the effect of producing considerable violence, which is undoubtedly a social problem if ever there was one. How is this to work? The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs will have to give advice. Will that not create exactly the same difficulty as the attempt to use the Misuse of Drugs Act to control these legal highs has proved to have in the past? That is the need and reason for the production of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, said that the definition is very wide. My view is that, on the whole, the legal effect of a definition is rather more related to its precision than to its particular width. In some cases, the definition of what is made criminal is very wide indeed—as undoubtedly it should be to encompass many methods of carrying out the offence. I cannot see how the mechanism suggested here is going to be capable of working, given the problems that exist. I have been trying to think of how this could be modified but so far without too much success, except that something depends on the intention of the laboratories producing these substances. What are they doing it for? Are they intending to help people to sleep well or behave well and so on? I think they are probably not.

The purpose for which these substances, which may be synthetic, are produced seems highly relevant but it is quite difficult to get at defining an offence by reference to that. However, if the purpose for which the substance is produced is something that the state considers should be criminalised, that is a possible way to define an offence. That would at least have the effect of it being decided in relation to the time of production. It might not be possible to prove it immediately but the essence of it would be something that has happened before that production was put into the hands—or the body, one way or another—of the person receiving it, which is part of the crime that the Bill seeks to establish.

Immigration: Detention

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Thursday 26th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it is a tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, that so many excellent speeches have been given in his honour today. I first met him when I was appointed to the House as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. We sat together in the Appellate Committee over many years in many distinct cases. The case that comes to my mind as demonstrating the essential humanity of the man whose departure we regret so much is an intellectual property case about the design of teddy bears. I do not know whether he remembers the case, but along to us was brought one of these teddy bears so that we could see the exhibit and understand what the case was all about. At the end, moving rapidly, as he often does, with the assistance of a doorkeeper the noble and learned Lord was able to seize hold of that teddy bear and take it into his possession. I hope very much that he still has it with him and that it will be a companion to him in his retirement.

I am very much in sympathy with the main thrust of this report and welcome many of the points that it makes. That is for a particular reason: it was my practice when I was the Lord Justice General in Scotland to visit as many of the prisons and detention institutions in Scotland as I could, because I felt that I had to know about the conditions there to do my job as Lord Justice General. During the seven years that I held office, I managed to visit all but one of the institutions and one or two of these visits stand particularly in my memory.

One of them was about 20 years ago to a block in a prison in Greenock, if my memory serves me correctly, where a large number of asylum seekers were being held in detention in the Scottish immigration detention centre, pending decisions as to whether they were to be deported or released. I remember being struck by two things. The first was the wholly inappropriate conditions in which these unfortunate people were being held. They can best be described as mid-Victorian, with the most primitive of cells and the most basic of facilities. The second was how totally abandoned these individuals appeared to be. I can still see in my mind’s eye the group of people to whom I was introduced. They were just standing about in a corridor like lost souls. There was nothing for them to do. Unlike convicted prisoners, who, as the noble and learned Lord will know well, can be given work to do and whose time will be occupied with education, work or something like that, there was nothing that could be done with them. They were simply there. There was nowhere to go and nowhere to sit down except in their own cells. Few of them could speak English. They seemed to have no idea why they were there and certainly no idea how long they were going to be there. They put questions to me and to the prison officers who were with me that we simply could not answer. I found it deeply depressing and it has remained in my memory ever since, which is why I am so much in sympathy with the work that the committee did and the points that have been made.

Things have moved on a little bit, at least in Scotland, because people who are being held under these arrangements now are being detained somewhere else, in Dungavel, which is mentioned in the report. It is much better suited to the purpose. When I did my travels around these places, it was an open prison. At one time, it was the home of one of Scotland’s most distinguished families—indeed, a Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Lord, Lord Selkirk of Douglas, is said to have been born there, I think because it was the family home. Of course, it lost some of its original charm when it was turned into an open prison, but at least it had a rural setting and the kind of breadth to it that meant that it felt quite unlike a prison. That at least is some advance. It is a less intimidating place and there are many places where people can move around and sit down and live more or less like normal people. I have not seen the regime since then and I do not know how matters are being handled there, but I was saddened to see on page 47 of the report the problem, which affected people at Dungavel, of people being moved about “like furniture” without concern for their individual position.

There is not time to go into the issue about timing, except to say that the challenge that this report has set for the Minister and the Government means that the way to deal with it has to be by a radical rethinking of the whole idea of the use of detention from the very beginning. We should not put people into detention until it becomes really necessary to do so. The tragedy is that people are put there like furniture, as was said in the report, and once they are there it is extremely difficult to get them out, for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, mentioned. There is real value in the report and I greatly welcome it.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (Risk of Being Drawn into Terrorism) (Amendment and Guidance) Regulations 2015

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Monday 23rd March 2015 Lords Chamber

These regulations are needed effectively to implement the Prevent duty across England, Wales and Scotland, which will ultimately help the Government and law enforcement agencies to keep the country safe from terrorism. I commend them to the House and I beg to move that they are approved.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I very much welcome these regulations and I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. He may remember that when we were debating the Bill, which has now become the 2015 Act, I tabled a number of amendments to try to advance the Scottish position, which was difficult because no Scottish institutions were yet mentioned in the schedule. That meant that I felt a little inhibited in pressing the points that needed to be attended to.

I am particularly grateful to the Minister and those who have been advising him for the way the Scottish matters have been dealt with in Regulations 4 and 5. Regulation 4 deals with a technical point which I had thought about raising but it seemed a little too fussy at the time; namely, that a mandatory order, which was being provided for in the Bill and, subject to this amendment, is still in the Act, is not available as a means of enforcing a court’s orders in Scotland. As Regulation 4 correctly puts it, a proper mechanism is,

“by an order for specific implement”.

Had it been necessary to do so, I would have moved that amendment myself. I did not trouble to because I was quite sure that someone would pick it up if the need arose and I am very glad that that has been attended to.

It is pleasing to see how the definition of the duty to ensure freedom of speech has been expressed in Regulation 5, particularly as it mentions visiting speakers as well as,

“members, students and employees of the institution”.

The wording of that provision, which chimes very well with what I and others were attempting to achieve in the debates on the Bill, is very welcome.

Finally, the Scottish guidance is significantly lighter-handed than the English. In particular, the way higher education and further education institutions are dealt with is significantly lighter because a good deal more trust exists between the Government in Scotland and the institutions with which they are dealing. However, looking at paragraph 60 in the Scottish guidance, it occurred to me that further guidance was being anticipated to deal specifically with the problem of visiting speakers. The Minister mentioned that in his summary. I look forward to seeing what comes out of it, but I hope very much that those who are framing the guidance in Scotland will continue to deal with this with a light-touch mechanism. They are dealing with people of good will who know exactly what they are seeking to achieve and who do not need very much detail—just enough to point the way the universities should go in setting out their mechanisms. I am quite certain they will follow the guidance if it follows the kind of pattern we see in the guidance before us today.

For all these reasons, I am extremely grateful to the Minister and those supporting him for what has been achieved in these regulations.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I follow the comments just made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, by saying that one of the benefits of both new sets of guidance, for England and Wales and for Scotland, is that the tone is very different. That is enormously helpful. I am also very grateful for my noble friend’s comments about the final decision on external speakers being made by the next Government.

However, I would ask the Minister for absolute clarification on one point. I know that there have been discussions outside your Lordships’ House following the consultation on exactly what would happen if agreement were not reached on the thorny issue of external speakers. Could my noble friend give reassurance that the guidance to higher and further education would be withdrawn completely should such an agreement not be reached? Clearly, the reference within the guidance makes it absolutely clear that this is one of the Government’s major concerns.

I would be very grateful as well if our thanks could be passed back to the Minister’s civil servants for the hard work involved in accepting the many thorns in the flesh that your Lordships’ House has provided in the detailed discussions of this, especially given that the Commons did not have the chance to talk about the detail of the guidance when it considered the matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

That is a good point. Procedures need to be set out to ensure that the nursery has guidance in place detailing how it will implement Prevent and what it would do if a three year-old said, “My sister is going off to Syria”, or something of that nature. What would it do if a child made such a comment? Does it have a procedure for dealing with that? To whom would it report that and what action would it take? That is probably not the best example as I have just thought of it and I am sure that the officials will probably send me 10 far better examples. However, I am just trying to appeal to the common-sense elements of this. If such an incident should happen, do nursery staff have a procedure in place to deal with it? I think that is all that would be required of nurseries. The noble Baroness raised a very fair point about Ofsted. I am afraid that I do not have the answer at this stage but it is a good point and I will ensure that I write to her on it. I have tried to address as many of the points as possible—

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Will the Minister clarify the intention on commencement of the various provisions? I see that Regulation 2 states that the regulations will,

“come into force on the day after the day on which they are made”.

I am not sure of the procedure, but if we approve the regulations, does that mean tomorrow or is there some period during which they will lie awaiting further making? It is important because Regulation 3 states that the guidance for both England and Wales and for Scotland will,

“take effect on the day on which this regulation comes into force”.

The guidance as we have it at the moment is guidance, absent the bit about dealing with visitors to universities, and so on. That is referred to in paragraph 60 of the Scottish guidance. I think the Minister was saying that it was not until the complete package was before us that the provisions would come into force. As worded, it would suggest that we have the regulations as they stand. If that is the position, can we take it that the further guidance will be brought before Parliament in further regulations, which would give us an opportunity to debate it? That might be a neat way of dealing with it. I am not quite clear about the procedure and the timing of these various measures.

[Lord Bates]

That is a very good point. I thank the noble and learned Lord for probing further on that. I repeat the answer that I gave in part to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The intention is that these provisions will come into effect on 1 July. I also said that what would be required is for that further regulation-making order, relating to speakers and events, to be in place for that to happen. If that was not in place, the provisions could not come into force as intended on 1 July. That date would have to be changed, presumably in a further statutory instrument that would come before the House. We hope that that will not be necessary, but the current intention is that these provisions will come into effect on 1 July, provided that that important additional element of speakers and events has been passed by your Lordships’ House.

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EUC Report)

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, and her committee on the work they have done and on their very timely report on this rather troublesome issue. For the most part, I welcome the response by the Home Office to the report. I particularly welcome the Government’s decision not to opt in to the Commission’s proposal to establish a European public prosecutor’s office. I am delighted that the committee has taken the opportunity in paragraph 6 of its report to endorse that proposal.

I last worked on Sub-Committee E about 15 years ago. At that time, the splendidly named OLAF had only just been born and Eurojust was still in the course of being conceived. It was being talked about, but had not yet come into existence. Now that they have grown up, as it were, it is a real pleasure for me to cast an eye over them to see how they are getting on. As it happened, last October I attended a seminar in Florence, at which one of the delegates was from Eurojust. We enjoyed a conversation over dinner, at which she spoke with real enthusiasm about the contacts which she had in the course of her work with prosecutors in the United Kingdom. As I spent some time when I was at the Bar as a prosecutor in Scotland, I was particularly interested in what she had to say about her contacts with the Lord Advocate’s department. Here, too, she was enthusiastic about her contacts with that department and the practical value which she saw in those contacts.

Your Lordships would get much the same message if they were to read the written evidence which the committee received in March last year from Frank Mulholland QC, the Lord Advocate, to which brief reference is made in paragraph 37 of the report. He tells us that the serious and organised crime division in his department, which has an international co-operation unit, participates fully in the work of Eurojust and OLAF. That unit liaises regularly with colleagues abroad in relation to investigations and prosecutions in Scotland, as well as providing assistance to colleagues from other jurisdictions in their own investigations. He tells us that it has successfully used the assistance of Eurojust in a number of serious and high-profile cases, especially those, as in the case of VAT fraud, which are especially complicated.

The Lord Advocate describes the work that Eurojust does in the co-ordination of investigations of the different member states when dealing with cross-border crime as “extremely valuable”. He says that his department also has experience of working with OLAF and that it too carries out much valuable work, although it is fair to say that he adds that difficulties have sometimes arisen because OLAF was not engaged at a sufficiently early stage of an investigation to meet the procedural requirements of Scots law.

If I have any criticism of the report, it is the tiny point that it did not make a little more use of the Lord Advocate’s criticism. As I have said, it gets only one very brief mention in two sentences in paragraph 37. The essence of that evidence is accurately summarised in these two sentences, but it might have been helpful if some more references had been given to his evidence in the later passages dealing particularly with OLAF and Eurojust. Of course, it is possible to trace the evidence online with the assistance of the reference in footnote 98. I am particularly grateful to our Librarian for being able to do this for me. I encourage the Minister and his team to do just that, and to read what the Lord Advocate has to say. That is because one does get from it some valuable insight from someone who as a prosecutor is really in touch with what is going on on the ground.

May I mention briefly some of the points the Lord Advocate makes because I think that they add force to the points made in conclusions and recommendations 6, 7, 8 and 9, with all of which I respectfully agree? The first point is that his department does not see the need for the creation of the EPPO. It is perhaps a bit late in the day to make that point, but it does underline the good sense of the decision not to opt in to the proposal, and the reasons why he makes it are worth stressing. He says:

“There are many challenges to overcome where criminal jurisdiction is potentially viable in different Member States and the diverse rules of evidence within Europe bring their own barriers. Whilst it is recognised that organised crime is not necessarily related to a specific Member State and that the fight against crime needs to be addressed Europe wide, without an evidence based assessment relating to why existing measures and national procedures and practices are not sufficient it is difficult to come to the conclusion that a European Public Prosecutor’s Office would be able to prosecute cases more effectively than individual Member States”.

It is worth stressing the different evidential rules which arise from state to state. The complications for a central office trying to deal with that are fairly obvious. He also makes the point that,

“there is scope for further improvements to be made in the investigation and prosecution of frauds against EU interests through better use of Eurojust and OLAF and by improving working practices between Member States and those organisations”.

He believes, and one can see the force of this, that:

“It is logical that Member States use the current structures available to their full extent before consideration is given to establishing a new body with such far reaching powers”.

As for the impact that the creation of an EPPO would have on a non-participant member state, the Lord Advocate makes the point several times that there is a lack of sufficiently robust evidence to demonstrate that such an office is required. This reinforces the point made in conclusion 6 that the Commission has failed to address the EPPO’s impact on OLAF and the knock-on effect for non-participating member states. As the Lord Advocate sees it, there is a lack of information which makes these effects difficult to assess. He sees real difficulties, whichever model is adopted, whether it is exclusive competence to the EPPO in matters affecting the EU’s budget or a competence that is shared with member states. Either way, conflicts of competence or jurisdiction will arise, which would be a recipe for confusion and delay and would play into the hands of offenders and their defence teams. As the Lord Advocate puts it, a system that gives exclusive competence in some cases and a shared competence in others would result in confusion as to who is dealing with which offence, which would be highly undesirable.

As for the effect on Eurojust and OLAF, here too there is a lack of sufficient information. That is why the assurances referred to in recommendations 6 to 9 are so necessary. There is real cause for concern. This would not be so if the functions of Eurojust were to remain as they are, as Scottish prosecutors would still have the access they enjoy at present, but that is not what seems likely to happen if the proposal goes ahead.

I warmly support what the report says in these recommendations. It is important that the Government take an active role in the development of the proposal. I hope that they will draw strength and guidance from the points made by the Lord Advocate, to which I have referred. I stress that they are not motivated in the least by any kind of Euroscepticism on his part. On the contrary, he is all in favour of inter-state co-operation. He has seen on the ground the benefits that that can bring in combating fraud conducted across borders. The points are essentially practical ones made by someone who really does know what he is talking about,

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I do not think that is the particular effect that I was thinking about in this context. Clearly we have a system that works to a degree at the moment with Eurojust and OLAF as the two bodies that then refer back, in our case, to the Serious Fraud Office and the newly established National Crime Agency, which is doing very good work in tackling fraud of this nature. They are then prosecuted through a court in the UK. It is more that operational level which the Government are thinking about at this time.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene. The point that really gives rise to concerns for the Lord Advocate is confusion about competence and jurisdiction. At the moment we have complete clarity as to which body is entitled to prosecute in our courts. They have a complete understanding, rights of audience, and so on. Introducing this outside body would give rise to differentials and demarcations. That in itself would give rise to disputes and we would have a sort of preliminary session as to whether one body or the other should prosecute, which gives rise to delay. So it is not really a matter of resources so much as a matter of confusion, which is why the call for further detail is really so important and why I still support the line that the Government are taking.

[Lord Bates]

That very clearly makes the point that we are talking about, and perhaps explains why it has been impossible to find a way forward so far. I would also mention some of the challenges, which may be insurmountable, in trying to progress down this model. The Government are absolutely committed carefully to watching the negotiations and ensuring that our interests are defended.

The noble and learned Lord also asked about shared competence. Ideally member states would retain competence. It is the only way in which they could contain the elements of the Commission’s proposal that they favour. An independent prosecutor would investigate cases inside member states free of bribery and corruption. We believe that that would be the only way in which the EPPO would add any value to the fight against EU fraud. The UK would prefer the EPPO to have as little competence as possible.

In response to a number of questions raised particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, in her introduction, it is worth putting on the record and restating the fact that the UK Government are absolutely committed to the fight against fraud. We certainly cannot envisage any circumstances in which it would be tolerated that the UK could become a safe haven for fraud. We are expressing confidence in our own legal systems and existing cross-border co-operation to ensure that that does not become the case.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

14: Clause 25, page 17, line 31, at end insert—
“( ) The general duty under subsection (1) is subject, in England and Wales, to the duty in section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (freedom of speech in universities, polytechnics and colleges), and in Scotland, to the need to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured in universities and other further and higher education institutions.”

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, it falls to me to move Amendment 14 which is the first of five amendments in this group. I want to make it clear that the fact that I am speaking first and that my name is listed first on the amendment has nothing to do with the relative quality of the contributions which I and the three noble Baronesses who have added their names to this amendment made in Committee. My contribution was much lighter than theirs and I am sure they will have much more to say as the debate develops.

This group also contains Amendment 15, in my name and in the names of the noble Baronesses, as well as government Amendment 15D which is a significant amendment. It has been designed to meet some of the concerns which have been expressed about freedom of speech—especially academic freedom of speech in higher education institutions and, in particular, in universities.

As became clear in Committee, there are three aspects to this problem. The first is how to reconcile what the Government are proposing in the Bill as it stands—the duty which is being imposed on universities and other higher education institutions by the provisions of Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. This is a duty to secure freedom of speech in the institutions listed in this subsection. That is the first chapter, on how to reconcile these apparently competing duties.

The second deals with how to achieve the same reconciliation in relation to Scotland, bearing in mind that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland just as it does to England and Wales, and that the 1986 Act does not extend to Scotland so there is no statutory duty on the universities and other institutions in those terms. Nevertheless, one would think—having regard to Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, among other things—that the right to freedom of speech was just as powerful in Scotland as it was in the other jurisdiction.

The third point relates to how to reconcile the duty to secure freedom of speech with the guidance being proposed in the consultation paper. On the first point, I pay particular tribute to the Minister and his team for the way in which they have responded to the particular problem about reconciling the two competing statutory provisions. They have done so with commendable speed, given the rate at which we have been proceeding from Committee to Report. For my part, it seems that Amendment 15D, which the Minister will speak to later in the group, deals exactly with that point and makes it clear that the two duties can live together in the way in which the amendment describes. I express gratitude for what the noble Lord is proposing, which is a step in the right direction, although a small one.

My amendment is divided into two parts. The first deals with the position in England and Wales in relation to the 1986 Act; the second deals with the position in Scotland. That matter is not addressed by Amendment 15D, nor was it mentioned in the very helpful letter that the Minister wrote on 3 February which explains the reason for Amendment 15D but does not deal with the points that I raised about Scotland. I shall briefly repeat what I said in Committee. I drew attention to a fact that we are all aware of: that education north of the border is a devolved matter. We are dealing with a statute that deals with a reserved matter, the prevention of terrorism. There is an obvious need to reconcile these two matters, which no doubt is being achieved by discussions with the Scottish Government and consideration as to how best to meld the Scottish position with that for England and Wales.

The problem to which I tried to draw attention was this: the vehicle that is being used for the Prevent system, both north and south of the border, is all built into Part 5 of the Act. One would like to think that one would find everything one needed in statute to deal with the Scottish position, as one certainly does for dealing with the position in England and Wales. It is the absence of a reference to Scotland and the need to preserve freedom of speech, and at least respect the right to it, that have caused me concern. I raised this in Committee but so far there seems to be no answer.

There is a real puzzle about what exactly the Government’s thinking is about the position in Scotland, because the Bill is silent about it. It may be that because of the shortness of time the necessary discussions with the Scottish Government have not yet been completed; indeed, I would understand the need for those discussions to proceed to a solution. If that is the reason, then my fears would be allayed to some extent. But one is still left with the problem that the Bill will leave this House—and, if nothing is done about it, will no doubt leave the House of Commons as well—without anything in it that addresses the problem. With respect, that seems to be an unsatisfactory situation, bearing in mind that one is trying to achieve exactly the same thing in Scotland as one is seeking south of the border.

So there is something missing here, and I would be very interested to hear the Minister’s explanation of what is being done to address the situation. My suggestion when we talked about this last time was that once the Bill is enacted, I imagine that the only way one can deal with the Scottish position, if it needs to be dealt with, is by fresh enactment, which is a very heavy-handed way of dealing with the problem. One would rather see the matter dealt with now before the Bill leaves Parliament and is enacted.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend for that intervention. He hit upon a real issue, and we are going to have to write on that point. When exploring how to indicate that the commitment to free speech is to be taken seriously and nothing should take away from that, we did not want effectively to phrase the amendment in such a way as to say, a bit like Universities UK, “You can now just disregard it because you can claim everything is free speech and therefore do not need all the rest of it”. This is a serious thing that the Government are saying. We believe that there is a particular risk and that universities ought to have due regard to it. We would like that to be done consistently. That was the reason that we landed upon to,

“have particular regard to it”.

This answers the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, and with this I will sit down. You cannot have a debate of this quality, with such incredibly perceptive points being raised, and not be open to it. As I hope I have demonstrated throughout this process since we began our journey at Second Reading, I have tried to listen and have due regard to the views expressed in your Lordships’ House—and nothing will change on that. We will reflect very carefully on the particular points raised. Of course, if there are ways in which we can tighten the language that we use and points to take on board, we still have time to do that, but we feel that in putting forward Amendment 15D, we have something that can give real reassurance to universities in this regard.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, in view of the hour which we have reached, I am sure that all noble Lords would like me to bring this debate to an end as soon as possible. First, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. This has been a debate of very high quality, and many interesting points have been raised. I am most grateful for the answer the Minister gave on Scotland, which satisfies me. We can no doubt return to that by order, if necessary.

As for the rest, I think that it is a search for clarity. I ask the Minister to bear in mind the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, when she was complimenting the Minister on Amendment 15D. I think she said, “We are not there yet”. In a way, that sums up the essence of the debate. Many points have been made in various ways and many questions have been asked which the Minister clearly has not been able to answer. I think we are reassured by the open mind which he expressed in his concluding words. In view of that, the proper thing for me to do is to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 14 withdrawn.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Monday 2nd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness mentioned my name in her speech in support of this amendment. I put my name down to support it for reasons which I shall go into very briefly. As I mentioned in Committee, my attention was drawn to this problem by evidence which we received in the Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities Bill. That evidence came in part from the independent reviewer, David Anderson QC, and in part from Muslim organisations which are interested in providing assistance to people who need humanitarian aid in places like Somalia which are difficult to penetrate without the assistance of the people who effectively run the country.

I shall make two particular points, without repeating what I said in Committee. First, David Anderson was critical of the definition in the legislation which he described as “monstrously” broad. It was broad for a particular reason, which one can see from looking at Section 1(5) of the 2001 Act, which contains the definition put into this Bill for its purposes. It states:

“In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation”.

It is that kind of scenario that may give rise to problems for a reason which was explained to us by one of the charitable groups. It said that when you go to these difficult countries, in order to get anywhere within those areas, you have to encounter and deal with the gate-keepers. The chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum asked:

“How can we go through the gatekeepers to reach the neediest people in Syria, Somalia or different parts of the world”,

if doing so would be caught by the Section 1(5) definition?

One can see how the thing might build up. The police might have information that the individual passing in front of them has previously gone to these areas and has provided money, as we were led to believe is necessary, in order to get through the gate. The proscribed organisation says, “All right. We’ll let you through, but you have to pay us a certain amount of money to do that”. It is a real trap. Of course, to give money to a proscribed organisation is prima facie assisting the purposes of the organisation, but the real reason for giving such money is to penetrate through the gate to provide the assistance which would otherwise not be available. These are my two points: first, the breadth of the definition and, secondly, what the evidence suggested to us is a very real problem in dealing with these areas.

Noble Lords will remember that in Committee we discussed an amendment to the primary legislation and, in particular in view of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I see that that is a very difficult thing to do at the moment without a good deal of further study and, no doubt, this is not the proper place for it anyway, although I suggest it may have to be dealt with sometime. What the noble Baroness is suggesting in her amendment is that there should be something in the code of guidance for officers so that they are alerted to this problem. Therefore, if they have that kind of intelligence, although what individuals say will not be conclusive, at least they will be aware that these people may have good reason for whatever they are said to have done which prima facie might seem to conflict with the definition in the statute.

On reflection, it would seem that the code is a better way of dealing with this without getting into the difficulties of amending primary legislation, which would go right across the board and might have rather deeper effects than we can contemplate at the moment. I suggest that the noble Baroness’s amendment is quite carefully crafted and there is real merit in the proposal that she has made.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who has identified and talked about an issue that potentially has problems for humanitarian organisations under certain circumstances. However, the amendment remains irrelevant to that. While it may be quite attractive to use a code of practice as a means to identify this issue and make sure that officials are more aware of the potential complications, this code of practice relates to circumstances in which there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that person of the intention of leaving Great Britain for the purpose of,

“involvement in terrorism-related activity”.

It would be to stretch that definition to suggest that there is a suspicion that you are personally involved in terrorism-related activity because your organisation may have paid a sum of money to a gate-keeper in one of these circumstances, because this is about involvement in terrorism-related activity. I am therefore not sure that this is the right mechanism for addressing what I suspect is a real and valid problem that we need to find some way to address. Perhaps we can do that next time we revisit terrorism legislation, which will probably be in about four months’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

On the basis of this explanation, I hope that your Lordships will feel reassured about the exercise of these powers and, accordingly, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Could the noble Lord clarify one point? I may have done so incorrectly, but I took him to say that, if a humanitarian organisation paid money to a gate-keeper that happened to be a proscribed organisation, that would be taken as assisting that organisation. The humanitarian organisation would therefore be open to prosecution and to the seizure of passports, which the amendment deals with. It is important to be clear on this because there are people listening—those from the Muslim charities in particular —who are deeply concerned about whether they are at risk. That might not have been quite what the Minister meant to say, but I would be grateful if he could clarify that.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

The Government’s position is that we do not want people to pay money to terrorists for any reason, so I think that what the noble and learned Lord said was correct.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

My Lords, Oxford is well represented today. I declare an interest as a fellow of All Souls College. I find this a genuinely difficult issue. I am supportive of the Government’s general objectives in Part 5; far more supportive, I think, than some of the speakers who have addressed noble Lords this afternoon, particularly in the earlier debate.

It seems to me that the starting point has to be that there is a disturbingly large number of people out there who are prepared to take violent action for ideological and religious reasons. There is an even more disturbingly large number of people who are prepared to encourage or to condone such violence. For me, the most shocking part of the appalling events in Paris were not the attacks on the journalists and the kosher supermarket by deranged Islamists, it was that a minute’s silence for the victims was unenforceable in many French schools, because of sympathy for the murderers and their supposed cause from students and, presumably, their families. This demonstrates, I think, that in France there is an alarming failure to understand the basic principles of a liberal democracy; a democracy which protects the freedom of religion—rightly so—of those who refuse to recognise the basic rights of others.

My starting point is that the Government are rightly determined to prevent such developments here; developments which breed religion-inspired violence. Having said that, I share the concerns which have been expressed this afternoon about the impact of these provisions on freedom of expression and academic freedom in universities. My concern is very similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. It is that the duty which the Bill will impose is very difficult to reconcile with the very idea of a university whose primary role is to encourage academic debate and dissent. I think that a code which can be enforced by legally binding directions is far too blunt an instrument in the context of a lecture hall or a seminar room. If you try to wear a policeman’s hat and an academic gown at the same time, you are unlikely, I think, to perform either task adequately.

The Minister’s helpful letter to noble Lords on this issue makes the point that academic freedom is not absolute, even in a university. The Minister is absolutely right: the law already restrains freedom of speech, in universities as elsewhere, through the law of defamation, restrictions on threatening or abusive words or behaviour, and prohibitions on support for proscribed organisations. Universities have no exemption in that context, but this Bill would impose duties that are far more extensive and far more destructive of basic academic freedom than anything which is contained in current law.

I would prefer universities to be excluded from Part 5, but would be much reassured on this difficult subject if the Government would support Amendment 105, in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister of Burtersett, Lady O’Loan, Lady Buscombe and Lady Sharp of Guildford, or something like it. Their amendment would write into the Bill the protection for freedom of speech currently contained, as your Lordships have heard, in Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. I note that, in the Minister’s letter to noble Lords, he says that the duty under the Bill,

“is in no way designed to cut across the importance of free and open debate”,

particularly in universities. Good, I am very pleased to hear that. But then let the Bill say so expressly, to provide reassurance to the many good people in universities and elsewhere who are very concerned, and rightly so, about this issue.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely support the points that have been made by all noble Lords who have spoken in favour of these amendments. I have a rather particular point to make about wording, which I do as a former chancellor of the University of Strathclyde, which of course is in Scotland.

Clause 41(1) makes it clear that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales—it does not apply to Northern Ireland, as the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, said. However, this gives rise to a problem about drafting. One has to be absolutely sure when one refers to legislation—as, for example, Amendment 105 does, along with Amendment 108 and others—that the legislation referred to applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. The problem with Amendment 105—which I entirely support in principle—is that Section 43(1) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 applies only to England and Wales, and does not apply to Scotland. The right to freedom of speech, and all the points that have been made in favour of the exercise of freedom of speech and about the difficulties of enforcing measures of the kind that we are talking about and so on and so forth, have just as much power and effect north of the border as they do in England and Wales. If Amendment 105 were to be agreed with the form of words which it has at the moment, it would create difficulties north of the border. That could be cured very easily by simply taking out the reference to,

“the duty in section 43(1)”,

of the 1986 Act, and substituting the words “the need to ensure that freedom of speech is maintained”. Freedom of speech in Scotland is deeply ingrained in the law of the country by, for example, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. One of the features of the 1986 Act is that it was passed some years before the Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted. Nowadays, you look to the convention rights in the Human Rights Act to see whether you have a right that you wish to assert. It is certainly true that Section 43 goes rather further and is quite detailed about the nature of the duty, but I have searched as best I can through the legislation in Scotland and, so far as I can see, there is no equivalent provision in either the education Acts or the university Acts in Scotland, which cover the same field.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, with the leave of the House I will take Amendments 113 and 114 together. Throughout our debates the Government have made it clear that we will rely on existing monitoring regimes for the relevant sectors. That remains the case. Although publicly funded further education is monitored by Ofsted, no such regime currently exists for all higher or private further education. We have asked the higher and further education sectors about monitoring of the Prevent duty as part of the consultation on the draft guidance, which has been undertaken in parallel to the passage of the Bill. I am pleased to say that in the discussions we have had, the sector has been broadly supportive of a limited regime, such as the one we are proposing.

Universities are not inspected. Rather, they are currently subject to limited monitoring and assurance regimes that apply to quality of provision and to accounting for the use of public money. Those regimes are based on risk and are designed to be proportionate and not burdensome. The overwhelming view expressed in the discussions so far has been to agree that a monitoring regime for this duty should be one that is both recognisable to the part of the education sector to which it is being applied and proportionate to the duty being placed upon the sector. We have achieved that with these amendments.

The amendments will allow the monitoring authority to require the provision of information by relevant education institutions to assess compliance with the duty. Information that institutions might be asked to provide to monitoring bodies could include details of risk assessments relating to how students might be at risk of being drawn into terrorism, policies and procedures on speakers and events, and on IT. We fully expect an institution to co-operate with the monitoring authority. However, there may be rare cases where the institution does not co-operate and, in such cases, where the monitoring authority has exhausted all other options to address the failure, the amendments allow the relevant Secretary of State to make a direction.

This is a serious step that we would not like to see taken unless it is strictly necessary. For that reason, the amendments allow for a monitoring authority—for example, when not satisfied that an institution has adequate provisions in place to comply with the duty—to request information about steps that the institution plans to take to ensure that it discharges its Prevent duty correctly. We expect this to be sufficient to avoid the use of direction in all but the most serious cases.

If an institution has failed to provide adequate information about compliance with the duty in spite of repeated approaches by the monitoring authority, we would expect any direction necessary to be given by the appropriate Secretary of State. That means the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills in England, not the Home Secretary and, for institutions in Wales, we expect it to be the Secretary of State for Wales, in consultation with the relevant Welsh Ministers. The amendments allow for the relevant Secretary of State to undertake monitoring or to delegate the function. We do not envisage that the Secretary of State will actually undertake this function, but it is important to explain the technical reason for including this possibility.

We may wish to consider whether the Skills Funding Agency is an appropriate monitoring body for part of the sector and if, in consultation with the further education sector, we determine that it is, then we would technically need the Secretary of State to deliver that function. That is because of the proposed legislative changes to abolish the office of chief executive of skills funding in the Deregulation Bill, which will mean that the Skills Funding Agency will become part of the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and will operate through the powers and duties of the Secretary of State.

Going forward, the department with responsibility will work with the monitoring bodies and, once they have been confirmed, we will work with the sector to draw up a monitoring framework that sets out more explicitly how we expect to monitor compliance with the duty. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I think I understand the purpose of the clauses from the explanation that the Minister has very helpfully given. He will not be surprised to hear that I have spotted that there is no mention of Scotland in either of these two clauses. As I mentioned earlier, if one looks at Clause 41 one sees that Part 5 of the Bill applies to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. Therefore, as far as I can judge, all the other clauses in this part are carefully designed to apply to that jurisdiction as well as to England and Wales. It is very strange that no mention is made of Scotland in either of these clauses or in the noble Lord’s explanation of their purpose. I may be wrong, but the equivalent bodies exist in Scotland to enable a similar system to be carried out. Is it simply that under the normal conventions, the Government have been unable to secure the agreement of the Scottish Government to these clauses, and will come back at a later date—perhaps before Third Reading or possibly in the other House, if this has to go there —or is this a deliberate intention not to apply the monitoring system to Scotland? If that is the intention, I would be very interested to know why that decision was taken.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their questions. I will first deal with the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on HEFCE. As the noble Baroness will be aware, that is one of the questions we specifically ask on page 21 of the consultation:

“Do you agree that the Higher Education Funding Council for England is the appropriate body to monitor compliance with this duty? … Are there other higher education regulatory bodies that should be involved in monitoring compliance?”.

In many ways the short answer is that we are consulting on that. That was one of the reasons why when I introduced the government amendments I said that in certain cases we nominate the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills as the designated person for these purposes. I hope that addresses that point.

I turn to the point mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Scotland, which he raised in the previous context as well; as I have stated, it is our hope and intention to add Scottish bodies to Schedule 3 in due course. At such point we could look at making consequential amendments to this clause to make it applicable to Scotland. The other one relates to Northern Ireland. On the application of free speech in Scotland, which was referred to previously—I take the opportunity because the notes happened to arrive together—this part of the Bill applies to England, Wales and Scotland, but as yet no Scottish bodies are listed in Schedule 3; I made that same point earlier. However, we will look carefully at the wording used, to ensure that it applies equally across all territories, so the basic answer is what I already said in this regard.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Is it the intention to make further amendments by statutory instrument rather than by primary legislation? Obviously, if we had to come back with an amending statute, that would take time and be a rather laborious business. I wonder whether a better precaution would have been to put some kind of structure into the Bill at this stage, as is done elsewhere in this part, on the assumption that a number of Scottish authorities or institutions will be added to Schedule 3. But if it is possible to do it all by order the problem disappears, because that can be done quite simply.

[Lord Bates]

Perhaps I could reflect on that a little more and then return to it. Of course, there is still parliamentary time for further consideration of the Bill, and for Scottish bodies to be named and listed. We would be happy if that happened in time for them to be included on the face of the Bill. I shall consider further the noble and learned Lord’s point.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I would like to strongly support the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. These measures are things that you only do in very, very special circumstances and under very controlled conditions, but the removal of them from the old control orders regime—we realise now—was a mistake and an error. I absolutely think that we have to put these measures in place to ensure that people are protected in these circumstances.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I wish to add just a small point in support of what my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood has said, and that is to stress the word “legitimacy” which he used in the course of his address. It is crucial that this particular system should not be open to challenges in the court to any extent; one must try to the maximum to minimise the risk of challenges. This is a very difficult area, as shown by these cases to which the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, just referred. It is the interaction between Article 3 of the Convention on Human Rights, which deals with detention, and Article 8, which deals with respect for the family life of everyone. Where you get these human rights in play, it opens up the possibility of arguments being raised by way of challenge to orders of this kind.

The strength of the amendment which is being suggested is that it cuts back the open door—if I might put it this way—to challenges, and limits them in the most sensitive of all areas, which is the kind of relocation to which the noble and learned Lord has drawn attention. It is right that this is not a probing amendment. It is actually a very important point to try to secure these TPIMs in a way that makes them robust enough to stand up against possible challenges which, if the amendment was not made, would be very likely to come.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my support for the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is for real, to use his own term. I was reading a little—obviously I do not have the experience of other noble Lords, including my noble friend—about control orders at the time they were to be abolished and TPIMs introduced. One could not help but feel quite disturbed by some of the experiences undergone and the impact, as has been said, not only on the individuals subject to the orders but on members of their families so, as I say, I support this amendment.

I have just one question for the noble and learned Lord. It is about whether it is necessary—he must consider it is because he has included them—to have the words about the individual having “no connection”. As I read it, but I might have missed something, the amendment to Schedule 1 to the 2011 Act takes out the references to having a connection with a locality because the 200-mile limit is being introduced. If that is so, and we are losing references to there being a connection in the Schedule, is that reference necessary in the amendment?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Lord Hope of Craighead Excerpts

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (LD)]

My Lords, I agree that we should not give away our freedoms in response to terrorism. However, I am satisfied that, properly crafted, this legislation need not do so. It would be a good idea if part of that crafting were to include a sunset clause, primarily for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It is the practicalities of this measure—how it will work in practice—that are most in doubt. Those practicalities will significantly impact on the rights of people on whom the orders are imposed. So a sunset clause is a good idea. It is also a good idea for the reason set out by my noble friend a moment ago.

Two years is too short. The threat will be with us for much longer than two years, so that will be too short a time to assess the workings of this legislation. However, I support the idea of a sunset clause so that the House can thoroughly review how the legislation is working in practice.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I will add briefly to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. It relates to Amendment 7, to which I hope to return later, and concerns the problem of humanitarian assistance.

I do not want to elaborate just now, but there are concerns about people who offer humanitarian assistance in difficult areas such as Somalia, Syria and possibly Gaza. The way in which terrorism is defined in the Terrorism Act 2000 has a chilling effect on their activities, because of the risk that they might be caught up in what is thought to be a terrorist offence when they are actually trying to co-operate with the bodies there to provide humanitarian assistance. Of course, a prosecution—or a conviction—is a very different matter. However, the way that this measure is proposing to adopt in the fight against terrorism is a decision taken by a constable. It is a much easier thing to take at that stage.

The chilling effect of the threat of that kind of measure being taken against people who seek to provide humanitarian assistance may be quite considerable; it is difficult to assess at the moment. There is, however, considerable force in the point that the House should be able to look again at the way the measure is operating once we know what the effect is on those trying to carry out humanitarian efforts in these difficult areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bates]

I will check this, because it is a very important matter, but intuitively my belief would be that the answer is yes, because they would be in the United Kingdom and they would be reasonably suspected by the authorities or the police of intending to travel overseas from this country for terrorist-related activities. I will check on that and if it is not the case I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I think there may be different types of transit. There are certainly some instances in an airport where you pass through and do not actually go through immigration control. You are simply passing from one airline service to another and you bypass the place where the police officer would be to seize your passport. Other people in transit may have to remain for a while, possibly because they want to see somebody or collect luggage. It may well be that the noble Lord is entirely right that in that situation, because you are confronted by a constable with the power, the power would be exercisable —so it may depend very much on the circumstances of the individual traveller.

[Lord Bates]

I agree and I shall seek clarification on that. It may also be the case that the power is triggered when someone on a no-fly list comes in, even though effectively they are not entering UK territory. However, when they arrive in the UK, they have to present their passport and travel documents—and, as I argued in my answer, at that point I would expect any action to be taken. Again, these are very important points and I will check with the authorities on how this will work in practice. It is probably covered in the draft code of practice on the seizure of passports, which is currently out for review. If so, I will certainly make sure that those views are noted as part of the consultation process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 7. Amendment 6 is one of those probing amendments which may seem a bit unexpected or counterintuitive coming from me. It seeks to inquire whether the reference to intention in paragraph 1(10) covers recklessness. The words I have used are, “recklessly as to the consequences”. Will my noble friend share with the Committee the Government’s thinking on restricting the term to intentionality?

My second amendment, already trailed by the noble and learned Lord, refers to humanitarian assistance. This is another probing amendment to ask how the Government plan to deal with workers travelling out who are associated with reputable organisations such as the Red Cross. I accept that this is a difficult area because there can be individuals who are not with such organisations but who, in their own minds, are going out to provide humanitarian aid. They might be so closely associated with those who are fighting that they would be seen by others as providing something which is closer to military support than the broader humanitarian assistance.

We need to find a way through this difficult area, but at this stage perhaps my noble friend can explain the Government’s thinking on this issue and what work they have done with the big, overstretched—I am sure they could do without a further consultation, but there you go—humanitarian organisations working in the Middle East. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, as I hinted earlier, I wish to add a little more detail in support of Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Baroness. The background to what I am going to say comes from my experience chairing the Joint Committee on the Draft Protection of Charities Bill, which has been considering a clause which would seek to add offences under the Terrorism Act 2000 to the list of offences a conviction for which will result in automatic disqualification from being a trustee of a charity. That may seem a little bit removed from what we are considering this afternoon, but we have heard evidence on that issue from various witnesses speaking about the chilling effect of the risk of prosecution under the terrorist legislation on the efforts of those who seek to provide humanitarian assistance in areas which are under the control of, for example, proscribed organisations.

Among our witnesses was the chairman of the Muslim Charities Forum, who said:

“I go to difficult areas like Afghanistan, South Sudan and Chechnya. Recently, two weeks ago, I was in Iraq, in Baghdad. I have been in Somalia, in Mogadishu and other countries. I think counter-terrorism legislation is preventing us from having access to the neediest people. There are proscribed groups in those areas, and we know them. They are the gatekeepers. How can we go through the gatekeepers to reach the neediest people in Syria, Somalia or different parts of the world?”

That was the problem to which he drew our attention.

Among our other witnesses was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorist Legislation, David Anderson QC, to whom the noble Lord rightly paid tribute early this afternoon and I entirely endorse his remarks. He said that charities operating in these areas run the risk of falling foul of terrorism law—for example, by delivering relief to a general population which may include individuals or groups designated as terrorists. He suggested that increased risk could deter charities and their trustees from delivering humanitarian support. He was talking about the risk that would be created by extending the definition that disqualifies people from being trustees on conviction for these offences. As I mentioned earlier, we are talking about a rather softer mechanism, which is very important but depends on a decision taken by a constable at the point of entry.

One of the points to which David Anderson drew our attention was that there are examples in other countries where this issue has been addressed. The Minister might be interested to know that the kind of exception which the noble Baroness is suggesting can be found in connection with the broad definition of terrorism when one studies, for example, legislation in Australia or New Zealand. They have specific exceptions in terrorism law to meet that point, including that of association with proscribed organisations for the purpose of providing humanitarian aid. That is very important and it is rather odd that it is raised as a tiny, probing amendment in a debate on a temporary exclusion order. It runs right through the effect of the broad definition of terrorism, which Mr Anderson described as quite disturbing because of its breadth, and adds a great deal of force to the noble Baroness’s amendment.

I invite noble Lords to think carefully about that because the humanitarian effort is something all of us would wish to support. Given the amount of effort that the Government rightly put into providing aid overseas, it would be most unfortunate if it is being cut off because of this kind of measure. Of course, there are ways in which it can be done without embarking at all on this kind of risk area, but those who are right at the frontier in these very difficult areas should not be discouraged by legislation of this kind if it is possible to protect them against its effects. The humanitarian exception may be one of the more important issues that we are considering today. I would be very interested, and I am sure that the noble Baroness would be too, to hear how the Minister would wish to consider the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ashton of Hyde]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends for tabling more probing amendments. The Minister and I will be well and truly probed by the end of the Committee stage.

We have had an interesting debate, with arguments expressed on both sides. The definition of “involvement in terrorism-related activity” used in Schedule 1 is the same throughout the Bill. It may be helpful to explain to the Committee that this definition has already been changed from that which exists in previous legislation in line with the recommendation of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation that the definition of terrorism-related activity in the TPIMs Act should be narrowed.

The effect on the current Bill is that involvement in terrorism-related activity does not include conduct which gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the individual concerned to be involved in conduct which facilitates or gives encouragement to acts of terrorism, or which is intended to do so. David Anderson described these individuals as those who are at three stages removed from actually committing a terrorist act: the giving of support to someone who gives encouragement to someone who prepares an act of terrorism. This change in definition is consistent with the public protection to which the legislation is directed.

Amendments 6 and 7 would amend the definition of involvement in terrorism-related activity as it currently appears in the Bill. The provision to which Amendment 6 relates refers to,

“conduct that gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation”,

of acts of terrorism, whether or not the conduct is intended to do so. The amendment would amend the definition to conduct that gives intentional or reckless encouragement. To answer my noble friend Lady Hamwee, we believe that reckless encouragement is included in the current definition and we believe that accidental or reckless encouragement should be captured when its consequence is to encourage the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

The provision to which Amendment 7 relates refers to,

“conduct that gives support or assistance to individuals who are known or believed by the person concerned to be involved in”,

the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. It is clear that the support or assistance which falls within that definition is that which supports or assists individuals with acts of terror. We do not want to specify explicitly—this point was well made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey—that those providing humanitarian assistance, however defined, are excluded from the definition of involvement in terrorism-related activity. For example, as the noble Lord mentioned, it is possible that a person acting in a humanitarian capacity can also give support or assistance that would enable others to engage in terrorism.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked whether we have consulted NGOs or charities on this, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, mentioned its possible chilling effect on charities. We have not specifically consulted, but such organisations are capable of referring to the consultation. We would encourage them to do so and to reply to it.

I want to reassure your Lordships that support or assistance is, in this legislation, quite clearly that which supports or assists individuals with acts of terror and not any other legitimate activity.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

Does the Minister appreciate the difficulty our witness was talking about of having to deal with people he described as “gatekeepers”? There is a risk of misunderstanding where someone is trying to get through the gate, as it were, into these difficult areas and is being told what to do, as a condition of getting through to provide the assistance, by the so-called “gatekeeper”, who may well be in a proscribed organisation. There is a considerable risk, so we are told, of being thought to be providing assistance to him because you are telling him what to do, whereas in fact what you are trying to do is to take the aid through to those who really need it. I appreciate the point that is being made, but I wonder whether the Minister will consult a little more carefully on this sensitive issue to see whether it is being accurately dealt with in sub-paragraph (10)(d) on page 27.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my amendments in this group are Amendments 8, 14 and 15. Amendment 8 provides that, for the powers relating to search and seizure in respect of travel documents in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to be exercised, a constable must have “evidence or intelligence” to suspect that the person in question is there with the intention of leaving this country for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity rather than “reasonable grounds” as provided for in the Bill.

This power of seizure of travel documents in this way is a new one and is presumably expected to be exercised only where the relevant authorities have either some hard evidence in respect of the individual whose travel documents they intend to retain or intelligence of a nature which they believe, bearing in mind its nature and source, may well prove accurate.

The Bill does not make provision for the person whose passport is seized to be informed, even in outline, of the reasons for the authorities suspecting that they may wish to travel abroad for purposes associated with terrorism and neither does the draft code of practice require a person who is subject to the exercise of the power to search for and seize travel documents to be told anything about the reasons underlying the suspicion that the person is intending to leave the country for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity.

It is important that this new power should be exercised, as I have no doubt whatever is the intention, in a responsible and proportionate manner. The question is this: what do the Government intend the phrase “reasonable grounds” to mean if it does not mean suspicions based on evidence or intelligence? If it does mean that, why not say so in the Bill? No doubt the Minister will address that point in his reply.

Amendments 14 and 15 provide that an individual whose travel document has been removed may appeal against this decision in the courts over the evidence on the basis of which the conditions in paragraph 2(1)(a) and (b) of Schedule 1 were met. Those conditions relate to suspicions that the person is leaving the country for the purpose of involvement in terrorism-related activity or has arrived in this country with the intention of leaving it soon for that purpose. The use of these new powers of seizure of travel documents, including passports, will no doubt be undertaken in an appropriate, reasonable and proportionate manner. But since the tests as set out in the Bill are to be ones of “reasonable suspicion”, there is inevitably scope for genuine mistakes to be made on occasion. Our amendments provide for a right of appeal in court following the temporary seizure of a passport, initially for up to 14 days, over the reasons which led to that administrative decision under the terms of the Bill, a decision which, if wrong, could have significant implications for a person who found themselves, because of that decision, unable to travel outside the country for a period that could be up to 30 days. No doubt if further information had come to light in the mean time prior to the appeal which either strengthened or weakened the case for the original decision to seize the travel documents, that would also be placed before the court. Judicial review alone would not achieve this objective since it would not enable the person whose passport had been seized to challenge directly the basis on which the power had been exercised; namely, whether there were reasonable grounds to suspect that they intended to leave the country to become involved in terrorism-related activity.

It is of course the case that under the Bill the police have to apply to a court for an extension of time up to a maximum of 30 days if they wish to retain the seized travel documents beyond the maximum of 14 days laid down in the Bill. However, the court making that decision is not reviewing the reasons that led to the decision being made to seize the travel documents, but simply whether the authorities considering whether further disruptive action should be taken against the individual concerned had been acting diligently and expeditiously. An authorisation process of the decision to seize travel documents will exist up to the level of chief constable, but there is no provision within that process for the senior officers involved to consider representations from the person from whom the travel documents have been taken or from a representative of that person. That authorisation process surely cannot be regarded as an alternative to a right on application to have the decision to seize travel documents reviewed by a court. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to consider carefully the points I have made in support of my three amendments. I beg to move.

[Lord Hope of Craighead]

My Lords, I should like to say a word about Amendment 8. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I think that the phrase used in the Bill, if it is properly understood, accommodates the point he is seeking to raise. I speak about this with a certain amount of background because the very first judgment I was asked to write when I began my career as a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in this House was in a case called O’Hara against the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, reported in 1997 as Appeal Case 286. What we had to do in that case was consider the meaning of the phrase. A bit of research revealed that it has actually been with us for something like 100 years and has been used repeatedly in measures such as the Public Order Act 1936 and other measures where a constable is being asked to take a decision as to whether to exercise a power of search, entry or something of that kind. That situation is analogous to the one we are contemplating in regard to the position of the constable under this schedule.

What, then, do the words mean? As we said in the judgment, they concentrate on what was in the mind of the constable at the time that he exercised the power. But it is important to appreciate that there are two aspects to what was in his mind. One is what we described as the subjective aspect, which is whether he formed a reasonable suspicion. However, the important point, which is a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is that there is also an objective element, because he has to be able to say what the objective element was. There must have been reasonable grounds for the suspicion that he formed. They are the grounds that were in his mind at the time when he was judging whether they were reasonable. That is directed to the information that he had when he decided to do what he did. That raises certain questions. What was his information? Where did it come from? What was its content? How could one say whether it was reliable? In particular, who imparted the information to him?

These are the kind of questions that anyone examining the issue would wish to have answers to. The point is not so much whether the information was true or not, because that is not something that the constable can judge at the time. The point is what information did he have and did it include information that purported to be intelligence, which is the kind of point that the noble Lord was raising.

Properly understood, this phrase, which every constable is trained to understand, and the courts are well used to, is really able to accommodate the point quite adequately, and I suggest that the safest course is to stick to the familiar phrase, given the import of the phrase as understood and as explained in the case of O’Hara.