Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I feel a sense of frustration. There are so many issues that one wants to pursue, but it is not the first Bill where we will experience that. In Committee, we had a series of amendments regarding the role of the domestic abuse commissioner. Almost all of them were concerned with ensuring that the job is not so constructed as to preclude the commissioner making her own decisions on how to go about her work. I put it that way to distinguish it from the content of the work.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, put it very succinctly. He said that the whole thrust of certain clauses is a worry because it appears that the Secretary of State wants to pull all the levers. Our debates largely boiled down to the commissioner’s autonomy. I did not entirely follow the assessment of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; he said that our amendments focused on independence but then set about how the commissioner should fulfil the role. Independence was a particular focus on this part of the Bill, although naturally noble Lords had been keen to draw attention to a variety of issues. That tension has been a bit of an issue today, of course, but that is perhaps by the by.

Independence is a hugely important component of the role. The Government have been arguing today that that is so in resisting some amendments; they certainly did that in Committee. It is a component, as far as possible, given that the commissioner’s position is that of a statutory officeholder funded by the Secretary of State with no separate legal persona. The framework agreement between the commissioner and the Secretary of State will be very important in this regard.

As well as the commissioner’s freedom to select her own staff—following due process, of course—in Committee we had quite extensive debate about the advisory board. Different noble Lords argued for members of the board with particular backgrounds and experience. The Bill provides for at least six members and spells out whom each of the six is to represent. I have to say that the term “represent” still troubles me. I think there is a danger of muddling representation and advice. The maximum under the Bill is 10 members. Why? Clearly, there is a huge range of problems and situations relevant to domestic abuse and so a range of individuals and organisations with a range of experience and expertise, including experience of the whole sector and its interconnecting parts, is needed.

In our view, the commissioner should have the scope —and this is a matter of her autonomy—to appoint such a board to advise her, or, in the future, him, as she considers appropriate. At this stage, I am not arguing with the interests that the six are to represent under the Bill, although I remain concerned that they will be the Secretary of State’s pick, but if the commissioner wishes to bring in more than four further people in the capacity of advisory board members she should be able to do so. There seems no good reason to impose the restriction on numbers.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that this was

“to ensure that the board can operate effectively and efficiently.”—[Official Report, 27/1/21; col. 1711.]

That is what we all want, but efficiency and effectiveness is about more than numbers. It is about what each member contributes and how the board as a whole operates and that should be a matter for the commissioner. The commissioner can and may well seek advice from elsewhere. I dare say she can bring people into board meetings as a one-off. I am not sure whether she can co-opt—I cannot see that there is a restriction on that. However, those individuals should be afforded the respect of a permanent role if that is warranted and not be limited as the board proposes. This issue encapsulates our concerns about the commissioner’s autonomy and independence and that is why we have chosen it as the one to pursue at this stage. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has brought this matter back to the attention of your Lordships on Report. Clearly, the idea of an advisory board is welcome and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have no objection to the range of interests which the Bill specifies must be represented on the board itself.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, although it is not the subject of the amendment, I am still very surprised by the term “representative”. I know that this is an advisory board, rather than a governance board, but having the notion of representatives is very bad corporate governance. People should be appointed for what they can contribute, not for whom they represent. I hope that that does not make it more difficult to have an effective advisory board.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, on the numbers to be appointed. I accept that 10 is a reasonable figure, but there may be circumstances where the commissioner would want to go above that. I fail to see why we cannot leave it to her good sense to be able to do so, if she wants to. I hope the Government will accept this very sensible and modest amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and Baroness Hamwee

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Clause 40 stand part is grouped with Amendment 31 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Bach, which is very different. I shall confine my remarks to the clause. A curfew can be more than overnight. All the points about amendments we have debated this evening are relevant to the time—the hours of the day and night—during which a subject may be required to remain wherever he is living—plus, of course, in particular, engaging Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, on the deprivation of liberty.

The ECHR memorandum published with the Bill is explicit that this provision is so that an individual can be required to observe longer curfew hours. That is not a justification, however. We have some case law, as I am sure other noble Lords may mention. In JJ, Lord Bingham said that account should be taken of

“a range of factors such as the nature, duration, effects and manner of execution or implementation”

of a measure—very much as noble Lords said on a previous group. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, took the view that the absolute limit was 16 hours, and I understand that no curfew has been for a period longer than 16 hours since.

The ECHR memorandum makes the point that the principle of curfew does not breach Article 5, and I take that point, but the particular issue I want to raise in this connection is that the clause—that is, the change—makes it that much easier for the limits to be pushed longer and longer and throws on the individual the need to challenge them, rather than having clear limits set on the Secretary of State through legislation.

I am sure that noble Lords will understand, when it comes to the appetite, and indeed the ability, of an individual to challenge each measure, or extended measure, it is not an easy task. The balance—I think it is called “equality of arms”—moves completely out of balance through this clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am not sure that our two amendments have any connection whatever. None the less, it is a pleasure to be able to make this short intervention on the Bill and to probe just a little more than I did at Second Reading the role of police and crime commissioners.

I do support the strengthening of the TPIM provisions. That the Government would have to do so was entirely foreseeable in 2011, when the coalition Government insisted on the abolition of control orders, despite the warnings that I and other noble Lords gave at the time.

My amendment was drafted after discussions with the West Midlands police and crime commissioner, David Jamieson. Clearly, the provisions are potentially extremely resource-intensive and need to be used proportionately and only when absolutely necessary. I would like to make two specific comments.

As the thresholds for a TPIM are lowered and the range of measures extended, it is important that greater scrutiny and oversight are implemented to give reassurance to individuals and communities that the legislation is being used fairly. These are of course issues of grave national security concern. The oversight offered by a police and crime commissioner could help to give the Home Secretary reassurance that full consideration had been given ahead of any decision regarding a TPIM. Local oversight could also enhance the ability of the Home Secretary to make an informed decision when considering a TPIM application, variation or extension. It would enable PCCs to submit any additional information or make recommendations to the Home Secretary in respect of the community impact and the impact on local police force resources—which, as has already been discussed, can be intensive for a TPIM.

It is not entirely clear how police and crime commissioners are currently made aware of TPIMs within their local area. Certainly, the chief constable should advise the police and crime commissioner when a TPIM is being considered, but there are no clear guidelines on how this should take place. My amendment would formalise this process. We know that the number of TPIMs in place nationally is small, and therefore it should not be envisaged that this additional step in the process would present a burden for police and crime commissioners or forces. As part of this process, the information would of course have to be shared within the most appropriate, secure environment.

At Second Reading, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, responded to that point by saying that the Home Office already works very closely with the police before a TPIM is imposed and during its lifetime. She went on to say:

“The process ensures that TPIMs are imposed only following engagement with the relevant local police force and that community impact assessments are kept up to date.”


She then said:

“The Bill already contains a clause that will allow a TPIM subject’s relocation measure to be varied where necessary on operational resource grounds.”


On those grounds, she considered that my

“proposed amendment for an additional role for PCCs … in TPIM processes is … not necessary.”—[Official Report, 21/9/20; col. 1653.]

That was disappointing. The key issue here is that TPIMs are an intervention that places significant restrictions on a person’s life, based on the balance of probabilities. Given that, PCCs could add value in the process by seeking reassurance that due process had been followed. I remind the Minister that they do this for other policing powers that might be regarded as controversial, including stop and search and the use of covert services, and it would be appropriate if it were extended to TPIMs. I commend the amendment and hope that the Minister will be sympathetic.