Western Jet Foil and Manston Asylum Processing Centres

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend. It is very important that the Home Secretary is able, without unnecessary distraction, to get on with the job of resolving this very difficult situation. I am very grateful to my noble friend for the support he has expressed for the Home Secretary. I am sure that this issue will be front and centre of all her decision-making.

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

My Lords, what we have seen reported in the media is shocking—diphtheria, scabies and horrific conditions at the site. The Government have been in power for 12 years and we have had about seven Home Secretaries. What is going to happen next? It is not as though this is a new problem. The Government have had many years to solve it. Repeated Bills and Acts of Parliament, meetings with the French and all sorts of things have been going on, but here we are and the problem is getting worse and worse. I am sure that the noble Lord is shocked by that as well. What is going to happen now to make things better? The Government have had a very long time to sort this out.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As the noble Lord will recall, when Sajid Javid was the Home Secretary, only some five years ago, the number of people crossing in small boats was only 200. The problem has become significantly worsened by the success of Border Force in closing off other methods of illegal entry. That perhaps puts in context the fact that we now anticipate 40,000 people crossing the channel—that is half the size of the British Army. This is a problem of great seriousness which requires a reaction that needs to be commensurate with the problem we are now facing.

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

I should have said that I welcome the noble Lord to his new position and wish him well.

Police National Computer

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend is right to point out that we are trying to get to the bottom of the Horizon issue. That is why Sir Wyn Williams has been tasked to hold his statutory inquiry. Fujitsu is a core participant and is co-operating fully. Accountability depends on evidence, so I think it is proper to let Sir Wyn hear it before judging any possible consequences.

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

My Lords, was any consideration given by the Government to the public perception of awarding such a vital contract to a company with such a shocking record? Can the Minister confirm clearly whether Fujitsu was the only company that actually bid for this contract? If that is the case, how can we be assured of a genuinely competitive process? How will this improve standards? How do we get good value for money and end up with results which, when you consider the role of this company, is truly shocking? I endorse all the words of the noble Lord, Lord Polak: it is appalling that this company can get anywhere near another government contract.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I said earlier in answer to another question, it was the only viable alternative. Other companies were invited in and, for reasons most of which were around the time it would take to implement new systems, Fujitsu offered the only solution. Of course, I agree with the public perception argument; however, I do not think we had any alternative.

Metropolitan Police Service

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I sat here listening to the Statement that was read out by the noble Baroness. I know they are not her words, but I found some of the comments about the Mayor of London quite offensive. I could not believe it when my noble friend then said that the Statement had been shared with the Opposition in the other place and those bits had been left out. When Oppositions and Governments work together, common courtesies such as sharing Statements need to be respected. The fact that those comments were left out so that the Front-Bench spokesman did not see them before they were delivered at the Dispatch Box is totally out of order; doing things like that is not the way to operate. There is no reason for that other than making cheap political jibes. It is an awful way to behave. I assume that the Home Secretary had approved that; can the Minister confirm that she had approved the Statement before it was read out in the other place? If she did approve it, it is just awful for a member of the Cabinet to have done that. Let us also remind ourselves that this is the Home Secretary who was found guilty of breaching the Ministerial Code for bullying; we should remember that that is why the Government lost a previous ethics adviser. That is not the way to operate at all. These are serious matters that need serious commitment from the Government and from the Mayor of London to work to get things right, and behaviour like that is totally out of order.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, on whether the Home Secretary approved it, I saw the “check against delivery” vision of it, so I cannot comment any further than that. However, when these things happen, instead of the back and forth that we saw a lot of in the Commons, with people blaming each other, I will take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that we need to work together to resolve these things. Every victim, incident and controversial issue that has happened is the rationale for this “Engage” process to have been triggered. In some ways we should be not glad that it has happened but pleased that the process is now in place to stop these sorts of things happening, as they have been all too frequently.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, this is my first contribution on this Bill in your Lordships’ House. It is nice to be back.

I am pleased to join my noble friends replying to the debate by setting out the position of the Opposition on the new clauses before us. First, I want to say that this is no way to do business, as has been said. To introduce clauses of such magnitude, complexity and controversy to a Bill in the House of Lords, with the Bill already having left the elected House, is just wrong. It is no way to treat the House of Commons, where the Government have a huge majority; no way to treat the House of Lords; no way to treat Parliament; and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, no way to treat the public, whatever their view on the matters before us today.

If the Government felt that they needed these powers, they should have introduced a separate Bill in the Commons and treated Parliament, not least the elected House, with some respect. None of us wants to be here at this late hour but the Government have left us no opportunity to do otherwise.

I make it clear that we do not support these clauses that have been added to the Bill in Committee today, and we expect the Government to withdraw them. I also want to be clear that when we come to the Motion on the order in which we will consider the clauses on Report, we expect that these clauses will not be considered until the new year in the last part of our Report-stage consideration of the Bill. If the government Motion does not put that down clearly, I will move a Motion to achieve just that, and I think we will be successful in getting that Motion through the House. I hope the Minister can confirm that these clauses will be debated in the new year at the end of Report.

The Government are creating problems for themselves, and we have seen by their actions in recent weeks that that is nothing new. As I said, the Government are introducing at the last minute clauses that we are not able to consider properly, even today. They were published just a week ago. That is totally unacceptable.

I want to be clear that I condemn the actions of the Insulate Britain protesters. Their tactics are wrong and counterproductive. We have seen images of protesters gluing themselves to roads and people desperate to get their relatives to hospital, and that is completely wrong. I support the right to protest. I have protested, marched, sung, waved placards, stood in line and locked arms with the best of them, and have been doing so for 43 years. Having strong views, being passionate about what you believe in and making your voice heard are good things in a democracy; that is what living in a democracy is about. The Government must recognise that, even though sometimes the protesters do things they do not like. That can be irritating—as my noble friend Lord Coaker said, we can all be irritated when we cannot get across the bridge to come into Parliament or go down the road—but, equally, the way that this has been done is counterproductive and completely wrong.

My honourable friend the Member for Tottenham, Mr David Lammy, said:

“The police have got to have the powers to deal with these issues … endangering lives, creating a situation in which an ambulance travelling with a patient can’t get to the hospital—someone ended up with paralysis as a result of some of these actions—I’m afraid is totally, totally unacceptable.”


I agree with him entirely on that. It is right that the police have the powers that they need to deal with this unacceptable behaviour—but what powers do they genuinely need? What powers are missing? What powers would be effective? What would be the impact of what the Government are suggesting?

It is crucial to remember that although we are responding only to one particularly crass protest, the law that we are debating tonight would not apply to that one crass protest but to all peaceful protest, and that is the issue here. We must be thoughtful and get it right, and that is why the Government’s handling of this issue is so wrong. For me, the key question is: is none of the powers at the disposal of the police and law enforcement today fit for purpose? Is there nothing that can be done? I have key concerns about stop and search and the proposed disruption orders, and a number of questions for the Minister.

I hope that she can set out for us the organisations—the police forces, the National Police Chiefs’ Council or the police and crime commissioners—that have been demanding these powers and these specific tools in front of us tonight. Can the Minister give us more details about why the protesters cannot be dealt with under Acts such as the Public Order Act 1986? Why is it not sufficient? I thought—maybe I am wrong—that, under that Act, if a senior police officer reasonably believes that actions will give cause for serious disruption, they can give directions about where a protest can be held and for how long, and it is an offence to breach those conditions. Can that not limit this action? Maybe I am wrong, and they have got that.

Regarding lock-ons, are we really suggesting that if I go on a protest with my noble friend Lord Coaker, and we hold arms together—lock on—we are committing an offence? Are we suggesting that?

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

If we bring the equipment.

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

Yes, absolutely. Are we really suggesting that? Lock-ons are not new, but what is the basis being used here for dealing with these protesters? Is it only, for example, about taking attachments such as glue or locks? I think I have a padlock sitting on my desk in the office; this is just nonsense. These clauses would affect just two people together; that would have prevented the suffragettes protesting. When we do tours in Parliament, we often stop in St Stephen’s Hall and show our guests the statue that the suffragettes locked themselves on to; we talk about it. Clearly that would have been an offence then, and it is an offence now. If you locked yourself on to the Downing Street gate, I am sure that would be an offence now, so why do we not have the powers already?

Of course, we have powers, so I want to understand why we need to do this. Many people have mentioned the pledge by the Prime Minister in the 2015 election. He was going to

“lie down … in front of those bulldozers”

to stop the third runway. He has pledged other things as well. He would be potentially criminalising himself if he went and did that.

On suspicion-less stop and search, and the serious disruption prevention orders, the Government are mirroring laws that currently exist for serious violence and knife crime. Unless I am wrong, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am, these measures apply to peaceful protesters, not people carrying knives or causing violence, and that is a huge issue for us. The noble Lord, Lord Beith, referred to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, a Member on the Conservative Benches. I looked at some of the points made by the committee. It said:

“We consider that new section 342V contains an extreme example of a power to issue guidance on the exercise of statutory functions. It allows the Secretary of State to influence the exercise by the police of functions that could prove to be highly controversial—including identifying persons in respect of whom the courts may make serious disruption prevention orders under which people who have not been convicted of any offence—and are not considered to be at risk of offending—may nonetheless be made subject to restrictions on liberty backed by criminal penalties.”


That is pretty extreme, and that is being suggested by the party opposite. I hope that the Government will read very carefully what is being suggested here by the committee.

In conclusion, it is very important that we do not consider these issues until the new year. These are very controversial proposals, whether you agree with them or not, and the fact that we are debating them at 1 o’clock in the morning is not a good place for any of us to be. We need to ensure that they are discussed in the new year and that we keep scrutinising them. I hope the Government will listen to the debate tonight and to the report from the Delegated Powers Committee, and will come back on Report to ensure they temper these measures, because at the moment they are totally unacceptable and would not be passed by the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to these amendments. Amendment 319AA would limit the offence of locking on—on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the deputy commissioner has in fact welcomed this offence—to cases where serious disruption had been caused, thereby excluding from the ambit of the offence cases where the use of a lock-on has not caused serious disruption but where the conduct is capable of doing so. Removing this element of the offence would make it possible for those who engage in such behaviour to evade prosecution. This could happen if they were quickly removed by the police or if they removed themselves from the lock-on after having caused some disruption which did not meet the threshold of “serious”.

In a similar vein, it is necessary that the offence can be committed if a person locks on and was reckless as to whether it would cause serious disruption. Amendment 319AB would remove this and have the offence be committed only if there was intent to cause serious disruption. If this amendment were made, a person who is aware of the risk of causing serious disruption but unreasonably took that risk anyway would not be captured by the offence.

What matters here is the protester’s intention and/or the impact of their actions. It may simply be fortuitous that the action of locking on did not cause serious disruption, but, if that was the intent, we believe the offence should apply. Equally, if there was not an intention to cause serious disruption but it was a risk of which they were aware and they unreasonably took that risk, again we believe that such conduct should be covered by the new offence.

A few noble Lords talked about bikes, specifically people innocently going about their business with a bike lock. It is a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for carrying the equipment in question. For example, carrying a bike lock for the purposes of locking one’s bike to a designated space for bikes could be considered a reasonable excuse. The prosecution must also demonstrate that the person intended to use the item in the course of or in connection with the lock-on offence.

A couple of noble Lords asked whether this was a ban on protests. HMICFRS concluded that protest banning orders would not be compatible with human rights, but the report considered only orders that would outright ban an individual from protesting. The two are quite different. SDPOs grant the courts discretion to impose any prohibitions and requirements necessary to protect the public from protest-related offences, breaches of injunctions and serious disruption. Depending on the individual circumstances, this might mean that the court will not consider it necessary to stop individuals attending protests. Also, a court as a public authority must not act incompatibly with protesters’ Article 10 and Article 11 rights. This means that the court must decide whether making an SDPO is proportionate in an individual case.

Amendments 319AC, 319BC, 319DC and 319P seek to probe the maximum fine for the new offences created by the government amendments. What were level 5 fines, or a maximum of £5,000, were replaced in 2015 as a result of reforms introduced by the coalition Government through the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. We think that an unlimited fine is appropriate in the case of these new offences; a level 1 or level 2 fine, as proposed by the noble Lord, would not, in our view, reflect the seriousness of the conduct in question. An unlimited maximum fine allows courts to determine the level of any fine on a case-by-case basis, having regard to the gravity of the offence and the ability of the offender to pay.

Amendment 319BA probes what objects it will be a criminal offence to possess under the “in connection with” limb of the going equipped to lock-on offence. This could include items that supported the deployment of a lock-on but did not form a part of it—for example, tools to set up structures to be used in the course of a lock-on.

Amendment 319BB would limit the offence such that a person would only be guilty of going equipped to lock on if they are carrying the equipment to commit the lock-on offence themselves. This would mean that a group of protesters could each legally carry items to lock on for use by others in the group.

Amendment 319DA would limit the scope of the offence to where a person obstructs the setting out of lines for major transport works or actual construction or maintenance. We think that it is necessary to include acts that obstruct steps necessary for facilitating construction. This would include steps such as environmental surveys and the translocation of species. If protesters delay ecological surveys into nesting or hibernation season, construction works may be delayed by a period of a year, potentially adding millions to the cost of HS2.

Amendment 319DB seeks further to narrow the scope of the offence to omit activity where a person interferes with, moves or removes any apparatus necessary for the works. This amendment would enable protesters to interfere with works without committing the offence simply by interfering with equipment rather than the relevant works. It is necessary that this limb of the offence remains.

Finally, turning to the amendments on serious disruption prevention orders, one of the circumstances in which an order can be imposed is when at least two protest-related offences have been committed. Amendments 319L and 319M seek to raise the burden of proof for demonstrating that two offences were protest related from “on the balance of probabilities” to “beyond reasonable doubt”. We have had this debate before, including in the context of serious violence reduction orders, and it is our view that these are civil orders and that it is therefore entirely appropriate for the civil standard of proof to apply in the making of an order. It is already the case that the court must consider the SDPO necessary to prevent a person committing harmful protest-related acts. In the event of a prosecution for breach of an order, of course the prosecution would need to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Amendment 319N removes the ability of the courts to impose an SDPO on application. We think it is essential that the courts should have the power to impose an order in such circumstances. It will allow SDPOs to be placed on those who are intent on causing unjustifiable disruption at a protest but who have not met the criteria for an SDPO on conviction. It is entirely right that, where there is sufficient evidence of a pattern of behaviour that an SDPO be imposed. The public should not have to risk unjustifiable disruption caused by an individual who the police knew was likely to cause such disruption simply because they did not have two prior protest-related convictions. This would mean that even if someone had two convictions, if the application was not made at the time of the second conviction, an application could not be made until they were convicted of a third protest-related offence. This approach is consistent with other risk-based civil orders that may be made in the absence of a conviction—for example, domestic abuse protection orders.

Amendments 319Q to 319U remove the ability for a court to renew an SDPO. Where there is strong evidence that that an individual would go on to cause serious disruption, it is appropriate that the facility exists for SDPOs to be renewed.

Very finally, on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Beith, on the DPRRC report, we consider that the negative procedure for the SDPO’s statutory guidance to be appropriate, but we are studying the report and will respond soon.

The question of causing or contributing to felt like a bit of an exam question at the end of quite a long day. I have three Acts in which causing or contributing feature: the Water Act 2014, the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Football Spectators Act 1989. On the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about whether these measures will be taken in the new year, the answer is yes.

I am obviously disappointed that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy, have signified their objections to the amendments tabled today but, given that, I will not move them. However, the Committee should be in no doubt that we will retable them for Report and, if necessary, seek the opinion of the House. With that, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 319A.

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

Before the noble Baroness sits down, I want to be absolutely clear about something. I am sure that the answer must be yes, but it would be good to hear it from her, as this is my first time speaking from the Dispatch Box on this Bill. On these SDPOs, I always thought that we operated on the basis that you were innocent until proven guilty in this country; we would all defend that right. These orders can be imposed and have an effect on people who are totally innocent of any crime whatever. Can she confirm that, as it is good to get it absolutely clear on the record? If that is the case, as I am sure it is, that is totally outrageous.

That and other reasons are exactly why we need to ensure that there is the maximum amount of time to enable this House and people outside it to discuss and debate these issues. For that reason, I think it is absolutely right that these amendments be withdrawn. Can these orders be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Does the noble Lord want a response on the nature of the orders?

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

I want confirmation that the Government intend to bring orders in which would be imposed on totally innocent people who have committed no crime.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

They are civil orders; they are preventive measures.

Black Dog Crisis Management Company

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I fully support my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in announcing that the inquiry would take place. The details of that will be announced in due course. Among the complexities was the number of agencies involved. Of course, things such as the potential for danger to life are critical in these situations—as, indeed, is learning the lessons of such novel incidents.

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

My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in paying tribute to James Brokenshire. I had the privilege of meeting him a couple of times and he truly was a lovely man. Public duty was always at the heart of everything he did. We pass our condolences on to his wife and family.

Like my noble friend Lord Davies of Brixton, I had a look at the website of Black Dog. I thought that the “disaster response teambuilding” services and the “crisis leadership skills” would be ones for the Minister maybe to bring to the attention of her ministerial colleagues, in particular the Home Secretary.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Other than thank the noble Lord for those points, I do not think that I have anything to add.

Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. We are not just conscious of it; there have been many debates in this House about anonymity. It is a difficult issue. We have to balance the lack of cases that come to court and conviction with the devastating effects that they can have on someone who is accused. We are committed, first and foremost, to arresting the steep decline in prosecutions for this offence and to improving the victims’ experience of the criminal justice system and access to justice. Any changes in this regard will, of course, uphold the principle of procedural fairness that is due to defendants in all criminal cases. There are existing offences designed to protect the administration of justice from false allegations, including the offence of perverting the course of justice, which carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment for the most serious offences. But that does not undermine what the noble Baroness is saying, because for someone who is accused wrongly it can devastate their lives.

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

My Lords, following up on a point raised by my noble friend Lady Gale, what should women and girls who are harassed in broad daylight do in the absence of a specific sexual harassment law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As the noble Lord will know, we are introducing the online pilot, which will be a repository for people to come forward if they are concerned about any element of violence against women and girls. The noble Lord is absolutely right that people can be harassed in broad daylight. Harassers are completely blatant in what they do, and there are existing offences which can include and address sexual harassment. However, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, we will be looking at where there might be gaps in the law and how a specific offence for public sexual harassment could address them.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, as we have heard, these orders are being brought forward to reflect the extension of the Criminal Finances Act provisions to Northern Ireland. I say right at the start that I fully support the orders and welcome the fact that they are with us this afternoon.

I recall our extensive debates in the Chamber on the Criminal Finances Act. It is about tackling money laundering and terrorist finance, among other things, and being able today to bring forward these orders to apply to Northern Ireland is very welcome. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, that it was regrettable that the Assembly was suspended and we could not get them in place earlier, but now that it is up and running again, it is welcome that we are able to do so today.

I very much agree with the noble Lord that the measures will deal with criminality—that is really important—and act as a deterrent to others who are thinking of getting into criminality or paramilitarism. It is very important we are seen to give a strong lead there. I endorse the remarks of my friend the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, in her support for these measures and what she hopes will be their positive effect. It is really important if they can help track down those funds from the Northern Bank robbery. I saw the documentary; I have not heard the stuff on BBC Sounds, but will have a look for it. It is important that we recognise what the money that was stolen there has been able to finance.

I do not know Northern Ireland as well as either the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, or the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, but I have been there many times and I have many friends who live in the Province. I think that it is absolutely right, no matter what community you come from, to look at the effect that this sort of activity will have on marginalised communities and on all communities, on their prospects. If we can stop people being dragged into this sort of behaviour in future, that is a really good thing, and all communities will benefit from that. I very much welcome that.

I also endorse the comments from my noble friend Lady Ritchie. It is important to work with the Government in the Republic as well, because there are cross-border issues there. That is a very important issue.

The order updates the codes of practice. I am aware that Naomi Long has asked for these powers to be extended; she actually asked for that in June 2020. My only regret is that we have not been able to do this sooner, which I suppose is because of the pandemic and everything that has been going on. The sooner we get these powers in place, the better.

I have a couple of questions, although nothing of any major significance, because many points have already been raised. It is very good to get the orders in place, as I say, but can the Minister confirm the reasons for delay, given that the request was made in June 2020—nearly a year ago now? Is the delay because of the pandemic? It is quite unusual to bring in legislation to be retrospectively consented, three years after the Bill became law. I know that that is because the Assembly was suspended; I am delighted that it is up and working now, and we hope that we never again get a situation when it is not up and running. It would be useful to understand that.

What is the Minister’s opinion about how the legislation works in the rest of the United Kingdom? It has been in place for three years now—has it been good? I have seen a number of reports of when unexplained wealth orders have been granted against individuals. Will the Minister tell us a little about what she thinks the effect of the law has been? What additional training and oversight has been put in place to help officers and others to ensure that they can actually enact this legislation and use the power that they have been granted properly and forcefully so it can have the effect that we all want it to have?

With that, I fully endorse the orders before us today and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, I am very happy to support the order, which, as we have heard, is in response to advice from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. Clearly, where drugs cause harm, they must be classified and action taken. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, these drugs combined with alcohol can prove fatal in many cases because of the effect they have on the body, and can often lead to suicide.

I recall that when my noble friend Lord Mann was in the other place, he did a lot of good work on the issue of drugs in his constituency and many times spoke up about it. To tackle this, it is no good us just adding more drugs to lists, saying that this cannot be done here or that is criminalised there; there must also be the preventive approach, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about. We must have both: legislation that says that if you take, sell or use these drugs, those are criminal offences, and, at the same time, a health approach so that people understand. There is an absolute drugs crisis, as my noble friend said, with people taking these drugs with other substances. Unless we can provide people with the support they need to get off drugs, we will not deal with the problem, as with any addiction.

I hope the noble Baroness can respond on that. Does she have any information on what has happened to drug treatment services during the pandemic? What support have we been able to give to people who find themselves in difficulty? The Health and Social Care Select Committee found that funding for treatment had fallen 30% in the three years up to 2019. We must reverse that cut and increase funding. We can say that whatever we like is illegal, but unless we have in place the process to get people off the substances, we will struggle. We have all seen the corrosive effect on individuals, their families and communities—the damage done to them by drugs. As my noble friend Lord Mann said, these are often prescription drugs that are then sold on to other people, but drugs are corrosive.

I will leave it there. I fully support the order but, as many noble Lords have said, there must be another prong to our attack on this process, and that is the health-based proposals many of them talked about.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, my group and I wish to avoid putting this Bill in jeopardy by doing our own bit of disagreeing with the Government and forcing another round of ping-pong just before Parliament is dissolved. We have achieved so much for victims in this Bill, with the exception, yet again, through the Government agreeing to Motion C, of failing to treat all victims equally and thereby failing to meet the criteria of the Istanbul convention, as my noble friend Lord Paddick said. The right reverend Prelate must be as disappointed, as so many of us are, that this was the only amendment to “go the distance” and be substantially modified, but still get no movement from the Government. Anyway, I digress; I have no wish to detain the House.

I feel reassured at the Minister’s words regarding Amendment 42. If I have misunderstood anything that she has said at the Dispatch Box, will she please disabuse me in her final remarks? My understanding is that, first, experts in domestic abuse and stalking will be included in the MAPPA process, assessing patterns of behaviour to decide which category an offender should be placed in. I particularly welcome the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, on how MAPPA should change the way it works.

Secondly, I understand that the assessment of MAPPA categories will depend on patterns of behaviour, not on the sentence received—I was going to say, “if any”, but from what the Minister said I understand that there must have been a conviction, not necessarily with the one-year criteria.

Thirdly, I understand that the domestic abuse commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner will get access to the figures on stalking and domestic abuse from MAPPA under the duty in this Bill to co-operate. References to the inclusion of stalking by the Minister have been heard loud and clear.

Finally, I reiterate what my noble friend Lady Brinton said: we are at only the start of this process. We have heard so many stories from victims of how their repeated calls for help have been ignored and threats and actions underplayed until the worst happened. Our culture must change; our responses must improve. Only then will we be able to say that the Bill has achieved its purpose. However, it is a great tribute to the Minister and her ministerial colleagues that we are where we are on the Bill today.

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

My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful for the movement from the Government that we have heard in the debate, including the inclusion of domestic abuse-related stalking in the perpetrator strategy. I pay tribute to the Minister for all her work on the Bill and for the many welcome changes, including these, that have been made during its passage. That is not to say that we do not still have some concerns that the proposed changes to the MAPPA guidance will not be strong enough. We welcome the idea of a debate in the autumn on the effectiveness of the guidance.

I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon for all her work on the issue of stalking, not only in the context of this Bill but over many years of campaigning in this House. The progress that we have made to date would not have been possible without her work. I also pay tribute to the work and support of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and many others in this House.

I think we have all accepted that the system as it stands is not working—it is not catching the perpetrators where the Minister claims it should be. I would like her to be clear about what it is specifically about this change to the guidance that will make it work. If it is simply about a change in the guidance, we could have done that before. What is it about this amendment to the guidance that is going to deliver change?

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, I listened to the “Today” programme this morning and heard the contribution from Zoe Dronfield; I do not know if other Members have. It was harrowing to listen to what that poor woman has gone through. She met someone and, after a few weeks, thought it was going to work, but then there were all the phone calls, the texts, the knock on the door and then her front door being kicked in. At no point did she get help from anyone—the police said, “He hasn’t really done anything, has he?”—and it had to get to the point where he nearly killed her before action was taken. That is totally wrong. These amendments are trying to stop the situation where you have to be nearly killed before any action is taken. We need a guarantee that serial and high-risk offenders will be risk-assessed and, where the risk of harm is identified, be included under MAPPA —otherwise, what is changing?

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is right that the death toll has to come down for us to see that the guidance and the Act are working. If we do not see that happen then we are failing victims, their families and campaigners. In the weeks and months ahead we have to see effects from this. If we do not then we have failed in our duty.

It is key that an offender’s past behaviour must be considered. Zoe Dronfield told the “Today” programme that she was not the first case; the person who attacked her had previously abused and attacked 12 other women, but she knew nothing about it. We have to ensure that the system starts to recognise the reality of these crimes and where the risk escalates—otherwise, what are we doing here today?

My noble friend Lady Royall has asked a number of detailed questions and I am sure the Minister will respond to them. The debates that we have had, particularly on this issue, have shed light on the failures of the past and current failures, and we all agree that we have to do better. I look forward to seeing the effective action that is going to happen.

I know that my noble friend and other campaigners, in this House and elsewhere, will be back if this does not work. We have the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, as well as other debates and issues—this is not going to go away; for too long victims have wanted to get this sorted out. The Government have done loads of good work on this and a good job with the Bill, which we are very happy with. But if there are issues that have not been sorted out, we will be back to ensure that they are, because we owe that to the victims and their families.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I want to make it very clear that we offer our full support to the Government on all matters of national security and public safety and in ensuring that the public and our communities are safe. Combating terrorism, no matter where it comes from, will always have the full support of these Benches.

It is right that the organisation before us today is outlawed, and we welcome and support this order proscribing it. It sends a strong message that racism, fascism and the glorification of terrorism will simply not be tolerated on our streets and in our society. Like others, I pay tribute to our security services, the counterterrorism police and others for all the work they do to keep us and our communities safe. We will never know all the work they do to keep us safe and we very much thank them for that.

This order will give some clarity and direction to the counterterrorism police for the work that they do. As the Minister set out, this organisation—Atomwaffen Division or AWD—is a white supremacist organisation. In recent years, we have seen a proliferation of these organisations and groups turning up in the UK, and it is right that we deal with them. Just hearing what the Minister has told us is disturbing enough, along with the material that they write about bringing about a “white ethnostate” instigated by the collapse of society through a race war. Everything we stand for as British citizens—our country and our values—is opposed to these ideas. It is vile propaganda, and I am delighted that the organisations will be outlawed today.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a fair point about the different forms of the organisation, asking why we did not deal with all of them at the same time. If the Minister could help us out, it would be interesting to hear the explanation. I accept that the organisations try to change—like a chameleon—by having one name first and then changing to something different, but it is fair to ask why they were not all captured at the same time. I accept that the Home Secretary has to look at a number of factors, and perhaps that is the reason why, but that is the only question I have for the Minister. We very much support and welcome the order today, and offer the Government our full support.