Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 4th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in Motion C the Government claim that the provisions in Part 2 are compliant with the UN refugee convention—in which case, they should have no objection to Motion C1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which puts such an assertion on the face of the Bill to ensure that the courts are able to test Part 2 against the UN refugee convention. In accordance with the Government’s claim in Motion C, the Government must surely agree with Motion D1 that, whether the Government categorise a refugee as falling into group 1 or group 2, as set out in the Bill, none the less, both groups must be given all the rights under the UN refugee convention. If not, Part 2, contrary to the Government’s claim in Motion C, would not be compliant with the UN refugee convention.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee has dealt with Motion E1 on the right to work, and Motion H1 on family reunion, which we also support. We hesitate to support Motion G1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, because it leaves offshoring on the face of the Bill. We totally, absolutely and completely disagree with offshoring but my understanding is that we are running out of options other than double insisting on the removal of the provisions from the Bill, which, I am told, would have serious consequences. Therefore, we will vote for Motion G1 to force the Government to secure the approval of both Houses for each country they propose to use for offshoring, by means of the affirmative resolution procedure once they have laid before Parliament the estimated first two-year costs for operating such a system for each country. Once Parliament has seen the countries that the Government propose to use for such an abhorrent practice, and the costs involved, we hope that no Parliament would approve such a practice.

The Ukrainian refugee crisis and the lamentable shambles created by insisting that those fleeing Putin’s war must have a visa to enter the UK, with the Home Office being unable to cope with the numbers of applications, clearly demonstrates the need for there to be appropriate resourcing, infrastructure and support for local authorities permanently in place to cope with such crises before they arise. Before Ukraine it was Afghanistan, before Afghanistan it was Syria; we need systems and processes in place to deal with these crises. The Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham seeks to achieve this without the previous set annual numerical target, instead allowing the Secretary of State to set the target and to put in place such measures as are necessary to achieve that target. Of course, we also support the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his Motion K1 in relation to those fleeing genocide.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that less than 20% of immigration to the UK in recent years has been asylum seekers, and the Bill deals only with that 20%. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Horam: where are the provisions that specifically target people smugglers in the Bill? These policies target what he himself described as victims, and only the victims.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will attempt to be brief, as I am sure the House would now like to hear the Government’s response rather than listen to me at any great length. On Motion C1, proposed by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, as has just been said, if the Government are convinced that Part 2 is compliant with the convention and indeed agree with the principles that it should be so compliant, why should they be opposed to nailing their colours to the mast on this crucial issue and making this clear in the Bill by accepting this amendment?

On Motion D1 on differential treatment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, spoke, as well as a number of other noble Lords, this new version of the previous Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons deletes the subsections which provide for differential treatment of refugees. Instead, it provides that the Secretary of State must guarantee both group 1 and group 2 refugees all their rights under the convention and ensure that family unity can be maintained. I only make the point—I do not want to repeat all the points that have already been made—that under the Government’s plans for the Bill, a person who had fled Ukraine and travelled across Europe to get here could not be a group 1 refugee because they would have passed through other countries rather than “coming here” directly. At best, they would be group 2 refugees and could be treated as having committed a criminal offence for having reached this country without prior authority or a pre-approved claim. That is the reality of what differential treatment of refugees, which the Government are so determined to implement, can actually mean in all its harshness in respect to people currently fleeing for their lives from a war happening now in Europe.

On Motion E1 on the right to work, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud and indeed other noble Lords have more than covered all the arguments in favour. It is just interesting that the Government have always argued in other situations that people should be in employment rather than requiring benefits, even though a considerable percentage of those in work also qualify for benefits because of low pay. The Government have reversed their stance with asylum seekers since the Government deny them the ability to work for 12 months and then only in specific circumstances, even though many asylum seekers want to work, have the skills to work and would be contributing further through paying taxes and not claiming more than minimal benefits. Reducing the qualifying period for being able to work for six months would also encourage the Government to work harder at providing the necessary resources to determine a much higher percentage of asylum applications within a six-month period.

I need to speak a little longer on Motion F1. I have put down a new version of our Amendment 8 that still provides that the Government may not commence their inadmissibility provisions until they have safe, formal returns agreements with third states. This time, though, our amendment has a sunset provision, since we have to put down a different amendment, which means that it delays the commencement of Clause 15 to allow time for international agreements to be put in place, but after five years that protection will lapse so it does not block the plans indefinitely. However, frankly, if the Government have not managed to negotiate any international agreements over the span of five years, one would hope they would take a hard look at the plausibility of their plans in the first place—clearly, they intend to use Clause 15 and its provision on a significant scale, or at least one must assume so.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In July last year, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary was asked by the Home Secretary not to reinvestigate the Daniel Morgan murder but to consider opportunities for organisational learning from all the Daniel Morgan investigations and reviews, and to assess how the Metropolitan Police Service responded to them. In other words, the investigation set out to establish what the force had learned from its failings and whether they could occur again.

This discussion on the Statement will perhaps inevitably tend to concentrate on the serious adverse findings of the HMICFRS investigation. However, the investigation comments favourably that the Met Police force

“solves the vast majority of homicides it investigates … The force’s capability to investigate the most serious corruption allegations is particularly impressive … Other forces regularly call on the Metropolitan Police’s expertise. The force’s confidential reporting line also works well. The force has even introduced a dedicated team to support ‘whistle-blowers’ … the Metropolitan Police has … greatly reduced the number of its personnel who have not been security vetted.”

The Daniel Morgan panel concluded that the Metropolitan Police Service was “institutionally corrupt” but the HMICFRS investigation

“found no evidence of any deliberate or co-ordinated campaign to intentionally frustrate the Panel’s work”

and concluded that the Metropolitan Police Service was not institutionally corrupt, based on the evidence that it had seen.

The investigation report contains five causes of concern, 20 recommendations for change and two areas for improvement. The five causes of concern are in addition to other relevant causes of concern raised in previous inspections. I am not going to go through all the recommendations, but the investigation report concluded that there were

“serious areas of concern which have been, and continue to be, present in the MPS. It is essential that the MPS should be more open to criticism and prepared to change where necessary, including by implementing our recommendations. A further failure to do so (without good reason) may well justify the label of institutional corruption in due course.”

The foreword to the investigation report states:

“In too many respects, the findings from our inspection paint a depressing picture. The force has sometimes behaved in ways that make it appear arrogant, secretive and lethargic. Its apparent tolerance of the shortcomings we describe in this report suggests a degree of indifference to the risk of corruption … If public confidence in the Metropolitan Police is to be improved, they”—


that is a reference to the 20 recommendations for change—

“should be among the Commissioner’s highest priorities.”

Our thoughts remain in particular with Daniel Morgan’s family, for whom this report will surely be deeply upsetting—I congratulate them, however, on their doggedness in pursuing justice.

I shall make a few points. First, the Met Police Service should accept all the recommendations included in the report and implement them in full. We need an overhaul of police standards, including reviews of vetting, training, misconduct proceedings and the use of social media. The forthcoming appointments to head the inspectorate and the Met Police will be crucial to restoring trust in the police to the level we should all wish to see.

Running down police numbers year on year, totalling some 20,000, and then trying to build up the number again, all over the past decade, will, frankly, not have helped and will have played its part in creating uncertainty, not least in relation to resources, for those who lead our police forces. In that connection, the inspectorate has identified problems with policing on a national basis.

Much needs to be done. Perhaps we now need to look with greater clarity at the role and responsibility of PCCs in relation to the way their police forces are run and function. At present, this appears to be rather too grey an area. We seem, too, to have had and still have a lot of inquiries and investigations under way into the Met Police and the police on a national basis—perhaps too many.

Leadership and action are needed, and to provide that nationally, the Home Secretary is the key player. As the current crisis around the police nationally, not least in London, is so concerning, that action is required now, not after a further delay of many months or years awaiting the outcome of endless further reports and investigations. It is time for political leadership, which is what Ministers nationally are meant to provide. So what specific action does the Home Secretary intend to take now?

I conclude by saying that, despite this largely adverse investigation report, I place on record again our support for the crucial work that the vast majority of police officers do on behalf of all of us, every day of the year, up and down the country. We all need to work together to restore widespread confidence in the unique relationship between the public and police, and in policing by consent.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in relation to the Daniel Morgan family, and remind the House that I was a Metropolitan Police officer for more than 30 years, holding the equivalent of deputy chief constable rank when I was forced out of the police service for being open and transparent about what was going on inside the Metropolitan Police Service—which I will refer to as the MPS.

Honest, decent police officers are being let down by the corrupt few, and by senior officers who do not take corruption seriously enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, some positive claims are made in the HMICFRS report about the MPS supporting whistleblowers and its capability to investigate the “most serious corruption”. Can the Minister give an example of the result of an investigation where a whistleblower has been supported, and an example of the successful prosecution of a case of the “most serious corruption”? It is one thing to point to systems and capabilities; it is quite another to prove that they are effective.

The rest of the report is devastating. In response to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report, the MPS claimed:

“The Met is working hard to root out corruption.”


Instead, HMICFRS says:

“We set out to establish what the force has learned from its failings and whether they could recur. We looked for evidence that someone, somewhere … had adopted the view that ‘this must never happen again’”—


but it could not find anyone.

In a catalogue of failings—I have time to mention only a few of them—HMICFRS found that: the MPS does not know whether all its sensitive posts, such as those for child protection, major investigation and informant handling, are filled by people who have been security cleared; 2,000 warrant cards of police officers who have left the MPS are unaccounted for, which these former officers could use to masquerade as serving police officers, with the potential for another Sarah Everard-type tragedy; and hundreds of items including cash, jewellery and drugs could not be accounted for, meaning that vital evidence could have been disposed of by corrupt officers. It also found that officers could be pocketing money and valuables and, potentially, dealing in illegal drugs that had been seized from criminals. This has happened before and could very easily, apparently, be happening again. I could go on, but there is no time.

HMICFRS concluded:

“Since 2016, we have repeatedly raised concerns with the Metropolitan Police about certain aspects of its counter-corruption work, including … its failure to adopt … approved counter-corruption recording methods … Our advice largely went unheeded.”


If this was a local authority department, the Minister responsible would have placed it in special measures and sent a team in to take over the running of it. Instead, the Minister in the other place tries to blame the Mayor of London.

The Metropolitan Police has national responsibility for such important issues as the security of the Royal Family and protection of government Ministers, and for terrorism. That is why the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are in law appointed by the Home Secretary, having regard to the views of the Mayor of London. Even if the Government insist that responsibility lies with the Mayor of London, their inability to take direct action is the result of the system of police and crime commissioners, which includes elected mayors, that the Conservative Government introduced. So which is it? If the Government can directly intervene, why will they not, and if they cannot, when are they going to change the system of police and crime commissioners so that they can?

The security of this country is at stake, let alone the trust and confidence of Londoners, and the Government wash their hands of it. When are the Government going to take some responsibility and take action to deal with this totally unacceptable situation?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support Motion A1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. Compared with other important issues that the House is considering today, it is a relatively minor one. None the less, it will save no time if we abstain, so if the noble Lord divides the House, we will support him.

On Motion J, although the repeal of the Vagrancy Act is very welcome and something for which Liberal Democrats have been campaigning for many years, it is unfortunate that the Government are still insisting on delaying the repeal of the outdated and unnecessary Act until replacement legislation is in place, as we believe that existing alternative legislation is sufficient. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I heard the Minister say that the Government will commence, not conclude, repeal in 18 months—I wrote it down. If I am right and the noble Lord is wrong, can the Minister tell us how long it will take to repeal the Act in its entirety?

On Motion L, serious violence reduction orders will allow the police to stop and search people without any suspicion that those targeted have anything on them at the time they are stopped and searched that they should not have in their possession. It is another form of stop and search without suspicion, which is notorious for being ineffective. It is even less effective at finding weapons than stop and search based on suspicion and it is disproportionately focused on black people, even compared with stop and search based on suspicion. As a consequence, it is notorious for the damage that it causes to the relationships between the police and the communities they are supposed to help. The Government’s own impact assessment shows that these measures will disproportionately impact black communities and fly in the face of the Government’s response to the report by the independent Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities.

The police need to work together with communities suffering serious violence to build trust and confidence and to demonstrate that they are on the side of the community—not using powers disproportionately against it, as these new powers, by the Government’s own admission, will continue to do. Even Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services says that the disproportionate use of powers against certain communities is “undermining police legitimacy”.

Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, we have concerns. We believe that serious violence reduction orders are likely to make serious violence worse, as they further alienate the very communities the police need to co-operate with to identify the perpetrators. However, we have reluctantly agreed to see how SVROs, arguably a manifesto commitment, work in practice in a limited number of pilot areas. We supported an amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on Report that would have strengthened the proposed pilot evaluation and prevented SVROs from being introduced beyond the pilot phase until a report on the pilot had been laid before Parliament and both Houses had agreed to the rollout.

The Minister has given assurances that the pilot will be independently evaluated and that the Government will not continue with the scheme if it proves, as we suspect, to be ineffective or counterproductive. The evaluation must include crime reduction outcomes and community impact assessments. Given those reassurances and the Government’s strengthening of the pilot evaluation, we have agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not to insist on her amendments, but we will be watching the pilots very carefully and listening to the communities affected, whose trust and confidence in the police is essential if knife crime is to be tackled effectively.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

There are three issues in this group and I wish to say something about all of them. Starting with Motion A1, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for sending me a copy of his letter of 22 February to my noble friend Lord Rooker on Lords Amendment 58, which relates to the Food Standards Agency. As the letter says, the amendment gives powers available to the police under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to the National Food Crime Unit of the Food Standards Agency. However, the Commons disagreed with the amendment, giving this reason:

“Because it is premature to confer new search and seizure powers on the Food Standards Agency until the accompanying accountability arrangements, including in respect of the handling of complaints about the exercise of such powers, have been determined.”


Yet Lords Amendment 58 does not lay down a specific date or timescale by which powers available to the police under PACE have to be given to the National Food Crime Unit. It simply says:

“The Secretary of State may by regulations apply any provisions of this Act to investigation of offences conducted by officers of the National Food Crime Unit in respect of search and seizure.”


If I am right, the Commons reason suggests that the Commons and the Government never actually read the terms of Lords Amendment 58. That is surprising, since the letter from the Minister to my noble friend Lord Rooker states that

“the Government agrees in principle that these powers should be conferred upon NFCU officers in order to support their vital work tackling food crime.”

There is no argument about whether the powers should be given, but simply over when they should be given. Lords Amendment 58 would give the statutory authority to the Secretary of State to give those powers but leaves it up to the Secretary of State to decide when the time is right. So what is the problem with the amendment?

The letter from the Minister goes on to say:

“Food crime is a very serious issue and empowering the NFCU to investigate these offences independently will ensure that their specialist knowledge is put to best use and that the burden on police forces is reduced”.


Yet the Commons and the Government have disagreed the amendment. The Minister goes on to say that

“further work is required to fully work through the implications of these proposals to ensure that any exercise of police powers by a non-police body is necessary, proportionate and legitimate and that suitable governance and accountability arrangements will be in place”,

and:

“For these reasons we have tabled a motion to disagree with Lords amendment 58”.


But Lords Amendment 58 does not say that the Secretary of State has to do it; it would simply give the Secretary of State the necessary statutory power to do it if and when the Secretary of State so wishes, which is the point being made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. Frankly, the Government really are struggling to think of a credible argument why Lords Amendment 58 should not be accepted.

The powers currently available to the Food Standards Agency under food law relate to the enforcement of regulatory matters. The NFCU investigates cases of serious crime, often involving offences such as fraud. However, the FSA’s existing powers do not sufficiently equip the NFCU to investigate these crimes fully and lawfully, and to collect evidence to the higher standard needed to prove criminal intent, without the support of partners in the hard-pressed environments of policing or local authorities.

As part of the FSA, the NFCU already has access to sensitive law enforcement powers around directed surveillance, securing communications data and the management of convert human intelligence sources. But NFCU officers have not yet been given essential investigatory powers, including the power to apply to courts for warrants to search premises and seize evidence, or to interview suspects without police officers present. The unit has to rely on the support of partners, including the police forces, to carry out these activities. This means that the courts are not hearing from the experts familiar with the cases, which can increase the likelihood that warrants are not authorised.

As I understand it, competing demands on police time have led to delays in several NFCU investigations. At present, the NFCU needs the police to go to court and swear warrants on its behalf, so investigations are delayed if the police decline or take time to do so, or if the court refuses to authorise the warrant, which is more likely if the person swearing it cannot answer questions about the case. The NFCU also needs the police to be present when warrants are executed, which can lead to delays in the unit being able to carry out searches or seize critical evidence if the police have other priorities. As I understand it, the evidence seized then needs to be taken into police custody before it can be transferred to the NFCU. These issues can and do create delay, which is a problem in running a live investigation and trying to gather evidence before it is moved or destroyed.

I understand that NFCU investigations have been impacted by all the issues to which I have referred. I am also advised that the FSA’s view is that these additional powers are essential to enable the National Food Crime Unit to properly investigate and pursue complex food crime cases. As has been said, this was also identified as a gap in its systems to keep food safe in the independent review by Professor Elliott in I think 2014 following the horsemeat scandal.

In the Commons debate on this Lords amendment, the Minister said that the chairman of the Food Standards Agency had written to the Minister for Crime and Policing on 11 August 2021, expressing concern that the existing powers of the National Food Crime Unit were insufficient for their purpose. The Minister responded in October by expressing support for the request and indicating the Home Office’s intent to work with the NFCU to find a suitable legislative vehicle.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in relation to Motion C, one of the main recommendations of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, led by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, was for the police to be subject to a statutory duty of candour, as has been introduced into the National Health Service, and Lords Amendment 71 sought to establish that. The Government with their Amendment 71A, in Motion C, claim that police officers are already under a duty to co-operate during investigations, inquiries and formal proceedings and that it would be premature to add such a provision pending further consideration by the Government.

The provision to which the Minister referred makes a lack of candour a matter for police misconduct proceedings, except in the most serious cases where a complaint is made by someone who is not a member of a police force and who is directly affected by the conduct. Whether a police misconduct investigation is held, or misconduct proceedings are brought, is a matter for the relevant chief constable of the police force concerned.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has today published a report in which it describes the Metropolitan Police’s approach to tackling corruption as “not fit for purpose”. Publishing the report, Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary, Matt Parr, said:

“It is unacceptable that 35 years after Daniel Morgan’s murder, the Metropolitan Police has not done enough to ensure its failings from that investigation cannot be repeated. In fact, we found no evidence that someone, somewhere, had adopted the view that this must never happen again.”


That is why we need a statutory duty of candour. In the case of the issues covered by the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, there was systemic and institutional withholding of information by the police sanctioned at the highest level. Arguably, the current Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, who as an assistant commissioner decided to withhold essential information from the panel, would have had to order an investigation into herself under the provisions that the Minister is relying on.

The provision that the Government are relying on is not fit for purpose in the circumstances of police cover-ups, even when there is a member of a police force who is a whistleblower, because the whistleblower is a member of the police force and cannot bring a complaint against his or her own force. However, work is ongoing by the families of the victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the family of Daniel Morgan to ensure that a comprehensive, effective and legally binding duty of candour is imposed on all public institutions. Therefore, we have reluctantly decided not to insist on Lords Amendment 71.

In relation to Motion K, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for clarifying that there is no legal barrier to local authorities setting up and running academies and for the Government’s acknowledgement of the important role that local authorities have played in the past in running secure accommodation for young offenders.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

There are, as has been said, two issues here, the duty of candour and secure academies. I note what the Minister said on the duty of candour and must say that our views are rather more in line with those just expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. One might think it rather odd, particularly at the present time when trust in the police appears to be at such a low level, that the Government and the Commons decided to disagree with such an amendment, but it is their prerogative to do so.

As the Minister said, this issue is not going to be dropped. There are people within Parliament, including ourselves, and people outside Parliament, to whom reference has been made, who intend to pursue the issue of a duty of candour. I think I am right in saying that the Minister referred to the fact that the Government would further consider the position—indeed, that is given as a reason for disagreeing—and that they would come up with conclusions later this year. While indicating that we intend to pursue the issue, we will, with some reluctance, leave this in that context. It is certainly not going to be pushed to one side now. It will be pursued and we will wait to see what conclusions the Government come up with later this year. The issue of trust in the police is a serious matter and I know the Government agree. We need to make sure that the mechanism is in place to improve the levels of trust that currently seem to exist.

On secure academies, the Government and the Commons have disagreed the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord German, which would put explicitly in the Bill that local authorities can establish and maintain secure academies. The aim of the amendment was to put beyond doubt that applications from local authorities to run secure academies would be welcomed and would be considered on their merit, on a level playing field with other providers.

The Government’s response has been that there is no legal barrier to local authorities setting up an entity that could enter into an academy arrangement with the Secretary of State, so there is not a legal barrier to them establishing a secure academy. The Government said that the Ministry of Justice

“will assess in detail the potential role of local authorities in running this new form of provision, before we invite applications to run any future secure schools.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/22; col. 803.]

The Minister also made that point.

Our response in the Commons was that this does not go far enough. We argued that local authorities have the expertise needed to run services and provide care for vulnerable children with a high level of need in a secure environment and that the Government should widen the pool of expertise that providers bring and ensure that local authorities are explicitly brought into the fold when planning for secure academies.

We recognise that the Government have committed to look at the involvement of local authorities in providing secure academies before any new applications are invited, so we will now deal with and pursue this issue outside of the Bill. However, we strongly support the noble Lord, Lord German, in saying that what is needed, and what we will keep calling on Ministers to deliver, is, frankly, not vague statements that a local authority could provide a secure academy but a proactive change to bring the expertise that local authorities have into that pool of providers.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, obviously, these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 for the reasons explained.

I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as far as Amendment 82 is concerned. One would hope that there would be cross-departmental working on trade agreements so that there would be no agreement to any visa deal without Home Office agreement. However, bearing in mind the apparent disagreement between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence over the role of the MoD in the channel in relation to migrant crossings, I am not reassured. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House on this issue.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too will be brief. I was anticipating a more favourable response to Amendment 79 and the issue of the QR code. I was certainly taken aback to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that the Home Office has now rejected the bar code. I accept that the Government did not give any specific commitment in relation to the QR code when we discussed the matter in Committee, other than to say that they would take the matter back to the Home Office.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 15 puts into the Bill an existing immigration law on inadmissibility that makes any asylum claim inadmissible in a number of circumstances, including if the claimant has passed through, or has a connection to, a safe third country. The result of a finding of inadmissibility is that, unless the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be denied access to the UK’s asylum system for a “reasonable period”, currently defined as six months in Home Office policy, while the UK seeks to transfer them to “any other safe country”. With the huge backlog and delay currently in the system, it is impossible to understand how adding another six months to the asylum process will help an already dysfunctional system.

Clause 15 as it stands is neither acceptable nor deliverable in practice. We also have concerns on the definitions of “safe third state” and “connection”, and on the lack of relevant international agreements. Serious concerns have been raised by the UNHCR and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. There is an absence of adequate safeguards against returning individuals to countries to which they will be denied rights owed to them under the refugee convention.

Safe returns as part of an international asylum system are not new and are accepted under agreed conditions, but this clause does not provide for safe reciprocal return agreements. Even as it stands, the Government do not have returns agreements with EU member states, namely the safe third countries that refugees are most likely to have passed through. Instead, this provides for cases to be stalled and unilaterally declared inadmissible, without a requirement for a relevant returns agreement but on the basis of dubious connections to another state, where a person may or may not be able to enter an asylum system. We are talking here about asylum, not general immigration.

The clause provides that a claim is inadmissible if a person has a connection to a third state. It then clarifies that a connection can be made with a state that a person had never been to. It further clarifies that a person can be removed to a completely different state other than the one that they have been deemed to have a connection with. The UNHCR has described this as

“a significant and highly problematic departure from international practice and UK case law.”

I will endeavour to be brief. I appreciate that this is Report and not a rerun of Committee, but in Committee the Government accepted on more than one occasion that we needed to have returns agreements in place. There was no direct answer given to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who sought confirmation that to date we do not have an agreement with any country for the return of the people whom we are now talking about. This is about asylum. The answer no doubt is that we just do not have any such agreements. Despite saying in Committee on more than one occasion that we needed formal returns agreements in place to return people, the Government later went on to claim that we do not necessarily need formal return agreements in place, and that we could have

“formal and informal, diplomatic and otherwise.”—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1106.]

The reality is that we need formal return agreements in a situation where the number of people the Government intend to deem inadmissible will be high. In that situation, you cannot address this through unstated, unclear, ill-defined, informal ad hoc arrangements, as the Government seek to suggest. This clause is clearly based on the presumption that the Government can persuade other countries who already take greater asylum responsibility than the UK to accept people from the UK and agree to relieve us of a substantial part of the modest responsibility we currently take.

The reality of Clause 15 is that no such agreements are likely to materialise in the foreseeable future, as was clear from the debate in Committee. Dublin III has now gone and not been replaced. That is why my Amendment 32 provides the much-needed safeguards that Clause 15 can come into force only if the UK has safe returns agreements with third states and not before. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to declare an asylum claim inadmissible if the person has a connection with a “safe third state”. Because it is a declaration of inadmissibility, there is no appeal other than judicial review, and there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary from removing the person to another third state with which they have no connection in the meantime, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained. A connection to a safe third state includes where a claim for asylum in that country has been refused, a country where they could have claimed asylum but failed to do so, or where the Home Secretary thinks that it would have been reasonable to expect them to have claimed asylum in another country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I want to briefly restate what I said in Committee. Not only is the Home Office seeking the power to remove an asylum seeker to any country while their claim is being considered but it is seeking to remove them to a country and then tell that country, “If you think they are a refugee, you take them; they’re not our problem any more”.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has just said, according to Amnesty and Migrant Voice, offshoring by Australia effectively excluded legal, judicial, medical, humanitarian and media scrutiny. It has cost it over half a billion pounds a year, according to the British Red Cross, and failed to stop those seeking asylum, including by boat. Evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place from independent academics supports these conclusions. The UNHCR has

“voiced its profound concerns about such practices which have ‘caused extensive, unavoidable suffering for far too long’, left people “languishing in unacceptable circumstances’”

and denied them “common decency”.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, says: the Government should be looking at every option, but surely they should be taking into consideration the evidence that I have just cited and considered any counterevidence. Then, having worked out its practicalities and decided whether it is to go ahead, they should bring forward legislation—not bring forward legislation and then decide whether they are going to use it.

Clause 28 and Schedule 3, as drafted, should not be part of the Bill. We support all the amendments in this group that seek to prevent anyone being removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being considered, particularly Amendment 35, to which I have added my name.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendments 35 and 37 would remove the subsections of Clause 28 and Schedule 3 which allow for offshoring. That is, as we know, the power to export offshore any person in the UK who is seeking asylum without first considering their claim. Let us just repeat: we are talking here about asylum, not general immigration policy.

Clause 28 amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which states that a person seeking asylum cannot be removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being processed. The Bill withdraws that right by allowing the transfer of any asylum seeker to any country listed by the Government. The Government have been somewhat reticent in telling us about the progress of any negotiations they are having with any other countries on this score. I think that is where we hear the term about the Government not wishing to give a running commentary; in other words, “We’re going to keep you in Parliament in the dark about what is going on”.

The Bill is silent on what, if any, legal obligations the UK would consider itself to have towards asylum seekers once their asylum claims have been dealt with. This issue was raised again by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has commented that the provisions of the Bill allow the Government to externalise their obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers to other countries with only minimal human rights safeguards, an issue to which my noble friend Lord Cashman referred. The only thing the Government have said is that the model the Home Office intends to proceed with is

“one where individuals would be processed as part of the asylum system of the country that we had an agreement with, rather than people being offshore and processed as part of our asylum system.”

It is not just offshoring—it is also treating and dealing with people under another country’s asylum system rather than ours.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, to assist the House to move swiftly on to votes, we on these Benches will try to restrict ourselves to one speaker who will speak for us all, unless we are provoked by subsequent contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that it is rather unfair to the Minister—particularly as he is a new Minister—to ask him to deviate from his script. However, we agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford and with all other noble Lords.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has set out the background to and purpose of this amendment. As we know, currently only those born on the islands and the first generation born in exile have the right to British Overseas Territories citizenship and, therefore, to British citizenship. As a result, families have been broken up and communities divided. Some members have access to citizenship rights while others do not.

In the Commons, as has already been commented on, the Government accepted, on 4 November last year during the Committee stage of the Bill, that the Chagossians presented a unique case. By Report Stage in the following month, however, the Government seem to have decided that the Chagossians were no longer a unique case, because going down the road proposed,

“would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law … under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]

The reason that the small number of Chagossians in question do not meet this condition is because they are descended from people who were evicted against their will from a British overseas territory. That is why they are unique, as the Government have already conceded. They did not leave of their own free will to settle elsewhere: they were kicked out—forcibly evicted. There would be no precedent set by agreeing to this amendment. In effect, the Government are using, in support of their case to deny these Chagossians the right to British citizenship, the cause of the very injustice which this amendment seeks to address. We support this amendment, and it would appear that we are far from the only ones in this House to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has reached agreement with the Government. I wish I could say the same.

I will speak to Amendment 21 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. The Government allege that parents were deliberately not registering the birth of their children and acquiring citizenship of the parents’ home country to wrongly claim British citizenship, by falsely claiming their children were stateless. We believe this clause should be taken out of the Bill.

In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, provided, at column 548, figures of five cases of this route being used in 2010, which peaked at 1,775 cases in 2018. The Minister concluded “I rest my case”, but this raised further questions: for example, were those 1,775 cases in 2018 the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship in total, legitimately or otherwise, or the number where parents had deliberately chosen not to register their child’s birth to take advantage of the system? The Minister assumed it was the latter but said that she would write, and she did so on Friday.

In Committee, I specifically asked the noble Baroness whether the 1,700 odd cases in 2017 that she referred to were the total number of stateless children granted UK citizenship, or the number of cases of deliberate abuse of the system that Clause 10 purports to tackle. The Minister replied:

“I assume … the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 550.]


However, when the Minister wrote, the figures in the letter do not equate to those she gave from the Dispatch Box. Neither is there an answer to the question: of those cases, how many were a deliberate—or even a suspected—case of abuse of the system?

The letter goes on to talk about the sampling of over 200 stateless child applications received between 2015-2021, which on my calculations is about 1% of the applications received. It goes on to say that, in 96% of the sample, the parents were Indian or Sri Lankan and then:

“90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had been able to take steps to contact the High Commission to obtain a letter to show their child was in fact not a citizen of that country”


and, in brackets:

“(We do not have data on how many actually attempted to register the birth)”.





In summary, we have numbers in the letter that appear to be at odds with what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, we have a sample of only 1% of all applications and we do not know how that sample was selected. In the sample, in 90% of cases the relevant high commission confirmed the child was stateless and the Government have no data to show whether parents attempted to register the birth at the time. Despite this, the letter concludes:

“This demonstrates a clear and conscious decision by the parents not to acquire a nationality for their child for at least 5 years”.


That conclusion cannot possibly, in good faith, be drawn from the facts, whichever sets of facts presented by the Government that the House chooses to believe—either the facts the Minister gave from the Dispatch Box or the alternative facts contained in the all-Peers letter.

If the Government cannot now determine how many cases are genuine and how many are the result of attempting to inappropriately acquire British citizenship, on what basis will the Secretary of State exercise her powers under Clause 10 to decide whether the child in question is able to acquire another nationality? Specifically, if, as in 90% of cases in the sample, the relevant high commission confirms the child is stateless, on what basis will the Home Secretary decide not to believe the high commission, decide that the child could acquire the relevant nationality and deny the child British citizenship? What happens to the child denied nationality by the relevant high commission and by the Secretary of State?

If, as the Government suggest, this route is being used inappropriately by parents to acquire British citizenship for themselves, the Government should bring forward legislation to prevent parents acquiring British citizenship through their children by this route, rather than making innocent children, born in the UK, stateless. I was hoping the Minister would write in good time, with a clear and unambiguous answer to the questions I put to her in Committee on 27 January. She did not and she has not.

I am reluctantly left with two options: either the Minister addresses the apparent discrepancies and presents the House with a clear case for Clause 10 now or he agrees to take this away and address our concerns at Third Reading—otherwise I will be forced to conclude that the case is not made for Clause 10 and will divide the House. We cannot leave UK-born children stateless at the whim of the Home Secretary. Clause 10 should be taken out of the Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will not say anything on the amendment addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in view of what he has indicated about the progress that has been made between Committee and Report, although of course we will listen very closely to what the Minister has to say and indeed read what is in the Minister’s letter, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to.

As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. Under our international obligations we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. Through Clause 10 the Government propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That, of course, creates an additional—and one would probably feel unjustified—hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.

There is also the issue that the uncertainty created by Clause 10 could be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, due to this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. Indeed, the question was asked in Committee: how can this be in the best interests of the child?

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to the figures which were given by the Government in their response. He also referred to the question which was asked as to whether the figure of 1,175 was the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship, or whether it was the number of cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the letter that was received on behalf of the Government, and to the apparent discrepancies between what was said in Committee and the figures which appear in the letter.

I wait with interest to hear the response of the Government, because we, too, asked the question about what the case for Clause 10 was. I think I am right in saying—I recall it being said—that the Government felt that the figures that they gave at Committee were a fairly conclusive argument in favour of abuse of the system, and therefore that this was the case for Clause 10. On the basis of the letter which has been received, and the comments which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, there is some doubt as to whether the case has been made.

The noble Lord has asked a number of questions and asked for a number of assurances. The answers he receives will clearly influence the decision he then makes in respect of Clause 10 standing part, and will influence what we, as the Official Opposition, do if the matter is put to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, although at first glance it would seem reasonable for the Home Office not to have to give notice to a terrorist overseas that they were being deprived of their British citizenship, it of course means that there is no effective right to appeal, as the subject would be unaware of the decision. We have also seen cases where the Home Office could have given notice, even to the last known address or by email, and chose not to. The increase in the use of this power needs to be reversed.

The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, seek to introduce a range of judicial oversights, would remove the subjective element of the decision and tighten the grounds on which a deprivation of citizenship order may be made without notice to the person concerned. Others would strengthen the test for making such a decision; ensure, if the person concerned contacts the Home Office, that he is told what has happened and that he has a right of appeal; and allow the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal to oversee such decisions. Any time limit on appeal would start when the subject is notified.

I understand that a government Minister would have signed these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had they not been out of time—the deadline for tabling government amendments being several days before that for other amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the time, effort and ingenuity he has brought to bear in bringing forward such a comprehensive suite of amendments that could arguably halt, if not throw into reverse, the current practice by the Home Office increasingly to use this power to deprive citizenship without notice. We wholeheartedly support these amendments.

However, were the House to divide on taking Clause 9 out of the Bill, we would, along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, support that Division. At the end of the day, the Government should be taking ownership of the actions of British citizens, including terrorists overseas, ensuring, wherever possible, that they are extradited to the UK to stand trial, rather than depriving them of British citizenship, preventing them returning to the UK, and making them some other country’s problem, whether with notice or not. However, while therefore agreeing with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said, we are unable to go so far as to support her amendment, as there could be exceptional cases where, as a last resort, citizenship should be removed.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I think I am right in saying that until the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke, all those speakers who had spoken against Clause 9 were noble Baronesses. I am not sure what the significance of that is, and I do not say that in any wrong way; I think it is a great credit to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I hope they will forgive me for intruding on their space.

Although we appreciate that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, are certainly an improvement on Clause 9—I, too, would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for all the work I know he has put in—as it stands, we do not feel the case has been made by the Government for why Clause 9, and deprivation of nationality without prior notice to the individual concerned, are actually necessary. That is what we are talking about: not whether nationality should be removed but whether it should be possible for the Secretary of State to remove it without prior notice.

Currently, under the British Nationality Act 1981, an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their citizenship. So what is the problem when, for example, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address, or to a parent, or to a parent’s last known address? I say that against the background that the Government have already said there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped—prior to the recent High Court decision—a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. It is also against a background where the number of people deprived of their citizenship has risen considerably over the last 12 years—an upward trend with a peak, I think, in 2017.

One thing we can be sure of is that if the Government have the powers under Clause 9, even with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, we will see deprivation of citizenship orders being made without prior notice, because if it is not the Government’s intention to take advantage of the powers to deprive a person of their citizenship without prior notice, why are they seeking them? Against that scenario, we need to be satisfied that there is a real and overriding necessity for this additional power now, when it has not been deemed necessary before, beyond it being perhaps more convenient or helpful on occasions not to have to go through the procedure of giving prior notice to the individual concerned. The lack of a compelling and meaningful government response on that point, and there having been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped the deprivation of citizenship order coming into being, is significant.

If a proven national security need does arise for the power not to have to give prior notice of a deprivation of citizenship notice coming into being, the Government can get such necessary legislation through Parliament, as we know, with remarkable speed. In the absence of such a case being made for this power—and the lack of it clearly has not caused a serious difficulty until now—we should be wary of agreeing to Clause 9, even as amended, remaining in the Bill.

I suggest that the situation has not been helped by finding out from information in the Court of Appeal decision that in the D4 case the Home Secretary

“argued that notification had been given to D4 … by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”

That ought to make us very wary about giving the Secretary of State and the Home Office the additional powers in Clause 9, now that we know how existing statutory powers and requirements on notification have been interpreted and implemented in the D4 case.

The consequences of the clause are likely to be felt most—but certainly not exclusively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said—by those from ethnic minority backgrounds. It is no surprise that it is in this area that the Bill, particularly Clause 9, has caused most concern about how the new powers might be applied and interpreted and what the evidence is that they are needed now and have not been needed before.

It is unlawful to deprive someone of their citizenship and leave them stateless. Even so, the Home Office is still on record that British citizenship

“is a privilege, not a right”.

Yet without citizenship people do not have rights, and we are talking about significant rights. It has been estimated that nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and that under this proposal two in five British citizens from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told, since they have, or may have, other citizenships available to them—I think that was the basis of the comment about two classes of citizenship—compared with one in 20 characterised as white. That is a sobering consideration for the Government, or should be, when looking at the merits or demerits of Clause 9, not least in the light of how the Secretary of State and the Home Office in the D4 case interpreted and implemented the requirement to give prior notice under the law as it exists at present. What would be tried if Clause 9, even as amended by the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gave the power not to have to give prior notice?

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the issue of trust, or rather the lack of it, among society groups. The Government ought to reflect very carefully on that in considering whether Clause 9, even as amended, should remain in the Bill. I have to say that as far as we are concerned the case has not been made for Clause 9, even as amended, to remain in the Bill, and we shall certainly be looking for an opportunity to vote against it.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, taking up what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, just said, my lay and naive understanding of international conventions, such as the refugee convention, is that processes of clarifying or simplifying should involve international co-operation and coming to a global agreement over what those interpretations, clarifications and simplifications are.

Amnesty and Migrant Voice put it differently. They say:

“Clauses 29 to 38 constitute an attempt by the Home Office via legislation to unilaterally re-write the UK’s international refugee law obligations and, in doing so, reverse the decisions of the UK’s highest courts”.


As I have said before in this Committee, international conventions, as far as I am concerned, serve no purpose unless the signatories abide by a common understanding of what the convention means. Any deviation from the settled and accepted interpretation of an international convention must be agreed universally, not unilaterally, as these clauses attempt to do. Any attempt by the Bill effectively to rewrite what it means could result in the UK breaching its international obligations and we believe that none of these clauses should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, this part of the Bill provides for “interpretation” of the refugee convention. It includes some entirely new provisions and replicates or amends some existing provisions.

On existing provisions, this part of the Bill repeals the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. These regulations transposed a key EU directive on standards for asylum systems, the qualification directive, into UK law. The Bill repeals the regulations and puts versions of the provisions into primary legislation instead.

The UNHCR noted with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the refugee convention. I will read an extract from its legal observations on the Bill in full. It said:

“We note with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the Refugee Convention. Any treaty must be ‘interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’ In the case of the Refugee Convention, as the UK Supreme Court has noted on more than one occasion, ‘There is no doubt that the Convention should be given a generous and purposive interpretation, bearing in mind its humanitarian objects and the broad aims reflected in its preamble.’ In addition, the Vienna Convention specified a range of sources that ‘shall be taken into account’ in interpreting a treaty; these all reflect the agreement of the parties, and include other agreements and instruments from the time the treaty was concluded, as well subsequent agreements, State practice and international law. In other words, States cannot, under international law, unilaterally announce their own interpretation of the terms of the agreements they have made with other States. This, too, has been repeatedly recognised by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court of the UK.”


I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but I just ask: do the Government agree with that extract from the UNHCR’s legal observations on the Bill? If they do agree with it, do they believe that they are still abiding by it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I could simply repeat what I said at the conclusion of the last group: the UK should not engage in the unilateral reinterpretation of the refugee convention—not that we are rewriting it, but we are reinterpreting it—but I shall go into a little more detail.

The JCHR, supported by Amnesty and Migrant Voice, believes that the standard of proof as to whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear should remain as “reasonable likelihood”. Amnesty makes the additional point that, as well as raising the standard, Clause 31 makes the decision more complex and the Home Office is getting it wrong too many times already.

We support Amendments 103 and 104 but we also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 31 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 105, to which I have added my name, attempts to bring the definition of “particular social group” into line with international standards and UK case law. Again, based on the principle that the Bill should not be unilaterally reinterpreting the refugee convention, as I said in the previous group, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 32 should not stand part of the Bill.

Amendment 111 seeks to prevent the definition of “particularly serious crime” from being reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, bearing in mind that the Bill attempts to set the maximum penalty for entering the UK without authority at four years’ imprisonment, the two changes could potentially exclude all asylum seekers who do not enter through resettlement schemes. As before, we support the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief. We support the intentions of the amendments. I thank my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Chakrabarti, who have been leading on these amendments.

I found it interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Lister that there was no pre-legislative consultation on the issues covered by Amendment 105. Normally if we want changes in the law, we are told that such things have to go through a lengthy and elaborate process, but these seem to have appeared with a certain degree of rapidity.

I really only want to ask the Government a couple of questions. First, in each of the three cases—that is, Clauses 31, 32 and 37—what is the problem that the Government claim to be fixing? What is it, particularly in relation to Clause 31, about the current standard of proof that they believe is failing?

Secondly, could the Government tell us where the pressure has come from to make these changes in the law? Clearly this is not simplification; it is changing the law, so let us not beat around the bush on that. Where has the pressure come from? Has it been intense? From what sources has it come? Who, or what organisation, has been after achieving these particular changes in the law? I do not recall—though I may be wrong—having heard people marching through the streets demanding these changes, which makes one wonder if some requests for change were made at a political fundraising dinner where no one else knew what was going on.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I will very briefly address something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about people arriving here directly by aeroplane. As we will see when we get on to the group substituting “arrives in” for “enters”, even if someone came directly by aeroplane, they would not be legally arriving in the United Kingdom. This clause is central to many of the provisions contained in the rest of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his important, detailed and necessary exposition of his reasoning. Despite how long it took, it was absolutely essential.

Clause 36 seeks to redefine and undermine Article 31 of the refugee convention in UK law as a basis for penalties and prosecutions. As we discussed in previous groups, there is an accepted and settled interpretation of Article 31. As Amendments 106 and 107 seek to establish, passing through another country in order to get to the UK is not failing to enter the UK directly or without delay. This should, therefore, not allow the UK to impose penalties or treat asylum seekers less favourably as a result.

Amendment 108 highlights the particular difficulties some asylum seekers could face on account of their protected characteristics. Again, however, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti: there should be no reinterpretation of Article 31, no group 1 and group 2 refugees, and no four-year imprisonment because people had no choice but to travel through other countries to get to the UK, whether the UK considers those third countries safe or not.

Clause 36 is the sand upon which this Bill is built, and it needs to be washed away.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Article 31 of the convention exempts refugees “coming directly from” a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal presence in a state. Clause 36 of this Bill is the Government’s attempt to reinterpret what Article 31 means by “coming directly from”, and they are doing it to tighten up the rules to suit their policy that all asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The clause provides:

“A refugee is not to be taken to have come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened if, in coming from that country, they stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, unless they can show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention in that country.”


This is a very broad interpretation which would cover anyone who travels through, or briefly stops in, any safe country on the way to the UK. Frankly, this is in opposition to the established understanding of the convention and, indeed, UK case law. This goes against established interpretations of Article 31 made, as has been said, in the case of Adimi and others. This case sets out that stopping somewhere must be understood as referring to something more than a transitory stop en route to the country of intended sanctuary.

We support the amendments in this group and the opposition to Clause 36 standing part of the Bill. Clause 36 is a supportive measure for Clause 11, being about differential treatment of refugees, which we have discussed at some length. This clause underpins the Government’s plans to base our treatment of refugees on their means of travel, rather than on their need and the realities of the violence or horror they have fled. It is on that basis that we oppose this clause.

If we interpret the convention, which is what we are now being asked to do, in such a way that it is unrecognisable to our international partners and our own courts, at what point can we still be considered to be complying with the convention? We are not opposed to arrangements for the safe return of refugees to another state where they have legitimately spent time and started an asylum application. There are established routes for doing this, as provided for under the Dublin III regulations, of which we ceased to be a part when we left the EU. That is not what this clause provides for, as a number of other noble Lords have made clear in their contributions.

On the basis that this clause unilaterally attempts to redraw what the convention means by stopping in a safe country, I ask the Government to think again, without any great hope of getting a favourable response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

There are only five days scheduled in Committee on this Bill. This is by no means the longest Committee stage for a piece of legislation. Perhaps there ought to be a reflection on the Government’s side as to whether they did not seriously underestimate the number of days that were needed for Committee stage.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I will say from these Benches that, if the Government insist on bringing forward such controversial legislation, they cannot expect anything other than a number of noble Lords wanting to speak on these issues. If it were uncontroversial, noble Lords would not be queuing up to speak on the Bill. This is why we are in this situation, and we need more time so that we can adequately scrutinise this very controversial Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained, these amendments seek to ensure that the mental and medical needs of asylum seekers are addressed. They would require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to ensure that

“the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966”

are fulfilled in relation to asylum seekers.

Whether their claims are deemed to have merit or not, asylum seekers are entitled to be looked after while they are in the United Kingdom. For the reasons that the noble Baroness explained, they are likely to be more vulnerable and in need of greater care than the general population. God forbid we engage in offshoring —either exporting refugees to a third country while they application for asylum in the UK is considered or, even worse, doing so for them to pursue their asylum claim in that country. That should not absolve the United Kingdom of its obligations under the 1966 covenant. We support these amendments.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would require the Secretary of State, first, to lay before Parliament codes of practice providing for guidance to assess the mental and physical health needs of any asylum seeker; and, secondly, to consult before preparing those codes.

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which reference has been made, provides that states recognise

“the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”

I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the opportunity to have this debate because the trauma experienced by people who have suffered violence, persecution, forced displacement and separation from loved ones has been a focal point of our debates on many clauses in this Bill. Recent experience has shown, to put it bluntly, a distinct failure by the Home Office to screen or properly care for the physical and mental health of people who arrive to seek asylum.

The figures showed, I think, that one in five people placed in Napier barracks had to be transferred out owing to vulnerabilities that the department should have screened for and responded to; these included people who had been trafficked and tortured. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration said:

“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed.”

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful for the historic information that the noble Lord has provided. My understanding is that, as the years have gone on, the number of successful appeals has increased and the number of first-time decisions to reject application from refugees has gone down. While I do not deny that those might be the overall numbers going back to 2004, in saying that most applicants for refugee status are successful, we are basing it on the last few years—the current trend rather than the historic numbers the noble Lord refers to.

I am reminded of heavy-handed policing of football supporters in the 1980s. I remember a football fan saying to me, “If you treat us like animals, we’ll behave like animals”. Warehousing asylum seekers may be a short-term gain, but it is likely to create long-term problems.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for the determination and commitment she has shown in pursuing not only this but so many other key issues about which she rightly feels very strongly. I repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said: this clause and these amendments are about asylum seekers. In the Bill—a government document—Clause 12 is titled “Accommodation for asylum-seekers etc”. We are talking about asylum seekers, not illegal immigration, although I accept that there are those who make no distinction between the two. The other point I make at this stage is about the quite interesting exchange between my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I think there was rough agreement—if not I am sure I will stand corrected—that the kind of numbers coming over in the back of a lorry are very similar to those coming over in small boats across the channel.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The potential is, of course, a matter of speculation. I note the point the noble Lord makes, but up to now there is agreement between him and my noble friend Lord Dubs that the numbers have been roughly the same.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my understanding is that the number of asylum claims a decade or more ago was something like double what it is now. We are talking not about similar numbers crossing the channel in boats compared to those in the past, but about half as many.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

The point I wanted to make was that, when people were coming over in the back of lorries—not all that long ago—they were largely unseen and the Government were not proposing the measures in the Bill. However, when similar numbers started to come over in small boats across the channel, with pictures of them landing on our shores regularly appearing on TV, it became a big political issue for the Home Secretary and the Government, following some rather rash promises they made to their supporters. Consequently, we now see the Bill, which frankly is an attempt to save the political skins of the Home Secretary and the Government. It really has nothing to do with properly trying to solve a problem. We ought to remember what is driving it—the political future of a Home Secretary and Government who made rash promises. Because people are coming over no longer in the backs of lorries, where you do not see them regularly on television every night, but in small boats across the channel, with pictures of them on television, it has become politically very awkward.

The amendments in this group are driven, as has been said, by serious concern over the Government’s track record on accommodation for asylum seekers, not least in connection with Napier barracks, and the provision in Clause 12 for creating asylum accommodation centres. It is worth repeating that last June a court judgment ruled that the accommodation at Napier barracks was inadequate, in that it did not meet the minimum standards required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Both the process for selecting people to be sent to Napier barracks and the process for monitoring its ongoing suitability while they were there were flawed and unlawful. From January 2021 the residents were given an order not to leave the site until they were permitted to do so. The claimants were unlawfully detained, under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The report on Napier of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons raised a number of serious concerns, including that the screening of potential residents for physical and mental health problems was “wholly inadequate”, with all of those interviewed reporting feeling depressed and one-third feeling suicidal, and that there was extremely poor communication with those accommodated at Napier. We have heard today from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that Napier has improved, but it is fair to say that he also said that it is far from being as it should be. It is a legitimate question to ask why the Home Office allowed Napier barracks to get into the position where it required a court judgement, and why we should now accept that the same thing will not happen again.

Clause 12 gives the Government powers to house different groups of asylum seekers in undefined accommodation centres. It appears that these centres would involve congregated living in hostel-type accommodation—the type of accommodation which has been shown to be unsuitable to house people, many of them traumatised, in the asylum system for long periods. As others have said, this move away from housing in the community is likely to impede integration prospects and will surely make access to needed support and services more difficult. I simply ask the Government, and I hope that we get an answer in their response: is it now their policy to move away from housing in the community for asylum seekers?

The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that the accommodation centres for those at different stages of their asylum claim, including those with “inadmissible” asylum claims, will

“increase efficiencies within the system and increase compliance”,

but no evidence is given to support that assertion. It would be helpful if the Government could provide that evidence in their response to this debate.

While the term accommodation centre is not defined—again, perhaps the Government will do so in their response —there is an implication that the Government are seeking to replicate the kind of inferior accommodation that we have seen at Napier. This more prison-like and isolated accommodation provides a very poor environment for engaging with asylum claims and is more likely to retraumatise extremely vulnerable people and hinder future integration.

As I understand it, last summer the Home Secretary visited the notorious reception centre on the Greek island of Samos, which campaigners have described as “prison-like” and “inhumane”. Is that what the Home Secretary seeks to emulate in her accommodation centres? The Government must know the answer, since I believe I am right in saying that initial submissions for the procurement of these accommodation centres were invited by the end of September last year. The contract is to be delivered in accordance with Part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and it stated, as I understand it, that it is for housing up to 8,000 people for periods of up to six months. Could the Government say in their response how accountability and standards will be maintained in such asylum accommodation when there is no public access to the contracts? How did the Government decide that commercial confidentiality should take priority over the public interest in knowing about the contracts and transparency?

Since April 2020, the Home Office has been using two large-scale accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men who have arrived in the UK by boat: Napier barracks in Kent and the Penally camp in Wales, which is now closed. A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention noted that, although legally speaking these are not detention centres, they none the less replicate

“many of the features found in detained settings—including visible security measures, shared living quarters, reduced levels of privacy, and isolation from the wider community”.

Frankly, that seems wholly inappropriate. No doubt the Government in their response will wish to provide some reassurance on this point.

It would be helpful too if the Government could spell out what freedoms and rights will be restricted or diminished for the occupants in these accommodation centres, and what independent access will be allowed, and to whom, to these centres to ensure there is some regular accountability for conditions and standards.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise but, in the war of attrition that this Bill has become, we seem to have lost any contributions other than from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Front Bench.

Bearing that in mind, I will add to what my noble friend said rather than repeat anything she said. This clause smacks of the Home Office trying to remove or deport people before they have had a reasonable chance to appeal against a removal or deportation decision. No doubt it is embarrassing when repeated stories emerge of government charter flights taking off almost empty because the courts ruled that the majority of those with a seat on the plane should not be deported, but the answer is not to deport them before they have a reasonable chance to put their case before the courts. The answer is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office to ensure that there is a cast-iron case for deportation that cannot be overturned in the courts at the last minute. Yet again, the Bill focuses on the wrong solution to the problem.

I am sure the Minister will agree that as the Home Office becomes better at making its decisions and more and more appeals are turned down, as opposed to the current situation where the majority are accepted by the tribunals, there will be fewer appeals as lawyers say to their clients “Look at what’s happening now. There’s absolutely no point in appealing.” That is the answer to this problem, not Clauses 22 and 23.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the Bill’s system of penalisation includes curtailing appeal rights, as set out in Clauses 22 and 23. These clauses create an expedited appeal route for those who have been served with a priority removal notice and who have provided evidence or a claim after the PRN cut-off date. Most importantly, the right of appeal would be limited to the Upper Tribunal. However, where a person provides a good reason for lateness, they will not be subject to this clause.

Clause 23 wraps certain other appeals a person may have into the expedited appeals process, further restricting appeal rights. The Government say the reason this clause is needed is prevent delaying tactics, remove incentives for late claims and protect the system from abuse. It is probably fair to say that in this Bill, where so much of it is driven by the party-political considerations of the Government, they will be part of the so-called lefty-lawyers amendments—we have one or two others—who seem to have become the bête noire as far as this Government are concerned.

As has been said, I have added my name to the clause stand parts to Clauses 22 and 23, to start, at least, to probe concerns that have been raised about these provisions. The Law Society, the Public Law Project and Justice have recommended that these clauses be removed from the Bill. The UNHCR has raised legal concerns. I suggest that these are not concerns the Government should take lightly.

The UNHCR has said the expedited appeals process, as designed under Clause 22, risks “miscarriages of justice”. Its legal observations agree, as do we, that accelerated processes can be appropriate for

“manifestly unfounded or repeat claims, as long as they are sufficiently flexible and contain adequate safeguards to ensure that they can be determined fairly and justly.”

The UNHCR is, though, entirely clear that appeals

“should not be accelerated … for reasons that are unrelated to their merits.”

The widespread expediting of appeals under these sections is, in the words of the UNHCR, “arbitrary” and

“unrelated to considerations of justice or efficiency.”

It risks people having their human rights violated as a result of a truncated appeals process for asylum claims. The incorrect decision can cost an individual their safety, security and livelihood.

Clause 23 is particularly troubling on the “arbitrary” point as it joins certain pre-existing appeals to the expedited process, even where they pre-date the priority removal notice and were made entirely on time. I ask the Government: what in this clause actually targets the expedited process on vexatious and unmerited claims? That is the reason Ministers give for why the clause is needed but, as far as I can see, it is not what the clause as drafted achieves.

I will make a couple of further points. First, the Public Law Project has said that making a system quicker is patently not the same as making it efficient. In order to be efficient, a system must move both more quickly and more accurately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the reasons my noble friend Lady Ludford has explained. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 94A is not to replace one arbitrary number with another but to probe how much legal aid should be provided in such cases. The Minister described, in a previous group, how cases are of different complexity and how people will be given more time to secure and collate evidence if they are from a vulnerable background. For example, if they come from an LGBTQIA background, they are less likely to be able to acquire evidence quickly, and therefore, the date on the notice they are given would change even during the process. Surely that points to the fact that each and every case is different and will require a different amount of legal aid, depending on how much aid is needed to advise in each particular circumstance. I understand that people who are in this situation do need legal aid, but surely the number of hours should be as case-specific and flexible as the deadline date of any notice for them to submit their evidence.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We too support the amendments we are debating. I suppose, in a sense, this clause is a rare section of the Bill, in that we welcome it but desire it to go much further, as has already been said. Amendment 94A is a probing amendment, but it is a very valid one, because, clearly, the Government have come to the view that the seven hours of support that will be available will be sufficient.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, for the reasons I explained in a previous group, accelerating appeals processes is not the solution to the last-minute successful appeals against removal or deportation. Rather, it is improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office. Clause 26 is another clause with the wrong solution to the problem, and while Amendments 97 to 99 seek to limit the damage that accelerated appeals might cause, it is more lipstick on more pigs.

To my shame, I am struggling to keep my head above water on this Bill and asking that Clause 27 does not stand part of the Bill does not go far enough. Already the Home Secretary can certify that the decision to remove or deport can be appealed against only once the claimant has been removed or deported, which makes such an appeal more difficult. We should have tabled an amendment to remove that power, let alone Clause 27, which proposes to go one step further, allowing the Secretary of State to certify that a claim cannot be appealed against at all if she thinks it is clearly unfounded. That should be a decision for the tribunal and not the Executive.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In this group, I have the Clause 26 stand part amendment, and Clause 26 requires the Tribunal Procedure Committee to create a fast-track route for certain appeals made from detention. The accelerated process would apply where the Secretary of State “considers” that an appeal brought in relation to the decision would

“likely be disposed of expeditiously.”

Of course, that raises the question of the basis on which the Secretary of State will decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously. Will it be done on a whim? Will it be done on the basis that we need to speed things up and this may be the way to do it? Will they be getting legal advice on whether they should consider that it is likely to be disposed of expeditiously? What happens if they do decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously, and they then find that it cannot be disposed of expeditiously? What is the redress in that situation?

The Explanatory Notes state:

“This clause aims to establish an accelerated route for those appeals made in detention which are considered suitable for a quick decision, to allow appellants to be released or removed more quickly.”


As far as the Explanatory Notes are concerned, it is being done for the highest of motives, and nothing to do with simply trying to speed up the process.

The Law Society, Justice, the UNHCR and the Public Law Project have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. They raise that the fast-track system largely replicates, as has been said, a system that was already found to be unlawful in 2015 in a Court of Appeal ruling.

We support the amendments and concerns raised in this group, but I intend to speak only to the amendment in my name, which is to oppose Clause 26 standing part of the Bill. The concerns are very clear. As I said, various organisations have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. Their basis for saying so is that it amounts to a new detained fast-track procedure that was found to be unlawful in 2015 due to being “structurally unfair”. The Court of Appeal described the timetable for such appeals as

“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases”.

It held that the policy did not sufficiently appreciate

“the problems faced by legal representatives of obtaining instructions from individuals who are in detention”,

nor did it

“adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals”

and

“the gravity of the issues that are raised by them”.

Since that ruling, the Tribunal Procedure Committee has repeatedly taken the position not to introduce specific rules in relation to cases where an appellant is detained. In its report of March 2019, the TPC concluded that

“a set of specific rules would not lead to the results sought by the Government. If a set of rules were devised so as to operate fairly, they would not lead to the increased speed and certainty desired.”

Following the clear and somewhat damning court ruling and the position of the TPC, the Government’s response has been, as we now see, to legislate to reintroduce a fast-track procedure by forcing the TPC’s hand and requiring it to create one.

The questions for the Government are fairly simple. What is it about this scheme that is significantly structurally different from the scheme that was found to be legally unsound? What about this scheme will prevent it having a timetable

“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity”?

Why, and on the basis of what evidence, do the Government disagree with the TPC when it says that such rules should not be brought in since they cannot both operate fairly and achieve the desired result of speed?

One wonders whether the Government are risking further judicial proceedings in replicating a scheme that has been found to be unlawful or, indeed, whether they would care too much anyway if there were such future judicial proceedings. I await the Government’s response.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Tuesday 1st February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for putting my mind at rest. I initially hesitated to support Amendment 40 as it highlights particularly vulnerable asylum seekers, potentially giving the false impression that we do not believe that all asylum seekers are vulnerable, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee just said. Nor do we want to give the false impression that we on these Benches support in any way, shape or form what we believe to be the illegal practice of differentiating asylum seekers, as Clause 11 attempts to do, for any reason. This amendment only probes the requirement of Clause 11(2)(b) that asylum seekers must

“have presented themselves without delay to the authorities”,

which might be an issue whether Clause 11 remains part of the Bill or not.

Amendment 40 lists examples of those who may have suffered particular trauma that may cause them to hesitate in claiming asylum. I can talk only about my personal experience as a gay man, trying to conceal my sexuality for fear of being found out for the first 40 years of my life, even in a country that decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting men aged 21 and over when I was nine. The point is this: just because it is legally safe to be gay in this country does not mean that it feels safe to be gay in this country. Even Dame Cressida Dick—the person of the moment—did not feel able to be publicly open about her sexuality until she became Commissioner of the Met, and it has never been illegal to express your sexuality as a lesbian in the UK. I can only imagine what it might be like, coming from a country where you can still be executed if you express your sexuality, to come here and then be expected to claim asylum “without delay” because of your sexuality. It is so clearly and obviously unreasonable.

As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, it is also less likely that those fleeing persecution will be able to produce evidence of their sexuality, be open about it or overcome the fear of being open about it because of concerns about family members who remain in their home country. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, spoke compellingly, from personal experience of helping particularly vulnerable refugees, of how long it takes asylum seekers to recover, as my noble friend has just highlighted. There is compelling evidence of the need for this amendment and we support it.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said in moving this amendment, Clause 11 provides that to be a group 1 refugee you must have presented yourself to the authorities “without delay”. This amendment would provide that vulnerable groups are not subject to this time constraint. As one sees from reading the amendment, this would include, though not exclusively, children, survivors of torture, sexual violence and gender-based violence, LGBT refugees, victims of modern slavery and disabled refugees. This is a probing amendment to find out more about how the “without delay” provision will work in practice. As has been said, traumatised people, for example survivors of sexual or gender-based violence, who are largely, but certainly not exclusively, women, do not always feel —to put it mildly—in a position to unburden themselves to the first complete stranger or border, immigration or other government official that they meet on arrival.

The position of single men and sexual orientation has also been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to the article in the Times about single men who arrive from across the channel being detained and locked up. In a previous debate, I asked whether the Minister could say whether that Times article was true. I ask again: is that article true or false? It is important that we get an answer because it relates to this amendment as well.

As well as answering that question, I hope the Minister will give some indication of how the “without delay” provision will work in relation to the vulnerable groups covered by the amendment, what kind of leeway or otherwise the Government intend there to be and what exactly “without delay” means in this context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, after the emotionally draining Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I told myself not to get so involved with this one, but how can noble Lords not get so involved when we are dealing with measures such as this? I cannot believe that it is not also taking a toll on the Minister, who, at all times and in every circumstance, tries everything she can personally to meet and persuade noble Lords. I wanted to put that on the record in case there was any misunderstanding of my remarks on the other Bill.

Again, we reiterate that we believe that the sole determinant of how an asylum seeker should be treated by the UK are the circumstances that forced them to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom. If they genuinely have fled war or persecution, they should be treated as refugees, with all the rights associated with that status, regardless of how they arrived in the UK. These amendments seek to clarify in what circumstances a second-class refugee, as defined by Clause 11, would have no recourse to public funds, and what would happen to those individuals in such circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, explained. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, articulated the consequences of having no recourse to public funds. In short, do the Government intend to make group 2 refugees—a dreadful and, we believe, illegal term—destitute and homeless, or just for them to suffer grinding poverty?

I assume these measures are supposed to be a deterrent, but I ask noble Lords to put themselves in the position of a genuine asylum seeker in a migrant camp in northern France, considering what their next move should be. Would they feel that they would be better off destitute and homeless in France, or destitute and homeless in the United Kingdom, where they speak the same language, for example, or have friends or relatives? Would they believe, despite the Government’s best efforts, that they would still be better off in the United Kingdom than in France, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, listed so clearly?

Can the Minister answer this question? Are the Government really on a race to the bottom with other countries, such as France, to see who can make life more intolerable for genuine asylum seekers? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised the issue of France. I agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford: my understanding was that the French were complaining that it was easier to work illegally in the UK than in France, which was why people were coming to the UK. My understanding is also that the benefits given to refugees in France are higher than in the UK, but I stand to be corrected. Having asked the Minister that question, with some trepidation I await the Government’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, one of the ways that the Government can differentiate under the Bill between group 1 and group 2 refugees is to apply “no recourse to public funds”. The two probing amendments in this group would remove that provision. I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, had to say, as I did to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in moving the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, asked what the policy intent of NRPF is—I think she asked that twice during her contribution. Having heard the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the policy intent behind no recourse to public funds being applied to group 2 refugees.

We fully agree with these amendments, which are probing. A question was put to the Minister, and I simply want to support that ask of the Minister to set out in detail when the Government would consider this an appropriate differentiation to use, and in what cases. To whom within group 2 refugees do the Government expect this differentiation on no recourse to public funds to be applied, and in what circumstances? Against what criteria will that decision be made?

We are not talking about applying no recourse to public funds to persons without a valid refugee claim or economic migrants. Clause 11 applies solely to people the Government recognise as refugees with a valid right to be here and to seek safety. Bearing that in mind, it would be interesting to find out in what circumstances they think it appropriate to apply no recourse to public funds to people in the group 2 category.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful for that important clarification. The cost price is the maximum that should be charged, not the actual cost that should be charged.

There may be some difficulty around whether there is to be a means test, as implied by subsection (3), but the important addition to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh—subsection (4) —is the requirement for the Secretary of State to raise awareness of the right to be registered as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. As Amnesty rightly points out, thousands of children grow up in the UK excluded from their citizenship rights because they are unaware that they are without British citizenship and need to exercise their right to be registered.

Citizenship should not be an optional extra. It is the right to have rights. It is not, as the Minister said on the previous group, a privilege. It is a right that these people have. It is also likely to make those who acquire it feel more included, and more likely to be loyal to this country, its laws, values and traditions. It is not just of value to those who acquire it but to everyone in the UK, and, as such, the cost of acquiring it should not fall solely on the applicant but on society as a whole.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I express our support for the amendments in this group. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raise a simple and crucial point. The intention of this part of the Bill, at least its early clauses, is to remove barriers for those who have been unjustly denied citizenship. To then present a barrier to that citizenship in the form of fees for accessing those withheld rights raises obvious problems. This is particularly, and one would hope undeniably, the case for those who would and should have been automatically granted citizenship if it were not for outdated injustices impacting their mother or the marital status of their father.

What has so far been missing from the Government is clarity on this issue. I understand that in Committee in the Commons, the Minister would not directly answer questions as to whether fees will be charged. I hope we may fare a little better today, with the noble Lord the Minister—if that is who responds—telling the House whether the Government intend to charge people to access these routes. Is the intention no fees, fee waivers in some cases, reduced fees from what we have now, or the continuation of existing fees? When and how will this be made clear? In the Commons, the Minister suggested that this was more appropriately dealt with in secondary legislation, but why should clarity not be provided in the Bill in relation to this key issue?

I express too our support for Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, with notable cross-party support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. As has been said, to say that my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has been tenacious on this issue would be the understatement of the year; she has been rather more than that.

The amendment tabled by my noble friend addresses a current fee policy that charges people who have the right to register for citizenship exorbitant amounts to do so. As has been said, the amendment does not ask the Government to scrap the fee for application; it simply requires the fee not to be higher than the actual cost of the registration process. As has been said, this means it could be fixed at a considerably lower level or there could be no fee at all.

In particular, I add our strong support for measures to reduce the cost for children to register their citizenship, which they have as much right to access as any Member of this House, and to remove the cost completely, certainly for children in our care. Although the Government have repeatedly resisted this change, it is not without Cabinet support, as has been said. After all, the Health Secretary has described the fees as

“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.

I repeat that these costs are levied against children who are born here, grew up here and go to school here but who, unlike their classmates, are not automatically British at birth. Surely it is the will of this Parliament and our nationality law that those children are entitled to citizenship after certain conditions are met. But, in reality, that right is being denied for at least some—probably many—because it is just too expensive for them to access. The Government have already been asked for information on the numbers who have been denied citizenship on the basis that the fees are too high. I am not sure whether we are going to get a response to that point.

There has been some discussion about the legal position. As has been said, in February last year the Court of Appeal, in referring to the best interests of the child, ruled that the child citizenship fee, at over £1,000, is unlawful. That had also been determined earlier by the High Court. A number of noble Lords commented that, instead of using the obvious vehicle of this Bill on citizenship to rectify the issue, the Government have argued—as I understand it—that they want to await a further ruling in the Supreme Court.

Finally, I admit my surprise that, in the Commons, the government Minister claimed that this issue of the cost of registering citizenship was

“not a matter for the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 165.]

This part of the Bill is about access to citizenship. I question how the Government can say that this issue, which has been raised many times across both Houses and with cross-party support, should not be regarded as a matter for this Bill. I hope we have a helpful response from the Government when they now reply.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 27th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Ludford, the Chagos Islanders were evicted by the UK Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for a US naval base, and they are still exiled from their homeland. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, there are two separate and very distinct issues here. The first, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, is giving the Chagos Islands back to the islanders, which is very much an issue for the Foreign Office. This amendment is about giving Chagos Islanders nationality, and that is very much the responsibility of the Home Office, not the Foreign Office. I would also say, in response to the last speaker and to the noble Lord, that century-long precedents are not necessarily good precedents.

One impact of the eviction has been to deprive descendants of their citizenship rights. The Chagos Islands remain a British Overseas Territory and, as we have heard, were it not for the eviction, they would have passed British Overseas Territories citizenship from generation to generation. In certain circumstances, they could have acquired entitlement to be registered as British citizens and, since 2002, they could have benefited from a general discretion from the Home Secretary to register as British citizens.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the Government’s objection in the other place does not hold water. The situation of the Chagos Islanders is unique and, while the other measures in this part of the Bill to address historic injustices are welcome, they are incomplete without the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, which we wholeheartedly support. As the noble Baroness explained, it is narrow in scope, focused exclusively on the Chagos Islanders’ direct descendants and limited to a five-year window, either from the date the amendment comes into force or five years from when the eligible person turns 18. The Minister will have to do more than simply repeat the words of her colleague in the other place to convince noble Lords not to pursue this matter further on Report.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I would like to express our support for this new clause. I wish to be clear about its objectives and will read from the Member’s explanatory statement:

“This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.”


As we have heard, the proposed new clause is intended to rectify a long-standing injustice which impacts descendants of the Chagos Islanders who were forcibly removed from British Indian Ocean territory in the 1960s. I too wish to express my appreciation and admiration of all those who have been raising and pursuing this issue over a number of years, not least my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—although I know they are not the only ones who have been working on behalf of the Chagos Islanders.

The issue has significant cross-party support, and the case for this change was powerfully made by a Member of the Minister’s own party in the Commons, Henry Smith MP, who was supported by Members across that House. The clause, as I have indicated, would extend the right to register for citizenship to the grandchildren and other descendants of this population, and it would, as has been pointed out, apply to only a small number of people.

In the Commons, the Minister’s response was not too encouraging, suggesting that this would be too significant a departure from existing law. However, he did say that the Government had heard the strong points made and would

“continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]

What consideration of this issue has since occurred across Government? What have Ministers settled on as to

“what more we could do”?

In recent years, we have raised significant concerns about this Government’s ongoing foreign and defence policy as regards the Chagos Islands. The Bill provides an opportunity for a distinct and limited change to our own law—one which would have a significant impact for those affected by half a century of injustice. This is surely a unique case. Frankly, we are not setting a precedent, which is what the Government seem to have been arguing to date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 10 talks about, to quote the Explanatory Notes,

“cases where parents have chosen not to register their child’s birth, which would have acquired their own nationality for their child, which means that the child can register as a British citizen under the statelessness provisions.”

I seriously question how many parents have such a detailed understanding of nationality law that they choose not to register their child’s birth in order to register their child later under statelessness provisions to give them British citizenship. That is just not credible. How many cases can the Minister cite where parents have deliberately not registered the nationality of their child in order for that child to get British citizenship under the statelessness provisions?

This strikes me as a cynical attempt to tighten the law, in a similar way to that in which the Bill tightens the provisions around modern slavery, to give the impression of being tough—bordering on xenophobic —on immigration, when there really is not a problem. It should not be part of the Bill. The power in this clause given to the Secretary of State to deny British citizenship to a child, unless she is satisfied that the child cannot reasonably acquire the nationality of its parents, needs to be qualified at the very least.

Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights

“to ensure that British citizenship is only withheld”

from a stateless child born in the UK

“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately”,

without any legal or administrative hurdles. We will support this amendment if this clause stands part of the Bill.

These are decisions being taken by parents and the Secretary of State about an innocent child who has no influence over what is being decided about their future—decisions about something as fundamental as citizenship. For that reason alone, we strongly support Amendment 31: that the best interests of the stateless child born in the UK must be central to any decision whether to grant or refuse British citizenship.

This is what we have come to: seeking to deny stateless children born in the UK British citizenship. As I said on a previous group, British citizenship has benefits to society as well as to the individual concerned. This is not just about the best interests of the child, although it should be; it is about what is in the best interests of society. Keeping children stateless as they grow into adults surely increases their chance of being radicalised and becoming a threat to society. On the last group, the Minister kept talking about high-harm individuals. All the evidence points to one of the most important factors in radicalisation being people not feeling part of society or of this country. Keeping a child stateless surely will increase the danger of that person growing into a terrorist.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, my name has been added to the proposal to oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. It proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here.

Through Clause 10, the Government now propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens, which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.

Rather than helping such children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. They seem to want to try to deny citizenship, particularly citizenship of the place where the child was born and lives—in fact, the only place they know. No doubt the Government will explain what substantial wrong they consider this clause addresses and what hard evidence there is that that wrong is actually significant, as opposed to it being claimed as such.

Clause 10 can only be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, with this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the serious implications that can have. There has been no assessment made by the Government of the impact this proposal will have on those children affected, which suggests that this issue does not trouble the Government. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, how can this be in the best interests of the child? This issue is addressed in Amendment 31, reflecting a JCHR recommendation.

In the Commons, we supported an amendment to Clause 10 which sought to ensure that the Government act in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government having failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill. The amendment altered Clause 10, so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. That is as per Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which also reflects a JCHR recommendation.

I am probably being overoptimistic in hoping that there will be a positive government reply to this stand part debate. At the very least, if my fears are justified and we do not get a positive reply from our point of view, I hope that we will be told what the hard evidence is that Clause 10 actually addresses a significant wrong, rather than one being claimed as such.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

3rd reading
Tuesday 25th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I say to my noble friends behind me that I will resist the temptation to make political comments on the Bill. After all the days we have had in Committee and on Report, I am sure they will understand why I do not wish to go down that road.

I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, and the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, for all the work that they have so obviously done on this Bill. I also thank them for the meetings we have held and the changes that have been secured through government amendments or government support for amendments.

I also thank my noble friends Lord Coaker, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lady Chapman of Darlington. As the Minister reminded us, my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark has also been involved, as has been my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton. We seem to have had a fairly large Front Bench on this side of the House, and I am extremely grateful to all of them for the work that they have done.

I too thank the Bill team. Everything that the Minister said about them we would certainly endorse and wish to be associated with. They have been extremely helpful, and we have appreciated that. I also thank the many outside organisations with an interest in the terms of this Bill for the briefings that they have given us, both written and verbal. That has been extremely helpful too.

Talking of help, I would like to thank for the vital and invaluable work they do colleagues in our office here in the Lords, particularly Grace Wright, who has been a key figure and has certainly kept me on the straight and narrow. I am quite sure that any mistakes I have made have been nothing to do with her; she has prevented me making an awful lot as it is.

The Bill has been improved by amendments that this House has made and, in some cases, by resisting amendments to which this House has not agreed. As the Minister said, it now goes back to the Commons. Like her, I too wait to see what the Commons will now make of this Bill as amended by your Lordships.

I again thank everybody whom I have mentioned, and I am quite sure that there are others whom I should have mentioned but have not done so. For that, I apologise.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I remember looking at this 307-page Bill—or at least it was 307 pages to begin with—in August and wondering how on earth to tackle it. I was reminded that the way to eat an elephant is one piece at a time, which is the approach we took. This was about five Bills stapled together, except the PPO could not staple them together because it was too big. The Bill returns to the other place considerably improved, although you cannot make a silk purse out a sow’s ear—these are separate metaphors; I am not mixing them—or should I say a boar’s ear in these days?

I shall not resist what the Minister has said about the Bill. As far as we on these Benches are concerned, the existing legislation to control protest was adequate, and the measures that we have removed from the Bill were not necessary in the first place. The majority of the police consider that a lack of police officers is the limiting factor when it comes to policing of protests rather than a lack of legislation.

I would normally thank the Minister and the Bill team for their engagement, but, certainly, I am not alone on these Benches, at least as far as the home affairs side of things is concerned, in feeling that the Government have not reached out to us as much as they could or should have done. None the less, we have all been in this together over a considerable period, and I am grateful for the time that the Government have given in allowing us to debate these issues.

I thank the Official Opposition, both the leadership and Back-Benchers, the Cross- Benchers, non-affiliated Peers and the Greens for their support and co-operation. In particular, I thank Elizabeth Plummer and Grace Wright for their invaluable help on the Bill, as well as all the outside organisations which helpfully provided us with briefings. We would not have done any of this without that help, and we hope that the Government will see the improvements that we have made to the Bill as improvements when it is considered by the other place.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have just said, serious and organised food crime can have very serious consequences. To free up scarce police resources by giving the National Food Crime Unit the powers that it needs seems sensible. According to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, the National Police Chiefs’ Council supports this change, so I am looking forward to hearing from the Minister what I am missing, because I cannot immediately see any reason why this amendment should not be accepted.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, this amendment raises the issue of food-related crime and the powers and resources available to tackle it. I will make just one or two comments that may seem almost irrelevant, in view of the very strong case that my noble friend Lord Rooker has already made, as we anticipated he would.

As my noble friend said, the National Food Crime Unit, which is part of the Food Standards Agency, works to tackle serious organised cases of food-related crime. My noble friend Lord Rooker powerfully and persuasively made the case that there are blocks on the powers that the unit can access and that it is often reliant on the police, who are overstretched across competing priorities, to be able to use certain powers or apply for warrants, for example. The amendment that my noble friend has moved would allow the unit to access powers directly, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, rather than waiting for police support to become available.

I will spell out exactly the Oral Question that my noble friend asked in February last year:

“My Lords, does the Minister accept that the National Food Crime Unit is operating against organised crime with its hands tied? Investigations are being hampered. Does the Minister agree that investigation powers should be strengthened to include powers to collect the necessary evidence to a higher standard? In other words, will the Government agree that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act powers should be granted to the National Food Crime Unit? The National Police Chiefs’ Council agrees to this to remove the burden from local police forces, which actually agree that food crime is not a high priority.”


As my noble friend said, the Minister replied:

“The noble Lord entirely has a point. I completely agree with him that the National Food Crime Unit has a formidable task ahead of it and that its investigatory powers could be enhanced and its impact improved. That is the view of the Government, industry and the police, and that is why we are committed to the dialogue”.—[Official Report, 22/2/21; col. 614.]


That is what the Government said in reply.

We welcome this commitment and would have given appropriate support to a resulting legislative process, which is why we are supportive of what my noble friend Lord Rooker seeks to achieve with this amendment. The Government have thus previously recognised that this is a problem, but what action has been taken so far since that clear recognition, which was repeated last February? Will the Government now accept the amendment my noble friend has moved? If not, why not?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords have already comprehensively covered the ground, and I am especially grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and his Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, and to the Government for listening to that committee, and to the concerns that were expressed in Committee, and by the Constitution Committee and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.

We are concerned that simply laying guidance before Parliament is not sufficient. It should be by regulations, as the noble Lord has said. However, we are pleased that the Government have listened to some extent and we support these amendments.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too will be brief. As has been said, this group includes government amendments relating to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the Government have accepted. It includes the requirement that strategies under the serious violence reduction duty are published, and that guidance on the series violence duty, police powers under Part 4 and serious violence reduction orders must be laid before Parliament. However, the Government have not accepted every recommendation of the DPRRC, and on some they have gone only half way. For example, the DPRRC recommended that guidance on serious violence reduction orders should be subject to the affirmative procedure, but the Government have made it subject only to the negative.

Like other noble Lords, I extend our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for the invaluable work that they do and no doubt will continue to do. We welcome the amendments in this group that go some way towards accepting a number of recommendations from the DPRRC, but it is interesting to note that, in its report on the powers in the Bill to introduce unpublished strategies and guidance without parliamentary scrutiny, the DPRRC said:

“We are disappointed that the inclusion of these types of delegations of power—on flimsy grounds—suggests that the Government have failed when preparing this Bill to give serious consideration to recommendations that we have made in recent reports on other Bills.”


This group of amendments introduces some improvements into the Bill, which we welcome. On that basis, we hope that the Government will be in listening mode over the next few days of debate on Report. Perhaps the next Bill that appears before us will not have such powers in it to begin with.

Small Boats Incident in the Channel

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

It is not entirely the same, but very close.

On a serious note, yesterday’s tragedy was the most tragic of reminders of the dangers of the English Channel, and that people’s lives are at risk every day in these small boats. It is a sobering moment for us as a nation, for France and for the international community. As I understand it, at least 27 people have died. We think of those lost, their loved ones left behind, and the two who were rescued, who are receiving medical treatment and fighting for their lives. I pay tribute to all those involved in the joint French-British search operation in the air and on the sea, putting themselves in danger to help others.

I believe that there have been arrests in France of those suspected of the vile crime of people smuggling. I appreciate the difficulties and sensitivities when there is an ongoing legal case, particularly in another jurisdiction, but I hope that the Government can assure the House that we will give all the co-operation required by the prosecuting authorities in France if we are able to help in that regard.

On the arrangements that we have in place with the French authorities, and the £54 million, referred to in the previous debate, can the Government set out for how many days a week the full existing surveillance capacity is operating? What will they be doing—as a matter of urgency, I hope—to increase that surveillance, particularly in light of what has happened? What will the Government be doing to deepen intelligence and law enforcement co-operation with the French authorities in other countries, so that the focus is on not only coastal patrols, as it appears to be currently, but disrupting the routes often facilitated across hundreds or thousands of miles by the gangs, who have a reckless disregard for human life?

May I press the Government on properly managed, safe and legal routes, and specifically the position on the Dubs scheme? It was closed down, having helped only some 480 unaccompanied children rather than the 3,000 many expected it to help. Will that scheme be urgently reinstated?

In the Statement, the Government spoke of a worldwide migration crisis, and that is the reality. In view of that, can the Government revisit their decision to cut the international aid budget and lead on the international stage with other countries to help those fleeing persecution? Yesterday’s terrible tragedy must be a moment for change. The time for urgent action to save lives is now.

I noticed that the Home Secretary said in the Statement that she has approved maritime tactics, including boat turnarounds, for border staff to deploy. Can the Minister tell us a little more about these maritime tactics that have been approved? What changes will take place as a result?

As I say, there is a reference to boat turnarounds. I presume that means turning around boats in the channel and sending them back to France, but perhaps the Minister could indicate precisely what that means and whether there are other maritime tactics, as the Statement implies, apart from those boat turnarounds.

I also picked up in the Statement that the Minister repeated the Government’s position, which they have stated on numerous other occasions, that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, and that nobody needs to flee France to be safe. Presumably, if our Government’s stance is that you should claim asylum in the first safe country you reach, they would have to accept that for most people who have come through France and then across the channel on small boats, unless there is evidence to the contrary, France was not the first safe country that they reached. Presumably, most went through other safe countries before they got to France. Do the Government accept that, on the basis of their own statement that you should claim asylum in the first safe country you reach, France’s situation is, in that sense, no different from ours, because France would probably not have been the first safe country that they reached? Some clarification on that issue might be helpful in the reply that I hope the Minister will give to my comments.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat that my thoughts are with all those affected by yesterday’s tragedy in the channel. I asked for the Statement to be repeated so that Members of this House who had not signed up to the debate that we just had on this subject, scheduled before this tragedy happened, had an opportunity to question the Government.

The Home Secretary talked about traffickers finding people to manipulate and said that some of them do not even know that they are coming to the UK. What evidence can the Minister share with the House that people smugglers

“threaten … bully and assault the people who get into these boats”?

What evidence is there that asylum seekers, who must know that they are in France, or at the very least in mainland Europe, who are getting into boats, do not know that they are coming to the UK?

The Home Secretary gives the impression that vulnerable people are being forced against their will into these boats. Surely people traffickers would be only too happy to save money on boats and leave those who had already paid them in mainland Europe? Is it not the truth that these desperate people, who often speak English and no other European language, and who often have relatives or other people they know in the UK, know that they cannot seek asylum in the UK unless they are in the UK?

The Home Secretary says that people traffickers

“use the money they make for other heinous crimes”.

What are the heinous crimes to which the Home Secretary is referring? She also talked about a

“wide range of operational and diplomatic work”.

How can the Home Secretary talk about boat turnarounds the day after at least 27 people lost their lives, given that it is a tactic that can only increase the risk of further tragic deaths?

On diplomatic work, Ministers have talked about processing asylum claims in places such as Albania and Ascension Island. Meanwhile, Albania angrily denies any discussion on the issue and says that it would never agree, even if there had been discussions. Are the Government just making it up, and have they not got beyond the letter A in the list of fictitious partners?

The Home Secretary talked about the Government not being able to do it alone and it being impossible without close co-operation between international partners. Has leaving the European Union made such co-operation easier or more difficult? Is it not the case that, rather than pointing the finger at the French, who take more asylum seekers per head of population than the UK, or at the people traffickers, whom Clare Moseley of Care4Calais described as a symptom of the problem and not its cause, the Government should look in the mirror? The problem is not taking climate change seriously enough. The problem is reducing the UK foreign aid budget. The problem is UK foreign policy failures. All make it more difficult for people to remain where they are. The problem with channel crossings is that this Government refuse to allow people to claim asylum unless their feet are on British soil.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for moving Amendment 292N on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove; I wish her well.

Victims of stalking, including female Members of Parliament, are being failed, as the noble Baroness has just said. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, set out in his opening speech, there were 892,000 victims of stalking in the year to March 2020, according to the crime survey. The noble Lord pointed out the findings of the HMICFRS report on violence against women and girls regarding the inconsistent approach across different police forces to stalking protection orders; that the majority of orders had no positive obligation on the perpetrator; and that officers in force areas were unaware that the perpetrators were even subject to the orders, so there was no enforcement of the orders.

There is clearly a need to address perpetrator behaviour, in addition to protecting victims. My noble friend Lady Brinton said—and I agree—that stalking is not being taken seriously enough. That is as much a cultural issue for the police and courts as it is for society as a whole. There is clearly a need for a stalking strategy to ensure a consistent and effective response from all the authorities involved, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, just said—not just the criminal justice system but charities and others that offer services to address the behaviour of offenders. We support this amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will be very brief as the case for this amendment has been so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and other noble Lords who have spoken. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, who unfortunately cannot be in her place tonight, and to the other noble Lords who are signatories to the amendment, for their tireless work on this issue. In that context, I also pay particular tribute to my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon, who cannot be in the Committee today, for her dedication and years of leadership on this issue.

I know the Minister is also passionate about this issue, but for years the House has found itself returning to this debate, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, said, and each time the answer from the Government is largely that the current system is adequate although improvements are needed in how it is delivered. Yet each time we come back to it, more women have been killed and more lives devastated. This amendment has our wholehearted support, and I hope we can now look forward to a clear and encouraging response from the Government.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Yes, and, as the noble Lord will very well know, in a coalition there have to be compromises on both sides. You cannot get through the things you think are absolutely important unless you give way on others. However, the policy of this party now is to oppose police and crime commissioners. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to clarify the position of the party on that.

It is very difficult for one person to represent both rural and urban areas in policing, or perhaps an area where there is a large African or Caribbean community and another where there is a large south Asian or Chinese community, or even an LGBT community. These could and do exist within the same police area—as in London, for example. Therefore, with one police and crime commissioner for that whole area, it is difficult for that one person to represent all those communities. It is important to be represented when it comes to accountability around policing, particularly for minority communities, where trust and confidence in the police are not as strong as they are with others.

As others have said, the majority of police and crime commissioners are party political. Therefore, there is a danger that a small “p” political difference between a police and crime commissioner and a chief constable, or even a commissioner—without pointing at any particular examples of that—could result in a good chief constable or commissioner having to resign over that small “p” political difference, or even a personality difference with the police and crime commissioner

As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has said, we are in a position where, because it is one person hiring and firing the chief constable, we are not getting a range of candidates applying for the chief constable post. The assumption is that the incumbent deputy will have a good relationship with that police and crime commissioner and have a natural advantage over any outside candidate, and therefore it is not worth applying. For all these reasons, we feel that having a range of people holding the police to account—particularly if they are democratically elected councillors —as opposed to one person, would be preferable. But I agree with other noble Lords that the suggested way to replace the system is probably not through a series of referenda that could result in different mechanisms in different parts of the country.

As far as the abolition of deposits in elections is concerned, that is perhaps slightly wider than this Bill should be considering. Of course, as Liberal Democrats, we would have to declare an interest as far as that is concerned. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, about potentially reducing the size of the deposit, rather than getting rid of it completely.

Were police authorities better? In some places, I think they were. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, the Metropolitan Police Authority was certainly very effective. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who experienced both, said there was not much to choose between the two on accountability.

For the reasons that I have explained, we agree that there should certainly be an examination of how effective police and crime commissioners are.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and other noble Lords, that we have had mixed experiences of police and crime commissioners—some have been very good, and some not so good. I will not go further than that, though, in relation to Amendment 278.

I wish to talk in particular about the amendment in the names of my noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. They have drawn attention to the consequences we have witnessed as result of potential candidates for police and crime commissioner being debarred if they have been convicted of any offence, however many years ago, for which they could have received a custodial sentence, irrespective of whether they did actually receive such a sentence. I do not wish to pursue any individual cases but rather the general point, as others have done, of whether there should be another look at the reasons, in respect of previous convictions, for which a potential candidate for the office of police and crime commissioner can be disqualified.

When the issue has been raised previously, the Government have argued that it should not be reviewed because there was cross-party support for this requirement to be included in the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. If that argument was followed through to its logical conclusion, there could never be any change to any legislation that originally had cross-party support, which is a bit of a nonsense.

The other argument advanced was that people must have complete confidence in the probity and integrity of whoever it is they elect as a police and crime commissioner because of their responsibilities and powers in relation to their police force, including the chief constable. Clearly, that is true, but whether an offence committed decades ago that could have resulted in a custodial sentence but did not—because it was not considered of a sufficiently serious nature to justify such a sentence—should automatically still be regarded as calling into question the probity and integrity of a potential candidate for police and crime commissioner, and thus disqualify them from holding such an office, is questionable, to say the least. It is certainly questionable when one looks at other positions that have powers and responsibilities in relation to the police and the criminal justice system but have no such similar restrictions on being able to stand for office or be appointed to an office.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I will speak briefly. In my comments on the previous group on which I spoke—the one beginning with Amendment 278—I did not mean to suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, was filibustering. I tried to inject a little humour into proceedings, bearing in mind the wide range of issues that we discussed in the debate on that group and the length of that debate. I joked that it was beginning to look like a filibuster. I have apologised to the noble Lord but I wanted to include that apology in the official record.

We support this important amendment. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides some safeguards against important decisions being taken by automated processing. It allows a human review on appeal with the subject having been told, but only if the decision was “solely” taken automatically, rather than “significantly”, as my noble friend’s amendment suggests. Experience in the American criminal justice system of using algorithms shows that bias in historical decisions is replicated, even enhanced, by algorithms. We therefore support this amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As has been said, Article 22 of the general data protection regulation provides that a person has

“the right not to be subject to a decision based solely on automated processing, including profiling, which produces legal effects concerning him or her or similarly significantly affects him or her.”

It also provides that there is an exemption to this if the automated decision-making is explicitly provided in law. Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 2018 provides, as has been said, some safeguards based on Article 22 for cases where the law allows automated decision-making on things that may have a significant effect on a person. It provides that where a significant decision is made by automated means, the subject may request that the decision is retaken with human oversight. The section currently provides protections for a decision taken, as has once again been said, “solely” by automated means. The amendment would extend this provision to decisions taken solely “or significantly” by automated means.

The issue of automated decision-making will become, and indeed is becoming, increasingly prevalent in our lives—a point made by all sides during the passage of the 2018 Act, when we tried to add far stronger safeguards to the then Bill to prevent decisions that engaged an individual’s human rights being decided by automated means. On that basis, I am certainly interested in the points raised to extend the right of appeal to decisions that are based “significantly” on automated processing.

Finally, it is potentially concerning that the Government are currently consulting on removing Article 22 of the GDPR and the associated protections from UK law altogether. I believe that consultation closed last week. Can the Government give an indication of when we can expect their response?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Clause 63 amends Section 61 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. Section 61 addresses the situation that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, alluded to on Wednesday—at Hansard col. 1313—when he told us that, 25 years ago, as a Member of Parliament, he was rung by a very distressed farmer in his constituency, whose land was being trespassed on. I make that 1996, but perhaps it was before the 1994 Act was effective.

As my noble friend Lady Brinton has said, Section 61 of the 1994 Act provides a power to remove trespassers on land. I will quote subsection (1):

“If the senior police officer present at the scene reasonably believes that two or more persons are trespassing on land and are present there with the common purpose of residing there for any period, that reasonable steps have been taken by or on behalf of the occupier to ask them to leave and … that any of those persons has caused damage to the land or to property on the land or used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards the occupier, a member of his family or an employee or agent of his, or …that those persons have between them six or more vehicles on the land, he may direct those persons, or any of them, to leave the land and to remove any vehicles or other property they have with them on the land.”


Subsection (4) states:

“If a person knowing that a direction under subsection (1) … has been given which applies to him … fails to leave the land as soon as reasonably practicable, or … having left again enters the land as a trespasser within the period of three months beginning with the day on which the direction was given, he commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, or both.”


That is the law now, unamended by this Bill.

As many noble Lords said on Wednesday, what is the problem that Part 4 is trying to solve, when there are clearly adequate powers already in existence? Clause 63 simply brings Section 61 of the 1994 Act into line with the rest of Part 4 of the Bill. For the reasons so thoroughly and persuasively argued on Wednesday, this clause, like the rest of Part 4, should not stand part of the Bill.

Section 68 of the 1994 Act, as amended by the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, is the offence of aggravated trespass, where

“A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land, does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect … of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity … of obstructing that activity, or … of disrupting that activity.”


I am getting the sense of hunt saboteurs, HS2 protestors or, perhaps, those protesting against genetically modified crops, rather than Gypsy, Roma and Travellers. Section 68 appears to me to refer to deliberate interference with lawful activity by means of trespass, rather than coincidental interference; for example, ploughing a field that travellers are trespassing on. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, I am not a lawyer, but perhaps the Minister can clarify the difference between Section 68 and what we have been talking about up until now.

As far as Amendment 150 is concerned, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, explained, it attempts to correct an error in existing legislation. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that the activity being disrupted should be and needs to be unlawful, rather than the trespasser simply asserting that he believes that it should not be happening. I am not sure that the accused should have to prove that they were not trespassing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has said, that seems to be going perhaps a bit too far. We support the amendment in principle, in as far as the activity on the land that is being disrupted needs to be unlawful, rather than just being asserted as being unlawful.

As we leave this part of the Bill, I want to again acknowledge the long and tireless campaign by the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, to defend Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. I fear that, at Report, we may need to adopt a different approach than simply removing all the clauses in Part 4 from the Bill, in the light of what the Minister said on Wednesday, at Hansard col. 1330, when she quoted from the Conservative Party manifesto:

“We will give the police new powers to arrest and seize the property and vehicles of trespassers who set up unauthorised encampments, in order to protect our communities. We will make intentional trespass a criminal offence.”


That is very interesting wording. New powers do not necessarily mean more draconian powers. I respectfully suggest that on Report this House should bring forward new powers that provide the necessary protections for all our communities, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities. For example—I quote from the manifesto—it could be argued that making

“intentional trespass a criminal offence”

entirely supports Amendment 135 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, providing that, where Travellers have no suitable legal pitch on a relevant caravan site situated in the local authority’s area, the trespass should not be regarded as intentional.

It is absolutely right that we, and many others in this Committee, express our outright opposition to Part 4 as drafted but, when we return to these issues on Report, it will be with more sophisticated amendments to take account of the wording in the Conservative Party manifesto—and the convention of not blocking, at least not entirely, commitments made by the governing party in their manifesto—that protect all communities, including Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be relatively brief. We had a lengthy debate on the previous day in Committee about Part 4 on unauthorised encampments, and expressed our strong concerns about what is proposed in Part 4. I will just reiterate a couple of points. Certainly, our understanding is that the police seem to think the existing law adequate; indeed, so do local government officers who have direct involvement with the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, put forward Amendment 150 on the basis that it is putting right a wrong. The obvious concern is that, in so doing, it creates new wrongs or new unfairness, not least in relation to the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma community. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, probably quite rightly said that much of the debate might suggest that this amendment was aimed at others, perhaps those involved in protests over GM crops or HS2. Certainly, it involves a change as far as the onus of proof of the accused is concerned. The noble and learned Lord said that he is not going to press the amendment to a vote in Committee. I hope I am not misrepresenting what he said, but I think he said he would wait for the Minister’s response before deciding how and if to progress the matter further. We have our concerns about Amendment 150 and what exactly it might mean, but at this stage we stand in the same position as him: we will wait to hear what the Minister says on behalf of the Government in response to Amendment 150. At the moment we have fairly strong reservations about its implications, but we will listen to what the Government have to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I do not intend to stand here and announce our 100% support for what is proposed. We are interested in the issues raised and certainly look forward to the Government’s reply. To state the obvious, I say that local councils are key partners and innovators in improving road safety and encouraging the use of different modes of transport. What is proposed is quite a major step forward from that.

I will add one point, to which the answer may well be that the solution is obvious. Simply, if we end up with new powers or duties in this area being granted to local authorities, they must be accompanied by funding. The reply may be, “Well, of course they’ll get the money, because they’ll get it from any fines they might impose”, but it may not be quite as straightforward as that. Making such a move might put a bigger burden and workload on local authorities than might be envisaged. If people are thinking of going down this road, they should make sure that, from whatever source it may be coming, the funding is available.

As I recollect, the Government have plans, for which local authorities have been waiting a little while, to increase local authority powers to manage local roads, under the Traffic Management Act 2004. If I am right, will the Minister give us an update on where we stand on that and what kind of issues the Government are considering as part of any such plans? As part of that, have the Government looked at the issue of speeding enforcement—as suggested in these amendments—at local authority level when looking at any planned increases to local authority powers in this area? As I said at the beginning, we are interested in the issues raised by these amendments and look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I apologise to the Committee: I was not going to say anything, but I could not resist. There is clearly an issue with people receiving endorsements on driving licences and potentially being disqualified from driving not being dealt with in the criminal courts and through the appeal process that they provide. On the issue around lack of enforcement, does the Minister have any information about the potential use of speed cameras in 20 miles per hour zones to increase enforcement and to what extent speed cameras are self-financing, in terms of the money they generate versus the cost of running them?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Earl is far more responsible than a police officer because I can take him to police officers in London who will say that all crimes in London are committed by black people.

My noble friend Lady Brinton also reminded the Committee that there are existing laws to deal with these situations. That goes to the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, raised. The National Police Chiefs’ Council has said that existing laws are adequate. The police say that more laws are not needed for this sort of offence. If the police are saying that, why are the Government bringing forward this legislation?

Rather than go through all these amendments, all I will say is that I agree with what my noble friends and other noble Lords have said. Part 4 should be removed from the Bill in its entirety because existing legislation is more than adequate.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Whitaker on her powerful and persuasive speech introducing her amendments and opening this debate, as we expected it would be. As the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, my noble friend has been a determined campaigner on behalf of the Gypsy and Traveller communities.

As has been said, Part 4 relates to unauthorised encampments, which it criminalises, creating an offence if someone resides or intends to reside on land without consent in or with a vehicle. The Bill also gives landowners a role in criminalising a person who is trespassing, strengthens police powers to deal with unauthorised encampments, prohibits a person re-entering land without a reasonable excuse within 12 months and gives the police the right to seize property, including people’s caravans, which could be a family’s primary residence. The Bill also amends police powers associated with unauthorised encampments in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act to lower the threshold at which they can be used, allow the police to remove unauthorised encampments on or partly on highways and prohibit unauthorised encampments that are moved from a site returning within 12 months.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, first, I have absolutely no doubt about the Minister’s commitment to dealing with the sorts of offences we are talking about today, particularly violence against women and girls. I also have absolutely no doubt about the Government’s commitment to tackling those issues. This makes the Bill even more puzzling. We support all the amendments in this group, but I want to look at this from a slightly different angle.

This group of amendments is intended to ensure that certain categories of crime are always included in the serious violence duty. It raises the wider issue of what this whole chapter of the Bill is about. Crime and disorder partnerships—noble Lords will know from previous debates that I am quite keen on these—have for many years been responsible for a multiagency approach to preventing and tackling crime and disorder in their areas, including serious violence. They have the advantage of being able to assess what local needs are and prioritise the crime and disorder that is a particular problem in their areas.

In light of these well-established existing partnerships, one must ask why there is a need for an additional serious violence duty. There has been much concern about knife crime in recent years and Scotland has demonstrated how successful a public health approach to the problem can be, where police enforcement is just part of a multiagency, multipronged approach to tackling knife crime. There may be characteristics of the knife crime problem in Scotland and solutions tailored to tackle them there that may not be completely transferrable to other parts of the UK, but the general principle is sound: law enforcement is only one of many approaches that need to be brought to bear on a problem.

If the Government were focusing solely on this type of serious violence, one could understand, in the face of the growing public concern, that a public health approach to knife crime might be mandated—but that is not what the Bill says. However, there are clues in other parts of the Bill that that is what the Government were initially thinking. For example, we will shortly come on to offensive weapon homicide reviews and serious violence prevention orders, which are all about knife crime.

The Bill talks about serious violence generally, including threats of serious violence but excluding terrorism. It goes on to talk—in Clause 12(4)—about a list of factors that must be taken into account, such as: the maximum penalty that a court could impose; the impact on the victim; the prevalence of the violence in the area, and the impact on the community. Presumably, other factors could be considered when the local area is considering its own serious violence. This effectively makes any violence serious—for example, hate crime. Hate crime should be considered serious violence because, by definition, it has a serious impact on the victim.

Amendment 55, from the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, says that domestic abuse, domestic homicides and sexual offences should always be included in the serious violence duty. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, how can any of these offences not be considered serious violence? If the Government do not accept this amendment, can the Minister say what types of domestic abuse, domestic murder or sexual offence are not serious, or in what areas they are not far too prevalent? Amendment 56 also includes stalking, for the reasons that my noble friend Lady Brinton so powerfully argued.

Amendment 57, from the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe, includes all violence that results in emergency hospital treatment, or GBH—for very good reasons. As I mentioned in discussion on an earlier group, as the noble Lord did just now, the Cardiff model—that of sharing depersonalised accident and emergency information on knife and gun crime with the police—has proved invaluable. Furthermore, as the definition of serious violence includes threats of serious violence, my noble friend Lady Hamwee is quite right to point out that social media and other electronic communication—the impact of which may go beyond the geographic area for which the authorities that have a serious violence duty have responsibility—require a duty that goes beyond a single area.

In defining serious violence in such a wide way, the Government must either accept that all violence has the potential to be serious, or risk being accused of saying that violence associated with hate crime, violence against women and girls, domestic violence, and almost any other form of violence, is not serious, or should not be treated as serious in every police area.

What the Government should have done, and what they should do now, is go back and look at crime and disorder partnerships, which are already established and responsible for preventing and tackling all forms of crime and disorder—as their consultation on this issue said they should. They should look at where crime and disorder partnerships need to be strengthened —whether, perhaps, to include partners not currently involved—or where legislation needs to be changed to facilitate co-operation and the exchange of information, instead of mandating others to provide information to the police to enable a police-led enforcement approach to tackling serious violence—whatever that means. Of course, we will support all the amendments in this group for as long as the Government continue with such a broad definition of serious violence.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I await with interest the Government’s response to all the amendments in this group. My name also appears on Amendment 55, which, at the beginning of this debate, was so ably and comprehensively moved, as we knew it would be, by the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin. This issue was raised by the shadow Minister for Policing in the House of Commons, and I only hope it receives a more enthusiastic hearing from the Government in this House, given that it is being presented with such strong cross-party support across the House.

The serious violence duty introduced by this Bill, as we know, requires local authorities, the police, fire and rescue authorities, specified criminal justice agencies and health authorities to work together to formulate an evidence-based analysis of the problems associated with serious violence in a local area and then produce and implement a strategy detailing how they will respond to those particular issues. Prison, youth custody and education authorities may also need to work with these core partners.

As more than one noble Lord has said, the amendment is clear and straightforward in its intention, which is to make clear in the Bill that the definition of serious violence for the purpose of the serious violence prevention duty includes domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual offences. That begs the question of why this amendment is necessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, said, and he was not the only one, is it not obvious that domestic abuse, homicide and sexual offences must come within the definition of serious violence? Apparently it is not. Despite domestic abuse representing one-third of violent crime recorded by the police and despite 20% of all adult homicides and 50% of adult homicides where the victim is female being domestic homicides, the Government’s serious violence strategy does not recognise domestic abuse and sexual violence as forms of serious violence.

No doubt, that is one explanation why between April 2014 and March 2020 the annual number of domestic abuse-flagged cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police fell by 37%, with similar declines in prosecutions and convictions. No doubt, it is also one explanation why over the same period of time the annual number of prosecutions in rape-flagged cases fell by 55% and the annual number of convictions fell by 44%. No doubt, also, it is one explanation why in the year ended March 2020 only 9% of domestic abuse-related crimes and 1.4% of rape-flagged cases recorded by the police led to a charge or summons.

This Bill’s proposed serious violence prevention duty places a requirement on public authorities to collate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. While Clause 12 explicitly includes some named forms of violence, such as violence against property and threats of violence, to ensure that they are regarded as a form of violent crime across the board, violence against women and girls is not put in the same category, even though rates of domestic abuse and sexual violence, as so many other noble Lords have said, are consistent across England and Wales and do not vary greatly from one area to another.

Instead, intended Home Office guidance simply says that local areas can consider violence against women and girls as part of the new duty if they choose to and not that it is expected. Clearly, the Home Office is not too fussed one way or the other what areas decide on this very serious issue. There are attacks on statutes, and the Home Office gets very troubled. There are violent domestic attacks on human beings, particularly women, and the Home Office, however different the reality may be, appears so laid back that it wants to leave it to other people to make their own decisions on whether to regard these attacks as serious violence. It appears to want to leave it to other people to decide whether these dreadful attacks come within the scope of the serious violence prevention duty and the requirement on a range of public bodies, including local statutory agencies and the police, to work together to prevent and tackle serious violence with the aim of reducing the numbers of victims and perpetrators of such dreadful crimes.

Explicitly including domestic abuse, domestic homicide and sexual violence in the sexual violence reduction duty and its multi-agency approach would send a clear message to the police, prosecutors and a range of statutory agencies, including local agencies, that violence against women and girls is just not acceptable and that they all have to play a crucial role in tackling it.

At the moment there appears to be a distinction within the criminal justice system so that violence that takes place in the home or at the hands of an intimate partner is regarded as less serious than violence perpetrated in the public sphere. Only around one-half of police forces, as I understand it, have opted to take up Women’s Aid’s Domestic Abuse Matters specialised training on domestic abuse. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, said, only eight of the 18 violence reduction units established in police force areas, which are funded by the Home Office and considered forerunners to the new violence prevention duty, name domestic abuse in their strategies.

Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

[Inaudible]—are at a record low and domestic abuse in this country continues to increase, but charging continues to fall. According to Ofsted, sexual abuse in schools is becoming the norm. Ending abuse against women and girls is a cross-party issue on which all sides of this House wish to see progress. Unfortunately, the strategy the Government have outlined in their Statement falls short. We need ambition that matches the scale of the problem.

I again raise the concern that many have raised before: that the Government have regarded the violence against women and girls strategy as being separate from domestic abuse when, in reality, they are unavoidably interconnected. A policing lead on violence against women and girls is certainly welcome, but we already have one for domestic abuse, one for rape and sex offences, another for historical sexual abuse and one for child sex abuse. This policing lead, we are told, will be full time, unlike the others, and is in line with the recommendation last week from the inspectorate.

The Minister in the Commons yesterday seemed unable to answer questions about how the policing lead would work, including what the relationship would be with the inspectorate in respect of their investigations. What resources and powers will this new full-time policing lead have? Will the individual have the same resources and powers as the other policing leads, or will they have more extensive resources and powers? If so, what will they be?

On plans for the rape helpline, how prompt will the response be via the helpline in linking a victim to specialist support? How long a wait time will we consider acceptable? In the Commons yesterday, the Minister said in the Statement:

“we will be launching a multi-million-pound national communications campaign with a focus on targeting perpetrators and harmful misogynistic attitudes, educating young people about healthy relationships, and ensuring that victims can access support.”

How many millions of pounds will be allocated to the campaign? When will it start and how long will it last? By what criteria will the success or otherwise of the campaign be judged? Crucially, who will the department engage with and consult on the content and design of the campaign? The Minister in the Commons also said the Government had

“launched a specific safety of women at night fund worth £5 million to ensure that women do not face violence in public spaces at night.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1084.]

What exactly will that £5 million deliver? Over what period of time will it be spent and how will its impact be judged?

The Statement says that the Government will

“review options to limit use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment in higher education”,

which is welcome. Why, then, is there nothing about non-disclosure agreements in workplaces, where women are still being abused and silenced—completely legally—in our country?

The Minister asserted in the Commons that

“there are legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in workplaces.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1087.]

That may be, but there are also non-legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in the workplace, including in relation to the sexual harassment of women. What action do the Government intend to take over these agreements? Should the Government not think about taking the side of women who have been subject to sexual harassment in the workplace?

Why is there no national strategy for, or inclusion in this strategy of, adult victims of sexual exploitation? Where do these women find their experiences in this strategy? There is nothing but a gap. The only passing reference comes where the Government say they are going to ask porn sites to voluntarily do better on exploitation—do not hold your breath on that one if it involves a potential loss of money.

Where is the much-needed public sexual harassment law? The Government have said they think offences exist already. That will certainly be of real comfort to the two-thirds of young women who tell us they are suffering abuse every day. Home Office statistics show that 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. What is going to be done to address this alarming situation and the apparent lack of trust between victims and the policing system?

We need to make sure that women and girls, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, are safe and able to feel safe. The violence against women and girls strategy expects services to be able to deliver without any serious funding to deliver it. If that is wrong and there is such additional long-term funding to deliver this strategy, could the Government say how much it will be, and over what period of time?

What is clear is that, on every single step of their journey, women and girls are being failed—and, today, it feels as if the Government do not have enough of a plan to manage that. The Labour Party has worked up a green paper for ending violence against women and girls. We have set out, among many other things, toughening sentences for rape, stalking and domestic murder, and reviewing sentences for all domestic abuse. We have set about introducing a survivor’s support package to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, end-to-end legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help they need. We also suggest the creation, as quickly as possible, of new offences for street harassment.

Clearly, the Government do not expect any early results from their strategy, since the Minister in the Commons said that she was prepared to wait until the end of this decade to see

“changes in the attitudes, misogynistic and otherwise, that underpin so much of this offending behaviour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1087.]

The chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee summed it up very well in the Commons yesterday when she said:

“Much of this feels very incremental—just limited pilots and evidence gathering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1090.]

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, before I start, I wish all noble Lords, and especially the Minister, a well-deserved, restful and restorative Recess. However, before we get there, such is the importance that this Government place on violence against women and girls that this strategy was announced in the other place at 7 pm yesterday—or, as the Minister in the other place put it,

“at an unusual hour, I think it is fair to say, of the parliamentary day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]

And here we are—last business before the Summer Recess.

A strategy should include a coherent set of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely objectives, rather than what appears to be the result of a “board blast”, where every possible option is thrown in the paper. The Minister in the other place said that the strategy would build on the

“progress we have made in recent years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]

She cited London as being the first major capital city in the world to publish a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London.

The current Mayor of London said this year that the capital’s streets were not safe for women and girls, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in response to his comments, said that the streets of London were

“not safe for everyone all of the time”.

Is that the sort of progress that the Statement referred to?

We have seen an incoherent collection of random ideas before, with the serious violence strategy published by the Government in April 2018. The difficulty is that success should be measured in terms of outcomes, not outputs. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in terms of outcomes that strategy has had on levels of violent crime in the past three years?

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, the Statement says that the strategy includes a

“multi-million-pound … communications campaign”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1084.]

It also talks about a £5 million safety of women at night fund, and talks about the broader, £25 million safer streets fund. Exactly what does “multi-million-pound” amount to? How many millions? The Statement is quite specific on the other initiatives, so why not on this one?

The Statement says that the Government will continue to back the police to catch perpetrators of violence against women and girls and bring them to justice, and that they have given the police more powers, more resources and more officers. How much more are this Government currently giving the police in real terms compared with 2010? What is the current establishment of police officers and community support officers in England and Wales—who are the visible policing presence on the street—compared with 2010? Although it is not just how much money is being spent but how it is spent that it is important, can the Minister tell the House exactly how much new money is specifically being targeted on reducing violence against women and girls, in support of this strategy?

It is abundantly clear what the problem is with violence against women and girls: it is the attitude of men, the culture in our society, and the belief among many men that they can do whatever they like to women because they can. They can because they are, on average, physically stronger, and they do not fear the consequences, whether disapproval from their peers or wider society, or effective sanction—whether by the criminal justice system, employers or institutions, including schools, political parties or religious organisations.

Too many men are likely to be given an encouraging slap on the back by other men for abusing women and girls, rather than condemnation. Every single person and every single organisation needs to say clearly and unambiguously that any abuse of women and girls, particularly male violence against them, is totally unacceptable. In particular, male leaders, especially political leaders, must set an example—not by being one of the lads, but by treating women and girls with dignity and respect. Noble Lords will not have to think very hard or for very long to think of an example.

We made drinking and driving socially unacceptable, and we need to make even verbal abuse of women and girls equally unacceptable, including making street harassment a specific criminal offence. We need every man to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I wish to pay tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan. It is only as a result of their utter determination to see justice done that the independent panel was finally set up, 26 years after Daniel’s horrific murder. Now, 34 years after his murder, we have its report, revealing appalling truths relating to the various police investigations that would never otherwise have been so comprehensively and forensically exposed; truths which make clear why still nobody has been brought to justice for Daniel’s murder, and probably never will be. The delay of eight years in completing and publishing the panel’s report only made matters even harder for the family, but it is to be hoped that its findings, justifying their determined stance, will provide some solace.

I wish to express our appreciation as well for the hard work done by the panel and for its report, and not least for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It does not seem that the work it did, with the barriers it faced, involved an exactly smooth and stress-free process. The report is devastating in what it reveals about the conduct, role, approach and competence of the Metropolitan Police Service, which was found by the panel to have concealed or denied failings for the sake of its public image. It was found that this was dishonesty on the part of an organisation for reputational benefit and constituted a form of institutional corruption.

It is a conclusion that has already been abruptly rejected by the MPS as continuing to still apply, even though it has still to meet the Home Secretary’s requirement for the commissioner to submit a report setting out the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the findings and recommendations of the independent panel. Would the Government say, first, when that MPS response has to be with the Home Secretary, and, secondly, if that written response from the MPS will be placed before Parliament, unamended and unredacted?

The overwhelming majority of MPS officers and staff will be gutted by the findings of the report. Certainly, my involvement with the MPS, as a participant in the parliamentary police scheme, left me with nothing but admiration for the way MPS officers and staff under- take their work on our behalf.

When the panel was set up by the then Home Secretary in 2013, it was expected to complete its work within 12 months of relevant documentation being made available. Instead, it took eight years, with the last relevant material not being forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police until March this year. The panel was not set up under the Inquiries Act, which would have given it statutory powers in relation to its investigation—not least over non co-operation—including powers over timely disclosure of documents and compelling people to appear before it to give evidence. The report is very blunt about the attitude of the Metropolitan Police Service towards the panel, saying that, at times, the force treated panel members as though they were litigants in a case against them. Can the Government say why the panel was left to carry out its work with one arm tied behind its back, as far as its powers were concerned? Would the Government also say if the Home Office was aware of the difficulties the panel was having in carrying out its work with the Metropolitan Police Service, and, if so, when did it become aware and what action did any Home Secretary then take, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the police service?

That brings me on to a further statement in the panel report, on page 1138, which says:

“The relationship with the different officials who have been Senior Sponsor … since 2013 has been positive, but the relationship with the Home Office as a department has been more challenging.”


Would the Government say in their response whether the Home Office was aware of the specific issues of concern in relation to the Home Office, referred to on page 1138 of the report, and, if so, what action was taken to resolve them and then to ensure that no similar situation could arise again? One would have thought, bearing in mind that the panel was established in 2013 by the then Home Secretary, that the Home Office would have given its full backing and support to the panel. Clearly, that was not the case.

The Home Secretary told the Commons that she was asking the Inspectorate of Constabulary to look into the issues raised by the independent panel’s report. What are the exact terms of reference that have been given on this to the inspectorate?

The Home Secretary also said that she would return to update Parliament on progress made on the recommendations in the report, which include a duty of candour, greater protection for whistleblowers, more effective vetting procedures and adequate provision of resources to deal with corruption, once she had

“received responses from the Metropolitan Police and others.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col.128]

Would the Government spell out exactly who “and others” covers, and whether that means the Home Secretary does not intend to return to the Commons with an update until she has received a response from all those, however many they may be, covered by “and others”?

Will oral updates to Parliament be given at regular intervals on progress being made in the light of the panel recommendations and other responses? One of the panel recommendations is a statutory duty of candour. Will the Government confirm that that recommendation, along with others about a requirement for co-operation from public bodies, will be implemented in time for the inquiry into the Covid pandemic?

Finally, would the Government say what further action they intend to take to provide justice for Daniel Morgan and his family? They are the ones who have been denied justice for 34 years. Public trust and confidence in our police are crucial, not least for policing by consent. The Government need to ensure that this kind of appalling episode can never happen again. Will the Government confirm that that is their objective in considering the findings and recommendations of the panel report, and that regular oral updates will be given to Parliament on how and to what timescale that objective is being delivered?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on her report and her patience. I apologise to the Morgan family for the way an organisation I was part of for over 30 years has conducted itself. The only points I wish to make are that this report chimes exactly with my professional and personal experience, that this report needs to be taken seriously, and that urgent action needs to be taken as a result. The Metropolitan Police puts its own reputation before openness, honesty and the pursuit of justice, and those who are telling the truth are ostracised and forced out.

Let me give noble Lords another example. In 2005, as a police officer holding the fourth highest rank in the Metropolitan Police, I gave evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into whether the Metropolitan Police has misled the family of Jean Charles de Menezes after he was mistakenly shot and killed by the police following the London bombings. The then commissioner had told the media that both he and all those advising him believed for 24 hours after the shooting that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, when, in fact, five hours after the shooting, his closest advisers had told me that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent. Noble Lords will recall the trial of the Metropolitan Police for health and safety breaches, where the Met digitally altered the image of the suspect it was pursuing to make it look more like de Menezes and claimed mistaken identity.

After an uneasy truce of about 18 months, I was side- lined from being in day-to-day charge of 20,000 officers to overseeing a project with 20 officers because the commissioner had lost confidence in me. He had done so because I told the truth. As a police inspector, I was told that I was too honest to be a senior police officer, and 20 years later I found out that that was true. That was the culture of the Metropolitan Police then, and this report tells us that it is the culture of the Metropolitan Police now. It highlights various types of corruption, including what it describes as “incontrovertibly corrupt behaviour”, such as selling stories to press contacts and planting false evidence.

Research that I saw when I was a serving police officer showed that when there were surges in recruitment, as there was 30 years after the end of the Second World War and again 30 years later, there were significant increases in misconduct in those cohorts of recruits, increasing in seriousness as they secured important investigative positions within the organisation. The usual peak for misconduct was between 10 to 15 years’ service. In the early 2000s the peak was between nought and two years’ service. The report is right to highlight vetting systems, but this is nothing new. Why have the Government not taken action to address this recurring problem in the police service?

The report also highlights what it describes as a form of institutional corruption, failings in police investigations, unjustified reassurances rather than candour and a culture of obfuscation. The panel describes hurdles placed in its path, such as a refusal to recognise the necessity to have access to the HOLMES computer database, limiting access to the most sensitive information and even failing to provide a copy of the London homicide manual. It set out how murder investigations should have been conducted at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder, and its existence was not even revealed to the panel until December 2020.

The Metropolitan Police were able to claim repeatedly that the initial Daniel Morgan murder investigation was in accordance with the standards of investigation at the time by concealing the manual that proved that it was not investigated in accordance with the standards of investigation at that time. This is how the Metropolitan Police acts now, under its current leadership. This is not just about a few corrupt police officers who thwarted a murder investigation in 1987 or even the further corruption identified after a subsequent investigation; this is about a culture that enables corruption to thrive. The kind of institutional corruption identified in this report is not some kind of academic construct, an isolated incident of a few corrupt officers. It is the tip of an iceberg that threatens to undermine policing by consent in this country. That is a matter for the Government and the Home Secretary, and it must be urgently addressed.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who moved the successful amendment on migrant women and recourse to public funds during the first stage of ping-pong in this House on the Domestic Abuse Bill last Wednesday, regrets that she cannot be here in person today. I pay tribute to the work that she has done—and will, I am sure, continue to do—on this issue. On her behalf, I have been asked to say the following, which also reflects my feelings:

“I would urge the Government to consider all victims of domestic abuse as victims first. It is therefore regrettable that recourse to public funds has not been made available to a small but extremely vulnerable group of migrant victims. That said, at this stage, we accept that it has not been possible to add this to the Bill. We hope that when the pilot scheme comes to an end, careful note will be taken of the results. The organisations providing support and hope to these migrant victims must be consulted, and we would do well to listen well to their experience.”

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for championing this issue.

Again, I will boil this down to its essence. The refusal of the Government to offer equal protection to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, which is the effect of their rejection of the Lords amendment, is a clear breach of the Istanbul convention. As I said when we considered these matters last time, this Government cannot claim that this is a landmark Bill when they continue to treat those with irregular immigration status less favourably. These are some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse.

We are unable to take this matter further today, but the Government cannot avoid ratifying the Istanbul convention much longer without serious reputational damage.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 21st April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I start by joining other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who has been a passionate campaigner on these issues. I was going to say that she had stepped down from the Front Bench, but she has stepped up to bigger and better things in the House, and I personally will miss her greatly.

Lords Amendment 41 would have provided a route for victims of domestic abuse who are subject to immigration control to be given the opportunity to apply for leave to remain—not given leave to remain but given the opportunity to apply—by allowing them to stay in the UK pending the outcome of their application and to be supported financially during this time. Many of these victims are reliant on their abusive partner for support, making escape from domestic abuse almost impossible. Initially, the Government said the reason they objected was that they thought people might falsely claim to be victims of domestic abuse in order to seek leave to remain in the UK. Again, we have to ask: what is more important, protecting vulnerable victims of domestic abuse or immigration control? The Commons reason is simply

“Because the Amendment would involve a charge on public funds”.


The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester has presented an alternative amendment, a very modest amendment, that seeks to address all the concerns the Government have previously expressed. There is a £1.5 million 12-month pilot supporting such victims of domestic abuse, and the amendment simply ensures that, during the pilot period, victims are not turned down because of a lack of funds. It then sets a timetable for the introduction of a permanent solution once the results of the pilot have been evaluated. The amendment comprehensively sets out the evidence necessary to show that someone is a genuine victim of domestic abuse. This alternative amendment is the very least the Government should do for these particularly vulnerable victims of domestic abuse, and we would support the right reverend Prelate were she to divide the House.

Lords Amendment 43 would have ensured that all victims of domestic abuse received equal protection and support irrespective of their status, including their immigration status. The Commons reason for disagreeing was that it would

“involve a charge on public funds”.

Indeed it might—but it would also have been a significant step towards the UK finally being able to ratify the Istanbul convention. The noble Baroness, Lady Helic, has proposed an alternative amendment that would at least ensure that local authorities consider the needs of all victims, including migrant women, when they make strategic decisions about tackling domestic abuse. This cannot be the landmark Bill the Government intend it to be unless it puts the final pieces into place to enable the UK to ratify the Istanbul convention. I recall an expression my mother was fond of: “Don’t spoil the ship for a ha’porth of tar.”

I was hoping that this Bill could be, like the Modern Slavery Act, a magnificent piece of legislation of which all sides of the House could be justifiably proud. We have already vastly improved the Bill in this House; it would be a shame if we now left it less than watertight.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

As we have heard, Lords Amendments 41 and 43 were both disagreed by the Commons because they would involve a charge on public funds. The Commons did not offer any further reason. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, have now tabled Amendments F1 and F2. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, provides that local authorities “must have regard” to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention when they are preparing their strategy for accommodation-based services under the Bill. Article 4(3) of the convention provides that protection for victims must be secured without discrimination based on any ground such as race, religion or migrant status. We support the aim of this amendment, which also serves to remind the Government of their commitment to ratify the vital Istanbul convention, for which they have not yet set a timeframe. Perhaps we will hear something definite on this point in the Government’s response to this amendment.

Immigration

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

The Statement is apparently geared to what the Government describe as “illegal immigration”. In the Commons, the Home Secretary referred to “a broken system”—the Government’s words. After nearly 11 years in office, it is this Government who are responsible for the present system and its consequences, and it is time that the Government accepted their failings.

In 2010, the Government’s policy was to reduce net migration below 100,000. That policy—whether one agreed with it or not—was not implemented. We have never had an explanation from the Government as to why, nor will we have one today, because they will not wish to admit that it would have damaged our economy. It was certainly nothing to do with membership of the EU and free movement, because that was a known factor at the time when the policy was drawn up. That policy was clearly not drawn up with the intention that it would be implemented; it was simply because the Government wanted to attract headlines for sounding tough on reducing the number of people coming to this country. Time will tell whether the real purpose of this Statement falls into the same category.

We have a broken system because, over the last decade, the Government have been more interested in sounding tough to secure headlines than in addressing the broken system over which they now admit they have presided for some years and continue to preside. The Statement says that the Government’s current broken system

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection. This is manifestly unfair to those desperately waiting to be resettled in the UK.”

It also refers to the system being overwhelmed, and to the

“persistent failure to enforce our immigration laws”.

Who exactly do the Government think is responsible for that failure which they have now recognised? The Statement also refers to the

“pathway to citizenship to enable over five million people in Hong Kong to come to the UK.”

We welcome this. Five million is somewhat larger than the 16,000 unauthorised arrivals detected in the UK in 2019 and which apparently

“limits our ability to properly support others in genuine need of protection.”

This assumes that none of the 16,000 is also in need of protection because they are fleeing war and persecution or, in the Government’s view, even worthy of protection simply because of the way in which they have reached this country.

The Hong Kong pathway is evidence of the need for safe, legal routes for those in need of refuge. Can the Government say how many of the 5 million eligible people in Hong Kong they expect to come to the UK? The policy statement says that

“an estimated 320,000 people [may] come to the UK over the next five years.”

How was that estimate arrived at and how many is it estimated may come from Hong Kong to the UK after the first five years? Can the Government also confirm that there is no restriction on the numbers of people in Hong Kong who are rightly allowed to come to the UK being able to do so?

The Statement says that, under the Government’s broken system, 109,000 claims are sitting in the asylum queue. No doubt, this is—at least in part—because the Government have allowed the share of applications receiving an initial decision within six months to fall from 87% in 2014 to just 20% in 2019. Why did the Government let that happen? Why are so many appeals successful? Are the Government going to tell us that it is all the fault of “leftie lawyers” or will they at last accept responsibility for the system which they now describe as “broken” and “collapsing”?

The Government have previously told us about pending agreements with France to stop criminal gangs involved in the terrible crime of human trafficking. What has happened to those promised agreements? The Statement is silent on that issue, though the policy statement tells us that, in 2019, 32,000 attempts to enter the UK by unauthorised groups were prevented in northern France.

The Government have previously referred to those who have arrived here through non-recognised routes being returned to the first country in which they could have sought asylum, or to another country. With which countries have the Government reached agreement to take back those seeking asylum who have arrived here through non-recognised routes? Is it their view of the provisions of international law and of the Refugee Convention that refugees fleeing war and persecution have to claim asylum in the first safe country through which they pass, and that they have no right to transit through another country to get to this country to claim asylum? Many would disagree with this stance is correct or right, but is it the Government’s position?

What safe and legal routes currently exist by which refugees, including children, can reach this country, following our departure from the EU and the ending of the Dublin arrangements? This is on top of the earlier abrupt cessation of the Dubs scheme. Is there any limit on the number of refugees who can come to the UK by safe and legal routes? If so, what is it? If there are no, or minimal, safe and legal routes, that is only going to make dangerous and unauthorised entries to this country, including through traffickers—whether by small boat, air, in the back of a lorry or a shipping container—more, not less likely.

The Government claim that, since our departure from the EU, we have control of our borders. Does that mean that implementing what is set out in the Statement is not dependent on reaching agreements with any other countries? Does claiming that we have control of our borders mean that, at all our ports of entry, the level of checks will be such that the likelihood of successful, unauthorised entry into this country is minimal?

Finally, how will success or failure of the policies set out in the Statement be judged? What will be the criteria, yardsticks and statistics against which the Government will make this assessment?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement claims to have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement. Not only can EU citizens continue to enter the UK without a visa, using the e-passport gates at UK airports, but rather than taking back control of legal immigration the Government have extended the use of these e-passport gates to a further seven countries. Before, citizens of those countries had to have a valid reason for entry, enough money to sustain them and evidence that they would leave again. As a result, thousands were turned away at the UK border every year. Can the Minister say what checks are now done on these visitors?

The Statement says that people are dying at sea. Is this not because safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers are inadequate or non-existent? How many safe and legal routes are open to genuine asylum seekers? Can the Minister explain how vulnerable people in a war zone can apply under such a scheme? What advice does she have for legitimate seekers of sanctuary in those parts of the world with no safe and legal routes to the UK?

The Statement says that the UK’s asylum system should be based on need. Yet the Government propose to set up a two-tier system, based not on need or the validity of someone’s claim but on how they got to the UK. Are the Government aware of Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? It states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”


Are the Government’s proposals to penalise those who do not use safe and legal routes—routes which do not currently exist and for which the Government have no firm plans or timetable—not in contravention of its international obligations?

The Statement talks about someone illegally entering the UK from France. Can the Minister say on which piece of legislation the Government rely when they claim that asylum seekers who travel through a safe country to get to the UK can only claim asylum in that safe country? Even if they had claimed asylum in an EU country, what mechanism will the Government use to deport them, now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin regulation?

The Statement claims that the immigration system “is collapsing” under the pressure of asylum applications. In the early 2000s, around 100,000 people a year were claiming asylum in the UK. In 2020, it was 36,000—a reduction of almost two-thirds, despite an increase in the number of people crossing the channel in small boats. Is the reason that the system is collapsing not channel crossings but Home Office mismanagement? Is the reason for the increase in channel crossings not due to the fact that people can no longer claim asylum from outside the UK?

Can the Minister confirm how many of the 42,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country are in the process of appealing a Home Office decision, when, on average, 50% of those claims are usually successful? Of those who have exhausted the legal process, why has the Home Office not deported them?

This is not a common-sense approach to controlling immigration. This Statement highlights a catalogue of government failures, along with an illegal proposal to discriminate against those legally seeking sanctuary in the UK and a hollow promise to help the most vulnerable at some unspecified date in the future. The policy has thrown open the UK border to even more countries while slamming the door shut on genuine asylum seekers. I have the greatest respect for the Minister—even though she rises in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

Policing and Prevention of Violence against Women

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I would first like to express our heartfelt condolences and sympathy to the family and friends of Sarah Everard. Her tragic and appalling death has shocked and shaken us all, as the reaction to it has shown. We know that, much as we might want to think we can fully understand the turmoil and unbridled grief her family and friends are going through, in reality there is no way we can.

The pictures and media reports of what happened on Saturday during the policing of the vigil at Clapham Common have rightly led to many expressions of concern. The Inspectorate of Constabulary is undertaking a lessons-learned investigation and we await its findings. I would appreciate the Minister indicating first when those findings are expected and, secondly, that they will be made public. It also seems that the Home Secretary had discussions with the Metropolitan Police about the vigil and that she subsequently asked for a report on what happened from the commissioner. Will that report be made public?



Can the Government say what the purpose was of the discussions that the Home Secretary had with the Metropolitan Police prior to and about the vigil? The Home Secretary has said that operational issues are a matter for the police, so can we have an assurance that the Home Secretary did not seek to influence the commissioner on what the operational decisions on the policing of the vigil should be? Is there a record of those discussions, and will it be made public?

The tragic death of Sarah Everard and the apparent circumstances surrounding it have highlighted the fears felt extensively by women and girls over their personal safety, and the extent of the harassment, abuse and violence, including fatal violence, that they face on an all too regular basis from men. To say that a solution is for women to stay indoors and be more careful is completely unacceptable. The solution lies in men changing cultures and attitudes towards women and leading that change. It is not women who should change their behaviour. It is men and wider society that must change.

It is clear that the Government have failed in their role of creating an environment in which women and girls do not walk around in fear outside and live in fear inside. The Statement by the Home Secretary goes to some lengths to set out what the Government believe that they have done, and what they propose to do, to ensure that women and girls can feel safe. It is a very defensive part of the Statement. That the Government felt it necessary to put it in the Statement at such length says it all.

Interestingly, the Statement makes no reference to the reduction in the number of front-line police officers over the last decade, which the Government are now trying to reverse, no reference to the failed and damaging reorganisation of the probation service, which has had to be reversed, and no reference to the impact of the cuts made in our criminal justice system as far as our courts are concerned.

The Statement does make reference to the Domestic Abuse Bill. It is a good Bill, but the Government know that there is more that they could and should be doing to ensure that all women can safely leave abuse and access refuge services, that women feel safe to report abuse to the police, that disabled women have protection when intimate caring relationships turn abusive, and plenty more that this House has asked for. In particular, yesterday this House voted to ensure the registering, monitoring and supervision of serial abusers and stalkers—in essence, dangerous and predatory men—and to require a strategy on perpetrators. What will the Government now do about delivering that? They have come forward with plans to increase CCTV and street lighting, and to put more police in bars. That will make hardly a dent in the real problems. The real issue —as we are told by women who are shouted at while they are out running, who are followed on public transport, who are unsafe as they walk home—is not the lighting on the street but the perpetrators and harassers on the street.

We have put forward a 10-point plan on what now must happen. We must particularly address the low level of rape charges and convictions, and the need for new laws to stop harassment. Will the Government use the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill to tackle these issues? At the moment, the Bill seems more concerned with statues than with women. Are the Government now prepared to work with us and others in a collaborative way, to put forward and promote measures that will fully address the concerns that so many women and girls feel about their personal safety in this country today?

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, my heart goes out to the friends and family of Sarah Everard. I cannot imagine the pain and grief that they feel at this time. It also goes out to all women and girls whose fear of being attacked has, understandably, increased as a result of these terrible events. I also say to each and every decent and honest police officer—some of whom have contacted me, shocked and concerned about how recent events have made their job of protecting and reassuring the public more difficult, not just because of the allegations made against someone in their own ranks but because of the serious mishandling of the vigil on Clapham Common by their own senior officers—that I understand how they feel.

I was an advanced public-order-trained police officer—a senior officer trained to the highest level to deal with situations such as that faced by the police on Saturday—and I have been in charge of policing numerous high-profile events. What went wrong? I say first to the Metropolitan Police Commissioner that I make no criticism of the officers on the ground carrying out the orders of their senior officers. I am not an armchair critic of operational police officers making difficult decisions in real time on the ground. However, I am a critic of the senior police officers who set and devised such a disastrous strategy and then implemented it from the calm of the control room.

One of the first lessons that you are taught as a senior public order officer is not to ban gatherings. Organisers can work with you to implement restrictions; they can provide stewards to marshal those attending, and they can make public appeals that this should be a peaceful, socially distanced, candlelit vigil. Instead, the organisers were forced to withdraw, local authority Covid marshals could not be deployed, and the police were set against the public. Those seeking confrontation with the police, and who have nothing to do with women’s safety, potentially saw an opportunity, and the chances of being able to safely and peacefully police this vigil faded into the distance.

The appalling scenes that we saw on Clapham Common on Saturday were the inevitable result of decisions made by the police long before they forcibly broke up those who had gathered, albeit irresponsibly close together in large numbers. The decisions that the police made were even more unbelievable when you consider the circumstances that gave rise to the vigil in the first place.

The Home Secretary has said that she discussed the policing of the vigil with the commissioner on Friday. What advice did she give to the police about the way that it should be handled? I can understand someone with no training and no experience suggesting a zero-tolerance approach to the vigil, but not highly trained and experienced senior police officers. I appreciate that the Minister cannot account for the actions of the Mayor of London, but he should be asked the same question. That is why the leader of the Liberal Democrats, Ed Davey, has written to them both asking exactly this question.

What about the response? No, Home Secretary, the scenes at Clapham Common were not “upsetting”; they were totally unacceptable. A so-called independent review has been commissioned from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, which has just published a report that concludes that the police must find the correct balance between the rights of protestors and the rights of others, and that:

“The balance may tip too readily in favour of protestors”.

Does the Minister seriously think that HMICFRS is the right body to conduct this review, in the light of its report, published only five days ago? I know that the Minister agrees with me that knee-jerk reactions are not the best way to find lasting solutions to serious problems.

We have seen too many media reports showing perfectly lit CCTV footage of women being attacked to believe that more lighting and CCTV are the answer. Because of government cuts to local authority budgets, many councils have had to switch off their cameras or have given up live monitoring because they can no longer afford to maintain an effective CCTV system. Putting plain-clothed police officers in the pubs and clubs to identify vulnerable women and potential perpetrators would not have saved Sarah Everard. Asking a group of people who are themselves the focus of criticism what immediate action should be taken is unlikely to come up with the right answer.

What should we do? We need not just to record offences motivated by sex or gender but to make misogyny a real hate crime, where victims are given enhanced support and courts treat misogyny as an aggravating factor. We must teach young people how to treat each other with dignity and respect. We need a culture change that rejects the authoritarian populism that leads to misogyny, xenophobia and intolerance of diversity. And we need an investigation into whether a Metropolitan Police officer being accused of the kidnap and murder of a woman, another Metropolitan Police officer being accused of sharing sick graphics and jokes at the scene of her murder, and other Metropolitan Police officers being accused of taking selfies with the body of a murdered woman, are signs of serious problems with the culture in the Metropolitan Police. One serving Metropolitan Police officer I know and trust told me in a message on Friday that he is “counting down the years until I can retire and get out of this poisonous organisation.”

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report stage
Monday 15th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as we have heard, the first of these amendments

“would provide migrant victims of abuse”

who do not have secure immigration status

“with temporary leave to remain and access to public funds … so they can access support services”,

such as refuge places,

“while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”

Less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds, for example. It would extend the domestic violence rule and destitute domestic violence concession to a few thousand more migrant survivors of abuse who are not covered by the existing provisions, which cover only a limited group of survivors on certain spousal and partner visas. It would also extend the period covered from three months to six to allow sufficient time for their immigration status to be regularised.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, the phrase

“we require a more complete and reliable evidence base”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 99.]

is being a little overused in the course of the Bill; she has already deployed this argument in relation to community support services. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester said in Committee, the evidence

“has already been submitted by key specialist organisations”

in

“response to the Home Office’s migrant victims of domestic abuse review in September 2020.”—[Official Report, 8/2/21; col. 80.]

The government pilot announced at Second Reading in the other place covers only about 500 women for a period of 12 weeks. I am always sceptical of pilots announced in the face of amendments designed to make permanent changes.

Amendment 87 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to ensure that all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, receive equal protection and support; this would include the migrant victims of domestic abuse in Amendment 70.

A number of noble Lords have mentioned the Istanbul convention. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who was a member of the coalition Government that signed the convention in 2012. He also mentioned the Private Member’s Bill, now an Act, that was passed by Parliament in 2017. Getting 135 MPs to turn up on a Friday when their allowance, unlike ours, does not depend on their attendance—and they were giving up valuable time in their constituencies—showed the strength of feeling on this issue.

This amendment cites Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. Article 4 requires parties to

“take the necessary legislative and other measures to promote and protect the right for everyone, particularly women, to live free from violence in both the public and the private sphere.”

I mentioned this in the debate on the previous group. Article 4(3) states:

“The implementation of the provisions of this Convention by the Parties, in particular measures to protect the rights of victims, shall be secured without discrimination on any ground”.

It then goes on to list a whole range of factors in the convention, specifically listing the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of sex, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity and “migrant or refugee status”.

We support Amendments 70 and 87, and expect Divisions on both of them. We will support their movers when it comes to the votes.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I seek to be relatively brief. Amendment 70, moved so compellingly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, would extend the destitution domestic violence concession to all migrant victims of abuse, providing them with

“temporary leave to remain and access to public funds, for a period of no less than six months … while they flee abuse and apply to resolve their immigration status.”

Amendment 87, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, spoke so powerfully, would ensure that

“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status, in line with Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence.”

Amendment 70 addresses a major gap in the Bill—namely, the lack of provision for migrant women in particular. They are probably one of the most vulnerable groups suffering domestic abuse. Despite that, they do not get the same level of support as other domestic abuse survivors, with the suspicion being that migrant women in this position are all too often regarded as immigration cases rather than victims of domestic abuse—making it even more likely that abuse of migrant women will take place and simply continue.

This is because the reality is that migrant women who do not have established immigration status find it difficult, if not impossible, to access refuges and other essential support services to escape abuse. Also, their abusers know that they do not have funds of their own—their abusers make sure of that—and have no recourse to the public funds necessary to access that support because of their lack of status. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, reminded us, less than 6% of refuge beds are available to women without recourse to public funds because refuges cannot carry out their vital work without income.

I await the Government’s response, particularly to see whether it still seeks to put off making any meaningful specific commitment to address the plight of migrant women suffering domestic abuse, and whether the response also suggests that, at heart, the Government still regard migrant women without established immigration status who suffer domestic abuse as primarily an immigration issue rather than a domestic one.

In Committee, the Government spoke about a pilot exercise. Again, the right reverend Prelate highlighted the inadequacy of that exercise and the fact that it does not actually commit the Government to doing anything.

The domestic abuse commissioner-designate supports this amendment, and the evidence in support of it is already there in the public domain. The terms of this Domestic Abuse Bill have been debated and discussed for a number of years, going back to when Theresa May was Home Secretary. No doubt as a result of that discussion and consideration, the Bill marks real progress in a number of areas.

However, the fact that the Government still say that they do not know enough about the plight of migrant women faced with domestic abuse to agree to this amendment says a great deal about their attitude to, and the priority they give to, this particular highly vulnerable group. The time to act is now. Action should not be delayed or kicked into the long grass any longer.

We support Amendment 70. We will also support Amendment 87, which seeks to ensure that

“all victims of domestic abuse are protected, regardless of their status”,

if it is taken to a vote.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I restate my interests in respect of this Bill. Noble Lords will recall the story of the farmyard animals that come up with the idea of rewarding the farmer with an egg and bacon breakfast, to which the pig responds to the chickens, “I’d be committed to this; you’d only be involved.” As a former police officer who dealt with countless cases of domestic abuse during my service, and as a survivor of domestic abuse myself, I very much feel like the pig when it comes to this Bill.

Amendment 1 questions why both perpetrator and victim have to be 16 or over. We understand that, if the victim is under 16, the offence would be child abuse rather than domestic abuse, but not if the perpetrator is under 16 and the victim over 16. For me, the acid test is whether someone is being placed in the intolerable position of not feeling safe in their own home as the result of the abuse. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has described, this might be the result of the actions of someone who is under 16—elder abuse of a grandmother by a grandchild, for example.

The Minister will acknowledge that increasingly younger children are becoming involved in county lines drug dealing. One of the many worrying aspects of county lines is how children are becoming violent towards their own family members at home as they become embroiled in the savage and ruthless culture of drug gangs, particularly when they are challenged about their behaviour by a parent or guardian. My noble friend described the amendment as probing. On reflection, I believe that it may become increasingly necessary. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Bill currently defines domestic abuse as involving two people aged over 16. As has been said, the amendment would expand this definition to include a relationship where one person was under 16 and the other over 16. It appears that the definition would apply where the victim was over 16 but the perpetrator was not. We have doubts about the definition in the Bill being changed in this way, but I understand from what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has said that this is a probing amendment.

Teenage relationships, and the victims of teenage relationship abuse, have specific needs, which should be addressed through a separate strategy tailored to them and recognised as an issue separate from both child abuse and the abuse that takes place between adults. As I said, we recognise that this is a probing amendment, but our concern is that if the age of the perpetrator in the definition is lowered—as appears to be the effect of the amendment in the circumstances set out in it—we would end up prosecuting and treating some perpetrators under 16 as, in effect, adults, which is not a road we believe we should go down. However, the issue of younger person or teenage abuse raised by the amendment is an important one, which the Government should address through a specific strategy and guidance for this group of victims and perpetrators. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

3rd reading & 3rd reading (Hansard) & 3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 21st January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have a lot of respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and we support the spirit of her amendment to the Motion to the extent that we oppose the granting of legal immunity. We believe that the Bill undermines the rule of law—that is, the principle whereby all members of a society are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. As a result of the Bill, that is called into question, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, have said.

Where a police officer or member of the security services tasks a covert human intelligence source to commit an act defined in law as a crime, the person tasked will no longer be subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes. An existing system that has worked effectively for decades, whereby informants and agents are tasked to commit crime and the decision, almost without exception, not to prosecute is taken by the relevant prosecuting authority, after considering all the facts, will be swept aside.

It is to be replaced with what we consider an unsafe and undesirable power, vested in the hands of the police, the security services and numerous other public authorities, to grant legal immunity with no prior judicial authority. The main issue is not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, says in her amendment to the Motion, that there are insufficient safeguards or oversight, although this is arguably true. It is the fact that immunity can be granted at all, making the illegal legal. That is the fundamental issue for us on these Benches. I expect the legality of this aspect of the Bill to be challenged in the courts. That said, the House fully debated this aspect of the Bill, and without the support of the Labour Party leadership, we on these Benches were unable to remove it.

Contrary to the amendment to the Motion in the name of the noble Baroness, this House has clarified the existing position and improved the Bill, to ensure that innocent victims of crimes committed by those instructed to do so by state agents can seek compensation. Contrary to her amendment to the Motion, undercover policing is not being expanded by the Bill, although the Bill has shone more light on this aspect of policing. The number of public authorities that can deploy covert human intelligence sources has been reduced by the Bill. The directed criminal activity of those informants and agents has been placed on a statutory footing, rather than the Bill enabling it to increase.

From the start, we recognised the need to place the tasking of covert human intelligence sources to commit crime on a statutory basis, which this Bill does. We have improved the Bill in some important respects—the safeguards for children and vulnerable adults, for example, despite our fundamental misgivings over immunity. Therefore, with regret, we cannot support the noble Baroness’s amendment to the Motion.

I thank the Minister and the Bill team for their work on the Bill; our Labour colleagues and their staff for their assistance and co-operation on those aspects that we were able to agree on; and those on the Cross Benches who have liaised with us. I also thank my staff and colleagues for their help with what has been a very difficult Bill for me, personally, because of my previous professional experience of this difficult area of policing and because of my knowledge of the very real opportunities that the Bill presents for corruption and malpractice. The amendments that this House has introduced are the very minimum required and we will resist any attempt to remove any of them.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, we do not support the amendment to the Motion. This unelected House does not vote down Bills. Our role is that of a revising Chamber. Through making amendments to Bills, we invite the House of Commons to reconsider its position on specific aspects of legislation. That is what we have done with this Bill.

We have debated amendments to the Bill. Some have been agreed by this House, and some have not had its support. From our point of view, we have not won the support of this House for everything we wanted, but important amendments have been agreed and we want the Bill with those amendments to go back to the House of Commons for consideration. This amendment to the Motion, if carried, would thwart that objective and accordingly we shall vote against it.

Police National Computer

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for being here—unlike the Home Secretary yesterday in the Commons—as the senior government Minister in the Lords covering the Home Office, to be accountable to this House for the worrying events detailed in the Statement.

The Statement says that it is estimated that up to some 400,000 offence, arrest and person records have, due to human error, inadvertently been deleted from the police national computer. There will be an internal investigation. Something described as human error can hide a multitude of failures covering, for example, inadequate training or supervision, previous warnings of the likelihood of an incident occurring being ignored, people working under pressure, out-of-date or unreliable equipment and lack of provision of readily available safeguards to override the consequences of human error—all factors for which responsibility should ultimately lie at the highest level within the department. Yet the Commons Minister yesterday stated:

“Sadly, human error introduced into the code has led to this particular situation”.


The Government appear to have already determined the outcome of the internal investigation. I therefore ask the noble Baroness, who speaks for the Government: why is this investigation not going to be independent and, secondly, will the full report of the investigation be placed before Parliament? Can the Government also say whether Statements would have even been made to Parliament if reports of this serious loss of data had not appeared in the media?

The police national computer and the police national database are due to be replaced by the national law enforcement data programme. However, the assessment by the Infrastructure and Projects Authority is that successful delivery of the project is in doubt. The Policing Minister admitted in the Commons yesterday that the replacement of the PNC

“has had its fair share of problems, it is fair to say we have undergone a reset. There is now a renewed sense of partnership working between the Home Office and the police, to make sure we get that much needed upgrade in technology correct.”—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/20; col. 624.]

When a Minister uses those kind of words, one knows that there have been big problems with the replacement of the outdated PNC, from which up to 400,000 records have been deleted, not because it is no longer fit for purpose but apparently due solely to human error. How could up to 400,000 records be deleted without apparently there being a proper back-up system in place? Was that lack of a proper back-up system also due to “human error”?

Is it true, as was asked in the Commons yesterday, but without a reply being given, that Ministers were warned many months ago that their approach to the police national computer and database posed a significant risk to policing’s ability to protect the public, and that the databases were “creaking” and operating on

“end of life, unsupported hardware and software”?—[Official Report, Commons, 18/1/20; col. 627.]

If so, what did the Government do about that?

In the Commons, the Government sought to say that, first, the data deleted might be available on other systems or databases and, secondly—because the data related to people arrested and in respect of whom, for the specific matter for which they were arrested, no further action was taken—it really is not that serious that this data has been deleted. The National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for the police national computer has said that the deleted DNA contains records marked for

“indefinite retention following conviction of serious offences.”

Is it still the Government’s view that this deleted data is not important? If so, could the Government explain why this data is retained at all, and may be on other systems, if it has no real value in preventing crime in the first place, in the fight against crime and in bringing criminals to justice? In the absence of a credible answer to that question, clearly the data deleted is of significance. In responding, could the Government set out the potential damage that could be done, or has perhaps already been done, as a result of these inadvertent deletions?

We need greater openness and frankness from the Government, now and in promised further updates, about what has happened—merely

“technical issues … with the police national computer”

according to the Statement—and why. We do not need an attempt to brush it all off as down to a “human error” with consequences of little significance.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, let me try to bring some clarity to what has happened. The records that have apparently been deleted are those of people arrested but not charged, or charged but not convicted. These are sometimes, but not always, deleted. If someone is arrested but not charged or not convicted for one of more than 200 serious offences, their fingerprints and DNA can be retained for up to five years. If they have previous convictions for a serious offence, their fingerprints and DNA can be retained indefinitely. It may be that there are no fingerprint or DNA records for any of these people, other than those taken when there was no conviction. These are the records that have apparently been deleted. Meanwhile, some that should have been deleted have not been.

Although the people whose records have been deleted may not have been charged or convicted on this occasion, their DNA or fingerprints may be found at crime scenes in the future. If their fingerprints and DNA have been deleted, there is no way of proving forensically that they were at these crime scenes.

Some 213,000 offence records, 175,000 arrest records and 15,000 person records have potentially been deleted. Some 26,000 DNA records, 30,000 fingerprint records and 600 subject records may also have been deleted. This mistake could result in criminals who would otherwise be convicted of serious criminal offences not being identified, arrested, charged or convicted.

The Statement says that other databases such as the police national database can be checked, but my understanding is that the script run on the PNC deleted records on linked databases. Can the Minister confirm that?

Because of the variety of records that have been deleted—offence records, arrest records, person records and DNA and fingerprint records—it will be very difficult to put the jigsaw puzzle back together by collecting the pieces from different databases where the data may still be recorded. Is that the Minister’s understanding?

The first question, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked, must be: why was there no back-up? In October, senior police officers wrote to the Home Office to say they had “lost confidence” in its ability to complete big IT projects. What evidence is there to support this view?

Work on the national law enforcement data programme is in serious trouble, as the noble Lord said. This replacement for the police national computer and the police national database began in 2016 but is not expected to be completed until 2023, significantly delayed and overbudget. That is despite the existing systems running on obsolete hardware, using obsolete software.

To take another example, the new emergency services network was due to replace the system of radios and other mobile communications used by the police, the Motorola Airwave network, by 2019. That Home Office IT project has been delayed, meaning the existing Airwave system has had to be maintained for at least three years beyond its planned end of life, which is costing an additional £1.7 million a day. The final total is expected to reach close to £2 billion.

The facts are that the Government not only cut police officer numbers by over 20,000 between 2010 and 2020 but failed to invest in the systems that the police rely on to be effective. They have committed to recruiting 20,000 new police officers—dressing the window—meanwhile allowing what is unseen but vital to fall apart.

Following the end of the transition period on 1 January, the police lost real-time access to the European Union Schengen Information System, SIS II, meaning that front-line officers no longer have real-time access to data on 40,000 fugitives and dangerous criminals. It is now clear that these officers, who put their lives on the line for us every day, cannot rely on UK systems either. What are the Government going to do, not just to retrieve the lost data, but to ensure that the Home Office IT systems that the police rely on are fit for purpose? At the moment, it is absolutely clear that they are not.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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 share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about seeking clarity as to who is covered not just because a criminal conduct authorisation authorises somebody to commit a crime, but because they have, as a consequence, both civil and criminal legal immunity. As we and other noble Lords have argued, immunity from prosecution should be decided after the event by the independent prosecuting authority—disagreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. However, these amendments raise important questions, not least about legal immunity.

The first person covered, without doubt, is the agent or informant—the covert human intelligence source. If the CHIS is asked or ordered to participate in crime then if anyone is to be given legal immunity, it should be him. The question then becomes: is a handler who asks or orders a CHIS to commit crime, whether or not the request or order is legitimate, also covered by legal immunity? This arises from the fact that he can request or order a CHIS to commit crime only if he, in turn, has been given authority to issue such a request or order by the authorising officer. If the authorising officer has told the handler that he is permitted to request or order a CHIS to commit crime, should the handler also have legal immunity, in that it is then the authorising officer’s decision, not that of the handler? Then, if the authorising officer has agreed that the handler can request or order a CHIS to commit crime, should the authorising officer too not be covered by legal immunity?

What the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, was aiming at with his amendment came as something of a surprise. I do not understand how, under the terms of the Bill, a corporation can be authorised to carry out crime. Surely, it has to be an individual—the covert human intelligence source himself or herself—who is authorised, not a corporation. While I accept that some work of the police service, for example, or the security services may be outsourced, surely that corporation would have to be listed as an authorising authority in the Bill if that were the case.

There would be unintended consequences of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, if the only person who can be authorised to commit a crime is an undercover police officer or a James Bond-type character in the security services, and not a criminal who is helping the police or, indeed, somebody in a foreign country who is simply an employee of an organisation that interests the security services and who passes information back, not an employee of the security services. That would surely leave a big hole in what the Bill attempts to achieve. We cannot support Amendment 53. However, I am very interested to hear the Minister’s response to my question, and that of other noble Lords: who is covered by the CCA? Is it the CHIS who commits the crime, the handler who tells him to commit the crime, the officer who authorises the handler to tell the CHIS to commit the crime, or all three?

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, Amendment 39 in the names of my noble friends Lady Massey of Darwen and Lord Dubs removes from the definition in the Bill of authorised criminal conduct the words

“by or in relation to”

the specified covert human intelligence source. It replaces those words with a more detailed definition; namely, that it is conduct by

“the covert human intelligence source”

or by a person who holds a rank, office, or position in the public authority that is granting the authorisation and is assisting in the behaviour of the covert human intelligence source. As my noble friend Lord Dubs said, this amendment was recommended by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Under the terms of the Bill, authorised conduct is not limited to the conduct of the covert human intelligence source. The code of practice says that a criminal conduct authorisation may also authorise conduct by someone else in relation to a covert human intelligence source, with that someone else being those within a public authority involved in or affected by the authorisation.

If the Government do not accept Amendment 39, they need to set out in their response the reasons why they consider it necessary to provide for the authorisation of criminal conduct by someone other than the covert human intelligence source; the parameters of that criminal conduct by someone other than the CHIS that can be so authorised; and the safeguards in the Bill to ensure that the person authorised to commit criminal conduct—who is someone other than the covert human intelligence source—is not also involved in any way in the authorisation process to which that criminal conduct relates.

I shall listen with interest to the Government’s response to Amendment 39 and to the pertinent questions raised by my noble friend Lord Sikka in speaking to his amendment.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this has been a lengthy and complex debate, and I blame the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for that; we tried to split this group to make it more manageable, but his will prevailed.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, amendments in this group are on prior authorisation by a judge; by an investigatory powers commissioner; by an investigatory powers commissioner unless it is urgent; by an investigatory powers commissioner if a criminal conduct authority is to be used to identify a journalistic source; and by a Secretary of State. Another amendment requires that an investigatory powers commissioner be notified

“as soon as … practicable, and in any event within seven days”

and that the police authority be involved in holding the chief constable to account as a result of the investigatory powers commissioner’s annual report on the use of CCAs.

It is understandable that noble Lords want prior notification—and why the police should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, said, mark their own homework. On the advice of one noble Lord, I read the code of practice that goes with this Bill. I have held both ranks that could grant a criminal conduct authority under this Bill. In urgent cases, that is an inspector, who can not only grant a criminal conduct authority but also grant immunity from prosecution. I was an inspector at the age of 24. I was also, subsequently, a controller of covert human intelligence sources. I spent 18 years as a uniformed officer. On the Friday I left the office as a uniformed chief inspector and on the Monday morning I was a detective chief inspector in the role of a controller. The Government may say that all the people involved in the matters considered by this Bill will be experienced and highly trained, but that is not always the case in my experience.

We should listen very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who articulated why prior authorisation is not practical, a point also made by the Minister for Security in another place and by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. From my experience I agree, although the description of MI5 handlers and agents as beyond reproach is not, in my experience, universally applicable to police handlers and informants.

Any prior authorisation would instruct CHIS to operate within strict parameters, which may no longer be necessary or proportionate once they are deployed, or may not be adequate once they are deployed, because they are being deployed into rapidly changing scenarios in an uncontrolled environment, often involving chaotic individuals. The most common use of CHIS in policing, for example, is to counter drug dealing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has said, you cannot turn an agent on and off like you can a listening device.

Even the most experienced undercover officer may have to necessarily and proportionately go beyond the strict parameters of a CCA because the situation has dramatically changed in ways unforeseen by the handler. If he were to strictly adhere precisely to a CCA, he could put himself in danger of losing his life. As we will hear in later groups, children are increasingly being used as covert human intelligence sources, some of whom have chaotic lifestyles. Sometimes they are drug users or drug dealers. To expect such people to operate within the strict and precise boundaries of a CCA in such turbulent situations is not only unfair and unreasonable but completely unrealistic. To determine the strict parameters of a CCA to cover every possible scenario, in the middle of a rapidly changing situation, and when the legal immunity of both handler and CHIS depends on it, is unfair and unreasonable to both handler and CHIS.

Those proposing prior authorisation by judges, Investigatory Powers Commissioners and government Ministers may say that any conduct outside the strict parameters of a CCA will be looked at by the prosecuting authorities and a decision made whether to prosecute using the public interest test. In that case, why can the prosecuting authorities not look at all the actions of the CHIS and the handler and decide whether to prosecute?

Amendment 46, for which there seems to be a good deal of support around the House, suggests that the Investigatory Powers Commissioner should be given notice where a person grants a criminal conduct authorisation as soon as practicable and, in any event, within seven days—but, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, said, so what? What power does the Investigatory Powers Commissioner have to intervene? What happens if the handler corruptly tasks an informant to commit crime? As the authority has already been granted, both CHIS and handler have legal immunity, even if the handler informs the Investigatory Powers Commissioner six days later. A wronged party may be able to claim compensation from an Investigatory Powers Tribunal but criminal offences may have been committed for which the perpetrators should be prosecuted. That is why we have added to Amendment 46, to the effect that legal immunity is dependent on the CCA being approved by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. If the actions of the handler or the CHIS are not within the limits set out in the Bill, neither are immune from criminal prosecution or from being sued.

I understand completely why noble Lords do not want a criminal conduct authority to be granted without prior judicial or ministerial authorisation because of the potential for abuse. However, as others have said, it is not practical. We believe there is a way to prevent abuse without prior authorisation of a CCA, including protecting journalistic sources, which we will come to in a future group. We have listened very carefully to this debate and have come up with a new amendment; because we were part way through this debate we cannot debate that amendment in this group, but we will come to it in a couple of groups’ time. What must not happen in any circumstances is the granting of legal immunity without judicial oversight. That is what our Amendment 47 attempts to do.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendments 14 and 75 in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark provide that authorisations may not be granted under this section until a warrant has been issued by a judge. An application to a judge must be made in writing and provide details, including the reasons why it is required, who it covers, the length of time it will be active for, and previous applications covering the same individual. Our amendments also provide that a person who grants a criminal conduct authorisation must inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner within seven days of granting the authorisation. We seek to strengthen both prior and post-authorisation oversight.

Amendment 77 in the name of my noble friends Lady Clark of Kilwinning and Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, calls for prior judicial approval before an authorisation can be granted

“for the purposes of identifying or confirming a source of journalistic information”,

and is in line with our amendment providing that authorisations may not be granted until a warrant has been issued by a judge. Amendment 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Butler of Brockwell, Lord Carlile of Berriew, and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, is very similar to our Amendment 75 requiring a person who grants a criminal conduct authorisation to inform the Investigatory Powers Commissioner within seven days of granting the authorisation. However, all the amendments we have been discussing in this group reflect a strong feeling that the oversight arrangements set out in the Bill for the statutory power by public authorities to grant criminal conduct authorisations are inadequate and do not provide reassurance that the likelihood of this power being misused or exceeded is reduced to a minimum.

What exactly has been happening under the present arrangements is far from clear, although we are assured that they have enabled threatened terrorist atrocities and other serious crimes to be thwarted and our safety to be secured. We have no reason at all to doubt that. However, we do not know the extent to which powers have or have not been misused or exceeded since there is no means of that information consistently coming to light. Without proper oversight to act as a firm check there is a risk that some may become somewhat overzealous in how they exercise and interpret the powers they are given under the Bill, including what might be regarded as acceptable covert human intelligence activity, and against what and whom.

We believe there should be prior judicial authorisation, with authorisations not being granted until a warrant has been issued by a judge. Having to obtain a warrant before action can be taken is nothing new. Bearing in mind the potential gravity of the decision to authorise criminal conduct, the necessity to obtain a warrant beforehand seems even greater than it is in relation to other existing actions or activities requiring a warrant at present. It is a prior safeguard and check to minimise the likelihood, in what is self-authorisation by an agency or other body, of a potentially ill-judged or just plain wrong authorisation of criminal conduct, with all the consequences that might have.

Objections have been raised that sometimes authorisations are needed in a hurry but equally, access to a judge, as happens in some other spheres, can be arranged in a hurry—a point made by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Urgency can arise because of a rapidly developing situation that could not have reasonably been foreseen, but it can also arise because a public authority has left things later than it should have done before seeking the criminal conduct authorisation. Perhaps the Government can, in their response, give some indication of roughly how many such authorisations are currently granted on average each year, how many are needed urgently and what the definition is of urgently. Can the Government also give a general indication of the extent to which authority to commit criminal conduct is given, in a typical year, to those who have been previously involved in or who are currently engaged in unauthorised—[Inaudible]—said that all authorisations

“are granted by an experienced and highly trained authorising officer, who will ensure that the authorisation has strict parameters and is clearly communicated to the”,—[Official Report, 11/11/20; col. 1045.]

covert human intelligence source. The phrase “experienced and highly trained” sounds fine, but what do the Government intend it to mean in practice in relation to the granting of criminal conduct authorisations under the Bill? What is the definition of an

“experienced and highly trained authorising officer”,

a description the Government were happy to use at Second Reading? How much experience is meant, and in what? How much training is meant, and in what? How many experienced and highly trained authorising officers will there be in each authority that will have the power to grant criminal conduct authorisations, and how frequently are they likely to determine whether to grant such authorisations?

UK Terrorism Threat Level

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

We extend our condolences to the families of the victims of the recent horrific attacks in France and Austria and our sympathy and hopes for a recovery to those who were injured. It is these attacks that have prompted the decision by the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre to raise the threat level for terrorism to “severe”—the second highest level—indicating an attack is highly likely. This is a decision we support since we have a shared responsibility to keep this country, our people and our communities safe. We extend our appreciation to our security services and those involved in counterterrorism policing for the vital work they do to keep us safe.

Could the Minister say what impact raising the threat level from substantial to severe will have as far as the daily lives of our citizens are concerned, both while we are in lockdown and when we come out of lockdown? Does the raising of the threat level require greater use of resources by our security services and counterterrorism policing? If so, were those additional resources already available or have they now been made available? Does the raising of the threat level apply across the United Kingdom? Is there uniformity of approach and practice across the United Kingdom in moving to the higher threat level? If not, what are the differences and where? Where do we now stand in relation to the independent review of the Prevent strategy? The raising of the threat level makes this more not less important.

The raising of the threat level from international terrorism reminds us of the importance of international co-operation. Do the Government accept that agreements must be concluded to ensure continued co-operation with the EU in combating terrorism after the end of the transition period?

In the Commons last week, the Minister said that he and the Home Secretary had

“asked officials to review with partners existing and proposed powers in the light of the horrific attacks in France and Austria to consider what more, if anything, might be needed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/20; col. 529.]

When is that review likely to be completed? I would like to know what kind of things come under the description of

“what more, if anything, might be needed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 5/11/20; col. 529.]

I conclude by reiterating our support for the decision to raise the threat level, and stress the need for our citizens to remain vigilant and steadfast. Combating terrorism and international terrorism is not, as some would like to suggest, a fight between different faiths, or people of different faiths. Our enemies are terrorists. It is a fight, as the Austrian chancellor said, “between civilisation and barbarity”.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to Lords Sacks—Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He may no longer be able to speak to us directly, but what he said lives on. In 2013, he wrote an article for the Spectator entitled “Atheism has failed. Only religion can defeat the new barbarians”—by whom he meant those who threaten western freedom by religious fundamentalism, combining hatred of the other, the pursuit of power and contempt for human rights. He was in effect saying that moderate religion is the answer to religious fundamentalism, not anti-religious campaigning.

There is no justification for violence. The horrific terrorist attacks we have seen on mainland Europe and here in the UK in recent years I condemn unequivocally. My thoughts are with all those affected.

Can the Minister set out the UK Government’s position on free speech? Is free speech to be at any cost, no matter what the impacts on others? Because we condemn violence, no matter that it is unjustified, that does not mean we should not try to understand why people are drawn into it. Terrorism cannot be condoned under any circumstances, but if we are to counter it effectively we need to understand what motivates it. To that end, can the Minster say what research has been conducted into the impact of lockdown on the spread of extremism, particularly using the internet? What is the likely impact on vulnerable individuals—with no moderating interaction from others—and on their mental health? What are the Government doing to encourage, promote and ensure access to a moderate religious counternarrative to violent extremism allegedly based on religion?

The Home Secretary’s Statement talks about the increased threat level being used by the police to determine the level of their overall protective security activity. This includes additional police officers deployed to “certain places”. Can the Minister explain which places or what type of places these additional police officers are being deployed to?

The police are already stretched because of the Covid pandemic. It is at times like these that the importance of resilience in the police service is brought into sharp focus. Not only are the police having to enforce lockdown restrictions, police demonstrations against Covid regulations and deal with an enhanced UK threat level; they also have to do the day job of fighting crime and responding to calls for assistance. Many of these calls have nothing to do with crime, and include having to help increasing numbers in mental health crisis. This Government continued to reduce police numbers long after police leaders told them the cuts had gone far enough. Can the Minister explain where the additional police officers the Home Secretary refers to in her Statement will come from?

No doubt the Minister will be keen to tell the House about the additional police officers currently being recruited and the progress towards the government target of recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers, but can the Minister say what is the net increase, if any, in the number of police officers has been since the initiative was announced? What is the total number of police officers now compared with the 143,800 full-time equivalent officers in England and Wales police forces in 2010?

An essential part of combating terrorism, particularly the forms of terrorism we have seen in recent years, is community intelligence, intelligence built on trust and confidence created by police community support officers and local community police officers. What is the current number of police community support officers compared with 2010, and what proportion of police officers are currently employed as local community officers?

I have the utmost respect for our police and security services, and I am confident they do all that they possibly can to counter terrorism within the resource restraints they have been forced to operate under. I pay tribute to their skill and dedication. It is not, as the Home Secretary maintains, just about passing legislation. It is about properly resourcing the police and security services to give them the resilience they need to be able to respond to crises such as these.

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

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued) & Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 5th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment. As other noble Lords said, this will have a damaging impact on the English-language teaching sector and associated businesses such as coach operators and accommodation providers, as my noble friend Lady Garden of Frognal said. That is because these students will be going to Ireland, Malta and Cyprus—other English-speaking countries—rather than coming here, because they can still use their ID cards in those other countries.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, said, 90% of those on short language trips to the UK travel on ID cards, and it will disadvantage young people from poorer backgrounds who cannot afford a passport. Much English language teaching is based in coastal and rural communities, so the Government’s levelling-up agenda will be damaged, as will exchange trips, disadvantaging UK students, because the foreign students will not be able to come here, therefore the UK students will not be able to go on exchange visits to European countries. For those reasons, we support the amendment.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 19 provides that from the beginning of next year, the Secretary of State must permit children from EEA states and Switzerland to continue to use their national ID card to enter the UK, rather than needing a passport. They would be permitted to do this once a year, for a short-term stay of up to 30 days. The amendment appears, from what has been said, to be intended to address important issues about accessing and retaining educational opportunities and exchanges for what should be both UK and EU young people, and ensuring that those existing opportunities are not compromised, made more difficult or significantly more costly to access at the end of the transition period.

What conversations has the Home Secretary already had with the Education Secretary on the concerns that have been expressed in this debate about the impact on educational opportunities for children, following the end of the transition period, as a result of changes in the immigration arrangements? What changes will need to be made for school travel in both directions to ensure that arrangements no less comparable in terms of cost, speed of process and efficiency continue after the end of this year as regards schools, the children involved and our border personnel?

It has been made clear in this debate that the English language learning sector has concerns about the impact on English language education of changes to the immigration rules. What dialogue have the Government had with this sector on these concerns, which it clearly regards as striking at the very heart of its existence?

The amendment is not specifically linked to travel for educational purposes, but would give a blanket right for all minors from EEA states and Switzerland to enter the UK using an ID card once a year. It is thus considerably wider in its terms than its stated purpose and we would not be able to give it our support if it were taken to a vote; it is not clear whether the mover intends to do that. However, I hope that the Government can give assurances that, if it has not already been done, work is being undertaken to ensure that UK and EU children, and indeed older learners such as those who may access university or further education courses, will at the very least continue to have access, on terms that are no less favourable overall, to the educational opportunities they currently have, after the end of the transition period.

Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations add more public authorities to the list of those who can access sensitive personal information in the form of communications data, such as itemised telephone bills. So sensitive is the issue that Parliament decided that additions to the list of public authorities had to be approved by the super-affirmative procedure. When these regulations were debated last week in Grand Committee, we were told that the Home Office had agreed to the addition of those public authorities on the basis of detailed business cases submitted to it by the public authorities concerned, which Members of this House have been unable, until 12.30 pm today, to see. The Minister agreed that it was not possible for this House to properly scrutinise the decisions of the Home Office without seeing the business cases, and that the business cases had not been published as they contained sensitive information, but said that she would arrange for Members to scrutinise the business cases in a private meeting.

This morning, when I saw that these regulations were due to be approved by the House, I inquired of the Minister’s office why we had not been offered a private meeting to examine the business cases. As a result of my inquiry I was emailed, at 12.06 pm this afternoon, and invited to view the business cases at 12.30. There are five business cases, and from memory, I think the Minister said that they were “lengthy”. I do not think it reasonable to expect Members of this House to scrutinise five business cases, which apparently justify giving the five additional public authorities access to sensitive personal data, in the 45 minutes between the offer being made to view them and the regulations being approved on the Floor of the House. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that this House should be given the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly before it approves them, rather than afterwards.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. A private meeting before this SI is approved would certainly have enabled him and others to form a view on whether they agreed with the SI in the light of the business cases they had seen for adding these further public authorities to the list. I listened with interest to the Minister and, as I understand it, that opportunity has not been made available until the last few minutes, almost literally. I wait with interest to hear what she has to say on the points that he made.

Reading Terrorist Attack

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I express our sincere condolences to the families of the three victims of the atrocity in Reading on Saturday. Our thoughts are very much with them, at what must be a heartbreaking and mind-numbing time. We send our very best wishes for a speedy recovery to our fellow citizens who were injured in the senseless attack, knowing that they are in the safe and caring hands of our magnificent NHS staff. It is clear that all the emergency services reacted to the sickening events on Saturday evening with speed, professionalism and a lack of regard for their own safety—in that final regard, particularly the unarmed police officer who apprehended the individual now under arrest. I express our appreciation of the courage and concern for others of members of the public at the scene who assisted those who were attacked.

The police have arrested an individual under terrorism powers. There are media reports that those who were murdered were members of the LGBT community and that the individual under arrest had mental health problems and was known to the security agencies. This is, however, an ongoing police investigation, and I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what she can say, about either the specifics of this awful incident or the individual who is under arrest. But any further factual information she is able to provide would be helpful.

This is not the first violent attack by a lone individual, but rather an addition to what is a succession of recent such horrific incidents of this nature. In November, we had the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall, and in February at Streatham; now, in June, it is Reading. The public want answers about these appalling incidents.

We understand that the security services have some 30,000-plus people known to them, and a very much smaller, but nevertheless significant, number of people in whom they have to take a much closer interest on our behalf and in the interests of our safety. We are indebted to our intelligence and security services for the work they do to protect us all, and recognise that many acts of potential or threatened terrorism are thwarted thanks to their diligence and expertise. The murderous attacks that do occur will inevitably, and not surprisingly, always receive much more publicity than the very much larger number of potential or threatened acts of terrorism that are stopped and prevented.

If the investigation into the Reading atrocity, particularly in the light of the other, very recent incidents, reveals that more resources are needed by our counter- terrorism, intelligence and security agencies, I hope the Government will ensure that those additional resources are provided.

The atrocity at Fishmongers’ Hall raised issues surrounding the release of people from prison. The individual under arrest under terrorism powers following the Reading attacks had, it has been reported, served a short prison sentence. At some stage, questions will have to be asked about the nature and extent of risk assessments carried out in respect of people leaving prison who are known to the security services; levels of supervision, or otherwise, following release; and the workloads of probation officers, inside and outside prison.

Lessons will need to be learned from Saturday’s deeply distressing atrocity. That can only be done following a full investigation, but can the Government say in general terms whether any lessons have been learned and put into practice from either the Fishmongers’ Hall or Streatham attacks, and indeed from one recently in a prison, apart from the legislation enacted or being enacted regarding prison sentences, early release and controlled procedures? If any lessons have been learned from those earlier attacks it seems that they will not yet have been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee, since the Government have not taking the necessary steps since the election at the end of last year to enable it to be reconvened. I hope that does not indicate a lack of the Government’s prioritising ensuring parliamentary oversight of security issues and our security agencies, particularly at the present time. When do the Government expect the committee to meet again?

There is also the continuing delay over establishing the review of the Government’s Prevent strategy. I believe that the closing date for applications for the post to lead the review was yesterday. We need real progress here too because legislation alone will not be enough. We have to take a thorough look at deradicalisation in our prisons, how people who pose a threat are risk assessed and how different agencies can work together to safeguard against tragedies and horrors of the kind witnessed in Reading on Saturday.

Community policing has been cut, yet the intelligence gathering it does as the eyes and ears of our society is vital. Will the Government commit to now build again the capacity required for law enforcement?

What is the position with the serious violence task force, which apparently has not met for a year? Does it still exist? If not, can the Minister at least refresh my memory as to when its demise was announced, and why?

More information will come to light as the police investigation continues and I hope that the Minister can commit to keeping the House updated, including on the lessons that need to be learned. Many issues will need to be considered and addressed in the weeks ahead, but we stand with the wider community in Reading at this desperately difficult time and remember particularly those who tragically lost their lives.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this was a dreadful attack on innocent people, and we condemn it. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives, the injured, and the police officers, ambulance crews and members of the public affected by this terrible incident.

There has been much discussion in recent weeks about policing, in both this country and the United States. This incident, where unarmed officers ran towards, tackled and detained a dangerous and armed suspect, reminds us how police officers put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is right to ask probing questions, but it is also right to remember that we rely on the police for our safety. Our thanks should also go to the members of the public who supported the emergency services by administering first aid while waiting for paramedics to arrive.

The matter is under investigation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, and I know the Minister will not respond to questions about the suspect. So, despite any reservations I may have, I will continue on the basis that this was a terrorist attack, rather than it being the result of mental illness or motivated by prejudice.

We have the best police and security services in the world. I was part of the Metropolitan Police Service for over 30 years and I was awestruck by the capabilities of the security services when I was briefed on the Investigatory Powers Bill by representatives of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. We have also seen numerous pieces of legislation over the years to extend the powers of the police and security services, and the powers of the courts to sentence those convicted of terrorism offences and to prevent their early release. Indeed, there is legislation before the other place as we speak. Yet lone wolf terrorist attacks appear to be increasing. As my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael said in the debate on the Statement in the other place,

“if the answer to this problem were to be found in a formulation of the law, we would have found it by now.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1089.]

The problem is this. Too many people—some traumatised by their experiences in war-torn parts of the world, but many British-born young men—are being radicalised, either in prison or online, and there is not enough collaborative work with communities to address the problem. It is neither possible nor proportionate to keep all of the thousands of people who may be of concern to MI5 under surveillance, and the overwhelming majority will do no harm. The tiny minority who decide to carry out so-called “lone wolf” attacks can change from “harmless” to “dangerous” overnight, and almost always only close friends, relatives or community members who are around them will notice that change.

In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public being the eyes and ears of the police so that we do not need a police officer on every street corner watching for criminal activity, so communities, friends and relatives need to be the eyes and ears of counter- terrorism. In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public having trust and confidence in the police, communities, friends and relatives must have confidence in the Government’s counterterrorism strategy generally and the Prevent programme in particular.

I have referred to him before and I do so again: my friend and the former head of the anti-terrorist branch, John Grieve, said that the police and security services cannot effectively tackle terrorism alone; they need the help of the public. As the current head of counterterrorism policing said today:

“If you see any suspicious activity, don’t hesitate to ACT—report it.”


Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from genuine and comprehensive community policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, whereby concerned communities, friends and relatives feel safe in passing on their concerns to officers they trust. Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from communities, friends and relatives feeling it is safe to pass on their concerns to the Prevent programme.

My two questions to the Minister are these. When will the Government reintroduce the genuine community policing that they have decimated over the past decade not just with drastic cuts in the number of police officers, which they are going some way to addressing, but with the devastation of police community support officers, so that there can be a dialogue of equals between the police and the communities they are supposed to serve, rather than the police simply explaining the policing they are imposing on those communities? When will the Government appoint an independent lead for the review of the Prevent programme, in whom communities have trust and confidence, to produce a programme that communities can feel safe passing their concerns to? Unless the police, community services and communities work together, these lone-wolf attacks will continue to be very difficult to stop.

Public Order

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I express our sincere wishes for a full recovery to, I believe, the 35 officers who suffered injuries, as well as to a protestor who, I understand, was also injured. The violence and vandalism were unacceptable and can only be condemned. Police work involves the risk of danger to officers, but gratuitous and reckless attacks on the police of the kind we saw in London should not be accepted as a risk of the job. We pay tribute to the police officers who put themselves in harm’s way on our behalf.

When it comes to the statue of Edward Colston, I do not condone an act of criminal damage to remove it, but I will not miss a public statue of a slave trader. It should have been taken down many years ago.

The figures in the Statement suggest that one in 1,000 of those who participated in the demonstrations around the country have been arrested. The judicial process must now take its course. The figures indicate that it was a very small minority who besmirched significant peaceful demonstrations that might well have been larger but for the pandemic and social distancing. The Government’s own figures indicate that 999 out of every 1,000 who protested did so peacefully.

We can of course simply express criticism of those who demonstrated peacefully for breaching coronavirus regulations and guidelines, but there have been others recently in positions of real power and influence who have hardly set a shining example in this regard. We might do better to look at, and understand, what motivated the 999 out of every 1,000 peaceful, not violent, protestors to turn out on to the streets of many of our cities.

The brutal killing of George Floyd in America has been widely condemned and has also aroused strong passions around the world, including in our country, with protest demonstrations by, and in support of, black people in particular and ethnic minorities in general. The words “black lives matter” have struck a deep chord, reflecting strong feelings and indeed anger—anger about persistent and continuing injustice, discrimination, racism and being treated and regarded as second-class citizens, and with it a call for meaningful action to unite communities and confront injustices in our society.

Public Health England recently published its report on the disparities in the risk and outcomes of Covid 19, showing that black males are four times more likely than expected to die with the disease. Coronavirus has shone a light on inequalities that have long existed. Can the Minister say whether Public Health England made any recommendations in the light of the findings in its report? None appears to have been made public.

The Windrush review by Wendy Williams had damning findings and its recommendations need to be acted upon. When do the Government intend to come back to Parliament to tell us what action they will take in the light of the Williams recommendations?

A report nearly three years ago by the now shadow Justice Secretary, David Lammy, showed that black people make up around 3% of the general population but account for 12% of adult prisoners and more than 20% of children in custody. Those are disturbing statistics, and the Government should implement the report’s recommendations. In the last few days in particular, we have also heard and read testimonies from many people on how racism continues to have an impact on daily lives in our country.

The Home Secretary said in her Statement:

“I fully appreciate the strength of feeling over his senseless killing, the inequality that black people can sadly still face, and the deep-seated desire for change. I know that it is that sense of injustice that has driven people to take to the UK streets to protest.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/20; col. 40.]


We need to address that sense of injustice and deep-seated desire for change as a matter of urgency. Will the Minister now commit the Government to coming back to Parliament on a regular basis to report orally on the actions that have been taken, and are being taken, since each previous update to address that sense of injustice and deep-seated desire for change to which the Home Secretary herself referred? Now is the time to avoid divisive words and instead to listen, to learn and, above all, to act.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this Statement is entitled Public Order and I declare an interest as being one of a small cadre of senior officers trained to lead the policing of disorder. Following my work as the police commander in Brixton—the so-called capital of black Britain—I accepted an invitation to address a University of Minnesota conference on the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans in the city where George Floyd tragically lost his life.

As the police themselves have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the Black Lives Matter protesters in the UK at the weekend were peaceful. There is justified anger about racism in the UK, in all its forms and in all parts of society, but there is a difference between explaining behaviour and justifying it. The appalling attacks on police officers and the damage to property cannot be justified, even though I understand that people are angry, that they feel they are not being heard, and that they believe demonstrating is the only way they can bring about change.

Policing by consent in the UK means policing with the support and co-operation of the public but when people refuse to comply with the reasonable and lawful requests of the police, officers have to switch from persuasion to the use of force, often instantly. That is difficult for individual officers and police leaders when peaceful protests turn violent. Often officers in ordinary uniform have to withdraw under a hail of missiles before officers in riot gear can replace them. It is not the police retreating or losing control of the streets; it is a necessary tactic but one that can lead to police casualties, and I send my best wishes to all former colleagues who have been affected by the violence they experienced this weekend, which, as I have said, was unacceptable.

In recent times police have deployed evidence gatherers—observers speaking into recording devices, and camera operators who record offences as they are committed—so that officers do not have to risk escalating the violence and depleting their numbers by arresting people at the peak of serious disorder. Instead, they investigate, identify and arrest those responsible after the event. It is a difficult operational decision whether to intervene at the time to prevent copycat offences, or to leave it until later, to prevent an escalation in violence and the risk of depleted police numbers being overwhelmed. But what it is not is the police allowing criminals to get away with it.

Of course, the coronavirus regulations prohibit gatherings of more than six people but this needs to be balanced against the human rights to free speech and the right of assembly, also established in statute. Unfortunately, following the Dominic Cummings fiasco, the Government are on very thin ice when people are apparently allowed to use their own judgment when it comes to obeying health regulations. Even Border Force officers are being told to “encourage” the completion of passenger location forms, and not to enforce the law on the quarantine of UK arrivals.

I have three questions that I would like the Minister to answer. First, in the light of these demonstrations, what health advice have the Government given to the police, and what PPE have the Government provided to ensure that officers are protected from coronavirus in such circumstances? If the Minister is going to say that the protests are illegal, that is clearly not stopping them taking place, and officers still need protection. Secondly, what action are the Government taking to acknowledge the justified concerns of those protesting about racism in the UK, to reassure them that they are being heard and that further demonstrations are therefore unnecessary? If the Minister is tempted to say, as one of her colleagues has suggested, that there is no racism in the UK, I remind her of the Wendy Williams report, the David Lammy review, and the disproportionate numbers of BAME people dying from coronavirus that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned. Thirdly and finally, what pressure are the Government putting on the police service to either address the disproportionality or explain why you are 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched in the UK if you are black than if you are white, and two-and-a-half times more likely to die in police custody?

If the Minister is tempted to mention knife crime, I refer her to Home Office research that shows a 10% increase in stop and search results in only a 0.01% drop in non-domestic violent crime. If the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, is tempted to say that it is an operational matter for the police, why is the Home Secretary publicly criticising operational policing decisions around the toppling of the statue of a slave trader in Bristol? If the Home Secretary can put pressure on the police to make arrests, she can put pressure on the police to address disproportionality.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 15th July 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft statutory instrument.

It is regrettable that, in 2016, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised the Government to include such a wide definition of third generation synthetic cannabinoids. Between 40,000 and 90,000 compounds captured by this wide definition were not synthetic cannabinoids and therefore were not intended to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In addition, it inhibited research by requiring researchers to obtain a Schedule 1 licence.

That highlights a series of issues with the Government’s approach to drug misuse. First, the ill-thought-through Psychoactive Substances Act, while making previously so-called legal highs illegal, did not make the possession of such substances an offence—only their manufacture, sale and supply, even though some of the substances are more dangerous than the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act that they were designed to replace.

Secondly, as a result, the ACMD still has to play catch-up with synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs, such as synthetic cannabinoids, which need to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act because they are so dangerous. To get ahead of the game, on the basis of what the Minister said and what is contained in the material published by the Home Office on the SI, the ACMD appears to have gone to the other extreme and banned swathes of innocuous substances.

Thirdly, these synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs were created only because the controlled drugs that they were designed to replace were illegal. For example, I know a doctor who has had to deal with a number of patients with serious psychiatric problems caused by these synthetic alternatives; they took the synthetic alternatives because they were legal at the time, but they would not have had psychiatric problems if they had stuck to the controlled drugs that the synthetic alternatives were designed to replace. My understanding is that the synthetic cannabinoid Spice, which the Minister mentioned, induces far more psychosis and is far more addictive than even the strongest form of cannabis, for example. Can the Minister confirm that?

Fourthly, this sort of mistake further undermines the credibility of the system of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Drugs are being classified primarily on the basis of politics rather than scientific evidence. For example, the previous Labour Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C on the basis of scientific evidence only for the same Labour Government, under a new Prime Minister, to reclassify it back to class B for political reasons. Some drugs, such as GHB or GBL, that cause a large number of deaths—particularly among gay men, including a former partner of mine—are in class C while MDMA or ecstasy, which cause far fewer deaths, are in class A. We do not oppose the correction of this mistake by means of this SI but we clearly state it again: drug misuse should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue; all the efforts of government and law enforcement should be focused on harm reduction, not criminalisation; and the Government need to expand their review of drug misuse to include law changes, including potentially legalising and regulating controlled drugs.

The Liberal Democrats are not the only ones saying this. Last week, a survey showed that twice as many people were in favour of the legalisation of cannabis than against it. Research published last week showed that fewer teenagers used cannabis when it was legalised in the United States. The debate on drug misuse is changing. We believe that it is time that the Government paid attention to that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of the draft order, which we do not oppose. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by narrowing the previous definition of synthetic cannabinoids, as the previous definition has had the effect of requiring compounds that are not of concern to be licensed as class B drugs.

Following the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and of the second generation in 2013, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs first published advice in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids—a group of compounds commonly referred to, as the Minister said, as Spice and Mamba, which mimic the effects of cannabis. The ACMD recommended that these compounds be captured by way of a generic definition as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also recommended that the compounds be placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, meaning that they can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.

Following the ACMD’s recommendations, the changes came into effect on 14 December 2016 but, as has already been said, shortly after their implementation the ACMD and the Home Office were told by research bodies that the breadth of the definition meant that it captured a large number of research compounds, many of which were not synthetic cannabinoids. The effect of this was that research institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences when they should not have needed to do so.

The ACMD recognised that its advice that led to the 2016 changes had unintended consequences. As a result, it made a further recommendation in December 2017 to the effect that the scope of the generic definition be reduced. Accordingly, this order amends the generic definition of third-generation synthetic cannabinoids by replacing the term “univalent” with a defined number of substituents. This will apparently reduce the number of compounds unintentionally captured by the generic definition, estimated by industry at more than 40,000 substances, while retaining those that have not been found to cause harm. As the Minister said, the revised definition does not alter the position for class A drugs or the licensed medicines previously excluded.

When this order was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said,

“so that while those compounds that have been found to cause harm are captured by it, fewer compounds are unintentionally captured”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/19; col. 1263.]

In view of the Commons Minister’s words, how many compounds will still be unintentionally captured by the amended order that we are discussing now, and what level of inconvenience or difficulty will that continue to cause the research community in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector in respect of having to continue, where necessary, to apply for Schedule 1 licences? How cumbersome, time-consuming and time-delaying is the process of applying for Schedule 1 licences, the need for which this order is designed to reduce but apparently not eliminate, in respect of compounds “unintentionally captured” by the 2016 changes? Bearing in mind that the ACMD made its recommendation, which led to the Government making this draft order some 18 months ago, why has it taken as long as it has to reach this stage?

The ACMD’s 2014 recommendations did not come into effect until mid-December 2016. Again, what was the reason for the apparent delay of at least two years? If consultation took place during that lengthy period, did any individuals or organisations raise the problem about the breadth of the definition that the research community raised shortly after mid-December 2016? If not, why did the ACMD—or anyone else—not realise the problem that this order seeks to address before its recommendations were implemented? Did the changes that were brought into effect in mid-December 2016 properly reflect the ACMD’s recommendations of two years or more previously? If not, is that one reason why the problem of the breadth of the definition came to light only after the mid-December 2016 changes came into effect?

This draft order does not seek to address the issue of the use, or rather misuse, of drugs. The UK now has, I believe, the highest recorded level of mortality from drug misuse since records began. I hope that we will soon hear from the Government the different approaches, based on what would most effectively reduce harm, that they intend to consider and adopt in response to a drug situation that appears to be getting worse.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that this is regrettable—I agree. It is never a good place to be in, having to amend legislation for this reason. He is right that research was taking far longer because of the application process. That is why we have the order today. He also made the point that psychiatric problems would not be as problematic as they are with synthetic versions. However, I have thought back to several examples that I am aware of, for example, skunk weed, which has caused psychiatric problems. He asked whether I could confirm that Spice is more addictive than non-synthetic cannabis. It is indeed stronger than some other drugs. That is why it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in line with the expert advice. The SI does not change the control of Spice.

He also made the point that drugs policy should be aimed at reduction. Of course, reduction of the use of drugs is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve, particularly—

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 28th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

One of the few joys of being in the Opposition is that, unlike the Minister, I do not have to repeat the names of organisations and locations. I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose and meaning of this order. It was discussed in the Commons on Tuesday, following which it was approved without a Division. We did not oppose it, and that will be our position today in your Lordships’ House.

Ever since the Terrorism Act 2000, no proscription order brought forward by any Government has been opposed by the official Opposition, and that is not about to change. Seventy-four international terrorist organisations are now proscribed under the Act. As the Minister said, it is intended that this order will come into effect tomorrow. The Minister referred to the organisations and groupings that will be proscribed under the order. Two have been established in the last two years or so, and carry out their attacks and atrocities in specific areas of Africa. The third is Hezbollah, which has been around for rather longer, nearly 40 years. The then Labour Government proscribed Hezbollah’s External Security Organisation in 2001, and its whole military apparatus, including the Jihad Council, was proscribed in 2008.

In her letter of 25 February, the Minister said:

“Hezbollah, as a political entity in Lebanon has won votes in legitimate elections, and forms part of the Lebanese Government. It has the largest non-state military force in the country”.


The effect of this order is to proscribe the political as well as the military wing of Hezbollah, and thus proscribe the organisation in its entirety.

I have a few questions to raise with the Government about the order, and about what has led to it being brought forward today. Just 13 months ago, in a Commons debate, the Security Minister was resisting arguments for proscribing Hezbollah in its entirety—resisting what the Government are seeking to do through this order today.

The Security Minister—he is still the Security Minister—said in that debate:

“Hezbollah also represents Lebanon’s Shi’a community and, over time, has gained significant support from that community. Hezbollah provides social and political functions in Lebanon. As a major political group and the largest non-state military force in the country, Hezbollah clearly plays an important role in Lebanon … I have heard from many Members today that Hezbollah’s military and political wings are indivisible, joined at the hip and centrally led. That is not … the view of every country. Australia, New Zealand and the EU take a different view”.


He went on, just 13 months ago, to say that,

“it is difficult to separate Hezbollah from the state of Lebanon. Hezbollah is in the Parliament and the Government, and that represents a different challenge from that which we find with many other terrorist groups”.—[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/18; cols. 507-8.]

Do the Government still subscribe to the comments I have just quoted, made by the Security Minister just 13 months ago? What has changed over the last 13 months to lead the Government to adopt the approach they now propose in relation to the political wing of Hezbollah, which we will not be opposing, but which the Government were arguing against in January of last year?

In the debate in the Commons on Tuesday, the Home Secretary said:

“I can say that Hezbollah has been reported in many open sources as being linked to or claiming responsibility for many atrocities. These include a suicide bomb attack on a Buenos Aires Jewish community centre in 1994 that left 85 people dead and hundreds injured. The bloodshed came just two years after an attack on the Israeli embassy in that same city, which killed 29 people. Hezbollah’s involvement in the Syrian war since 2012 continues to prolong the conflict and the brutal repression of the Syrian people. In 2016, it helped besiege Aleppo, stopping humanitarian aid reaching parts of the city for six months, putting thousands at risk of mass starvation. Its actions continue to destabilise the fragile middle east”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 283.]


I am sure nobody would wish to do anything other than condemn the specific acts referred to by the Home Secretary last Tuesday, but the point is that all those acts he referred to were known about when the Security Minister was arguing, 13 months ago, against proscribing the political wing as well as the military wing of Hezbollah. Again, what has happened over the last 13 months to lead to the Government changing their stance?

In her letter to me of 25 February the Minister wrote:

“Hezbollah itself has publicly denied a distinction between its military and political wings”.


I think, though, that I am right in saying that that was known at the time of the debate in the Commons in January of last year, when the Security Minister was arguing against proscribing the political as well as the military wing of Hezbollah.

At the end of the debate in the Commons last Tuesday, in response to questions about why the Government had changed their stance, the Home Secretary said:

“I will give four reasons”.


It would be helpful if the Minister could repeat those four reasons, since it seemed to me that he gave only two. He said:

“First, there is secret intelligence. I think the House will understand why we cannot share it … there has been a step change in the activity of Hezbollah, particularly in Syria”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 304.]


The second, I think, was that the proscription review group had expressed the view that Hezbollah in its entirety met the definition of a terrorist organisation in the 2000 Act. Does that mean the proscription review group was not of that view at the time of the debate in January 2018, when the Security Minister argued against the course of action the Government are now proposing—namely, that the political as well as the military wing of Hezbollah should be proscribed? If so, what is it, at least in general terms, that has led the proscription review group to change its view of 13 months ago?

The Home Secretary also said that both the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development have looked again at the work they do in Lebanon. They are clear that they can continue that work and support the legitimate Government of Lebanon and its people. What exactly does that mean in practice? One of the Conservative contributors to the debate on this order in the Commons on Tuesday said that he thought Hezbollah provided,

“13 out of the 68 Members of Parliament in the governing coalition”.

That Conservative contributor went on to say that there were,

“important development objectives, particularly in the south of Lebanon where Hezbollah has the core of its support from the poorer Shi’a communities in the Lebanon”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/2/19; col. 294.]

If the FCO and DfID think that they can continue their work in Lebanon—and the Minister for Security laid some stress in the debate 13 months ago on how the stronger the state of Lebanon is, the weaker Hezbollah will be—does it mean that they will be having, or continuing to have, contact with members of the political wing of Hezbollah in Lebanon, even though this order proscribes Hezbollah in its entirety, including its political wing?

One change since the debate in January 2018 is not a new Minister of Security, but a new Home Secretary. Maybe that is an important, though not decisive, reason behind the change in the Government’s stance. This order will be passed by your Lordships’ House, and I stress again that we are not opposing it, but I would like some answers on the record from the Government to the questions I have asked and the points I have made, because I do not think the questions addressed in the letter of 25 February sent to me by the Minister on behalf of the Government were in relation to Hezbollah.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for explaining this order. I completely agree with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the Government appearing to fail to answer the question, “Why now?”

If somebody is demonstrating on the streets of London and there is only one flag—there are not separate flags for the military and political wings of Hezbollah—I understand that it might be difficult to prosecute them when half the organisation is proscribed and the other half is not. But the questions remains, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said: what has changed since January last year when the Government supported the political wing of Hezbollah being kept separate? Indeed, the Minister talked about how important it is that we support the international effort to tackle terrorism. While the US, Canada, the Netherlands and Israel all designate the whole of Hezbollah a terrorist organisation, as the noble Lord said, the European Union and Australia designate only the military wing as terrorist. What has happened?

Our other concerns are around changes that have happened very recently under the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which we opposed. It extends the existing offence of supporting a proscribed organisation to include recklessly expressing support for it, rather than intentionally inviting support, with a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. It also extends extraterritorial jurisdiction for these offences, so British citizens and residents who express support for Hezbollah, wear clothing related to it or wave its flags in other countries can be prosecuted in the UK. This raises a serious concern: someone who does something supportive of the political wing of Hezbollah—including recklessly expressing support for it—in a country where it is not proscribed, such as in Australia, or Lebanon itself, could still be prosecuted in the UK.

In the debate on the then Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation—said that he was concerned that, while he was in post,

“at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000 … are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription”.—[Official Report, 17/12/18; cols. 1642.]

The Minister will recall the debate, when concern was expressed that organisations were being proscribed for political reasons rather than because they fulfilled the statutory requirements for being proscribed.

Of course, one can speculate about what has changed. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about a change of Home Secretary. He may not welcome my commenting that political capital has been made from the leader of the Opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, having previously been a supporter of Hezbollah. Of course, the Labour Party is facing considerable issues regarding anti-Semitism, and the concerns of the Jewish community about Hezbollah are well known. But I am sure that these have nothing to do with the timing of the whole of Hezbollah being proscribed on this occasion.

We have serious concerns about the whole process, which we expressed in debates on the then Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill. However, like the formal Opposition, we will not oppose this order; we simply wish to place on the record our concerns about the process.

Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We are not opposed to this statutory instrument, which updates the rules that govern procedures in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, including those for a new right of appeal. The tribunal investigates and determines complaints that allege that public authorities have used covert techniques unlawfully and have infringed the right to privacy, as well as complaints against the security and intelligence agencies for conduct that breaches a wider range of human rights.

The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 introduced a right of appeal, which will be on a point of law, from decisions and determinations of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Leave to appeal will be granted only where the appeal raises an important issue of principle or practice, or for another compelling reason. Have there been any cases in which leave to appeal would have been granted had there been an appeals procedure, or is the appeals procedure being added because it is felt that it ought to be available rather than because there is evidence that its not being available has denied a right that ought to be there? How many cases is it anticipated might be appealed per year? How many determinations and decisions are made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal each year, and is that number going up or down?

The tribunal rules are also being updated by this statutory instrument to provide, among other things, that further specified functions may be exercised by a single member of the tribunal. As a result of the public consultation, to which three substantive responses were received, 17 amendments were proposed, of which the Home Office accepted five. Those are listed in paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am aware that the question was asked and answered when the rules were considered in the Commons, but it would nevertheless be helpful if the Minister could clarify for the record in our Hansard the reasons for not accepting the 12 amendments that have not been incorporated.

Could the Minister also give the reasons why it is proposed in the rules that further functions should be able to be exercised by a single member of the tribunal, and why in particular the listed functions in paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum? Did that proposed change arise from a proposition from the tribunal itself? If so, what reasons were advanced for going down that road, and did the tribunal ask for any other functions to be exercised by a single member to which the Government have not agreed?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the rules. The right to appeal from decisions and determinations of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is welcome, although yet again the changes will not take effect in Northern Ireland until the Northern Ireland Assembly has given its consent, an ongoing cause for concern.

Extending the range of functions that can be exercised by a single member of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal appears reasonable. Overall, there is a move in the direction of more openness and transparency so far as that is in the public interest, which is to be welcomed. That includes the tribunal’s power to order disclosure, and a presumption that hearings should be held openly unless it is in the public interest for the complainant or the respondent to be excluded. It is good to see that not only was there a public consultation on the new rules, but the Government listened and acted on some of the responses, and explained the rationale for rejecting other suggestions in their response to that consultation.

Overall, we support these rules and the clear way in which they set out the process by which complaints of unlawful action by a public authority improperly using covert investigative techniques, and claims brought against the security and intelligence agencies alleging the infringement of human rights, are to be handled. We have no questions and we support the draft rules.

Police, Fire and Crime Commissioner for North Yorkshire (Fire and Rescue Authority) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Pinnock. The whole reason for establishing police and crime commissioners was supposed to be to increase the democratic accountability of the police service. In fact, as we have heard, the only way that PCCs can effectively be held to account is through the ballot box, and then only at four-yearly intervals. As we know, in most parts of the country, votes for the PCC are usually cast along established party-political lines and are not a referendum on the performance of the PCC at all.

As my noble friend Lady Pinnock said, police and crime panels, allegedly designed to hold police and crime commissioners to account, are in fact a toothless Singapura, let alone a toothless tiger, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, said. My noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond provided an example from North Yorkshire of how powerless the panels are.

This supposed increase in local democratic accountability of the police is being extended so that PCCs can take over fire and rescue services—something that we on these Benches opposed when the legislation came before this House. PCCs already have a very big job on their hands, being responsible not only for the delivery of policing services in their area but for commissioning and co-ordinating other services to reduce crime and disorder. The Government may be in denial about it, but the level of crime and disorder is increasing, and violent crime in particular is reaching alarming levels across the country. PCCs already have enough on their plate.

This so-called experiment in local democracy can result, as it has here, in local democratically elected representatives of all parties—who have wider responsibility for the delivery of local services, not just the police service, and have the “big picture” in terms of their local areas and the funding of all local services—being totally ignored. The very body that is supposed to hold the local PCC to account also opposes what this PCC proposes to do. How can the Government maintain that the PCC taking over the fire and rescue service in North Yorkshire is in the best interests of local people when the benefits are questionable, or meagre, as my noble friend said, and the constituent councils in North Yorkshire—the county council, City of York Council, the North Yorkshire police and crime panel and the North Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Authority—all oppose this move?

Whether it is the police service or the fire and rescue service, multi-party, multi-member authorities will always be able to take a more balanced, more accountable and more democratic approach than a sole individual, who, among other things, can raise the police precept locally without any consideration of the overall burden on local council tax payers and without taking any account of other pressing local priorities. The economic, efficiency and effectiveness benefits can nearly always be secured by the emergency services more collaborating without the PCC taking over control of the fire and rescue service. This is all pain and no gain. This move is very much to be regretted.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, we agree with the terms of the regret Motion. I do not wish to make any specific comments about the police and crime commissioner concerned since I know nothing about the police and crime commissioner in that area. Suffice it to say that my information too, not surprisingly, is that the North Yorkshire police and crime panel has rejected proposals for the commissioner to take on responsibility for both the fire service and the police—or at least what at that time were proposals—and that the panel had urged the commissioner to reconsider what she was seeking in favour of a model that would retain the current fire authority and give the commissioner a voting place at the table. Likewise, as has already been said most eloquently, the local authorities and the fire and rescue authority expressed a clear preference for the representation model. Indeed, the information that I have received—to put it diplomatically—is that the police and crime panel has a difference of view with the police and crime commissioner over the running of her office in relation to issues of bullying and a hostile environment.

I make no comment on the rights or wrongs of it because I personally know nothing about it. I was told that the police and crime panel intended to write to the Home Office to highlight its concerns. I do not know whether it has done so or whether the Home Office has received any such letter. Clearly there is not a very happy relationship between the police and crime commissioner and the police and crime panel in North Yorkshire. One would have thought that, to get to the bottom of it, the Secretary of State would have wanted to know rather more than perhaps he does about working relationships between the two organisations, since that surely must be a consideration in whether you are going to extend the power and authority of the police and crime commissioner. Maybe the Minister will tell us that the Home Secretary has already done that, and that he is satisfied that the police and crime commissioner is in the right and that the police and crime panel has got the wrong end of the stick; I will wait and see what the Minister has to say on that.

I refer to the independent assessment on which the judgment was made that the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness have been met, and indeed of public safety. On economy, in the section headed “Our Overall Assessment”, the report says:

“Our overall view on economy is that it has received little attention in the LBC”—


the local business case—

“and there is an absence of quantified benefits in relation to any reduced costs of inputs”.

Later in the paragraph, having referred to other issues, it goes on to say:

“On that basis we are unable to reach an objective conclusion on whether the proposal will meet the specific criterion of increased economy”.


Then, looking at the issue of efficiency, the independent assessment says:

“As we noted above nearly all of the savings in the LBC arise from efficiency savings”.


I am not reading out the full paragraph, but it states that:

“The only savings which can be attributed directly to the Governance model are those arising from changes in the structure of the OPCC and the FRA”—


the office of the police and crime commissioner and the fire and rescue authority—

“i.e. those savings referred to as Direct Governance Benefit”,

in the local business plan.

As has already been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the report goes on to say that:

“This leads to a net cost reduction of £36K p.a. from 2019/20 or a total of £204K, net of implementation costs, over the 10 year period of the LBC”.


As has already been said, the independent assessment says:

“However, the savings directly attributable to the change are modest”.


That is probably one of the understatements of the year, if you are talking about savings as low as that; and it is based on the figures that have been put forward by the police and crime commissioner and the assumptions being made proving to be correct.

Turning to effectiveness, the report says:

“Proving a direct link between the governance model”—


which is what the police and crime commissioner wants—

“and effectiveness is a subjective process”.

It ends—it is debatable whether you think this is an endorsement—by saying:

“On balance our view is that the proposed change in governance has the potential”—


I emphasise “potential”—

“to have a positive impact on effectiveness”.

In other words, the independent assessment could not produce the evidence that the change would have a positive impact on effectiveness; it would have only the potential to have a positive impact on effectiveness.

In the next paragraph—I am not reading out the whole paragraph—the assessment says:

“Having reached that conclusion we would add that there is no overwhelming case for change and that most of the proposed changes could be achieved under the other three options, subject to the willingness of all the stakeholders to work together”.


The assessors were also asked to comment, I think, on the issue of public safety, and their comment was,

“this is a very subjective area to assess”.

They concluded by saying:

“On that basis we have concluded that there is no increased risk to public safety due to the proposed change in governance”—


that is a relief—

“and that there may be benefits in the future”.

If that is a ringing endorsement of the PCC’s plan, I think the Secretary of State has got it all wrong, because, as I understand it, it is on the basis of that independent assessment that he has agreed the proposal. Subject to what the Minister may say in response, he does not seem to have taken much account of working relationships—for example, the PCC’s relationship with her police and crime panel, and perhaps with other people as well, including her own staff.

In concluding, I simply say that if the independent assessment is deemed sufficient to meet the criteria of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, it is very unlikely that any future proposal from a PCC to take over a fire and rescue authority will ever be anything other than approved by this Secretary of State.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the order to us. As she has said, this puts two substances into class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

We support any evidence-based scientific approach to reducing the harm caused by drugs, legal or illegal. My question is very simple. The noble Baroness talked about a very clear message being sent to the public, but why do the Government not always act on the scientific, evidence-based assessment of the ACMD?

The problem with drugs classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act is threefold. First, based on independent scientific assessment, drugs are not classified according to the potential harm that they cause. For example, GHB—gamma-hydroxybutyrate—is believed to cause a significant number of deaths—perhaps as many as several a week in the UK alone. Yet it is classified as a class C drug. Cannabis which, to my knowledge has not been the direct cause of any drug-related death, is a class B drug. Because of this, and several other misclassifications of which I could give examples, the classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act has fallen into disrepute among those who might arguably be helped most if they knew that the classification of drugs was based on how dangerous they were.

At this stage, I should point out an interest to the Committee. A former partner, who then became my best friend and who was very experienced in the use of recreational drugs, died from an accidental overdose of GHB.

Secondly, because the classification system does not reflect potential harm, only potential sentence, it has become irrelevant to most drug users. They quite simply work on the basis that the penalty is irrelevant to them as they have no intention of getting caught.

Thirdly, any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act carries a heavier penalty than a new psychoactive substance covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 in that possession of a new psychoactive substance is not an offence, whereas possession of any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act is an offence. This is even though some of the new psychoactive substances are more harmful than drugs classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Our drugs laws are a mess, the Government’s drugs strategy is ineffective and, if we are to stop our young people dying, we need a fundamental rethink. We called for a scientific, evidence-based review of our drugs laws when we debated the Psychoactive Substances Bill—a proposition both the Conservative and Labour Benches refused to support. Therefore, I note with interest the comments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Victoria Atkins, in the other place, when this order was discussed by the Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee on 12 November this year, at 6.05 pm, where she said that the Government have announced,

“an independent review of the misuse of drugs in the 21st century”. —[Official Report, Commons, Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 12/11/18; col. 4.]

Can the Minister provide the Committee with further details of who will be conducting this review, what their terms of reference are, and any other details that may be of interest?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the purpose of the order and its provisions. We support it but I have some points that I would like to raise. As has been said, the order controls pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Currently these two substances are subject to the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

The two substances are used, as the Minister has said, to manage a number of disabling long-term conditions including epilepsy and general anxiety disorders. Although they have legitimate medicinal uses for which they can continue to be used, the two substances in question, when taken with other central nervous system depressants, can be the cause of serious harm including respiratory failure and, at worst, death. The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs has said the two substances in question can be addictive, with the potential for illegal diversion and supply and medicinal misuse. Prescription rates have soared—the Minister gave the figures—while the number of deaths related to the two substances have also increased: just over 400 from pregabalin over the last five years and just over 200 from gabapentin.

Concerns were raised in 2014 by the Health and Social Care Board about the potential misuse of pregabalin. Apparently, in February 2015 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons reported concerns of health staff in prisons that a high number of prisoners were being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs, and in a way that did not meet best-practice guidelines. Does that mean prisoners in prison being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs or prisoners prior to their coming into prisons being prescribed the drugs in the wrong way? Either way, the question must be how that has been allowed to happen. What will the planned guidance and communication say to address the issue of drugs of this kind being prescribed without a thorough assessment of the patient’s needs?

For how many years have these two substances been available? What is it that starts the procedure for the control of such substances as class C drugs as per this order? With concerns being raised in 2014, it does not seem to be a particularly quick process. Who or what organisation makes the initial move, and what is then the procedure for getting the matter before the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs? Or is it the advisory council that has to take the initiative in the first instance?

Paragraph 12.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Enforcement of offences in relation to drugs controlled by the Order will be subsumed into the overall enforcement response to controlled drugs”.


That statement is in marked contrast to the impact of the order on pharmacies, GPs and the NHS as a whole, for which precise figures have been given in the Explanatory Memorandum with regard to the additional cost. So what will the additional cost be of implementing this order to the police, the court system and the Prison and Probation Service of enforcing these new offences? What is the estimated number of new offences that will be committed each year as a result of controlling these two substances as class C drugs? Is the reality for our overstretched police that either they will not arrest many people for offences related to those two substances or, if they do, it will be at the expense of investigating, enforcing and arresting people for other offences? Is that what,

“subsumed into the overall enforcement response to controlled drugs”,

really means? If not, what does that phrase mean?

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 20th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too take this opportunity to add to what the Minister has said. Despite the reality that the Bill has not exactly held this House in rapt attention, judging by the number of people who decided to participate in our debates, I thank the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and the Bill team for their help and their willingness to meet to discuss the important issues that have been raised during the passage of the Bill. I also thank the members of our team who have provided such invaluable and vital support to me and to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister. I do not know whether I am speaking out of turn in saying that I think at times she has shared some of our concerns over the implications of the Bill, if not over the Bill itself. I thank the Bill team for engaging with us so that we got a better understanding of the formulation of the treaty, the process of negotiating the treaty and what the possible implications of that might be. Clearly we are now alerted to the fact that both Houses need to be very concerned in scrutinising any treaty that is developed that this Bill relies on. I also thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee, without whom I would be lost.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 14th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I do not want to add to the comments that I made in the debate on whether Clause 21 and Schedule 3 should stand part of the Bill, which echoed the comments of other noble, and noble and learned, Lords.

As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has said, regulations that we recently considered that were made under the Investigatory Powers Act radically redefined “serious crime” to mean offences which carry a minimum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment but also all offences involving communication or the invasion of privacy. The Government are quite capable of redefining—and in fact have redefined—serious crime to fit more precisely the powers referred to in different pieces of legislation, even regulations made under a piece of legislation in which the definition of serious crime is different. So I do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, who mentioned earlier that it would not capture Official Secrets Act offences, because the Government, as has been suggested, can change, have changed and could change the definition of serious crime in relation to Schedule 3 powers.

[Lord Rosser]

I will be very brief indeed. We will listen with interest to what the Government have to say in response to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, but—obviously, subject to what the Government say—it seems to us to have considerable merit.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, as I have added my name to this amendment, I should like to say briefly that we support the principle that there should be the possibility of a review to ensure that these provisions are necessary and proportionate. The appeal process appears to get round any possible issues with matters that cannot be placed in the public domain.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. My name and that of my noble friend Lord Kennedy are also attached to this amendment. As has been said, it reflects a recommendation from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I simply comment that circumstances can change and therefore ask whether it is unreasonable that an individual covered by the enhanced notification requirements should be able to seek a review of the necessity and proportionality of those requirements, as recommended by the JCHR.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Rosser]

Clause 2(4) confers on the police power to seize clothing or any other article, including flags, associated with a proscribed organisation. The Bill would enable the officer in the circumstances to seize items such as flags, provided that the officer was satisfied that it was necessary to seize such an item to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed—evidence that could well be crucial in pursuing an investigation and bringing a successful prosecution.

When this matter was discussed during the passage of the Bill through the Commons, the Government were asked what engagement there had been with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland about the terms of Clause 2 and the difficulties in pursuing such prosecutions. In response, the Government accepted that taking away a flag in certain parts of Northern Ireland had on occasions acted as something of a lightning rod for a riot or a breakdown in civil order, and that in Northern Ireland a flag does not necessarily, in the context of the provisions of this Bill, have pure terrorist content. The Commons Minister said he did not want to see,

“flag protests becoming more and more polarised than they were in the past”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/9/18; col. 661.]

In view of the potentially sensitive nature of this issue in Northern Ireland, the amendment would ensure that Clause 2(4) on seizures could not come into force until the Secretary of State had consulted the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland on the introduction of the new provisions in the Bill in relation to the power to seize.

It would be helpful if the Minister could say how the Government envisage the power to seize working across the UK generally. Presumably, there will still be the same potential confrontation over seizing an item, whether on arrest or subsequently reporting the person for summons, with an indication of that course of action being given to the individual concerned at the time. On the basis of what evidence do the Government believe that the likelihood of confrontation will be reduced? Presumably, those on marches or demonstrations will soon know that court proceedings are still likely or possible under reporting a person for summons. Or is the purpose of this option of seizure—of, for example, a flag—in reality a reason to do it this way and then not pursue the matter any further through the courts?

Presumably, there will still be a need to obtain an individual’s name and address on the street at the march or demonstration before or after the seizure of the flag or other item in question, and that information may or may not be given. Both issues—namely, trying to seek such details and the seizure of the flag before or afterwards—might still provoke confrontation. It would be helpful if the Minister could address that point in her response, as well as the more specific issue of the application of the clause in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment. Judging from the Minister’s non-verbal reaction to it, the consultation proposed seems extremely sensible given the history in Northern Ireland. On whether or not the police will use these powers in a public order situation, the police are very experienced—I declare an interest as a former advanced public order trained police officer who dealt with such situations—and, clearly, a decision has to be made on the basis of the circumstances at the time whether items can be safely seized without escalating the situation. The police service is very well equipped in deploying professional photographers and others gathering video evidence which can be used instead of, or in addition to, seizing those items. So although I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment concerning Northern Ireland, I do not share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the seizure of items potentially escalating a situation.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Rosser]

In the other direction, would an order made in an American court against a British provider that is not complied with lead to contempt proceedings in a United States court, and how would that court enforce it against a British provider?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

While we are waiting, am I right in thinking that in the recent Facebook case it was not that the service provider did not want to provide the information that would be of use to UK law enforcement but that domestic law in America did not allow it to provide that information, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases to which this legislation would apply we anticipate that the service provider would be more than keen to provide the data, provided it can be done lawfully, and that this mechanism provides the lawful means of doing that?

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I am not sure that it entirely satisfies us about the potential for misuse of the legislation, but we will reflect on what she said and perhaps discuss it with her before Report.

[Lord Rosser]

If there is any doubt in this matter, as I understand it from the briefing that we had from the House of Lords Library, the UK’s Deputy National Security Adviser, giving testimony to the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee in June 2017, said that the UK Government were “in full agreement” with the US Department of Justice that a UK-US bilateral data sharing agreement should limit access to targeted orders for data and not bulk access to data.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord because that underlines my point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 19 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will speak to our Amendments 33 and 34 in this group.

Journalistic data of any kind is not excepted electronic data as set out in Clause 3, despite representations made by media organisations that it should be. Instead, under Clause 12 the application for an overseas production order, if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the electronic data specified or described in the application consists of or includes journalistic data that is confidential journalistic data, must be made on notice. Confidential journalistic data consists of data created or acquired for the purposes of journalism and in circumstances that give rise to an obligation of confidence that continues or is held subject to a restriction on disclosure or an obligation of secrecy.

This begs the question: how does the judge make a judgment about whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that confidential journalistic material is involved? Does the judge take the word of the applicant? If the judge determines that confidential journalistic material is involved, how will notice be served on the parties concerned and how will those parties make representations? To probe these issues, Amendment 19 inserts the requirement that:

“The judge must be satisfied that the electronic data specified or described in the application is not confidential journalistic data”.


Clause 13 prohibits the overseas parties from concealing, destroying, altering or disposing of the data, or disclosing the application to anyone else, once they are given notice of the application. What sanction can be imposed for failing to comply? Can it be contempt of court, bearing in mind that at that stage the judge has made no order, only given notice that an application for an order has been made?

Amendment 33 provides that Clause 12(1) should specify that the notice should be served on the data controller and the data subject specifically, as well as anyone else the judge considers necessary. Amendment 34 amends Clause 12(4) to specify that notices should be served on a person R, referred to in Clause 12(3): that is, the person who receives electronic data from another person who intended it to be used for journalistic purposes. I beg to move Amendment 19.

[Lord Rosser]

I referred to the general issue that is the subject of the amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, when I spoke to Amendment 8. We share the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, subject to what the Minister may have to say in response, about the possible difficulties or issues that might arise.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his points and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his intervention. The effect of Amendment 19 would be to exclude confidential journalistic material from the scope of an application and order. I should first point out that Clause 4 reflects the position in the PACE Act 1984. Journalistic material can already be sought under Schedule 1 to PACE through special procedure, and under Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000, when it is held by a company or person based in the UK. The Bill extends this to circumstances where the data is held by an entity based outside the UK and where a relevant international arrangement is in place.

I do not think that we should introduce in the Bill a difference between material that can be obtained—subject of course to appropriate requirements and safeguards—when it is held in the UK, as opposed to being held by an entity based on the country with which we have entered into an agreement. I should also stress that similar standards are set out in the Bill as already exist in domestic legislation, and that the term “reasonable grounds for believing” is readily used by our court system. Reasonable belief requires more than just a guess or a hunch. It will require the judge, marshalling all the facts before them, to come to an assessment on whether the information sought does or does not contain this type of data. It is not the first time that that standard has been used in legislation, and of course it will not be the last. Where confidential journalistic material is sought, the Bill requires that such applications can only be made on notice. That means that anyone put on notice, which can and may include the journalist whose data might be sought, has the opportunity to make representations to the court as to whether it is appropriate for the data to be obtained.

The effect of Amendment 33 as drafted would be that an application for an overseas production order that included confidential journalistic material had to be made on notice to a data controller and the data subject. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but I do not agree that it is required, for two reasons. First, the rules of court will set out the process by which a judge can ensure that anyone affected by the order is notified of any given case. Consideration of notice by the judge relating to such a request is left to his or her discretion to allow for the circumstances where notice to a data controller, data subject or anyone else is deemed appropriate by the judge when granting an overseas production order. I think giving the judge discretion to determine which is appropriate in any given case is the right approach.

Secondly—this is a point that I have made before and will make again—we are providing in the Bill the means to serve an order on a company based outside the UK in a country with which we have a relevant agreement, in the same way as is currently the case with a company based in the UK. In those cases the respondent and any other person affected by the order would ordinarily be given notice and therefore the opportunity to make representations, unless under rules of court the judge is satisfied that there are good reasons for not doing so—for example, because of the risk of prejudice to the investigation. We are proposing that the same should apply to overseas production orders.

The intention of Clause 12 is to require an application for an overseas production order to be made on notice where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the electronic data sought consists of, or includes, confidential journalistic data. The effect of the clause as drafted is that notice should be served on the respondent—that is, the person who would be required to produce the data if the order is made. In most cases, this would be a service provider rather than the customer on whose behalf the data is stored. However, a requirement to give notice to the respondent under Clause 12(1) does not preclude the judge considering the application from exercising his or her own discretion under rules of court. Under rules of court they may require notice to be given to other persons who may be affected by an order requiring the production of confidential journalistic material, including a person who in his or her professional capacity has acquired that data. It will be a matter for the judge’s discretion, but he or she is likely to insist on notice being given unless the applicant can demonstrate that doing so would prejudice the investigation—for example, where the journalist himself or herself is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.

An example of where it might not be appropriate is where there is a hacking investigation and the journalist might actually be the subject of an inquiry. The judge may decide that putting someone on notice could potentially harm the investigation or risk the dissipation of the material. It is the Government’s intention, however, to ensure that where an application relates to confidential journalistic data, notice can and should be served on journalists and on whoever the judge deems appropriate given the circumstances of the application. The PACE Act 1984, for example, requires service to be made on the respondent only, otherwise notice requirements are set out in court rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point about sanctions to comply. It is difficult to construct a proportionate regime to ensure nondisclosure prior to an order being made and, in practice, law enforcement would not apply for an order where there was an unacceptable risk of damaging disclosure. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I shall consider their comments before Report, if that is amenable to them.

Amesbury Update

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

The Home Secretary said last Thursday that it was,

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

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

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Codes C, E, F, and H) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for setting out the purpose and content of the draft statutory instrument that we are considering, which is applicable to England and Wales. We support its objectives. The revisions to the codes of practice are intended to reflect changes in the light of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 and current operational policing practice. The changes cover the audio and visual recording of interviews with suspects and the detention and questioning of persons by police officers, including under terrorism legislation. All four codes have been previously revised, two as recently as, I think, February last year. Has it really been necessary to revise Codes C and H twice in 16 months, when the revisions we are discussing relate in part to a 2017 Act? Surely, frequent revisions are time-consuming and hardly encourage an understanding of what the codes say at any one point in time by those who are expected to pay regard to them.

I want to raise the question of resources. No impact assessment has been prepared. Can the Minister confirm that none of the revised codes of practice will require any additional police resources to implement them, whether human or financial, in any police force or organisation, and that they will take up no more police time to implement than that already required for the existing applicable codes of practice?

The revision to Code C also reflects the provision in last year’s Policing and Crime Act to ensure that 17 year-olds are treated as children for all purposes under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. When this order was considered by the Commons, one of the issues raised was whether this change meant that children aged 17 could no longer be named in media reports when they are a victim, as applies to children up to the age of 16. I believe the Government said in the Commons that they would take this matter away to see what more could be done. What has so far happened in respect of this undertaking, albeit I accept that it was given only pretty recently?

Codes E and F introduce what the Explanatory Memorandum describes as,

“substantial changes to the approach to audio and visual recording of suspect interviews”.

The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to say:

“The new and revised provisions cover all interviews for all types of offence, for all suspects—whether or not arrested and irrespective of the case disposal outcome”.


How many extra audio and visual recordings per year is it estimated that this provision will lead to compared to the current figure? Does this have any additional resource implications, after taking into account any expected decrease in written interview records?

Finally, paragraph 8.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to the outcome of the consultation, which,

“prompted a number of significant changes to the original proposals”.

Were any concerns or proposals in the 32 separate responses not reflected in those changes to the original proposals to which the Government refer in the Explanatory Memorandum and, if so, what did those concerns or proposals relate to?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for explaining these measures but I want to take up the theme that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned about resources. While we welcome the tightening of safeguards for children and vulnerable people, we are concerned that some of these measures are a worrying sign of the pressure the police are under. I shall come to that in a moment.

In the meantime, is the Minister aware of the difficulties in the police securing appropriate adults to attend police stations? This has arisen out of the centralisation of charging, meaning that appropriate adults are having to travel much longer distances than when they simply used to attend a local police station. Has any work been done to quantify the problems of centralised charging, set against a potential need for more appropriate adults to attend interviews as a result of the tightening of the guidelines in these codes of practice?

A worrying sign of the times is the fact that a superintendent could potentially authorise an extension of detention of up to 36 hours using a live link. This is an indication of the worrying reduction in the number of senior police officers. The noble Baroness will agree that this is a serious decision. Bearing in mind the rank of the officer required to authorise the detention, is it really appropriate that this be done via a live link rather than by the superintendent attending the police station in person? The lack of detectives in the police service has been in the news recently. There is a national shortage of detectives. Allowing a live link to be used so that a detective can question a suspect, even if the detective is not at the police station, seems a retrograde step. I speak from personal experience when I say that nothing beats being in the room with the suspect when you are trying to determine whether he or she is telling you the truth. Have any concerns been raised by police detectives about the extension of the use of a live link in the way suggested in this order?

Clearly, we welcome the fact that 17 year-olds are going to be treated as children for all purposes under PACE, but that goes back to what I was saying about the need for more appropriate adults and the difficulties that have been brought to my attention in securing appropriate adults.

It is very important that suspect interviews are recorded, except in exceptional circumstances, and therefore we support this order. However, recordings have to be made on suitably compliant authorised recording devices. Has any work been done on whether there will be additional cost to ensure that these suitably compliant authorised recording devices are available in every circumstance, in order to ensure that the interviews can be recorded? The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked this question.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also said, the outcome of the consultation has prompted a number of significant changes to the original proposals. It is to the credit of the Government and the Home Office that the consultation has taken into account these concerns, such as not raising the level required to determine whether somebody is vulnerable to “belief” but keeping it to “any reason to suspect” the suspect is vulnerable. We welcome that approach. Overall, we agree with the changes to these codes of practice, but we are concerned that they may have some operational and financial impact on the police service that is not reflected in any of the surrounding literature the Home Office has provided in connection with these provisions.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 21st June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

On the second page, the Statement says:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. However, these are very serious matters. As the Minister just outlined, this measure can interfere with people’s human rights. Therefore, I have to ask: can she tell us any more about the four organisations being proscribed? I understand that the first group has been involved in attacks in Bahrain and is suspected of financing terror in Qatar; the second group has also been involved in attacks in Bahrain; the third group has been involved in attacks in Egypt; and the fourth group has been involved in attacks on the army and the police in Egypt. However, clearly, this order primarily has effect in the United Kingdom. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any evidence that these groups are active in, or have supporters in, the United Kingdom that would require such draconian steps to be taken? However, I understand that it may not be possible to give those details for security reasons, as she said.

As regards the group being de-proscribed, again it is good to see that the Government are actively considering groups that have been proscribed in the past, and are prepared to de-proscribe where the evidence suggests that is merited. My only concern is that the reasons the Minister gave for de-proscribing the organisation to which she referred raise questions about the amount of evidence available to support the proscription of the other organisations, bearing in mind the alternative measures that can be taken against individuals, in particular, who might be supporting terrorism in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation of the purpose of, and reasons for, this order, which we support, and which proscribes four groups based in Bahrain and Egypt, and removes one group from the list of proscribed organisations. Fortunately, I do not have to go to the same lengths as the Minister in giving the full names of these organisations.

The order, which is the 22nd proscription order under the Terrorism Act 2000, went through the House of Commons two days ago and will come into effect tomorrow, subject to it being passed by this House today, as the noble Baroness said.

The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the UK, with it being a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation. The assets of a proscribed organisation can become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. As I understand it, some 51 people have been charged with membership of proscribed groups and 32 have been convicted.

I also thank the Minister for the letter she sent to me at the beginning of this week setting out the reasons why the Home Secretary had come to the conclusion that each of the four groups is concerned in terrorism. As the noble Baroness said, having reached that conclusion and belief, the Home Secretary then has to decide whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe each organisation, which she has decided to do in each case. One of the factors that the Home Secretary takes into account in considering whether to exercise that discretion is the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. There are, however, four other factors the Home Secretary has regard to in deciding whether to exercise her discretion to proscribe: the nature and scale of the organisation’s activities; the specific threat it poses to the UK; the specific threat it poses to British nationals overseas; and the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I do not want the noble Baroness to regard this as a challenge to what she has just said; I am merely asking for confirmation. Is it really regarded as a security issue to give any indication of which of the five factors set out in the Explanatory Memorandum weighed with the Home Secretary in her decision? I ask that in the context of the noble Baroness’s opening statement, when she referred to supporting international partners in the fight against terrorism, which is one of the five factors. One could take it as a pretty good hint that that was a factor, but that would then be inconsistent with the noble Baroness’s statement that she cannot say which of the factors weighed in the mind of the Home Secretary on this issue.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, perhaps I can assist. I do not know whether it is beyond my pay grade to suggest something to the Minister but perhaps she could consult after today’s proceedings and, if there is any other information that she can possibly put into the public domain, perhaps she can write to us.

Terrorist Attacks

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons. We share the view expressed that responsibility for these awful incidents rests solely on the shoulders of the perpetrators. We all owe a debt of gratitude to our intelligence and security services and the police for the work they do seeking to protect us from acts of terrorism. Without their commitment and dedication, this country would not feel like a safe place to live. We know only too well from an act of terrorism here on our doorstep that their commitment and dedication can result in loss of life—in this instance, of a police officer doing his duty to the full. We should all be grateful to David Anderson QC for his report, although our first thoughts must be with the families and loved ones of those who died or suffered life-changing injuries in these awful incidents.

Those who have the burden of responsibility of protecting us are entitled to expect our full support. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has recently reported that policing is under significant stress. Officer numbers have declined significantly since 2010 and further reductions in numbers of officers and police staff are on the way. A government claim that reserves totalling £1.6 billion are available to the police has been dismissed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate, which said that not only was the figure £200 million less than the Government had claimed but also that two-thirds was already earmarked to be spent.

The chair of the National Police Chiefs Council has been quoted as saying, “We’ve made £1.6 billion efficiency savings in the last five years and predict we’ll save another £0.9 billion in the next five. This at a time when HMIC recognises policing is under significant stress from rising demand and reported crime that is increasingly complex with … budgets due to fall in real terms over the next three years”. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has warned of cuts to officer numbers if her force has to make a further £400 million in savings because of budget pressures. The indicative profile of the counterterrorism police’s grant allocation over the next three years sees a reduction of 7.2% in its budgets. Can the Minister say what the Government now intend to do to address that situation in the light of the Anderson report and the continuing, indeed increased, terrorist threat?

The Anderson report refers to the work of M15 and counterterrorism police in improving their co-ordination and reliance on community policing, even though the Government have previously attempted to maintain, in the face of reductions in community and neighbourhood policing numbers, that counterterrorism and community policing are unrelated activities. What do the Government intend to do to bolster community policing, now that they have been told, not for the first time, that it is a vital part of counterterrorism activity, building confidence and trust among communities and securing crucial intelligence?

David Anderson has said that, in the case of the Manchester terrorist attack, MI5 and counterterrorism police,

“could have succeeded had the cards fallen differently”.

How do the Government interpret that? We know that the police and security and intelligence services have more people who should be monitored than they can properly cope with. Do the Government intend to increase the resources available to address that reality?

Another area that is important in countering terrorism is the effectiveness or otherwise of border controls. Currently, scarce resources are available to be spent on telling people who have lived in this country for over 50 years that they face deportation before bundling them off to an immigration detention centre. On the other hand, resources are not available to prevent 11 people in a lorry from apparently being smuggled into this country undetected by border controls and found in a layby in Wiltshire only when they start banging on the side of the vehicle—11 people who could have constituted a terrorist threat. Is it not time that the Government had a hard look at not only whether they are providing sufficient resources to our hard-pressed security and police services to counterterrorist threats but whether they have their priorities right in how the resources available should be used?

The Statement refers to the fact that the Government will shortly be announcing the budgets for policing for 2018-19. The Home Secretary has said that she is clear that we must ensure that counterterrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threats that we face. In the Statement, the Home Secretary also said:

“I would like to remind honourable Members of the context. Andrew Parker, the director-general of MI5 recently said that we are facing ‘a dramatic upshift’ in terrorist threats”.


If the Home Secretary is to deliver on what she has said, and the Government with her, about the need to ensure that counterterrorism policing has the resources needed to deal with the threats that we face, it has to be very clear in announcing the budgets for policing for 2018-19 that no one will have any grounds for saying that the police and counterterrorism activity are being left underresourced.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and associate these Benches with the Home Secretary’s sentiments concerning those affected by the terrorist outrages. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just reiterated, there is no doubt that the blame for the suffering that was inflicted remains with those who carried out these criminal acts and those who supported them. As far as I am concerned, we have the best intelligence and policing services in the world.

It is important to explain what a “dramatic upshift” in terrorist threats actually means. Having been briefed by those at the highest level, my understanding is that the number of people being influenced by extremist propaganda, particularly online, who are then tempted to conduct unsophisticated attacks such as those at Westminster, London Bridge and Finsbury Park, is increasing. Can the Minister confirm that it is the volume rather than the degree of sophistication, the amount of strategic planning or the co-ordination that is seeing a “dramatic upshift” in the threat?

In the case of the Westminster, Manchester and Finsbury Park attacks, which were apparently carried out by so-called “lone wolf” attackers, can the Minister explain how end-to-end encryption mentioned by the Home Secretary would have made any difference to the likelihood of those attacks being prevented? Bearing in mind that in all these attacks, except the London Bridge attack, none of the murderers was under active investigation, how would their communications have been monitored, whether end-to-end encrypted or not? In the case of the one attacker who was an active subject of interest, can the Minister confirm that the investigative means that were deployed against him could have overcome end-to-end encryption? Is it not the fact that end-to-end encryption is a global issue that cannot be banned, and that we should be focused on what we can do something about, rather than on what we can do nothing about?

Can the noble Earl confirm that David Anderson agrees with MI5 and Counter Terrorism Policing’s conclusion that they could not,

“find any key moments where different decisions would have made it likely that they could have stopped any of the attacks”?

The Home Secretary reflects David Anderson’s conclusion that intelligence is imperfect and investigators are making tough judgments based on incomplete information, and she promises to deliver the resources Counter Terrorism Policing needs to deal with the threats we face. Does the Minister agree that a vital part of the intelligence picture is provided by community policing, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, alluded? The day after the London Bridge attack, a neighbour of one of the attackers told journalists how he thought that the man was being overfriendly and was asking about hiring a van without using a credit card on the day of the attack. Despite, as the Home Secretary said, a “number of” investigative means being deployed against him, this intelligence, which might have been discovered by a community policing team to whom the neighbour may have had links, did not surface until afterwards.

Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, among many others, have warned about the erosion of police resources and the demise of community policing. Despite assurances from Ministers to the contrary, the facts are that police budgets continue to fall in real terms. For example, the Metropolitan Police has already had to make savings of £600 million, with £400 million of cuts in the pipeline. Does the Minister agree that effective community policing is as important, if not more important, against the current unsophisticated threat, as Counter Terrorism Policing, and that community policing must also have the resources needed to deal with these threats?

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Search, Seizure and Detention of Property: Code of Practice) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 5th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that explanation of the purpose and content of the four orders we are considering, which we support. Clearly, they do not have quite the same attraction for Members of your Lordships’ House as the business we discussed prior to this, judging by the attendance in the Chamber at present.

The orders seek to ensure that powers are used appropriately and proportionately by those exercising them, as well as giving those exercising them the necessary powers to achieve the required objectives in recovering the proceeds of crime. As the Minister said, the orders bring into force revised codes of practice and one new code of practice, providing guidance and procedural requirements for the exercise of certain functions under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The revised and new codes are required because of amendments to POCA made by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, which was passed last April—in the days when this Government had a working majority in the House of Commons and before this Government gave a certain large sum of money to secure a smooth, lasting and harmonious working relationship with the DUP.

That brings me to the issue of Northern Ireland and these orders. As the Minister said, a legislative consent Motion has not been obtained because the Northern Ireland Assembly was dissolved during the passage of the Criminal Finances Act. The Minister said that the Government were working with the authorities in Northern Ireland to commence the powers as soon as possible. Does this mean that further legislative measures are on the way or are such measures all covered by these orders? Which powers are the Government working with the authorities in Northern Ireland to commence there as soon as possible? Is it just the new powers and amendments made under the Criminal Finances Act 2017, to which the revised and new codes of practice we are discussing relate, or powers unconnected to these codes of practice? Who are the authorities in Northern Ireland to which the Minister referred? What are the actual or potential consequences on the effectiveness of the matters covered by the Criminal Finances Act in relation to proceeds of crime, not only in Northern Ireland but in Great Britain, of not being able to obtain a legislative consent Motion and bring them into operation on the intended day?

Since one of the orders apparently covers Northern Ireland—the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2018—can the Minister say why that order includes Northern Ireland, in view of the issue over a legislative consent Motion not being obtainable? The Commons Minister stated when it was discussed there that,

“there is nothing in these codes relating to the new powers that is a devolved matter in the competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly ”.—[Official Report, Commons, Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/12/17; col. 4.]

Is the answer to the question I have raised that the order to which I refer covers an aspect of POCA that is not devolved?

A second point relates to the resources that will be available to ensure that the new powers and provisions in the Criminal Finances Act 2017, to which the revised codes relate, can be effectively implemented. For example, the codes cover the extension of certain authorities and powers to the Serious Fraud Office. There is also a new code of practice providing guidance, as the Minister said, on the use of search powers for the recovery of listed assets that are suspected to be the proceeds of crime or intended for use in crime. New codes are of little relevance if the resources are not there to bring their content into operation.

What steps have the Government taken recently to satisfy themselves that the necessary resources are available to implement effectively the powers and authorities to which these codes relate? What are the asset recovery rates of the agencies concerned, and how have those changed over the last five years? Do the agencies have a target figure they are expected to achieve and are they achieving it? Are the Government satisfied with the performance of the agencies concerned on asset recovery and, if not, what action is being taken? Finally, can the Government give an assurance that, since the codes refer, I believe, to immigration officers, among others, the important powers covered by these codes will not be conferred on outside bodies acting for the Government, such as G4S and Serco?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we also support these instruments and see the importance of extending the ability to recover criminal assets to precious metal and precious stones. There is a serious concern in some communities, for example with drug dealers who display their wealth ostentatiously, that young people should not be encouraged to go down that route by such behaviour. The police and other law enforcement agencies sometimes have difficulty in proving substantive offences against such people, so for them to be able to seize such precious metal and precious stones where people are not able legitimately to account for them is an extremely important move.

It is a concern that these powers will not be able to be commenced in Northern Ireland. This highlights again the importance of Northern Ireland in matters that the country is concerned with at this time.

It is important that these agencies have the necessary resources to implement the powers to which these codes of practice relate. While it is possible that fewer resources will be required to seize assets than would be necessary to prove sometimes difficult substantive offences against the individual, we are content with these instruments.

Deaths in Police Custody

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 30th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons. I agree with the Statement’s acknowledgement of the tremendous efforts of our police forces and officers.

The independent review by Dame Elish Angiolini QC into deaths and serious incidents in police custody was commissioned by the then Home Secretary in July 2015 to alleviate the pain and suffering of families still looking for answers. We thank Dame Elish for her comprehensive report and all those who contributed to it. However, will the Minister say when that report was received by the Home Secretary, as there appears to have been a lengthy delay between the report being received and the independent report being placed in the public arena—a delay which does not seem entirely consistent with the objective of alleviating the pain and suffering of families still looking for answers? What parts of the report, bearing in mind the delay, would have caused the Government a problem if the report had been placed in the public arena much earlier? Remarkably, after all the delay, the Government still do not intend to give their response to the recommendations, including the ones on healthcare in police custody, inquests and support for families. I hope the words “kicking” and “long grass” do not prove to be all too accurate.

The report is critical of the current processes, protocols and procedures for investigating deaths in police custody and of the role and approach of the agencies and organisations involved. It makes a considerable number of recommendations for speeding up the process of investigating deaths in police custody, including following contact with the police, in the light of the lengthy delays that currently occur, in contrast to the urgency, haste and mindset that is normally associated with potential and actual murder investigations. The delay in the current process leads to frustration, anger and suspicion that justice is not being done, and does not exactly enhance confidence and trust in the police, particularly among and within the families and communities most directly affected. The campaigning group Inquest has, I believe, said that more than 1,000 people have died in police custody or following contact with the police since 1990. No police officer apparently has been convicted in a criminal court in connection with any of those deaths.

The report makes a number of recommendations. For example, it states:

“For the state to fulfil its legal obligations of allowing effective participation of families in the process that is meaningful and not ‘empty and rhetorical’ there should be access for the immediate family to free, non-means tested legal advice, assistance and representation immediately following the death and throughout the Inquest hearing”.


I would have to say that, from the Statement, the Government appear to be a little lukewarm on implementing this recommendation in full. The Statement says, for example, that legal aid may be necessary in some circumstances. There is reference later on to “considering” the issue of publicly funded legal advice and representation at inquests.

The recommendations also include the comment that NHS commissioning of healthcare in police custody was due to have commenced in April 2016 but was halted by the Government earlier in the year. This report strongly recommends that this policy is reinstated and implemented. Perhaps the Minister can say why the commissioning of healthcare in police custody was halted by the Government, particularly since the report seems to have commented somewhat adversely on it.

The report also addresses the extent to which police use of restraints against detainees was identified as a cause of death by post-mortem reports in 10% of deaths in police custody between 2004-05 and 2014-15. It also says that a significant proportion of deaths involved people with mental health needs, and the report makes specific recommendations providing for change in how such people are treated, as indeed it does for those who have issues with drugs and/or alcohol. Drugs and/or alcohol featured as causes in around half of deaths, and an even higher proportion of those who died had an association with drugs or alcohol—namely, 82%.

The Statement indicates exactly what actions the Home Secretary now intends to take—and, I would have to say, not take—in the light of the report’s recommendations. By when do the Government expect to see a considerable improvement in the practices, procedures and mindsets identified in the independent review as contributing to and exacerbating the impact of the current delays in investigations into deaths in police custody? Against what criteria will the Government assess the effectiveness or otherwise of the actions that they are announcing today in light of the review? What are the specific goals that the Government expect their actions announced today to deliver? Who will be responsible for ensuring that those goals are delivered? What, if any, additional resources will be made available to implement even the actions announced today in the Statement, let alone if we implemented all the recommendations set out in the report?

In the light of the recommendation in the report, can the Government say any more—since I have questioned them—about the arrangements that will be introduced to make sure that there is proper legal representation for the families of those who have died in police custody at coroners’ court inquest hearings? Surely, the Government can be a bit more specific than they have been, because this report was submitted many months ago. Indeed, that applies to most of the recommendations in the report, bearing in mind that they have said that they do not intend to give a detailed response to all the recommendations today—and, indeed, they have not.

The report states that its recommendations are necessary to minimise as far as possible the risk of deaths and serious incidents in police custody occurring in future and to ensure that, when they do, procedures are in place that are efficient, effective, humane and command public confidence. It is now principally, although I accept not solely, up to the Government to make sure that those objectives are achieved within the shortest possible timescale. So far, the Government will appear to many to have dragged and still be dragging their feet. To allay those fears, will the Government report back to this House within no more than six months on the progress being made on the implementation of the recommendations in this comprehensive and valuable independent report?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and express our sympathy to all those who have lost loved ones as a result of deaths in police custody. I declare an interest in that, when I was borough commander in Lambeth in south London, there were a number of deaths in custody. It is important to express that to the House, because the impact that it can have on the officers involved is also something that needs to be taken into account—particularly those officers who have acted in good faith and have done nothing wrong.

There are 120 recommendations, and it would be impossible to cover the whole ground, but there are a couple of issues that I want to highlight. The Minister has said, and the report talks about the fact that inquests are intended to be inquisitorial and should not be adversarial. When I represented the family of somebody whose son died as a result of a police action, it was the most adversarial court appearance that I have ever appeared in, bearing in mind that the overall majority of my experience had been in adversarial criminal courts. Surely, in those circumstances, and unless and until that situation is changed, families of those who have lost loved ones at the hands of the police should receive equality of arms in terms of legal representation with the police as recommended in this review—no ifs, no buts and no conditions.

On another issue, 15 or more years ago I was the Association of Chief Police Officers lead on mental health issues in policing. Following a number of deaths in police custody, training was introduced on the safe restraint of those suffering from mental illness. That was 15 years ago. Why does this report say that:

“National policing policy, practice and training must reflect the now widely evident position that the use of force and restraint against anyone in mental health crisis … poses a life threatening risk”?


This has been evident for decades, yet people are still dying in those circumstances at the hands of the police. What are the Government going to do differently this time to make a real difference?

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2017

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 24th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Since I, too, was caught out by the earlier than anticipated start of this debate, I can thank the Minister for only that part of her explanation of the reasons for and purpose of the draft order that I actually heard. The purpose of the draft order, as has been said, is to make it an offence to possess, import, export, produce, supply or offer to supply the drug methiopropamine, or MPA, without a Home Office licence. MPA is a stimulant, psychoactive substance that has been subject to temporary control orders, the latest of which is about to expire—at the end of next month, if memory serves me right. There is evidence of MPA having adverse effects when taken, including abnormally fast heart rate, anxiety, nausea and breathing difficulties. I have to say that my list is more abbreviated than that given by the Minister when she introduced the order.

MPA has been associated with a number of deaths in the last five years and, as the Minister said, there were 46 cases where MPA was found in post-mortem toxicology, with MPA being implicated in the actual cause of death in 33 of those cases between 2012 and 2017.

MPA has not infrequently been marketed as a legal alternative to cocaine. In June of this year the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the ACMD, indicated that MPA continued to be misused and, as a result, was having harmful effects that could constitute a social problem. The ACMD recommended that MPA should now be permanently controlled as a class B drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971—which means, as I understand it, that among other things, including higher maximum sentences, possession of MPA also becomes an offence, which is not the case for substances controlled under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016.

The ACMD also found that MPA had no recognised medicinal use, or industrial or commercial benefits other than potentially for research. I simply conclude by saying that we support the decision to accept the ACMD’s recommendation, and hence we support this order.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Newby made the point last week, when the Leader of the House asked for this House to suspend its Standing Orders in order to consider this matter today, that this legislation has not been scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments because of the Government’s failure to appoint their Commons members of that committee. This is clearly unacceptable and must be resolved as soon as possible.

In this particular case, the order is the result of a recommendation, as we have heard, by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to permanently classify the drug MPA as a class B drug. I am therefore confident in supporting this order as the recommendations of the ACMD are evidence based.

However, the comments of the parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office to the first Delegated Legislation Committee in the other place yesterday, which presumably were a repetition of what the Minister said this evening to the House—again, I apologise for being slightly caught out by the early start of this particular debate—draw questions around bigger issues about the Government’s approach to controlling drug misuse.

MPA is a synthetic drug designed to replicate the effects of cocaine or MDMA. MPA started off life as a legal replacement for these class A controlled drugs. Prior to the Psychoactive Substances Act and the temporary class drug order, MPA would have been legal to both supply and possess. As we have heard, the Psychoactive Substances Act permanently made manufacture and supply of the drug illegal, but not possession, while the TCDO and this measure make possession as well as manufacture and supply illegal. Whether it sends a message to users about how dangerous the drug is is questionable.

The development of synthetic alternatives to existing controlled drugs—and in this case I am thinking in particular of things such as spice, the synthetic alternative to cannabis—runs the risk of creating even more toxic, and far more dangerous, drugs than the drugs they are designed to replace. The risk of continuing with a prohibition-based strategy of controlling the misuse of drugs is likely to increase the number of drug-related deaths.

Can the Minister tell the House, or write to me subsequently to tell me, how many deaths have resulted from the misuse of cocaine and MDMA between 2012 and 2017, compared with the 46 cases where post-mortem toxicology showed traces of MPA, and the 33 cases where MPA was implicated in the actual cause of death, as a proportion of arrests for possession of each type of drug—which we can assume is a proxy for how much cocaine, MDMA and MPA is being used? Can the Minister also tell the House how many deaths have resulted from the misuse of cannabis between 2012 and 2017?

If MPA is as dangerous, or more dangerous, than cocaine or MDMA, the question must be: why is it being classified as a class B drug while the others are classified as class A drugs? If MPA is, as I suspect, more dangerous than cannabis, at least in terms of fatalities, why is it in the same class of drugs as cannabis? Assuming, as I do, that the ACMD has made the right evidence-based decision in terms of its recommendations as to which class MPA should be placed in, what does this say about the classification of cocaine, MDMA and cannabis?

The point I am trying to make is that the current classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act lacks credibility, certainly with users. No one I know who misuses drugs starts from a point of asking, “What class is it in?” when deciding which drug to take.

We should be taking a harm reduction-based approach to the misuse of drugs, which should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. That having been said, just because the classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act lacks credibility and other drugs may be wrongly classified, this does not mean that this evidence-based recommendation from the ACMD is wrong. On that basis, we support the order.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. If anybody is in any doubt about the need for Leveson 2, which was intended to be an inquiry into the potential for corrupt practice between the police and the press, let me say that, with the former Prime Minister, David Cameron, the then leader of the Opposition, Ed Miliband, and the former Deputy Prime Minister, Nick Clegg, I met with the family of Milly Dowler. The Sunday before that series of meetings took place, Mr Dowler received a phone call from Surrey Police to tell him that the News of the World had told Surrey Police at the time of Milly Dowler’s disappearance that it had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail and retrieved information from it. Surrey Police did nothing at all to prosecute the News of the World over that issue, and it was only the day before that series of meetings that Surrey Police told Mr Dowler that it had known all along that the News of the World had hacked into Milly Dowler’s voicemail. This is the sort of matter that we have not got to the bottom of yet, and Leveson 2 should be held in order to establish what happened.

On financial privilege, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill of Bengarve. Parliament has already committed to the expenditure for Leveson 2; the amendment simply says that it is Parliament itself that should decide that that money should not be spent. The amendment would not involve additional money which has not previously been committed.

However, there is an issue with the wording of the amendment. Our reading of the amendment, if correct, suggests that as the chair of the inquiry, Lord Justice Leveson could override the view of both Houses of Parliament, in that if both Houses voted not to hold Leveson 2 but Lord Justice Leveson himself disagreed with that, the inquiry would still go ahead. We feel that that is a defect in the amendment. Clearly, there will be an opportunity for that to be corrected if we support the amendment today and it goes to the other end, but I hope that the noble Baroness will consider that carefully in considering whether we are on firm enough ground to divide the House on the amendment.

I cannot stress strongly enough from our side how important we think Leveson 2 is and how it needs to take place. We will take every opportunity we are offered to ensure that the Government hold the Leveson 2 inquiry.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Like, I imagine, many other Members of this House, I have received an email from Margaret Aspinall in her capacity as chairwoman of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, asking me to support this amendment. I will not repeat the terms of the email, which I believe has been widely circulated, but it is an indication of the widespread and heartfelt concern that Leveson part 2 might not proceed.

The Leveson inquiry was set up with cross-party agreement and firm commitments from the then Conservative Prime Minister that Leveson part 2 would take place. Let us be clear: Leveson part 2 was in the agreed terms of reference of the Leveson inquiry. The words in the terms of reference for part 2 conclude with:

“In the light of these inquiries, to consider the implications for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities, and relevant regulatory bodies—and to recommend what actions, if any, should be taken”.


When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons last week, the Government said that,

“given the extent of the criminal investigations into phone hacking and other illegal practices by the press that have taken place since the Leveson inquiry was established, and given the implementation of the recommendations following part 1, including reforms within the police and the press, the Government must consider whether proceeding with part 2 of the inquiry is appropriate, proportionate and in the public interest”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/1/17; col. 247.]

Those are words with which we are uncomfortable. They sound like the words of a Government who have already decided they do not wish to proceed with part 2 and are looking for their public consultation, which has now concluded, to give them a cloak of respectability for going back on previous firm pledges that part 2 of Leveson would take place.

The inquiries under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2 have not taken place, and thus neither have we had, nor, I would suggest, if this Government think they can get away with it, will we have the considered implications, in the light of those inquiries, for the relationships between newspaper organisations and the police, prosecuting authorities and relevant regulatory bodies with recommendations on what actions, if any, should be taken, called for and provided for under the terms of reference of Leveson part 2.

The Government appear in effect to have decided that they already know what would emerge from the Leveson part 2 inquiries and, likewise, what the recommendations would be without those inquiries taking place and recommendations being made. Frankly, it begins to look as though some powerful individuals and organisations behind the scenes know that they have something to hide and are determined to stop Leveson part 2 and, with it, the prospect of it all coming out into the open.

When the Lords amendment on Leveson part 2 was considered in the Commons, the Speaker certified it as engaging financial privilege, and that is the reason the Commons has given for disagreeing with it. Whether the amendment before us today would likewise be deemed as engaging financial privilege is not something on which I have any standing. However the amendment, which I saw for the first time only at a very late stage, does say that Leveson part 2 proceeds unless both Houses of Parliament and the chairman of the inquiry agree that it should not.

We are thus in a situation where, if both Houses decided that Leveson part 2 should not proceed—I sincerely hope they would not so decide—that decision would mean nothing if the chairman of the inquiry was not of the same view. I think that however strongly we may feel that Leveson part 2 should proceed, we are in difficult territory if basically we say that the view of the chairman of an inquiry that Leveson part 2 should proceed can override a decision by both Houses of Parliament that it should not proceed, particularly when at heart the issue is whether a clear and unambiguous promise made by a Conservative Prime Minister, with cross-party agreement, that Leveson part 2 would proceed can be tossed aside. That is the kind of issue that Parliament has to address and determine.

We feel very strongly that Leveson part 2 should proceed and that cross-party agreements and associated prime ministerial promises should be honoured and not ditched by this Government. We are unhappy with the wording of the amendment. However, whatever the outcome, we will continue to pursue all credible opportunities to ensure that the pressure is maintained and that Leveson part 2 takes place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lady Brinton and associate those on our Benches with her remarks on Jill Saward. The Minister acknowledged in her remarks that there are legitimate concerns about the victims’ code, and that is why there was a Conservative Party manifesto commitment for a new victims’ law to ensure that the victims’ code is given effect. That is what my noble friend is trying to achieve through the amendment. We trust that the Government’s review will result in more effective protection for victims and more compliance by the police and the other agencies with the victims’ code. If the Minister can give that commitment, we will be prepared to accept the Government’s intention to ensure that the victims’ code is not simply a matter of words but will have some effect and that victims will be better cared for by those agencies in the criminal justice system.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we, too, support the objectives behind the amendment that was moved so eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for the reasons that she herself set out. We also associate ourselves with the comments made by the noble Baroness about Jill Saward.

The issue is that the current victims’ code is not legally enforceable and there is clear evidence that it is not being applied and acted on by the relevant agencies to the extent that was clearly intended—to the detriment of the victims it was intended to help. The amendment provides for victims’ rights to be placed on a statutory footing and for the Secretary of State to address the issue of training for all relevant professionals and agencies on the impact of crime on victims.

I share the view that the Government, in the statement made by the Minister today, have been considerably more helpful and constructive in their response than they were during consideration of the Lords amendment in the Commons last week.

Finally, I, too, express my thanks to the Minister for her willingness to meet us. I hope that we have reached a stage at which there will be some accord on this issue.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 19th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I shall be very brief, but I take this opportunity to thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, for the courteous and open way in which they have listened to and sought to address, within government policy constraints, the issues raised during the passage of the Bill. I seem to have received a deluge of letters, for which I am genuinely very grateful, but it rather tests the statement that somebody, somewhere is waiting for a letter—that may no longer be the case in this instance. Actually, the number of letters that we have received in the light of the debates that have taken place is a reflection that the issues have been raised, considered and responded to, and I am very grateful for that. I thank the members of the Bill team for their help. I also thank all my noble friends, especially my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and other Members of this House who have contributed to the debates. We too wish the noble Baroness, Lady Chisholm of Owlpen, a very successful time, presumably on the Back Benches, from where I am sure she will continue to make her views known.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Baronesses—the Ministers—for the way in which they have conducted proceedings on the Bill, and the members of the Bill team for the help and co-operation that we have received from them. My next offer of thanks is rather controversial and probably not in accordance with protocol but I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, for the way in which we have discussed matters, which has helped the Bill’s passage

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I strongly support the amendment. While I accept what the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about overcrowding, we need to differentiate between many offences that do not deserve a custodial sentence, and in fact would be more effectively dealt with by a non-custodial sentence, and those that really need long custodial sentences, for the very reasons that the noble and learned Lord has just articulated. These are offences where, particularly in the case of repeat offences, a longer custodial sentence is needed. That is why we will support the noble Baroness should she decide to divide the House.

[Lord Rosser]

I will be brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has indicated on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, if, having heard the Government’s reply, my noble friend Lady Royall decides to test the opinion of the House, we too shall be supporting her amendment in the Division Lobby.

I will not go through all her points but my noble friend has referred, as have others, to the issue of repeat offences. She referred to why the maximum sentence is five years at present. She referred to the level of cross-party support that there has been on this issue, and to the relationship of the maximum sentence for this offence with other offences that have a maximum of 10 years. She also made reference to the stalking orders and the Government’s announcement there, which was welcome, but of course it does not address the issue of what the appropriate maximum length of the sentence is. My noble friend also stressed that stalking costs lives in certain circumstances, and causes psychological harm. I think she has made an extremely powerful case. As I said, if she decides, having heard the Government’s response, to test the opinion of the House, we shall be with her in the Division Lobby.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment and its associated new clause seek to establish the principle of parity of legal funding for bereaved families at inquests involving the police, the lack of which and the associated injustice was highlighted by the sorry saga of the Hillsborough hearings and the extent to which the scales were weighted against the families of those who had lost their lives. But Hillsborough was not a one-off—it was simply that the proceedings received a lot of publicity. Many bereaved families can and do face a similar situation when they go to an inquest and find themselves in an adversarial and aggressive environment where they are not in a position to match the spending of the police or other parts of the public sector in what they spend on their own legal representation. At times, the families feel that they are being made to look like the perpetrators responsible for what happened, rather than the victims.

The public sector is in a position to spend taxpayers’ money on hiring the best lawyers to defend its reputation. Bereaved families have to find their own money, sometimes even to the extent of remortgaging their house, to have any sort of legal representation to mount a challenge. Public money should pay to establish the truth, and that surely means parity of arms. If the argument is that an inquest will get at the truth anyway, irrespective of the extent and quality of legal representation, why do the police and the public sector turn up at such inquests with their own array of lawyers?

Margaret Aspinall, who was the chair of the Hillsborough Family Support Group, has told of the lengths to which she and other members of the group had to go to raise money for the legal fund. It is surely not right, and surely not justice, when bereaved families trying to find out the truth, and who have not done anything wrong, find that taxpayers’ money is being used by the other side to paint a very different picture of events in a bid to destroy their credibility.

It might also help if we had inquisitorial rather than adversarial inquests. In the case of Hillsborough, the Lord Chief Justice made a specific ruling when he quashed the original inquest: he hoped that, given that the police had tainted the evidence, the new inquest would not degenerate into an adversarial battle. However, that is precisely what happened, and the lies and innuendo about Liverpool supporters at the match were repeated by a lawyer being financed at public expense and presumably acting under instructions from the public body involved.

I hope that the Government will be able to respond in a more helpful way than they did when this matter was debated during the Bill’s passage through the Commons. If there is to continue to be an adversarial battle at inquests involving the police, we should at least ensure that bereaved families have the same ability as the public sector to get their points and questions across and, in the light of what can currently happen, to defend themselves and the loved ones they have lost from attack, and, if necessary, to challenge the very way proceedings are being conducted. This is a bigger issue than simply Hillsborough: it relates to the situation that all too often happens to too many families, but without the same publicity as Hillsborough. We surely need to act now to change a process and procedure that appears at times to be geared more to trying to grind down bereaved families than to enabling them to get at the truth and obtain justice. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment to which I have added my name. I declare an interest: I gave evidence for the de Menezes family at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes, whom noble Lords will remember was shot by accident by the police, suspecting him to be a suicide bomber. Sadly, I experienced the adversarial nature of inquests at first hand. Indeed, during the lunch break on the day that I gave evidence, the coroner had to warn the legal team for the Metropolitan Police and basically tell them to “cool it”.

A very adversarial system operates at the moment, whereas it should be an inquiry after the truth. Having experienced it first hand, I can say that it is absolutely necessary for the families of the bereaved to be as well represented as the police where there has been a death at the hands of the police, or a death in police custody, to use the technical term. For those reasons, I support the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to make a statutory provision for the fire and rescue services in England to lead and co-ordinate the emergency service response to serious flooding.

Part 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 sets out the statutory core functions of fire and rescue authorities: fire safety, firefighting, and rescuing people and protecting them from harm in the event of road traffic accidents. The 2004 Act also gives the Secretary of State the power to give fire and rescue authorities functions relating to other emergencies, including outside the fire and rescue authority’s area. This is an order-making power and does not require primary legislation.

There is thus no statutory duty on the fire and rescue services for emergencies arising from flooding, yet flooding is on the increase. Government figures show that in 2007 there were 14,000 flooding calls; in 2011-12 there were 16,000; and in 2013-14 there were 18,000. I also sense that the extent of flooding is becoming more serious. The Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service said that on Boxing Day last year it deployed two-thirds of its available resources on flood response. The 2008 Pitt review into the 2007 floods said that a statutory duty would be beneficial and recommended that the Government should urgently put in place a fully funded national capability for flood rescue, with fire and rescue authorities playing a leading role underpinned as necessary by a statutory duty.

The case for a statutory duty on the fire and rescue services is now stronger than it was in 2008, with more and more flood calls but fewer staff, less equipment and fewer fire stations. In parts of the United Kingdom there is already a statutory duty on flooding, namely in Scotland since April 2013 and Northern Ireland since January 2012. A statutory duty would assist in adding to the resilience of fire and rescue services when faced with flooding, assist with strategic planning between fire and rescue services and local resilience forums, and underscore the need to resource fire and rescue services specifically for flooding.

The Government’s approach to date appears to be that there is no need for a statutory duty because the fire and rescue services will turn up as necessary anyway even though it is not a statutory core function. On the basis of that argument one might as well remove all the existing statutory core functions of the fire and rescue services on the basis that they will turn up anyway. The reality is that additions are made to statutory functions to reflect changing circumstances.

The fire service has been rescuing people from road traffic crashes for decades, but it was felt that a statutory duty was needed and the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 addressed that. The fire service had been providing fire protection for centuries, but a statutory duty was introduced in 1947. Now is surely the time to introduce a statutory duty on flooding to reflect and recognise the vastly increased role of the fire and rescue services in this area of emergency provision. The Government talk about the need to reform our emergency services and bring them up to date. Perhaps the Government need to do the same for the statutory functions of the fire and rescue services. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on a statutory core function or a statutory duty on flooding for the fire and rescue service, we are a little concerned about the wording of his amendment which reads:

“The Secretary of State shall make provision for the fire and rescue services in England to lead and co-ordinate the emergency service response”.

It is accepted practice among all the emergency services that the police co-ordinate during the emergency phase of any emergency, whether flooding or anything else, partly because there is a duty on the police to investigate. For example, one can imagine a scenario where flooding is caused by a criminal act. It is generally accepted practice and has been for many years that the police service should lead and co-ordinate in every emergency situation. That is slightly different from what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is saying in terms of the fire and rescue services having a statutory core function or duty but we do not believe that that should be to lead and co-ordinate in the case of flooding.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Jolly and myself. My noble friend has made a very strong case, not just because it was Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary’s recommendation that the three service police forces should come under the remit of the IPCC. Those responsible for the Royal Military Police have accepted that the organisation is at a strategic risk because it does not come under the remit of the IPCC. If the Government are not prepared to accept the amendment, it would be very interesting to hear from the Minister why not.

[Lord Rosser]

I will just add briefly to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, at the end of his speech. If the Government do not feel inclined to accept the amendment, there is a need—I am sure it will happen when the Government respond—to hear precisely what their reasons are for not going down that road. It has been said that no comparable body to the IPCC exists to deal with complaints about service police forces. A significant number of forces and agencies do fall within the jurisdiction of the IPCC, including, I understand, the Ministry of Defence Police. If the Government do not accept the amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I wait to listen with interest to their reasons why not.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

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

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have given notice of our intention to oppose the proposition that Clause 48 stand part. The reason is that all officers of the federation hold public office. They are therefore all subject to the Nolan principles—the seven principles of public life. Can the Minister explain what is to be added by the clause, over and above the Nolan principles?

[Lord Rosser]

I will briefly make two points. I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend Lady Henig. I do not necessarily share the interpretation of the words “protect the public interest” that the noble Lord, Lord Wasserman, attached to them. I think that probably, under some of its other responsibilities to its members, the Police Federation would be entitled to pursue at least some of the issues to which he made reference.

Do the Government interpret this wording of “protect the public interest” to mean that the federation must put the interests of the public before the interests of the members of the police forces it is there to represent? Secondly, does this wording mean that legal proceedings or some other action can be taken against the Police Federation by someone who believes that it has not protected the public interest? If so, who can take such legal proceedings or such other action?

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 19th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment 258B. The powers in the Bill are significant, as are the checks and auditing measures, but the Government accept, in providing for a review of the operation of the Act and in anticipating that a Select Committee of one or both Houses of Parliament will also want to look at the operation of the Act, that a full, independent review is both necessary and desirable. The Bill sets the initial period at five years and six months and requires the Secretary of State to prepare a report within six months of the initial period. These amendments would ensure that before any Government are held to account by the electorate at a general election, the electorate know what that Government have used the powers in the Bill for.

Amendment 258A adds to the requirement to produce a report within six months of the initial period that the report must be produced at least once during each Parliament. Amendment 258B reduces the initial period from five years and six months to two years and six months, to ensure that the actions of the present Government are clear to the electorate at the next general election, subject, obviously, to the current Government remaining in office for the full term. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

There is obviously going to be a desire to know how the Act is operating and the Bill does provide for a report from the Secretary of State, but it is, let us just say, some time after the day on which the Bill becomes an Act. Assuming that the Government do not accept the amendment, I hope that in responding they will set out, or give some indication, of the bodies and committees which will look at how the Act is operating, including whether it is doing so in line with the terms of the Bill. In that, I include the codes of practice and, particularly in light of the last discussion we had, the statements on the record from the Government in the two Hansards during the passage of the Bill.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Report: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have sympathy for the concerns held by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, but bearing in mind the double lock that now applies in almost all warrant applications, which would not have applied when abuses of powers happened in the past, can the Minister reassure the House that the new provisions in the Bill for independent oversight of the granting of warrants may be sufficient to obviate the need for the amendments?

[Lord Rosser]

I, too, have sympathy with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. If there were to be a requirement for reasonable suspicion in addition to requiring decisions to be necessary and proportionate, because the two are not the same thing, one could envisage a situation—for example, in a kidnap case—where it could make life rather more difficult. In such a case, it might not be known whether it was a kidnap or simply a person who had gone missing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

This amendment is designed to ensure that where a warrant falls within the scope of an international agreement between the United Kingdom and a foreign Government, the requesting agency is bound to notify the receiving provider and follow the terms of the agreement, along with the authorisation, transparency and oversight requirements of the Bill, and thus establish such agreements as the primary route by which UK agencies request data from overseas operators where such agreements exist.

In its present form the Bill appears to provide UK agencies with several options to seek data from overseas providers. These include mutual legal assistance treaties, mutual legal assistance conventions, international agreements of the kind recommended by Sir Nigel Sheinwald in his report, and straightforward service of a UK warrant extraterritorially. The Bill does not direct agencies as to which power to use and under what circumstances.

What is being sought is a direction to agencies on the face of the Bill to prioritise international agreements where they exist so that they become the primary route by which UK agencies request data from overseas providers, and that this will make it more likely that these agreements will become models for other Governments. Achieving this should provide a more predictable approach for both agencies and providers and reduce the likelihood of a situation where a number of Governments claim jurisdiction over data. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have added my name to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, because we on these Benches entirely agree with it. There is a difficulty in the UK asserting unilateral power over other territories in terms of enforceability if nothing else. Clearly, if there is an international agreement, it is far better that that is used as the primary route to achieve the government agencies’ objectives than relying on a slightly dubious assertion of the UK’s power overseas. On that basis, we support the amendment.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 7th September 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for those amendments. They bring a significant improvement to the Bill and are extremely welcome. We were faced previously with the situation in which operational purposes were to be part of the Bill but we would never know what those operational purposes were. I appreciate that they are not going to become public knowledge, but at least we will now have a review by the Intelligence and Security Committee every three months and the annual review by the Prime Minister as well. Removal of the term “general” is greatly reassuring and we wholeheartedly support these amendments.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we hold a similar view to that which has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. These amendments seek to pursue a matter that has been raised by the ISC and accordingly raised during the Commons stages of this Bill. I think that these amendments address the concerns raised by the ISC—I certainly have not heard anything to the contrary—and we share the view that, in doing so, they enhance the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

We are rather assuming that the Government will oppose the amendments, just as we— wrongly—assumed they would oppose the previous group. If they oppose them, we will certainly want to listen to the strength, or otherwise, of their argument, unless they are going to indicate that, in view of the pressure from around the Committee, they will take this issue away and reflect further on it.

A fairly strong argument has been made for being able to take the kind of action envisaged in the amendments. I do not know whether the Government want to argue that getting a conviction might well have to involve the disclosure of, or some information about, sensitive material that is not in the public domain. However, we certainly wish to hear the strength or otherwise of the Government’s objection to these amendments.

[Lord Paddick]

I want briefly to add our support for the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, and for his compelling arguments. I have never previously had contact with the security services but, in preparation for this Bill, I visited various places where they operate, and I am convinced that it is not simply a question of the high esteem in which James Bond is held: the perceived integrity of the people who work in the security services is a function of reality. These offences are of far more benefit to the public in reassuring them that, in the extraordinary circumstance that they were committed, such offences do indeed exist, rather than their being demonstrably necessary based on experience because the security services operate in this criminal way.

However, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, has said, it is something of an anomaly that there is no serious criminal sanction for an abuse of the bulk powers provided by the Bill, yet there are significant criminal sanctions in relation to all the other powers. On that basis, I very much support these amendments.

Terrorist Attack in Nice

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I start by welcoming the Minister to her new post and the quiet life that involvement with the Home Office normally provides. I also thank her for repeating the Statement already made in the Commons.

I am sure that everyone in this House would wish to associate themselves with the expressions of condolence in the Statement to the family and friends of the 84 people killed in Nice on Thursday night. Our thoughts are also very much with the 85 people—and their families and friends—who are, it is reported today, still in hospital, 18 of them in critical condition. We also express our support for the people of France at this difficult time following the third big terrorist attack there in 18 months. Unfortunately, there have also been terrorist attacks elsewhere in Europe and in many other parts of the world over the same period. That means that dealing with this apparently increasing problem requires, as the Statement said, an international solution to defeat those who attack us and our partners.

Have any British citizens, or close relatives of British citizens, been killed or injured in the attack and, if so, how many? What specific assistance has been offered to either them or their families? Is any new or additional advice being offered to British nationals travelling to France, or thinking of travelling to France, in the light of this third attack in some 18 months? The Tunisian delivery driver who carried out the mass killings held, as I understand it, a French residency permit, which once again brings it home to us that terrorist attacks are not necessarily carried out by people who move into a country and then shortly afterwards commit the atrocity.

We regularly, and quite rightly, express our appreciation of the work of our police, security and intelligence services in protecting us, and we reiterate that appreciation today. However, in the light of what is said in the Statement, are the Government saying that an attack of the kind we have seen in Nice, with a truck being driven at speed and for a considerable distance into the large crowds who had congregated in significant numbers to celebrate an important national day, could not happen here because our policing and security arrangements would not have allowed a truck travelling at speed, driven by an armed individual or individuals, such access to a large crowd?

Can the Minister say whether the Government and our police and security services have learned any lessons from this terrible incident in Nice, without necessarily indicating exactly what those lessons might be?

The French Interior Minister has been quoted in the press this morning as calling for young volunteers to join France’s security service reserves. Apparently, the reserve force is made up of 12,000 volunteers aged between 17 and 30. The best way to make the use of such a large force unnecessary is to prevent terrorist attacks happening in the first place, but are we in a position to strengthen our police and security services at short notice, should it ever, unfortunately, become necessary to do so?

Finally, we have recently seen a significant increase in hate crimes in this country following the EU referendum and its outcome—an increase which the Prevent programme does not address. Do the Government regard this sudden rise in such crimes as potentially increasing the threat of a terrorist attack in this country, or is it their view that the recent increase in hate crime will have no impact or implications in this regard?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate her on her new appointment, which I personally warmly welcome. I say “personally” because I am sure she will be a formidable adversary, but I welcome her on a personal level. I add our condolences from these Benches to all those affected by the horrific events in Nice—a truly horrifying massacre of innocent people.

As a result of my research on the Investigatory Powers Bill, I have been privileged to visit the headquarters of MI6 and GCHQ in recent months, and have been astounded by what those services are capable of and the work that they do. They deserve the highest praise. I know from personal experience in the police service of the expertise that exists in terms of policing events involving public order where large numbers of people gather. I am greatly reassured by the combination of those two bodies in the UK. Can the Minister comment on what appears to be a worrying trend that, far from being devout religious individuals holding extreme religious views, the people involved in these sorts of attacks are socially excluded, vulnerable petty criminals influenced by those advocating violent extremism based on a grotesque distortion of true Islam? I want to make an important distinction: they are being influenced by violent extremism, which should be seen as distinct from simply extremism, which the Statement mentioned.

Whether terrorist outrages are carefully pre-planned events, planned and co-ordinated by Daesh from Syria, or the actions of lone wolves inspired by Daesh, preventing them effectively depends on the sharing of intelligence across international boundaries. We need to know where to concentrate our limited resources, based on that intelligence. Can the Minister reassure the House that saving human lives will be placed above Brexit politics, and that the new Foreign Secretary is urgently acting to preserve and enhance links with our European Union partners so that effective counterterrorism co-operation improves rather than declines as a result of the UK leaving the European Union?

Hate Crime

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 29th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the House of Commons and for the words about Jo Cox MP. Will he assure us that the reason this important Statement, on a matter of real concern, was not made by the Home Secretary in the Commons was definitely due to unavoidable reasons unrelated to internal politics within the Conservative Party?

Since last Thursday’s referendum, there are reports of a fivefold increase in race hate comments on social media channels and a more than 50% increase in hate crimes reported to the police online hate crime reporting channel. That increase is on top of an already rising tide of hate crimes in England and Wales. Last year the police recorded over 52,000 hate crimes—an increase of 18% on the year before—and more than four-fifths of these were racially motivated.

There are also reports, in the aftermath of the referendum campaign and result, of attacks on individuals and incidents of racial hatred against specific communities: a Muslim schoolgirl cornered by a group of people who told her, “Get out, we voted leave”, a Polish community centre daubed with racist graffiti, a halal butcher’s shop petrol-bombed, and a US Army veteran and university lecturer told to “get back to Africa” by three youths on a tram. There are even cases of people who were born in this country, have lived in this country all their lives, and are as British as I am, being told to go back to their own country.

All this was unleashed by the campaigning during, and outcome of, a referendum that was called not in the national interest but because of splits in the Conservative Party. There would have been no referendum if the Conservative Party had not been so divided on the issue of Europe. The result of the referendum has emboldened those with feelings of such hatred, because in the light of the tenor of much of the campaign and its concentration on migration, such people now feel that the result has been an indication of support for their abhorrent views, and has given those abhorrent views a level of respectability that they did not have before.

It is a small minority of people who seek to use a time like this to peddle hatred and violence—but if you are on the receiving end of such hatred and violence, it does not feel like a small minority. I do not know what is happening in our country—or to our country—today. We seem to be becoming an increasingly intolerant society. The question now is: how do we get the evil genie back in the bottle? That will not be easy, particularly in the new world of social media. If the Government take the view that we just have to ride out the next few weeks and months and everything will rectify itself, that will be complacency in the extreme—and a damaging and dangerous complacency at that. It all depends what the measures referred to in today’s Statement mean in practice, as opposed to in words. We all have a responsibility to respect the decision that has been made by the people in the referendum, to work to heal the divisions that it has magnified and to take on directly, and defeat, those filled with feelings of hatred and violence towards others.

The Government have announced an action plan to tackle hate crime, and said that it will be published shortly. This will not be the first plan this Government have had. What is needed are results—positive results. Perhaps the Minister can say when the plan will be published, and why he thinks it is going to deliver. Can he tell us whether it will have specific objectives that can be measured, and what will be included in those objectives which can be measured? Since the Government have said that the action plan is to tackle hate crime, presumably one aspect will be apprehending those engaged in such crime. What more resources, financial and human, will be provided to our police forces, which have been cut and cut again since 2010? From which budget will the extra funding referred to in the Statement be taken, and how much will it amount to?

Hate crime of any kind is abhorrent and has no place in society. It is in itself, and by its very nature, a rejection of the British values that have always bound us together. Non-British nationals living in Britain will today feel worried about their safety and that of their children and families, and will be in need of reassurance. I hope the Minister and the Government will be able to provide it. People need reassurance that action will be taken now. Can the Minister tell us what extra steps are being taken to monitor reports of hate crime, and what immediate advice the Home Office is giving to the police on tackling such incidents? Will decisions on the extra resources that should now be used from police budgets to address rising hate crime and violence be for police and crime commissioners or for chief constables?

Confidence to report such hate crimes will increase if people believe that reports will be followed up. What specific action will be taken to address this point? To provide further reassurance at this difficult time, can the Government say more to provide reassurance to EU nationals in this country about their future status in this country? Frankly, the response by the Government in Oral Questions today about the position of EU nationals who live in this country will not have helped the situation. The referendum is over but its scars remain. We now need to work to make sure that our country remains the open and welcoming place we know and love.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. We on these Benches condemn all hate crime, whatever the target, and deplore the appalling murder of Jo Cox MP—our thoughts are with her family. We need to stand together to have a united, strong, liberal voice against those who try to stir up hatred in our communities. We as Liberal Democrats are prepared to do that. We beg both of the other major parties in this House to stand together to try to fight this issue.

It is difficult to judge what the longer-term impact of the EU referendum will be on hate crime, but far more worrying to us on these Benches is the impact the immigration debate and increasing xenophobia had on the EU referendum rather than the other way round. In addition to the increase in Islamophobia mentioned in the Statement, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, just said, in 2014-15 there was an 18% increase in reported hate crime compared with the year before, and anecdotally, those who have rarely experienced hate crime in the past now report becoming victims, including members of minority groups on these Benches.

To what extent does the Minister share my concern that these developments are a worrying reflection of a change in the culture of this country—a shift, of whatever magnitude, away from being an open and tolerant society that welcomes diversity? What will the Government do about it? It is not just about reporting investigations into hate crimes, treating the symptoms, but about treating the causes. What will they do to try to address this shift in culture towards xenophobia and racism? As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and other noble Lords, have asked this afternoon, what does the Minister think the impact on xenophobia will be of the Government’s apparent position—that the status of 2 million EU citizens currently resident in the UK will be the subject of negotiation with the EU? Surely the Minister realises that this will increase hate crime, not decrease it. What will the Government do about it?

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order. I am, however, a little confused about how much revenue the Home Office intends to generate through this mechanism. The Explanatory Memorandum states:

“This Order sets out chargeable immigration functions and maximum fee amounts which provide for immigration fees to increase at a rate above inflation”.

Understandably, it could be that in order to ensure that the cost of processing these applications—for visas or whatever—is met, the fees have to be set above inflation because the cost of processing them is increasing at a rate above inflation. No one would have any concern about full cost recovery. One would expect that a person applying for a visa would pay the full cost of providing that service.

The impact assessment talks about the Home Office having to ensure that fees for immigration and nationality services make a substantial contribution to the cost of running the immigration system. This seems slightly different from simply recovering the costs incurred. The impact assessment goes on to say that government intervention is necessary to ensure a balanced Home Office budget. It later states that,

“the Home Office estimates that 100% of the costs of front-line Immigration, Border and Citizenship operations will be recovered through fees”.

It goes on to say that it is right that,

“those who use and benefit directly from the UK migration system make an appropriate contribution to meeting its costs”.

Later it refers to the comprehensive spending review, which requires further reductions in the Home Office budget over the next four years. This suggests that fees are being increased simply to cover a hole in the Home Office budget created by the comprehensive spending review. Indeed, the impact assessment says that some fees are set above the cost of delivery. It goes on to say that significant efficiency savings are being made in the immigration system within the Home Office, but that:

“It is appropriate that any remaining shortfall”—

presumably the shortfall in the funding provided by the comprehensive spending review—

“should be met by those who use and benefit from the service”.

The Minister has just said that the immigration service works to the benefit of the UK. It is therefore not simply a case of the immigration system working for the benefit of those people who seek leave to visit the UK or to remain; it benefits all of us. Are those people who apply—that is, only those on whom the Home Office can impose a fee—going to be landed with the shortfall between the efficiency savings and what is provided by the comprehensive spending review for the immigration services? It does not seem reasonable that we should penalise those seeking visas and other services simply because the comprehensive spending review penalised the Immigration Service in that settlement.

Can the Minister reassure the Committee that these fee increases will not be used to target certain categories of applicant? There could be a potential for discrimination if that were the case. How much of the shortfall in the Home Office funding for the Immigration Service do the Government expect to make up by increasing the fees? Are we talking about the overall Home Office funding shortfall, the shortfall in front-line immigration services or the shortfall in the services that provide visas and so on?

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his explanation of the purpose and intention of this SI. The order sets out the functions in connection with immigration and nationality for which the Secretary of State may charge a fee, including how fees are to be calculated and maximum fee amounts. Specific fees will be set within the agreed limits in regulations subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The Government’s objective in doing this is to achieve a self-financing border, immigration and citizenship system. This SI replaces the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2015 and is intended to sustain increases to fees set out in subsequent regulations under the negative procedure over the next four years.

In similar vein to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is it the intention that the fees set will be related to an applicant’s ability to pay? That does not appear to be a factor to be taken into consideration. If that is not the case, how will the requirement under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 be met? Under that section, the Secretary of State is required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children who are in the UK in carrying out any function in relation to immigration, asylum or nationality. Such an issue may surely arise if an adult applies for settlement but does not apply for a child or children at the same time because they cannot afford the fee. Presumably Section 55 makes it affordable for children and their families who meet the criteria to make immigration applications for a secure status.

The order sets out the maximum fee for a review of a decision in connection with immigration or nationality, which I think is £400. The Government argued during the passage of the Immigration Act 2014 that administrative review would be cheaper than bringing an appeal. However, the proposed maximum suggests that that might not necessarily be the case. Do the Government intend to provide an independent appeals procedure?

The fees provided for in the SI are uneven and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, suggest that they are being used as a means to encourage or deter would-be applicants from particular groups or categories from making applications. Is that in fact the Government’s approach so far as setting the fees is concerned? It would appear to be the case.

Table 6 of the order makes provision for fees for expedited processing. This almost brings us back to the discussion we had yesterday about tier 1. It is already the case that premium service centres are offered by the Home Office and generate considerable revenue for it. However, some have argued that a twin-track system is developing in which insufficient attention is paid to ensuring that ordinary applications are processed in a timely manner. Those who are rich or desperate or both can pay for the premium service. There is a concern that more premium services, which are forecast and provided for under this SI, would mean a second-class service for everyone else. That concern has been expressed and raised in a number of quarters. Is that a fair comment or concern? It would seem to have some validity. If the response is going to be, “No, it is not a fair comment or concern”, why would the Government say that that was not the case?

The Minister mentioned in his explanation that the intention was that there would be no further increases in the maximum amounts in this SI within the next four years—or at least, as I understood it, they were to be there for the following four years. Can the Government give a guarantee that this will happen and that those maximum figures to which reference was made will not be increased again over the four-year period, or during the four-year period to which the Minister referred? We have concerns about the level of some of these fees because some of the incremental increases are indeed quite considerable. Obviously, the aim of some of the questions I have raised is to seek the Government’s response to those points.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 1st February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

As was said in the previous discussion, the Bill creates a new criminal offence where a person,

“drives a motor vehicle on a road or other public place at a time when the person is not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom”.

Of course, this new offence is part of the Government’s objective, as set out so clearly in the Explanatory Notes, of,

“making it harder to live and work illegally in the UK”,

to encourage those who do not have the appropriate immigration status to “depart voluntarily” and, where they do not do so, to use other measures in the Bill to “support enforced removals”. As with the new offence of illegal working for employees, however, there appears to be no defence for this new offence in relation to driving.

The purpose of our amendment is to seek to provide such a defence for those prosecuted for driving while illegally in the UK if they can show that they had reason to believe that they had the legal right to be here. For example, there is the kind of person who has been sponsored but, unbeknown to them, there is something wrong with the sponsorship. As a result, they may fall foul of this new offence because they do not have the status they should, although they had reasonable belief of their right to be here and acted completely in good faith. Having a criminal record has serious implications for a person under immigration control, as such records can never be spent for immigration and nationality purposes, must always be declared and can form the basis for refusing a person leave, settlement or citizenship.

During the debate on this issue in the Commons, the Solicitor-General confirmed that effectively there was no defence for this new criminal offence. He said in response to a question on this point that a person who was prosecuted for this new offence would have the opportunity to,

“put in mitigation about their belief as to whether they were legally present in the UK, and that would affect any sentence that might be passed”.

Of course, that is about mitigation of sentence, not a defence to the charge for which a person can be sent to prison for 12 months. The second point made by the Solicitor-General was that,

“the Crown Prosecution Service will have guidance to ensure that migrants are not inappropriately prosecuted for this”,

new criminal offence. He went on:

“Should a migrant be able to genuinely show that they believed themselves to be legally present, the public interest test … would apply”.

In other words, as with the offence of illegal working for which there is no defence for those employed, it would be up to the Director of Public Prosecutions rather than Parliament to decide whether there is a defence against an offence for which there is no such provision made in the Bill.

In the Commons, the Government accepted and recognised the reasons behind this amendment but maintained that it was “very broad”, “very subjective” and would create scenarios in which,

“a defendant might claim they had reason to believe they were in the UK legally, simply because they had misunderstood the date on which their leave expired”.

Yet that is precisely the kind of question that the DPP and Crown Prosecution Service will presumably have to resolve in carrying out the Solicitor-General’s view that if a migrant can genuinely show that they believe themselves to be legally present, the public interest test would apply. Why then can the courts not be relied on to make appropriate decisions on reasonable belief, as called for in this amendment, and thus put a defence against this new offence in the Bill, debated and agreed by Parliament?

When the question was raised in the Commons debate about why this new offence was needed at all, since it appeared that the police were not seeking this new power and had not found any gap in their ability to deal with drivers who do not have regular status, the Solicitor-General, replying for the Government, said that there was,

“a loophole involving people who are unlawfully here … who are driving with foreign-issued licences”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 3/11/15; cols. 307-08.]

For my benefit and to get it on the record, could the Minister spell out in detail what the existing problem is in relation to people who are here unlawfully and who drive with foreign-issued licences, as opposed to those here unlawfully but driving with British driving licences or no driving licence at all, and which can be resolved only with the creation of this new offence? It would also be helpful if the Minister in his response—I hope it will be favourable but am not too sure of that—could place on record the Government’s assessment of the extent to which this new criminal offence of driving a motor vehicle while not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom will reduce the number of people not lawfully resident in the United Kingdom, and the basis on which that conclusion has been reached. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, in their Amendment 163. It does not seem an absolute offence. Therefore, Amendment 163 seems reasonable.

We have Amendments 164, 169, 171, 172, and 173 in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. Amendment 164 would add to new Section 24D by placing a time limit on the time taken to make a decision whether to prosecute, when someone has had their vehicle detained, having been arrested for driving when unlawfully in the United Kingdom, of one month from the date of arrest. It could well be that the person arrested is a professional driver, who relies on the vehicle for their livelihood and, if that person turns out to be innocent of the offence, it could have serious implications for him if the vehicle is not returned to him promptly.

Amendment 169 is designed to restrict the ability to detain the vehicle if it belongs to a third party. Could the Minister clarify whether it is intended to detain vehicles innocently lent to others who are subsequently found to be in the UK illegally?

Amendments 171, 172 and 173 are to query the issue of all premises warrants, in new Section 24E(6)(b) and 24E(7), to search any premises owned or controlled by the person arrested for driving illegally to detain the car he was driving—particularly, as stated in new Section 24E(10), when such an all premises warrant cannot be issued in Scotland. Can the Minister explain why such a wide-ranging warrant is necessary in England and Wales but not in Scotland?

The Government also have Amendments 174 and 175 in this group, which widens the power even further, not just to all premises but not restricting such a power to a constable only, which is what was in the Bill originally. Surely, the power is broad enough as it is.

Litvinenko Inquiry

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 21st January 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier today in the other place by the Home Secretary. The inquiry report confirms that the Russian state at its highest level sanctioned the killing of a citizen on the streets of our capital city in an unparalleled act of state-sponsored terrorism. We accept that time must be taken to digest the findings of the report and consider our response.

Before I proceed further, I express our appreciation to Sir Robert Owen and his inquiry team, without whose painstaking work the truth would never have been uncovered and known. I extend our thanks to the Metropolitan Police Service for what the report calls “an exemplary investigation”, and to the Litvinenko family’s legal team, who, as I understand it, supported them on a pro bono basis.

We express our sympathy to Marina and Anatoly Litvinenko, who have fought so courageously to make this day a reality. While the findings of this report raise international and diplomatic issues, this was first and foremost a family tragedy. Has the Home Secretary met, or does she intend to meet, Marina and Anatoly to discuss this report, its findings and the British Government’s response?

We welcome what the Home Secretary has said today in the Statement about Interpol notices and European arrest warrants, along with her announcement about asset freezes. Will she also directly approach all EU, NATO and Commonwealth allies, asking for immediate co-operation on extradition in respect of those named in the report as having poisoned Mr Litvinenko? Since there may be other individuals facing similar dangers, has a review been undertaken of the level of security provided to Mr Litvinenko by the relevant British services to see whether any lessons can be learned for the future?

No individuals commit crimes of this type alone, and today’s report confirms that there is a network of people who have known about and facilitated this crime. I understand that Mrs Litvinenko has prepared a list of names to be submitted to the Government, of those who have aided and abetted the perpetrators against whom, she believes, sanctions should be taken. That could include the freezing of UK assets, property and travel restrictions. Will the Minister give an in-principle commitment today to look seriously at that list and those requests?

The Statement indicates that there will be new diplomatic pressure, which we welcome, but given what we know about the way the Russian state operates, do the Government believe there is a case for a wide-ranging review of the nature and extent of our diplomatic, political, economic and cultural relations with Russia?

On diplomacy, do the Government consider that there is a case for recalling the ambassador for consultation and for making any changes to the Russian embassy in London? Given the proven Federal Security Service involvement, are the Government considering expelling FSB officers from Britain? Has the Prime Minister ever raised this case directly with Vladimir Putin, and will he be seeking an urgent conversation with him about the findings of this report?

On cultural collaboration, given what this report reveals about the Russian Government and their links to organised crime, on top of what we already know about corruption within FIFA, do the Government feel that there is a growing case to reconsider our approach to the forthcoming 2018 World Cup and to engage other countries in that discussion?

On the economy, are the Government satisfied that current EU sanctions against Russia are adequate, and is there a case to strengthen them?

We ask these questions not because we have come to a conclusion but because we believe they are the kind of questions this country needs to debate in the light of today’s findings. While the Home Secretary ordered this review, I believe I am right in saying that she originally declined to do so, citing international issues. Will it be considerations of diplomacy or justice that influence the Government’s response?

Finally, will the Government commit to coming back to update Parliament on whatever final package of measures and steps they intend to take in the light of this report and its disturbing findings? The family deserve nothing less than that after their courageous fight. Alexander Litvinenko’s last words to his son Anatoly, who was then 12 years old, were, “Defend Britain to your last drop because it saved your family”. He believed in Britain and its traditions of justice and fairness and of standing up to the mighty and for what is right, and we must now make sure that we find the courage to show his son and the world that his father’s faith in us was not misplaced.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minster for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary. The death of Mr Litvinenko, although it happened almost 10 years ago, is shocking and tragic, and we hope Marina Litvinenko and her son can find some solace in the findings of this report.

There are fundamental issues at stake here. Sir Robert Owen cites as the motivation for the murder of Mr Litvinenko his criticism of the Russian domestic security service and of the Russian President, Mr Putin, and his association with other Russian dissidents. He concluded that Mr Litvinenko may have been consigned to a slow death from radiation to “send a message”. Freedom of expression and freedom of association are fundamental human rights, and we cannot allow foreign Governments to murder people in this country, let alone a British citizen, for expressing such views or for associating with critics of a particular regime. Such an act cannot be left without serious consequences for Russia.

We acknowledge with gratitude the role of the security and intelligence services and the police in keeping us safe, and we accept the Home Secretary’s assertion that some of the work the security and intelligence services carry out in combating the threat from hostile states must remain secret. We also acknowledge the constant struggle the police and the security services face in trying to keep abreast of developments in technology. Any increase in investigatory powers must none the less be necessary and proportionate and must not unnecessarily undermine the right to free speech and the right to private and family life.

Will the Minster explain how the conclusions of this report have come as such a surprise to the Government that it is only this morning that the Home Secretary has written to the Director of Public Prosecutions asking her to consider whether further action should be taken? It is the Government who should already have taken action in freezing the assets and banning the travel of all those linked to this murder. I accept that a head of state cannot be subjected to a travel ban, but there is no reason why the Government cannot signal their intention to impose one as soon as Mr Putin leaves office.

Why are the Government limiting themselves to expressing their “profound displeasure” at Russia’s failure to co-operate and provide satisfactory answers? Why are they not expressing their outrage that state-sponsored murder by Russia to silence its critics has been carried out on British soil? The Government’s response is late, lame and lamentable.

Draft Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 4th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in the Commons earlier today on the draft investigatory powers Bill, which the Government intend should receive Royal Assent before the sunset clause in the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014 comes into effect at the end of next year. An important stage in the consideration of this Bill will be undertaken by the pre-legislative scrutiny committee and its findings will, I am sure, be awaited with considerable interest.

We have also had a number of different reports on this issue in the last few months including from, but by no means only from, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, the Intelligence and Security Committee, and the review convened by the Royal United Services Institute. All three of those reports supported an overall review of the current legislative framework for the use of investigatory powers and the replacement of legislation such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

The Anderson report was commissioned on the basis of an opposition amendment when Parliament was asked to legislate very quickly to introduce the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act 2014. We argued then that it was the right time for a thorough review of the existing legal framework to be conducted as we, and others, no longer felt that the current arrangements were fit for purpose. Fast-developing technology and the growing threats we face internationally and domestically have left our fragmented laws behind and made the job of our police and security services, to whom we all owe a considerable debt of gratitude, harder.

We support the Government in their attempt to update the law in this important and sensitive area, particularly since the Statement appears to indicate that the Government have listened to at least some of the concerns that were expressed about the original proposed legislation put forward during the last Parliament. However, we hope that this Statement and the draft legislation does not prove to be a bit like some Budget speeches where it is only afterwards that some of the detail proves to put a rather less acceptable gloss on aspects of some of the changes and measures proposed.

Although it is becoming something of a cliché, the need is to secure the appropriate balance between the requirement to safeguard national security and the safety of our citizens, and the requirement to protect civil liberties and personal privacy, which is surely one of the hallmarks of a democracy compared to a dictatorship. The extent to which the proposals set out in the Statement, and in the draft legislation, achieve that difficult balance is clearly going to be the subject of much discussion during the consideration of the Bill. However, the Statement indicates stronger safeguards than were previously being proposed, including in the important area of judicial authorisation, and it appears as though in broad terms that difficult balance may be about right. We will examine carefully the detail of the Bill and where necessary seek to improve the safeguards to increase the all-important factor of public trust.

The proposals set out today do not of course relate just to national security. They also have relevance to preventing serious and abhorrent crimes and apprehending those who commit them, including murder, major fraud and child sexual exploitation. In that regard, can the Minister confirm that the far-reaching powers of content interception will be used only for the most serious crimes, as applies under RIPA? The Statement indicated that the detailed web browsing of individuals will not be accessible, which we support, but will the Minister set out precisely what internet activity of an individual will be accessible without a warrant?

Clearly, vulnerability of information has gone up the agenda of public concern in light of the attack on TalkTalk. Since data retention and bulk storage were referred to in the Statement, what steps do the Government intend to take to ensure the security of bulk storage of data by public and private bodies?

The Statement referred to the change of approach on encryption from the possible ban previously mentioned by the Prime Minister, and reference was also made to communication providers and legal duties. Are the Government satisfied that they can make any such legal requirements stick against some of the largest and most popular online names, many of whom have headquarters overseas?

The Statement also referred to the protection of communications for parliamentarians. Will that protection also apply to people communicating with parliamentarians, whether on personal matters or on providing information? What protection arrangements will there be for sources of information used by journalists? The Statement said that, if it were proposed to intercept the communications of a parliamentarian, the Prime Minister would also be consulted. What in this context does “consult” mean? Does it mean that the Prime Minister would have to give his or her agreement?

The Statement also addressed the issue of authorisation, and set out a two-stage process which is clearly intended to address the twin points of accountability to Parliament on the one hand and sufficient independence from the political process on the other in order to build trust—an issue referred to by David Anderson QC in his report. What will be the powers of the judges involved in the authorisation of warrants process in view of the reference in the Statement to a warrant being “formally” approved by a judge, and will judges have to sign off warrants in all cases? Will the information made available to the judge in order to make his or her decision be the same as the information made available to the Home Secretary? Will the criteria against which the judge will make a decision be the same as the criteria against which the Home Secretary makes her decision, or will the judge have a different remit? Who, or what body, will appoint the judges who will be involved in the authorisation of warrants process? How long is it expected to take to go through the double-lock authorisation process outlined in the Statement, and what will happen if there is an emergency requiring immediate authorisation of a warrant?

One of the key themes of the report by David Anderson was that a core objective for the renewal of legislation concerning investigatory powers ought to be public trust from all sections of our community in the use of those powers by government agencies, since public consent to intrusive laws depends on people trusting the authorities to keep them safe and not to spy needlessly on them. That in turn, as David Anderson said in his report, requires knowledge, at least in outline, of what powers are liable to be used, and visible authorisation and oversight mechanisms in which the wider public can have confidence.

The Bill will go through its stages in the Commons before coming to this House. It is, of course, a matter for the other place to determine, but one can only express the hope that a Bill of this importance will have received full and proper consideration before it gets to this House, although I am sure there will be no lack of willingness in this place to make up for any deficiencies in that regard and to ensure that the powers being sought are necessary and proportionate in relation to the issues and potential dangers they are intended to combat and address.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by the Home Secretary in the other place. Clearly, we would like to be reassured by the Home Secretary’s claim that the draft Bill is not a return to the draft Communications Data Bill 2012, which the Liberal Democrats in the coalition Government quite rightly blocked, and from which this Government now appear to want to distance themselves.

There are some clear and very welcome changes proposed, including judicial authorisation of interception warrants and a promise not to interfere with encryption, but we must look very carefully at the detail of what is being proposed, particularly in relation to what the Home Secretary calls, “internet connection records”. Clearly, there has been a great deal of concern about communications service providers storing everyone’s web browsing history and handing over this information to the police and the security services. While the Home Secretary says that the proposed Bill would not allow that, I will probe very gently whether that is the case, so as to dispel concerns that this is just smoke and mirrors.

Intuitively, the Home Secretary must be right that if the police can use mobile phone data to find an abducted child, they should be able to do so if criminals are now using social media or communication apps instead of cellular data. Our concerns are: first, whether this is technically feasible; secondly, whether it is technically feasible without prohibitive costs to communications service providers; and, thirdly, whether it is possible without the risk of disproportionate intrusion into innocent people’s privacy, whether by the forces of good or by hackers such as those who breached TalkTalk’s security, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned.

Talking to experts, I was told that communications service providers would be unable to tell the police or the security services whether someone had used the internet to communicate, as opposed to just browsing, without storing content. This requires billions of pounds of hardware investment, and even then it may not be possible to tell the difference between browsing and communication. Determined suppliers of applications that enable people to communicate covertly could disguise internet communication as passive browsing, for example. Will the Minister say whether the Government know that it is technically possible for internet service providers to provide a record of the communications services a person has used without a record of every page they have accessed? What would be the cost to communications providers? Has a risk assessment been undertaken of the possibility that, having stored sensitive personal information, that information might be accessed unlawfully?

Finally, in 2005 the police, backed by the then Labour Government, asked for a power to detain terror suspects without charge for up to 90 days—a power that the security services did not ask for and that Parliament, quite rightly, rejected. Will the Minister also confirm whether the requirement to store internet communication records has come from the police alone or from the police and the security services?

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 20th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his courtesy and thoroughness in responding to points raised and amendments tabled by noble Lords during our considerations of the Bill, including when the response has been made subsequently in writing. Although reservations about the likely effectiveness of the Bill have been expressed by some noble Lords during our deliberations, I am sure we all hope that, when the Bill is finally passed, it will make a favourable impact on the very real problem that it is intended to help address.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for the way that he has conducted proceedings on the Bill. We have had disagreements over how effective we think that this legislation will be, but, as the Minister said, we share the aim of reducing harm. We hope that, with the assistance of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, the Bill will be further improved in the other place so that the harmful effects that could possibly arise from it are at least lessened.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 14th July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I do not wish to speculate on whether it was my eloquence and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in Committee or the letter of 2 July from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs that carried more weight with the Government, who have now put their name to an amendment providing for the Secretary of State to consult the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs in specific circumstances. I hope it might be the former explanation but I fear it is probably the latter.

The letter from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs stated that the Home Office should amend the Bill so that:

“In keeping with our role in the Misuse of Drugs Act, there should be a statutory duty to consult ACMD”.

Nevertheless, it is one for the record when the Minister responsible for the Bill adds his name to an amendment moved by the Opposition. I thank the Minister for that and for delivering so handsomely, in my opinion, on his undertaking in the debate in Committee on this issue to consider the matter further in advance of Report.

I do not think there is really any need for me to say any more, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, or the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may wish to contribute. But on the basis that the Minister’s name is on this amendment and that therefore he will not be opposing it but supporting it, I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my name is on this amendment. We moved a similar amendment in Committee. Obviously, we are very pleased that, for whatever reason, the Minister has added his name to what is now the Labour Party amendment.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has raised a concern about whether it was consultation and the debate in Committee that persuaded the Government to change their mind on this or whether it was the letter from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. It is very disappointing that the consultation with the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs did not take place at a much earlier stage in the preparation of the Bill, rather than after its publication. It certainly would have saved a lot of time and debate if that had happened. Even now, from the latest letter in the correspondence between the Home Secretary and the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which we saw yesterday, it appears that the advisory council wants further changes and amendments. It is not right that we should have a half-baked Bill presented to this House on the understanding that it does not really matter because, if any deficiencies are highlighted as a result of this late consultation, they can be put right in the other place. We in this House have the right to amend Bills to make them worthy of being passed into law. We should not rely on amendments made by either the Government or the Opposition in the other place when the Bill is first presented to this Chamber.

Psychoactive Substances Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 23rd June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

We have an amendment in this group and it is not about post-legislative scrutiny. It calls for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances and sets out some of the information that must be included in the report.

There is currently a real lack of data collected and published on new psychoactive substances and their impact. For example, the first indication of a new drug tends to come from a hospital admission. If this happens in the United Kingdom, the National Poisons Information Service is informed and it then advises the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drugs Addiction. The EMCDDA tells the National Poisons Information Service of drugs detected elsewhere in Europe. However, the Home Office keeps its own lists, the main one being the forensic early warning system, and, to date, successive Ministers have been unable to explain the relationship between the EMCDDA list and the Home Office list, which suggests that data are not being collected and published in a consistent or helpful way. Similar problems arise with monitoring drug-related deaths and overdoses. No proper data are collected on drug deaths as the data we have rely on examining countless records, which is why they are often incomplete and take years to publish.

There is a significant problem, too, with hospital admissions. The National Poisons Information Service collects new drugs but does not collect data on all drug- related overdoes. We do not know how many hospital admissions result from taking these new substances. Nor do we know in how many cases new psychoactive substances were a factor for those needing to access mental health services. Anecdotal evidence suggests that legal highs are a major factor, especially for adolescent mental health services.

In their response to the expert panel, the Government accepted the importance of information on new psychoactive substances and that it should be shared systematically at both a local and national level in a timely manner. However, the Government did not appear to accept the current inadequacies in the information, including those to which I have referred.

The expert panel said that, with the rise in the availability of NPSs, coupled with possibilities for NPS market development via the internet, the UK drug scene had become increasingly complex and fractured, and that a number of information issues arose from this. These included,

“the difficulty for any one agency to keep to keep abreast of all the new developments … the acknowledgement that the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 needs to be supplemented by other legislation has meant that more professional networks require information including trading standards … the current time lags involved between data collection and publication of data obtained by current networks mean these systems cannot be employed in the service of providing more timely early-warning-type information; and … the need to collect, analyse and distribute information in a more systematic and timely fashion to help inform policy and practice at both a national and local level”.

Frankly, the Government’s response did not address all these issues since there seems to be a view that the forensic early warning system’s annual report can fit the bill. In its recommendations, the expert panel says:

“There is a need to establish prevalence, evidence and harms associated with NPS”.

It suggests that we should:

“Develop detection and data collection tools across criminal justice and health services, and other relevant settings, for example, schools and universities”.

A recommendation refers to developing,

“internet tools to monitor internet activity around NPS”,

and to the need to:

“Record health and social harms related to NPS by utilising professional networks and other early warning systems … understand local markets, including through headshops, retail outlets, prisons and local police assessment”.

On enhancing the share of information on NPSs, the panel said:

“Sharing information at both local and national levels is essential in helping to achieve a reduction in the demand and supply of drugs and in promoting comprehensive and effective interventions”.

It is fairly clear from the report of the expert panel that it does not think enough is currently being done in the area of the provision of information. The purpose of this amendment, as I said at the beginning, is to provide for the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on new psychoactive substances. The amendment sets out, in not quite so extensive a list as that of my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, some of the information that should be included in that report.

I hope the Minister will reflect further on this issue—the importance of information on NPSs—and the adequacy of the current information and the systems and methods by which it is provided. Our amendment gives the Minister the opportunity to do just that and I hope it is an opportunity she will take.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I waited until this moment to speak because it seemed unfair to comment on the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, without his having spoken to it first. I have some sympathy with what the Labour Party is proposing, but I prefer Amendments 4 and 6 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for the very reason that she articulated. The market for new psychoactive substances and that for other substances covered by the Misuse of Drugs Act cannot be treated as separate. The whole reason for the existence of new psychoactive substances is the controlling of other drugs. There would be no need for people to develop so-called legal highs if they could get the high legally from controlled drugs. It is essential that the annual report includes exactly what the noble Baroness proposes: an assessment of the impact on health and the social harms brought about by the Misuse of Drugs Act and this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, gave a long list of things that could be included in the report. If everything he suggested was included, it might not only put the Government off producing the report but put me off reading it or trying to wade through it. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, that post-legislative scrutiny of a Bill such as this by a Joint Committee of both Houses would be appropriate, but it should not mean that there should not also be an annual report, because things are changing so quickly. We have heard from other noble Lords about how different drugs come into mode and out again. We therefore need an annual assessment of whether the legislation is still fit for purpose.

Anderson Report

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 11th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. I certainly endorse the comments that he made at the end about the work of those in the intelligence and law enforcement community, who are there to protect us and whose successes, as he said, often go unrecognised.

We welcome the report by David Anderson QC, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, into the operation and regulation of law enforcement and agency investigatory powers. It is a report which the shadow Home Secretary called for when emergency legislation was being debated last summer, since we believe that the current legislative framework is no longer fit for purpose. While technology has moved on, the same cannot be said for either the law or the oversight arrangements. Reforms are needed, and we need to get them right in order to protect both our liberty and our security when addressing the threats we face.

In media broadcasts the independent reviewer has given today, he said that there are two problems with the law in this area as it stands. The first is that no one can understand it since it is spread over 64 Acts of Parliament, which have also proved variable in their application. The second is that there is a need for stronger safeguards and protections. For example, instead of it being the Home Secretary who decides whether you can tap the telephone of a suspected drug dealer or terrorist, it should be for a judge to do so, in order that it can be seen to be done in a proper and independent fashion. It seems that last year the Home Secretary authorised some 2,345 warrants. According to the report of one interview David Anderson has given, the Home Secretary has, in his view, effectively been doing this in her spare time when not running the department. Whether the Home Secretary shares the concerns of the independent reviewer about the workload imposed on her by having to decide whether to authorise all these warrants is no doubt something on which the Minister will be able to enlighten us, but I have a feeling that Mr Anderson thinks that warrants should be authorised by a judge—full stop—rather than having concerns over the workload it involves for either this Home Secretary or indeed any other Home Secretary.

Proportionate surveillance and interception saves lives and averts and disrupts terror attacks and other major crimes. There is no doubt that these powers are needed and we cannot allow the sunset clause on the existing powers to lapse at the end of next year without having new legislation in place. However, strong powers need strong checks and balances, including effective oversight of the way the system works. Public acceptance of the need for such powers will be diminished if there is a belief that they are being abused for purposes that impinge on our privacy, and for which they were neither intended, nor for which authorisation for their use has been given.

We have to ensure that we put arrangements in place to address the concerns that personal privacy can be invaded without justification and proper prior authorisation. We welcome the proposals in the independent reviewer’s report to strengthen oversight that involve a new and stronger independent surveillance and intelligence commission, merging the existing system of commissioner, and of course introducing judicial authorisation of warrants. Do the Government also welcome these proposals?

The independent reviewer has also concluded that there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third-party data before a compelling operational case for it has been made out, which he says it has not been to date. Is that recommendation in line with the thinking of the Home Secretary? We welcome the Government’s decision that a draft investigatory powers Bill—presumably based on David Anderson’s report, although perhaps the Minister can confirm that that will be the case—will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny by a Joint Committee of both Houses. I hope that the Government will also provide time for a full debate on the Anderson report in this House so that all Members have the opportunity to contribute. I hope also that the Government will seek to promote this among the public at large as well, to help ensure that there is the widest possible consent and thus legitimacy for the new framework. Will the Government provide for such a debate?

The digital age is a source of freedom and opportunity but, as we have seen, it brings new challenges from new crimes and new threats to our security that are extensive and go well beyond the horrors of terrorism. We have to ensure that those whose responsibility it is to protect us and keep us safe have the necessary powers to do the job in the changing technological environment in which we live today, while ensuring that those powers are used only for the purposes authorised and intended, and not at the expense of the liberty and privacy of the public at large. We welcome the report by David Anderson, which will help us to do this and ensure that in the key areas of security, privacy and countering the many different threats we face, our very different digital age from that we have known in the past actually serves the interests of the public and our democracy rather than proves to be our master.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. As he just said, this is one of a suite of reports commissioned by the previous coalition Government into investigatory powers; it is a very important one by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation.

On first reading, it appears to be a fair and balanced report. While some may have preferred there to be no state intrusion into people’s privacy, we on these Benches understand that there needs to be a balance between the powers given to the police and to the security services, and the right to privacy and the upholding of individuals’ civil liberties. It is for the police and the security services to argue for more powers, for civil libertarians to argue for fewer, and for us as politicians objectively to decide where the balance properly lies.

The Home Secretary, in her Statement, lists a whole range of potential threats, concluding that,

“we have a duty to ensure that the agencies whose job it is to keep us safe have the powers they need to do the job”.

As a consequence of what the right honourable Member said in the other place, I am concerned that the Government are already biased in favour of the state and against the individual. Thankfully, David Anderson is having none of it and neither should we. Along with consideration of the threats that we face as a country, will the Government consider a digital Bill of Rights to give citizens a clear and unambiguous understanding of where their rights lie and what protections they have against state intrusion? Will the Minister also agree with David Anderson that,

“there should be no question of progressing proposals for the compulsory retention of third party data before a compelling operational case … has been made”,

for it, and agree with him that this case has not been made to date?

The fact is, the draft communications data Bill, to give it its correct title, is hopelessly out of date and can no longer deliver what the police and the security services need while massively intruding into people’s privacy—all pain and no gain. The right honourable member for Sheffield Hallam when he was Deputy Prime Minister took a lot of flak for blocking legislation that required the retention of third-party data. Would the Minister not agree that David Anderson, in his report, agrees with Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrat position on what some have called the “snoopers’ charter”, even if he cannot bring himself to say that he agrees with Nick?

David Anderson recognises that the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act is no longer fit for purpose, and we welcome the Government’s approach that there should be a pre-legislative committee of both Houses to look at its successor. Will the Minister confirm that such a committee will be given access to all relevant information to enable it to make a proper judgment on the Government’s proposals?

Finally, we strongly support David Anderson’s recommendation that intercept warrants should be judicially authorised by specialist judicial commissioners, rather than by government Ministers. Surely it is for the police and the security services to decide whether applying for such a warrant is necessary in the interest of national security and it should be for judges to decide whether such action is lawful. Will the Minister give an undertaking that, pending a change in the legislation, the Government will operate within the spirit of the independent reviewer’s recommendations by ensuring that the Secretary of State consults the existing surveillance commissioners prior to authorising such warrants?

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2015

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as a former police officer with more than 30 years’ experience, and as someone who has been concerned for some time about the use of stop and search by the police, I welcome these regulations. The important aspect of the new guidance is the fact that stop and search has to be conducted on the basis that the prohibited item will actually be found on the individual. That is the crucial point. I still have concerns that it is not merely changes in legislation or guidance to police officers that is required, but a change in the culture of the police. The evidence that my noble friend the Minister presented showed that not only did a number of the stop-and-search forms examined by HMIC not contain the necessary evidence from the officer who conducted the stop and search, but these stop-and-search forms were actually supervised and no action was taken. While welcoming particularly this aspect about the prohibited item, I think more needs to be done. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to reassure us that the College of Policing is following up the changes in the guidance with a commitment to improving the training given, both to front-line officers and to their supervisors.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Once again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the background to, and purpose of this order, which we support. The order, as the noble Lady has said, brings into force a revised code of practice that is intended to make clear what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion when police officers decide to exercise their statutory powers of stop and search. It also indicates that, if these powers are not exercised lawfully, performance or disciplinary procedures could be instituted.

As the Minister said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum also states, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that 27% of the stop-and- search records that they examined did not contain reasonable grounds to search people. The inspectorate attributed this to poor levels of understanding among officers about what constitutes reasonable grounds and poor supervision.

On the point that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in relation to culture as much as anything, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that a review is taking place of the national training on stop and search through the College of Policing. Perhaps the noble Baroness could indicate when it is expected that the review will be completed. The Explanatory Memorandum also states that,

“the College of Policing will consider introducing a requirement that stop and search training should be subject to assessment and refreshed on a rolling basis”,

with failure to pass meaning that,

“officers could not use the powers in the course of their duties”.

Can the Minister indicate when a decision is likely on whether to introduce this requirement referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum?

Perhaps I may also raise a few points on the consultation that took place on the revisions to the code of practice. Were any significant issues raised by the campaigning and community support groups and organisations referred to that responded not adopted and, if so, what were they? If I read it correctly, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that responses were received from six police forces and one police and crime commissioner. In view of the importance of appropriate use of the stop-and-search powers for good police and community relations, that would seem, on the face of it, to be a low level of response from the police. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in her reply and say whether the Metropolitan Police was one of the forces that responded.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out in paragraph 12 the success criteria for the changes. One of the criteria is:

“Reduction in the use of stop and search and improvements in police and community relations”.

Is there a target for the reduction in the use of stop and search? The Explanatory Memorandum states that the implementation and impact of the changes in the code of practice will be monitored “on an ongoing basis”. When is it likely that information on the progress being made will first appear in the public domain?

Having asked all those questions, I repeat that we support the order.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I should like to raise one or two questions about this proposal. As the Minister has said, the role that we currently associate with police community support officers is one of public reassurance through visible street patrols and, as again the noble Lord said, through community engagement, including engaging residents more actively in local policing. Indeed, in my own personal experience, on one occasion two police community support officers knocked on my front door—fortunately they were not there to take me away—to ask me what issues, if any, were causing me concern in my own particular locality. Presumably they were doing a survey of residents’ opinions about issues of concern to them. What we now have is a list of additional powers for police community support officers to issue mainly fixed penalty notices. It could therefore be argued that these powers will put police community support officers potentially into a more confrontational position with members of the public than perhaps we normally associate with their role at present.

As I understand it, under the original terms of this Bill it had not been the Government’s intention to make considerable additions to the powers of police community support officers. Indeed, in the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, kindly sent to us setting out the Government’s intentions in this amendment, he referred, as has the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, to Stephen Barclay’s amendment in the other place that led to the Government tabling a new clause, which I think is Clause 135, conferring powers on police community support officers to issue fixed penalty notices for cycling without lights. As a result of that, something led the Government to say, “Let’s have a further look at what additional powers we can give to police community support officers”. We now have before us a much greater list. The original Stephen Barclay amendment was one additional power, but now we have a long list of additional powers not just affecting cyclists and not just in connection with traffic-related powers; they go further than that. One could make a case for saying that this is beginning to change the role of PCSOs.

We are not standing here opposing this, but my question is this: what led the Government to believe that the extension of powers now being proposed—in Committee stage here, the Bill having been through the other place—is appropriate when they did not believe it to be so at the time it was drawn up and when, bearing in mind the title of the Bill, we can presume that virtually all issues related to policing and the powers of the police were in fact under review and up for consideration? I would be grateful for an explanation of why this has been brought forward at this stage, but was not considered appropriate when the Bill was being drawn up. I understand that these further powers are the Government’s own view of what they want to do and are not, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, may say to me in response, due to any particular pressure from someone. I can see why the Stephen Barclay amendment was made. He raised and then pursued it, and obviously Government Ministers said that they would accept it and take action.

Since it appears that these additional powers have been put forward at a pretty late stage, and therefore presumably over a short timescale, who has actually been consulted on this proposed extension? Has there been wide consultation with those who might have an interest in this change of approach? Have the police themselves been pressing for this extension for some time but to no avail, and now they find that, metaphorically speaking, they have hit the jackpot, because what they have been pressing for has now been agreed at a rather late stage in the proceedings?

I am putting these points as questions for the Minister and my final question is this. Since the Government have clearly now had a look at what additional powers it would be appropriate to give police community support officers, powers that begin to change the nature of the job—the operative word is “begin”—without taking away their former functions, are the Government now going to carry out a full review of the role and responsibilities of PCSOs? I ask this because what is now in front of us gives the impression, again subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, may say in reply, of something that has been drawn up in quite a short time and is being put forward in the Bill now when it had not been the Government’s intention to do so not very many months ago when the Bill originally arrived in the House of Commons and throughout its passage through that place.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I should like to say a few words arising from my policing background and experience. I support to some extent the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in what he said, at least initially. Police community support officers, if they have a useful role, are seen by the police as a bridge between police officers and the community. Part of the reason they are able to perform that role is that they have very limited powers when it comes to enforcement. They can be seen as friends of the community and not necessarily come into conflict with it. As we know from what happened with traffic wardens when they were introduced, they in fact became the enemies of motorists. We certainly would not want to erode the useful role that police community support officers play in terms of being friends of the community and a bridge between the community and what it increasingly sees as enforcement officers; that is, police officers.

The second issue is the need to keep a very clear distinction between police officers and police community support officers. The recruitment standards and the training that police officers receive are far higher than is the case for police community support officers, particularly in the training of police officers in the use of discretion. If we are asking police community support officers to use their discretion as to whether they issue fixed penalty notices to erring motorists or cyclists, considerably more training needs to be given to them on the circumstances in which they should use that discretion. As I say, there is a clear danger that the distinction between the police and police community support officers will be eroded if slowly but surely we give police community support officers more and more powers.

Thirdly, there is already confusion in the minds of the public as to what police community support officers can and cannot do. When police community support officers arrive at the scene of an incident, the public look to them to act as police officers would, and are surprised to find that they do not have the powers or the ability to intervene in a way that the public expect of them. Gradually giving police community support officers more powers will add to that confusion among the public.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends Lord Faulks and Lady Berridge, although I am not on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. At the time of the riots in London and across the country a couple of years ago, I supported severe punishment by the courts of otherwise minor relatively offences, because those offences took place during a riot. I do not support lenient treatment of minor offences committed during a riot. However, as my noble friends have indicated, the provision to order possession of a property when the offence has absolutely nothing to do with protecting neighbours, for example, from anti-social behaviour, is a step too far. It is politically motivated and is not driven by the needs of justice. Therefore, it should be no part of this Bill.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 91 is headed “Offences connected with riot” and presumably the intention is again to put victims first. In that case, I come back to an earlier point: why are there two classes of victim of riotous behaviour? Riotous activity by a tenant of social housing or an assured tenancy can lead to eviction, but riotous activity by an owner-occupier cannot, and there is no redress of comparable severity that would apply to an owner-occupier but not to someone in rented accommodation. Will the Minister address this point? In a Bill intended to put the victim first, what is the thinking behind the Government’s apparent decision that there should be two classes of victim when it comes to action that can be taken against those who cause misery through the activity defined in Clause 91?

Under Clause 91, tenants, including the individual convicted of riotous activity, who have caused no nuisance, annoyance or harassment, alarm and distress to anyone living in their own locality could be evicted. Children could be evicted. This clause appears to have more to do with punishment over and above that handed down by the court for riotous activity. This additional punishment is not evenly applied, since it can affect only those in social housing and assured tenancies and not owner-occupiers. Is that fair and just?

Finally, Clause 91 refers to,

“an offence which took place during, and at the scene of, a riot in the United Kingdom”.

Could this include an offence unrelated to the riot, but at the scene of the riot, such as careless or dangerous driving, or a minor assault? If so, could a family in rented accommodation face eviction for such an offence as a result?