Europol Regulation: European Union Opt-In

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, as a member of your Lordships’ European Union Select Committee, I rise to support the Motion of my noble friend Lord Hannay and to follow the eloquent and powerful arguments put forward by him and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. They are experts in this area.

I wish to start by reading one of the committee’s recommendations on page 10, which states:

“If the Government were to opt in to the draft Europol Regulation and also exercise the block opt-out we urge them to opt back in to the Council Decisions which fall within the scope of the opt-out and which are connected with Europol’s continued operations, should this prove necessary”.

I do not quote that to criticise the committee, quite the reverse. However, this process of opting in, opting out and opting in again is like hokey-cokey politics in which the Government are indulging. They are dancing to the tune of UKIP and the Eurosceptic right in their party and putting our national security and the fight against crime in jeopardy as a result.

The Europol matter that we are discussing is complicated by the threatened block opt-out, as I said at Question Time today and as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was rather coy earlier when speaking about the differences of view between the two sides of the coalition in the discussions on this matter. We have a Conservative Minister replying to this debate and it will be interesting to hear his response. However, we get a very clear view of the position from the documents that were leaked to the Daily Telegraph, and I wish to quote briefly from one or two of them. A number of measures were binned, where we agreed not to seek to rejoin, which must cause concern.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, that one of the documents refers to,

“37 measures identified by DPM”—

that is, the Deputy Prime Minister—

“as being of less importance”.

One of the measures that Mr Clegg identified as being of less importance was:

“Joint Action … on cooperation between customs authorities and business organizations in combating drug trafficking”.

How can that be identified as being of less importance? Then we come to measures that are undecided. The document states:

“48 measures for Immediate Discussion (Differing Views in the Coalition on Rejoining)”.

There were differing views on whether it should rejoin those measures, having exercised a block opt-out on 133. Should we rejoin the measure on combating child pornography on the internet? Is there any doubt about that? Why is there any discussion about it? Why does one side of the coalition think that we should opt in and another that we should opt out?

Another measure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, concerns,

“security in connection with football matches with an international dimension”,

where we have seen that police forces acting together have been very effective in passing on information about known troublemakers so that they can be dealt with on the spot. British police officers can go out to matches abroad and offer their help and police officers from other countries can come here and help with identifying troublemakers. However, all this is being put in jeopardy by what the coalition is considering doing because of the pressure of the 133 opt-outs. It is dancing to the tune of UKIP and the Eurosceptic right, which I know the Minister is not part of. I hope that he will take the opportunity to make that clear again today.

I now wish to consider the measures in detail. We are told—the noble Lord, Lord McNally, used this excuse earlier today—that each of them is being looked at and the reason the Government have taken so long to consider the other report of our Select Committee on the opt-out is that the measures are all very complicated. He also said that each one has to be looked at in the national interest. I always get a wee bit worried when the coalition talks about the national interest. It seems to me that it is often a case of what is in the best interests of keeping the coalition in power rather than what is in the national interest. When pressed to explain their thinking, Ministers have said that they look at the measures on a case-by-case basis as far as the national interest is concerned.

There are two key problems with the Government’s plan of action. The first is the cost to the United Kingdom of permanently opting out of some of the measures, with Europol a particular concern, as the report rightly says. The report expresses the view that,

“none of the concerns expressed by the Government … outweigh the benefits to the UK of Europol’s assistance to national police and law enforcement agencies in the fight against cross-border threats (including terrorism) and serious organised crime”.

Therefore, we are putting the fight against terrorism and serious organised crime in jeopardy through this opt-out. Rarely has an all-party report, unanimously agreed by all the members of the sub-committee and the committee, been so damning of the government line.

The second problem is the cost of what the Government hope to retain. Opting back in is not a straightforward process. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, having been secretary of the European Commission, will know only too well exactly what has to be done. There is no guarantee that negotiations to opt back in would be successful. We might find ourselves locked out permanently of key crime-fighting tools. Ensuring that this does not happen will require a large and wholly avoidable expenditure of diplomatic capital. Our experienced diplomats would have to spend their time persuading the other 27 countries of Europe, now that Croatia has joined, that we should be allowed back in.

The rewards that the Government hope to win by such a policy are largely intangible. The measures they hope to scrap are mostly technical points relating to the definition of certain crimes. What is really driving this agenda is the streak of destructive Euroscepticism that runs through some of the Tory Back Benches. In this instance, it is clear what they mean by the national interest. As I said, the national interest is the interest of a small, bullying minority. David Cameron is trying to paint himself as a national champion, but in fact he is having his arm twisted. It is a clever piece of political spin but it is a disastrous piece of policy that could leave all of us in the United Kingdom dangerously exposed to crime and terror. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government will have second thoughts in light of the unanimous report from our Select Committee.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am very glad indeed to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, as I find myself in a great deal of sympathy with the argument that he has put forward.

It always seems to me that if one set out to design a nation that was dependent on its relationships with the world in almost every sphere of our significant life in Britain, it would be difficult to think of a better example than the United Kingdom. We live in a totally interdependent world. I believe strongly that the test of political leadership in our country is to demonstrate that we are determined to look to the well-being of the people of these islands of the United Kingdom, but that that can best be done only if we are in a network of international co-operative relationships, of which the European Union is one. It is not a romantic debate about whether one is a European or a Briton; it is hard-headed practical common sense about how we look to the well-being of the British people. Certainly, as far as I am concerned, any thought that we should retreat into being a sort of free-floating raft off the mainland of Europe in the turbulent world in which we live, and that we will somehow then look better to the interests of our people, is a betrayal of the British people and should be dismissed as such.

These matters of security and international crime and the rest are paramount examples of this. We all know that crime is now internationalised on an almost unimaginable scale. We all know that security and terrorism and threats of this kind operate on an international basis. All the new technology at the disposal of the human race makes all this more acute. There is no way in which we can look to the security of the British people without the maximum co-operation of those who are seeking the same objectives for their people in Europe as a whole. Indeed, that should always be a stepping stone to maximum international global co-operation, because that is ultimately the indispensible solution that we must find.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I am seeking to explain this particular case solely to those who are listening to me at the moment. As I have said, we are not coming to this debate with a set point of view. We are here to listen. We have had the opportunity of considering the report and we will continue to do so. The noble Lord will know that this debate will be looked at and the points made in it will be considered as part and parcel of the Government’s decision on whether to opt-in to the proposal or leave the decision and let the negotiations take their course. That is the Government’s position at this stage: that is what we are considering. This debate is very important because it will help to inform the Government’s decision. I have not come here with a point of view that will determine the outcome of those considerations.

[Lord Judd]

I am rather confused by what the Minister is saying. Do the Government agree that we best look to our interests on international crime and terrorism by being in an arrangement which ensures maximum European operational effectiveness? If they do agree that that is the case, how will we make sure that the regulation is what it should be if we sit on the sidelines, wait until others have decided and then make up our minds as to whether or not we want to join?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I have clearly said that we are not determining whether we will be in the negotiations or sitting and observing them. We are not likely to be passive—this Government are not inclined to be passive—and we shall certainly not be passive on an issue in which this country plays an important part, such as the future of Europol.

I am trying to be even handed on the issue. The Government have not made up their mind. We recognise that there are differences. That is why I have made clear that there are advantages in being a party to the negotiations having opted in, but I also pointed out the disadvantages that we might not achieve what we want to achieve through those negotiations and we would not have the freedom to negotiate from outside if we did not opt in. That is a reasonable position to present and I hope that noble Lords will accept it. There are strong arguments either way and the Government have not yet decided which option they will take.

Let me now deal with some of the points raised by the committee in its report. We agree that the data protection provisions in the regulation should take full account of the draft data protection directive and regulation. We also support appropriate scrutiny of Europol by the European Parliament and national Parliaments, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. However, we would need to know how the proposals to disclose classified information to the European Parliament might work.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that US information is higher than other member states. I can confirm that the UK is currently in the top three countries that provide data. As I have indicated to noble Lords, whether or not we opt in, we will fully participate in negotiations and work closely with member states to seek the necessary amendments to these draft proposals. In response to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on retaining CEPOL, following the announcement of the closure of the Bramshill site, the Government’s priority is now to relocate the College of Policing so that it will be put on as strong a footing as possible to support policing in the UK. Other member states have expressed an interest in accommodating CEPOL, and there seems little point in insisting that it should stay in the UK just for the sake of it. We expect that the new proposal will repeal and replace the existing Europol Council decisions, although this does remain subject to negotiation. No final decisions have been made as to whether the Government will seek to rejoin as part of the wider 2014 opt-out decision. That decision has not been determined.

The noble Lord also asked why the debate scheduled for 3 July in another place was postponed and whether it will be reinstated. In truth, the debate was postponed to give the Government more time to consider the important voice of the opt-in and to reach a final view on it. The noble Lord will be aware that opt-in debates in another place are held on a Motion setting out the Government’s position. As I said earlier, we have not yet reached a decision on what that position will be. However, the Government are clear about their intention to hold a debate on this matter in another place, and such a debate will take place.

Global Migration and Mobility (EUC Report)

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, first, I want to say—and I know I speak for others on the committee—that once again it has been a real privilege to work on this report under the leadership and chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. It really has been a good experience to be there with him on that committee. The second thing I want to say is that I passionately believe that we in this House, whenever we discuss the issues of immigration, should never miss an opportunity to say thank you to all those immigrants who have made such a fine, positive and desperately important contribution to our life in Britain and to the life we take for granted. It is true that all of us, every day, experience it in our families and with our friends when using the health service and it is true every day when we take our trains up and down the country. We know that we have received tremendous benefits in this country from immigration. That is why so many of us are ashamed of the myopic, cheap opportunism—that comes from educated people who should know better—of trying to seize negative emotion and work up passions, where we should be emphasising the importance of reason and analysis.

I found the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, very powerful, very analytical and very challenging. When he was speaking, I could not help reflecting on paragraph 13 of our report, in which we state:

“There are approximately 214 million international migrants worldwide”.

So we are faced not only with the pressures within our own society but with the pressures of migration for the global community as a whole. That is why it is crucial for those of us in this House, who have the space in this House to look at things in perspective, always to emphasise that, if ever there was an issue that requires international collaboration and international policies to deal with the huge issues that arise from it, it is the issue of migration. We simply cannot solve the issues of migration as a nation on our own. European co-operation is vital. The noble Lord was right to say that we should never consider these matters in our own country without looking at the experiences of others in Europe. But, of course, it is in the management of the issue that co-operation is so important.

That is why the European debate going on in Britain at the moment is very significant. To me, it flies in the face of reason to envisage in any way a future in which somehow we will do better on these issues if we operate as an island on our own, offshore from the mainland of Europe. We need to work with those in Europe if we are to be effective in handling the situation. Of course, it is important not just in Europe but worldwide as well.

That brings me to the issue of higher education, which has been fully debated today. As we debated it, I could not help feeling that if the sub-committee was looking for allies in the House, it could not have had a better ally than the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market. That was an amazingly penetrating analysis and speech, and I just hope that his noble friends on the Front Bench have listened to every word of it and will recognise its significance.

There is one other point that I want to make, and I declare an interest because I am involved on a voluntary basis in three universities in this country—the London School of Economics, Lancaster and Newcastle. We talk about the economic consequences of policy towards overseas students, for the universities themselves immediately and the long-term consequences for the country as a whole. These are very central issues for our debate. There is one other point that needs to be emphasised. The first reality of existence for all of us on planet earth is that we are totally interdependent, and how history—if history is there to judge us—will judge political leaders of the time in which we live is on the success or failure that we make of handling that reality of international interdependence. I simply do not understand how you can approach education, let alone higher education, without that international reality being central to the deliberation in virtually every discipline being studied.

It is absolutely crucial that in our fine universities—we have some very fine universities in this country—there is a real, living community of scholars, not just from these islands but from the world as a whole. It is going to be the interplay of cultural experience and of different perspectives that will help students to become educated, as distinct from trained, and to understand the nature of the world in which they live and the scale of the issues that confront them. I know that when I was an undergraduate I was learning all the time from people who came from very different backgrounds from my own. I greatly appreciated that. It is true of Britain, but it is much truer of the world as a whole. What we do not emphasise enough in our considerations about higher education is that the quality of our universities is related to the presence of an international community central to their activities. Whenever that is diminished, the quality of education itself is being diminished. It is disturbing that current policies are leading to a decline in the number of students wanting to come to study here, because it is perceived that it is not a welcoming place and it is not a good place to spend a lot of time trying to get to when you can get elsewhere. That point has to be taken very seriously.

There are a couple of other points in the report on which I want to dwell for a moment. They have been referred to in the debate. One is the issue of integration. I was very impressed by what the right reverend Prelate said about his work and experiences in Derby. It is clear that civil society is crucial to making a success of integration, but not just civil society in terms of the NGOs, although they are very important, but even in the more established parts of civil society, if that is not a contradiction in terms. The chambers of commerce have a very important part to play and trade unions have an absolutely crucial part to play in the issue of integration. But then the NGOs themselves are vital. As someone who has spent a great deal of my life in NGOs, I worry that we are slipping into an era in which they are seen as an extension of public administration to deliver policy. I want good quality public service and I am sure, therefore, that NGOs will have an important contribution to make, but that is to miss the point. In a vibrant society, NGOs are there to contribute to the debate. They are there to learn from their engagement and experience and to bring to the quality of the public debate the depth of their experience and what they are discovering every day, on the front line, with real people. I do not get the feeling, under any Government in recent times, that the views, attitudes and experience of the NGOs have been central to the development of policy on integration in immigration matters. There is a lot of work to be done on that.

It is also important to realise that, if we are talking about successful integration, we must face up to the pressures on many of our relatively deprived communities which find themselves grappling with the largest elements of immigration and the movement of people. This is why we must make sure that, in areas where immigration is more concentrated than others, the schooling, hospitals, public services, housing and employment are given real priority. It is in these areas that the frustrations build up and the idiots who demean the whole quality of public debate start deploying their opportunism.

On the opportunism, I say to all our political leaders, please realise that you are never going to buy off that kind of opportunism. It has to be challenged and confronted. One has to talk about the values which are central to our society and in which we believe, and about why, with rational analysis, we must make a success of this interdependence about which I am talking and the inevitable movement of people. How can you talk about free and open markets if there is not to be the movement of people? It is a fundamental contradiction if you say you have a free and open market but people cannot move about to follow the investment. However, we know that it is not currently possible for that to happen, so we have issues. Theoretical and ideological solutions like open and free markets will not provide a total answer. We must have pragmatism at work, based upon real experience, real issues and how we handle them.

I have been heartened by the seriousness of this debate today. Again, I offer warmest thanks to our chair for having led us in preparing the report. I hope that we may have many opportunities to go on discussing this issue, but not just as a sort of Greek chorus wringing our hands about it but as part of a process that is making sure that we are doing the things that are necessary to meet the challenges.

Visas: Student Visa Policy

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 31st January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I am involved in the governance of the University of Newcastle and the University of Lancaster and, after 30 years as a governor, I am now an emeritus governor of the LSE. We live in a highly interdependent global community. To be relevant, each centre of higher education, as a community of scholars, must be a living international community. This is indispensable to the very quality of education that they provide. Present arrangements potentially damage that quality.

Why do we have a one-size-fits-all approach? Why on earth should universities with a strong record of not losing touch with their students and with low dropout rates have to go through the bureaucratic hoops and expense of attendance registers and the rest? It hardly enhances their dignity and attraction as mature communities of self-motivated students. What really is the rationale for treating students as any other immigrant instead of being in a separate category, as happens in many other countries?

An aggravating factor is the regional differences in the operation of UKBA. This adds to the uncertainty. Recruitment from India, especially of postgraduates, is certainly at risk. After China, India is hugely important in this context. The removal of the post-study work experience scheme particularly hits Indian recruitment. There are disturbing differences between what Ministers say about the vital need to win overseas students to the UK and what the too-often insensitive and unimaginative operation of UKBA presents in practice.

It boils down to this: are we determined to appear to the future leaders across the world as a neurotic, bureaucratic, small-minded, defensive little island to the north of Europe, so why go there to study, or as a dynamic, self-confident and welcoming player in the global community, which is an excellent place to be a student?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

There is one basic policy—there is no limit on international students coming to this country. That is the fundamental and basic policy. I will not get involved, if the noble Lord will forgive me, in a discussion about statistics. I understand the weakness of arguments based on statistics. However, it is important to emphasise why the Office for National Statistics includes students in the net migration figures. It is because of the international definitions which govern these things. I emphasise to noble Lords that there is no limit on international students coming to this country.

[Lord Judd]

The noble Lord keeps saying that the Government have no limit, but there is a difference between the Government having a position and their making it effective. Has that been culturally absorbed by the UK Border Agency?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I would like to think that it has. I am more concerned whether it has been culturally absorbed by noble Lords. I am doing my best to emphasise to noble Lords that there is no limit on international students coming to this country.

UK Border Agency

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I too thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for having made this debate possible. There are few people in Parliament in either House who have a more intimate knowledge of the subject and who have more consistently throughout their distinguished political career contributed to the quality of debate and the quality of information available to us all. The noble Lord deserves warm appreciation from us all.

We now are faced with acute pressure. I wish that more time was spent on examining and analysing pressures that are likely to develop and perhaps make a grave situation now seem quite mild compared with what faces us in the future. I think about the implications of climate change and the movement of people. I think about the issues of conflict, not altogether separate from the issues of climate change and what will result from it. We need far more of this analysis so that we can be prepared and not always just reacting to situations.

I always say that the first reality of life is that we are born into a totally interdependent global community. We may like it or we may not but that is the fact. Unless we face up to that, and realise that as politicians the way in which future history will judge us is how far we make a success of that membership of an interdependent global community, we are failing the nation. It is a huge challenge, which always should be before us.

We also must face up to the consequences of the way in which we manage our economic affairs. There is great emphasis on market ideology and, therefore, on the free movement of capital and goods. But we are not able—I am not suggesting that it is possible—to have free movement of people. This of course is a great flaw in the whole market theory but it also leads to great pressures. As long as there is that contradiction, there will be pressure for migration and considerable illegal migration. Obviously, people will follow resources and where they go, and economic activity where it grows.

Of course, we have to think of the management of the situation in an international context. I wish that we would not drag our feet on European institutions. I cannot begin to understand how we are going to look to the successful management of this issue without co-operating as closely as possible with our fellow members of the European Union and in ensuring that the quality of the work they are undertaking in this respect is of the highest order. There is a big challenge there as well.

The UK Border Agency is in the front line of all this. As politicians, we need to ask ourselves very often what kind of context we set for those in the front line handling this difficult issue. Do we set a context of understanding, of wisdom, of concern, and of the need at all times to preserve a commitment to justice? Or do we allow ourselves to be tempted into a seaside auction about the unacceptability of people flooding in from abroad? I am not saying that there are not great needs arising from people flooding in from abroad; there obviously are. But we need to examine the political context we provide, in which the UKBA is expected to undertake its task.

I want to underline the fact that we are dealing with people who, frequently, are in the midst of the most acute trauma. They are in mental and physical anguish. Think of children, who have been through terrible conflict, and have seen killing and maiming in their lives. Think of vulnerable adults, sometimes, travelling the world, who may have in their pocket a letter explaining that they are vulnerable but who, faced with the awe of the border authorities when they meet them, may forget even to produce the letter. There is a need to have imagination and sensitivity in all we are doing.

There is the issue of people who have suffered from torture. I have known at first hand too many cases of people who, years after the torture, are still trying to adjust to a normal life and overcome what they have been through, but are harassed—as they see it and feel it—by the way that we administer our immigration policy in an absence of imagination and sensitivity.

I do not understand the new legislation on families. We hear from the Government on every possible occasion about the importance of family, yet for some people for whom family will be absolutely indispensable in terms of their stability and ability to contribute to society, we introduce these arbitrary rules. There needs to be much more imagination about who is a suitable person to bring in as a relative, and who is not. There also needs to be much more clarity in the regulations about what is acceptable and what is not.

I particularly support the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in what she said about universities. Universities are going through a nightmare at the moment. There have been no less than 14 major changes in policy towards them in the past three years. We are part of an indivisible international community, and we should ensure that our communities of scholars in universities are international. It is not just a matter of making money from people coming in from outside but of enabling our own students to come to terms with the world in which they live. The quality of their higher education depends upon the presence of an international community. You cannot have world-class universities which are not international communities. There is an absurdity in putting up special barriers.

I am also worried that it is beginning to change the culture in universities. Good universities have operated as communities of mature, responsible, self-motivated people. Now we have to police attendance at lectures, whereas in a good university, as we all know, a highly motivated student may well say, “That is the lecture I’m going to, and that is the lecture I’m not going to”. There is a sort of police system that the universities are being expected to apply, in being able to account for the overseas students in their midst. This is quite contrary to the whole concept of liberal education, and is very worrying. It is also extremely expensive. When we are talking about the shortage of funds for higher education, it is disgraceful that this extra burden has been placed upon the universities.

I conclude by making this point: it is not a matter of fixing this, or fixing that. I am very glad indeed that the UK Border Agency has recognised in its business plan the issues that exist and is determined to do something about them. We should all fall in behind that and enable it to do it. However, it is a question of the culture. We read of the awful things that go wrong—we know that they go wrong too often. We have seen the letters that, with a bit of imagination, could have been written in a more sensitive, firm, clear way, but have come out in the most officious, authoritarian language, to people who are in the midst of uncertainty and trauma. There is a huge cultural challenge here.

In encouraging the UK border authority to move forward with its business plan as stated, I hope that we will stress that leadership is needed to ensure that we have a positive culture behind the organisation which is in the front line of our relationship with the world as a whole. We should be judged by this, as a member of the international community. Are we a good, decent place, or a hostile, negative place? We need to ask ourselves basic questions of that kind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Perhaps I may say to my noble kinsman Lord Avebury, who introduced this debate and asked a very large number of questions—they were coming out at the rate of four or five a minute at one stage and I am not sure that I got them all down or that I will be able to respond to all of them—that we accept that scrutiny of all government agencies is crucial to ensuring that they deliver the appropriate government policy and offer appropriate value for money. Reports on the work of the border agency have shown the Government that, as in all organisations, there is—how can I put it?—some room for improvement.

I stress that today’s debate is about the role and performance of the United Kingdom Border Agency. However, I will say a little about policy, which is a matter for the Government, because obviously it is important in this area. I think that it would be useful if I start by clarifying the roles of the United Kingdom Border Agency, which this debate is about, and the UK Border Force, which this debate is not about. In March 2012, the border force was split from the United Kingdom Border Agency. There are now two completely separate organisations which work together to provide border and migration control. The UK Border Agency is responsible for actions before people get to the border, and once they are beyond the border and in the UK. The UK Border Force is responsible for protecting the border itself through entry control and customs functions at the border.

Outside the United Kingdom, the UK Border Agency is responsible for the visa system and an intelligence network that checks people travelling to the UK before they arrive and ensures that those who have no right to enter the UK do not come here. In the UK, the UK Border Agency carries out immigration casework—for example, asylum applications, which we will come to in due course, and applications for people to settle in the UK—as well as ensuring those who have no right to be here leave, whether by helping them to return voluntarily or by enforcing their removal. Again, I will say a bit about that later.

I have to say that questions relating to the border force go somewhat wide of the scope of the debate. I appreciate that my noble kinsman, my noble friends Lord Marlesford and Lord Alderdice, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, and most recently, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, all raised serious questions about the border force. But in light of the debate and the number of questions I will have to come to, those issues will have to wait for another day. I shall deal with just some of the concerns that have been raised by noble Lords in this debate before I say a word or two about policy and where we wish to be. I appreciate that a large range of questions were asked and I imagine that in the end, as always, I will deal with only a mere tithe of them in this wind-up. I hope that I can write to noble Lords about some of their other concerns in due course.

One of the first questions put to me by my noble kinsman Lord Avebury was about bonuses within UKBA and his regret that they were being paid when there were failures within UKBA. As he probably knows, only the top performers who have consistently worked to a very high standard are recognised through bonuses. We have significantly reduced the value and the number of payments made to senior managers. I think that only a quarter of all staff—the overwhelming majority of whom are front-line officers—were awarded an average of around £500 last year and, I should make clear, only after meeting very strict criteria.

My noble kinsman was worried about the number of appeals allowed, and suggested that 36% was an all-time record. In 2010-11 the Courts and Tribunals Service statistics recorded that some 36% of appeals were allowed, which was not an all-time record. Over the past two years, the figure for allowed appeals, based on the same statistic from HM Courts and Tribunals, has decreased both in percentage terms and volume. I think that in 2009-10 it was 41%, and 38% the year before. If I have got those figures wrong I will write to my noble friend. He seemed to say that it suggested that the decision-making criteria were too hard.

Appeals are allowed for a variety of reasons, including evidence being submitted at the hearing that was previously not seen in the decision-making process. He will know about that in relation to the changes we are making in the Crime and Courts Bill. Consequently the allowed appeal rate is not always indicative of whether the original decision was of poor quality or too harsh. Certainly the Border Agency works hard to analyse the reasons for allowed appeals, in order to identify trends and implement improvements.

My noble kinsman also asked about removal of overstayers, and whether that was a priority of the agency. As he knows well, enforcement is a vital part of the agency’s operations, and it relies on intelligence to identify and take action against those with no right to be here. The Government are certainly determined to crack down on any illegal immigrants who are here without any right to be, and anyone found living or working here is liable to be detained or removed. We believe that illegal immigration, as we have made clear on all occasions, puts undue pressure on public services, local communities and legitimate businesses. This summer we have launched a UK-wide operation to remove overstayers, and have already seen some 2,000 removals since the campaign started. In addition, local immigration teams across the country continue to deal with migration refusal cases. That brings me to the important question of how we deal with the removals, and whether we are doing them in the right manner.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle talked about dawn raids on families, and whether they were appropriate. We would always like people who are here illegally—whether families or others—to leave voluntarily. It is only our last resort to use an enforced return. To reduce the risk of families who will not remove themselves voluntarily absconding, it is sometimes necessary to visit them early in the morning when they are most likely to be at home. However, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that that process is overseen by the Independent Family Returns Panel to ensure that the welfare of children is taken properly into account.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle and others talked about the legacy cases and the problem of clearing the archive. We are dealing with a controlled archive of legacy, asylum and migration cases. These are cases that have not been traced or concluded but continue to be reviewed and checked. We are confident that we will close the controlled archive by the end of December this year. By that point, having checked cases a number of times across multiple databases, including against financial records, the benefits system and HMRC’s systems, as well as our own, we should be satisfied that those individuals are no longer in the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, also asked about ELAP, the early legal advice project. As he will be well aware, we want to ensure the provision of high-quality advice, including legal advice to asylum seekers—whether it comes from lawyers or others. He will be aware that ELAP is a very important opportunity to improve our understanding of what works. The project has run since November 2010 and has been extended until March next year. By then we will be in receipt of a final report so that we can make informed decisions about the next steps, based on a fair and thorough evaluation of front-loading legal advice services. Given that the evaluation postdates the next round of legal aid contracts, any decision on a national rollout may not be possible straight away; it will take time to work out the detail of funding mechanisms. The United Kingdom Border Agency will work with partners and the Ministry of Justice to do so as quickly and practically as possible.

My noble friend Lady Hooper raised questions relating to Mexico and asked whether we were meeting criteria for how we should be performing on visas in that country. I can say that visa performance in Mexico is currently good. Short-term visas in Mexico are turned around in an average of 10 days, which certainly matches the figure for other countries. It is something of which the border agency can be proud.

My noble kinsman Lord Avebury and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, raised the case of Mr Jimmy Mubenga. The agency deeply regrets the death of Mr Mubenga. We will very carefully consider any issues that were raised by the CPS investigation and we will certainly decide whether any further action is appropriate once the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman’s investigation and the coroner’s inquest have been completed. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, also asked whether certain letters relating to this case could be put in the Library. May I look at that issue, write to the noble Lord in due course and see whether a response is appropriate?

However, that brings me to the question of restraint and the use of force raised by the noble Lord. In the majority of cases, we believe that the use of force and restraint when undertaking removals is unnecessary. Home Office-approved control and restraint techniques, including the handcuffing of detainees, are only ever used in the removal process where they are deemed necessary to ensure the safety and security of detainees, escorting and airline staff, and other passengers. If handcuffs, for example, are used, they are always removed at the earliest appropriate opportunity, when it is considered safe to do so and when there is no risk to others on board. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that assurance.

I wanted first to deal with some of the points that had been made. I now want to say a little about government policy itself. The border agency obviously deals with the operation of our systems but, in the end, as my noble friend pointed out, it is we, Parliament and the Government, who are responsible for policy, and we should not blame the border agency for policy. That is a matter for the Government and I am here to speak for them. The Government’s overall aim is to rectify an out-of-control immigration system by bringing down net migration while still attracting to the United Kingdom those who we believe are the brightest and the best.

We believe that a comprehensive set of policy reforms on work, students, settlement and family have set the way to achieve that end. It is now for the border agency, which is building on those policy changes through operational change, to deliver the reductions in long-term immigration that the Government expect, while at the same time not preventing valuable and genuine visitors coming to the United Kingdom. The agency has recently implemented measures to control family migration and made significant changes to the visa routes for students, workers and those who wish to settle in the United Kingdom. Across the board the agency has tightened up the requirements for those who wish to come here, by increasing language requirements, salary thresholds and skills levels.

I turn first to students. I listened to what my noble friends Lady Williams, Lord Alderdice and Lady Hooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about students and universities. I have some sympathy with the points that all of them put, but the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, seemed to go somewhat too far at times. What was the remark I put to my noble friend sitting next to me? I think it was, “What planet is he on?”. He seemed to have gone so far away from what we are doing, and what we are trying to do. All we have done is to try to reform the student visa route. The measures we are taking are to ensure that students can be reassured that they are attending genuine institutions that have been properly inspected. That is good for the country, the education sector and the students themselves. The measures include: a tightening of the regime for licensing colleges that sponsor foreign students; restrictions on the entitlement of students, including the right to work; and the closure of the post-study work route from April 2012.

No student who has an offer from a genuine, proper university, and who can speak English, is going to suffer in any way at all. When the noble Lord looks, if he will, at the numbers of those coming from abroad to attend British universities, he will find the figures more or less as they have always been; the students are still coming in. What we have seen is a decline in the number of those coming into very spurious and dubious colleges that were really there just as a way of getting round the immigration system, and served no other purpose whatever.

I would give way, but I have only got two more minutes—

[Lord Judd]

I thank the Minister for replying so fully, but he asked me to look at the evidence of what was happening. Has he looked at the evidence of what has happened to the number of students coming from India? This is very grave in the context of our future relationship with India and the world.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I accept there has been a decline in the number of students coming from India. Will the noble Lord also look at the increase in the number of students coming from other parts of south-east Asia? He will find that it easily compensates for the decline from India. We are not seeing a decline in the overall number of students coming to universities. What we are seeing is a decline in the numbers of those who were coming here allegedly to study but using that as a way of getting round the immigration system. I think that what we did was quite right. I am proud of it, and there has been no damage to United Kingdom universities as a result.

I see that I am running out of time, so I will make my last few points. We want to see the border agency continue to move forward and to maintain its performance in removing foreign national offenders, in preventing others from coming in who should not be coming in, and in continuing to deal with the archive of legacy asylum cases that I mentioned earlier. As a result of its work, the agency will be a more streamlined and efficient organisation in future. For that reason, I am grateful for this debate. It will be a more efficient organisation in delivering its core objectives of a selective immigration system while also providing value for money for the taxpayer. The work of the agency is crucial in controlling migration and protecting national security. In this climate of change, we rightly expect the agency to continue to deliver.

EU Drugs Strategy: EUC Report

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 19th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Teverson]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on this report, which, given the number of people who are involved in this debate, shows how vital this issue is. During my short time as a practising economist, one of the things I learnt about markets was that while states can regulate them, they certainly cannot abolish them; where there is demand, there is always supply. That applies to the area of drugs probably more than anywhere else. It is an irony that the UN Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs signed in 1961 and the subsequent war on drugs have been pushed particularly strongly by the United States, the country we see as the bastion of capitalism and markets, but there is an absolute contradiction here. The convention was implemented in 1964 and in theory there should be no global drugs market at all because the convention was signed by the vast majority of the members of the United Nations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said, the drugs market was worth $320 billion back in 2003, but perhaps what is more important—and I suspect that I am underestimating it—is that it represented 1% of GDP. In 2009 the market for cocaine was estimated to be worth around $85 billion, which can be compared with the income of Andean farmers at around $1 billion. There is a huge market in South America. Of that laundered money, which at today’s value is something in excess of half a trillion dollars, under 1% is actually seized during its transit by authorities, so 99% of it is recycled into organised crime. The report is very clear—and it has been mentioned by a number of other noble Lords—that, in terms of supply and demand, the existing EU strategy has had no noticeable effect whatever.

I was also interested in the statistics at the beginning of the report that suggest that almost one-quarter of EU citizens have admitted to using drugs, and one in 20 on an ongoing, annual basis. That suggests that whether we like it or not, drug taking—I suspect mainly so-called soft drugs—is a part of our culture and of life. However, simply because the law is transgressed, does not mean that we should endorse drug taking. I am sure many of us break the speeding limit, but that does not mean that we should not have speed limits as part of the rules of driving. However, there is an issue there about what we make legal and illegal.

One of the results of this policy, and the area that I will concentrate on, concerns consumer countries. We have black markets and we have health risks—because there is no quality control, taking drugs is more dangerous under a prohibition regime. There is no consumer advice. The activity produces criminals—in the United States it is estimated that one in four imprisonments is drugs-related and in the UK maybe up to 50% of crimes have some relation to drugs. We also have organised crime as part of our infrastructure. Perhaps more importantly, in producer countries we have already mentioned the 47,000 or 48,000 Mexicans who have been murdered during the presidency of President Calderón over the past six years, and 95% of all murders in Mexico are drugs related.

I very much welcome the comments of my noble friend Lord Mancroft about transit countries. Honduras has the highest murder rate in the world. I chair the all-party group of a country that is not well known—Guinea-Bissau, an ex-Portuguese colony in west Africa. It is a state that has failed in many ways and has become a main route for drugs from South America into Europe. As a result, that society has disintegrated even more; corruption is strong and the military within the country has become a state within a state and is largely financed through the drugs trade. In those countries, we have not only drug habits but much greater corruption.

One of the most important paragraphs in the report, paragraph 64, quotes Youngers and Rosin in 2005, who say that,

“international drug trafficking breeds criminality and exacerbates political violence, greatly increasing problems of citizen security and tearing at the social fabric of communities and neighbourhoods. It has corrupted and further weakened local governments, judiciaries and police forces … it can be extremely damaging to local environments”.

This issue of displacement—I welcome its emphasis in this report—shows the great difficulty of this policy. When we clamp down in one area, it destroys another without mending the societies where the problem has been solved from a consumer state’s point of view.

I would probably disagree with noble Lords so far—I disagree with the report in this regard—about one area, which comes back to practical economics. One cannot decriminalise the consumption of drugs and keep the criminalisation of the supply chain. What happens in that circumstance is that one sits slightly more smugly as a consumer in your population, but you still lay waste to the developing world and the transit countries through which those supply chains operate, because no difference is made to the way the system operates there.

That is why this issue is particularly difficult and there are no easy answers. There are huge political risks —the newspaper issue in the UK has been mentioned by the noble Lord many times—but the system has failed, and now we have an international network of organised crime.

[Lord Judd]

I am impressed by what the noble Lord is saying, but could he help us by clarifying this issue? If he does not accept that you can decriminalise the taking of drugs while keeping the criminalisation of the trade in drugs, how does he compare that with the situation in which the illicit black market in tobacco is criminalised?

[Lord Teverson]

You will never completely take away criminalisation, but perhaps the least damaging solution—again, I am not pretending that there are any easy answers regarding the supply chain—is to have pharmaceutical companies becoming distributors of drugs like any other prescription drugs. Will you ever completely decriminalise something where there is high taxation or smuggling? The taxation-hedging that takes place is perhaps more the issue than the question of VAT on drugs like alcohol or tobacco, and is perhaps the area where you have to be more careful.

There is an international network of organised crime involving money-laundering; corruption; human misery, of course; and a very large black economy. More than that, though, we have reduced liquidity within that black market which allows arms trafficking, people trafficking and terrorism. You can regulate markets but you cannot abolish them. I agree very much with the report’s conclusions in general but I would very much like to see the EU lead this debate internationally into much more realistic waters for the future. I particularly agree with this part of the Government’s response, which reads:

“It is vital that this debate is focussed on clear evidence and analysis and we will continue to champion the use of evidence at local, national and international level”.

However, the track record of UK Governments on evidence-based drugs policy has been particularly bad.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I speak as a member of Sub-Committee F of the European Union Committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I would like to pay tribute to his leadership and chairmanship, which is always outstanding. Indeed, I think that the way in which the report has been welcomed, and the plaudits that it has received, indicate how much appreciation there is for what he has done.

I hope that those who are interested in this subject will not only read the report but will read the evidence that was submitted to the committee. A lot of work went into much of that evidence and it should not just be cast to one side. It contains some very interesting reflections of experience. I, for one—and it is not only in this sphere that I have noticed it—found an interesting difference of perspective between those dealing with the issue at a global policy level and those dealing with it at the front line of people affected by drugs. I think that your Lordships would find it refreshing to read the evidence given by the Reverend Eric Blakebrough, who is at the forefront of working with drug addicts. What he had to say was extremely illuminating.

As has come across in this debate, a review of global drug policy is clearly overdue. As some noble Lords have emphasised, the Global Commission on Drug Policies has said this, too. It is significant, and we would be remiss not to take it seriously, that states such as Guatemala, Colombia and Uruguay, which face many of the consequences of what we are debating, are calling for an urgent debate of this kind. If there is to be a debate, the European Union should certainly take a lead in it.

Our report is an absolute reflection of the consensus that was reached. I attach great significance to those sentences where we talk about the health dimension being at least as important as the enforcement dimension. I wish that the debate could move more into the role of health. Since our report was published, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction has commended the Portuguese approach. The cost benefits of a health-focused, rather than a criminal justice-focused, approach are particularly relevant at a time of so much economic stringency and cuts in public funds, because we must be certain that the money being spent is not being wasted and is being used as cost-effectively as possible.

As my noble friend Lord Howarth was sharing his thoughts on decriminalisation, my thoughts immediately turned to the report. There in chapter 1—I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote from it—we deal with exactly that, stating:

“It is instructive to compare illegal narcotic drugs with two psychoactive drugs which are legal and openly commercially available: alcohol and tobacco. Worldwide, one person in three uses alcohol, one in four uses tobacco, whereas fewer than 5% of people declare themselves as using drugs at least once a year, and fewer than 1% use drugs on a continuing basis. Tobacco kills five million people a year, alcohol 2.5 million people a year, and drugs about 500,000 a year. These are figures that need to be borne in mind when considering why some potentially harmful addictive substances are licit and some illicit. Prescribed drugs, whether or not mixed with narcotic drugs, also lead to acute cases of addiction and withdrawal, but they too are outside the scope of our inquiry and are not examined in this report”.

Perhaps I may say on a purely personal note that, after undergoing an operation for which I had to take painkillers afterwards, I had a hell of a job coming off one of the painkillers that was prescribed. My GP told me, “You do realise you are taking an addictive drug and you are going to have a tough job throwing it”. The interfaces in this area are very important to face.

A further issue is how we toughen up our approach to money-laundering. We have to take very seriously what has become clear in a big case in the United States at the moment. One of the difficulties in facing up to this is that it is sometimes very difficult to establish where the dividing line is exactly, if there is such an absolute dividing line, between illegal and legal business activity. This greatly complicates the tasks of the enforcement agencies.

I referred to the urgent need for a review. It is fair to say that, after 50 years of the current enforcement-led international drugs control system, the so-called war on drugs is coming under unparalleled scrutiny. The goal was, of course, to create a drug-free world. Instead, despite more than $1 trillion, according to the UNODC, having been spent fighting the war, illegal drugs are used by an estimated 270 million people and organised crime profits from a trade with an estimated turnover of $330 billion a year—the world’s largest illegal commodity market. The UNODC has acknowledged that choosing an enforcement-based approach was having a range of negative unintended consequences, including the creation of a vast criminal market, displacement of the illegal drug trade to new areas, diversion of funding from health and the stigmatisation of users. The noble Lords, Lord Mancroft and Lord Teverson, dealt with that point. What concerned us in our deliberations in Sub-Committee F was not only this displacement and the drawing of third countries into the whole affair but the human rights dimensions. Sometimes, what was being done by the enforcement agencies and others in some of the third countries was totally unacceptable in terms of any basic commitment to human rights. We really do need to watch where our money is going and what is happening to it in terms of whether it is upholding human rights, whatever the cause may be. We cannot deal with one problem by transgressing very seriously in another area.

I shall conclude my brief intervention by saying that I have been impressed, in the context of the urgent need for a review, by a recent report produced by Count the Costs, which is a coalition of NGOs working in this area. It is a very interesting coalition that has produced an alternative report. The headings in that report include:

“Wasting billions and undermining economies … Undermining development and security, and fuelling conflict … Threatening public health, spreading disease and causing death … Undermining human rights … Promoting stigma and discrimination … Creating crime and enriching criminals … Causing deforestation and pollution”.

The report also examines other options for controlling drugs, including health-led approaches—hence the significance of Portugal—and legal state regulation and control. It ends with a call to UN member states to count the cost of the war on drugs and properly explore all the alternatives that might deliver better outcomes. In the report, we hear the voice of people very often giving their lives to work in the front line of the consequences of this very serious issue. In our deliberations, we should take seriously what they are saying.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have a copy of the briefing that was sent to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and I have had the opportunity to read through what is quite a lengthy and complex explanation as he has been speaking, which has been helpful. Therefore, I do not want to repeat the arguments that he has made.

I do have some questions, although I do not know whether the noble Lord will be able to respond. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will withdraw his amendment, possibly bringing it back on Report depending on the Minister’s answer. However, I have a few questions, as I am uncertain about some of the provisions in the clause and in the amendment, and it would be helpful if the noble Lord could address them. I am quite happy to have the response in writing.

From the briefing—I am sure I am not the only Member of the Committee to have received the same briefing on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—there is an implication regarding the circumstances under which somebody’s leave to remain will be cancelled while they are out of the country. I should be interested to hear from the Minister the criteria for cancelling somebody’s leave to remain while they are out of the country. Is this purely an administrative decision or, as is implied, is it almost the case that the Home Secretary is lying in wait, wanting to cancel leave to remain and waiting until a person leaves the country before doing so? It would be helpful to have some information on that. What proportion of cancelled leave to remain is taken when somebody is out of the country, as opposed to somebody being in-country?

Finally—we have had a very full explanation of the amendments—the legislation refers to the decision on removing the right to remain as being,

“taken wholly or partly on the ground that it is no longer conducive to the public good”,

for the person to have that leave. Is there a definition of “public good”? Is there a definition of when there is no longer that public good and the leave to remain is withdrawn? My concerns are about people being treated fairly and that there is no presumption that, because somebody leaves the country—well, I will come back to that. However, there must not be many of these cases. It would be interesting to know what proportion of cancelled leave to remain relates to people out of the country as opposed to people who are in-country.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is absolutely right to put down the amendment. I am glad he drew attention to the comments by UNHCR, because UNHCR has immense responsibilities on behalf of the international community and its very serious considerations are sometimes treated too lightly.

Wrapped up in this issue is something on which I dwelt at Second Reading: concern about the division between what I would call administrative law and a real search for justice. In the fraught area of migration in general and the more difficult areas of asylum and the rest in particular, where all kinds of pressures and real dangers operate for the people concerned, it is most important to be certain that the balance remains on the side of justice. I would be grateful for the Minister’s considered view on whether this priority for justice—as distinct from a self-evident rationalisation of what may be convenient within political circles—can be pursued. The individual concerned is much more vulnerable when they are abroad. As the noble Lord has said, it is much more complex, challenging and difficult to mount an appeal from abroad. Can we really ensure that justice prevails if we have this provision? Should someone who has a right to appeal not have the right to pursue it here, where they can put their case fully before the courts and be tested in depth by them on their position and where there is an opportunity for others who may have a perspective on a case to bring their views and judgments into the deliberations that are taking place?

I hope the Minister will forgive me for saying that I am profoundly worried about this and would like his assurance that he is equally worried and is looking to make sure that, in this area, it is justice and not administrative convenience—whatever the apparent logical reasons for this administrative convenience—that has pride of place.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the House owes a very deep debt of gratitude to the noble Baroness for an extremely courageous and hard-hitting speech. With her background, we would all do well to listen very carefully to what she has to say. I also put on record my own admiration for the continued work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As a former member, I know just how much time and hard work is involved in that committee, and the whole House should be grateful to its members for all they do. I wish there was more evidence that the Government gave higher priority to dealing with the arguments put forward by the Joint Committee on Human Rights when participating in debates of this kind—this is not a party point because, frankly, it was also true of the previous Government.

The relationship between democracy, security, human rights and law is always very complex and intricate. Secrets are inevitable if we are taking security operations seriously. The crucial issue in a democratic society is who decides what should be the secrets and where the ring-fences should be placed. There will be checks and balances—they are inevitably needed—but this is a crucial issue that needs very careful scrutiny. I get worried by talk of trade-offs. I do not think that “trade-offs” is the right term. Human rights and certain fundamental principles of law are non-negotiable. There may be exceptions, but that is not a trade-off. The moment you start talking about trade-offs, you are suggesting that certain human rights and principles of law are not absolute. They should be absolute.

I am glad to see the remit of the Intelligence and Security Committee being extended. I am also cautiously optimistic about greater accountability to Parliament. Of course, ideally that committee should be accountable to Parliament. If, as we examine them, the terms of the legislation suggest that parliamentary accountability is being strengthened, this will be important.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer. My background is totally different. Therefore, I hope that the House will forgive me if I flat-footedly walk around as a lay man in the debate, but sometimes the lay men should be heard. For me, the starting point is: what kind of United Kingdom do we want to live in? I think all of us here would agree that the quality of justice was very central to the kind of United Kingdom in which we want to live. We would like to have a model with which we are happy and which can be a model for the world. When we prattle and preach about the responsibility of other nations to implement the rule of law, it starts with our own demonstrable commitment to upholding those principles.

What are those principles? Habeas corpus is obviously central—no person ever being detained without knowing for what reasons they are being detained and what is being alleged against them; that is absolutely crucial. Justice being seen to be done—not in corners or in secret clubs or secret arrangements, but manifestly, publicly seen to be done—is essential. Justice being open is another of those principles—our adversarial system is very important. When I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, we went to look and were perhaps a little tempted by and flirted a bit with some of the investigatory traditions of other systems of justice in Europe. I think that most of us came back absolutely convinced about our own. It is through honest, adversarial procedures in court that the truth can be established. It is about a constant search for truth. I would add that compassion—the compassion that comes only from those who are strong and self-confident—is of course an important element in the administration of the law.

It has been a hard struggle to move forward on those principles. We only have to think, in this anniversary year of Dickens, of what was happening in Britain in the 19th century. We have come a long way since the 19th century, and we are the trustees of the outcome of that struggle. It could all too easily be thrown away.

We must also be aware of the issue of counterproductivity—this is something we must never forget. We live in a complex society. I use the word complex again, but complexity is central to life in my own estimation. It is so easy inadvertently to strengthen the wrong elements in society by alienating important sections of the community which become subject to the manipulation of extremists and others. We must fall over backwards not to make that mistake. I believe—and I am somebody who was nurtured in the Second World War, when we stood very firm on these principles —that the more acute the nature and size of the challenge, the more important it is to stand firm by the principles of the society we are defending. That is the hallmark of confidence and real strength.

I am afraid—and I must say it—that too often I see evidence of retreat and erosion in the face of terrorism and extremism. Each retreat represents a victory for the extremist, and we must never forget it. It also creates corrosive precedents. What should always be exceptional can too easily become convenient. We should strive always to deal with offences, however grave, within the normal judicial system and the normal procedures of our penal system. It would be disastrous if it became established over time that in this country we had first-class law available to some people and second-class law available to others.

I am afraid that sometimes we are rather good in Britain at refusing to face up to the harsh realities of what we may be generating. If we have special courts and special advocates, and if there are powers to withhold information—in effect on government say-so—when does the detainee become a political prisoner? What is the absolute dividing line between a detainee and a political prisoner? We very often use language about political prisoners in reference to other societies, but we must ask some very honest questions here about ourselves. We ought to listen to the special advocates on this. I remember that when I was on the Joint Committee on Human Rights the special advocates gave evidence to us. It was very powerful to see how unhappy they were about their lot and how they felt that they were being expected to perform in a way that was absolutely alien to their training as lawyers in this country—the principle of defending somebody with whom you are not allowed to discuss the real substance of what it is all about.

I have listened with fascination in this debate to those who are pre-eminently well qualified to comment on what is before us. It seems to me essential that all the time we are considering the Bill and putting it under scrutiny, we should have four questions in mind. First, does it regenerate and uphold a resolve and unshakeable commitment to open justice? Secondly, does it strengthen the means to deal convincingly and effectively with allegations of serious state wrongdoing? Here of course I have in mind torture and rendition in particular. Torture is an abomination. It is cruel to the people tortured, it is damaging to the people doing the torturing, and it is a total contradiction of everything we say that our civilised values are about. It is easy to say that, but are we taking the action that is demanded if we are serious in that judgment? Thirdly, does the Bill convincingly counter the dangers of manipulation of court proceedings by government, especially when government action goes against the considered wisdom of the judge? Fourthly, does the Bill effectively reverse what I believe to be a disturbing and accelerating trend towards curbing the ability of the public to hold the Government and their agencies to account through the courts? Here I cannot help making a comparison with another Bill that has just gone through this House: I am still dismayed by the way in which we have limited the availability of legal aid in our society. What are we doing to the quality of justice in the United Kingdom?

Let me conclude simply by saying that it is arguable that the 20th century saw a high point in the development of quality UK justice in the context of democracy. It will be a tragedy if the 21st century becomes one in which, by a weak and sad reversal of those considerable achievements, we produce an inferior system of justice. We must not let the extremists and the terrorists win.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, in one sense, the message of the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is very powerful: modern organised crime knows no national frontiers; the dividing line between what is crime and what is so-called orthodox business becomes increasingly fudged; we have all the issues of cyberspace, and the rest. The challenges are formidable, and it is necessary to make sure that the police are organised to meet those challenges.

What I would counsel to the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, is that we live in something rather precious. What is it that we want to live in? We want to live in a free democracy. We want to live in the kind of society in which the relationships between institutions is very complex, in which there are checks and balances, but one in which we are not building up great independent authoritarian bodies in our midst that are not a living part of that complexity. We also want a society, surely, in which citizens are citizens, not merely consumers of a type of democracy, and, as citizens, are playing their part in ensuring a stable and secure society. Local involvement in the responsibilities of policing is therefore a crucial part of democracy.

I have never talked to a serious policeman with real professional experience anywhere—and I have talked to quite a number in my life—who has not sooner or later said, “We can do our job effectively only if we are working with society and if people are working with us and see us as part of the society which is theirs. Then we can get on with the job. If we have a suspicious, hostile, questioning society out there, which is simply delegating responsibility to us, our effectiveness will be limited”. In the cause of the kind of society in which we want to live—one which we recognise is threatened by the most sinister kinds of development in crime, as the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, was spelling out, but nevertheless one in which society remains in the driving seat—and the things that make our society worth living in, we have to take these issues of balance and, perhaps, the dispersal of power rather seriously. There have to be checks and balances, not just formally and structurally but in the very dynamic of society itself.

I have a certain amount of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey. I have always felt, having been around in politics quite a long time now, that one of the mistakes that Governments make, whatever their political persuasion, is so often they come rushing along to the Dispatch Box with a superb solution to society’s problems without first having built up a public understanding and consensus of what problem the legislation is supposed to be tackling. I do not believe that that mistake has been avoided by the Government in this context and, in another way, I think my noble friend would agree that that was very much the point that he was making.

It is also a matter of culture, not just of organisation. That is related to how far the police are integrated with society as a whole. Most people out there—and, I imagine, within Parliament itself—are really quite exercised and worried at the moment about the amount of police corruption. That is not just an organisational issue but a cultural issue. If one goes down the road of independent agencies which are not integrated in society, does that become easier or more difficult to tackle effectively in the long run? It is not a one-way argument because some will claim that the more you are involved in society, the more the temptations arise. On the other hand, it seems to me that if we take these issues seriously we will have to look at the details and implications for society in what is being proposed very carefully as the Bill goes forward.

That takes me on to the issue of law, in so far as this Bill deals with it. I am sure I am not alone in being disturbed by the parallel systems of justice that we are beginning to develop in this country. There are too many discrepancies. If we are talking about law and justice, we must recognise that they are not necessarily the same thing but that we want law which is advancing justice. If we are talking about justice, we are talking about habeas corpus and equality before the law—of course we are. We are talking about law being not only done but seen and felt to be done. In some aspects of our new approach to administrative law—I do not for a moment minimise the challenges and agonising problems which are there—we are beginning to diminish those qualities. We know that we have people interned who are not told why they are interned. We know that we have advocates working in our courts who are not able to discuss with their clients what they are defending them against. How do we reconcile that with what we have always understood to be fundamental to the system of justice in our society? We cannot reconcile it. There may be an exception which we come to say is unavoidable, because of the pressures that are there. However, we had better be pretty careful that we are not beginning to let this become a rather convenient habit of organising our administrative law and thinking that we can make exceptions here, there and in the other place.

This brings us quickly into the realm of immigration, because any of us who has had anything to do with immigration knows that its administration is a disgrace in this country. That is not a partisan point; it has become so over successive Administrations. One has only to look at the number of immigration cases which, on appeal, have been proved to be absolutely up the creek and wrong. Now we hear Ministers cheerfully telling us, “Well, it would be much more sensible and rational not to have appeals against these things. If it is not working in a particular case, then it would be better to start again”—rather like snakes and ladders—“and we’ll get much more speedily to the conclusion”. That is not quite the point, is it? In law and justice, you want to know what is wrong and why. You want to pursue those matters, and not just say, “Oh well, that didn’t work. That was unacceptable—try again”. It is actually about finding out the lessons that are there to be found out. I am really rather uneasy about some of the arguments that have been slung around by government in this context.

It also seems that we have some strange contradictions about our culture in this area, because the Government keep telling us of the importance of family as the basis for a stable society. Family and family relationships are crucial to the well-being of people and of society as a whole—unless of course it comes to the realm of immigrants. Then families can be treated completely differently. If we are doing a bit of joined-up thinking about the issues that face us, we also have the challenges of security and stability in the age in which we live. Immigration is central to security and stability. Extremists operate where there is a climate of disenchantment and where there is not a sense of positive good will towards the authorities, the police and society as a whole but a sense of frustration. There are too many bad examples and heartrending experiences. If we are to have security and stability, we had better be looking to that. Every immigration officer doing a job anywhere is fighting the battle for security by asking not simply, “Is this person a terrorist?”, but, “Are we giving this person a good, reasonable experience in a terrible situation?”. We all understand that so often their situations are terrible, but are we giving them another bad experience which is likely to lead to alienation and the rest?

I would like to conclude with a brief word about alternative sentences. We have to stop prevaricating and playing it both ways. Do we want to protect the British people or not? If we want to protect the British people, do we really believe that one of the best ways of doing that is to achieve rehabilitation? In that way, one gets to the roots of the problem with the offender and to the issue of how that person ceases to be culturally an offender and becomes a positive member of society. If we really believe, as I do, that rehabilitation is therefore the overriding priority—for the individual, for society, and economically, because it makes economic nonsense not to have rehabilitation there at the top—why do we always slip into legislation, proposed legislation and the discussion about legislation the need to bring the public on board and to understand the anxieties of the public, and so on? If we believe that the public are being misled by a stupid press, or too much of a stupid press, then it is no good trying to appease the attitudes that result from that. It is a matter of giving the public an alternative around which they can coalesce. It means speaking out very strongly for the alternative concepts that we see as relevant, effective and right.

We all know that if we were starting again from scratch we would not have the prison system as it is. We would have lots of different types of specialist institutions for different types of people; we would be much more person-orientated, getting the person right. Of course the person must be punished for behaving badly, for breaking the law, for doing damage to society, but rehabilitation remains the issue—winning that person back into a positive role in society.

I hope that in our approach to alternative sentences we do not make the same mistakes that we have made in the prison system of having to say “No, we’ve got to demonstrate that we’re ruthless and tough with prisoners and offenders”. We have got to say, “No, we’re getting it right with offenders. We’re doing what is really going to make a difference to these offenders”. That is the issue and we have got to fight for it. We had better not think that it will be a cheap option, because it is not. If we are to do this work well, we have got to have the people in place with the right skills, the right backgrounds, the right understanding, in order to be able to do that constructive work.

We made mistakes with lunatic asylums. We said, “They’re dreadful places and we ought to get rid of, them”, and we turned a lot of people out of asylums without the provision in society to care for them. We saw families broken because of people coming home with whom they could not cope. This is not a cheap alternative. It will need a lot of resources, a lot of attention and a lot of care. There is a hell of a lot to do on this Bill, and I am sure that we will do it constructively.

Food Security Policy

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness for having introduced this debate so well. Her instinctive priorities are, as usual, absolutely right. I should declare an interest as a former director of Oxfam and as a trustee of Saferworld.

For many millions across Africa, world food security is a distant dream; food insecurity is the endless reality as they struggle to survive. As of today in west Africa, hunger affects more than 18 million people, with approaching 1.5 million children suffering acute malnutrition and 3 million at risk. Violence and turmoil in Libya, Nigeria, Ivory Coast and northern Mali have reduced regional employment opportunities. With its front-line experience, World Vision recently described how the migrant workers of Niger have had to return home, and now clashes in Mali have resulted in 300,000 internally displaced people. World Vision tells of 255,000 refugees arriving in the region of Tillabéri, one of the areas already worst affected by food shortages in Niger. All that has made a grave regional situation still worse; 50% of children under five suffer chronic malnutrition, leading to the death of 300,000 children from causes rooted in that.

Droughts and food shortages are not new to the region, but climate change is accelerating the rate at which they come. There used to be longer periods of separation, which enabled communities to restore their means of livelihood—their crops and livestock—and to rebuild their resilience. The immediate crisis is just two years after the 2009-10 crisis, which was only five years after the 2004-05 crisis. We are not only talking about west Africa. Half the population—4.7 million people—in South Sudan are threatened by food insecurity; in the Horn of Africa, 9 million people are food insecure; the BBC reports that 10 million are food insecure in Yemen, with all its globally dangerous political tensions, and that 5 million require emergency aid; and there are reports of increasing food insecurity across southern Africa.

The immediate, appalling suffering and disease are not anything like the whole story. There are long-term consequences for the productivity of people acutely weakened by hunger, the long-term adverse effect on mental and physical health, the impossible pressures on already minimal health services and the seriously negative impact on school attendance, with all that that inevitably means for the future.

The UK Government deserve credit for having remained committed to their overall targets and to their L’Aquila undertakings on global hunger. Their commitment to fund the Global Agriculture and Food Security Programme with £20 million in its first year was also welcome. These help to provide moral authority to push hard for a more ambitious programme on food and agriculture when the UK hosts the G8 summit next year.

At its recent Camp David meeting, the G8 focused a little on food, nutrition and agriculture. However, those discussions achieved only what Oxfam has described as,

“a shrinking solution to a growing problem”.

It is disturbing that the members of the G8 have together funded only half of the $22 billion that was promised three years ago to fund agriculture in developing countries.

There are other in effect more sinister—some would say—issues strategically affecting food security. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in its current Grow campaign Oxfam spotlights land grabs. Demand for land has soared as investors look for places to grow food for export or crops for biofuels, or simply to buy up land for profit. In too many instances, land sold as unused or undeveloped is in fact being used by poor families to grow food. The Land Matrix database includes deals that are reported as approved or under negotiation worldwide between 2000 and 2010 as amounting to 203 million hectares. This is equivalent to over eight times the size of the United Kingdom. Too often these deals trample over the rights of local people.

Back in May 2001, the Committee on World Food Security agreed voluntary guidelines on the responsible governance of tenure of land, fisheries and forests in the context of national food security. These represent the first international norms on tenure of land and other natural resources. They are a significant first step towards ensuring that local communities are empowered to stop land grabs and to benefit themselves from responsible investments. They are not perfect but they are a start. What specifically are the Government doing to highlight these guidelines and to encourage their application? I hope that the Minister will cover this in his reply.

Biofuels are a major driver of food price rises and volatility. As the report by the Committee on World Food Security high-level panel of experts has underlined:

“Biofuel support policies in the US and the EU have created a demand shock that is widely considered to be one of the major causes of the international food price rise of 2007/8”.

That report stresses that such policies increase vulnerability and inequity in the overall distribution of food. The European Commission is currently preparing a report to look at the increased EU demand for biofuels in supplier countries. This provides a real opportunity to ensure that the negative impacts of biofuels both on food prices and in driving land grabs in developing countries are taken into account in the EU’s renewable energy directive. I hope that Ministers are as a priority engaging with those in the EU who are preparing this report and are taking the opportunity to influence the report in the light of our own experience. I am convinced that DfID has a very constructive part to play in that process and I hope that the Government will encourage it to do that.

Proceeds of Crime: EUC Report

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, I have had the privilege of serving on the committee and putting my name to the report. It is very important at the outset to place on record how the members of the committee appreciate the leadership and chairmanship of our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Hannay—it is good to work under him—and the effective and professional work of the clerk and his colleagues. They made a very strong combination and we should put that on record.

In a debate last night we paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Roper. We should today take the opportunity to say that it is very good that his successor is with us in these deliberations and to wish him well. He has got a difficult act to follow but, having known him over many years now, I think he has all the talents and skills that will enable him to fulfil the role very effectively. Therefore, as I say, we wish him well.

We know that there are some very big issues before the European Union at present on which there are profound matters of difference. We also know that both the Government and the Opposition frequently take the opportunity to restate that they are in no way questioning our membership of the Union and that they are deeply committed to its success. That is why, when we come to specific matters such as this, it is all the more important to be positive, to engage and to do all we can to make a success of what is being recommended. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I believe very strongly that we should get on with ratifying and implementing this proposal.

Obviously, crime has become very sophisticated and the rather disappointing figures on how much of the proceeds of crime is actually recovered is in no way any criticism of the dedicated people who are doing the police and other work involved. It is, however, an indication of the complexity and size of the challenge. It is not an issue that we can possibly solve on our own; we simply have to work with others. Therefore, this proposal has great merit in enabling that to happen. In making that point I would like to emphasise one other issue, about which frankly I get rather anxious. Due to the complexity of the kind of crime we are dealing with in these proposals, it is very difficult—in fact it may be impossible—to establish a dividing line between what is legitimate, legal business and what is very significant crime. There is not a clear-cut dividing line all the time; there can be overlaps. Of course, in our newspapers we read about the more sensational evidence of this every day. That is another reason for making sure that we have the strongest possible international collaboration in making a success of the arrangements that exist.

I hope that we will not delay any longer in ratification. I hope also that by showing our commitment at a time when we are differing from the Community on so many other issues, we will take the opportunity to demonstrate how strongly we believe in the Community where it really is relevant and can help us all in meeting the challenges that face us. If we are always hanging about on everything, it rather undermines the strength of the commitment, as it is expressed, to belonging. We really should get on with it.

Having said all that, I want strongly to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said. One of the characteristics of the European Union and its activities—although it is not only the European Union—is that everything can become terribly complex and, in a sense, abstract and intellectual. It becomes about legislation, but legislation does not solve the problem. It is the monitoring the detail—what is actually done—that achieves this. There are quite a number of areas in which it has become clear to me since I have been on the committee that there is a great deal to be done, together with our colleagues in the European Union, to strengthen the monitoring and scrutiny not only of the legislation and its intentions, but how the activity is going; what is strong, what is weak, what needs to be put right, and what this demands of us all. I think the noble Lord was absolutely right to make that point and it is one with which I totally concur.

I strongly support the chairman’s recommendation and I am very glad to be associated with the words of the report. I do hope we are going to hear a very positive response from the Government and the Minister on how quickly and firmly they intend to proceed.