Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has said, with the best will in the world, much of the legislation that this House passes will be ineffective if judges do not understand the issues. Sadly, in some cases—albeit a limited number—it is clear that they do not understand the issues surrounding domestic abuse, in particular, coercive control, rape and sexual abuse, despite current training.

To the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, I would say that there is a difference between outputs and outcomes. I am not sure whether this is an appropriate analogy, but I know from my own experience of race relations training, for example, that the cultural shift needed is difficult to achieve. The proof of the pudding is in the eating and, at times, the training of the judiciary has failed the test. Despite the Minister’s assertion, I fail to understand how mandating such training without dictating the specific content can be contrary to the principle of judicial independence, as my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames has said.

However, we are grateful for the reassurances that the Government have given as a result of the concerted efforts by the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

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

My Lords, we on these Benches support the intention behind the noble Baroness’s amendment. The case for improved training is well made. The amendment’s wording does not dictate what the training should be but puts the requirement for it in the Bill. Around the House, I think that we can all agree on the need for updated, quality training and to ensure that it happens.

I have said many times that this is a good Bill and will be a good Act of Parliament, but it is important that everything is done to ensure that all aspects of the law are correct. That includes ensuring that our judges and magistrates are properly trained. We owe that to victims, because domestic abuse is something that we now talk about in the country and in the House. That was not the case many years ago and we should not just assume that judges and magistrates completely understand the issues. That is why it is important that we get the training right.

I accept entirely the point the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, makes about judicial independence. I think we all support that, but there have been one or two occasions at the other end of the building when other parts of the Conservative Party were not so keen on judicial independence, when the judge made a decision that they did not like—we should get that on the record. It is not always the case that there is a great call of support for judicial independence, but I will leave the point there. I do not in any way bring the noble Lord into that; I have the highest respect for him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it really is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for reasons that will become apparent, not least because we are three non-lawyers in a row.

On Report, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, wondered whether I was accusing the Government of being misogynistic, following on from what the noble Baroness has just said. I say very clearly that that is not what I said or intended to say. I shall clarify. The essence of misogyny, as I understand it, is hatred of women who fail to comply with the sexist stereotype of a compliant, subordinate woman—hatred of women who stand up for themselves. I am not accusing the Government of hating women, but in my opinion there are echoes of that view of women being subordinate in their approach to this issue.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, has said, on the face of it the Government’s refusal to extend the so-called householder defence to victims of domestic abuse who use disproportionate force against their abusers in self-defence in the same way that a householder is allowed to use disproportionate force against an intruder appears to smack of the view that men should stand and fight but women should run away.

I do not intend to go over the arguments that I made at previous stages of the Bill; suffice it to say that I do not believe the Government’s arguments hold water. As a result, I am led to the conclusions that I have expressed. I would not be averse to the Government repealing the so-called householder defence, but I believe that to allow predominantly male householders to avail themselves of such a defence while not extending it to predominantly women victims of domestic abuse is inconsistent and incompatible.

While I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, about Lords Amendment 38, in my view the Government’s approach is again inconsistent. The law specifically provides a statutory defence to victims of modern slavery when those victims are compelled to commit an offence, even though there is an existing common-law defence of duress. When it comes to victims of domestic abuse who are compelled to commit an offence as a result of such abuse, the Government argue that the existing common-law defence of duress is sufficient. Either the existing common-law defence of duress is sufficient for both victims of domestic abuse and victims of modern slavery or it is not. In my view, the Government should not be able to have it both ways.

Clearly, these anomalies need to be addressed. Motion D1 provides for an independent review of defences for those who offend due to domestic abuse, which we support. The review of sentencing as suggested by the Government does not appear to us to go far enough.

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

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws set out in detail the case for her amendments in Committee and on Report, and it is disappointing that they have been rejected by the other place. In response, she has tabled Motion D1 in her name. As we have heard, she is seeking an independent review to look at the issues that we have been talking about throughout our consideration of these matters. I think that is the right way forward.

I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, is resisting the new Motion from my noble friend, but she made the point, as have others, that if the Government are resisting the issues raised in the amendment, he ought to address the question of whether they could be looked at by the review of sentencing—or is that a step too far for the Government?

There is a huge issue here. I recall the debates that we had when my noble friend and others presented harrowing cases. There is a real point here: if there is an intruder in someone’s house then, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, often a male can defend himself there and has a defence, but a woman attacked by her partner in her own home, which should be a place of safety, cannot rely on such a defence. That cannot be right.

The Bill is seeking to address the whole issue of domestic abuse in all its various facets. It is a good Bill, but it would be an even better one if we could make sure that all the gaps were plugged here. The fact is that women in their own homes, their place of safety, can often find themselves in very dangerous situations. If they have to defend themselves and end up injuring or killing their partner, we should understand that and ensure that they have the proper defences to take account of the difficult situation that they have found themselves in, often over many years. After all, these things escalate; they do not happen overnight.

My noble friend has identified an important point here, and I hope that when the Minister responds he can address it. We need to find a way to look at the issues that my noble friend raised in the review of sentencing, as he referred to in his earlier remarks.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that guidance includes information on the link between domestic abuse and speech, language and communication needs, the impact of witnessing domestic abuse on children’s speech, language and communication, and the services available to support victims of domestic abuse with speech, language and communication needs.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has been unwavering in bringing these important issues before the House. In answer to the noble Lord’s amendment in Committee, the Minister spoke about the extensive engagement undertaken on the statutory guidance, including a specific working group focusing on disability, including learning disabilities. While that is welcome, I did not hear any commitment to address the specific issues raised in this amendment—in particular how, when children witness domestic abuse, it can lead to communication difficulties and the support required by those with speech, language and communication needs to help them to express the impact that domestic abuse has had on them. Can the Minister address those concerns? We support the amendment.

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

The speech, language and communication needs of victims of domestic abuse have to be properly addressed. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bringing this issue to the Floor of the House, as he did in Committee. He is absolutely right to do so.

The noble Lord’s amendment is important. If we are to have effective domestic abuse support for disabled people, it must be barrier-free and truly accessible. As the noble Lord told us, the ability to communicate is a vital skill. Those with communication difficulties are particularly vulnerable, which is why we need to ensure that local authorities, the police and all other agencies are able to address and ensure that they have provisions in place to make sure that people can make their points effectively and be understood, having their concerns met and needs addressed.

Today and in our previous debate, my noble friend Lady Andrews made the case for providing that extra support and ensuring that it is properly addressed in the guidance. I endorse my noble friend’s call for the guidance to be explicit, and I hope that the Minister can be absolutely explicit on that. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, drew our attention to the needs of disabled people, which can be multiple and complex, and how effective communication plays such an important part, including the ability to communicate to public authorities. As the noble Lord said, just think if we could not communicate—how could we get anything done? It is not right that a victim of abuse is not listened to or heard.

My noble friend Lord Mann made very important points from his experience as a Member of Parliament for Bassetlaw of failings of schools and the social services in north Notts. I am sure that those failures are going to take place all over the country, and that is just one example. That is why we need to ensure that those issues are addressed. My noble friend Lady Whitaker drew attention to the particular risk that children find themselves in.

I hope that the Minister can address those issues; I am sure that he will be very aware of the potential of a vote on this amendment. He will not want to tempt the noble Lord to do that.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this debate has been filled with harrowing examples, including powerful personal testimony such as the moving account the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, gave of her cousin.

In Committee, a similar amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, was introduced to make it a legal requirement that serial domestic abuse offenders or stalking perpetrators are registered on ViSOR, the violent and sex offender register, and that they be subject to supervision, monitoring and management through existing Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements, or MAPPA. In Committee, I suggested that existing legislation and codes of practice may already require dangerous serial domestic abuse and stalking perpetrators to be supervised, monitored and managed through MAPPA, and that the issue may be one of the police and other agencies not complying with existing legislation rather than a problem with the legislation itself. The Minister appeared to agree with me. However, clearly something needs to change, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, so powerfully set out. Women are dying because serial offenders are slipping through the net and, if this part of Amendment 73 is not the answer, the Government need to explain very clearly what they are going to do.

My noble friend Lady Brinton’s personal experience, so bravely and powerfully put, and the personal experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, should leave the House in no doubt that action is needed urgently. Unlike the amendment in Committee, this amendment includes a requirement to review the operation of its provisions and to lay a report before Parliament that includes a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abusers and stalkers. Amendment 81 in the name of my noble friend Lord Strasburger also requires the Government to lay before Parliament a comprehensive prevention and perpetrator strategy for domestic abuse, the case for which he has so clearly set out.

I will not repeat the arguments I made in Committee. Suffice it to say that we on these Benches support both of these amendments, and were the opinion of the House be tested, we would support them.

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

My Lords, Amendment 73, proposed by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon with my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has my full support, as does Amendment 81, tabled and moved by the noble Lord, Lord Strasburger.

Like other noble Lords, I send my condolences to the family of Sarah Everard and of all the other women who have been murdered since Second Reading. As was pointed out, 30 women have been murdered since Second Reading, which is an absolutely horrific figure.

My noble friend Lady Royall made a powerful case and laid out a comprehensive framework to deal with the perpetrators of domestic abuse and stalkers. Her amendment would require there to be a report before Parliament within the next 12 months looking at the operation of the provisions as set out in the amendment. My noble friend was right when she said that it is time for men to step up and take ownership, and take responsibility for this issue. The cases she referred to are harrowing but, sadly, they are only the tip of the iceberg: horrific abuse and a catalogue of failure by the authorities to understand the risk that these women were at, often only understanding that risk when it was too late and they had been killed. As has been said, 30 women have died, murdered by their partner, between Second Reading and today’s debate. That figure should be enough in itself for the Government to want to act. We have had a complete failure of practice and process, and we need to ensure that there is a proper, national framework to identify, assess and manage perpetrators. It is most important that people are not lost in the system. We need a comprehensive perpetrators strategy: nothing less will do.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, in setting out the case for women who are murdered, demonstrated the need for that national solution and the failed system. I am very sorry to learn of the personal abuse the noble Baroness has suffered at the hands of a political opponent. Sadly, it means that she can speak with first-hand experience as a victim of appalling abuse and stalking. It seems to me, from what she told us, that the perpetrator was treated very leniently for the crimes that he committed. I was not aware of the murder of the cousin of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, and she is absolutely right that we have to match heartfelt words with actions. We have to break this horrific cycle, and that needs a proper multi-agency approach that leads to action. We need to ensure that we bring up better boys to become better men. That is what needs to happen here. That happens in the home, but if people in the home are seeing violence and abuse as part of their daily lives, are we surprised that when they become older, they behave in an equally appalling way and we get these dreadful, horrific crimes?

The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, reminded the House of the abuse that women in public life have suffered, which, again, is totally unacceptable. One of my best friends—I will not mention her name—is a Member of the other place. We used to work together at the Labour Party. She was proud to be elected to Parliament to represent the constituency she lives in. She and her family suffered appalling abuse from a stalker, who found out where they lived and would turn up outside their front door, sent abusive emails and generally made their lives a living hell. In the end, my friend and her husband sold their home and moved to another part of the constituency, and the perpetrator went to prison for his crimes. In the new home, there are panic alarms, a special thing on the letter box and other security measures. This is no way to live, just because you want to represent your community and are good enough to stand for a party and get elected. It is appalling. I remember my friend telling me, when we had a coffee in Portcullis House, “Actually, Roy, I’m quite safe here. But I’ve left my husband and two kids under 16 at home, where this person knows we live. That is what really worries me while I am down in London during the week.” It is awful. She is not the only person; there have been horrific cases of women of all parties facing horrific abuse, particularly in the House of Commons. That is outrageous, and we must stop that.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage
Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for identifying this gap whereby marital rape is not an offence in some countries and therefore British nationals would not have been convicted had they committed marital rape in them. I am very grateful to the Minister for responding to the identification of that gap and closing it effectively.

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

My Lords, this group of amendments addresses marital rape, whereby rape could be committed by a UK citizen in a country that does not consider it a crime and, presently, no prosecution could be brought. The noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, brought the matter to the attention of the House in Committee and has been successful in persuading the Government of the merits of her case and the importance of closing this loophole.

I offer her my sincere congratulations on her success. Her actions will protect women and girls from the horrific crime of rape and ensure that no rapist or perpetrator of these vile crimes can evade justice through making use of this loophole in the law and hide behind the fact that marital rape is not a crime in a small number of countries. This is a good example of the House of Lords doing its job well. An important issue was raised, well argued and supported across the House; the Government considered it carefully and responded positively, bringing forward their own amendments to address the issue.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 5th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 8th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences against children outside the UK, in an effort to clamp down on so-called sex tourism. Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Bill makes it an offence, in England and Wales, for a UK national or resident to commit sexual offences, under Sections 1 to 4 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, against people aged 18 or over at the time of the offence, extending extraterritoriality to serious sexual offences against adults as well as children.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has explained, the idea is to ensure that the Government comply with the Istanbul convention but, as she pointed out, for somebody to commit an offence, it has to be an offence not only in this country but in the country where the offence took place; in some of those countries, marital rape may not be criminalised. Therefore, I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, has identified a potential loophole. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, for tabling these amendments and spotting this loophole in the Bill. It is good to have this debate today. As she has said, marital rape can happen in a country where it is not illegal locally, and we would then not be able to prosecute the offence here in the UK. Nobody in this Committee wants that situation. I hope the Government will confirm that they either accept her amendments, or accept that she has identified a very serious loophole and bring in their own amendments on Report.

Health Measures at UK Borders

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as of yesterday, more than 109,000 people in the United Kingdom have died because of Covid-19. We mourn all those lost and think of their families, for whom life will never be the same again. We must learn from past mistakes. Rather than being world-beating or world-class, we have the highest death rate in the entire world, with, on average, more than 1,000 people dying each day. It is a shameful and tragic figure.

Right from the start of this pandemic, we have had too little, too late; we have ignored the problem, denied the problem and then panicked and made a U-turn. We all know the Prime Minister is not a man for details or consistency. We were told we were going to build a world-beating test and trace system. He told the country that we would turn the tide by June, then in July, he said that there would be a significant return to normality by Christmas. When the leader of the Opposition suggested a two-week circuit break, he was mocked by the Prime Minister, only for the Prime Minister to do exactly what he called for weeks later and weeks too late. And then there was the dreadful performance when he accused the leader of the Opposition of wanting to cancel Christmas, only to announce new restrictions on 19 December. The Prime Minister has ignored medical advice and there has been error after error, which has cost many lives.

Let us be clear: the vaccination programme is going well because of the fabulous NHS, the GPs, other health professionals, the military, the police and the volunteers who are working to get the country vaccinated. We thank them for their brilliant work. No contracts have been awarded without proper tendering procedures and no companies have been mysteriously formed and given millions of pounds without obvious identifiable experience or a track record in the area in question.

One key area where the Government have clearly fallen short is on protecting our borders. The measures outlined are another example of too little, too late. Limiting hotel quarantine to countries from which travel by non-EU residents was already banned means that the Home Secretary’s proposals do not go anywhere near far enough.

Mutations of the virus are undermining the efficiency of the vaccines and threatening life and hope. We cannot know where a mutation will emerge next. The truth is that the Government are once again behind the curve. This announcement is too limited. It leaves huge gaps in our defences against emerging strains. We know that strains that emerged in South Africa and Brazil have already reached these shores—that is little wonder given that the controls have been so lax, with just three in 100 people quarantining having been successfully contacted, and with border testing introduced only 10 months after the first lockdown. Even then, the start had to be delayed because the Government could not get the necessary systems in place.

Can the Minister tell the House how we can be assured that travellers will not arrive with emergent strains via countries that are not on the control list? What support has been made available to ensure improvements in quarantining compliance and the Isolation Assurance Service? Why has it taken so long to step up checks, when we know that the system has been failing for months? What discussions have taken place with hotel chains to ensure the availability of rooms? How often will the list of red list countries be reviewed and updated? Will it be based purely on the country of risk or on the capacity of UK quarantining facilities?

Travellers arriving in Scotland from any country outside the British Isles will be forced to quarantine in a hotel, whereas in England, only travellers from the red list countries will be required to quarantine. Does the Minister accept that the greatest barrier to a four-nation approach is the Westminster Government dragging their feet? For those people travelling out of the country, why is enforcement being stepped up only now?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s approach to border biosecurity appears to be all over the place. They previously had travel corridors in place, but they then scrapped these and imposed the requirement of a negative Covid test and 10 days’ quarantine on all arrivals into the UK, unless travellers pay for an expensive test-to-release scheme, where a further negative test five days after arrival in the UK can shorten the quarantine. Enforcement of these rules appears to be lax, to say the least.

The Government also introduced travel bans on direct flights and on non-UK citizens travelling from countries where the variants first identified in Brazil and in South Africa are prevalent, including Portugal, where many flights from Brazil arrive into Europe. The reason the Government gave was that this was on the basis that further research needed to be carried out on these variants to establish whether they were more contagious, more dangerous and more vaccine resistant. How closer are the Government to answering these three questions about the new variants and what criteria will need to be met on how contagious, dangerous or resistant they are before a decision can be made as to whether these restrictions can be lifted or varied?

The Government say that they are going to introduce compulsory hotel quarantine on UK nationals arriving from these so-called red list countries. How many rooms will be required? UKHospitality, the trade body representing the country’s hotels, said yesterday that it had no information on how the system might work, and leading hotel chains around Heathrow told PoliticsHome that they have not been contacted to assist with any type of scheme. When will the scheme be in place?

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition are calling for all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory hotel quarantine. The argument appears to be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, new Covid variants could occur anywhere in the world. However, Labour want the existing list of exemptions from quarantine on arrival into the UK to be maintained. This includes, for example, workers who travel at least once a week into and out of the UK.

Sir Keir Starmer said yesterday that 21,000 passengers arrived in the UK on Monday. What are the Government’s estimates of the hotel capacity required were all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory 10-day hotel quarantine? Taking the example of Australia, which has adopted such a policy, there are hundreds of thousands of Australian nationals unable to return home because of limited Covid-safe hotel capacity or because they cannot afford the cost of compulsory hotel quarantine. Do the Government expect similar problems here in the UK?

What consideration have the Government given to, at the very least, extending their ban on direct flights or on non-UK nationals from entering the UK, and extending their compulsory hotel quarantine policy for UK nationals, to include countries where there is no rapid genomic sequencing capacity? There, a new or existing Covid variant is unlikely to be identified quickly enough to prevent infections in the UK.

How much of a risk do travellers from outside the UK actually present? In the light of the high level of infections in the UK, both in terms of total numbers and as a proportion of the population, what is the probability that a new, more contagious, harmful or vaccine-resistant Covid variant will result from a mutation of the virus within in the UK, compared with the probability that this will occur in a country with few or no Covid infections? Is the recent E484K mutation of the variant first identified in Kent, that is similar to the variant first identified in South Africa, an example that the threat of dangerous mutations lies as much, if not more, within the UK as it does overseas?

Taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man or even Norway—where I am speaking from now—where Covid infections are low or non-existent, test and trace is effective, and where there is rapid genomic sequencing capability, what is the reasoning behind quarantining arrivals from such countries when they arrive in the UK. In short, what is the basis for the Government’s strategy towards border controls—if they have one? It certainly does not seem to be based on either science or common sense.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 3rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws, has so clearly explained—and I pay respect to her enormous experience over decades in this area—Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 raises the threshold from disproportionate to grossly disproportionate before the force used by a householder for the purpose of self-defence can be considered unreasonable.

The fear generated by being attacked in your own home—the visceral reaction, the instinct to defend yourself and your property in such circumstances—is considered so strong that using disproportionate force to defend yourself is considered to be reasonable in the domestic setting. While it can be argued that there should be no distinction and that reasonable force in the circumstances should be enough, Parliament decided that being attacked in your own home sets apart this kind of self-defence from other situations. The Minister will not be surprised to hear me use the same expression as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. What was seen, at least by the tabloid newspapers, as the “Englishman’s home is his castle” provision in Section 76 of the 2008 Act should equally apply to what will in most cases be a woman defending herself against domestic abuse.

I have personally been in both these scenarios. I have cowered behind my front door as a violent stranger tried to kick down the door of my flat; thankfully, the police arrived before the door gave way. I have also cowered as my violent partner kicked and punched me. The fear caused by not feeling safe in your home is truly terrifying, especially when you are being physically attacked. The fear I experienced was similar in both cases, but the latter was far more frightening. Being attacked by a random stranger does not hurt as much as being attacked by someone you have allowed yourself to be vulnerable with, and who has subjected you to coercive and controlling behaviour over a number of years.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, I have been keen to ensure that male victims and those in same-sex relationships are not forgotten. Even here, we are talking about someone who is physically weaker being attacked in their own home by a stronger person. In most cases, but not exclusively, this will be male violence against women. If she is to defend herself against a much stronger man, her options are limited and she may have to resort to using a weapon—for example, as the only way effectively to defend herself, or simply because of the instinctive reaction to grab whatever is available, such as a kitchen knife.

It is not difficult to envisage how such a use of force might be considered disproportionate but understandable, particularly if you fear for your life in circumstances such as we heard described when considering the previous group of amendments, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, explained. It might be considered disproportionate, but not grossly disproportionate. Can the Minister explain why this amendment should not be accepted, in the light of the higher standard of acceptable force available to a householder under attack from a burglar?

Awareness has recently grown of how prolonged and sustained abuse can turn a victim into an assailant. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 139 and the subsequent amendment would bring the law into line with these recent developments. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has explained, a trauma-based approach needs to be adopted. There clearly needs to be a change of culture in the criminal justice system in this respect, as well as a change in the law.

The mental health impact on women prisoners has been clearly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 140 is almost identical to Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. In the same way that I believe the burden of proof lies on the Minister to show why Section 76 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 should not apply to victims of domestic abuse in relation to Amendment 139, I ask the Minister why Amendment 140 should not apply to victims of domestic abuse when a very similar statutory defence is available to victims of slavery and trafficking. The Government must come up with very strong counter-arguments if these amendments are not to be accepted.

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

My Lords, we on these Benches fully support Amendments 139, 140 and 145, in the names of my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws and others. The issues addressed in these amendments have been raised in the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley, Jess Phillips, and others during the Bill’s consideration there.

The amendments, as noble Lords have heard, are modelled on existing law and should not cause the Government any trouble whatsoever; I look forward to the Minister’s response. My noble friend Lady Kennedy explained the problems women face when they have killed a partner, having been the victim of abuse for years and years and then find themselves in the dock. The amendments seek to address that and reflect the realities of domestic abuse.

Everybody has been very complimentary about the Bill—it is a very good Bill, long overdue and we wish it success—but to become really effective legislation, it must incorporate these amendments or government amendments with the same intent. It is reasonable to afford the victims of domestic abuse who act in self-defence, often in their own homes, reasonable protection. They are compelled to defend themselves, having suffered years of abuse. As my noble friend Lady Kennedy reminded us—we have heard it many times before—on average, two women a week are killed by their partner or former partner. That is an horrific figure.

Amendment 139 would provide domestic abuse survivors with the same legal protection as householders have in cases of self-defence. Members have referred to such cases. Amendments 140 and 145 are modelled on Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and would give victims of abuse a statutory defence where they have been compelled to offend as a result of experiences of domestic abuse.

We have heard excellent speeches in this short debate from all noble Lords, particularly from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester. I endorse all the comments of noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Bradley, in particular, made a compelling speech. He raised the issue of mental health, its effect on women prisoners and the need for proper context to be taken into account when deciding to prosecute cases. I look forward to the response from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. If he cannot accept these amendments, I hope he will tell the Committee that he understands the issue and will go away and reflect on it, and maybe come back on Report.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 27th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) (V)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, have highlighted the link between domestic abuse and communication needs—both in how abuse can lead to communication difficulties and how important communication ability is, so that victims can express the impact that domestic abuse has had on them. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, brings her wealth of professional experience to reinforce these points.

Disability discrimination includes when you are treated less well or put at a disadvantage for a reason that relates to your disability in one of the situations covered by the Equality Act 2010, such as when you use public services or have contact with public bodies. Those with communication needs would be included in that. I understand the particular concerns of those noble Lords who are promoting these amendments, but I wonder whether the protections of the Equality Act are sufficient. However, I hear the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, that these protections need to be embedded.

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

My Lords, first, I draw the attention of the Committee to my relevant registered interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. These Benches welcome and support all the amendments in this group.

Amendment 22, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, seeks to put a clear statement in the Bill that, in encouraging good practice as required by Clause 7, the domestic abuse commissioner must include identification of and response to any speech and communication needs that people have. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, using his extensive experience of work in the criminal justice system, as Chief Inspector of Prisons, gave us a clear example of why this is so important. My noble friend Lady Andrews made a point about how important it is to be able to use language to express and defend yourself. My noble friend also made the point that children witnessing abuse of a parent by another parent or partner is a horrific form of abuse. We have heard from other noble Lords that lifelong damage can be caused to a child who witnesses that form of abuse.

The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, in an important and thoughtful contribution, explained to us the difficulties that he suffered 25 years ago and the effect that they had on his speech at the time. His contributions are always valued and respected in the House, and I am very sorry to learn that he feels that that is not the case.

I cannot see who would not agree with any of the amendments in this group. The first, Amendment 22, seeks to ensure that support is available and generally accessible to every victim. We may be told in a moment by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment or these amendments are not needed, and that support is implied anyway. That may be so, and I am sure the noble Lord will set out his case shortly, but I think he needs to go further and that the Government have to provide every reassurance necessary. It may be that the noble Lord thinks that the provisions are adequately covered under Clause 7(2)(a) and (b), along with the powers set out in Clause 9. If that is the case, can the noble Lord make that expressly clear in his reply to this debate?

Amendment 92 seeks again to put a commitment in the Bill that a local authority will identify and respond to speech, language and communication needs when preparing its strategy for the support of domestic abuse victims—something that I and many other noble Lords fully support. Again, when responding to the debate, if the noble Lord thinks that this amendment is unnecessary and is going to rely on the powers set out in Clause 55(8) and (9)(b), and/or the powers contained under guidance in Clause 58, can he confirm than the Secretary of State will address the issue specifically through one of these routes?

Amendment 110 seeks to address the same issue as the previous amendments, this time in respect of providing proper support for victims during court proceedings. Again, if we are to be told by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, that this amendment is also not necessary, it would be helpful to have reassurances on the record that these important issues will be fully addressed by the rules of the court or other provisions.

Finally, Amendment 187 seeks to put points in the section related to guidance in the Bill that have been raised in previous amendments, along with the important issue of children witnessing domestic abuse and the effect that has on speech, language and communication needs, which many noble Lords raised in this short debate, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff. I look forward to the noble Lord’s response to this short debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as a former police officer, I find being critical of the police difficult but sometimes necessary. Couple that with the fact that I am a survivor of domestic abuse and all I can say is: wish me luck with this one.

I will first speak to Amendment 62, which deals with a senior police officer having to take into account the previous criminal history of the person he is considering giving a domestic abuse prevention notice to. I find myself in a similar position to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, in that, regrettably, I was not provided with the briefings from the LSE. We need to be careful, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has highlighted. Clearly, police officers attending an incident of domestic abuse should routinely check on the antecedents of the parties involved, but the issuing of a domestic abuse prevention notice should be based on whether the police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to give the notice to protect the person from domestic abuse there and then.

The fact that someone has no criminal record does not mean that they do not present a danger to the complainant, and neither does someone having a criminal past mean that they present a danger to this particular victim. I draw a parallel with someone accused of a criminal offence, whose previous convictions are not normally revealed to a court until after their guilt has been established because the court must determine the facts of the case before it. Having said that, previous evidence of abuse of the current victim by the perpetrator in question is clearly an important factor.

Amendments 23 and 28 in this group require the domestic abuse commissioner to encourage good practice in the appropriate use of data and technology to aid in the prevention, reporting and detection of domestic abuse, including making recommendations to public authorities in these areas. The fact that we are debating these amendments has given a great opportunity for the LSE research to be brought to the attention of noble Lords.

As such, what the amendments are asking for is a subset of Clause 7(2)(b), on

“making recommendations to any public authority”.

While this is important, I am not sure it requires to be in the Bill. However, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, highlighted important research into how artificial intelligence—AI—and machine learning could be used to improve responses to domestic abuse. The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, also highlighted the importance of silent reporting, especially during lockdown.

As my noble friend Lord Dholakia has said, Amendment 50, to which I have added my name, allows the commissioner to request information from public authorities. We have heard his concerns, reinforced by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services, about the failure of the Greater Manchester Police to record crime that has been reported to it, particularly violent crime.

This has been a recurrent theme with the police service over the years, particularly with the police failing to take domestic violence seriously. From my own professional experience, I recall getting into trouble, many years ago, when I arrested a man who had broken a chair over his wife’s head—something that I should not have done, according to the prevailing culture at the time, because victims of domestic abuse often do not want action taken against the perpetrator. In this case, the victim had to be treated in hospital for her injuries, and, once treated, she did not want to take action against her husband, something I found difficult to understand until I became a victim of domestic violence myself.

From my own personal experience as a survivor, I know that perpetrators of domestic violence are very good at convincing you that there is no alternative to the abusive relationship you are in and that the pain they inflict is the price you have to pay for their affection. I must tell anyone in such an abusive relationship: you can, and you deserve to, have a loving relationship without the pain.

Although attitudes have changed in the police service, with prosecution of domestic abuse possible even without the consent of the victim—if there is physical evidence of assault, for example—we need to ensure that the police do not slip back into old practices, as Greater Manchester Police appears to have done in not recording crime, including violent crime and, no doubt, incidents of domestic abuse.

The Minister wrote to those who spoke at Second Reading and addressed this issue directly, including the issues in the Greater Manchester Police, following the publication on 10 December of the findings of Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescues Services’ inspection of the service GMP provided to victims of crime. What the Minister says in that letter, for me, gives more cause for concern than reassurance. It says that the inspection is the first of HMICFRS’s new victim services assessment that assesses the end-to-end experience of victims, from the first report of a crime to its outcome. In this case, it included an inspection of the effectiveness of GMP’s crime recording processes. If this was the first inspection of this kind, what will future inspections of other forces unearth? GMP is unlikely to be alone.

If, as the letter says, since 2014, HMICFRS has carried out a discrete programme of police crime recording inspections, known as crime data integrity inspections, why have the problems at GMP only now been discovered? The Minister goes on to describe the process where HMICFRS makes recommendations to the chief officer of police for the force concerned, and says that “our expectation” is that the chief officer will take remedial action. Washing their hands of all responsibility, the Minister goes on to say that it is the responsibility of the local policing body, the mayor or police and crime commissioner to

“publish their comments and response to any recommendations for improvement made by HMICFRS.”

This is about the culture of the police service, which has in the past sought to reduce the pressure it is under by failing to record crime, including violent crime, and a culture that shies away from taking effective action against the perpetrators of domestic violence. This may be driven by the experience of reluctant victims, as I illustrated earlier, but perhaps it may also stem from a predominantly male police service that identifies with, or even empathises with, the perpetrator of domestic abuse. Yes, there have been improvements over the years, but what has been unearthed in Greater Manchester Police should set alarm bells ringing, not just at HMICFRS or among local policing bodies but at the Home Office and in the office of the Home Secretary.

In a private conversation with me, a former very senior police officer speculated that diversity goes out of the window when the police service comes under pressure, as it has done over the past decade, with the savage cuts to police budgets and corresponding reductions in police officers, police community support officers and support staff. The evidence from GMP is that victim care may also be a casualty. I also cite the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, that the police are not responding quickly enough because they are wrongly assessing the risk and have a lack of resources. Cuts to budgets, support staff and the money available for IT systems inhibit the kind of data analysis that the LSE is recommending.

The potential consequences for the victims of domestic abuse of soft-pedalling on issues surrounding diversity, and on the failure to record crime, are alarming, and the Home Secretary needs to take responsibility. This is central, as all the potential positive outcomes from the Bill will be impaired if we do not know the nature and extent of the problem. That, in turn, relies on victims of domestic abuse having confidence in the police service and knowing that, when they report domestic abuse to the police, they will be believed and it will be recorded and acted upon.

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

My Lords, how we protect, store and use data affects almost every aspect of our lives. The use of data to protect victims and catch the perpetrators of domestic violence, with encouragement of best practice by the domestic abuse commissioner, is something that every noble Lord should support. Data can tell us much about what has gone on before and that can inform our thinking going forward.

Amendment 23, proposed by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would, in proposed new paragraph (e), add to the list of things in which the domestic abuse commissioner must encourage good practice. My noble friend gave us examples based on the LSE research and said how important a proper risk assessment is in triggering the effective and proper use of resources to protect victims. I look forward to the response to this from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. As I said on a previous group, if we are told that the amendment is not necessary, it is incumbent on the Government to set out very clearly how they believe the powers in the Bill are sufficient to deal with the concerns raised in the amendments in respect of the general duty under Clause 7(1) and (2) and any other proposed legislation. We would like to have that clarity from the noble Baroness.

Amendment 28, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, would add two things that the domestic abuse commissioner may do in pursuance of the general duty under Clause 7. Again, we need clarity from the Government on this. My fear is that the duty could be viewed as so wide and open that things could fall through the gaps. We need something to underpin that, with an indication from the Government of what this list of things should cover. I hope we all agree about the good intent behind the amendment. The risk is that we are being too vague to deliver what we all want to deliver.

Amendment 50, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Dholakia and Lord Paddick, is very reasonable, but, again, if the Government view it as unnecessary, we need to hear very clearly whether they are relying on Clause 15(1) to ensure that the domestic abuse commissioner has the necessary power and that there is no doubt that co-operation includes the provision of data from the public authority in question. In the past, we have seen public authorities query the need to provide such data. I never want to hear them giving some spurious reason relating to GDPR or any other regulation, or saying that they cannot provide data due to custom and practice. We have all heard those infuriating and unacceptable reasons given in the past, so it is clear that we need to make sure that that cannot happen again.

Amendment 62, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seems to be a no-brainer. I have never been a police officer and am not a lawyer but, when I speak in this House, I try to apply plain common sense to things. That has served me reasonably well over the last few years. If a person who might be served a domestic abuse protection notice has a criminal record and the nature of the offences could be relevant, surely that is valid information for a police officer to have available when making a decision on whether to serve a notice. My noble friend highlighted past failures in the system, so that is a risk that we should avoid.

I listened very carefully to the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. I agree that of course we have to be very careful about how people’s data is used, but if somebody has convictions for violence, such as violence against women and other serious offences, it is not unreasonable that a police officer should be aware of that when considering whether to serve a notice. Clause 22 lists four matters that a police officer needs to look at when considering whether a person, referred to as “P”, could be subject to a notice. They are all very reasonable and a police officer considering a person’s previous criminal history might be the most important.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too signed the amendment, which the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has very adequately introduced. When I think back to my experience in the Metropolitan Police Service and the instructions that we had, acting as an agent provocateur was clearly and explicitly prohibited as that relates to covert human intelligence sources committing crime. However, unless I have missed it, I cannot find in the Bill or in the draft code of practice any explicit reference to “agent provocateur”.

To repeat what the noble Baroness said in different terms, an agent provocateur is someone who commits a crime or encourages others to commit a crime that would not have been committed had it not been for the actions of the CHIS, or it relates to a situation in which the CHIS commits a crime and then blames the organisation for that crime, which members of the organisation had no intention of committing. In other words, the crime would never have taken place had it not been for the presence of the CHIS.

I look forward to hearing from the Minister where I have missed that explicit instruction, either in the Bill or in the codes of practice. I stress to her that, although I understand that this scenario could not happen under existing guidelines in the police service, we in this House want reassurance either in the Bill or in the codes of practice that it is prohibited.

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

My Lords, my contribution on this amendment will be fairly short. I hear the point that my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti makes and I note the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this issue is not mentioned in the Bill. Therefore, I am not quite clear whether the amendment is necessary. It would help us if, when the Minister responds, she could say something about the detail of the authorisations in a CCA.

Behind all the amendments today are concerns and worries about what may or may not have happened in the past. People want reassurance going forward, but they are not seeing it. I see that theme across all our discussions today. At some point, the Government will probably have to go a bit further to provide that reassurance, although I do not know how they will do that.

All these issues have been raised because of concerns that people have had in the past. As my noble friend said, we do not know whether we can stop this in the future, but I hope that the Minister can go a bit further. I cannot see any particular issue but, if I am right, the reason behind an authorisation would have to be recorded and shared with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. That is the issue on which we need reassurance, as we move forward and give people new powers.

Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I begin to wonder whether we should swap Benches at this stage. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, longs for the old immigration regime that he has criticised so much. This time it is the resident labour market test or, as the former leader of the Labour Party, Gordon Brown, may have put it, “British jobs for British workers”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, posited that UK employers were likely to recruit from overseas without even considering UK workers, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said that UK employers were addicted to using imported, low-wage labour. I thought that under the points-based system there was a minimum salary of £25,600, which does not sound to me like undercutting UK labour.

Surely, British employers will look to avoid the immigration skills charge by hiring a UK resident in preference to a migrant, if they possibly can, and British employers will look to avoid having to pay a licence fee to be an authorised sponsor of migrant workers, if they possibly can. Migrants will be deterred from working in the UK, including in the National Health Service and social care, because they will have to pay the immigration health surcharge in addition to income tax, national insurance and VAT—effectively, having to pay twice for the National Health Service. Migrants will also be deterred from working in the UK because they will have to pay far more than the cost price of a visa, and because of the salary and skill levels they will have to attain to secure enough points to get a visa in the first place. From 1 January, all that will apply to all new migrants from the European Union as well as those from the rest of the world. Therefore, I do not think that the noble Lord’s amendment is necessary and we do not support it.

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

My Lords, Amendment 7, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, was discussed in Committee. I am all in favour of maximising opportunities for British workers to have employment and skilled employment. Good companies invest in their staff, and it makes good sense to do so. It is much more sensible, when possible, to recruit and train staff locally, for all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, including the charges that employers incur when recruiting workers from abroad.

This amendment adds a test and a further layer of bureaucracy. For me, the case has not been made for why we should support it. Again, I find myself in agreement with the Minister and her position, as well as with the position of the MAC, which concluded that the likely bureaucratic cost would outweigh any economic benefit of bringing this test back in.

I should say that I have enormous respect for the noble Lord, Lord Horam. We are good friends; we served together for many years on the Electoral Commission. My only point about think tanks—and I am heavily involved in one—is that for some we are unclear about where their funding comes from. I am pleased that we now know that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, generously funded his own report. Sadly, of course, we do not know where the money of many of the think tanks that we refer to comes from. With all due respect, it is good of him to fund himself.

I do not think that the case has been made for this amendment in any sense, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. So far, I have heard nothing that could persuade me to support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my understanding is that what lies behind this amendment is the aim to allow Parliament to set a rate for new entrants instead of it being set at 30% lower than the national average going rate of £25,600 under the points-based system. To restate what I have said before, this Bill is about EU migration, on which there is no restriction at the moment. From 1 January, if this Bill becomes law, there will be restrictions on EU migrants and a salary floor for new entrants.

It seems that the gut reaction of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, to the new entrant salary level being set independently based on economic research by the Migration Advisory Committee at £20,480 is that it is a bit low. But as the Minister explained in Committee, the MAC found that those starting in their careers were typically being paid 30% less than those who were established in their role; hence the floor for new entrants is 30% less than the £25,600 set as the salary floor for migrants under the new points-based system. I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is arguing that £25,600 is too low and therefore the new entrant salary level is too low, or whether 30% less for new entrants is not typical of a new entrant and therefore it should be something other than 30% less than the established rate.

If the noble Lord’s amendment is agreed, I would have to ask him on what basis he thinks Parliament should decide the new entrant salary level. I understand that the noble Lord believes that migration decisions should be based not on economics but on politics. May I say that I deny that I care little for ordinary working people, as the noble Lord said? If he would care to read in Hansard what I actually said, he will see that I felt that there were alternative protections for ordinary working people to what he was suggesting, which is completely different

We on these Benches believe that economic migration should be based on economics, while immigration by asylum seekers should be based on the compassionate consideration of the evidence of their claim. On that basis, we cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment.

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

My Lords, Amendment 8, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is the third amendment that he has proposed; we considered them previously in Committee. I shall not detain the House for long, but I will say that I listened to the debate on 9 September and I have listened carefully to the debate today, but I am not persuaded by the arguments made so far. These matters are kept under review and if the problem the noble Lord is alluding to is a problem, I am sure that the Government would act. We are probably a bit constrained by our procedures in this debate; in many ways these amendments could all have been debated as one group.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am disappointed by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and other noble Lords on the Benches opposite. I just do not accept the assertion behind these amendments—that the UK will be flooded with migrants from the European Union when we have heard that the numbers are actually going down, given the difficulties that will be in place at the conclusion of the Brexit deal. I am not prepared to accept what has been suggested. I may be wrong, but I do not believe that Tesco and the Co-op are going out to recruit all over Germany, France and elsewhere for people to come and work here, given all the charges that would involve for these companies. All those sorts of companies recruit their staff locally. They have huge staff turnover and they engage people locally.

I am also happy to say that this country has benefited hugely from immigration over many years and we should never forget that. However, the one thing I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, about is his point about Bills and regulations. He is right to say that over the past 30, or perhaps 40, years there has been a drift, so that Governments of all persuasions produce skeleton Bills with more and more stuff being dealt with in regulations. There are many times when we have all felt frustrated by how we are dealing with these issues. I accept that.

I note that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, was interested in and concerned about the position of the Labour Party. I thank him for that. The Labour Party will be fine and we will put forward our position at the next general election. However, I thank him for his concern. I should say, however, that in all the amendments to which the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has spoken, his own Front Bench does not agree with him. He has a problem, I suggest, with the Conservative Party as well. Maybe he should look there.

I take exception to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that I care little for ordinary working people. I care greatly about workers in this country and their families. We do not agree in this House—that is fine—but to suggest that I do not care, or that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with whom I agree, does not care, is wrong. That suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Green, is regrettable. We can disagree on politics and policies. I come from a family of people who have worked hard in this country and care about how the working people in this country are looked after and protected. I will leave it there and look forward to the Minister’s response.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order, but I am a little confused. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the order states that in January 2019 an application was made to the Secretary of State for the deproscription of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—the LIFG. It also says:

“The Proscription Review Group (PRG), a cross-Government group … makes recommendations and provides advice … on the implementation of the proscription regime including the case for proscription and consideration of deproscription applications … The PRG”,


as the Minister has just said,

“has assessed that the group is now defunct and no longer exists”.

What is not clear to me, even after what the Minister has said, is who made the application for the deproscription.

We discussed the proscription of terrorist organisations at length during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill in December last year. We learned that very few organisations have applied to be deproscribed, not least because it is very expensive. In one case that was referred to during that debate, apparently it cost £300,000 to secure deproscription. Presumably in this case the application was not made by the LIFG, a defunct organisation that no longer exists.

During the debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, attempted to reinstate and put on a statutory basis an annual review of the activities of proscribed organisations—something that apparently had happened routinely until four or five years ago—and the deproscription of those lacking a statutory basis for continued listing. Have the Government adopted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, at least to the extent that they are now reviewing proscribed organisations to establish whether they meet the statutory requirement for proscription? If so, during that debate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also said that at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including 14 Northern Ireland groups, are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription. If there has been a government review resulting in the proposed deproscription of this organisation, when will the other organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred be deproscribed? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has largely raised all the points that I was going to refer to, so I will not detain the House for long. However, I was surprised about the application and just want to ask about a couple of further points.

First, what happens if this group, which we are told is defunct and no longer exists, reappears? Secondly, are any frozen assets held in the UK at present and, if so, will it be possible for them to be unfrozen and for people to get their hands on them? I would be very interested in hearing the answers to those two points and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. With that, I will not detain the House further.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier today. I too place on record my thanks to Martin Forde QC and his colleagues for the work they have done; we are grateful for the work they have undertaken.

I concur with the comments in the Statement to the effect that we have a proud history of welcoming new arrivals here. My own parents were immigrants to this country from the Republic of Ireland in the 1950s, and my mum went on to work in the NHS as a nurse. I agree that what happened to the Windrush generation was a shocking, unacceptable outrage. People who had every right to be here, who were working hard and paying their taxes, were treated in a shabby, disgraceful way.

The noble Baroness refers to the scheme, but it will be helpful to the House if she could outline briefly what the scheme will look like and how it will work. I welcome the proposal to accept claims from the estates of individuals who have, sadly, passed away. However, could the noble Baroness set out what she means by “close family members” in respect of claims submitted for compensation? Is that children, grandchildren or cousins? It would be good to be clear on that point as soon as possible.

When the noble Baroness talks of media coverage, what does she mean? I have seen the coverage in the mainstream media, but will the Government make use of social media? A social media campaign, properly targeted, could prove to be very effective in this regard; even if it could not make contact with individuals, certainly it could make contact with their children and grandchildren.

Finally, can the noble Baroness say a little more about the programme of events she referred to in the Statement and how long it is envisaged that will run for? I look forward to the noble Baroness’s response to my questions.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a shameful episode in our country’s history, where those who came here to help the UK were wrongly denied the right to remain. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her tireless and successful campaign for a Windrush Day. It is sad that this scandal casts a shadow over what is meant to be a celebration of everything the Windrush generation and their descendants have contributed to the UK. It is difficult to see how the wrongs of unlawful deportation, where some of those affected have died in poverty overseas, can be made right. Rather than accepting claims from the estate of those who have passed away and from close family members, will the Government approach those affected and proactively offer compensation?

While the Government await the results of Wendy Williams’ review, there are some things that they could and should do now. They need to address the ongoing “hostile environment” created by such measures as the right to rent scheme. As Liberal Democrats, we argued when the scheme was being discussed in this House that, as a recent High Court case has found, forcing landlords to carry out immigration checks on potential tenants is likely to be discriminatory, not just against immigrants but against black and minority ethnic Britons. Why are the Government appealing against that finding when they say that they are dismantling the hostile environment?

Can the Minister also explain why Windrush generation individuals who received settled status without being given the ability to prove it are now being asked to prove that they are of “good character” and why, if they fail to do so, they could be refused right of abode, settlement or citizenship? On page 14 of 19, the Windrush scheme application form states:

“Please give any other information which will help us decide whether you are of good character. Please use an additional sheet if necessary”.


I thought those who had a right of abode in the UK would automatically be given the right to remain. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is going on.

The Government accept that the roots of the Windrush scandal lie in a policy that saw people receive settled status without giving them the ability to prove it. Will they therefore accept the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill currently before the other place, so that EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are granted settled or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme are provided with physical documented proof of that status, so that they can prove it?

A compensation scheme is one thing. Government action to prove they have learned lessons is quite another.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th March 2019 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, Amendment 8 in my name would enable bladed products to still be delivered to home addresses by establishing a scheme whereby the product is delivered by a trusted courier. This is an issue that I have raised in all the Bill’s stages in this noble House. Initially, I thought a trusted trader scheme would be the best option but I concluded that this trusted courier scheme is a better way forward.

The Bill would prohibit the delivery of bladed objects to residential properties, and the concern of small and medium-sized knife manufacturers and retailers is about the detrimental impact this ban will have on their businesses. As more and more sales move online, consumers expect to be able to receive deliveries directly to their home.

I have said at each stage that I support the aims of the Bill but I am concerned that it is a legislative sledgehammer that will affect small and medium-sized businesses based in the UK while having no impact on knife crime whatever. There is no shred of evidence that these high-quality knives being sold online are being bought for criminal intent. If there were, it would have been presented.

I think we all accept that if you bought a knife online with the intent to stab someone, you would create a very easy evidence trail for the police to follow. We all want to achieve the Bill’s objective and reduce knife crime, but at the same time not destroy or damage UK-based businesses. All I seek is to achieve protection for British business in the form of an approved deliverer.

Representatives of the industry met me, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, a few weeks ago, when the industry put what I thought was a very convincing case to the Minister, along with the honourable Members for Sheffield Central and Sheffield South East. I want to find a solution that does not harm business, and I think this is the way forward. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in principle, although I have concerns about it. Noble Lords will recall that the Bill as drafted would mean that someone could order a knife from an overseas website and have it delivered to their home address, but could not order the same knife from a UK supplier and have it delivered to their home address. The noble Lord is attempting to remedy that situation. The difficulty I have with it—perhaps he can assist the House in this degree—is that the Bill also covers delivery to a locker. Would his amendment enable a trusted courier to deliver a bladed product to a locker as well as to residential premises, which in my view would be undesirable?

The second issue is that the amendment does not apply to Clause 41, which relates to the delivery of a bladed product to someone under 18 from an overseas website. The legislation sets down rules whereby, if the courier knows that the consignment contains a bladed product, they have to verify the age of the person to whom the bladed product is being delivered. I wonder whether it would be sensible, were the Government to accept that a trusted courier system is necessary, to extend that to Clause 41. Having said that, were the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to divide the House, we would support his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Baroness for the way she has conducted the Bill through the House. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I appreciate the constructive way they have engaged with the House, as they always do. I also place on record my thanks to my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe for the help that they have given me, as well as to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I was grateful, too, for the contributions of many other noble Lords from around the House, particularly those of the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Singh, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll.

We are certainly sending the Bill back in a better state than that in which it arrived. I am not sure that it will quite achieve all the things that it wants to do, but I certainly support its aims. We have done a good job. I also thank the Bill team at the Home Office, who have always been very courteous and happy to engage with me and other colleagues. I also put on record my thanks to Ben Wood, who works in the Opposition office here in the House of Lords and has kept me armed with briefing notes, amendments and everything else.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those expressed to the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Barran, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the way they have conducted the Bill. As the noble Baroness mentioned, there has not really been a consensus on knife crime prevention orders and delivery of bladed articles. I think that my colleagues in the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Knife Crime will discuss knife crime prevention orders with their colleagues before the Commons has an opportunity to consider the amendments put forward by the Government that place knife crime prevention orders in the Bill. I hope that the Government will reflect on the delivery of bladed articles in the light of the amendment passed today. I am grateful to officials and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for the co-operation that we have had during the passage of the Bill.

Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the Minister is so liked and respected in the House that we were all sitting here listening with complete attentiveness to every word she said, and it was only when the word “Dublin” was mentioned that we realised we were dealing with the wrong instrument. We all like the Minister very much and know that she is very busy outside the House as well.

An immigration Bill is going through Parliament, and there is a theme here: yet again, we feel that the Government are hiding from scrutiny and have come up with a patchwork of complicated law through secondary legislation, which we do not think is the right thing to do. They will argue that these provisions need to go through very quickly but, as we have heard, the immigration Bill provides for the end of freedom of movement, so the provision in the order for automatic leave to enter for EEA nationals after freedom of movement has ended can come into force only once the Bill has been passed into law. The timescales are identical, so these provisions should have been up for debate and amendment in that legislation.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has raised questions about how the three-month period will be enforced because, as the Minister said, those entering the country will not be stamped on entry. I have heard the term “light-touch enforcement” used. Could we have an explanation of what that means in practice?

The House of Commons was told that to remain longer than the initial three months, an EEA national would have to apply for temporary leave to remain for up to 36 months. After that, they would have to apply through the new immigration system that should be in place by then. Can we know how long an application will take for temporary leave to remain? If a person goes over the initial three months while waiting for leave to remain, what happens then?

EEA nationals will be over here under three different systems: settled status, the three-month visa and temporary leave to remain for longer than three months. In light of the Windrush scandal, are the Government doing everything they can to ensure that individuals with the right to be here are not routinely and wrongfully challenged or adversely affected, and that they will have no problem proving their right to be here if necessary? This is a most regrettable statutory instrument, which is why I have tabled my amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, the first extraordinary thing to say about this statutory instrument is that the Secretary of State did not consider it necessary to consult anyone about it. The second is to make clear its effect and to contrast it with the Government’s often-repeated mantra, not just for leaving the EU but for the dead horse that is Theresa May’s withdrawal agreement, both of which the Government and those in favour of leaving the EU describe as “taking back control of our borders”. The only sense in which this instrument can be interpreted as taking back control of our borders is that the Government have decided by themselves to give up control of our borders without any influence from the EU.

The other contradiction between what the Government claim to be doing and are actually doing is that they say that they are going to create a level playing field for EU and non-EU citizens regarding entry to the UK. This instrument gives preferential treatment to EU citizens after we leave the EU. It grants automatic entry to the UK for EU and EEA citizens even after we leave the EU, with leave to remain for a period of three months. EU and EEA citizens do not even have to have a passport; they can travel on a national identity card. If they do have a passport, they can use the automatic e-gates at airports. In other words, they are as free to enter the UK as they were under freedom of movement. Can the Minister confirm this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

I am a little confused. At points, the Minister appeared to say that this was a temporary arrangement in the event of no deal; at other times, she talked about a temporary arrangement pending the introduction of a skills-based scheme. At some points, she talked about that scheme being in place by January 2021; in other places, she talked about it being our intention to have a skills-based scheme in place by January 2021. Is it definite or an intention?

On the light-touch regulatory regime, does that mean that there is a mechanism to enforce the three-month limit on stays in the UK or that there is no such mechanism? Light touch and non-existent are two different things.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of my amendment. The inconsistency, the lack of scrutiny and the whole basis on which the Government are making the regulations are the issues in question for me. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, said much more eloquently than me everything that I wanted to say and I agreed with every word. The only thing I would add is that I am equally confused by the position of my own party on these matters, but that is probably for another place. I am happy to withdraw my amendment.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 74 and 77 in my name seek to establish a “trusted trader” scheme to enable bladed products to be delivered to home addresses. This is an issue that I raised in Committee. The Bill as drafted prohibits the delivery of bladed objects to residential properties, and there are serious concerns among small and medium-sized knife manufacturers and retailers that this will have a detrimental impact on their businesses.

As more sales move online, consumers expect to be able to receive deliveries directly to their home. I fully support the aims of the Bill but I think this is a legislative sledgehammer that will affect small and medium-sized businesses based in the UK while having little impact on knife crime. There is no evidence that these high-quality knives sold online are being bought with criminal intent; if there were any evidence, it would have already been presented. I think we all accept that if you bought a knife online with criminal intent, you would be creating a very easy evidence trail for the police to follow.

We all want to achieve the objective of the Bill, which is to reduce knife crime, but at the same time we do not want to destroy UK-based businesses. There is a need for greater enforcement of existing legislation prohibiting the sale of knives to under-18s and the carrying of a knife without good reason, and these amendments would enable a trusted trader scheme to come into force. All that I am seeking to achieve is protection for British businesses, whether with the scheme in these amendments, with the scheme suggested last week by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, or with some other form of approved deliverer scheme, which we discussed when we had a very positive meeting last week with the noble Baronesses, Lady Williams of Trafford and Lady Barran, and representatives of the business community from Sheffield—who, in my opinion, put a very convincing case to the Minister—along with the honourable Members for Sheffield Central and Sheffield South East.

I am aware that a trusted trader scheme has been ruled out by the Home Office, which claims that it would add more bureaucracy and would cost businesses to establish, but I point out that the scheme is being suggested by the very businesses that would be affected. I make clear that I am not fixed on any scheme; I just want to find a solution for what I think the Minister accepts is a real issue that could have damaging consequences for British businesses. I know that is not the Government’s intention—in fact, I support their actual intentions—but we have a problem here. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, that this legislation is seriously to the detriment of UK companies versus overseas companies, in that if you order a bladed instrument or knife from an overseas company or website it can be delivered to your home, but if you order one from a UK company it cannot. However, I am not sure the trusted trader scheme that he has outlined in the amendments is the answer. Obviously, overseas companies would not have to be members of a trusted trader scheme and therefore the bureaucracy, expense, fees payable and so forth would still disadvantage UK companies.

I am grateful to the noble Lord for mentioning that I have already suggested a solution to this problem: to extend to UK companies the age-verification scheme at handover on the doorstep, which the Government have set out in the legislation and which currently applies only to overseas companies. I believe that is the solution to this problem, rather than the trusted trader scheme that the noble Lord suggested.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, on this issue but again suggest that the answer is to have a system of age verification at handover, as there is for overseas sellers.

On the issue of whether a business is carried out at a residential address, the Government accept that overseas companies cannot be expected to know whether that is the case. Again, UK companies are being disadvantaged compared with overseas companies.

I do not know whether the noble Duke can explain why Amendment 75 talks about a product that,

“is for an agricultural or forestry management purpose”,

Amendment 80,

“exclusively designed for an agricultural or forestry management purpose”,

Amendment 83,

“specifically to be used for agricultural or forestry management purposes”,

and if those differences are deliberate and explicable.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, as he raises valid points. Again, we do not want anything in the Bill that disadvantages UK business.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 91, tabled in my name and with the support of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seeks to place on the face of the Bill a provision to exempt the kirpan from the provisions relating to the possession of offences weapons under the Criminal Justice Act 1988. I raised this issue in Committee, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for meeting me and a number of other noble Lords from all sides of the House, along with representatives of the Sikh community, including the noble Lord, Lord Singh. It was very much appreciated by everybody present.

There is no question but that the Sikh community is fully behind the intention of the Bill to tighten the law on offensive weapons. We are all appalled by the toll that knife crime is taking on young lives; even today we are seeing more tragic events on the news. The Government have responded to the very reasonable requests of the Sikh community on an issue in the Commons, but my intention with this amendment is to go further. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised the issue at Second Reading, and I supported him. It came up again in Committee, and many noble Lords spoke then.

For practising Sikhs, observance of their faith requires adherence to the “five Ks”, one of which is to wear a kirpan. Larger kirpans are used on many religious occasions, such as Sikh wedding ceremonies. I think it is fair to say that noble Lords in all parties, and on the Cross Benches, would be concerned if restrictions in this Bill had unintended consequences for the Sikh community as they observe and practise their faith, or caused upset or concern when a member of the community used a kirpan for ceremonial, sporting or historical reasons. The status quo is not adequate, as it provides a defence of religious reasons only if a person is charged with a criminal offence. It does not cover other reasons such as ceremonial, historical or sporting events, where kirpans are offered as gifts to dignitaries.

The status quo provides a defence only if a person is charged. My amendment will provide an exemption for the possession of a kirpan. It will provide a specific reference in the law, which Sikhs have been calling for. Sikhs are members of a law-abiding community that makes a wonderful contribution to the United Kingdom. The community still faces difficulties in workplaces, education and leisure with the issue of kirpans. This amendment will provide great assistance to Sikhs and will educate all of us about the kirpan. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment, which I fully support. One of the Minister’s main arguments against granting exemption to the Sikh community was that the Government could not single out one particular community—the Sikhs—for an exemption. In that case, I ask the Minister: what other communities have made representations to the Home Office for exemption under the Act?

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and at his request, I move Amendment 4 and shall speak also to Amendment 69 in this group.

Amendment 4 is intended to enable the Bill to encompass electronic systems of age verification such as Yoti, once those systems have passed scrutiny by the Home Office, as a way of addressing age verification challenges. With regard to Amendment 69, the Bill requires retailers to undertake age verification online and offline. In the absence of recognised standards against which online or offline age verification schemes can be audited and recognised, this amendment allows retailers to comply with the requirements of the Bill through any scheme they choose which is recognised by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 4 and 69, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, raise the issue of age verification. Our world is becoming more digital and, when age verification can be done digitally, it should obviously be done in that way. That might not be possible yet but it is becoming easier and, if it can be done, it certainly should be. I have to admit that I had never heard of Yoti. Perhaps I am showing my age but I had absolutely no idea what it was. However, I have learned something today. Amendment 69 would provide for schemes to be recognised by the Secretary of State as suitable for this purpose and would provide for the maintenance and updating of a list of those schemes. That seems sensible and I certainly support the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 14 I will speak also to the other amendments in this group.

As drafted, the Bill creates a ludicrous, verging on farcical, situation where corrosive substances and bladed articles cannot be delivered to a residential address unless they are ordered from an overseas company. If they are ordered from an overseas company and the UK delivery company does not know what the content of the parcel is, there are no restrictions whatever on these items being delivered to a residential address. At the same time, UK companies are prohibited from delivering both corrosive substances and bladed articles to residential addresses.

If, however, there is an agreement between the UK delivery company and the overseas company that the delivery company will be alerted to any corrosive substances or bladed articles which it will be asked to deliver to a UK residential address, the Government set out in this Bill the steps that the delivery company must take to ensure that the corrosive substance or bladed article is only delivered into the hands of someone 18 years of age or older on the doorstep of the residential address.

If overseas companies are allowed openly to sell and deliver corrosive substances and bladed articles to UK residential addresses, with a system of age verification at the point of handover, why on earth cannot UK companies do exactly the same thing? It is happening right now in the UK in relation to alcohol, so why not enshrine it in legislation and apply it here?

The Bill as drafted not only disadvantages UK companies compared with overseas competitors, but prevents companies like John Lewis delivering items such as food processors, because they have a blade, to people’s homes. It also creates the anomaly of self-employed plumbers and the like, who run their businesses from their home, being able to have these substances and items delivered to their residential address even though the seller and the delivery company may have no way of knowing beyond reasonable doubt that a business is carried on from that address. The Bill creates other anomalies where designer knives—ones made specifically for the purchaser, for example—can be delivered to residential premises.

The sole purpose of prohibiting the delivery of corrosive substances and bladed products to residential addresses is to keep them out of the hands of those under 18. All these anomalies and difficulties can be avoided if an age-verification system at point of handover—a system already set out in this legislation—is available to both overseas and UK businesses. That is what these amendments seek to do. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, these amendments, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, seek to allow the delivery of corrosive and bladed products to residential addresses where steps are taken to ensure that the recipient is over the age of 18. If we can get to a position where this is possible, I would be very happy to support these amendments. Getting the balance right between putting in place precautions to stop young people getting their hands on these products, and adequate offences, is something we should all support. If that can be done in a way that is not damaging to business, that is all the better.

I am, of course, very concerned about the situation regarding knife attacks in Sheffield, and we will come on to my amendments about that later. We had a very positive meeting earlier this week. I am happy to support these amendments if we can get that balance right. I still have an issue about putting restrictions on overseas companies as our jurisdiction ends here in the UK. If we can get a system whereby we ensure that British companies are not disadvantaged and, equally, have some restrictions, I will fully support that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I raised this issue at Second Reading and in Grand Committee. I am grateful for the support I have received from across the House. We are placing shop workers at the forefront in the Bill. They risk a prison sentence or a lesser punishment if they get it wrong, as they will have committed a criminal offence in selling the products referred to in the Bill to a person under 18 years of age. I have no problem with that. These products cannot be sold to young people and we need a deterrent in place to make sure that this is adhered to.

My issue is that the Bill places additional responsibility on shop workers but gives them no additional protection. This issue has been raised many times in the House, not just in the context of the Bill. My noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley raised this matter in a recent Question to the Minister. When I was young—a long time ago—I was a shop worker. I enjoyed the work very much. As a young person, it got me talking to people, which gave me confidence. It was hard work and not without its risks, but it was enjoyable.

I know that the Government are looking at this issue; they are seeking further evidence, but the evidence is already there. Even if the Government decide to act at a later date, I worry that we will have moved on and in the weeks, months and years to come, I will be sitting here asking when the Government will introduce legislation, only to be told that they are waiting for a suitable Bill. There are always pressures on legislation—we all know that—but this time, the pressure is paramount. I am very worried that we will move no further forward.

No doubt the Minister will tell me shortly that there is no problem and there is a whole range of offences; for example, anyone who assaults a shop worker can be charged and, if found guilty, convicted. However, far too often, these offences are not prosecuted; that is a serious problem. Indeed, many offences are not even reported so they get nowhere near a police officer. In the Bill, we are placing duties for specific offences on shop workers but giving them no further protection. Let us imagine being in their position, refusing to sell knives or acids to angry young people who want these products. That is not a nice place to be. We expect shop workers to enforce the law in that situation but give them no protection to do so. We owe them a minimum additional protection, which my amendment seeks to provide. Approximately 280 shop workers are assaulted every single day. I was once a member of USDAW; it is a great trade union. It campaigns for shop workers and knows the industry its members work in. It regularly consults the Government and other agencies and puts forward its view. It has done a good job of finding evidence of the problem.

My amendment is different to the one I moved in Committee in one key respect: it goes beyond the imposition of a fine and introduces a maximum imprisonment term of six months. That is not because I want to increase the prison population—I support community sentences—but I want to give the court the power to look at the full suite of options available and impose a sentence that fits the crime. On reflection, limiting it to a fine was not the right thing to do—it is too restrictive—so I wanted to give the court the power to impose the penalty it thought was appropriate for the case. Perhaps I should have done that in the first place, but it is the right thing to do. I hope that the Minister will respond to this debate in detail and give me some good news. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, as I said in Committee, we support the amendment. Until last Friday, we were prepared to vote with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, should he divide the House, for the reasons he clearly set out. However, at the end of last week, the noble Lord changed the amendment so that the penalty attached to the proposed new offence included a maximum term of imprisonment of six months. Noble Lords will know from the comments of my noble friend Lady Hamwee on the fourth group of amendments that we oppose short-term sentences, as does the right honourable David Gauke MP—the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Justice—and Rory Stewart, the Minister of State for the Ministry of Justice. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is also opposed to short-term prison sentences but that this is the only way to secure a community sentence, as we discussed previously, which has to be an alternative to custody. If only there were some way of having the latter without the former. Of course, as I have explained to the noble Lord in correspondence, if the threat to, or the assault on, a shop worker were more serious, there are alternate offences with which someone could be charged and which carry a sentence of imprisonment.

We support the principle that shop workers expected to enforce the law on the selling of age-restricted items, in that they are being asked to prevent underage people making such purchases, should have some legal protections not afforded to other members of the public.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate. As I was sitting here listening to so many excellent and knowledgeable speakers, I thought that this debate should have been in the Chamber, but that is for another day. I fully accept that knife crime prevention orders put forward by the Government today are, as the noble Baroness says, to deal with habitual carriers of knives. In that sense, we can support them in principle but there need to be some changes.

I am also clear that the present Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, as well as the previous commissioner and the Mayor of London, support the idea of a prevention order as it could be a valuable tool in dealing with the epidemic of knife crime. It is always heart-breaking to see families destroyed when they have lost a loved one, but of course the perpetrator’s life is destroyed as well. There is a huge issue with young people carrying knives and so on. I have met one or two gang members; they can be very challenging individuals to meet. Some of the younger ones are certainly very frightened.

I was on the Wyndham estate some time ago, near where I went to school, to meet some of these young people and they offered me an escort off the estate. I said, “It’s all right, I don’t need an escort—I’ve lived round here”. I was fine. I walked off with no problem at all because I am a fairly big 56 year-old bloke; I am not a 15 or 16 year-old, and I am not black. If I had walked out of there in other circumstances, I would have had a problem getting to the bus stop but, in my situation, there was no problem at all. The young people thought that I would not be safe walking on the estate, which was not the case.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Ramsbotham, made the point, as I think other noble Lords did, that it is a shame the way these amendments have arrived in this House. They have been tabled in Grand Committee and, as has been said, have not gone through the procedures in the House of Commons. My understanding of that House is that if these provisions had been in the Bill from the start there would have been an evidence session in the Commons with experts coming in to look at them. That has been lost and cannot happen now, which is a shame. I support the idea that they have come into the Bill very late. They were announced to the media, and here we are in Grand Committee, not the main Chamber. We will come back to them, or something like them, on Report. Having that at the end of the passage of the Bill is regrettable.

That is why we have tabled Amendment 77 in this group, which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe. It attempts to insert a new clause which would require the Government within three months of the Bill becoming an Act to publish a draft Bill to bring in knife crime prevention orders. It would mean there would have to be a Bill, which I hope would start in the Commons so that it could have evidence sessions. As it would be a draft Bill, even before that there would be a Joint Committee of both Houses to look at the stuff in detail. We want to get this right. On each side of the House, we can give examples of where we have passed measures and have got them right or wrong, but most of the things that were done wrong were done in haste. If we want to sort out an issue, we all charge off and do something, and months or years later, we find that we did not quite get it right. Amendment 77 in my noble friend’s name would ensure that we could do that and look at it in detail.

I am a big fan of draft Bills. When my noble kinsman Lady Kennedy of Cradley—I suppose I should refer to her as that—was on the Committee on the draft Modern Slavery Bill, I saw the work that she and other Members did. I remember the phone calls from the Home Office when the Minister talked to her—it was Karen Bradley—and a lot of detailed work went on to get that Bill right. I think we all accept that it is very good legislation. There were one or two issues—the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made efforts to improve some of the aftercare—but generally it is very good legislation. I would contrast that, as I often do, with the Housing and Planning Act, which is terrible legislation done on the back of a fag packet. It is absolute rubbish and most of the Government have quietly forgotten about it. It has been pushed to one side, so that no one ever mentions it again. I am a big fan of draft legislation, especially when it concerns sorting big issues out. The intention behind the amendment from my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe is to do that.

This might seem a bit over the top, but we have had reports of these poor people being killed and their families destroyed. Why is COBRA not meeting to discuss this? We have COBRA meetings when we have a flood or a problem with the trains. This is about young people dying, so why is the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary not convening COBRA and getting the right people in the room to ask them, “What’s going on here?”

There is an issue about youth workers, social workers and cuts to services because if we are going to have penalties to deal with the issue we need to deal with the causes as well. Why is COBRA not meeting? People are losing their lives, so I want a response on that. As I said, these are very important issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, made some excellent points as did my noble friend Lord Ponsonby with his experience as a magistrate in youth courts. He has experience of dealing with these people when they get to court. A lot of them have form. That is an important point. The right reverend Prelate also made some good points about the work that she has done in Newcastle and in south-east London. I used to go to a youth club—the Crossed Swords youth club—which was run by St Paul’s, a Church of England church. Reverend Shaw used to run it. I am a Catholic, but I used to go there because it was a very good club. All the kids from the estate went there. It is important that we have those things. In many parts the country they have disappeared. Whether voluntary or local authority, they have all been lost, and the people are lost there. We need to get those things right.

The shame with this Bill is that it seeks to deal with the punishment of offenders but does not address any of the causes, which is one of the losses in this Bill. Generally speaking, I am not against the orders. They need to be looked at, refined and changed but in principle I am not against them. Noble Lords made valuable points and I hope that the Minister will take them on board.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, before the Minister responds, I did not address Amendment 77 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, which we totally support. I did not want to stifle the debate, but it might be helpful for the Committee to be aware of the advice that I have been given, which is that if the Government insist on moving these amendments in Grand Committee and there is an objection to that taking place, the amendments will be lost and cannot be brought back on Report. I am sure that the Minister will bear that in mind in her response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 83 would insert a new clause into the Bill to make the owner of a website, be that an individual or a company, responsible for ensuring that weapons listed in Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice Act are not advertised on their site. The Bill places responsibilities on shop workers, delivery people and others; making website owners responsible for their content should be welcomed by the Government. I asked a similar Question today about anonymous accounts and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, made the point that when people are made responsible, things happen. If they are not responsible, they will do nothing. There should be consequences. In some ways, this is in a similar area.

Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would provide for the owner to have committed no offence if, within 24 hours of being notified of the advertisement, they arrange for it to be removed. Then there would be no problems whatever. In some cases, there is a defence under Section 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002, but that depends on the facts of the case. I accept entirely that there can be jurisdictional issues if the provider is based overseas.

This is only a probing amendment to highlight an issue that is part of a much wider problem, which I asked a Question about today: how we control what is on the internet and how we deal with such issues. These are serious matters. I hope that the government White Paper will deal with some of them, but I seek to include a clause in the Bill to make owners responsible for the content on their site and the adverts they place. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, is trying to do with the amendment. It raises again the issue of websites that are hosted overseas and the lack of territorial reach to apply the suggested offence to overseas website owners. That creates an imbalance, as we discussed on previous elements of the Bill, between UK and overseas sellers of knives and corrosive substances, for example. I see some practical difficulties with this but I understand what the noble Lord is trying to achieve.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, Amendments 41 and 43 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe are intended to enable a trusted trader scheme and status to be set up for sellers of knives and other bladed products in the UK. As drafted, the Bill will prohibit the delivery of bladed objects and products to residential properties. The concern is that this will have a detrimental impact on the business of small and medium-sized knife manufacturers and retailers here in the UK. As more and more sales move online, consumers normally expect to receive their deliveries at home. My colleagues in the Opposition fully support the aims of the Bill, but have concerns that this is a legislative sledgehammer that will affect small and medium-sized businesses here in the UK, while having very little impact on knife crime. To achieve the objectives we all want to see delivered—a reduction in knife crime and violence, but at the same time not damaging or destroying businesses—I suggest that we need a greater enforcement of existing legislation that prohibits the sale of knives to under-18s and the carrying of a knife without good reason. The amendments we are debating will seek to enable good, well-run businesses to operate in a trusted trader scheme, while not causing difficulties or putting their businesses at risk.

I understand that the Home Office carried out a consultation between October and December 2017 on these issues, with more than 10,500 responses. On 25 July, the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability, Victoria Atkins MP, wrote to my friend the Member for Sheffield Central in the other place, Mr Paul Blomfield MP. In her response, the Minister indicated that there were concerns over the delivery of knives purchased to residential premises, and concerns about the sale of knives online to under-18s—which, of course, is already illegal—but that some sellers were not doing enough to stop children buying knives.

My friend Paul Blomfield, Clive Betts and some Sheffield knife manufacturers met the Minister on 15 January. The department had looked at the trusted trader scheme, but seemed to rule it out on the basis that it would add more bureaucracy and burden to the businesses. They looked at placing the burden on delivery companies, and the measures in this Bill.

It is an offence under the Criminal Justice Act, as we know, to sell knives and other bladed products to a person under the age of 18. But there is a defence if the person can prove that they took steps to make all reasonable precautions and exercise due diligence to avoid committing an offence. The sellers will have to meet these conditions to rely upon that defence but the industry also agrees with the objectives of the Bill: to reduce knife crime and make it more difficult for people under the age of 18 to order knives. Many businesses already exercise robust age-verification checks and label their packets accordingly. Their concern is that the Bill’s prohibition on selling bladed products to residential premises will cause them particular damage.

This is about the damage to small and medium-sized businesses, with its knock-on effect on UK manufacturers. The larger retailers and a lot of companies often buy their knives from overseas, so there is really no issue for them. But these small producers are selling niche and often highly priced products, which are not sold anywhere by the large companies. The industry would like some evidence. What is the evidence of people purchasing knives online to commit crime? Apparently, there are roughly 424 million knives in the UK at the moment and there is little or no evidence that people buy knives online to go out and commit a crime. There are plenty of knives around everywhere. The Metropolitan Police and the Cutlery and Allied Trades Research Association have suggested that most knives used in violent crime are old knives, which people can get their hands on from a variety of sources.

The trusted trader scheme would in effect mirror what is presently in place for the delivery of alcohol. Such a scheme would help to drive up standards across the board while providing protection for responsible businesses. Coupled with better enforcement of existing legislation, the scheme would help and not impede small and medium-sized enterprises. The industry wants this, so the objection from the Government that it would mean more bureaucracy does not really hold water for me. If there is a choice between a ban—not being able to sell your products for delivery to homes—and having a scheme which ensured that you verify who you are selling to, this would be better for them. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, while I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is trying to do with his amendment, if he is quoting the Government correctly then I agree that it would be an expensive, bureaucratic scheme and difficult to enforce. It would be impossible to enforce in relation to sellers outside the United Kingdom. It would be to the benefit of large retailers. Perhaps the amendment is trying to appeal to the Home Office’s usual approach to these things by saying that it should be self-financing. Membership of the scheme would clearly involve a fee; large retailers would easily find the money for that, whereas it would disadvantage small businesses.

As we discussed previously in relation to corrosive substances, we are again heading for a situation where UK sellers of bladed articles are unable to sell such products for delivery to residential premises, whereas overseas sellers will be able to sell bladed articles for delivery to home addresses. In the case of overseas sellers, the courier has to ensure age verification at handover but UK sellers are unable to use this scheme. The real solution to the problem that the noble Lord is trying to solve is to allow age verification at the handover of bladed articles at residential premises for all sellers, both UK and overseas, so that both corrosive substances and bladed products can be delivered to people’s homes.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has just asked, what evidence is there that gang members, for example, are ordering ordinary kitchen knives, such as carving knives, online in order to use them in crime? I am not talking about prohibited knives, such as zombie knives or the type of knife that the Government seek to ban in the Bill. The evidence from the police is that most people carrying knives have got them from the kitchen where they live because they are there already. Why would a criminal who is looking to commit knife crime create an evidential trail by ordering online rather than going to a shop and paying cash to get their hands on a weapon? I seek the Government’s explanation as to why this provision is necessary.

We discussed on Monday whether a residential premises is used for carrying on business. I have had a communication from a company that deals with the sale of bladed items online. It says:

“Our information after consulting Royal Mail and UPS is that there are no means to quickly and robustly identify tradesmen who operate from home as opposed to individuals who might pose as tradesmen. These so-called defences are wish fulfilment from the Home Office and are unworkable in the real world”.


I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Does the noble Lord agree that the Committee generally agrees with the laudable aims of the Bill but on all sides we are highlighting the large holes in it? It is easy to make a mockery of what is being set out here. I hope that the Government will listen carefully to this. We want to have discussions between now and Report so that we can get this legislation right. Where we are at the moment is honestly ridiculous. The more discussions I hear now, the worse things seem to me.

[Lord Paddick]

I echo the noble Lord’s comments. We want to do whatever it takes to reduce the availability of knives for use in knife crime. I hope that, in all our discussions, it has not gone unnoticed that we oppose this group of amendments and the previous group.

I will probably be disciplined by my party for saying so but, presumably, if you are buying from a supplier outside the customs union, there needs to be a customs declaration on the package as to what is contained in it. That is a legal requirement. It is not about trying to get a foreign supplier to comply with British law; rather, it is internationally accepted that you need to put a customs label on a package describing what is inside. I do not know whether that applies if the supplier is within the European Union, but certainly if you buy something from the United States of America, for example, there has to be a visible customs declaration on the outside to say what the product inside the parcel is. That would enable whoever is delivering the parcel to the end delivery point to take the appropriate action in accordance with Clause 20, if the label describes that it is a bladed product.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I too look forward to the Government’s explanation of the difference between “bladed product” and “bladed article”, and of why there is a distinction between the offence of delivering of a bladed product to residential premises and that of delivering a bladed article to persons under 18. I thought the whole point—no pun intended—of banning delivery to residential premises was to prevent under-18s getting their hands on it. Why does it need to be a bladed article in one part and a bladed product in another?

In relation to Amendment 45, I agree with the noble Lord and would go further. In the course of my duties as a police officer, I have seen daggers with very sharp points, but with blades not necessarily sharp enough to cut—the dagger is specifically designed to stab people, but is not capable of cutting. It would be exempt from the definition as written in the Bill. I am not sure whether it is necessary to list examples of what are and are not bladed products, but we certainly need a much better idea of what we are trying to do here.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I was not intending to come in on this item, but the more I sit here listening to this Bill, the more concerned and confused I get. I support the intentions of the Government in trying to deal with knife crime and violence—they are absolutely right there—but, listening to this, I am not convinced we are on the right track.

Is the Minister aware of the Better Regulation Executive? It is part of BIS, or whatever the department is called now, and is in charge of regulatory reform across the British Government. Its policy is described in these terms:

“Some regulations are ineffective and unnecessary. Complying with them costs businesses time and money, and can restrict economic growth … Governments generally attempt to ensure regulations are fair and effective. The Better Regulation Executive's purpose is to effectively strike the right balance between protecting people’s rights, health and safety and freeing them from unnecessary bureaucracy”.


If it has not gone there already, the Bill needs to go there straightaway. Clearly, there is a lot of mess in this Bill. I say it should go there because we are affecting lots of British businesses and putting them at a competitive disadvantage to other businesses in Europe and around the world. We need to get our businesses up and working well, and I do not see how this is helping. Maybe it has gone there already and been improved by it. If it has not, I hope we can get the Bill off to it and maybe get something back before Report.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, agree that perhaps his trusted traders scheme would also need to go through that process?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I certainly would. I would be delighted for it to go through the process, because the scheme I have been keen we talk about has come not from me, but from the industry. They want the scheme, so I would be delighted for it to go there, since they are the people who make these niche products and are worried that the Government are putting them at a competitive disadvantage.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

This is something we talked about earlier. If we are to put “all” in, it is not unreasonable to have some sort of guidance in the Bill to protect people, otherwise people are just left hanging.

[Lord Paddick]

Would it help the Committee to suggest that the Government have put in Clause 4 exactly the sort of things the delivery courier should be looking at to take reasonable precautions?

Future Immigration

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement made in the other place by her right honourable friend the Home Secretary. It is disappointing to say the least that it has taken the Government so long to produce this White Paper. It is almost a year late. That is entirely because of the shambles we observe every day from the Government.

If we leave the single market, freedom of movement, which we have enjoyed as members of the European Union, ends. The Statement says that this is a historic moment. I think it is very sad that British citizens will lose the right to live, work and study in the European Union. British citizens have taken up the right to live elsewhere in the European Union more than any other nationality. The loss of this right is nothing to celebrate. It diminishes us as a nation. We want to be a global and outward-looking nation. Where we find ourselves today is tragic, rather than historic.

There will be an urgent need to set up a new system. It is important that we do not base the new immigration system on some of the myths we have seen in the past. The noble Baroness has said before that the Government are still committed to reducing migration to the tens of thousands—a target that has never been and never will be met. Today, though, on the radio the Home Secretary repeatedly refused to commit himself to the tens of thousands target, so can the noble Baroness tell the House what Her Majesty’s Government’s policy is in this respect? Has the Home Secretary abandoned the commitment to a formal target of tens of thousands? If the target has been abandoned, what does that mean in practice? The danger is that the target is abandoned but the Home Office continues to function in the same way, with all the unfairness and inefficiencies that arbitrary targets lead to.

I support a single immigration system that is fair to all. Can the noble Baroness comment on the uncertainty over the Government’s intentions and the delays that producing this White Paper has created for EU citizens, their families and employers?

Can she tell us when we will know what the minimum salary threshold will be? There is much concern that it will be £30,000. That would rule out many healthcare professionals, technicians, and people employed in the social care sector. That would be very damaging to our economy and to both the private and public sectors. I think particularly of our wonderful NHS and the role played by immigrants every single day in delivering the healthcare that we need.

The Statement said that there would be no limit on the number of students who can come and study here. We have heard that many times. The problem is that it is not believed by prospective students and their families. Other countries are taking advantage of that. What can the Minister say to convince those students that they are welcome here?

Can the Minister say more about the arrangements set out by the Home Secretary for time-limited, temporary, short-term workers, who would have no right to access public funds, settle or bring dependants and who would come for 12 months at a time followed by year-long cooling-off period? That might suit some sectors, but it is an alarming prospect for many employers because it would not allow them to establish continuity of employment, which is vital for delivering services. Does the Minister believe that the Home Office has the capacity to change its established ways of working and its unofficial targets, which it was clearly working towards and which contributed to the Windrush scandal?

I am clear that the Government cannot have it both ways: on the one hand, talking about an outward-looking, global Britain meeting the needs of society and employers and, on the other, using the rhetoric of cracking down on migration. This White Paper gives us lots of questions and uncertainties. A lot more work is needed on the part of the Government to give the reassurance and confidence that the country desperately needs.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It says that,

“for the first time for more than 40 years, we will be able to say who can, and who cannot, come to this country”.

Can the Minister confirm that, currently, EU citizens and their families who want to stay for more than three months must have sufficient resources if they are not working so that they are not a burden on the state, and that EU citizens and members of their family can be expelled from the UK on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health? Can she also confirm that the UK can refuse, terminate or withdraw any free movement rights in the event of an abuse of those rights, or fraud? In other words, does she accept that we have considerable say over who can and who cannot come to or remain in this country as a member of the European Union?

The Statement says that the new policy will bring annual net migration down to more sustainable levels,

“as we committed to do in our manifesto”.

The Conservative Party manifesto promised to cut net migration to below 100,000, but the Statement also says:

“There will be no cap on numbers”,


for skilled immigration. Do the Government think immigration will go up or down as a result of a “no cap on numbers” immigration policy?

How can the future immigration system make sure, as the Statement says, that immigration works in the best interests of the UK when the policy is determined by the Home Office? Surely the number of doctors and nurses needed, and of those needed to work in social care, should be determined by the Department of Health and Social Care, for example, and not by the Home Office?

If immigration is to be restricted by salary level only, what about the thousands of immigrants who work in the construction, hospitality and social care sectors, and in the NHS, on low salaries? Highly skilled does not necessarily mean highly paid. Do the Government expect EU countries to prevent British workers earning less than the equivalent level of salary working in the European Union?

What is the estimated cost to the public sector and industry of having to engage with the visa system compared with the current visa-less system of employing EU nationals?

The Statement says that the policy will operate from 2021 but will be phased in to give individuals, businesses and the Government the time needed to adapt. Does that mean that the policy will operate from 2021 or only parts of it? If so, which parts?

How many years will it take for the Home Office to recruit and train the additional staff to implement the new systems required? By how much will the Home Office have to expand to grant permissions to EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members before they can come to the UK? How many people did this amount to in the last year for which the Government have figures? How many EEA and Swiss nationals do the Government anticipate will be refused entry under the new scheme to help reduce net migration?

By how much will the Home Office have to expand to process applications and enforce the temporary 12 months-on, 12 months-off scheme for low-skilled and seasonal workers? How many of those workers, who will not be able to access any benefits despite paying British tax and national insurance, will be put off by the new arrangements, not least by the fact that they will not be able to return to the UK for 12 months? What is the Government’s impact assessment? Can the Government confirm that there is intended to be no low-skilled immigration in the future and what the impact will be on public services and UK businesses?

It is clear that this White Paper has not been thought through. It is impractical, unnecessary and cannot possibly be implemented in full for many years to come. Like Brexit, immigration policy based on this White Paper will be damaging to our economy, to our public services and to public confidence.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I added my name to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. As he said, the Schedule 3 powers are considerable and can be exercised against someone even if the activity they are suspected of being engaged in does not amount to a serious crime. Therefore, we certainly feel that the amendments are valid. However, we accept that the noble Lord has received reassurances from the Government, which I hope the Minister will elaborate on in her response. Clearly, following the comments that we made from these Benches about actions that affect “the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”, the amendments tabled by the Minister provide reassurance on that particular issue.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises the same issue that the noble Lord led on in Committee. The noble Lord quite rightly raised the issue of the words “hostile act”. The words are far too wide and give a disproportionate power to the relevant authorities. The noble Lord spoke in Committee about these strong coercive powers.

To their credit, the Government have listened to that debate and I know that they have been in discussion with a number of noble Lords around the House, as have government officials. I have found those discussions very helpful and I am persuaded that the amendments put forward by the Government in this group address the concerns raised previously, so I am content to support the Government and their amendments in this group.

Police Funding Settlement

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement to the House this afternoon. Despite the recognition of the real pressure on our police service in the Statement—it was good to see that—it is disappointing that we have no recognition from the Minister of the Government’s part in creating that demand and pressure on our police and the crisis in public safety. At this stage, I place on record my thanks to the police throughout the United Kingdom for the work that they do 24 hours a day, with great skill, to keep us safe. We are all grateful for that and we very much appreciate it.

No Government in post-war history have ever slashed resources by the amount that this Government have done—by 30%. They have cut officers in each and every year. I recall a debate a few weeks ago when the noble Lord, Lord Blair, who is not in his place, was not challenged by the Minister when he made it absolutely clear to the House that when he was commissioner—we now have Cressida Dick as commissioner—he had many hundreds of millions of pounds more to spend. He could not say how the commissioner today could deliver, given that real cut in resources, compared to what he used to enjoy when he was the commissioner. That was not disputed by the Government.

We have a record level of violent crime. Knife crime has never been as high as it is today. The number of arrests has halved in a decade. Unsolved crimes stand at more than 2 million cases and 93% of domestic violence offences go unprosecuted. It is important that noble Lords see this funding settlement in that context.

The Government have today delivered a ninth consecutive year of real-terms government cuts to the police. In September, the Government announced that changes to the police pension valuation would mean an additional £165 million cost to forces in 2019-20, increasing to £417 million in 2021. Today’s settlement will cover the cost of that pension bill for 2019-20, which is welcome, but provides no certainty for years beyond that. This was dropped on forces at the last minute. Some had started drafting emergency budgets. It was a completely inappropriate way to handle this event, of which the Government must have been well aware. I cannot see how a Government can operate on that basis. So can the Minister commit today to funding the complete pension bill for 2019-20 and 2020-21?

The Government today are once again confirming their intention to pass the entirety of the increase in this settlement on to local council tax payers to fund the police. That is fundamentally unfair. Council tax is a regressive tax, taking no account of income. Despite the fact that every band D or above household will be asked to pay the same amount in additional tax, different force areas will be able to raise different amounts of resources. The forces that have already been cut the most will be able to raise the least. How can the Minister justify that? This is a postcode lottery that means that those communities that are already seeing higher crime will receive much less funding. That cannot be right.

Finally, £160 million has been announced for counterterrorism policing. Can the Minister confirm that it actually amounts to a £59 million increase this year? If the Minister can answer those questions, that would be great but, if she cannot, I will be happy to receive a response in writing.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should declare an interest as, having been a police officer for more than 30 years, I am a police pensioner.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has increased the amount that police forces have to contribute to police pensions? According to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, that will amount to £165 million in 2019-20 and £417 million in 2020-21. The Government are providing £153 million to assist with increased pension costs, which is a shortfall of £12 million in the next financial year, and there is nothing in this settlement for the year after. How are police forces expected to plan ahead when they will potentially have to give back an additional £430 million to the Treasury for police pensions?

In a letter today from the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, the Government say that they are increasing the government grant to PCCs, which is,

“the first real terms increase in the Government grant funding since 2010”.

Yet the Statement that the Minister has just repeated says:

“Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms”.


Which is it: protected or increased? If it is the latter, by what percentage in real terms is it being increased? Can the Minister confirm that since 2010 central government funding for the police service has fallen by 30% in real terms, according to the National Audit Office, with overall funding down 19% in real terms, taking into account the police precept?

The Statement says that this year every force’s funding was protected in real terms. A more accurate picture can be given by looking at the picture since 2015. The number of police officers has fallen a further 4%, the number of community support officers has fallen by 18% and the number of special constables has fallen by 27%. Partly as a result of public spaces now being devoid of uniformed officers, knife crime is up 62%, firearms offences are up 30% and homicides are up 33% over the same period. Demand is rising and becoming increasingly complex, as the Government admit. There are crucial capability gaps, particularly in detectives and investigations, and the government response to this crisis is woefully inadequate.

Instead of making real progress in reversing the devastating cuts that this Government have imposed on the police service, they push responsibility for any meaningful increase in police funding on to police and crime commissioners and council tax payers. They say:

“The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs and they will have to make the case to their electorate and be accountable for delivery of a return on that public investment”.


In other words, the Home Office is saying, “Don’t blame us for increases in council tax and don’t blame us if you don’t notice any difference”.

Meanwhile, the Government are wasting millions of pounds propping up the existing out-of-date emergency service communications network while a new network, which relies totally on a commercial mobile phone network, is years behind its planned implementation. What would have happened to our emergency services if the new communication system had been in place by now, as planned, and had been based on the O2 network, which lost all 2G, 3G and 4G connectivity last week?

The police service and the brave officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us are at breaking point. When will the Government realise that the police service needs a substantial real-terms increase in central government funding and a guarantee to cover all unexpected increases in pension costs in order to avert a crisis?

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 12th December 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I do not think I will be able to speak for very long. I thank the Minister for explaining the order. As she has explained, a civil injunction can be taken out against those causing others harassment, alarm or distress, and the order adds Transport for Greater Manchester to those able to apply directly to the courts for these injunctions, as Transport for London can. Clearly, if the West Midlands and London have this ability, there is no reason that Greater Manchester should not have it as well.

However, perhaps the Minister can explain to the Committee how the injunctions are used in practice. How are they enforced once they are granted? How effective have they been in London, where they have been available to Transport for London for some time? How many times have they been used, and to what effect? I have tried to find out. I consulted the chair of the Transport Committee of the London Assembly and she did not know of any issues around the granting of these injunctions, but it would be useful to know whether this is an effective measure, based on experience in other areas that have had these injunctions for some time.

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

I am happy to support the order. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked a pertinent question, which we would like to hear the answer to, about the experience of using these orders elsewhere. But giving the transport authority in Manchester the powers that they have in the West Midlands and here in London is certainly a good thing. As the Minister said, the Mayor of Greater Manchester has applied for these and made a strong case, and the Government have listened to that. I am happy to support the order and I have no questions for the Minister.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 43 I shall speak also to Amendments 44 and 45 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.

Clause 16 arises out of a recommendation from the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, that,

“there should be a statutory bar to the introduction of Schedule 7 admissions in a subsequent criminal trial”.

I am looking to the noble Lord for assistance because I find this piece of the legislation somewhat impenetrable—but I will give it a go.

The amendments in this group seek to probe whether the clause does what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, intended. Amendment 43 would ensure that a Schedule 7 admission can be used in subsequent proceedings for an offence under paragraph 18 only if the admission relates to an offence committed on the occasion to which that questioning relates. For example, if a person wilfully obstructs a Schedule 7 search and makes an admission relevant to that search, the admission will be admissible. If the admission related to a previous Schedule 7 search at a different time or at a different port, it would not be admissible.

Amendments 44 and 45 would ensure that paragraph 5A of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 at sub-paragraph (2)(c) does not thwart the former independent reviewer’s intention. Sub-paragraph (2)(c) seeks to make an exception of admissions made during a Schedule 7 encounter if, on a prosecution for some other offence that is not a paragraph 18 offence, the person makes a statement that is inconsistent with what he said during a Schedule 7 encounter. This, on the face of it, seems to me to counter what the independent reviewer intended.

However—here we are into the realms of the BBC Radio 4 “Today” programme’s puzzle for the day, at least for someone like me who is not legally qualified—sub-paragraph (3) appears to suggest that the admissions under sub-paragraph (2)(c) are admissible only if the defence introduces a Schedule 7 admission or asks a question in relation to a Schedule 7 admission during proceedings arising out of the prosecution. Can the Minister confirm that I am correct, or explain what Schedule 16 actually means? I beg to move.

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

My Lords, Amendment 43, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to add a clarification at the end of the sub-paragraph that would make it clear that when someone is charged with the offence of refusing to co-operate, this must have happened at the same time as when the oral answers were given for it to be admissible. That seems to me to be a fairly sensible clarification. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that for someone who is not legally qualified, the legislation is very detailed and difficult to understand. The amendments are very good in probing the points that the Bill is getting at, so I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 36 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, and I will also speak to our other amendment in this group, Amendment 38.

Part 4 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 requires those convicted of certain terrorism-related offences to keep the police informed of changes in their circumstances. Clause 12 sets out additional requirements by amending Section 48 (notification of changes) to include a new subsection (4)(c):

“If a person to whom the notification requirements apply becomes the registered keeper of, or acquires a right to use, a motor vehicle the identifying information of which has not previously been notified to the police, the person must notify the police of the identifying information of that motor vehicle”.


Slightly worryingly, they must give notification within three days.

We are reminded of the terrorist attacks in Westminster and London Bridge, where hire vehicles were used and—if I am right—in the case of the London Bridge attack at least, the car was hired within 24 hours of the attack. Amendment 36 adds that the right to use a motor vehicle includes the right to use it as a borrower or by renting. I expect the Minister to say that “the right to use” includes borrowing with the consent of the owner, but it is questionable whether, were the person intending to use the hire vehicle for illegal purposes, the contract with the car hire company would allow it to be used for such a purpose and therefore the person would legally not have the right to use it. In any event, it is clearer and more reassuring to include reference to borrowing and hiring of cars in the Bill. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said earlier, it is much better if the law says what it means.

Amendment 38 addresses Schedule 1, and the new Schedule 3A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 in relation to the financial information that those subject to notification requirements must provide. It requires information to be provided about each account that the person holds with a financial institution, but it does not cover accounts held by others to which the person may have access—for example being an authorised signatory to an account held by someone else.

It also does not cover a credit card account held by someone else where a second card may have been issued to the person subject to the notification requirements. We believe these to be omissions to the financial notification requirements. Amendment 38 therefore includes accounts which they are entitled to operate.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Clause 12, as we have heard, is concerned with the notification requirements in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008; it inserts additional matters into the Act that have to be reported in respect of motor vehicles. Amendment 36 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, sets out and includes the issue of borrowing or renting a vehicle. He rightly set out the whole issue about people renting or borrowing vehicles for use in the terrorist attacks that happened in Manchester, London and elsewhere. This is very sensible and proportionate amendment which identifies a potential loophole. I hope the Government will support it.

On Amendment 38, which amends Schedule 1 to the Bill, the noble Lord raised a very important point about the notification requirements for financial information— someone may have access to or may operate a bank account; they do not have to be the account holder. He made an important point about being the authorised signatory or being able to use a credit card. I am worried that, as it stands at present, the Bill could allow people to get around the notification requirements it proposes.

The noble Lord has raised important points on both amendments and I hope the Government can respond positively.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for what I believe are helpful amendments. I appreciate that they are intended to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the information to be notified.

Amendment 36 relates to the notification of the details of any motor vehicle which a registered terrorist offender is the registered keeper of, or acquires the right to use. Sadly, we have seen the use of motor vehicles as weapons in a number of recent terror attacks. Here in Parliament we have seen first-hand the devastating impact that such an attack can have, in the Westminster Bridge attack which took place last year. The benefits are obvious, ensuring that convicted terrorists are required to inform the police of any vehicle of which they have use.

I therefore fully recognise and support the intention of Amendment 36. It is essential that the provision should extend properly to vehicles which are borrowed or hired, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. Hired vehicles were used in both the Westminster Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks last year. The terrorists responsible for the London Bridge attack attempted to hire a much larger vehicle than the van that was eventually used in the attack. This was just in the UK. We have also seen the use of vehicles as weapons in the Nice truck attack in July 2016, the Las Ramblas attack in August 2017 and the Berlin Christmas market attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this issue was carefully considered in the drafting of Clause 12, and that the existing reference to vehicles which the terrorist offender acquires the right to use will fully cover vehicles that are borrowed or rented. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make this point. I therefore suggest that Amendment 36 is not needed, and I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw it.

Amendment 38 similarly relates to a possible gap in the information to be notified to the police, in this instance relating to financial accounts. As currently drafted, this clause specifies that an offender must provide details of any account that they hold with a financial institution, or that is held by a company through which they run a business. Amendment 38 would expand this to refer also to any financial account which the registered terrorist offender is entitled to operate. The noble Lord has explained that this is intended to cover a scenario where a terrorist seeks to use an account which is not held in their name but over which they have effective control, for example because it is held in the name of their child or a relative for whom they have a power of attorney.

I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, which may have considerable merit in ensuring that the notification requirements cover all accounts which a terrorist offender might be able to use for terrorism purposes. The amendment requires more detailed consideration but, for now, I hope the noble Lord will not press it pending that consideration, and on the assurance that I will let him know the outcome of that consideration ahead of Report.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. Amendment 7, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to which I have added my name, removes the publication of images from this section and the new offence of publishing an image.

The existing offence under Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000 already outlaws the wearing of an item of clothing and the wearing, carrying or displaying of an article,

“in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation”.

As I understand it, the Government want this new offence to cover photographs taken in a private place. As Liberty has pointed out in its briefing, this increases the risk that in so doing law enforcement may,

“mistake reference for endorsement, irony for sincerity, and childish misdirection for genuine threat”.

I gave the example at Second Reading of an innocent Facebook post of a selfie in a friend’s bedroom, with the subject not realising that there was an ISIS flag on the wall behind them.

Both the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights have expressed their unease with the new offence, which, like Clause 1, risks disproportionate interference with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. There is a general point here that covers both Clause 1 and Clause 2. I accept what the Minister has said—that these offences are designed to address a gap in the ability of the authorities to prosecute some people—but this runs the risk of creating a chasm into which innocent people are going to fall. Regrettably, we have seen time and again—I speak as a former police officer with more than 30 years’ experience—legislation that is too loosely drawn being abused by the police to arrest and detain people who should not be arrested or detained.

Amendment 8, in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, to which I have added my name, seeks to exclude those circumstances identified by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and the Joint Committee on Human Rights of,

“historical research, academic research or family photographs”,

and any publication that,

“was not intended to support or further the activities of a proscribed organisation”.

I appreciate that I have not heard from the Labour Front Bench in support of Amendment 9, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark—that has a similar intention to Amendment 8 but specifically includes journalism.

Taken together with the requirement that the publication was not intended to support, encourage support for or further the activities of a proscribed organisation, my concerns about universally exempting journalism, as in Amendment 6, do not apply to this amendment and therefore I support it.

This extension of the law risks criminalising those who have no intention of carrying out acts of terrorism or encouraging others to do so. As such, I agree with my noble friends Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames and Lord Thomas of Gresford that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.

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

My Lords, the amendments in this group seek to provide clarity on the issues in question before the Committee on this clause. They seek to put into the Bill the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has looked at the Bill in detail. The committee has set out the position clearly. This clause is intended to criminalise the online publication of an image depicting clothing or other articles which arouse reasonable suspicion that a person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The committee has taken the view that the arousal of reasonable suspicion of support for a proscribed organisation is a low threshold under which to make an offence. I agree very much with the committee in that respect, as I do with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it may be too low a threshold.

The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have put forward Amendments 7 and 8 in this group, as the Joint Committee suggested. Amendment 9, as proposed by myself and my noble friend Lord Rosser, is similar in effect to Amendment 8 but, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we also make reference to journalism and academic research. All the amendments in this group are reasonable and proportionate. The new offence of publication of an image would be retained but through them we have created a proper defence of reasonable excuse in the Bill, which is important. The noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, has opposed Clause 2 standing part of the Bill. That gives the Minister the opportunity to justify this afternoon what is proposed in the clause.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, made an extremely important point in respect of images in Northern Ireland. Like the noble Lord, I have travelled extensively in the Province, where you can now visit areas with murals all over the place. Some of them can still look quite aggressive but they are also very much part of the tourist trail in certain parts of Belfast. We need to look at this issue and be careful about whether what we do here has unintended consequences. If the Minister does not accept the amendments before the Committee, can she set out how we can be satisfied that there is adequate protection in place within the clause as drafted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, under Clause 2 it will be an offence to publish an image of an item of clothing or other article associated with a proscribed organisation,

“in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of”,

the organisation, as noble Lords have pointed out. This provision updates for the digital age the existing offence at Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalises the display in a public place of such an item in such circumstances. That existing offence applies only partially in cases where a person publishes an image online. While it would be likely to catch a person who publishes an image of, for example, a Daesh flag displayed on the streets, it could be argued not to apply to publication of an image of the same flag displayed within a private home, even if both images are made available to the general public by publishing them online in the exact same way.

The purpose of Clause 2 is to put beyond doubt the application of Section 13 to any case where a person publishes an image of something which it would be unlawful to display in person. It does this by inserting a new offence into Section 13 as its new subsection (1A). This is important to ensure that the law applies properly to contemporary online activity. In the 18 years since the Section 13 offence was enacted, we have of course seen an exponential growth in the importance of the internet in day-to-day life, and sadly its role in radicalisation and the spreading of terrorist propaganda is no different. This includes publishing images of flags and logos associated with proscribed terrorist organisations. We therefore need to update our legislation to reflect these developments and to ensure that all public spaces, including those online, are properly covered by laws which prohibit the publication of such material. Amendment 7 would simply remove this provision in its entirety, rather than seeking to amend or improve it, leaving the gap I have just described and leaving our terrorism legislation out of date and incomplete.

Amendments 8 and 9 would add a reasonable excuse defence to the new Subsection (1A) offence I have outlined. Both specify certain examples of reasonable excuse. Amendment 6 includes instances where publication of the image was not intended to be in support of a proscribed organisation, whereas Amendment 7 makes this category an absolute exemption.

Noble Lords have indicated that their intention is to ensure that the offence does not catch those with a legitimate reason to publish images of items associated with proscribed terrorist organisations, in particular in the context of historical or academic research or family photographs, or who otherwise publish such images without nefarious intent. I am very happy to support both the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments. The Government have no desire to criminalise people for simply going about their legitimate professional activities or their normal family life, but these amendments are not needed to secure that outcome. In fact, the same outcome is already secured by Clause 2.

To explain why that is so, it is important to note that the mere publication of an image associated with a proscribed organisation is not enough on its own to constitute an offence under the existing Section 13 offence or the new offence that will be added to it by Clause 2. The offence will be made out only if the image is published in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. This provides a clear and effective safeguard. For example, in a case where a journalist features an image of a Daesh flag in a news report on the activities of the group or an academic publishes such an image in a book or research paper, it would be clear from the circumstances that they are not a member or supporter of Daesh. Similarly, where a person publishes, say, an old family photo of an ancestor standing next to an IRA flag, the offence would not bite unless all the circumstances of the publication suggest that that person is a member or supporter of the IRA.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the sensitivity of symbolism, pictures et cetera and Northern Ireland, if he will indulge me, I will move on to the specific Northern Ireland point on the next amendment.

This approach provides no less certainty to such individuals that they will not be caught by the new offence than would the proposed reasonable excuse defence, and it offers the advantage that the same formulation—

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, were we to leave the European Union, the EU would examine our data protection regime to satisfy itself that it would be safe for the EU 27 to continue to exchange electronic data with the UK. This continued exchange of data is essential not only for law enforcement and counter- terrorism purposes but for commercial transactions.

The Government have recently passed the Data Protection Act 2018, which not only provides the necessary infrastructure to enable the UK to comply with the general data protection regulation, a piece of EU legislation, but ensures that the UK complies with EU standards of data protection in relation to law enforcement and national security that are not covered by the GDPR. In other words, the UK is ensuring that it complies with all EU data protection standards, so as to guarantee that it will be issued with a certificate of adequacy that will enable continued exchange of electronic data if we leave the EU.

If, as a result of this Bill or the treaties associated with it, UK companies were required to provide law enforcement agencies in other countries with personal data covered by the Data Protection Act and/or GDPR, and those foreign law enforcement agencies’ data protection standards were deemed by the EU to be inadequate, there is the potential for the EU to withdraw its adequacy certificate from the UK. Basically, if member states of the EU share data with the UK, and the UK shares that data under this Bill with law enforcement agencies that have inadequate data protection standards, the EU might stop sharing data with the UK. This amendment is designed to ensure that this does not happen. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised an issue about which Act would take precedence in the event of a conflict between this Bill—when it becomes an Act—and the Data Protection Act 2018. His amendment makes it clear that, in the case of a conflict, the DPA, along with the GDPR, would take precedence. That seems quite sensible: it gives us certainty on the matter, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord. I support his amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their points. There has been nothing in our own domestic law that requires a UK provider to comply with an overseas order. There will therefore be no conflict with domestic law if a CSP decides that complying with a foreign order would put it in breach of its obligations under the GDPR.

The existence of any conflict with UK data protection law does not have the effect of making the order from the other country invalid. Equally, the existence of the order does not compel the UK CSP to ignore its data protection obligations under UK law. It will be for the CSP on which an order is served to reconcile and comply with all legal obligations it is under. It could apply for the variation or revocation of the order, or use the dispute resolution mechanism that we expect all specific international agreements to include. That said, we do not think that this is likely to be necessary in practice. The GDPR contains several “gateways” which permit the cross-border transfer of personal data, including in response to a request or order from overseas law enforcement.

I know the noble Lord’s concerns about data protection, and I absolutely sympathise with him. We have discussed this before, and I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: adequate protection for the privacy rights of individuals. I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that the Bill does not in any way threaten data protection rights, which are robustly protected by existing legislation. UK CSPs will continue to be bound by the GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw Amendment 12.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 39 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I am grateful for the briefing from techUK, which raises concerns about how this legislation might affect a deal between the EU and the UK on adequacy should the UK leave the European Union. We are unsure how to address those concerns and this amendment is very unlikely to be the means by which to do so, but at this stage it is a means of raising them. It is a bit of a Second Reading amendment, if noble Lords get my drift.

Throughout our debates it has been emphasised that the sole purpose of this legislation is to enable UK law enforcement agencies to find a faster legal means to secure data held overseas that may contain vital evidence in serious criminal cases being prosecuted in the UK than the current mutual legal assistance treaty process. Data handled in the UK is subject to the protections of the Data Protection Act 2018 and the EU general data protection regulations. Indeed, the Data Protection Act ensures that the GDPR continues to have effect, even if the UK does leave the EU.

Throughout our debates on this legislation we have expressed our concerns that the designated international co-operation arrangements that enable overseas production orders to have effect in the target state will give as much right to overseas law enforcement agencies to demand data from UK service providers as the right this legislation will give UK law enforcement agencies to demand data from a service provider in a foreign state. Those foreign states, such as the United States of America, are not bound by the Data Protection Act or the GDPR.

For a third country to exchange data with the EU it must persuade the EU that it has adequate protections for personal data equivalent to or exceeding the standards that EU countries have to comply with under the GDPR. Indeed, EU states are not bound by EU regulation relating to data used for national security purposes, but third-party states are. For the first time, if we leave the EU, the EU will scrutinise the way we handle data in relation to national security because we will become a third-party country, involving more scrutiny than currently takes place. I think that is called “taking back control”. Whether in relation to national security or not—we have already debated the weaker safeguards proposed in relation to terrorism offences—such arrangements could result in personal data from an EU country and shared with a UK service provider being passed to a law enforcement agency in a state that falls short of the protections provided by the GDPR.

In summary, our concern is that, by entering into international co-operation agreements enabling overseas law enforcement agencies directly to access personal data held in the UK by UK service providers, sensitive personal data will be accessed by overseas law enforcement agencies whose standards fall below those set out in the Data Protection Act and the GDPR, thereby jeopardising the EU granting the UK an adequacy certificate. Could the Minister explain what discussions have taken place with the EU on this issue and how the UK’s adequacy status will be protected? I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I fully support the amendment moved by the noble Lord. I recall our debates in the Chamber on the GDPR and how important it is to get the adequacy certificate to make sure that we are compliant with all these regulations, and we cannot put that at risk in subsequent legislation. I am looking for the Minister to address that point. The noble Lord has raised a very valid point. We need to get this right before this legislation reaches the statute book.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I shall speak also to Amendment 10.

Clause 2 lists appropriate officers who can make an application for an overseas production order. The list clearly indicates what this legislation is about: securing evidence to present before a court. It is not, for example, a search for intelligence; intelligence officers are not listed. Clause 2 is a list of law enforcement officers and, as such, subsection (1)(a)(vii) and (b)(v), which allow the Secretary of State by regulation to specify others as appropriate officers, should be restricted to specified law enforcement officers and not simply be left open to any person of a description specified in regulations. Our amendments would place such a restriction on the regulating powers of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises an important point. In response, I am sure that the noble Baroness will explain to us why the Government deem it necessary to take this wider power and not restrict it, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has sought to do, to officers from wherever who are actually enforcing law enforcement functions. On the face of it this seems a very sensible amendment, and I look forward to hearing why the Government think they need this wider power in this context.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not require any further meetings or probing on Report. The Bill provides that an appropriate officer is able to apply for an overseas production order where an indictable offence has been committed, where proceedings in relation to that indictable offence have been instituted or investigated, or where the order is sought for the purpose of terrorist investigations. Therefore, the clause is already limited to officers who are exercising law enforcement functions. In fact, the clause already makes clear that where a listed appropriate officer has functions other than for law enforcement purposes, it is only where the appropriate officer is exercising functions in relation to the investigation or prosecution of criminal conduct that they may apply for an overseas production order. For example, a person appointed by the FCA can conduct both civil and criminal investigations and the clause ensures that they can apply for an overseas production order only in connection with criminal investigations or prosecutions. I hope that that provides reassurance.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, but I think it is important that that misinterpretation is not put on it.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, yes, the Explanatory Memorandum is clearly inadequate, as is the letter from the Minister. It is almost contemptible in failing to address these issues. Clearly, it would be different if the Grand Committee had known in advance about these independent inspections of the use of CHISs, and the particular importance that inspectors pay to juvenile CHISs; but the fact remains that these inspections are post-event. These are not procedures that could prevent a juvenile being put into a dangerous situation beforehand.

The managing of informants, or CHISs, as they are now called, is one of the most sensitive areas of policing, fraught with danger—and that is just for adults. Using juveniles as CHISs is an order of magnitude more dangerous, as other noble Lords have said. Young people, through their immaturity and inexperience, are far more at risk when being employed effectively as spies, as the noble Baroness said, in criminal enterprises. They are far more likely to make mistakes and to blow their cover than mature and experienced adults. Law enforcement and other public agencies have always recognised this, and that is why, in the police service, the extraordinary step—and it is extraordinary—of employing a juvenile CHIS has to be authorised by an assistant chief constable, a commander or a more senior officer.

Until now, the authority has lasted one month. Clearly, the longer the CHIS is undercover, the greater the chance of being exposed and the greater the potential psychological strain and therefore risk of harm the young person might be subjected to. For that to be extended to four months without an officer of such seniority being asked to renew that authority is putting the young person in grave danger, in my personal and professional judgment. These decisions were always taken with the greatest care and consideration, and it was ensured that the case for engaging and renewing was taken by a very senior officer, several levels above the investigating officer, and therefore with objectivity and independence, crucial to ensure the safety of that young person.

The world is a much more dangerous place than it was when I was a police officer, let alone a detective chief inspector. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said, the Explanatory Memorandum talks about child exploitation, terrorism and gang and drug crime involving more and more young people. There is a real danger that juvenile CHISs could become victims of child sexual exploitation, or the discipline meted out to members of gangs by other members of the same gang, including sexual assault, rape and being stabbed in the leg. These levels of violence among juveniles were rare in my time as a police officer but are now far more common.

At a time when the threat to CHISs is increasing and the threat to an immature and inexperienced CHIS is even greater, the Government are seeking to reduce the safeguards for these vulnerable young people. That is unacceptable. I do not want it on my conscience that a juvenile CHIS has been killed or seriously injured as a result of relaxing the necessary safeguards that are in place at this time. I seriously ask the Government to rethink this provision, not least because the consultation on these changes does not appear to have included organisations or specialists in the welfare of children such as those who work with gangs, ex-gang members, or child psychologists.

Given more notice and time and at a different point in the parliamentary timetable, I would have prayed against this provision and divided the House. It is not too late for the Government to withdraw this order, at least until the Minister has satisfied herself that appropriate advice has been taken on the potential risks associated with these changes.

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

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the order to the Grand Committee. I also thank my noble friend Lord Haskel for moving his Motion and, in doing so, highlighting the issues of concern that have been raised by the members of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its 35th report published on 12 July. They have highlighted an issue of very serious concern for all members of the Grand Committee this afternoon.

The Grand Committee and the House are grateful for the work done by the committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in scrutinising every instrument that is laid before the Parliament. That is a very important job, getting into the nuts and bolts of what these orders are doing. It is able to get at what a particular instrument does and, through its engagement with Ministers and through its reports, bring matters to the attention of the House.

Covert surveillance is an important tool for our law enforcement agencies, the police and security services. It is a tool that can be used to provide evidence, to detect and prevent crime and, of course, to bring the perpetrators of crime to justice. It is a very important tool to keep us all safe. It is necessary, as there may be no other way to gather the intelligence needed. Having said that, we have to have proper codes of practice in place. When intelligence-gathering involves young people under the age of 18—people who are legally children, as we have heard—that is of serious concern to Parliament and to the Grand Committee today. How are their rights protected? Are adequate protections in place to take care of their physical and mental well-being? Is care taken, and what risk assessments are undertaken to ensure that that is the case?

As we have heard, the order before the Grand Committee today proposes to extend the period for which a person under the age of 18 can be used as a covert human intelligence source—what a name—from one month to four months. Terms such as “administrative convenience” from the Home Office do nothing to reassure members of the Committee that the Government have got the balance right here.

What should be of paramount importance is the welfare of the child who is being used as a covert intelligence source. Does the Minister accept that to seek to extend the term from one month to four months, you need to have clear reasons and to better explain what is being done, demonstrating that the welfare of the child is properly taken into account, other than it will be administratively convenient for the department? Further, can she tell the Committee how the Government have satisfied themselves that these proposals satisfy Section 1 of the Children Act 1989 and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which the UK ratified in 1991? Could she also say something about how the safeguarding and protection of these children is delivered while involving them as covert human intelligence sources? I accept the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made on individual children and the wider community, but how we balance that out is very important.

Immigration: Hostile Environment

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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?

Amesbury Incident

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

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?

Licensing Act 2003 (Royal Wedding Licensing Hours) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome these orders. Can the Minister tell us why there is not an extension to the opening hours on the day of the wedding, bearing in mind that most licensed premises are only allowed to sell alcohol from 11 o’clock in the morning? The wedding does not start until 12 o’clock. Does she not feel that it would, perhaps, have been a good idea to allow early opening on the wedding day? Of course, there will be differences of opinion around the House as to whether people should be up drinking until 1 o’clock in the morning the day before a wedding, but bearing in mind that this has become a custom and that it is a similar order to those for the other events outlined by the Minister, we are happy to support these regulations.

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

My Lords, the wedding of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle on Saturday 19 May promises to be a wonderful occasion and an opportunity for the whole country to celebrate. We all wish the happy couple a long and wonderful life together. I welcome the announcement that during the celebration period, the licensing hours will be extended. I declare my interest as vice-chair of the All-Party Beer Group and a member of CAMRA. I support responsible drinking and understand the value of a good local pub.

I very much support the order before us, but I did notice that on the impact assessment, reference was made to the 2014 World Cup. I remember the debate in the Moses Room on this; the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, responded. At that time, I thought that the impact assessment was very mean-spirited, because it recommended that the opening hours be extended only for the first round, as there was little prospect of England getting beyond the first stage of the competition. I hope that the Government will be a little more optimistic this time and keep it under review for the contest taking place in June and July this year. I am very happy to agree to the order in front of us today.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. I heard from what she said that this anomaly, whereby privately run prisons and custodial premises were not being inspected by national inspectors, was stumbled across when responsibility for Crown inspectors was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. Will she confirm that that is the case, and is it not a little worrying? How long might it have continued if that transfer had not taken place? Clearly, it is very important to have consistency across all privately run prisons and other places of detention, rather than to have the potential for different standards being applied by local fire and rescue services. On that basis, we support the order.

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee. It is certainly very sensible to have the experts in fire safety and security to be looking after the whole of the estate. I am very happy to support it.

I have one query; it is a little disappointing—I refer to page 5 of the impact assessment at paragraph 1.9. I am surprised that we still have this ridiculous “one in, three out” rule. It does not apply here because the Government have clearly tested it against that ridiculous rule. It is an example of the worst kind of ideological, political dogma. You would have thought, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Grenfell, we would not be using it, but clearly the Government still are. I hope that any regulation is in force at any time because it is necessary and proper. I cannot believe we still have this arbitrary rule. It is a matter of much regret, which I will probably take up elsewhere. Other than that, I am very happy to support the order, but I was surprised to see this when I read through the papers this morning.

Police Powers of Designated Civilian Staff and Volunteers (Excluded Powers and Duties of Constables) Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I recommend that it is used by Radio 4 as one of its puzzles of the day because the complexity of the legislation had me going for a little while.

As I understand it, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 allows chief constables to confer powers of a constable to community support officers and community support volunteers unless the power is specifically excluded by its inclusion in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002. I am getting reassuring nods from the Minister’s officials. The Government have woken up to the fact that this would include the power to conduct an intimate search if a police inspector or above—it used to be a superintendent but that was changed in other legislation—considers that an intimate search by a registered medical practitioner or registered nurse is not practicable. This would be, presumably, where there was concern that something was concealed that might cause harm to the individual or to other people, or that important evidence might be concealed which could be lost if the search did not take place straightaway.

I was going to ask the Minister to explain how this power was highlighted as not being suitable for PCSOs or volunteers to undertake but she has already explained that it was the Police Federation which raised this as an issue. However, I wonder how many other powers should be included in Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 that we are yet to discover. I was also going to ask how many times the power had been used by PCSOs or volunteers but the Minister said that it had been used three times in the past 15 years.

During the passage of the Bill we made quite clear our concerns about powers that should be reserved for police officers potentially being given to police community support officers and police community support volunteers. However this is an important and welcome addition to Part 1 of Schedule 3B of the Police Reform Act 2002 and therefore we support it.

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

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am happy to support the regulations before the Grand Committee. It is obviously sensible that civilians are designated as having certain additional police powers as and when an appropriate police officer believes they are needed. Equally, of course, it is important that certain things are prohibited, and certainly an intimate search should not be in the hands of anyone but a warranted police officer. That is why I fully support this order.

Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. I have some specific questions about these orders and a general comment about the Government’s approach to illegal drugs and related issues. We support these measures but we have wider concerns.

As the Minister has explained, these regulations allow law enforcement agencies to make an application to a court to disconnect mobile communication devices, such as mobile phones, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would prevent or restrict their use in connection with drug dealing. These orders can be made without notice to the people affected, in private and at the request of the applicant, without any details being disclosed to anyone. I can understand the need to protect covert human intelligence sources who may be involved in supplying information to the enforcement agencies and I also understand what the Minister has said—that if people were told in advance, it might enable them to change their telephone numbers in advance—but surely this is going to be only a marginal benefit, as it will soon become apparent to the drug dealer that their phone has been disconnected. Unless I do not understand the issue fully, it would not take very long not only for an alternative number to be secured but for the suppliers and clients to be notified of what the new number is. What is the real advantage of keeping the whole process secret—other than protecting sources—set against the benefits of having, as far as possible, an open justice system? Can the Minister explain how these measures present any more than a minor irritation to the drug dealers? In her explanation, she talked about these measures seriously disrupting drug dealers, but surely it would be very quick and easy to re-establish their lines of communication.

Moving on to wider issues, these measures are symptomatic of the Government’s approach to illegal drugs—tinkering around the edges in the vain hope of appearing to be doing something. But the inescapable fact is that there is an insatiable demand for illegal drugs, from young people who smoke small amounts of cannabis to the rich and famous who use cocaine. The fact that these drugs are illegal is no longer a consideration for millions of recreational drug users in the UK. As with most forms of prohibition—as we have learnt from history—stemming demand is clearly ineffective and, as a result, the law is being brought into disrepute. Addiction to illegal drugs, on the other hand, should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. It is the sufferer’s addiction that is the issue and not the drugs that they are addicted to.

As with any insatiable demand, there will clearly be a supply. The only effective way to deal with illegal drug supply is to take out the whole distribution network from source to street. During the period of the “peace dividend”, between peace in Northern Ireland and the rise of Islamist terrorism and the far right, the police and the security services were able to mount a limited number of operations that did just that—take out importers, distributors and street dealers. The combination of the diversion of the security services back to their core function of anti-terrorism and the reduction in police resources means such operations are no longer possible.

There was a story in the Times this week on this very issue of county lines, which reported:

“Thousands of children and teenagers are being used by criminal gangs as drug runners ... The National Crime Agency ... believes that the ‘county lines’ drug trade, in which urban gangs move Class A drugs and cash between inner-city hubs and out-of-town locations, is out of control”.


I spoke a few weeks ago in Parliament to some young people whose lived experience is that drug dealing, with all its inherent risks and dangers, presents the best way to make money as far as they are concerned, whether to support a reasonable lifestyle or to put food on the table for their families. Prison was seen by them as a place where they can meet with their friends. As one young woman recently released from Holloway prison explained, it was somewhere where she had “the best time”, to quote her exactly. She added, admitting the irony, that when her local police station was the base for a safer neighbourhood team and she saw uniformed officers on a regular basis she felt safer, but not anymore.

In a society where discrimination against the young, and black and minority ethnic people, persists in the job market, where young people’s lives are blighted by criminal records acquired at a young age, and which, from young people’s perspective, gives them little or nothing and no hope of making a decent living by legitimate means in the future, they believe drug dealing to be a legitimate option. All this creates a parallel society where young people feel they have to arm themselves with knives and guns to make themselves feel safe, whether they are engaged in drug dealing or not, resulting in record numbers of young people dying on the streets from knife crime and of people dying on our streets from taking illegal drugs because there is no control of the strength or composition of the drugs they are taking. What is the Government’s response to this alarming picture? It is to cut off the phones of drug dealers, if and only if they find out what numbers the dealers are using—something that can be rectified by drug dealers within hours.

There is a crisis in this country enveloping increasing numbers of young people. Of course we should make life difficult for drug dealers and these measures may have a marginal impact, but a major rethink about the legalisation and regulation of drugs, the treatment of addiction, the incarceration and criminalisation of young people, providing opportunities for young people to earn decent money legitimately, and the decimation of community policing, is desperately needed.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, for her explanation of the regulations before the Grand Committee. I am fully supportive of them as far as they go and I welcome the action being taken here, although more could be done.

I have spent a few Fridays and Saturdays with the Metropolitan Police over the last few months, looking at a variety of the operations it undertakes and how it has to work in some very challenging circumstances to keep us safe. This whole issue of drug gangs crossing county lines was the subject of a briefing I received recently. I remember visiting one particular unit that explained how a number of young people from their area had been apprehended in a coastal town with drugs and cash. They had gone from their London base and they were dealing stuff there. It is absolutely right that this exploits some very young, vulnerable people. It potentially drags young people into a life of crime. There are other risks for these young people of being groomed and sexually abused, and of being subject to other forms of violence. It is a very depressing thing to see.

I also went on a raid of a property being used as a drugs den. Across the table there were about a dozen mobile phones. If you are a drug dealer apparently you have loads of phones, which is why we have these orders. That highlighted to me the importance of these phones to the operations.

This is a serious issue and the orders have my support but my problem is that the phones can be bought with minimal information. You can just wander into a high street store or supermarket and do not need to provide anything and you can get a mobile phone and off you go. If you are a drug dealer I suppose you buy loads of these phones. I think you can also buy the mobile phone credit with minimal information. There are lots of circumstances where if you want to do things in this country you have to provide ID—to buy goods, to buy services, to get access to credit. This week I went to the post office because a parcel had arrived, we were not there and a little card was put through the door. To get the parcel, which was for my wife, I had to produce the card, our council tax bill and both our passports—just to get a parcel that was legitimately ours. But apparently someone can go to the high street and buy a mobile phone with no indication of who they are—and go off and set an operation up.

Terrorist Attacks

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place earlier today. I first pay tribute to the emergency services, the police, the fire brigade, the ambulance service, the doctors, nurses and other staff in our NHS and the other security services which responded with courage, bravery and dedication to duty to preserve life and protect the public. We owe these heroes a great debt of gratitude, and we must never forget that.

I also send my thoughts and prayers and those of the whole House to the victims of these disgusting terrorist atrocities and to their families and friends. Since the Dissolution of the previous Parliament there have been atrocities in the Manchester Arena, at London Bridge and Borough Market and at Finsbury Park mosque. I support the police and the security services in investigating these matters fully and bringing the perpetrators to justice. I was pleased to see the bravery of PC Keith Palmer, who gave his life protecting us in this palace, recognised with a posthumous George Medal and that pensioner Bernard Kenny, who was stabbed trying to help Jo Cox MP when she was murdered in her constituency last June, also received the George Medal in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List announced on Saturday. There were countless other acts of bravery from the police, the other emergency services and members of the public dealing with the recent atrocities. Civilians stood up and stepped in to help those in need, and we are very grateful to them all. They are true examples of the British spirit and show why no terrorist will ever win.

I am not going to trade figures on the number of police officers and other specialists as they are all in the public view. There were more in 2010, and there are fewer in 2017. We welcome the increase in the number of police officers and other specialists to give the law enforcement agencies the staffing, powers and resourcing to do their job effectively, but we need to look carefully at what is being proposed as we must have sufficient resources in place to have people in post to be able to use the full range of powers to full effect. More powers without staffing and other resourcing is not going to be effective and will not provide the reassurance and protection our citizens need.

I very much welcome moves to get the internet companies to block and take down content promoting terrorism. Every effort must be made for further action in this area. It is just not acceptable. Swift action must be taken by these companies to take this content down. In her response, will the Minister refer to the following matters? What will be the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation before any new measures come before Parliament? Are the Government planning any review of the Prevent strategy? What reassurance is being given to the Muslim community and other faith communities? It has been reported that individuals involved in the Manchester and London Bridge terror attacks were reported to the authorities but were no longer thought to be an immediate threat. Can the Minister confirm that an urgent reassessment of any other individuals in this category is being done and that all intelligence that suggests any sort of activity, no matter who the perpetrators are, is constantly reviewed and assessed? We need to stand up to the terrorists wherever they come from—from Islamist terrorists to far-right extremists with their messages of death, destruction and hate. They are all murderers and vile preachers of hate.

Finally, I suggest to Members that if they have a spare moment they pop down to Borough Market. It is a wonderful part of the London Borough of Southwark and somewhere I have known for most of my life. I am a trustee of the United St Saviour’s Charity, and I declare an interest. It owns a number of the affected properties around Borough Market and has been helping businesses get back on their feet over the past few weeks. Borough Market is a wonderful place and well worth a visit.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and express the condolences, thoughts and best wishes of those on these Benches to all those affected by these tragedies. I also express our thanks and admiration to the emergency services involved in each of these incidents, particularly the armed officers who had to take the difficult, split-second decision to shoot the suspected perpetrators of the London Bridge/Borough Market attack. Our thoughts should also be with those officers and their families.

I have four questions. Can the Minister confirm that central government funding for the police service is increasing in real terms? What account has been taken of the additional financial pressures on the police service, such as the apprenticeship levy, and the additional operational pressures, such as the public inquiry into covert policing and the post-event investigations into these terrorist incidents? Is it not time to restore community policing, an invaluable source of community intelligence, after a cut of 20,000 police officers and 24,000 police support staff since 2010? Does the Minister agree with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the Met is struggling because of a lack of resources? We welcome David Anderson’s role in reviewing the handling of recent terror attacks. We welcome the idea of a commission for countering extremism, but we need to understand what that means. We also welcome an independent, evidence-based review of Britain’s counterterrorism strategy, including an independent, evidence-based review of Prevent. Can the Minister give any more detail about the commission and can she confirm that the review will be independent and evidence-based?

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, briefly, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lexden and Lord Cashman, for introducing the amendments, and the noble Baroness for supporting them, and ask that she consider the matters still outstanding, to which the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred, concerning the Armed Forces. I am very grateful that the Government are also considering other offences mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, as a consequence of his amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I very much support all the amendments in this group. We have made tremendous progress in recent years in seeking to redress the effects of homophobic legislation. Terrible injustices were suffered, and previous changes to the law and the amendments are intended to go some way to correct that and make amends. They have my full support and that of my party.

Of course, we need to go further in Northern Ireland, but this is an important step. I want to see the day when LGBT people living in Northern Ireland have exactly the same rights, protections and freedoms as LGBT people living in England, Scotland and Wales. We are a United Kingdom, albeit with devolved institutions, but LGBT people should have the right to get married in Northern Ireland; that must be urgently addressed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and the ministerial team led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Stormont. It is wrong to keep using the petition of concern procedure to block progress in this matter. The UK Government must play their role in championing the rights of LGBT people in Northern Ireland by raising this issue at ministerial and official level. It is not enough for the Government to say that it is a matter for the devolved institution.

During Committee on the Bill on 9 November, I made clear my support for a range of amendments proposed by several Lords. I was clear that welcome progress was being made, but that the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman were in my view the best ones before your Lordships’ House. They were not accepted by the Government, but discussions have taken place outside the Chamber, and the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Cashman and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, are very welcome. I thank the noble Baroness very much for listening and working with my noble friend on them.

I pay warm tribute to my noble friend Lord Cashman. We have been friends for many years. It is his tireless campaigning with others, including the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, that has got us to this point today, and we should be very grateful to them all.

Although it is not on the subject of the amendments, I will make one final point on equality in Northern Ireland in respect of women’s equality. The Northern Ireland Assembly, Ministers, led by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and the political parties must get together to deliver equality for women living in Northern Ireland, so that they enjoy the same rights as women living in England, Scotland and Wales. Again, the UK Government have to play their role by raising that at ministerial level. Although that is a matter for another day, it is an important issue to which we must return. In conclusion, I confirm my full support for the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 181M is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I tried to make it clear in Committee that the specific offence of being a suspected person loitering with intent to commit an indictable and later an arrestable offence under that specific part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 and how it was used against the black community is seen by the black community—and by many others, myself included—as as much of a clear historical wrong as the offences that we have just debated.

In Committee, the Minister suggested that, without looking at the facts of individual cases, it is impossible to know whether the conduct in question would still be an offence today. In Committee, I described exactly how, in circumstances where a person behaved in a way that would have amounted to an offence today, they would have been charged with a substantive offence—for example, attempted theft of or from a motor vehicle, or attempted burglary. I suggested that it was only when behaviour did not amount to an offence under other legislation that individuals would have been charged with an offence of being a suspected person under Section 4.

These offences are important and symbolic to the black community and how they have in the past been, and continue to be, discriminated against in the criminal justice system. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was debated in Committee. It is fair to say that it did not get a warm welcome from the Minister in responding to the debate. I was surprised to learn that the Government had no data at all on the number of people affected by the law before it was abolished. Clearly, the amendment is not going to be accepted by the Government tonight, but the noble Lord is right to keep raising the issue and I hope that it will keep being raised. It is only by doing so that we can explore what options are available to us, what happened in the past and whether it was right and whether, with hindsight, the offence should have been removed from the statute books many years before it actually was, as it was used in a way that discriminated against black people.

I hope that, when the Minister responds to this short debate, she can focus particularly on the amendment. In her response in Committee, the focus was as much on the previous debate, so I hope that it can focus particularly on the points voiced before us here today.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 46 I will speak also to the other amendment in the group, Amendment 47. Both are in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. This is a straight rerun of the amendments we had in Committee in relation to police super-complaints, which bodies can make them and the authorised persons who can ask the Secretary of State to add or remove bodies from the list of bodies that can make them. In Committee, we argued that the Secretary of State should be required to consult on the regulations that designate which bodies can make super-complaints. These regulations will contain the criteria that will be applied to decide which bodies can bring police super-complaints. New Section 29B, inserted by Clause 25, requires the Secretary of State to consult when she makes or revokes a designation but does not require her to consult on the criteria that she applies in deciding whether to make or revoke a designation. That is the intended effect of Amendment 46.

Amendment 47 relates to the “authorised persons” who can ask the Secretary of State to make or revoke a designation under new Section 29B(2)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002. Contrary to what the Minister took as our intention in Committee, Amendment 47 sets out a list of bodies that the Secretary of State should specify as authorised persons who can ask the Secretary of State to make or revoke a designated body under new subsection (2)(a), not a list of designated bodies that can make police super-complaints.

Just to be clear, there will be two lists of bodies in relation to police super-complaints. There are authorised persons, who are bodies who can ask the Secretary of State to designate or remove a body from the list of those able to make police super-complaints, and there are bodies that are designated as being able to bring police super-complaints. We believe that the list of authorised persons should include the Law Society, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and Citizens Advice, and others that should be listed in the Bill. I beg to move Amendment 46.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, these matters were discussed in Committee. I am very supportive of Amendments 46 and 47. As we have heard, designated bodies will get the power to make super-complaints to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary, and these complaints can be made where, in the opinion of the designated body, a feature of policing may be harming the public and needs looking at. It is based on a system that works in the private sector and this is the first time it will be used in the public sector. Only designated bodies will be able to make super-complaints, and the process for designating these bodies will be set out in regulations.

When the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, responds to this debate, it would be helpful if she said something about the timescale for the consultation processes, and when she expects these regulations to be laid before Parliament and come into force. I should also say that I am happy for the negative procedure to be used in respect of the regulations; perhaps the noble Baroness could bring that fact to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hyde of Ashton, who is of the opinion that I would never agree to the negative procedure being used for regulations in this House.

The proposals in this section of the Bill are a welcome move and will be a positive benefit to organisations and individuals that have legitimate concerns to raise. We are supportive of them and of these amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the opportunity to address the misunderstanding over Amendment 47, which was previously tabled in Committee. However, I am again going to have to disappoint the noble Lord as the Government cannot support either of these amendments. The Bill provides for the delegation of the ability to authorise those who can be designated bodies for the purposes of the new super-complaints system.

I welcome the noble Lord’s suggestions of who should perform this function but I do not agree that this task can be performed by bodies that might themselves want to raise super-complaints, or by multiple agencies. For the system to have legitimacy, we need to avoid a conflict of interest in this role. That is why the Bill creates this distinct role, as we do not consider it appropriate that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary designates the bodies that can come to it with super-complaints.

All three bodies put forward by the noble Lord could potentially add significant value as designated bodies, should they wish to apply. It would be a shame if, for example, Citizens Advice were precluded from raising issues through the super-complaints system. In the interests of a smooth and speedy process, I suggest that this role should be undertaken by an individual or single body, not by a committee.

The critical point here is that the criteria for designation are clear and unambiguous so that authorisation is a simple and objective process. That is why we will consult widely on the criteria in due course, and I encourage all those who have an interest to feed in their views. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about timing: it will be in the coming months.

Having consulted to establish clear criteria, we believe it is unnecessary to subsequently consult on any list of bodies deemed to have met the criteria, as required by the noble Lord’s Amendment 46. This risks slowing the whole system down, delaying designation and further delaying the point at which bodies can submit super-complaints to HMIC.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to consulting widely on the criteria. As part of that process, we would welcome the input of noble Lords on bodies or organisations that may be suitable for designation or for the role as the authorised person. I hope the noble Lord, having considered the Government’s arguments, will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister and to the Government for listening to the concerns we raised around whistleblowing in Committee. We certainly support the government amendments in this group.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, there was a very useful debate in Committee on whistleblowing. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I raised a number of issues; we are very grateful that the Government have listened and tabled these amendments and we are very supportive of them.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I cannot let the opportunity go past without congratulating my noble friend Lord Sharkey on what is a phenomenal achievement. I am very grateful to the Government for the support that they have finally given to his amendment.

I turn to another contentious issue. Amendment 214Q stands in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. As we have just discussed, with government support my noble friend Lord Sharkey has moved amendments—and we have just passed those amendments—to grant pardons to those convicted of offences that only gay men could commit and that are no longer on the statute book because they were considered discriminatory. These offences are symbolic to the gay community and it is striving to ensure equality in law and in society as a whole.

There is another offence that is symbolic to another minority, which is no longer an offence on the statute book and is considered by many to be another example of what amounts to an historic injustice. Parliament repealed the offence because it was accepted that it was being used in a discriminatory manner by the police; it is the offence of being a suspected person loitering with the intent to commit what was originally an indictable, and later, an arrestable offence. Although the term “sus” has recently been more widely used to describe the use of police “stop and search” powers, it was originally confined to the criminal offence of being a suspected person under Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The offence required the evidence of two witnesses, usually two police officers patrolling together. The usual evidence was of a suspected person being seen to try three car door handles, in an attempt to steal the car or from it, or the suspect putting his shoulder to the doors of three homes, with the intention of committing burglary.

The difficulty with the offence was the absence in almost every case of any corroboration, either from witnesses other than police officers, or any physical or forensic evidence. Both the police officers and, usually, young black men, who were almost exclusively the target under sus, knew that it was the word of two police officers against a young black man with no other witnesses or evidence or any other corroboration. This allowed unscrupulous police officers to invent evidence against those who had, at least on that occasion, done nothing wrong.

Of course, some will say that a miscarriage of justice did not occur on every occasion of someone being convicted of being a suspected person and, of course, I cannot say that that was the case. However, I can say—I hope that Members of this House agree with this—that thousands of innocent young black men were convicted, which caused huge pain and distress, destroying the trust and confidence between the community and the police.

I was a police officer—a bobby on the beat, a patrol officer—at the height of the use of that aspect of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act. In 1975 and 1976, the year I joined the Metropolitan Police, more than 40% of those arrested for sus were black people, when at the time black people accounted for only 2% of the population. It was because by the end of the 1970s you were 15 times more likely to be arrested for sus if you were black than if you were white, far more than the disproportionality in stop and search, that in 1980 the Home Affairs Select Committee recommended the repeal of the legislation. It also threatened to introduce a Private Member’s Bill if the Government did not take action, but the Government did.

There was a great deal of concern, even among police officers at the time—me included—over the use of the offence, in that we knew about the claims of the black community that it was used as a tool to oppress black people. If there was evidence of another offence—for example, attempted theft of or from a motor vehicle or attempted burglary—not only were these offences less likely to be open to question but the penalties were more severe. In other words, if there had been substantive evidence, physical or forensic evidence, which in those days would have been simply fingerprints, then the much safer, more acceptable and far less contentious route was to arrest and charge for the substantive offence rather than sus.

My second comment is anecdotal. I was at Highbury Corner Magistrates’ Court with someone I had arrested. The stipendiary magistrate, Toby Springer, would want to hear from the arresting officer in every case except for those of being drunk and incapable. The case just before me was an arrest made by a colleague for whom I had respect for his honesty and professionalism. He had arrested someone for sus, and the young black man who had been arrested pleaded guilty to the offence and was fined. Downstairs in the cells, where the young man had to pay his fine before being released, I spoke to my colleague, and I remember this very distinctly. I said to him that he had restored my faith in sus because here was a trusted colleague with someone who had pleaded guilty in court to the offence, so the criticisms made by the black community, at least in some cases of sus, were clearly unjustified. He told me what had happened. He and a colleague had turned a street corner and the person he had arrested looked at the police officers and ran away. The officers ran after the youth and caught him. The youth was given the ultimatum, “Do you want attempted burglary or sus?”. The youth said, “Sus”. Presumably realising that the odds were stacked against him, he then went through the whole process admitting to something that he had never done.

Sus is another example of an offence that should never have been on the statute book, or at least an offence that was designed to deal with soldiers coming home from the Napoleonic wars and making a nuisance of themselves should not still have been on the statute book 150 years later. Not every part of Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was repealed by the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, but those other offences are, and should be, a debate for another time.

Bearing in mind how long it has taken my noble friend Lord Sharkey to achieve what he has achieved for the gay community through his long campaign for justice, and in the absence of the equivalent of an Alan Turing figure regularly to hand in the case of sus, I am not expecting instant agreement from the Government. However, I ask the Minister to think carefully about what has been a symbolic offence for the black community. It has created huge pain and distress for decades. To pardon those convicted under this legislation—repealed because of its acknowledged discriminatory application and potential for misuse—would be of immeasurable importance to the black community.

Not only did sus damage relations between the black community and the police, it damaged relationships between the generations in the black community. The first generation of migrants from the Caribbean had great faith in the police and when their sons were arrested they did not believe their tales of the police acting improperly in inventing evidence against them. It drove divisions between generations as well as between police and the subsequent generations. Granting pardons to those convicted of being suspected persons loitering with intent to commit an indictable or arrestable offence would be a huge step forward in healing the pain caused and the damage done to the trust and confidence the black community as a whole had in the police. It would also be a much-needed catalyst to dramatically improve those damaged relations as we work to create safer communities for all. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have one question for the Minister when she responds to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Does she have any idea of the number of people affected by this?

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 183, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond, I will speak to the other amendments in the group, Amendments 186 and 187. My noble friend is unable to be in her place this afternoon.

Amendment 183 seeks to make the initial period beyond which police bail under Section 30A of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 must then be authorised by a superintendent 56 days instead of 28, as proposed in the Bill. The impact assessment published by the Government on 26 May 2016 alongside the Bill indicates that the 28-day limit is a reasonable one and that the impact on police resources would not be arduous. However, academic research carried out by Professor Anthea Hucklesby of the School of Law at the University of Leeds suggests that an initial limit of 60 days would be necessary to avoid considerable adverse impact on the police service.

That research forms the basis of an article by Professor Michael Zander, the acknowledged expert on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, in vol. 180 of Criminal Law and Justice Weekly entitled, “Not a Good Idea to Ignore the Evidence”. I have spoken to Professor Zander about this issue. In the article, he agrees with Professor Hucklesby’s conclusion that:

“A time-limit of 60 days would be proportionate for both suspects and the police. This would allow cases involving routine forensic analysis, which officers in my study consistently reported took an average of six weeks, to be completed”.

Professor Zander goes on to say that the Home Office has had this research for “over a year” and that the findings,

“have now been confirmed by the College of Policing’s bail report, Pre-charge Bail—an Exploratory Study, September 2016”.

My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond tells me that the Police Superintendents’ Association of England and Wales believes that the 28-day limit could have a considerable detrimental effect on the impact of impending changes on inspectors, superintendents and magistrates’ courts.

I do not wish to detain the Committee with the detailed reasoning behind the conclusions of the academics, the College of Policing and the Police Superintendents’ Association. Suffice to say, we have no doubt excellent number-crunchers in the Home Office on the one hand saying the 28-day limit is doable, and the rest of the world on the other hand claiming that it is not. Of course we support limits on police bail, and we generally welcome the provisions in the Bill in this respect, for the reasons the Minister outlined in response to the first group of amendments. But can the Minister explain how the academics and the practitioners are lined up against the Government on the initial time limit? Amendments 186 and 187 are consequential on the main amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendment 183, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, would delete “28” and insert “56”, which would increase the period of pre-trial bail from 28 to 56 days. I think we all agree that bail at any point should be as short as possible, although the point that the noble Lord made needs to be considered carefully by your Lordships’ Committee. There seems little point in bringing people back to the police station, only for them to be rebailed because other work has not actually happened. People may be waiting for forensics or other things to be done, so the noble Lord has a good point. If Professor Zander and other academics suggest that this will not be effective, I hope that when the Minister responds she can answer that point. It seems pointless to bring people back just to be sent away again, given the cost of the bureaucracy for the police, the solicitors and the suspect. If she can respond to the points made, that would be very helpful.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Briefly, I agree with my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has raised an important issue. However, it needs careful consideration for the reasons that my noble friend outlined. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree that the Government will take this away and have a look at this issue. We all want to make sure that the police have the appropriate power, but equally, of course, we should ensure that the proper safeguards are built in so that unintended consequences, which no one would want to occur, do not cause problems as well.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this matter but the issues the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, raised, particularly around religious dress, need to be considered very carefully. I bear in mind the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, presented us with where constables on the street, faced with individuals who they interpret as deliberately trying to conceal their identity, are radioing an inspector for authority who is not at the scene and cannot make that assessment himself or herself. That is potentially difficult. I am not a lawyer and I may have misread it, but my reading of the existing legislation was that it allows for a scenario where written authority could be given contemporaneously with the actions of the officers on the ground. Can the Minister therefore help the House by saying whether the Government think that the amendment is necessary? However, I absolutely accept that flash mobs and spontaneous public disorder are becoming an increasing problem, as we saw in the riots in London only a few years ago, which were driven by social media.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 128 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee I will speak also to the other amendments in the group—Amendments 129 and 130. These are probing amendments that relate to which bodies can be designated as being eligible to bring super-complaints against the police.

Bodies are to be designated by the Secretary of State through regulations. Clause 25 inserts a new Section 29B into Part 2A of the Police Reform Act 2002. Subsection (5) of new Section 29B states:

“The Secretary of State must, before making regulations under subsection (3) or (4), consult such persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

However, it does not require the Secretary of State to consult on subsection (1). Adding in reference to subsection (1) means that the Secretary of State would have to consult before making the regulations that designate which bodies should be capable of bringing super-complaints. Those regulations presumably will set out the criteria referred to in subsections (3) and (4). That means that there will be consultation on those as well.

Amendment 129 lists the three bodies—the Law Society of England and Wales, the National Council of Voluntary Organisations, and Citizens Advice—that, along with others as specified by the Secretary of State, would be made “authorised” persons for the purposes of subsection (2)(d). That gives them a role in designation, as they are likely to know the territory and issues involved, know their members and know which the good non-governmental organisations are, and so on.

Amendment 130 is intended to ensure that the first regulations made under subsections (1), (3) and (4) of new Section 29B are subject to the affirmative resolution process. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this section of the Bill gives the power to designated bodies to make super-complaints to Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. The complaints can be made where, in the opinion of those bodies, a feature of policing is harming the public and needs to be looked at.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, listed three organisations to make these super-complaints to be put on the face of the Bill. I have some sympathy with the amendments that have been put forward, but I understand that they are probing amendments. I hope that when the noble Baroness replies she can give us some indication of the organisations likely to be designated to make these complaints under the regulations. It is important that, when creating these new powers, we have some idea of what the organisations are likely to be. Are those listed in the amendment likely candidates to be designated when this comes into force, or are there others?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The second stage of Leveson is a very important stage of the investigation into the conduct of the police and the media. It is essential that it is carried out as soon as possible, bearing in mind that there may be outstanding criminal cases that need to be dealt with first.

It is understandable that a slightly one-sided picture has been given of the relationship between police and press. There are many entirely appropriate relationships between the media and press which are beneficial to the public interest. For example, appeals for witnesses to a serious crime can receive the wide publicity sometimes required only with the co-operation of the media and local press. There are searches for missing persons, where an appeal needs to be made nationally to try to identify where a vulnerable person might be. Clearly, there are examples of the opposite. Hillsborough is one. Another rather common example is where, sadly, the police brief the media casting doubt on the character of those who died at the hands of the police.

I am not saying that it is entirely a positive relationship but it is necessary for the police to have a relationship with the media. It is important to differentiate between positive and appropriate relationships and negative and entirely inappropriate ones, particularly, as happened with the phone hacking case, where there was at least the opportunity for critics of the police to suggest that their lack of enthusiasm initially to investigate phone hacking by the media might have had something to do with that too-close relationship. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Rosser. I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I very much support the police. They do a fantastic job for us and put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.

The noble Lord is right when he talks about the need for an appropriate relationship between the media and the police, and how important that is. Equally, as my noble friend Lord Rosser said, there are obviously times when things go wrong. Clearly what happened at Hillsborough was an absolute tragedy. Can you imagine losing a loved one on that day and then having to endure the abuse in the media which has clearly now been shown not to be true? We should pay tribute to the steely determination of the Hillsborough families to get justice for their loved ones. They not only lost them but saw their names dragged through the mud.

It is important that we get to the point where the Government can clarify that they will proceed with the second stage of Leveson. There are some nuances between the statement we had from the previous Prime Minister and what we had from this Dispatch Box more recently. That difference might just be a few words which mean nothing at all, but we need to be clear that this should go ahead and that the Government are determined that any prosecution dealing with this will proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 132 I will speak also to our Amendments 135, 136 and 137 in this group and in support of Amendments 133 and 134, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

Clause 27 relates to investigations by the IPCC of concerns raised by whistleblowers and inserts a new Part 2B into the Police Reform Act 2002. If we were asking for this clause to not stand part of the Bill, it would be a case of 2B or not 2B—but that is not what we are asking for. I am just checking to see whether noble Lords are awake. New Section 29D of the 2002 Act defines a whistleblower as a person who,

“raises a concern … about a police force or a person serving with the police”,

and who is,

“under the direction and control of a chief officer of police”,

at the time. However, it does not cover cases where the whistleblower is currently under the direction and control of a chief officer. One potential scenario is where the whistleblower is a witness to an incident that happened before he or she joined the police service, and wishes to draw the matter to the attention of the IPCC. Our Amendment 132 would legislate for that scenario.

I move on to Amendments 135, 136 and 137. New Section 29I of the 2002 Act allows the Secretary of State, by regulations, to set out the circumstances where the identity of the whistleblower may have to be disclosed. This may be done only for permitted disclosure purposes, one of which is,

“the institution or conduct of criminal proceedings”.

Our concern is that a whistleblower may not realise that his or her identity may be revealed if the investigation turns into a criminal one, and that the whistleblower should be informed at the outset that this might be the case, so that they can withdraw the concern if they are worried by that prospect. Amendment 135 addresses that issue.

New Section 29E of the 2002 Act sets out the actions of the IPCC if it chooses not to investigate, including making recommendations in the light of the concern. Subsections (4) and (5) allow the Secretary of State to make regulations in relation to such a scenario, including, in (5)(a), to,

“describe the kinds of recommendations that the Commission may make”.

Our Amendment 136 is aimed at ensuring that the IPCC is not restricted as to what recommendations it can make by adding that the Secretary of State,

“may not specify an exclusive list of recommendations”.

In new Section 29L of the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State is required to consult various bodies before making regulations about whistleblowers. We believe that organisations representing police officers and staff should be included in the list of groups who must be consulted. Our Amendment 137 makes this change. We also support, as I mentioned, Amendments 133 and 134, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. I beg to move Amendment 132.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this section of the Bill deals with whistleblowing and investigations by the IPCC. It provides a new power for the IPCC to investigate matters raised by a police whistleblower without the matter having to be raised with the police force concerned, and provides further powers to protect the identity of the individual or individuals concerned. All the amendments in this group are in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, with the exception of Amendments 133 and 134 in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser.

Amendment 132 seeks to provide as much clarity as possible and allows for the eventuality that the person making a complaint could still be under the direction and control of a chief officer of police. This amendment raises an interesting point, which was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when he presented his scenario to the House a few moments ago. I hope that when the Government respond they will be as clear possible in their reasoning if they do not think the amendment is necessary.

The amendments in the name of my noble friend seek to add clarity to this section of the Bill by making clear that these provisions cannot be used if the matter is subject to an ongoing investigation. Amendment 134 would allow for whistleblowing protections to be applied to police witnesses. These are good amendments that would strengthen what is proposed by the Government.

When reading and thinking about Amendment 135, I was not completely convinced that it was either necessary or should in fact be there. Having said that, I listened to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I think that he persuaded me on those.

I am not sure what Amendment 136 adds to the Bill as it would not put in the Bill an exclusive or exhaustive list. Amendment 137 is completely correct: organisations representing police officers and staff must be consulted before regulations are made concerning this section of the Bill. It is not good enough to rely on the subsection that talks about other organisations that are deemed appropriate. Those organisations deserve to be in the Bill when it leaves this House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, we broadly welcome the government amendments in this group and, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has to say on the Labour amendments, they seem to cover similar ground.

I have some questions, but I agree with the Minister that the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, decent people who want only to do their best to protect and serve the public. However, if an officer has left the service and, within 12 months, an investigation takes place which, if the officer was still serving, could have resulted in that officer being sacked, what sanctions would be available against such an officer, other than their name being added to the banned list?

I understand that “exceptional circumstances”, in terms of the most serious acts of wrongdoing, needs to be defined by an independent body. We will come later on in our considerations to talk about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and whether it is truly independent. It is slightly concerning that one criterion that the IPCC would have to look at, in deciding what action to take, is the impact on public trust and confidence in the police, because it could take the decision that the impact of exposing serious misconduct through an investigation would have such a detrimental impact on that trust and confidence that it would use it as a reason not to investigate rather than an obligation to do so. So we have to be very careful about the grounds on which the IPCC should or should not consider something to be exceptional wrongdoing.

Clearly, many members of the public will be very concerned, or disappointed, that the legislation will not be retrospective, particularly with regard to those involved in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. The concern is not with the rank and file officers in that case; the concern is with what happened in the aftermath, and the leadership exercised at Hillsborough. However, as I say, we are generally supportive of the government amendments.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, first, I associate myself with the comments made by the Minister and by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to the police and how they conduct themselves. They are a fantastic group of people, who protect us every day, and we are very lucky to have them looking after us.

As we have heard, this section of the Bill concerns disciplinary proceedings against former police officers and former special constables, and the amendments in this group are to both the relevant clauses and schedules. Generally, I am content with the government amendments, and supportive of them. My noble friend Lord Rosser tabled Amendments 142 and 143 before the Government tabled their amendments, and we are very happy with what the Government have proposed.

I accept entirely the point that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made about “exceptional circumstances” being defined by an appropriate body. Could the Minister give us some idea what the Government’s thinking is on that matter? Having said that, I support the government amendments.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support to an extent the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond and the noble Baroness, Lady Henig. Clearly, superintendents, as my noble friend articulated at length, play an essential role, which is recognised extensively in legislation.

Also in this group, I and my noble friend Lady Hamwee intend to oppose the proposition that Clause 46 stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 allows the Secretary of State by regulations to specify the ranks that may be held by members of police forces other than chief officers of police. A great deal of concern has been expressed in the public domain recently about the cost of, and the perks given to, chief officers of police. One would have thought that if the Government were going to legislate, that is an area that they might have turned their attention to. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton, mentioned, we have been here before with the Sheehy report the last time that the Conservative Party was alone in government.

From memory, it was a decision of the Sheehy report and the Government to abolish the rank of chief inspector. At some stage before that was fully implemented, the decision was rescinded. The police service paid off a lot of chief inspectors to get them to retire because it had been told that the rank was going to be abolished, but it never was. That led to the mass recruitment of chief inspectors to fill the gap that had been left because the police service had pensioned off early a lot of the chief inspectors that it then needed.

My point, which the Minister has made continually over the issue of volunteers, is that it should be left to individual chief officers to decide. In the case of police volunteers, the flexibility should be available to chief officers to use them however they want and to give them whatever powers they wish. Surely exactly the same argument applies here: it should be left to individual chief constables to promote officers to particular ranks—or not—depending on local need.

While I accept that, especially in legislation, the superintendent has a particular and pivotal role, similar arguments could be made for police sergeants as custody officers and so forth, or for police inspectors who are often operational team leaders. One could go through and make a case—perhaps not as compelling as that put forward on behalf of the superintendent—for each and every particular rank to continue to exist, given different scenarios in different police forces.

I appreciate that the legislation simply gives the power to the Secretary of State through regulations to specify the ranks but I would argue, for the reasons I set out, both that that is unnecessary and that it limits the flexibility of chief officers in designing a police rank structure that suits their local needs.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

Amendment 174, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, and my noble friend Lady Henig, is in the clause dealing with police ranks. It amends Clause 46 to require the rank of superintendent as well as that of constable to be retained. We heard from both the noble Baroness and my noble friend who put their names to the amendment about the important role that the officers holding this rank play. That was confirmed by the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Paddick, in their contributions.

I very much agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Harris of Richmond, when she spoke about the holders of these ranks being senior officers taking senior operational roles. They are held by people with the ability to undertake those important strategic roles and it is accepted that they have departmental and functional responsibilities.

My noble friend Lady Henig also spoke about the importance of the role these officers play across the piece in all departments. I also recall the Sheehy report, and the abolition of chief superintendents being very controversial at the time. As my noble friend said, they were then quietly brought back a few years later. We have heard from a number of speakers who are former serving officers as well as Members of this House who served as chairs of police organisations, and know much more than I do about police operations. They have all reached the same conclusion, so I suggest that the Minister should reflect on what has been said. I hope that she will give a very warm response.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 184, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, concerns the power of immigration officers to examine the immigration status of those entering the UK. Clause 20(2) inserts the ability of the immigration officer to curtail existing leave to enter the UK. The amendment would replace the consideration of whether the leave “should be” curtailed, which implies an inappropriate degree of discretion, and substitute “is required to” be.

Also in this group is our opposition to Clause 21 standing part of the Bill. It seems disproportionate that immigration officers should have the power to search premises simply to establish whether an employer should be given a civil penalty for employing an illegal worker, or to establish whether a landlord should be given a civil penalty for leasing a property to a disqualified person. Immigration officers already have powers to search for evidence in relation to criminal offences related to these two activities. Surely it is only in the most serious cases, where a criminal prosecution would at least be being considered, that it would be appropriate for immigration officers to search premises in this way. It is rare for powers of search to be granted in connection with civil penalties in British law, and Clause 21 should not undermine such a principle.

We also oppose Clause 22 standing part of the Bill. This clause allows an immigration officer who is lawfully on premises to seize anything that he thinks may be evidence of any offence, under any legislation, if he thinks it necessary to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed. Initially, this appears a sensible approach, to obviate the need to call for police assistance when something is discovered that is not related to an immigration offence—for example, discovering what appear to be class A drugs.

Police officers receive extensive training in securing and preserving evidence, and in the questioning of suspects in relation to the discovery of evidence during searches. In addition to the need to carefully question the subject about the ownership of the items in question, since usually the owner of the premises denies that the item belongs to them, there is the question of whether photographic or forensic evidence is required in situ. I have been involved in searches of premises, and there have been many cases of police being involved in searches of premises where the very facts that the substance in question was on the premises and who it belonged to have been questioned subsequently in court. It is something of which the police have now had extensive experience, and they know how to handle these situations. I suggest that it would take a lot of training and experience for immigration officers to reach the level of expertise necessary to ensure that convictions subsequently take place. Either immigration officers will require extensive, and necessarily expensive, training in evidence preservation and the questioning of those suspected of non-immigration offences, or there is a real danger that valuable evidence will be lost in such cases.

There is also the question of what I might call false positives, when immigration officers seize items that they wrongly believe to be evidence of an offence and then pass them on to the police, placing a significant administrative burden on the police to process, secure and subsequently return the items to the owners. With significant cuts to police resources, the last thing the police need is for immigration officers to dump innocent items on them that they then have to deal with. We therefore believe that Clause 22 should not be part of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 184 and the two clause stand part debates in respect of Clauses 21 and 22 give an important opportunity to explore here exactly what the intention is behind the clauses. It is important that the Minister carefully sets out what he believes are the reasonable grounds for immigration officers to conduct a search for documents in respect of illegal working or leasing premises to disqualified persons obtained in the commission of an offence. Will the Minister set out what he means by a search of the premises? At any point, would that include a search of the person? How would that be conducted?

These are very sensitive matters and I want to be satisfied that proper processes are in place, and that people are treated with respect. We often need to remember that asylum seekers have not always had a good experience of meeting officials of the state in other countries, and we must ensure that actions are taken in a proportionate manner and to the highest professional standards. I have the highest regard for the officers who undertake this work for the Immigration Service; they do a very difficult and challenging job.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point when he talked about the extensive experience and knowledge that police officers have when it comes to conducting searches and preserving evidence to secure convictions. Are we confident that the immigration officer would have this knowledge? The noble Lord makes another important point when he talks about the burden of bureaucracy arising from items taken during a search that are then passed on to police but in the end do not secure any convictions because there is no offence at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 210, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I shall speak to Amendments 211 to 213 and Amendment 215.

Amendment 210 suggests the addition of “reasonably” in the power of the Home Secretary to direct public agencies to supply documents, so that she must “reasonably suspect”, rather than simply “suspect”, that someone may be liable to deportation under new Section 20A(2). Amendment 211 suggests a similar change to the power of the Secretary of State to retain such a document. Amendment 212 requires the Secretary of State to return a nationality document that is no longer required to the person who supplied it, as previously debated on Amendment 188.

Amendment 213 again queries extending the definition of “nationality document” from “a document showing” the individual’s “identity, nationality or citizenship”, to one that “might establish” the individual’s “identity, nationality or citizenship”, as previously debated on Amendment 189. I do not think that the Minister addressed in that debate the broadening of the definition from a document “showing” the individual’s identity to one that “might establish” their identity. That is a considerable broadening of the definition.

Amendment 215 would insert a new clause after Clause 30 relating to complaints and the investigation of serious concerns relating to the conduct of immigration officers. It suggests that a commission be established to,

“make recommendations about the establishment of an independent oversight body”,

for immigration officers and other authorised officers, in so far as they exercise powers available to immigration officers. My understanding is that the Independent Police Complaints Commission currently investigates complaints against immigration officers, but only relating to powers similar to those exercised by the police. There is not one overall coherent complaints investigation or recording system. Would the Minister confirm this? Even if the IPCC has a role, we believe that such arrangements may be inadequate and should at least be reviewed to ensure that they are effective.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission is fighting an uphill struggle to win the trust and confidence of the public in general, and the black and minority ethnic communities in particular. Those most likely to come into contact with immigration officers are those seeking asylum and others in a very vulnerable position. The likelihood that such people will have a good understanding overall of their rights and the standard of conduct expected of immigration officers and other authorised officers is far less than among those born in this country or who have lived here for some time. Indeed, the way they may have been treated by officials in their own country may well be far below the standard expected of immigration officers and other authorised officers in the UK.

In all the circumstances, it seems that there is at least a question that needs to be examined as to whether the existing arrangements by which long-standing residents of the UK—well-versed in their rights and the conduct expected of officials—can have their concerns about the police and immigration officers investigated are adequate for asylum seekers and those newly arrived in the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns the supply of information to the Secretary of State and the establishment of a commission for standards for immigration officers. I was somewhat surprised that without Amendment 212 or something similar—it may need refining—it would be left to the Secretary of State to dispose of nationality documents as they think appropriate, without any further clarifications. It would be useful if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, would confirm that there is no question that these documents will not be returned to the person when they are no longer needed by the Secretary of State or their officials. I understand that we would not want to return the documents to someone who had no right to have them, but if they have been obtained lawfully they should go back to them.

Amendment 215 requires the Secretary of State to establish a commission to make recommendations for an independent oversight board to set standards for immigration officers. Given the sort of powers that immigration officers exercise as public officials, it is right that we should have in place a proper process to look at complaints about their conduct and standards. It would be helpful if the noble and learned Lord were to set out what happens at present. Is this safeguard in place with regard to certain things but not to others, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, indicated? Does the noble and learned Lord think that the present system is adequate in all respects?

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 20th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly in support of my noble friend Lord Marks’s amendment. In particular, I will address what has been suggested is an inconsistency, in that 16 and 17 year-olds who use knives to threaten people are subject to mandatory imprisonment, whereas this would be inconsistent with 16 and 17 year-olds being excluded from mandatory imprisonment for possession. However, there are circumstances, in particular where older young men pass weapons—particularly when faced with an oncoming police officer—to younger members of the group, who are intimidated into taking possession of those weapons. Therefore, they could in those circumstances be carrying a knife innocently, as it were. As my noble friend said, if those are the circumstances of the original or even the secondary offence, those individuals should not be subject to mandatory imprisonment.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, seeks to take out 16 and 17 year-olds from the scope of a mandatory custodial sentence for possession of a knife in a public place. I have considerable respect for the noble Lord and a good deal of sympathy for what he is trying to achieve. However, if he pushes this to a vote today, I will not support him in the Division Lobby.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, there is already provision in the Bill as it stands for the court to show some discretion if it is of the opinion that there are particular circumstances which relate to the offence and which would make it unjust to do so in all the circumstances. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Marks, said, this provision was put into the Bill during its passage through the Commons by the honourable Member for Enfield North, and technically it was not a government amendment. Perhaps that was not the easiest way to have done this. However, I see the deterrent effect of such provisions and I am not convinced that removing all 16 and 17 year-olds from the scope of this would be helpful.

I am well aware that knife crime is falling, and I want that to continue. However, there are also parts of London where this sort of crime is still far too high, and we have to take action to ensure that we reduce this type of offending. During Committee—and I have talked about this before—I explained to the House that I was born in Lambeth and grew up in Southwark. I am involved with a little charity there which works with some kids on the council estates. It is quite shocking when you go down there. There are kids living on the Wyndham estate who will not cross the Camberwell New Road into Lambeth because they are terrified that they will be attacked—knifed, and so on. That is what we have to deal with. We need the council to do things, but we also need strong deterrents from the courts as well.

This provision is for all young people—those 16 and over and those 18 and over—not for a first but for a second offence. So they will have previously been caught and convicted of an offence with a knife and can be under no illusion what the likely outcome is if they are caught for a second time. We must do everything we can to stop young people killing each other with knives on our streets, which is a tragedy. However well intentioned this amendment is, it will not help achieve that aim.

However, the Government should give a commitment to review this provision after a couple of years, maybe even bringing forward a sunset clause at Third Reading. That would enable us to evaluate exactly what happens over the next couple of years and to take any corrective action quickly.

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark

Monday 14th July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly rise to support the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Dear, on Clause 23. I spoke on this issue at Second Reading. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lords have already said very clearly and eloquently, but one of the reasons that was given for this new piece of legislation was that it would include the corrupt activities of police officers while off duty. However, in the Plebgate case, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, has already referred, one officer has been successfully prosecuted and jailed for misconduct in a public office. That officer was not on duty at the time of the offence—indeed, he was not even at the scene of the event. Therefore, I should like to hear from the Minister in what way this new legislation adds to the offence that is already successfully used to prosecute police officers for misconduct in a public office.

The noble Lord, Lord Dear, has a distinguished record in tackling police corruption, particularly in relation to the West Midlands serious crime squad. I believe that if the noble Lord is opposing Clause 23 then the Minister should listen very carefully to what he has to say.

I could not put the reasons for opposing Clause 24 any better than the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon. The arguments that they have put forward are compelling. If a series of former senior police officers in this House are saying that the provisions of Clause 24 are both unnecessary and dangerous, I respectfully suggest that my noble friend the Minister should listen.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I want to speak to both Clauses 23 and 24 to aid your Lordships’ House.

The Opposition cannot support the noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord Dear, Lord Condon and Lord Paddick, in opposing Clause 23. I have heard very clearly the points that they have made concerning police officers being public servants with special provisions being made for them. They are obviously highly respected individuals and public servants but, with that, they carry great responsibility and great power. Where those officers exercise that power or privilege improperly, there can be tremendous consequences for the individuals concerned. That is the concern that we have on these Benches and it is why we will support the clause as it stands.

Moving on to Clause 24, the murder of a police officer is of course a most serious crime, and it is right that anyone killing a police officer in the course of their duty should receive a substantial jail term. This clause would make that a whole life term. My colleagues in the other place supported the Government, as we do today on the Opposition Front Bench. The noble Lords, Lord Blair, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, have all been senior police officers and have all expressed grave reservations about this provision, saying that it is unnecessary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I very much hope that the Minister will meet the noble Lords and other representatives and look at this issue very carefully. The last thing that anyone wants to do is to agree to a Bill that puts more people’s lives at risk. I am very worried about that. We must look carefully at what they have said and talk to them about this issue because it would be madness to do anything else.

These are very difficult issues. Obviously everyone wants to root out corruption at any level. Regarding Clause 23, the consequences for the victims of police corruption are very serious.