Protection of Freedoms Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I presume that the amendment relates to the previous paragraph in relation,

“to section 63D material taken … in connection with the investigation of an offence in which it is suspected that the person to whom the material relates has been involved”.

On my reading, there is an enormous safeguard in that once the police become convinced that the person has not been involved, the negative applies. The person’s DNA material is taken but if it is then established that that person was not connected to the offence at all, surely the ability to retain the material in those circumstances fails. Therefore you do not have an enormous amount of material being retained until the conclusion of the proceedings. Will the Minister clarify whether I am correct in my understanding that the police can retain that material until the conclusion of the proceedings but only if they remain convinced that that person is still suspected of being involved in the commission of the offence?

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I might intervene briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made some effective practical points against the amendment. However, I am afraid that I am one of those simple souls who find it easier to look at these matters in relation to an example rather than in a general academic sense. There is a clear-cut case in which some of these issues might have arisen: namely, that of the gentleman in Bristol who was arrested—I forget whether he was charged—for the murder of Miss Yeates. It is now universally agreed that this was a mistake. Somebody else has been convicted and sentenced.

I do not expect my noble friend to be able to answer this because it is a bit of a bouncer, and it applies to all the amendments that we have so far discussed. How would the Government's proposals for retention apply to that case, and what difference would the amendments that have so far been discussed make to the case? I do not know the answer and would have to speculate. I suggest that it might be sensible if the Minister wrote to me about this rather than attempting an answer off the cuff.

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for her intervention. I am pleased to confirm that her analysis of the subsection preceding the one we are discussing is correct. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton. I will take his advice, consider his points and be sure to write to him. I have been given some comfort on the way in which we may be able to respond to his query by the intervention of my noble friend concerning the subsection preceding the one my noble friend Lady Hamwee seeks to amend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the government amendments brought in at the Report stage of this Bill in the House of Commons stipulate that DNA and fingerprint profiles from individuals arrested but not charged with a serious offence could be retained only with the permission of the biometrics commissioner on the condition that the alleged victim is aged under 18, a vulnerable adult, associated with the alleged perpetrator or necessary to assist in the prevention or detection of crime. The effect of that is that many individuals who are arrested for a serious offence will not have their DNA retained at all.

From the definition given in government Amendment 11, it looks as though the Government are setting a higher burden of proof and imposing a greater administrative burden on police, which will have a dissuasive effect on the retention of DNA for serious offences. A false distinction is potentially being made between the risk associated with those arrested and those arrested and charged. As we discussed earlier, rape cases have chronically low charge and conviction rates. The amendment could therefore have an impact on the safety of women. I listened to the reasons which the Minister gave for introducing the new definition, but it would appear to be tighter. I therefore seek an assurance from her that the new definition will include victims in women’s refuges and sheltered housing, and rape victims.

I do not fully understand the purpose behind the amendment, nor do I understand which individuals, if any, the Government wish to exclude through the definition. I do not understand why the definition that we already have cannot be used. I suggest that the definition of a “vulnerable adult” should be common to all legislation, because that is the proper way for us as legislators to act. It is both logical and makes sense to citizens who have to deal with the legislation. I am wholly in favour of common definitions. If we are talking about vulnerable adults in one Bill, we should have the same definition in another. I do not accept that the new definition as put forward by the Minister in this amendment is necessary or desirable.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may build briefly on those comments because lurking in them was the question that I was going to ask. I suppose that I had better declare an interest, in that, whatever definition is used, I am a vulnerable old person, so it probably makes no difference to me.

The question is: does the Bill change the definition in the 2006 Act? On the basis of what the Minister was just saying, it leaves one definition in that Act and puts another in this Act. I think that it is very odd that we should have two definitions of vulnerable persons, whether adult, children or any other category of person. If a definition is right for one purpose, I cannot see why it is not right for another.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman]

My Lords, I have added my name to these amendments and, given the speeches of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I can be relatively brief. I certainly will not challenge them in terms of legal expertise, having ended my legal career with a first degree in 1969, but I feel strongly on this issue because of my own experience as a parliamentarian. I had the honour to be a member of the Privy Council committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, who I am glad to see in his place, which reviewed the provisions of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, particularly Part 4 of that Act, which was considered by us and by many others to be unsatisfactory. The Government paid little heed to the results of that committee’s deliberations until the courts made them do so. We ended up with the 2005 Act, in which I played some part on the duration of control orders, an issue to which we will return, mutatis mutandis, later in today’s Report stage.

I came out of that experience, particularly the experience of the Privy Council review committee, with two clear views. One was that there was a problem that needed to be addressed and that there was some justification for going beyond the normal criminal legal procedures in terms of the threat of terrorism. Some of that was in terms of creating new offences—we saw the offence of “acts preparatory to terrorism” that came out of that review, which I believe has been helpful—but even that was not enough and there was the need, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has just said, for measures that were extraordinary. I do not need convincing on that score.

The other thing that became clear to me was that we should, as legislators, try to make those extraordinary measures deviate as little as humanly possible from the fundamental principles that we normally apply, through the criminal justice system and the whole of our legal processes, to the deprivation of liberty and to constraints upon movement and actions—the fundamental human rights of those living within our country, particularly our citizens. I look at the provisions of the Bill, which I believe are an improvement on control orders—limited but an improvement—and ask myself whether we are deviating as little as humanly possible.

I believe there would be a great improvement, without a balanced increase in risk to security, if we transferred that initial decision on the imposition of such measures from the Secretary of State—the Home Secretary—to the courts. That is the fundamental and simple reason why I support these measures. I was emboldened to do so partly because of the comments made by the chairman of the Privy Council committee, the noble Lord, Lord Newton of Braintree, as I always pay great respect to those who have been my chairs on committees. Perhaps we will hear from him later. However, I remember that, when we were discussing the 2005 Act and talking about analogous issues and the role of the judiciary, one of my colleagues who was not in sympathy with the position that I was taking turned on me and asked, “What’s so special about the judges?”, to which I replied, “They’re not the politicians”. That fundamentally remains my position today, and it is why I added my name and give my support to this group of amendments.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, on this occasion I have not actually been tempted. I had hoped to come in anyway, although I was a little late getting here, and I apologise for that. I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that I much appreciate the remarks she has just made. I well remember the experience we had together and the hugely valuable contribution that she made to that committee. I can also say that I share her views on absolutely everything that she has said, so I will not speak at great length. I agree also with what I have heard since I came into the Chamber. The Minister ought to know—if he was in any doubt—that there was not complete unanimity on this point on the Benches immediately behind him, even though the voices so far have come from elsewhere.

The arguments adduced on the previous occasion in Committee to which the noble Baroness has referred were, frankly, unbelievably thin. I do not blame the Minister for that—I suspect that they are inherently thin, and unless they are a lot thicker this evening then I will find myself in some difficulty, and he needs to know that.

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, I support these amendments. I declare an interest as the independent reviewer of the counterterrorism review. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, for the many hours that he has devoted to these issues over the years.

Why should it be the court rather than the Home Secretary? In my brief analysis, there are four reasons. First, on any analysis, the measures in this Bill are an exception to our normal rule-of-law principles for reasons set out very clearly by my noble friend Lord Goodhart. Secondly, they constitute a very serious potential stigmatisation of those subjected to them: a declaration of belief on the part of the state that the individual is involved in acts of terrorism. In my estimation it can hardly get much worse. Of course, the orders are anonymised, but family, friends and no doubt, the wider community, quickly become aware of the fact. Thirdly, our courts are very well used to adjudicating issues of national security, and they do it time and time again—for example, every time a question of public interest immunity arises, and in many other situations too. I am not aware of any credible argument that they do so incompetently. They may of course embarrass the Government and one or more of the agencies from time to time, but that is an entirely different point. Fourthly, and finally, our courts are independent, and they therefore bring the vigour of their independence to their decision making. In this area, that becomes a question of important public confidence.

My analysis is that it is the exceptionality of these measures, their severity, and the damage that they may do to their subject—who after all has heard no more than the gist of the case against him, quite exceptionally—that demands that they should be orders of the court rather than punitive and potentially damning directions of the Home Secretary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Of course, he is right. That is not the first time he has been right: nor, I imagine, will it be the last. I make one plea to my noble friend. I am concerned that, if the official position of the Opposition and the party which I support—and of which I am a member—is that it is not necessary, as was demonstrated on the last amendment, for action to originate with the courts and judges, this will extend still further the powers that will flow from an executive decision by the Secretary of State. To have such far-reaching powers—whether they are needed at all is a separate issue—without the action having originated in the courts becomes even more disturbing. I hope that my noble friend and his colleagues, in considering future policy over a longer period, will give this serious consideration.

The noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in the debate on the previous amendment, made what for me was the most powerful argument: that is, what are we trying to do? We are trying to promote the security and well-being of the British people. If we are going to do that we must have the maximum possible support for what is being done in all the communities that matter in this context. If that is to be the case, and if people are not to be prone to manipulation by extremists in the midst of their concern and anxiety, it is desperately important to demonstrate that when extensive powers are brought to bear, they have the authority of the courts and are part of the whole tradition of the administration of justice and the rule of law as we have understood it in this country.

Let us make no mistake. The objectives of the extremists are to undermine and destroy our commitment to the rule of law as we have understood it and to destroy the credibility of our claims about the rule of law. We must be careful that we do not play into the hands of the manipulative extremists and put the vulnerable and the impressionable under still more pressure to join their ranks.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, before I say anything else I had better warn my noble friends on the Front Bench that—to their surprise—I am about to support them, along with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. However, that is in the context of having voted against them on the previous amendment and having agreed with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said, which built on what my noble friend Lord Phillips said in the previous debate. If these provisions had still been in the Bill during the previous debate, they would have been a major focus of it. The notion that one forces somebody away from their friends, takes their children out of their schools and breaks all their links by a relocation order, underlines the desirability of this being something that is sanctioned by the courts and not done as an executive fiat by the Home Secretary.

I will speak, but not at length, to the Labour Front Bench. This is a bit of a sad day for all of us except the 79 who formed a small group in the Lobby behind me. However, in the light of this debate, it is an even sadder day for the Labour Party—I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, would agree with me but I will not ask him to indicate that—when set against the background of much of what it has stood for over the years. One thing that pleased me when we got the coalition was that there were clear indications—and not just because it was a coalition—that the Conservative Party was occupying the freedom ground again rather than the authoritarian ground. There are now reasons to question that, but I will not go on down that line.

I want to conclude without repeating points that have already been made. Okay, there will be problems during the Olympics, but they will be a great showcase for our country: its values, qualities and abilities. Why do we want, in the course of the Games, to maintain a proposition that is, frankly, inimical to everything that most of the rest of the world thinks that this country stands for and to what most of us think is what our democracy stands for? That is my question and that is why I support the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I agree with that and am very much aware of it, but it is still a mere balance of probabilities. Although it can go very close to the criminal standard, it is still a balance of probabilities that is being used, and I would say that the criminal standard requires a jury in effect to believe—to be sure—that this is what happened. I regard “reasonable belief” as a very strong and appropriate phrase to use where the person initiating the procedure is the person with the responsibility to have before him or her all the necessary material.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, having stuck my neck out first one way and then the other in the earlier part of our proceedings, I had decided to keep my head down on this one. I want to say to my noble and learned friend, given the views I expressed in the House earlier in the day, that he has made me feel better. It may be respectable to keep my head down, so I shall continue to keep it down.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, that was a very obvious keeping-down of the head, done in a rather energetic fashion.

I would like to raise a point which I raised—obviously rather ineffectively—at the last stage, and that is to ask why the Government make a different provision for the generality of the Bill than for the temporary power provided in Clause 26? Under that power, the Secretary of State can impose enhanced measures on individuals whom she,

“is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, are, or have been, involved in terrorism-related activity”.

It does not seem to me that the answer to that question can be that the situation is different. The urgency of the situation—with Parliament not sitting and, as I understand it, a heightened state of security—relates to the ability of the Secretary of State to make an order. However, the balance of probabilities relates to the individual, not to the overall situation.

I am glad to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, nodding. I too feel better now, as it is obviously not a completely stupid question. I do not see where the distinction comes, as we would still be considering individuals. It may be that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has answered the question for the Minister, I do not know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I have three prefatory remarks. First, I apologise to one of my noble friends, to whom I had given the impression that I might simply pack up my tent and go away. Actually, I got so interested that I am still here—and from that she will know that I may not be as totally supportive as she would like.

Secondly, I would just like to say what a joy it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, is now back in our deliberations rather than presiding over them as Lord Speaker, and to say how good a speech she made alongside that of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in supporting the amendment. I will not follow her down the line of discussing obstinacy versus consistency as a virtue, but I am bound to say that one thing that I have observed in government over the years is that when consistency becomes obstinacy, which is what happens on too many occasions with politicians, it is a danger and not an asset.

Thirdly, I would say to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay, who I was very keen should speak before me, that he has again given me a greater cloak of respectability than I normally have on these occasions. The House will realise from that that I agree entirely with what my noble and learned friend said, and I hope the Government will think again about this, as the case is clear, compelling and strong.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, having vigorously indicated to the noble Lord that I wanted him to speak before me, I am left rather regretting it because I now find myself caught in the crossfire between Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches and Members on the Cross Benches. I have the deepest regard for both groups. I ought to say, if no one has said it before, that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, deserves a huge vote of thanks from all of us for the work he has performed over many years in the role to which he has just referred. If I arrive at what is possibly a slightly different conclusion that is closer to that of my former constituent and noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, it will not be for want of admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

My starting point is that 40 or 50 years ago, give or take Regulation 18B, no one in this Chamber would have thought that anything like the successive regimes we have had since the 2001 Act were desirable. They have been imposed on us by a change in the world that we have not been able to control and which we have had to cope with in the interests of our citizens. But it has led us into things that we would not have wished to do in other circumstances. If anyone wonders why I have an interest in this, as well as in too many other things going on in the House at the moment, it is that those with longish memories will know that the choice fell on me to chair the Privy Counsellor Review Committee of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 which contained the provisions under which people were basically locked up in Belmarsh without being found guilty of anything, and the key was being thrown away. The all-party committee found that deeply unsatisfactory. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who was a member of that committee, is in her place. We said that something had to be done about it. The then Home Secretary went out of his way to rubbish our report as quickly as he could and nothing happened until the courts threw out the relevant part and said that it just could not stand.

We then got to the control orders under the 2005 Act, which in my view were an improvement. I share the view which has been expressed that these new proposals are an improvement on those orders—perhaps marginal, but somewhat better. So we are moving in the right direction and I would not want it to be thought that I was hostile to the Bill or to its fundamental aim and purpose. However, I do think—here I come to the position of my noble friend Lord Phillips, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that this kind of thing is much better done as a court order rather than an executive act unless there are very strong reasons to the contrary. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, adumbrated to great debating effect a list of things that are done as executive orders, and I do not want to debate all those with him, but the mere fact that we have done a lot of things by executive orders does not mean that it is desirable. If you do not have to do it, I do not think that you should. As far as I can see, the case has not been made that this should be an executive order rather than a court order. I therefore come down in sympathy with the general purpose of the amendments in this group.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, some of us are even closer to the crossfire.

I start with a question which perhaps picks up where my noble friend Lord Carlile left off. It concerns the time limit on the measures. I had intended to ask it later under some amendments which I have down, but I shall ask it now. I found it quite hard to follow the Bill at the points where it begins to refer to revival, revocation, expiry, and so on. I needed a flow chart to understand just what was available in terms of imposition of measures. Are there any circumstances in which an individual can be subject to a TPIM or a series of TPIMs lasting more than two years, and, if there is one episode of new terrorism-related activity, which is defined, how long in all can a series of TPIMs last?

I should make it clear that I very much support the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and supported by others. I also support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. On his Amendments 42 and 43, he quoted the conclusion today of the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the issue of a full merits review. It is perhaps worth reading into the record as part of this debate the comments that the committee made in leading up to that conclusion. It said that the Government in replying to its previous report had argued that,

“there is no reason to doubt that courts will continue to apply intense scrutiny in TPIMs cases, as they have in control order cases, and that ‘continued reliance on case law’ is the best way to deliver that intense scrutiny”.

That became part of the conclusion. It seems to me that that does not amount to an argument for the principles of judicial review and that intense scrutiny is not excluded by the approach which the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has advocated and which I support. I have checked the Government’s response to the previous report by the JCHR. Nothing significant has been left out of the paragraph that I have just quoted.

On the “balance of probabilities”, I added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. Can the Minister explain why under Clause 26, which introduces “enhanced” TPIMs, there is a higher standard of proof than for standard TPIMs? The same applies to the Draft Enhanced Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill which is to have pre-legislative scrutiny. The memorandum from the Home Office to the JCHR regarding the draft Bill with the enhanced TPIMs, which, in particular, would provide for relocation, said that the higher test is because of the more stringent measures allowed by the draft Bill. Clearly it would apply the same argument to Clause 26. So called standard TPIMs are fairly stringent but, even apart from that, I do not follow the logic. The standard of proof as to the facts which permit a step to be taken is a different matter from the steps which are available. I regard those as closely related but logically separate issues. I am lost as to why the higher standard of proof, which, as my noble friend Lord Carlile has encouraged the House to think, would not be a risk to the Government in this context, cannot be applied.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Macdonald of River Glaven]

My Lords, I, too, support the Government on this issue. It does not surprise me at all that if the Government presently have a power, they will seek to use it, and it does not surprise me at all that if the security services presently have a power, they will seek to retain it. But the question is, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said: what is a fair balance? Noble Lords will know that the counterterrorism review considered these issues very anxiously and received a great deal of evidence. It came to the conclusion that public safety could be protected in the absence of the power of relocation but in the presence of additional surveillance, for which funding was indicated, and with the sort of measures that have now been brought forward in the TPIM Bill. That was the considered conclusion of the review and appears to be the conclusion of the Government. I must say, having scrutinised the evidence which was supplied to the counterterrorism review, it was also my conclusion. I therefore support the Government on this question.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, having acknowledged on a number of occasions recently my capacity to fall to temptation whenever I am in the Chamber and make some remarks, I am even more tempted on this occasion because I am able to make a remark that, for most of the past six months, my noble friends on the Front Bench thought they would never hear: I support the Government.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as someone who started his ministerial career some 20 years ago sitting at the feet of my noble friend Lord Newton, I am grateful to hear those remarks. I always knew that he was sound, loyal and supportive of the Government in every possible way.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was somewhat disparaging about the Enhanced TPIM Bill and asked why we have it. It obviously indicates that we believe there is a need for bringing in relocation because we have it in the Enhanced TPIM Bill. At Second Reading, I made it very clear that we hoped that we would never have to bring that Bill into force, but I also tried to point out how important it was that we should be able to debate it in a measured manner, which is what pre-legislative scrutiny will allow for, when the threat was not as high as it might be when and should we have to bring it in. That might be a better way to proceed than to debate it in moments of crisis and rush it straight off the shelves while minds are not necessarily as settled as they should be.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 20th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, my noble friends on the Front Bench will be relieved to hear that I do not rise to support Amendment 3, particularly in the light of the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Dear. Even as the person in this House who probably has more experience of business management than any other noble Lord, I do not have an answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey. However, I know that if there is sufficient consensus about the need to do something different, a way to do it can usually be found. I hope that that will be borne in mind.

My main purpose in rising is to support my three noble friends from this side who have made three basic points. Can this Bill possibly have taken into account what has happened in the past two weeks? The answer is clearly no. Do these amendments, or anything in the Bill, take account of those developments? The answer, presumably, is no. Do I think that we should make a lot of trouble today as a result? My noble friends will be relieved to hear that my answer is no. However, the Government now have at least seven weeks to think further in the light of what the Commons thinks about our amendments. They should use that time to consider whether what is now in the Bill is entirely appropriate given the recent experience which has not yet been fully digested or taken into account. I hope that my noble friend will at least be able to give me an assurance that that is not ruled out.

[Baroness O'Loan]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. We have to revert to what is happening to policing at present. We cannot make decisions without focusing on those issues. As I have said previously, the reality is that the police are fighting many battles on many fronts, particularly in the context of terrorism and organised crime. We have very serious problems internationally, but more than that the police are operating in a context of serious economic instability across the world. We all know that the almost inevitable effect of economic instability is a rise in the levels of crime. Opportunities are presented by this situation, which exists not just in the United Kingdom but in other countries. The questions around the model of a police and crime commissioner on which the Government are clearly set, which is based on the United States model but does not have the protections afforded by that model, are not answered by the amendments which the Government have tabled. Such a model will inevitably cause problems such as have been experienced in the United States where chiefs are sacked by mayors at regular intervals. This is accepted as a political reality. They then move from major city to major city to run other forces, which leads to huge instability.

The reality for the people, too, will be that if a Tory, Labour or Lib Dem police and crime commissioner is elected, there will inevitably be a perception among the public that the policing will be delivered in accordance with that party’s policy. No matter what you try to tell them, that will be the perception. That perception will inevitably lead to distrust in some areas of the country. There is a very clear need to focus on the issues raised in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and in particular to place a statutory obligation on police and crime panels to focus on integrity and impartiality.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will certainly be brief. I do not think anybody seriously believes that non-profit-making clubs are the cause of some of the problems sometimes associated with other clubs. They do much good work in the community and for charities, as has been said. They are not now always financially strong, as my noble friend Lord Bilston explained. We hope that the Government will be able to look sympathetically on the amendment.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, with even greater brevity, I just intervene to say that, having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, and the noble Lord on the opposition Front Bench, I want to appeal to the sympathy of my noble friends on the Front Bench. It sounds like a good worthy cause for people who have been having a bit of a struggle. I know a number of them in my own former constituency area, so I hope we shall get a sympathetic ear.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I will ask the Minister for clarification on government Amendment 307ZA. My honourable friend Lady Hamwee referred to this a moment ago. The amendment has appeared for the first time in the Marshalled List on Report. It amends the Royal Parks (Trading) Act 2000. That was an eminently sensible Act. It targeted the renegade burger vans that were invading Hyde Park and gave the police powers to seize the vans and the various paraphernalia. I do not think that anyone has disputed the legislation or the way in which it works. If I read the amendment correctly—I may not have, which is why I seek clarification—it will allow seizure powers to be applied in any instance where a by-law in any Royal Park appears to be violated. That is a huge broadening of powers. As many noble Lords will know, many by-laws affect the Royal Parks. As far as I know, there is no problem that requires a fix—so in a sense this is a solution finding a problem, which itself raises issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, put the point exceedingly well that the issue of democratic protest applies not just to Parliament Square. Many Royal Parks also have a tradition of allowing legal, peaceful demonstration and protest. The fact that there is public access at all to Richmond Park comes from public protest, which has a very long history. I am concerned that in an attempt to tidy up loose ends and provide a more sweeping basis for various powers, we are about to put in a piece of legislation that is not required because there is no problem to solve, and that puts across a problematic message that demonstration needs to be in some way curtailed. I seek reassurance and an explanation of why this appears in the Bill, what its purpose and intent are, and what the legal effect of it will be.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I had not intended to speak in this debate and I ought to confess that—how can I best describe it?—I copped out on the previous debate as I found my noble friend Lord Marlesford and all the other speeches very persuasive until I heard my noble friend from the Front Bench who I thought made some significant points that undermined the possible practicality of that amendment.

This amendment is also designed to modify the Government’s proposals. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that it seems to me that we have quite an awkward situation here. Almost no one believes that what the Government have in the Bill will work. Everyone believes that something needs to be done. I was persuaded that my noble friend Lord Marlesford’s amendment was not quite the ticket, so I landed up in the position I have described. Equally, I do not find myself very attracted by the proposition, which my noble friend on the Front Bench implied in her speech, that it might take four years to find out. Well, if it had not worked in four years, she would be disappointed.

The fact is that we are going to know quite soon following the passage of this Bill, if that is what happens, whether it has been effective in achieving the objective we all want, which is a situation in Parliament Square that is consistent with the buildings around it and its world status. I do not seek to persuade my noble friend to concede to the amendment or to put her in a very difficult position, but I would like her to acknowledge that in this debate points have been made by noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that need some further consideration. I would welcome an assurance that if what is in the Bill does not work, the Government will continue discussions with a view to coming forward with some other proposition that has a better chance of working in pretty short order.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who, in an earlier debate, suggested that, as far as this part of the Bill relating to Parliament Square is concerned, I said I would reflect and bring things back. That is why government amendments are in this group. I am keeping my word and seeking to make some changes.

Clause 148 empowers the court to make any appropriate order which has the purpose of preventing the defendant engaging in prohibited activities in the controlled area. We want to retain some flexibility for the court to deal with a determined individual who has persistently failed to comply with direction by barring him from the controlled area when it is proportionate and necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is seeking to make guidance statutory. The Government are committed to providing the necessary guidance and support but consider that there is nothing to be gained by making the guidance statutory, which could risk interfering in operational capabilities. I will explain why. Statutory guidance is frequently more restricted and concise, lacking the practical examples and case studies that are often present in non-statutory guidance. This means that statutory guidance can end up being less helpful than non-statutory guidance. If action is challenged, the courts will have a look at any type of government-approved guidance, statutory or non-statutory, in considering the lawfulness of the action. The practical impact of making guidance statutory would be limited but the usefulness of the guidance could be reduced. That is probably because we can all envisage a series of scenarios that might apply in this instance. It would be very difficult to capture them all in statutory guidance. In this case, it is believed that non-statutory guidance would be more helpful if these cases were ever tested in the court. However, the noble Lord’s amendment provides a helpful template for the areas and issues which our non-statutory guidance will cover. I thank him for that.

I now turn to the government amendments. As I stated in Committee, we want to ensure that the area in which the new regime applies is as small as possible so that it targets the problem of the unique situation of Parliament Square without extending any further than necessary. We recognise the concerns of some that the controlled area is too small and that the effect of these measures could be to displace disruptive activities to footways beyond the controlled area. That is why we have been working with Westminster City Council and the GLA to ensure that relevant by-laws are strengthened to deal with disruptive activity in the wider area.

In consultation with the House authorities, it has become clear that additional provision is needed for other areas around Parliament Square not covered by Westminster City Council or Greater London Authority by-laws but which are covered by Royal Parks regulations; for example, the lawn area around the statue of George V, and Victoria Tower Gardens. Therefore, these amendments make provision for a power of seizure to be attached to Royal Parks regulations to support the position we have taken for effective enforcement of GLA and Westminster City Council by-laws. These amendments have the support of the House authorities and are in line with the proportionate and targeted approach we are taking in the Bill to deal with disruption in and around the square.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Beecham]

My Lords, I follow my noble friend on that particular point about political balance. As currently constituted, police authorities are constituted in a way that reflects the political balance in the area that is affected, whether they are metropolitan areas or single-area county police authorities. I do not understand how the Government propose that political balance should be achieved, if at all, on the basis of the Bill.

I moved an amendment in Committee about using the LGA model, which is well accepted across political groups—including the independent group—in the Local Government Association for achieving a balance within the LGA’s internal bodies and its appointments to external bodies that reflects the strength of the different political groups across the whole country. It should be perfectly possible to import that principle into appointments to these panels, at the level of the new structures which are to be created. If it is not done in that way, how is the objective to be achieved—assuming that the Government share that objective? If the Minister is not in a position to explain that at the moment, perhaps it is something that can be further discussed before Third Reading. I am sure that her noble friend Lady Eaton, who is not in her place, will be happy to enlighten her about the consensual approach that we have achieved in the Local Government Association since it was formed around this particular issue.

I welcome the slight movement that the Government have made on potentially increasing the size of the panels, although I noticed that the Secretary of State will be required to approve the numbers. That seems yet another unnecessary intervention. It should perhaps be subject to a minimum requirement but it should be left to the panel to determine. I am glad that it looks, on the face of it, as though we will be doing a little better than the homeopathic dosage of independent or co-opted members that the Bill in its present form provides for. Again, some assurance about how this might work would be very welcome, because the issue of balance is not confined, as other noble Lords have made clear today and on previous occasions, to issues of politics; there is also the geographical issue.

My noble friend Lord Hunt from the great city of Birmingham would not, I think, be content if Birmingham, with its 1 million population, was to have but one member on the West Midlands Police Authority, which might very well be all it would be entitled to, given the number of authorities that would be involved in that organisation. Birmingham would have a population three or four times the size of some of the other metropolitan districts and there are also county areas involved, as well as all the districts in those county areas to be represented. For Birmingham to be represented by one individual, particularly if it ends up with the misfortune of an elected mayor who would be required to serve in that capacity, would be extremely unsatisfactory.

Of course, when it comes to party-political balance, it is quite conceivable that, as already happens in a number of places, the elected mayor does not reflect the politics of the council involved. So, again, you could have an anomalous position, particularly in a large authority, of an elected mayor of a different party, or no party at all, being the sole political voice in that authority, whereas control of the authority may be in different hands, or, certainly, the balance may very well be different.

In addition to those issues of party-political and geographical balance, issues of ethnicity and gender need to be reflected and are difficult to derive, and the provision for co-opted members ought to be a way of proceeding with that. While it may not be possible in the Bill to prescribe how that should be done, it would be very welcome to hear the Minister say for the record that it would be expected that efforts would be made to reflect those considerations about diversity of ethnicity and gender in particular—there may be others—which are sensitive and important. We have a range of issues, of course, affecting minority communities in some parts of the country and, in general, issues such as domestic violence are clearly ones in which a gender balance is required.

It would be very helpful to have a clear steer on that from the Minister on the record, if not in the Bill, so I hope that she will be amenable to answering some of the points that noble Lords have raised and are about to raise—I see the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, straining at the leash to join the debate.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I shall interject a question from a slightly more sceptical angle, while understanding where noble Lords opposite are coming from. I can understand how the proposal in Amendment 116 might work in a police authority where there is only one local authority. What I do not understand is how it would work in a police authority such as Essex, where there are, if not quite 17, at least well over a dozen local authorities. I shall give way to the noble Baroness—it may be that the question is for her—but I do not understand how such an arrangement could work without local authorities having their choice taken away from them and being told that they have to choose X or Y.

[Baroness Henig]

Perhaps I can explain to the noble Lord that that is precisely what happens at the moment. In a two-tier area such as he is describing—I am familiar with Lancashire—all the authorities have to get together and, in certain cases, agree to put forward nominations in line with the political balance overall. They do this by a process of negotiation. In Lancashire, there are two unitaries to throw into the mix. On many occasions Blackpool or Blackburn have been told to send a Labour member or a Conservative member in order to reflect that balance. I accept that that is one issue; to get an overall balance, every now and again an individual local authority has to contribute to that balance.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

All I will say, if I am allowed to treat that as an intervention, is that I found it pretty messy and I would like to know what is to be done in councils where there is no overall control.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Wednesday 29th June 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, gives us some comfort and takes us in the direction of more reassuring corporate governance than the Government's current proposals. Like the noble Lord, Lord Harris, I accept that the Government will probably be successful in reinstating their provisions for elected police and crime commissioners, but there remains an element of the doctrinaire in their proposals. There is a feeling that the election by the public of a single person who is then unencumbered by advice, support or challenge is the only way forward. I fear that the only people around the elected police commissioner offering expert advice could well be sycophantic staff whose very livelihood relies on the elected police and crime commissioner.

The dilemma is that we are in an either/or situation. Either police and crime panels with an independent element must be given greater strength and authority than is currently proposed—and I was reassured by the Minister that we are moving a little way that direction—or we should have the model offered by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Stevens, of a board of non-executive directors.

I have spent 10 years in the private sector as a deputy chairman and non-executive director of one of the biggest companies in the world and I know the value of non-executive directors. The Government also know their value, because under their proposals this week for reform of the defence of our country the individual service chiefs will be removed from the Defence Board and replaced by non-executive directors. The Government know in their heart of hearts the value of non-executive directors.

I hope that the Minister will give us some comfort that we are moving away from this doctrinaire notion about the purity of the electorate electing the police and crime commissioner and the commissioner not being encumbered by any advice other than that which they choose to hire themselves. I am not sure that I could wholly support the amendment put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Stevens, but we need either that or stronger police and crime panels, and words of comfort from the Minister.

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

I was wondering whether one was allowed to take part in the debate if one was not a former chief constable or Home Secretary, but I have decided to take the risk, having listened rather carefully.

I only want to add a few sentences. I thought that the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was one of the most persuasive that I have ever heard—that is, until I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne about overlapping bodies. That brings me to the same position as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who has just spoken, with his distinguished and long experience. We certainly do not want two boards or panels with overlapping responsibilities treading on each other’s feet—that was my noble friend’s point. Equally, we do not want a police commissioner who is a lonely figure with massive responsibilities and nobody to turn to.

It seems that the answer to this is not to set up a non-executive board but to look at the panel, as has just been suggested, and make sure that its powers, responsibilities or however they are defined reflect the need for the commissioner to be able to turn to people for advice, support and sometimes comfort—or, indeed, unwelcome advice—in the way that has been reflected in this debate. I hope that may be of some help to my noble friends on the Front Bench, as the view of one modest Back-Bencher who has listened to the debate.

[Viscount Brookeborough]

My Lords, I support the amendment, or at least the basis of it. My experience is from the Northern Ireland Policing Board—which is, incidentally, perhaps the last such board, but also the one which has been modernised most recently, and in difficult circumstances. It was required to cover all the aspects that we are talking about in that it had to be workable.

As for having non-executive directors or the equivalent, this is not just about the commissioner’s power or about bringing in the expertise; quite frankly, it is about the impossibility of the commissioner carrying out all the functions that he will have to carry out. The functions of the police panels are laid out quite clearly. The Bill says that they are to monitor and keep up to date with the commissioner. It does not say anything about their powers to call police and other people. In fact, Clause 30(2) says:

“Nothing in subsection (1) requires a member of the police and crime commissioner’s staff to give any evidence, or produce any document, which discloses advice given to the commissioner by that person”.

The commissioner is the one who has the power to call the police to give evidence on what is happening, and to scrutinise everything that goes on in the police force.

Although I hesitate to do so, I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard. The problem is that the powers do not overlap. It appears that the panel has no right to go into the police to find out the details; that power rests entirely with the commissioner. The problem is that no individual—commissioner or otherwise—can possibly go into all the issues such as finance, staff, equality, property and everything else. To correct that in the Northern Ireland Policing Board, we had somebody in the property market as well as an accountant and somebody in HR. I do not believe that anyone here could give us an example of an individual who could do the work that we had to do to monitor the police. There is no such individual.

So I would ask the Minister: who in the police and crime commissioner’s office will do that? The answer is that it will be done by paid staff. The police and crime commissioner’s staff will produce an opinion to one person without that being questioned by any expertise or any experience on that side at all because, as I understand the provision that I have just read out, the panel will have absolutely no right under the Bill even to hear that advice.

Terrorism Act 2006 (Disapplication of Section 25) Order 2010

Lord Newton of Braintree Excerpts

Monday 19th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, I am beginning to think that it is probably unwise for someone who is neither a lawyer nor a former senior policeman to engage in this debate, but those with longish memories may recall that from 2001 until about 2003 I chaired a group of privy counsellors looking at the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, who produced a report that I am bound to say the then Home Secretary did not like at all, precisely because its drift was somewhat in line with some of the comments that have been made today and, I dare say, has been reasonably well justified by events during the intervening period. All that leads me to say that I, too, have been somewhat depressed—as, evidently, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, have been—by the drift during the intervening period towards continued erosion of civil liberties.

I therefore take this opportunity to applaud the approach that my noble friend outlined on behalf of the Government. It might follow from that that I would be on the side, in this particular debate at this particular time, of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. I am not, for a reason that lines me up with the noble Lord, Lord Condon. Against the background of the shift towards a more liberal approach in these matters that appears to be taking place, the Government and my noble friend deserve the chance to produce a properly thought-through change in a well crafted bit of legislation and to not get forced into some of the knee-jerk stuff that we have seen too many times in the past few years.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

My Lords, I have a question and, although it may appear tangential, I hope your Lordships will feel that it is a question that I am justified in putting to the Minister. She spoke of the Government’s commitment to protecting our hard-won democratic liberties. Should that principle not be applied seamlessly and consistently across all areas of policy? If so, why are the Government not allowing the House of Commons the normal time to scrutinise the Academies Bill? I know it is not a Home Office responsibility, but there is collective responsibility across government as a whole. Parliament is where our democratic liberties are most importantly enshrined, and I would be grateful if the Minister would be willing, on behalf of the Government as a whole, to explain that.