Immigration: Hostile Environment

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes, I did, but—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

The Home Office Committee is reported as saying that, unless the Home Office is overhauled, the scandal will happen again for another group of people. For example, there is nothing in this Statement about the fact that officials in the Home Office are being put under pressure by being given targets for removals from the UK. How can officials use their discretion and compassion if they have to deport another 10 people by the end of the week?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will have heard the previous Home Secretary talk about previous targets for removal, which there were, and which had stopped for this year—they had been ceased. There were no targets for the deportation of criminals. But the noble Lord got to the nub of the point. The Home Office and the new Home Secretary have said that we need to take a far more humane approach to dealing with people—because these are people and not just numbers. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the way in which the Windrush issue has been dealt with under the leadership of the new Home Secretary has been more than humane. He has put a prime focus on ensuring that anybody inadvertently removed by the compliant environment measures that were in place are proactively sought, and remedial action will be taken to ensure that, through the compensation scheme, any hardship they have suffered will be recompensed in due course. The noble Lord is right in the sense that the culture needs to be changed—the new Home Secretary talked about that as well—to understand and recognise that we are dealing with human beings here.

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly can. As the noble Lord will know, there are established processes for PCCs to make an application for additional funding if they face unexpected and exceptional expenditure—and I am sure this is such expenditure—which would otherwise create a serious threat to the force’s financial stability and its capacity to deliver normal policing.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I shall continue the theme of funding. We continue to believe that the police are underfunded, particularly considering that 60% of funding for police services comes from central government and that amount is reducing in real terms. Police officers on mutual aid operations to ensure President Trump’s safety are being housed in gymnasiums. There are hundreds of officers in one space on camp beds. Male officers are having to pass through sleeping areas designated for female officers. Some female officers are being accommodated on the floor of squash courts where there are no beds, simply a mat on the floor for them to sleep on. These officers are having to spend three nights in these conditions and are then expected to work 12-hour shifts. Why has the Home Office not proactively stepped in to ensure that forces have sufficient funds to provide civilised accommodation for these officers? How do the Government expect police officers to treat the public fairly if this is the way the Government treat them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Police officers who work in the line of duty to protect the public should absolutely be given decent accommodation. I shall quote the NPCC’s spokesman:

“Some of the accommodation pictured today for officers supporting the major operation for the US Presidential visit is not acceptable and below the standard of other accommodation for this operation”.


I understand that Essex Police is working at speed to resolve this and to ensure that the affected officers will be decently accommodated. The spokesman also thanked the officers who raised this issue because what the noble Lord outlined is utterly unacceptable.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Lord Paddick Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a very short debate; in fact, there has been an absence of debate. However, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting us prior to today to discuss the Bill; speaking with officials was very helpful. I offer the apologies of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has an important committee meeting this afternoon and is unable to speak in this debate, but the House can be reassured that she will submit amendments to which she will speak in Committee.

I am grateful to techUK for its advice on this matter. The Bill looks very much like the equivalent of the United States Clarifying Lawful Overseas Use of Data, or CLOUD, Act, which sets out how the US Government can access overseas data for law enforcement where an international agreement is in place. When the United States passed the Act, the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, was the first leader to indicate that the United Kingdom would be willing to establish an agreement with the US on the basis of its Act, which I presume is why we are bringing forward equivalent legislation here.

My briefing on the CLOUD Act is that it clarifies how and when the US and other countries can gain access to data stored in different jurisdictions, allowing bilateral deals with foreign countries on data sharing for law enforcement purposes. The legal clarity which that Act provides, which I presume this Bill will also provide, has been welcomed by tech giants such as Microsoft, Google, Apple and Facebook.

Noble Lords will know that we are part of the Five Eyes group of countries that share intelligence on terrorism issues, along with the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, so it is no surprise that we are looking through the mechanisms of this Bill to establish a reciprocal arrangement with the USA and presumably with the other Five Eyes countries in due course, in addition to other countries as we are able to strike arrangements with them.

It makes sense, rather than relying on mutual legal assistance treaties, to allow law enforcement agencies to apply to the British courts to access data directly from an overseas service provider rather than going through government channels, provided an international agreement is in place with the country concerned. Bearing in mind the vast volume of data handled by service providers based in the United States of America, America will obviously be a priority for the mechanisms in this Bill. I am grateful for the House of Lords briefing on this issue, which outlines the tortuous process of MLAT, which can take up to 10 months to complete, so the need for this Bill is clear.

There are issues of privacy here and therefore of compliance with the GDPR—the general data protection regulation that has recently been introduced—and the UK’s ability to secure a certificate of adequacy from the European Union if we were to become a third-party country after Brexit. Noble Lords will recall that the EU allows data exchange only with third-party countries whose data regulations and privacy laws are considered by the EU to meet EU standards. If the UK enters a bilateral arrangement with a non-EU country whereby it can apply directly to UK service providers to hand over sensitive personal information, presumably the EU will have to be satisfied that the safeguards in the Bill are sufficient for the EU not to withdraw any adequacy certificate for the UK. Perhaps the Minister can explain.

For example, in Clause 3 “excepted electronic data” goes beyond legal professional privilege to include confidential records such as medical records, evidence from the confessional—“spiritual counselling”—and welfare counselling, but in Clause 3(5) these exceptions do not apply to terrorist investigations. Noble Lords will recall that as a member of the European Union we have carte blanche to make whatever arrangements we want as far as terrorist investigations are concerned, but once we become a third-party country the EU will scrutinise those arrangements and take them into consideration in deciding whether an adequacy certificate should be issued: the devil will be in the detail of the Bill.

The European Commission in April 2018 published its own e-evidence proposals for European production orders, which is the EU version of the CLOUD Act. It sets out when law enforcement officers can request data and what the response times from the tech companies should be. These proposals will apply across all EU countries, whereas the US arrangements, which President Trump is said to prefer, deal only with individual countries—they are bilateral arrangements. How do these proposals fit with the EU e-evidence proposals?

As with all UK law that has extraterritorial effect, there are issues of enforcement. The Minister and her officials were good enough to explain to us that, clearly, if the international service provider has offices in the UK, sanctions could be applied, but it would be more difficult if the overseas company had no assets in the UK. One has to ask whether contempt of court is an effective enforcement process if that overseas service provider has no assets in the UK.

I shall very briefly outline some other areas where we may need to explore further. Clauses 4(5) and 4(6) say that the judge must be satisfied that some or all of the data will be of “substantial value” to the investigation or proceedings and that it is “in the public interest”. The judge will have to weigh the benefit to the proceedings and the circumstances under which the person came into possession or control of the data. This appears to be vague. How high a threshold is this for the applicant investigator to surmount?

In Clause 8, the order may forbid the person against whom it is made to disclose the existence or contents of the order without the permission of the judge or the applicant. This appears to have consequences for open justice.

In Clause 10, is the use of the data as evidence restricted to the offence for which the order is made? What happens if other offences are disclosed? Would a further application be necessary?

Overall, we welcome the Bill, but we will be probing to ensure that the rights of UK citizens are not infringed and that securing an adequacy certificate from the EU if we leave the European Union will not be jeopardised by these proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there have been so few speakers this afternoon that anyone would think there might be a football match on tonight. However, I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive comments and questions. I have been furiously writing everything down and I hope I also have the answers but if I have not, I will follow them up in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether this could allow for an agreement with the EU. Obviously, we are going through negotiations with the EU on Brexit, but it is absolutely possible that we could eventually make an agreement either with specific countries or with multiple states in the EU. That is almost certainly a possibility. He also quite sensibly asked whether this will affect the adequacy judgment in the context of Brexit. It is about getting data from outside the UK into the UK, but UK providers responding to requests under any agreement would need to comply with data protection law, which is of course aligned with EU standards, as we saw when we were going through the Data Protection Bill recently.

The noble Lord also asked how the Bill affects the evidence proposal published by the Commission. EU member states and wider international partners are considering this very question of cross-border access to electronic data. The European Commission has published proposals on this issue which we are currently considering. The UK’s opt-in applies to the regulation and the Government are committed to taking all opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis, putting the national interest at the heart of the decision-making process. We are currently scrutinising the regulation, and we will make a decision on whether to participate in due course. The proposed evidence directive could be implemented before the end of the envisaged implementation period.

The noble Lord also asked whether contempt of court is enough if the CSP has no assets in the UK, which slightly goes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made about seizing assets. Both are a possibility, but we anticipate working closely with overseas providers to create a high compliance environment. Given the general support for this, we hope that is the case. It is possible that some providers may have no UK assets, but those firms are unlikely to be within reach of any enforcement mechanism. We can always resort to MLA in the case of non-compliance.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about what happens if you get more evidence than you asked for. The data received will be subject to the usual data protection laws and existing laws on data handling and retention. Law enforcement will be provided with guidance on how to handle data when using an overseas production order. I think he also asked about what happens if you need multiple different requests.

[Lord Paddick]

The question was: if you identify further offences from the information that you have requested, would you then need to go back to a judge to enable that evidence to be used?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My view would be that, yes, you would because it would be a new request, but I will confirm that in writing. I would not wish to give the noble Lord misinformation at the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the US or other countries will be able to get information from the UK. The proposed agreement will be reciprocal and we would expect any country with which we have an international co-operation arrangement also to benefit from this more streamlined process for data and evidence gathering. The condition for any international arrangement or future arrangement is that each country recognises the other’s rule of law—that is an important concept for the Bill—due process and judicial oversight for obtaining and dealing with information and evidence with regard to serious crime. Each agreement will be specific in scope in respect of the circumstances in which it can be used. Section 52 of the IP Act 2016 will be used to designate international agreements, and that will be the basis for another country to request information from UK service providers. The Secretary of State has the power to impose additional conditions when designating an agreement under that section.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what would happen if the other country had a lower threshold for what is regarded as reasonable belief. What do we do if this arrangement is all about the mutual recognition of legal systems? The UK would not agree to any arrangement where the threshold for obtaining data did not provide similarly protective standards to those in the UK. The agreements will recognise a shared acceptance of the laws in another country with which we are entering into an agreement. It will recognise the other’s rule of law, due process and judicial oversight for obtaining and dealing with information and evidence with regard to serious crime.

Under any proposed agreement the UK would require the other country to set out the powers it intended to use in pursuance of requests made under the agreement. The UK would also ask the other country to commit that it would not rely on another power unless agreed by both parties. In addition, it would specify the evidential standard required before requests were made and ensure that the UK was satisfied with those standards before designating an agreement for incoming requests.

The noble Lord asked which countries we are negotiating agreements with. We expect the first relevant international arrangement to be with the US, unlocking the potential for streamlined access by UK law enforcement, but any future international arrangements would, like the agreement with the US that we have been discussing, be based on the recognition that robust protections for privacy are present in each country. Of course, not every country would meet those high standards, and any agreement that we reached with another jurisdiction would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. As discussed, that usually involves laying the agreement in Parliament for 21 sitting days without either House having resolved that it should not be ratified.

The noble Lord asked what powers exist to nullify incoming requests. The Bill is about requests from the UK rather than to the UK, but UK-based providers will not be compelled to comply with overseas orders and, if they do, must comply with data protection law. The agreement itself will be subject to the usual scrutiny by Parliament, as I have said.

The noble Lord also asked about the timescales for production orders versus MLA. Under an overseas production order, the standard time for compliance is seven days. However, the judge may shorten or extend this time depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore we expect this to be a much quicker process compared with MLA, which can take up to 10 months unless there is a particular urgency. The noble Lord asked how many we were anticipating. We anticipate approximately 40 to 50 outgoing requests for electronic data. I will write on the other point regarding MLA numbers. I am guessing that there are more because it has a broader scope, but I will write to the noble Lord.

I have tried to cover every point; I am not sure that I have but I will of course follow up in writing any that I have not. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Amesbury Update

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons. We associate ourselves with the condolences already expressed to the family and friends of Dawn Sturgess, who, tragically, has died after exposure to the nerve agent Novichok, and extend our good wishes for a full recovery to Charlie Rowley. We also take this opportunity to express again our thanks and gratitude to the security and intelligence services, the military, the police, emergency services and medical staff, who have worked continuously to protect and look after us and to help ensure that we have a country in which it is safe and enjoyable to live.

Four months ago it was the attempted murder of the Skripals. That was awful and outrageous enough. Now, it looks like not attempted murder but in all probability, in effect, the murder of Dawn Sturgess and the attempted murder of her partner Charlie Rowley, two innocent British nationals, on our own soil. The circumstantial evidence that the attempted murder of the Skripals was an act by the Russian state against Britain is strong—certainly strong enough to convince many of our allies to act with us against Russia.

Can the Minister say what the prospects are for naming, if not apprehending, the actual perpetrators of the earlier attempted murders four months ago, and now of the very recent murder and attempted murder, in effect, of two British nationals? The Government have stated that the risk to our citizens is low, but it is lethal when it happens, and presumably is not quite so low for people in Salisbury and its vicinity, compared with elsewhere in the country.

The Chief Medical Officer gave advice after the Salisbury incident that people should not pick up any unknown or already dangerous objects such as needles and syringes. In the light of what has now happened to Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, are the Government satisfied that that advice was repeated frequently and regularly enough, particularly to people in Salisbury and the surrounding areas? Messages only tend to get through if they are said and given time and again. Could the Minister say how often, by what means and to whom that message was repeated over the last four months?

The Home Secretary said last Thursday that it was,

“completely unacceptable for our people to be either deliberate or accidental targets, or for our streets, parks or towns to be dumping grounds for poison”.—[Official Report, Commons, 5/7/18; cols. 535-36.]

I am sure we would all agree with that. But what advice do the Government now intend to give to the people of Salisbury and the surrounding areas, particularly in view of what has just happened? If the Government are sure that no more of the poison Novichok has been dumped, to use the Home Secretary’s word, no doubt the Minister will tell us that when she responds. But if the Home Secretary is not sure, how will the Government update the advice given after the attempted murder of the Skripals to reflect the fact that the threat from the poison Novichok being dumped has materialised in such a tragic and horrific manner? Equally importantly, what steps will the Government take to maximise the chances of getting their message and advice across to as many of our fellow citizens as possible, not just now but in the days and weeks ahead?

I will make two final points. First, how long will it take to develop the suitable support package for local businesses that was mentioned in the Statement? Secondly, what exactly is the role and responsibility of the elected police and crime commissioner for the force area affected when an attempted murder and an actual murder take place of British nationals, quite probably as a result of actions by a hostile state, within the area of that PCC when the investigation is being led by detectives from Counter Terrorism Command?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. Our thoughts are with the friends and family of Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley, who must be very concerned about him, as he is still critically ill. Clearly, we support the Government, the police, the security services and the military in their attempts to uncover what has happened here and in the earlier poisoning of the Skripals. We also commend the staff at Salisbury District Hospital for their unstinting efforts to treat the victims.

Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, the head of UK counterterrorism policing, which is leading the investigation, said of the most recent incident:

“This means they must have got a high dose and our hypothesis is that they must have handled a container that we are now seeking”.


Can the Minister confirm that the police have not been able to talk to either victim and therefore do not know for sure how they were contaminated, what sort of container they are looking for or where to find it?

One hundred detectives were already working round the clock to try to establish how Dawn Sturgess and Charlie Rowley were contaminated with Novichok. What will change as a result of this becoming a murder inquiry? Has what has been assumed to be an accidental poisoning resulting in the tragic death of Sturgess been caused by an even higher dose of nerve agent than the deliberate poisoning of the Skripals, or has this case been fatal for some other reason?

Neil Basu also said that he was “unable to say” whether the incident in Amesbury was linked to the poisoning of the Skripals on 3 March, although that was the police’s working hypothesis. Yet the Statement says that both individuals were exposed to the same type of Novichok used to poison Sergei and Yulia Skripal in March. Can the Minister explain the difference between what appears to be those two very different statements?

There is reportedly growing unease among some people in Salisbury and Amesbury that they are not being given enough information. Ricky Rogers, a Wiltshire councillor and the leader of the Labour group on Wiltshire council, said that the death of Sturgess had “heightened tension”. He said:

“Local residents have never been told enough about the first incident back in March. I think someone from counter-terrorism needs to come here and tell us what they know”.


I repeat the question that I asked the noble Baroness on Thursday, to which I received no reply. What can she say to the people of Salisbury and Amesbury to reassure them?

Amesbury Incident

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 5th July 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement given by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary in the other place earlier today.

The first duty of government is to keep citizens safe. The Government have our full support for the important work they are doing in that respect. The two individuals who have been poisoned have been named as Charlie Rowley and Dawn Sturgess. They will be getting the best possible care at Salisbury District Hospital. I join the noble Baroness in wishing them a speedy and complete recovery. I also join her in recording my thanks to all the emergency services workers who attended the scene, the staff at the hospital, the security services and the staff of Porton Down laboratory.

The nerve agent, which has been confirmed as Novichok, is the same as that used to contaminate Yulia and Sergei Skripal four months ago. Local residents will be concerned that this is the second poisoning in four months and that Amesbury is approximately eight miles from Salisbury.

I note from the Statement that the working assumption is that the couple have come into contact with the nerve agent in a different location from the sites that were part of the clean-up operation a few months ago. I am not going to speculate about what could or could not have happened: that helps no one, particularly those trying to get to the bottom of all this and the local residents. The public will, however, want reassurance, and timely information—based on the facts as they emerge—will be welcome and reassuring.

Can the Minister therefore confirm that every assistance is being given to the emergency services working on the ground and that funding will never be an issue? Will she also say something about support for Salisbury and Amesbury? The attack hit the business and retail sector very hard and it is important that it is helped. It is probably a matter for another department, but support for the retail sector, which needs people to visit the centre of Salisbury and now Amesbury, is nevertheless an important part of the response, in collaboration with the local authority led by her noble friend Lady Scott of Bybrook.

I agree with the Minister that we have no quarrel with the Russian people. The welcome that England supporters have received in Russia has been most heartening to watch on television. We do, however, need an explanation from the authorities for what has happened here. It is regrettable that we have not had it to date, as is the disinformation referred to by the noble Baroness in her Statement.

I again thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and assure her of the full support of the Opposition Benches, which we also offer to all the emergency services workers and the staff at the hospital, along with our security services and the staff at Porton Down. I look forward to further updates from the noble Baroness in due course.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. This is clearly a shocking and unexpected development, and our best wishes go to the couple and those who responded—and continue to respond—to this incident.

I understand that the incident is ongoing and we should not make assumptions, but does the Minister agree that there appears to be a lack of motivation, which might suggest that this is not a deliberate poisoning? In the last 10 minutes or so, the police have said that the couple have been contaminated by handling a contaminated item. Somebody from the Chief Medical Officer’s staff told the “Today” programme this morning that in high concentrations the nerve agent can be absorbed through the skin but in lower concentrations it has to be ingested. Is there any indication that the victims may have injected the substance? It would clearly be reassuring to members of the public if that was the case.

On the one hand, a chemical weapons expert is quoted by the BBC as believing that the latest victims could have come across the Novichok that poisoned the Skripals after it had been haphazardly disposed of. On the other hand, a Russian scientist who first exposed the Novichok programme cast doubts on that theory, saying that Novichok would have decomposed in the four months since the attack on the Skripals. The Minister talked about the expulsion of Russian diplomats across the globe as a consequence of what happened before, but what if the Russian scientist is right that this is a fresh batch of the nerve agent? What would the international implications of that be? The Russian scientist told the BBC that this must have been a separate incident because Novichok was unstable, especially in damp conditions. Can the Minister add to this?

I know that it is difficult, as I am about to tell the House in the debate that follows this Statement, to provide clear information in the early days following such an incident. That is difficult to do but the public need to be told whether this is a new attack, which could throw doubt on the whole matter, or whether it is an accidental poisoning caused by leftovers from the Skripal attack. Residents are very concerned. What can the Minister say to reassure them? When we had the previous nerve agent attack, we learned more from the media than we learned from the Minister’s Statement in the House. Can she provide the House with some additional information that will help your Lordships to understand what has happened and reassure the residents in the area affected?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, for their very constructive comments and questions, as is usual following this type of incident and the making of such a Statement to your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked first about the names of the victims. I know that they have been in the press but we have not confirmed their names. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about local residents being very concerned. Of course they will be concerned; they have had two almost identical incidents in their vicinity in the last few months. I hope that the words of Dame Sally Davies and the police have provided some comfort to them that the risk is low, while saying that people should remain vigilant and not touch things such as syringes, which might be dangerous, and that if they see anything they are concerned about or feel unwell, they should immediately contact the helpline.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the different location and he is absolutely right. Not only did the events of the weekend take place in a different location but the couple in question do not appear to have visited any of the original sites. He also asked whether there would be constant reassurance of the public and constant updates to them as time goes on. We have seen over the past couple of days that the police and Dame Sally Davies have been very forthcoming in the information that they have given to the public. Any funding or assistance required will of course be forthcoming. Some 100 counterterrorism police detectives have been deployed and mutual aid from other police forces has been sent to Amesbury to assist.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned a crucial point: the local economy. I know it suffered the first time round and people will be very concerned. Another department, MHCLG, provided a lot of assistance in the aftermath of the previous event and I expect it will deploy similar assistance to the local area following this one.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked several questions, some of which I will not be able to answer. One was about whether it was a deliberate poisoning. The police have said that the poisoning was due to handling a contaminated item. He spoke about injecting the poison and made a point about the Russian scientist who said that in his opinion it was a fresh batch. I cannot substantiate any of those points. As the investigation proceeds the facts will become much clearer and it is not for me to comment on them at this stage.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 28th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, for securing this debate. I declare an interest not only as a former senior Metropolitan Police officer but as someone who is gazing across the Chamber at three former Metropolitan Police Commissioners. Of course, that will not influence what I say. On Operation Conifer, I say only that I hope the House will soon be given the opportunity to debate my Private Member’s Bill on pre-charge anonymity.

We on these Benches remain sceptical about the benefits of police and crime commissioners over police authorities—despite some very good examples, such as our very own noble Lord, Lord Bach—and advocate their replacement with panels of locally elected councillors or London Assembly members. However, I take exception to what the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said about party-political influences. As noble Lords will know, police and crime commissioners are now predominantly party-political candidates. In 2012 there were 12 independents; in 2016 only three independents were elected. I accept that they may not be party political in terms of local politics but when it comes to arguments about, for example, resources for policing, I wonder how vocal Conservative police and crime commissioners have been, compared with Labour police and crime commissioners, about the lack of central government funding for policing. There is a danger of politicising the police—of chief constables being selected according to whether their politics align with those of the local PCC. I can think of a famous example of a chief officer being sacked because his political views did not align with those of the police and crime commissioner.

There is also the problem, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Blair of Boughton and Lord Stevens of Kirkwhelpington, of the low number of applicants for chief constable posts. The seventh report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee in 2016 said:

“It is deeply concerning that there have been so few applicants for recent Chief Constable vacancies … It is also worrying that incumbent deputies often seem to be the only candidates”.


That relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said about the difficulty of having two individuals—the chief constable and the PCC—with so much relying on the personalities of the two.

A case was drawn to my attention where serious allegations were made about the chief constable of a particular force. Rather than initiating an independent investigation, the police and crime commissioner is alleged to have passed those accusations to the chief constable, including the identity of the accuser, placing that person—a member of that force—in an invidious position. Eventually, in 2014, following further allegations from other members of the force, that chief constable was suspended and the matter was investigated by the IPCC. But a misconduct hearing conducted by the police and crime commissioner, rather than sacking the chief constable, recommended eight final warnings, and the chief constable was reinstated. It was only after concerns were raised by the chief officer group of the force, the Police Superintendents’ Association of the force, the Police Federation of the force and Unison, and a public petition of more than 1,000 signatures calling for the chief constable’s resignation, that the police and crime commissioner began the process requiring the chief constable to resign, which he subsequently did. As the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Wasserman, said, there is clearly a need for greater accountability of police and crime commissioners. The person who contacted me asked, “What happens when the police and crime commissioner is guilty of misconduct?”—a question that I did not have an answer to.

As for the role and responsibilities of police and crime commissioners, they already have a huge area of responsibility, not just for the police but for crime and disorder reduction. The Association of Police and Crime Commissioners briefing provided for this debate says:

“PCCs work in partnership across a range of agencies at local and national level to ensure there is a unified approach to preventing and reducing crime”,


and:

“Police and Crime Commissioners are actively involved in work that goes beyond policing including on victim services, mental health, community safety, reducing offending, child sexual exploitation and abuse, youth justice and beyond”.


Despite that, the Government have pressed ahead with giving police and crime commissioners other responsibilities, such as for the fire service. When one considers the sort of scrutiny the London fire and rescue service has been under this week in the Grenfell inquiry, one has to agree with the Home Affairs Committee report, which said:

“Adding further to their responsibilities … is an interesting idea but one which we believe requires detailed scrutiny and should be left until later”.


I am also concerned that an unintended consequence of these additional responsibilities for police and crime commissioners will be the erosion of the role of locally elected councillors and London Assembly members. Coupled with the erosion of central government funding, is this part of a government strategy to undermine local authorities and local democracy?

Police authorities mainly comprised elected representatives from a range of political parties, magistrates and independent members who could make up for any gaps in representation; for example, of minorities. There were representatives from different parts of a police force area—urban versus rural, for example—and local problems and concerns could be championed by individual police authority members and addressed. If not party-politically neutral, they were certainly more politically balanced. Local councillors on police authorities could balance the needs of police funding, which is increasingly falling on local authorities as central government funding for the police reduces, against the needs of other local services; whereas police and crime commissioners only have to consider raising money locally for the police. Crime and disorder partnerships, based on local authority areas, could be better synchronised with police authorities.

As other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Scriven, have said, there is concern about democratic legitimacy, public awareness and accountability. Democratic legitimacy and public awareness of who holds the police to account and how to make representations are still as lacking as under the old system. According to the APCC briefing, PPCs have,

“increased the transparency and accountability across the policing landscape through their directly elected role”.

I am not sure the evidence backs that up. Turnout for the police and crime commissioner elections in 2012 was only 15% and in 2016 was between 23% and 26%. I expect PCCs are as largely invisible as their police authority predecessors. Indeed, the Home Affairs Committee said that,

“public engagement by PCCs … is an extremely important part of their role if they are to be truly representative of, and accountable to, their local areas … We would like to see all PCCs … putting the highest priority on engaging with their electorates”.

Contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, said, arguably the PCC system costs more than the system that it replaced. For example, you have not only the salaries of PCCs but of deputy police and crime commissioners. A PCC can appoint anybody they like to that role. Of course, in addition there is the cost of the elections, and sadly we have already had one by-election as a consequence of the tragic death of a PCC. All these costs add up.

As elected representatives, the only way that police and crime commissioners can be held to account is by police and crime panels. As the Home Affairs Committee report says,

“panel members need to be properly trained, resourced and supported”,

but of course the only training, resources and support they will get are those provided by the police and crime commissioner himself or herself.

Overall, we think the old system had its drawbacks but the cost-benefit analysis for police and crime commissioners comes out negative.

Airports: Border Force

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are 254 e-gates operating across the country, including the juxtaposed controls. E-gates respond to the patterns of people-flow across the border. Although some of the e-gates are sometimes closed, one finds that when demand increases, they re-open. That is a wise way of managing traffic across the border.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, further to what the Minister has just said, is it not true that there needs to be a certain number of immigration officers per e-gate and that, in fact, the e-gates are not all open when they should be because of a lack of staff? What discussions have the Government had with Heathrow Airport Ltd about increasing the number of Border Force staff at the airport, bearing in mind that the Border Force is struggling with two runways, let alone three?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that there are immigration officers at e-gates and that e-gates are sometimes closed but, as I explained, this is in relation to the projected flow of passengers across the border, and sometimes if a plane has been delayed, it can create congestion at the border. We have 250 e-gates, but we are investing in staff at the border in the coming year.

Brexit: Identity Cards

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for that question, and for forewarning me of it. I have talked about cost and civil liberties but, in addition to the things which my noble friend talked about, I draw attention to the fact that an increasing number of transactions and interactions, including the majority of identity frauds now occur online, where documents are far less effective in proving identity. I will take back what my noble friend said, but we should recognise that there is now a thriving market in fraud with actual, physical documents.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in 2005 experts at the London School of Economics estimated that the introduction of an ID card scheme would cost up to £18 billion. Taking account of inflation and the total absence of any Brexit dividend, does the Minister agree that £26 billion would be better spent on the National Health Service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The quite swingeing costs were certainly a consideration when the coalition Government decided to scrap identity cards or take them no further. I do not know about the £20 billion figure, but abolishing the scheme saved the taxpayer at the time £86 million and removed the need for a total investment of £835 million. What the Government choose to spend the money on will be a collective matter for the Government.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, which has just been made and may still be being debated in the Commons. We, too, value the contribution of EU citizens and their rights need to be protected after Brexit.

The Government, as the Statement indicates, intend to introduce a new settlement scheme for EU citizens resident in this country. The uncertainty felt by EU citizens over their position in the country in the light of Brexit has had serious consequences. These have been reflected in a number of ways, including concerns over staffing shortages in key areas of the economy as the enthusiasm of EU citizens for being in this country has diminished. Providing clarity on their future position and rights is in our national interest, as has become all too obvious. Whether the Government’s actions and proposals will achieve the desired result is another matter. The absence of the promised immigration White Paper and Bill has done nothing to ease the damaging uncertainty that the Government have allowed to fester.

What is the Government’s estimate of the expected take-up rate by EU citizens of the registration scheme? What will be the consequences for EU nationals who do not register? Will EU citizens in this country post Brexit be allowed to travel and stay in other countries, including their country of origin, and retain their rights on their return? What additional resources, and at what cost, will be required to administer the scheme? What right of appeal will there be for those who believe they have been wrongly denied registration under the criteria against which registration will be determined? What publicity, and through what means, will the Government be providing for the procedures announced today?

According to today’s papers, the Government have expressed concern about the lack of detailed reciprocal plans from other EU countries and the Home Secretary has been quoted as saying it is “not good enough”. If the newspaper reports are correct, I am not quite as sure as the Government are that that is the kind of comment that will create an atmosphere of understanding and willingness to compromise in any forthcoming negotiations with the EU. Clarity of their objectives over Brexit has not exactly been a hallmark of this Government.

The Government must have a clear view about what they would regard as acceptable from the EU and other EU countries in response to the intentions and details set out in today’s further Statement. Can the Minister spell out what the Government would regard as an acceptable response from the EU and EU countries in respect of British citizens living in Europe post Brexit? Can the Minister say whether the Government have had any indication of whether the arrangements set out in today’s Statement will prove acceptable to the EU and EU member states?

Turning to some of the paragraphs in the Statement, towards the end of the first page it says:

“Irish citizens will not need to apply for status under the scheme but may elect to do if they wish”.


Can the Minister clarify what benefit, if any, there would be for Irish citizens in electing to apply for status under the scheme?

On the second page, the Statement says:

“Subject to parliamentary consideration of changes to the fees regulations, applications will cost £65, with a reduced fee of £32.50 for children under 16”.


How did the Government arrive at the figure for the proposed charge?

On the third page of the Statement, it is acknowledged that processing applications will prove a challenge but it says that,

“the Home Office already issues around 7 million passports and 3 million visas each year and so processing applications on the scale required is not new to us”.

Some might think that a trifle complacent, particularly those who recall what has happened over Windrush and those who recall the percentage of successful appeals against Home Office decisions. According to the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, the Home Office has a 10% error rate in immigration status checks. The Statement may also yet prove a little complacent in the light of the track record of the Home Office in managing to lose documents. I am sure a very close eye will be kept on the efficiency or otherwise with which the Home Office manages this scheme. Others—I think the Home Affairs Select Committee might be one—have identified weaknesses in recruitment, retention, training, decision-making and management, which would seem to cover most aspects of the department’s work.

The Statement says that there will be a dedicated customer contact centre to help people through the process. Who will that be staffed by? Will the Home Office be sufficiently dedicated to make sure that it is staffed by its own staff, or will it be staffed by an outsourced organisation?

The immigration exemption in the Data Protection Act denies people the right to access their data when they need it most. Will this exemption apply to EU citizens? Will employers, landlords and banks be required to check the documents of EU citizens in the same way as they have been required to check the immigration status of non-EU citizens?

In conclusion, if we leave the EU without a deal, what will happen to EU citizens? Will this agreement and their rights be protected? Finally, on the criminal check, which is one of the criteria against which registration will be assessed, what exactly will the threshold be, and how far back will offences be considered relevant?

I appreciate that I have asked a number of questions and I say to the Minister now that I will be more than happy to accept a written response if that is required.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We welcome it if we take it at face value, but the noble Baroness will understand that we need to probe.

The Statement gives the impression that the Home Office will be bending over backwards to help UK-resident EU citizens to apply for and be granted settled status or pre-settled status. This appears to be completely at odds with the Home Office’s attitude towards the Windrush generation. Can EU citizens have confidence in this Statement in the light of the Windrush fiasco?

The Statement says that persistent offenders or those who pose a security threat will not be eligible. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has already asked what the threshold might be in respect of which criminals will be excluded, allowed in or allowed to remain, and she may be ready to answer that. In the other place, the Minister said that UK criminal record databases and watch-lists would be searched and that applicants would be asked about overseas convictions. Currently, ECRIS can be searched by the UK, but access to ECRIS looks as though it is in jeopardy. How confident is the Home Office that its systems will be robust enough to identity those with serious overseas convictions?

The Statement says that close family members living abroad will be able to join EU citizens resident in the UK. Can the Minister confirm how close a relative would have to be in order to be able to join an EU citizen who is resident here?

The Statement also says that negotiations are under way with non-EU EEA countries with a view to extending the scheme to their citizens. I think it mentions EEA countries and Switzerland. I should declare an interest in that I am married to a Norwegian and own property in Oslo. Can the Minister say any more on what progress is being made with regard to EEA countries and Switzerland?

Penultimately, will these arrangements be dependent on reciprocal arrangements being put in place for UK citizens resident in the EU and EEA countries, or will they be in place no matter what the response from those countries is?

This is a detailed and complex proposal, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has indicated by the number of questions he has asked. Will the Minister agree to a debate to allow proper consideration of all the issues that we have raised today?

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords—

Brexit: European Union Police Databases and Extradition Arrangements

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, these are political choices that will be decided in the course of the negotiations. I think that both sides will be realistic in the final analysis and in what is ultimately agreed. I have full confidence in that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the European arrest warrant, as Mr Barnier said yesterday, is based on trust underpinned by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the concept of EU citizenship and free movement. As the Government have rejected all these foundations, how do they expect to retain access to the European arrest warrant after we have left the EU?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As to the European arrest warrant and other matters, as I said to the other two noble Lords, these are political choices. What we have in the EAW and other matters, such as ECRIS and SIS II, is strong co-operation between us and our European Union partners. I know the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that the most important thing when we leave the European Union is that we have a safe Europe in which our citizens can live.