Queen’s Speech

Lord Laird Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Laird (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, under the heading of home affairs I want to look at two issues that could affect the human rights of the citizens of the UK. Mention of human rights is included in the gracious Speech, and I wish to look at the activities that are under the heading of Prism.

I want to put on record that I am an admirer of the USA, coming as I do from the Ulster Scots community, which to date has provided 17 Presidents of the United States and many others who were responsible for the formation of that nation as a beacon of independent thinking and freedom. I raise this issue more in sorrow than in anger. My understanding is that Prism is a mass surveillance programme operated in many countries, including the UK. I also understand that it is no part of any scheme operated by the UK information-gathering agencies. Instead, the programme is run by nine major internet companies registered in the UK, which are wholly owned by US parent corporations. They have been required by the US Government to intercept and obtain information from their clients in every field of communications technology that they provide. The Government have known about this activity since 2013, according to the then Foreign Secretary, William Hague, in a letter of June that year. Interestingly, Sir Anthony May QC, the Interception of Communications Commissioner, told the PM in a report of 8 April 2014 that warrantless interception was a criminal offence. He also pointed out that the theft of data was a breach of Article 8 of the human rights convention of 1948.

Coming very close to home, data collected through Prism from your Lordships’ House is stored in the Irish Republic and the Netherlands, according to a letter to John Hemming, then an MP, from the Foreign Secretary on 2 September 2014. When I made inquiries into the Dublin storage, I was informed by someone who should know that the protection against Prism is internally described as being like two cans and a bit of string. Dublin is wide open to data theft.

In the parchment copy of the US Declaration of Independence of 1776, a document in which Ulster Scots people had a vital role, a paragraph goes thus:

“Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us”.

In the light of that paragraph, it is interesting to note that the American Senate is very much exercised in the processing of information gathered in the US, as witnessed by last Sunday’s special sitting when it stopped the practice at home. Members of the Intelligence and Security Committee have told inquirers that Prism is a US issue. However, if it is still in operation in the UK it is an issue for this Government. It is a criminal offence, according to Sir Anthony May QC. Who tells us that Prism runs in the UK? The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which ruled in December last and in February in the Liberty case that data obtained by the National Security Agency via Prism in the UK, and supplied to GCHQ, were unlawfully obtained. I hope that in this Session HMG will take all necessary steps to regularise the position and to keep your Lordships’ House informed as much as possible.

I turn to another human rights issue. The Irish are a very likeable people, except when some of them are involved in politics. Unfortunately, they allow themselves to get carried away into the Celtic mist. We must be aware of their behaviour and make allowances in HMG’s decision-making. One such mist already seems to surround the area of human rights for those who live in the part of the United Kingdom called Northern Ireland. To some of us, it seems that busloads of so-called experts descend on our Province and offer us advice on human rights. If these experts were gardeners offering to work in my garden, I would take a common-sense approach by checking over their garden before I allowed them into mine. Let me apply that process to human rights, always bearing in mind that the Belfast agreement of 1998 has much to say on the topic and is often recited to us as an example.

The Belfast agreement of 10 April 1998, in the section under “Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity” on page 31 and in paragraph 3, lists steps by the Irish Government comparable to those for HMG. In this, the Irish Government pledged measures that will ensure at least an equivalent amount of protection of human rights as pertains in Northern Ireland. Let us take some simple, recent examples in the Republic that could affect family life. To this day, anyone seeking state funding to provide clothing for a child’s religious activities, or a couple who seek counselling about marriage, will receive state help, but only if they are, according to the law, of the majority community in religious terms. When it comes to buying a house, to this day the rights listed on page 23 of the Belfast agreement to freely choose one’s place of residence do not apply in the Republic. In areas of that state, property can be sold only to those with a qualification in the Irish language. This discriminates against non-Irish people such as me. The Irish Parliament agreed to pay for the compensation and expenses of children caught up in abuse by church organisations but only if it is the Roman Catholic Church.

I was a member of the Stormont Parliament, which was abolished in 1972 at the behest of the Irish. That Parliament operated under legislation set out in the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Under this, and rightly, if it legislated against anyone on the grounds of religion, the Bill was null and void under Section 5 of that Act. Administration by the Northern Ireland Parliament with the same purpose was null and void under Section 8. The Irish Parliament has no such restriction, however, yet they criticise the UK for its bad record on human rights. Recently the position would have become laughable if it was not so serious. The Irish are telling the world that the UK agreed a Human Rights Act as part of the Belfast agreement of April 1998. The Act referred to was put in place only in November 1998, so how could the UK give an undertaking to something that had not at that stage materialised? How can the Irish claim that Sinn Fein must have a say in changes to the Human Rights Act because they agreed to the Belfast agreement, when the Act was not in the agreement?

I will be most interested in the consultations on human rights outlined in the Queen’s Speech. A simple question will be: why does one part of any country require more human rights than another? I ask HMG to examine the human rights in the Irish Republic. After all, HMG underwrote the implementation of the agreement in the Republic as well as the UK—a point that is often forgotten—to appease the Irish Government.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Laird Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Laird]

My Lords, I wish to speak on a topic that causes considerable interest and fear in Northern Ireland, which unfortunately was not dealt with in the gracious Speech. I refer to the inexplicable actions of the Northern Ireland Parades Commission, a body that is answerable to the Northern Ireland Office. Before doing so, I want to acknowledge that my native land of Ulster is considerably different from the one beset by civil unrest of 20 years or more ago. For that I thank Members of this Parliament, past and present, for all their successful work in putting together a peace process that has made a major change to all who live there.

However, a few issues remain, the most serious of which is the activities of the Parades Commission. It was set up to remove from the police the responsibility of regulating parades—a job that it seems to do in an insensitive and ham-fisted way. I refer to one decision in particular as an example of the extremely bad handling of a situation. Last year, in a determination, the commission proposed a position that put the traditional Orange parade, which passes the Ardoyne interface in Belfast, into an impossible place. Let me explain: the Parades Commission received applications for two parades for the afternoon of 12 July 2012. They were from an Orange lodge and the Greater Ardoyne Residents Collective, a cover name for dissident republicans condemned by unionists and Sinn Fein alike. The Ardoyne shops, which is an area of contention, is a line of premises fronting the Crumlin Road. The area behind the shops is strongly republican in character. On the other side at this point, Twaddell Avenue meets the Crumlin Road. This is a residential street that is strongly unionist in character. The area is therefore an interface between the two communities with a long history of sectarian trouble.

I should point out that for 150 years Belfast Orange lodges have held a parade in the city on 12 July to commemorate the Battle of the Boyne. A feature of this event is that many lodges parade from their lodge halls to assembly points and then proceed in procession to a major assembly area in a park or large field on the outskirts of Belfast, where an afternoon of culture and family activity is available to everyone.

Lodges had followed the proposed route at the same time of day for many years and had been praised by the Parades Commission in earlier years for their good behaviour and stewarding. Their application asked for permission to parade up the Crumlin Road in the usual time, passing the Ardoyne shops at some time between 6 pm and 7.30 pm. They sought permission to be accompanied by one band. The Greater Ardoyne dissident republican group sought permission to hold a parade in the same area, partly over the same road, from 6 pm until 8 pm. It did not complete any applications to be accompanied by a band.

On 5 July 2012, the Parades Commission determined as follows. The Orange parade must pass the Ardoyne shops by 4 pm at the latest and must be accompanied by a band which must not play music or produce drumbeat in this locality. The republican parade was granted permission to parade along its chosen route from 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm. This ruling brought the time of that parade closer to the traditional Orange one. The commission also specified that the republican parade should not allow excessive loud drumming, an interesting point as it had not applied to bring a band with it.

The hall of LOL 647 lies on the outskirts of Belfast and the only available and practical route to the centre of Belfast is via the Crumlin Road. The parade takes two hours and the first lodges arrive at the assembly point shortly after 12 noon and start to leave the assembly point to go home at 4 pm. The assembly point is at least five miles by road from Ardoyne. In order to comply with the Parades Commission ruling members of the lodge would have to forgo all of the family events in the assembly park and proceed on their way back to the Crumlin Road. They could not walk back in the time available and therefore would have to be transported to Ardoyne by car or bus.

The commission’s decision is seen by most people as very odd indeed. The problem is that it appears to be one-sided. There may be very good reasons for this determination but the reasoning is not available for us to consider. This failure to explain is a major part of the current rise in tension in the province. That is why there is so much confusion and misinformation.

As a result, I would like answers to the following questions. Why did the commission allow two mutually antagonistic parades on the same route within 90 minutes when it is generally agreed that the Ardoyne interface part of the parade was most contentious, bearing in mind that the commission praised the Orange Order in previous years as being well organised and peaceful? Could I be told by the commission why a republican parade should be allowed in a 50/50 interface area at almost the same time on a traditional route used by the Orange Order for over 150 years? The commission not only allowed the lodge to be accompanied by one band, which must remain mute, but did not specify how many bands the republicans, who had not applied for band permission, could bring with them.

I would like the transcripts of the commission’s meetings to be made public. This will allow us to know who attended the meetings and the reasons behind these decisions. I sought this information directly from the commission but was refused. For justice to be done it must be seen to be done and understood. Last year’s determination has set an unfortunate backdrop for this summer unless we can understand the commission’s reasoning and are not forced to view it simply as being anti the unionist section of the population. The solution may be for all determination decision meetings to be open to the public to attend. I call for a total rethink on the way the commission operates and even, if necessary, its replacement by a system which could be respected by both sides. I urge the Government not to discount the bad community feeling against the current commission. Things need to change.

I fully accept that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, with whom I enjoy a good working relationship and who will wind up the debate, is not in a position to answer these questions. While I will, of course, listen to his remarks on the total debate with great interest, I look forward to a detailed response to my questions from the Northern Ireland Office in due course.

Police: Performance Indicator Management

Lord Laird Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Laird]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, for securing today’s debate. It is a good opportunity to express some opinions that a lot of us feel strongly about.

I have become increasingly worried about the build-up of resentment over actual or perceived corruption among police forces the length of this country. Corruption, where it exists, affects only a tiny part of the police service. Thankfully, this point has already been made. The majority of police are honest and decent, and it is for that majority that I would like to know from the Minister if he will set up a whistleblowing scheme for officers, preferably independent from the police service.

I have been made aware that some South Wales Police officers have contacted non-Welsh Members in the other place with their concerns over the improper actions of supervising officers or undue pressure to undertake actions that conflict with their oath to Her Majesty the Queen or their professional judgment. These actions have done much to damage the image of the police.

I am told that the police nationally now adopt a process of informal cautions. This apparently allows them to hold a database of information as a local criminal record. Does this enable them to circumvent the DNA issue and to hold such material indefinitely? Such local data are not accessible via the police national computer and do not necessarily show up on a standard Criminal Records Bureau check or on enhanced disclosure or subject access requests. Persons entered on these databases usually have no idea what is logged or why, and cannot challenge the accuracy of something that could easily affect their personal finances, employment or later be dragged up in court proceedings or other activities.

This practice has apparently been going on since 1997 and was raised in correspondence in early 2007 between Ken Jones, ACPO’s president, and Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner. I gather that even a fixed penalty notice or a police warning letter is sufficient to trigger a “non-sanction detection” and resultant entry on a computer. Needless to say, the Information Commissioner was most concerned and I would like to know if this issue has been addressed. Does the Home Office know how many such databases are operated by police forces or associates, what they are used for and how they are authorised, and will it ensure from today that all data are disclosed to those whose names are so held? Further, is it going to regulate the activity and insist on a formal register?

I now turn to south Wales and a matter that I last raised on 15 May 2012 in a debate on the Queen’s Speech. It would appear that little attention was paid by the Home Office to my comments, nor did it take steps to use the powers it already has or, if necessary, to seek new regulations. South Wales, its police force and the independence and governance of its commissioner concern me. It seems that the chief constable, Peter Vaughan, was part of the selection panel for the deputy and assistant commissioners, the deputy being a political appointment. I do not feel comfortable with this, or with the appointment of his former ACC, David Francis, as assistant commissioner. Surely this process should have been free of cronyism? I thought that the idea was to introduce independence and new ideas.

What I previously called systemic corruption by a small number of that force’s officers seems to have been endemic in the area for many decades, and now appears to have been compounded. I wrote to Assistant Chief Constable Matt Jukes on 17 July 2012 and in that letter I included a number of FOI requests, which he neither answered nor acknowledged receipt of in his reply of 10 September 2012. I therefore submitted a complaint to the Information Commissioner for him to pursue answers in full. The answers to the FOI requests appear to have been blocked by the sector inspector for east Cardiff, Inspector Nicky Flower, whose actions and management they concern.

An appalling case happened in south Wales that was very similar to the type of case that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, was referring to in Kent. A young person was taken out of the prison in Bridgend and treated in the sort of way mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Condon, except that he was plied with four cans of cider and then asked to agree to a considerable number of “taken into consideration” dwelling burglaries that he had not committed. Unfortunately for the police officers doing the questioning, the young chap was actually in police custody on the days concerned. The two detectives received written warnings only as a result of the IPCC investigation; the chief constable would have exposed himself if he had committed the officers to trial. Why am I not surprised? How long do we have to wait for a criminal judge or judges to be appointed by the Home Office to carry out a root-and-branch investigation of that force?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Laird Excerpts

Tuesday 15th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Laird]

My Lords, I have noted the gracious Speech and hope that in this parliamentary year things can be changed that should be. For example, I have become increasingly worried about a build-up of resentment over actual or perceived corruption among police forces the length of this country. I am aware that my good friend, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, is also particularly concerned about this topic. I want to underline that corruption where it exists is only among a very small part of the overall police service.

In this parliamentary year, the Home Office must take a firm grip of the methods it has to supervise existing forces and, if necessary, seek new regulations. The geographical area that I am concerned about today is south Wales, its police force and the independence and governance of its police authority until taken over by police commissioners. Because I am known for having an inquiring mind, I have for years received amounts of information from many in the southern parts of the beautiful country of Wales. It seems that systemic corruption by a section of the police has been going on in that area for many decades, at all levels and involving officers in all types of crime and the operation of professional standards. It has done much to damage the image of the police. The force has failed to comply with Police and Criminal Evidence Act and there is an apparent non-adherence to the terms of the 2003 Clingham case standards of proof in evidence, judgment for which was heard in this House.

I go as far back as 1987, with the murder of a Cardiff newsagent, a dreadful and tragic event, made all the worse when the men convicted served over 11 years in jail only to have their names cleared in court and be released. The 11 years in jail followed the first trial, in which the accused had their human rights violated by inappropriate methods of questioning and by not allowing them at appropriate times legal representation. Following the release of the unfortunate accused, no action was taken against the police known to have been involved in the frame-up, and no apology given. There was just the bitterness of having the accused back in the community, with their lives, and those of their families, ruined.

This case from the 1980s may be dreadful, but is only one of many. There are the cases of Hewins, Clarke and Sullivan, the Darvell brothers, Jonathan Jones and many more, in which people were jailed who subsequently had their convictions quashed and were released back into the community. In all cases, the names of most of the police officers who set up the evidence that caused the convictions are well known. Some 20 officers are involved, but the believed ringleader, an inspector, has never been arrested yet. Much has been written about their actions, which gave them the opportunity for the named officers to sue the writers for libel—but, interestingly, they did not. Many journalists, including TV and radio programmes, have explored these cases, but no substantial official action appears to have been taken against them. Why?

As if all the pain and suffering were not enough, the cost to the taxpayers of investigations and trials was massive—funds that could have been spent in other areas of policing. I have examined myself the tops and bottoms of types of cases handled by South Wales Police. Now let us consider the police authority. As from 10 May, the current chairman, a magistrate and independent member, Mr John Littlechild, will have served continually since 1989. When complaints are made against the police, the authority, rather than acting independently to ensure that the force is monitored to keep it working efficiently and effectively and meeting all appropriate standards, seems to align with its friends against all comers. This includes Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary when it makes critical comments. For an example, see police authority minutes of 13 February. The authority in its standards and recording its business apparently fails to adhere to its own standing orders. For an example, see again the minutes of 13 February.

As recently as last night, at an Old St Mellons Partners and Communities Together group meeting, the sector inspector Nicky Flower withdrew her officers from taking part in the group meeting. She ignored written requests made to her and copied to senior officials last May to meet with all the village PACT panel members. This group has to date had nine freedom of information requests to provide documentation regarding information requested by residents on crime and anti-social behaviour incidents in the area, and the action taken. The residents are concerned at the number of burglaries, arsons and other crimes in the area. At two public meetings, there have been unanimous shows of hands for the information, which is still not provided, but which is freely given out at other PACT meetings in the same area. The number of crimes in the area reported to the Home Office is only a small fraction of the actual number, as claimed by the residents. They attend because in many cases they have been directly affected and suffered loss and cost. The chairman wrote last July for a meeting of the full panel, with the chief constable or the assistant chief constable responsible for PACT in person, due to dissatisfaction. The deputy chief constable stated to the panel members at force headquarters on 13 February that she had no knowledge of the requests but would have a meeting. This meeting has still not taken place.

Following the collapse of the £10 million Lynette White murder trial before Christmas, the chief constable, Peter Vaughan, claimed the loss of the IPCC evidence documents, saying that they had been shredded. He then went on to admit, on 17 January, to the Director of Public Prosecutions, that they had been found. Drastic action must be taken; the only way forward is for the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place to be requested to carry out an investigation into south Wales constabulary and its police authority.