Anti-Semitism in the UK

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for the opportunity to discuss this important Statement today and, indeed, what the Government have had to say in response to the appalling levels of anti-Semitism detailed in the recent Community Security Trust reports. I know that we will all wish to thank it for the truly crucial work that it does, not only in monitoring anti-Semitism but in the physical protection that it provides for Jewish schools, synagogues and other community events. I have been to see its work myself, and it will always remain with me. In particular, there was the experience in a north London Jewish school: an alarm was sounded and we, staff and children automatically hid under desks or tables in case of a terrorist attack on the school. It was truly shocking. That was in London—in our country, in 2019, before the obvious increased tension now.

The CST reported over 4,000 individual incidents of hate crime against Jews in 2023, with 66% of those since 7 October. This is a 147% rise. Assault is up by 96%. Threats are up by 196%. Abuse is up by 149%. That is taking place in every part of the UK, as the report makes clear. I know that the Government, as all of us in this Parliament do, share the belief that anti- Semitism is a stain on our society and must be tackled head on. What assessment have the Government made of the use by the police of the powers that they have to tackle anti-Semitism at marches, in universities and across society more generally? Of course, this is not for legitimate, peaceful protests but for those individuals who glorify extremism or celebrate unimaginable horror.

The Government rightly proscribed Hizb ut-Tahrir. What assessment have they made of the impact that this has had? Are there any other groups that they have considered proscribing to help deal with this extremism? What is the number of arrests, if any, that the Minister can say have taken place under this proscription?

The Government announced a very welcome increase of £7 million of funding, mentioned by the Minister in the other place in his Statement, for helping to tackle anti- Semitism in education. What progress is being made in distributing this extra £7 million? Education is a key to progress, as we see through many initiatives: I am sure that many noble Lords have taken part in the various visits with schoolchildren to Auschwitz.

The Government’s Statement also draws attention, quite rightly, to the shocking and totally unacceptable increase in abuse and hatred of Muslims, as highlighted by Tell MAMA and others. Funding has been made available for security at Muslim schools and mosques. Can the Minister tell us how much and how it is being distributed?

There are also questions for the Government about when we will see the new law to deal with hateful extremism. It is eight years since the counter-extremism strategy was updated, and the Government continually say that this will be done in due course. Action is needed now. Can the Minister give us any update on that? Will the Government look again at their decision to downgrade the reporting of non-crime hate incidents, which particularly affects the recording of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia? How is it that anti-Semitism can seemingly flourish online and remain there? Will the new Online Safety Act deal with this now, so that some of the hateful and extremist comments that we see online can be dealt with?

We all agree that abuse, discrimination and hatred have no place in our society. Too many people, including in Parliament, are threatened and intimidated because of who they are. We must all stand against that. I do not want to wake up, as I did yesterday, to read that a statue of Amy Winehouse has been defaced, with the Star of David covered by a pro-Palestinian sticker. We all know the intent behind that action. I do not want to read, as I did today, of a Jewish couple receiving a birth certificate with “Israel” scrubbed out. What is happening with respect to the investigation that the Government have launched into that? Can the Minister give us any update?

The extremism that we have seen is not our country, nor is it the country whose people, with others, fought and died to stamp out the evil of Hitler and his disgusting programmes of extermination. It is not true either of the vast majority of British people, who abhor such actions and extremism. Debate, protest and argument are all part of a healthy democracy. Hatred, prejudice and anti-Semitism in all its forms are not. We must stand together to stamp it out.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. It is warming to see the Government taking things seriously. I will not raise many more questions as to what they are doing because I think we all want to do something to cut down on anti-Semitism.

I welcome the comments on and compliments to the Community Security Trust, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to. I must declare that I am a member of the CST’s advisory board, although my advice is rarely sought. It does an incredible job, not only on the statistics on which we base a lot of our information but in the security it presents to the Jewish community in the UK. I do not know whether anyone has had a chance to go to the CST’s headquarters in Hendon. It has an array of television monitors that are the envy of Scotland Yard. There are rows and rows of them. How do they cope with recording things at each individual site? They are monitored and are activated by movement, so although you might have 100 monitors they may be covering 1,000 sites, because they do not come on until there is physical activity in that area. It is state of the art and quite amazing.

We all decry anti-Semitism, but it appears, sadly, that no political party is immune from it. It is rampant in the UK, and if it is rampant in the UK it will be rampant in organisations, including political parties. When it comes up in any political party, it is the duty of that political party or administration to stamp on that anti-Semitism. Take politicians as an example: they stand for the local council or for Parliament and people carry out due diligence, but sometimes they do not come out, at that time, with the feelings that are abhorrent to us all.

It was a horrific time, on 7 October, when there was a massacre on the borders of Gaza, in Israel. People were killed, murdered and slaughtered. A couple of hundred people were taken hostage, some of them from a music festival. The other day, I met here in this House a woman in her early 20s who was at that music festival—a gig that many of us, our children or our grandchildren might have gone to if it had been in the UK. She survived because she was underneath all the dead bodies. What trauma that is. That is a harsh example of anti-Semitism.

We are thankful to the CST for giving us this information: Israel had not yet responded on 7 October but there were 31 incidents of anti-Semitism in the UK that day. This continued until it peaked on 11 October, with 80 incidents in the UK. The week following 7 October saw 416 anti-Semitic incidents. The speed and number of these incidents on or after 7 October appear to show that this increase in anti-Jewish hate—that is what it is—was a celebration of Hamas’s attack. It was not just what everyone wants to believe: they were actually celebrating the attack. The subsequent response has added fuel to the flames.

I have seen this anti-Semitism in my own locality. There is a kosher supermarket which I patronise. On a week when I was not there—otherwise I could have been a hero—a man with a knife attacked the shop owners in Golders Green. Recently, there have been a number of incidents; it is hard to pick them out. One of the most horrifying ones was in a theatre in London, where the stand-up comedian decided, as part of his act, to wave a Ukrainian and a Palestinian flag, and invited the members of the audience to stand up and clap those flags. One guy in the audience was an Israeli, there enjoying the show, and he did not stand up—he did not make a fuss but he did not stand up. The comedian picked him out and he and the audience forced the guy out. The anti-Semitism forced him out of the theatre. This is the reality of how anti-Semitism is working in many fields.

I understand what is sometimes behind many of the people on the marches which take place—a horror at the Palestinians’ suffering in Gaza. I sympathise with and understand that. But I must say that, as an Orthodox Jew in the UK, I am reminded somewhat of the Duke of Wellington’s comment “I don’t know what effect they will have on the enemy but by God they frighten me”. I do not know what effect they are having on people in Parliament, but I will tell you the effect they have on the UK Jewish community.

The CST, which has been mentioned, works in schools in the UK to protect the people of those schools. At the moment, there are Jewish parents who are not sending their children to their Jewish schools because they are frightened. If they are sending them, they are telling them not to wear the school blazers or their yarmulkes—their head covering—because it will identify them. This is the UK, this is the country we live in, and this is not how it should be. My local synagogue has had security outside it forever; I used to do the security until they decided they would probably kill me first. But it is just something in practice.

So anti-Semitism is here, and it is rampant. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked a number of questions; I will not repeat any of them because, in fact, the Government have understood what the problem is. The Labour Front Bench understands it and my Front Bench understands it. We must support the police, and support the Government, of whatever hue they are, in dealing with the dreadful horror of anti-Semitism that sadly exists in this country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. On 19 February, my right honourable friend the Policing Minister made a very powerful Statement in the other place. He stated very clearly:

“This Government will not stand for antisemitism of any kind”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/2/24; col. 500.]


He added that nothing could ever be used for its justification. He is, of course, right. Anti-Semitism is deplorable, and it is worse now than I have ever known it.

I turn to the late, great Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, formerly of your Lordships’ House, for some words to sum up my feelings on this. With the House’s indulgence, I will repeat them and I sincerely hope I speak for many. He said:

“Jews cannot fight antisemitism alone. The victim cannot cure the crime. The hated cannot cure the hate. It would be the greatest mistake for Jews to believe that they can fight it alone. The only people who can successfully combat antisemitism are those active in the cultures that harbour it. Antisemitism begins with Jews, but it never ends with them. A world without room for Jews is one that has no room for difference, and a world that lacks space for difference lacks space for humanity itself”.


I think that is very powerful.

I join both noble Lords in praising the work of the Community Security Trust, which I hope to visit very soon. I hope that my private office is busy, as we speak, arranging that. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, in noting that the rise in some of these incidents spiked after 7 October, but before there had been any military response by Israel, which really illustrates the pernicious nature of what we are talking about.

If I may, I will get on to the specific questions. I was asked a lot, and unfortunately, owing to my long-windedness, I will probably go a little over time—but I will not apologise for that as I would rather answer the questions.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, backed up by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, asked what we are doing to protect Jewish schools. Department for Education Ministers have written to university, school and college leaders, urging them all to ensure that Jewish students are protected and, of course, are offered our support. That is part of the continued engagement with the sector to ensure that settings have the tools they need to act swiftly to tackle anti-Semitic abuse and discriminatory rhetoric.

The terrorist atrocities carried out against the people of Israel are of course horrifying, and anti-Semitism in British society will not be tolerated. This extends to our schools, colleges and universities. So the department is working with all relevant authorities to keep Jewish pupils, students and educational staff safe. We are providing an additional £3 million for the Community Security Trust to provide additional security at Jewish schools, synagogues and other Jewish community buildings. The Government’s Educate Against Hate website provides support for pupils to challenge racist and discriminatory beliefs, and we are due to imminently send letters to schools outlining advice on managing sensitive discussions around anti-Semitism.

The funding for the Community Security Trust will be maintained next year, with a total of £36 million available for the protection of UK Jewish communities between 2023-24 and 2024-25. The Prime Minister has also announced a number of other aspects to this funding. As I mentioned already, it is to provide security at schools, synagogues and other community sites.

I will also comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker; I was talking to somebody who works at the Community Security Trust. They pointed out, in a very powerful comment, that in most schools the alarms are for people to get out. In Jewish schools, they are for people to stay in and hide under a table. That is what we are talking about. The Chancellor’s Autumn Statement confirmed that protective security funding for the Jewish community would be maintained at £18 million in 2024-25.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, also raised the important subject of Islamophobia and anti-Muslim hate. The Government have made an additional £4.9 million of funding available for protective security at mosques and Muslim faith schools, which brings the total funding to £29.4 million for both 2023-24 and 2024-25. We obviously have to listen to the concerns with the same attentiveness. The Government have made additional funding available. The total funding is a good number and is, I believe, delivering the appropriate safeguards. We have also extended the deadline for the protective security for mosques scheme and continue to invite mosques and Muslim faith community centres to register for protective security measures. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for referring to the work of Tell MAMA, which he will know has been supported by DLUHC to the tune of £6 million, I think, since its inception.

I will move on to the subject of the police and their powers. The police are fully aware of the powers available to them. I believe there have been more than 600 arrests so far. I take this opportunity to thank the police for their work; six officers were injured over the weekend in these protests, and I wish them a speedy recovery, as I am sure all noble Lords do. Of those 600 arrests, I believe that more than 30 were made for terrorism-related offences.

That the police are fully aware of their powers has been repeatedly demonstrated, most recently with respect to a convoy planned from the north of England to north London, many parts of which have Jewish communities. The police stopped that convoy because they were concerned it would inflame tensions and engage in intimidatory behaviour. Under Sections 12 and 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 the police have powers to impose conditions on protests to prevent specific consequences, including serious public disorder, serious disruption to the life of the community or intimidation. The police can impose any condition they deem necessary to prevent these harms occurring and have made repeated use of these powers—for example, to prohibit protests outside the Israeli embassy and to ensure that vulnerable communities are protected.

The recent protests have seen a small minority dedicated to causing damage and intimidating the law-abiding majority. We respect the right to protest, which we regard as paramount in our country, but dangerous behaviour must not be tolerated. Noble Lords will remember that we announced new powers last week—for example, banning the use of face coverings, about war memorials, on using flares and so on.

As regards the recent protests, the Chancellor set out in his Autumn Statement that we are giving organisations such as the Holocaust Educational Trust £7 million over the next three years. That, as I said, goes into the overall protective security funding for the Jewish community.

However, we need to be very careful when we are criticising the police for actions they may or may not have taken at individual marches. It is difficult to judge what it is like when you are in a protest and trying to police it. We should trust the police. We know that they have good advice in the control rooms and so on, and that they are doing their very best under difficult circumstances. Once again, I praise their efforts.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the hate crime strategy and action plan. We are not intending to publish a new plan at this time, but we remain committed to continuing to protect all communities from crime, and we have a number of programmes in place to do so. Our absolute priority was to get more police on the streets. I will not rehash the numbers, but noble Lords will know that we were successful in that endeavour.

As regards non-crime hate incidents, the Government introduced a new code of practice to make the processes surrounding the recording and retention of personal data subject to stronger safeguards. The code better protects the right to freedom of expression, while respecting the operational importance of NCHI recording for the police in protecting vulnerable people and communities from harm. However, the code makes it clear that instances that include personal data can and should be recorded if the event presents a real risk of significant harm and if there is a real risk that future criminal offences may be committed. We would like to make it absolutely clear that the code relates only to non-crime hate incidents; it does not amend the hate crime framework in any way, shape or form.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked about the birth certificate incident that was widely reported. I happened to be with the Home Secretary when we were made aware of that, and he immediately asked officials to investigate the matter. Appropriate action will be taken, but at the moment investigations are ongoing.

On online hate crime, again the Government are clear that online offending is as serious as offline offending. We have very robust legislation in place to deal with threating and abusive behaviour or behaviour which is intended or likely to stir up hatred. This applies whether it takes place online or offline. The Home Office regularly engages with the tech companies about unlawful conduct on their platforms and shares information about the threat landscape. I believe the Home Secretary is visiting the west coast of the USA shortly, which will allow him to raise these matters with the companies concerned.

The Government have worked with the police to fund True Vision, which is an online hate crime reporting portal, designed so that victims of hate crime do not have to visit a police station to report. The Government continue to fund the national online hate crime hub, which is a central capability designed to support individual local police forces in dealing with online hate crime. We also made hate crime a priority offence in the Online Safety Act, which received Royal Assent in October last year.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, gave us some personal reflections on the kosher supermarket and restaurants. I saw a clip of that online, and I appreciate the points that he made. Let me be clear: in this, as in all the other subjects that are under discussion this evening, we have a robust legislative framework in place. We expect the police to fully investigate these sorts of offences and make sure that those who commit them feel the full force of the law. Anti-Semitism, or indeed any other form of intolerance of that type, is completely unacceptable in this country, and we have to be vigilant in our efforts to combat it.

Immigration Skills Charge (Amendment) Regulations 2022

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 5th December 2022 Grand Committee

The immigration skills charge plays a valuable role in our immigration system. It encourages UK businesses to utilise domestic labour where they can and to invest in skills when they are in short supply. However, it is important that we make exemptions to the charge when there are sufficiently good reasons to do so. These regulations will support UK scale-up businesses to compete in the global market for the skills needed to continue their growth. They will ensure that we deliver on an important trade commitment to our partners in the European Union and thereby secure reciprocal treatment for British workers undertaking business assignments throughout Europe. I commend the regulations to the Grand Committee.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that introduction. I will deal with the first item, on the immigration skills charge, and my noble friend Lady Northover will deal with anything I have left out and the second one.

First, this SI is important for what it does not say as well as for what it does. Can the Minister tell me how these proposals link with the research and development tax relief and tax credits, which will come in through the Finance Act? They seem very relevant to what we are talking about. In particular, will the tax credits relating to research and development for work carried out outside the UK impact on this statutory instrument?

Further to that, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, the Minister for Innovation says that these regulations

“are compatible with the Convention rights.”

Is the Minister for Innovation the correct person to make such a ruling? It seems rather like putting the gamekeeper in charge of the poacher.

Paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Notes says that

“This amendment to the regulations will codify the exemption.”


It would be useful to have, even in the notes, some empirical examples to show that this is the case.

In his introduction, the Minister talked about the effect in the EU, as distinct from in the UK. I would like him to confirm that the Government see this as reciprocal relief for workers from the UK working in the EU.

Lastly, the Minister said that there was no loss of revenue. However, the notes say very clearly that there is no impact assessment. How can he be so sure and blithely say that there will be no loss of revenue when there is no impact assessment? He may be quite right, but this is really asking us to believe something without empirical examples.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the regulations. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about the SI being interesting for what it does not say as much as for what it does say. I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister; I will make some longer remarks on the next SI.

The SI has been through the other place, so we accept it, but we have certain questions about it. Why have the Government come to the conclusion that these exemptions are needed? In line with the point from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, about what the SI does not say, what are the Government’s plans, at the same time as bringing forward exemptions such as these, to ensure that there are excellent training and opportunities for our resident workforce? How does this SI fit with the stated, explicit intention of the Home Secretary and the Government to reduce levels of migration, something which we have contested?

As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned, an impact assessment for the SI has not been published. The Minister gave some limited explanation, but I would like to know why not, and how will the impacts of the changes in this SI be monitored if an impact assessment is regarded as unnecessary or indeed if one appears in future? We have no idea where we are without impact assessments.

For example, these changes are designed to increase the number of skilled migrants in this area. How many skilled migrants have there been under the scheme so far? With no impact assessment, how can we know how successful this charging scheme has been since it was introduced in 2017? It is supposed to incentivise employers to invest in training and upskilling the resident workforce and reduce reliance on migrant workers. As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, says, without the impact assessment, how do we know that the Government have achieved their own policy objective? The charge was introduced to discourage employers from seeking the skills they needed abroad. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that, that was the whole purpose. How do we know it has been successful?

What the Government have done is say that they need a couple of further exemptions to plug a skills gap that they have identified. The charge rate is £349 million a year. How is that money spent? From my reading, it appears that it just goes into an amorphous pot of money. How is that used to address the skills gap in the UK? There are skills shortages which we are seeking to plug through this skills exemption scheme, among other measures. Alongside that, there is the paradox that there are huge numbers of unskilled jobs which are unfilled. How will the Government deal with the apparent paradox of a skills shortage and yet millions of unfilled, unskilled jobs? Whatever the SI says, that is surely the policy gap and issue that the Government need to address.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

Just to take up the points that the Minister kindly referred to, he said that this would not involve additional costs. Surely an impact assessment would have talked about how much take-up there would be. If the take-up is different, the costs will be different, because more people will seek the relief. Without empirical examples, we do not know.

The Minister said that the relevant Minister was correct when he said that this was compatible with the European convention. I would have thought this was a legal matter and should have had a report from the Attorney-General, rather than a Minister who was implicitly involved in it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will deal first with the point about the impact assessment. As I say, as a matter of practice on taxes, the requirement to hold an impact assessment in the sense described by the noble Lord is not normally followed. However, as I say, the department closely scrutinised this question and came to the conclusions I already outlined.

On the obligation to the European Convention on Human Rights at paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Memorandum, Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires a Minister presenting a piece of legislation to certify whether it is compatible. It is not normal practice that that attestation is signed by the Attorney-General. Plainly, all these matters are subject to legal advice, as the noble Lord would expect.

EU Settlement Scheme

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked.

Forensic Science and the Criminal Justice System (S&T Committee Report)

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 26th April 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Mair (CB) [V]]

My Lords, it was a privilege to have been a member of this House’s Science and Technology Select Committee under the expert and excellent chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Patel. I congratulate him on his wise leadership.

Our report, published in May 2019, highlighted that this country was once regarded as world-leading in forensic science and seen as the international benchmark. But, regrettably, this is no longer the case—we are lagging behind other countries. This is principally because of an absence of high-level leadership, a lack of funding and an insufficient level of research and development. Our inquiry repeatedly heard that the forensic science system in England and Wales is not operating as it should; it is inadequate and in a state of crisis. We heard consistent evidence of the decline in forensic science, especially since the abolition of the highly respected Forensic Science Service in 2012.

The noble Lord, Lord Patel, outlined some of the principal recommendations of our report. One was the creation of a forensics science board to take responsibility for forensic science in England and Wales. Another was the creation of a national institute for forensic science to set strategic priorities for forensic science research and development, and to co-ordinate and direct research and funding. The Government decided not to implement either of these key recommendations, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I will focus on two important areas affected by this decision: the market for provision of forensic services; and the research and development requirements, especially relating to digital forensic evidence.

On the market for provision of forensic services, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, rightly emphasised the urgency of giving the Forensic Science Regulator a number of statutory powers. The proposed establishment of the Office of the Forensic Science Regulator on a statutory basis is much welcomed. The noble Lord drew attention to our inquiry hearing evidence of a dysfunctional forensic science market. Our committee recommended that these statutory powers should include the means of regulating the market.

The effectiveness of forensic science for the criminal justice system depends critically on who provides it and how accessible it is. It must be good enough to be relied on by the courts, and it must be equally accessible to both the prosecution and the defence. Since the closure of the Government’s Forensic Science Service in 2012, some types of forensic science analysis are increasingly undertaken by police forces in-house, particularly disciplines such as fingerprint analysis and digital forensics. Our inquiry heard that the forensic marketplace accounts for about 20% of service provision for law enforcement in forensic services by value, with the remaining 80% of forensic science work undertaken by in-house employees of police forces.

There has been a large reduction in spending on forensic science services. We heard that the £120 million spent on forensic science in 2008 was down to about £50 million in 2018. Significant reduction in spending on commercial providers of forensic science has contributed substantially to market fragility. We were told by a number of witnesses that the state of the forensic science market in England and Wales is unsustainable and in need of urgent reform. A number of private forensic science providers had gone into administration or been suspended, leading to significant fluctuations in the market and consequent problems for the criminal justice system. Dr Gillian Tully, until recently the Forensic Science Regulator, stated in her 2019 annual report that more needed to be done to stabilise the procurement and provision of forensic science services by police forces.

Procurement of forensic services from private providers is largely run by the 43 police forces and their police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. A distinctive feature of the forensic science market is that, in any given region, the police forces are essentially the sole customer. We heard evidence that commoditised procurement processes had led to a 30-40% erosion in pricing over six to seven years. Suppliers of forensic services were being forced to compete so heavily on price because the contracts were so big and came around so infrequently. The result was prices being reduced to unsustainably low levels. We all know the dangers of this: the level of scientific skills offered by private providers of forensic services is inevitably compromised if they are being driven down to very low prices.

In their response to our report, the Government acknowledged that there is a strong relationship between price and quality. The key question, therefore, is how to rectify the current situation. Our committee heard how, as an alternative procurement model, some police forces are now using a managed service model. In this model, for a fixed price a large provider contracts to provide police forces with all the forensic science services they need long term, for up to 10 years.

Although this provides long-term stability for a large provider, it leaves little opportunity for the smaller specialist providers, many of which are uniquely able to offer scientific analysis in important niche disciplines. Evidence we heard indicated that some important specialisms are dying out because they are no longer sustainable. This is worrying.

Our report concluded that the current procurement models for forensic science services will need to change substantially in order to stabilise the market. The evidence pointed to the need for a body to oversee the market and ensure continuity of high-quality service provision. Without this the criminal justice system will continue to be severely compromised.

Our committee recommended that the Forensic Science Regulator should urgently review the structure of the market for forensic science, and also review the procurement process for commissioning private sector providers alongside provision by police forces. The primary aim should be to determine a procurement model that balances price, quality and market sustainability. It is particularly important to ensure a level playing field between private and public sector providers of forensic science services, maintaining the capabilities of small providers in niche disciplines. Can the Minister give an assurance that the Forensic Science Regulator will be given the necessary statutory powers to achieve this, overseeing and regulating the market effectively, thus ensuring its stability and its quality?

The second and final area on which I shall comment is research and development, especially in relation to new technologies and the increasing importance of digital forensic evidence. Digital evidence is now a key component in many criminal trials. Digital forensic capabilities must therefore be available to both the prosecution and the defence. Our committee heard that around 80% of all crime cases have a digital element, whether it be CCTV, mobile phones and social media data, or cyberattacks. Interrogating and analysing digital evidence is becoming increasingly time consuming. The evidence was clear that very considerable investment was needed in the use of modern technology to handle, search and analyse digital content.

Digital forensics is a rapidly expanding field. Its increasing importance is clearly recognised in the comprehensive Digital Forensic Science Strategy published by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in 2020. The value of artificial intelligence and machine learning to the criminal justice system cannot be overestimated. A modern mobile phone could have 1 terabyte of data on it, equivalent to many thousands of documents. Artificial intelligence and machine learning have vital roles to play in facial and speech recognition, and in identifying patterns of behaviour. There are enormous opportunities to apply artificial intelligence and machine learning technologies to streamline the handling, searching and analysis of digital forensic evidence. However, there are complexities, because human biases might be replicated by machine learning systems. This requires more research, particularly in the context of evidence for criminal trials.

A further pressing complexity is the rapid rise of deepfake technology. It is now possible to create digitally altered videos or soundtracks that make someone appear to have done or said something that they have not done or said. Deepfake videos and soundtracks are becoming easier to make and are dangerously difficult to identify as fakes. We are entering a world where it is no longer possible to believe all digital information. It is these very complexities that point to the urgent need for research in digital forensics.

Our report recommended that UKRI, working with the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office, should urgently and substantially increase the amount of funding allocated to forensic science, for both technological advances and foundational research. We emphasised the need to focus on digital forensic science evidence and the opportunities for understanding and developing further capabilities in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Can the Minister confirm that the Government recognise this vital need and will act accordingly?

In summary, there can be no question that proper delivery of justice depends on the integrity and accuracy of forensic science evidence, and the trust that society has in it. There are urgent changes needed to the system of procuring forensic science services to address market fragility, ensure stability and maintain high quality. There is also a need for more funding to be allocated to research and development in forensic science, especially in the rapidly changing area of digital forensics.

My final point is—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

I am sorry, I have to suspend the committee for five minutes for voting.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

We resume proceedings, and I am delighted to ask the noble Lord, Lord Mair, if he would benefit us by repeating the last couple of sentences or so of his remarks. Is the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Science and Technology Committee for its work in producing this excellent report, its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his masterly exposition of what the report is all about and, of course, the committee’s staff who have been so incredibly helpful in briefing Peers ahead of this debate.

I will now exhibit my worst character defect, according to some of my friends, and say that I was not a member of the Science and Technology Committee, but I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority for the 12 years of its existence from 2000 onwards. As soon as the idea of privatising the national Forensic Science Service was floated, I made a speech in which I said, “This is a mistake and it will cause all sorts of problems”. Well, I told you so—rather I told them so. I was very unhappy when it finally went ahead.

The worrying thing that underpins all this, across the forensic sector, committee and the Government, is the acceptance that miscarriages of justice have occurred as a result of the failures, changes and inconsistencies in the way that forensic science is conducted. That innocent people may have been found guilty and guilty people may have been found innocent should worry everyone in this country because it undermines the whole justice system and the rule of law. I am yet to see any serious reflection from the Government on the implications of this or any attempt to ensure that these injustices are remedied.

I will come back to this issue, and I would like the Minister to explain what conversations the Government have had with the Attorney-General and the Lord Chancellor to trawl through these past cases and ensure that any forensic errors are put right and that anyone wrongly convicted has their conviction overturned. This work should be conducted using government funds and should not be constrained by the availability of individuals’ funds or legal aid.

The Government’s response to the report, specifically on legal aid, sadly expresses that they are

“not aware of legally aided defendants being denied access to forensic testing and expert advice for funding reasons.”

Will the Minister expand on the basis of that assertion? Is it founded on ignorance or have they gone out of their way to seek examples of legal aid limits getting in the way of justice? I ask this because some Peers had an email from a forensics organisation that mostly does legal aid criminal defence work. It says that, while the three main laboratories that work with the police have had significant increases in funding recently, there has not been a corresponding increase in funding for the defence. It says that it has tried to engage with the Government about legal aid funding, but to no avail, for example, on the arbitrary limit on travel time of four hours. This does not tally with the Government’s claim that people are being denied access to the forensic science that they need to prove their innocence.

To conclude, I believe that it is impossible to separate forensic science from the wider undermining of criminal justice funding that has occurred during 11 years of Conservative cuts. At the beginning, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, said that somebody gave evidence that a national crisis brought us to this point, but it was not; political decisions by the Conservative Government made it clear that we would take this route. The Government have treated people’s innocence as an unaffordable and optional luxury, rather than the underpinning of the fabric of society’s trust in the justice system. When people realise that innocent people can go to jail and guilty people can go free because of failures in the system that the Government have allowed to happen, the whole system is doomed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Palmer of Childs Hill) (LD)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has withdrawn, so, I now call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Report stage & Lords Hansard
Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to the other amendments in this group in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and the noble Lords, Lord Mendelsohn and Lord Palmer. I am grateful for their cross-party support.

These amendments relate to a particular form of abuse which has long been of concern to me as a British citizen of Jewish faith, whereby a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably prevents the dissolution of his Jewish religious marriage and denies his wife the freedom to move on with her life. We seek to ensure that such behaviour is recognised as a defined form of abuse under this Bill, so that the wife can receive the support and help provided for victims.

I should stress that the majority of Jewish divorces proceed in accordance with religious laws, especially once the civil divorce settlement is agreed, but there are instances in which a husband deliberately refuses. Sometimes this is to extort money from the wife or her family; sometimes it is to wield power and control out of bitterness or spite; sometimes it is out of a vengeful desire to inflict long-term suffering on the ex-wife. The objective here is to support the victim, who is being treated as a chattel rather than as a person and denied her basic rights. There are cases where a woman has been civilly divorced from her husband for more than 20 years, yet the husband has consistently refused to engage with the religious authorities and to grant her a get. She is unable to remarry or to have further children. She is a prisoner in the marriage.

There is no intention here to undermine the role of the Jewish courts, which govern Jewish religious laws and which require the husband to voluntarily sign an official Jewish bill of divorce document, called a get. This can only be initiated by the husband in order to dissolve their Jewish marriage.

There is an entire legal framework governing all aspects of Jewish life, dating back to Biblical times. Although the present-day Jewish courts, known as batte din, and the judges, or dayanim, have been seeking ways to facilitate a process that can free the woman by means of persuasion or negotiation, this process is clearly open to abuse. The wife remains chained in the marriage and, if she wishes to stand by her faith, she cannot date or remarry another man unless she has been given the get. If she were to do so, any children would be considered illegitimate and would not be fully accepted under Jewish religious law.

We hope that these changes will assist rabbinic courts, so that fewer men will play these kinds of cruel games. Sadly, these have been used by men as leverage to control their ex-wives or demand a ransom for their freedom. We recognise that civil divorce is not a substitute for a get, without which, no matter how long the couple have been separated, they are still not considered religiously divorced. This legislation hopes to provide—and these amendments seek to achieve—a wake-up call for Jewish husbands, so that they recognise that it is socially unacceptable to refuse to religiously divorce their wives. Extortionate demands are not acceptable. It should be done in a timely way. It should be as inappropriate in this day and age for a Jewish man to refuse his wife a get as it is for a man to inappropriately fondle a woman or make lewd comments about her looks. We are seeking mindset change.

I hugely regret that this remains an issue for the rabbinic authorities, who have been unable sufficiently to overcome the problem that this causes for women. I understand and fully respect that these are difficult points of Torah, Talmudic and Mishnaic law, which I do not claim to have detailed legal knowledge of. I bow to the legislators in this country on Jewish matters, but I believe that we have a duty to ensure that these Jewish women are protected. They are entitled to the same protections as other victims of abuse.

Fantastic charities such as Jewish Women’s Aid and GETToutUK have been helpful, and many legal and other experts have pleaded for change. I hope that these amendments will further encourage recalcitrant husbands to free their former wives and that society will recognise their victimhood. Such behaviour is not only unreasonable and abusive; it is immoral. These amendments seek to establish that decent behaviour cannot encompass this type of abuse. Legislation cannot force a man to give a get. The religious courts want men voluntarily to attend and grant it. We are sensitive to concerns that a coerced get may be considered invalid, leaving the wife permanently held hostage in the unwanted marriage. We hope that this mindset change in the national community will be forthcoming as we move forward with this legislation.

The later amendments in this group, Amendments 74, 79 and 80, are designed to clarify that the Serious Crime Act 2015 definition of controlling or coercive behaviour covers a situation where a Jewish couple is separated or divorced under secular law and no longer cohabiting, but the religious marriage is not yet dissolved and the husband persistently refuses to give a get. The amendments seek to confirm the previous belief, not yet tested in court, that such a husband could be prosecuted for the crime of controlling or coercive behaviour and face criminal sanctions, even if the couple are no longer living together. However, I am pleased to tell the House that I will not need to move these amendments as Amendment 45 in a later group, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has the support of the Minister and of my noble friends Lady Bertin and Lady Sanderson. That amendment would explicitly establish that post-separation abuse is covered by the 2015 Act, and that an unreasonable get refusal would potentially be a serious crime.

Since this issue was raised in Committee, I have been hugely grateful to my noble friends the Ministers who have continued to engage with us. I thank them and their departmental officials, and also the domestic abuse commissioner and her team, who have been so supportive and understanding of this situation. Indeed, perhaps I may put on record how grateful I am to be living in a country where issues of this nature, which affect a particular religion, can be engaged with so seriously and sensitively by our Government, the Civil Service and other officials.

The domestic abuse commissioner has stated that she welcomes these proposed amendments to the Bill and that she recognises that this would be a form of coercive behaviour on the grounds of psychological or economic abuse or coercion. She has requested and recommended that this issue be included in statutory guidance under the heading of “wider spiritual abuse”.

Since this issue was raised in Committee, we have listened carefully to the debate and we would like to thank again the domestic abuse commissioner and the Ministers. Although I stressed clearly that these amendments are designed to relate solely to Jewish religious divorces, with no intention to impact on any other religious groups, we understand that there were concerns of a read-across to other religions.

Having listened carefully to the debate in Committee, I have also been grateful for ministerial assurances that unreasonable and persistent refusal to give a wife a get is already covered by the broad definitions of abuse in the Bill, and I have received assurances that this will be explicitly mentioned in the statutory guidance. I would be grateful if my noble friend would confirm this and, on that basis, I would therefore accept that this issue need not be in the Bill and I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to move Amendment 1.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have signed all the amendments in this group, which have been signed by noble Lords from the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties and the Cross Benches—not very usual. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said so very clearly, all these amendments relate to a spouse—usually the husband—unreasonably preventing the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage.

My thanks go to Government Ministers for engaging with us and for seeking a UK legal solution to this medieval enigma. I would have preferred for these amendments, clear as they are, to be in the Bill. However, I have to accept, as has the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for the moment, that the problem lies with current interpretations of the rules of Jewish marriage, and not with a parliamentary solution. There is no doubt that chained women and their children, after a civil divorce, are being unreasonably discriminated against for life. I accept that the Government have been sympathetic and have sought by practical means of guidance issued to help those affected, such as with Amendment 45, which I understand will be supported by the Government.

I am grateful for this assistance, but it is not enough. Even if we do not vote on these amendments today, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, I will continue to call for a more sympathetic approach from the Beth Din religious authorities. They rely on the Catch-22 absurdity that a Jewish divorce is not recognised if the recalcitrant husband is seen to be “coerced” into giving a get, resulting in the divorce not being recognised in Jewish law. Thus the agunah, or chained woman, is prohibited from having intimate relations with a man other than her husband and cannot remarry in an orthodox ceremony. In a really unacceptable denial of rights, the children will have severe restrictions placed upon them. Children should not suffer in this way, whatever the reason. This is unacceptable in 2021.

However, these same restrictions on coercion do not stop coercion of the wife being blackmailed, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, into giving a get, be it by payment of money, loss of family home or access to the children of the marriage. All the amendments in this group seek to provide a remedy and I welcome the moves in the Bill and in the guidance. However, what we do not want is to worsen the situation by creating the very perceived coercion which these despicable men rely on.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

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

[Lord Mendelsohn (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendments 3, 5, 168, 169 and 170. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for proposing these amendments and I applaud the compelling case that she made in her speech. I also thank all colleagues for their thoughtful comments and support for these measures which, as I say, I strongly support.

It is good to see the Minister in his place and ready to respond to the amendments. I am sure he is aware that it was his head of chambers, my noble friend Lord Grabiner, who introduced the Bill that became the Divorce (Religious Marriages) Act 2002 with the support of the then Government. These amendments come firmly from that tradition and the approach of successive Governments to these matters. The 2002 Act has been valuable, but, alas, the position of so many women who are caught in this situation continues to be a source of great anxiety. These measures would give real benefit and relief, not only to the women who are so chained but to the men who wish to marry them and, most importantly, to the health and well-being of any children caught up in this awful situation. I would like to pay tribute to Jewish Women’s Aid, GETTout and the many legal experts and professionals who have done so much for those too many who have been caught in this awful position.

These amendments do not seek to legislate on what I consider to be essentially matters of religious doctrine and custom. They do not seek to involve the civil courts in questions of Jewish religious law. In fact, these provisions would provide greater flexibility for the courts to apply matters so as to ensure a greater appreciation of religious law and those involved in it. Her Majesty’s judges have proved to be able to deal very effectively with these issues, and I am sure that the beth din of today will be able to do so too, as indeed it has since 1866 when the then Government told the Chief Rabbinate that it no longer had the sole or main right to determine marriage or divorce in the United Kingdom.

What these measures will do, most importantly, is support the person who in adverse circumstances is the most powerless, vulnerable and likely to be experiencing coercive or abusive behaviour. There has been a tendency in this debate to raise grounds for criticising rabbis for not getting a grip on the problem, but it is important to recognise that religious law is biblical in origin and therefore seen to be immutable. Changes in practice and interpretation are very hard to achieve, most notably in the orthodox and ultra-orthodox communities, especially in the absence of any central parliament and in the context of so many different traditions. In my opinion, their position must be understood.

Under our civil law, the process of divorce is straightforward and gender neutral. Neither party can control or manipulate the process, and once the conditions for divorce are satisfied, the divorce is granted. Jewish law is different, because it is gendered and allows the man to control the proceedings. There is a degree of mutuality, but, fundamentally, the process provides for the male to be able to make the final determination and empowers the religious courts with the ability to overrule women. Central to this is the place of the man to be judged as being able to make a decision under religiously defined obligations of “free will” or “free from coercion”. It is a definition absent of responsibilities, or even adherence to common accepted principles of right or wrong.

Unfortunately, these established rules of religious law sometimes bring out the worst in people. On these occasions, the giving of the get may be used as a tactical device or a weapon of blackmail in relation to the ancillary arrangements for the children of the marriage and the financial settlement made in connection with the civil divorce. Alternatively, a refusal to deliver a get may be motivated simply by malice or spite that is in turn driven by jealousy or some other, perhaps understandable but nevertheless objectively unreasonable, purpose. We have to place the needs of the victims at the centre and, as with this important Bill, rebalance our approach to deal with the needs of the victim.

Of course, the job of the beth din is not straightforward and should be recognised as being complex, and is, I am sure, as sensitive as it is agonising. We must avoid getting involved in its processes and matters that offend religious law and focus on helping the victims. In doing this—and this is why these amendments are so important—I will illustrate the predicament of victims through three real-life examples.

The first is of a woman who had been divorced in the civil court, but is still waiting for her get after five years. On finally securing an appointment with the religious court to receive her get, it was made conditional upon her signing to agree a financial settlement of £150,000 less than that awarded by the civil court, and being forced to sign a document relinquishing any ownership of the joint properties. She was encouraged by the beth din to accept the offer as a legitimate way to secure her get, but she did not choose to do so.

Another example is of a woman who has been waiting 20 years for her get, and whose estranged husband has left the religious community, so it has no hold over him. This, and the effect of years of emotional and violent abuse during the marriage, continues to blight her life.

A third woman’s husband was being prosecuted for the sexual abuse of children. In trying to secure her get, she was asked, including by presiding members of the religious court, to lie to the police and tell them that the accusations had been fabricated, so that she could be given her religious divorce. Additional financial sums were requested. The husband made further demands that were impossible for the wife to fulfil, such as clearing his name of all convictions and expunging references on the internet. The woman had non-molestation and restraining orders against her husband, but, nevertheless, she was subjected to a campaign of harassment at home, in the street and through the posting of offensive and abusive messages on social media. The perpetrators have not been easy to identify, nor has there been any co-operation in the investigations. While the beth din expressed sympathy with her plight, there was no movement on the securing of the get.

Not every matter can be resolved easily and not every situation will fall into neat boxes with regard to the roles that either the religious or civil courts can play. It is therefore essential that we take this opportunity to level the playing field and make sure that we give the support to victims that these amendments would provide. Their objective is to enshrine the right of Jewish women to secure their get where it is being withheld by a recalcitrant ex-husband in order to exert control over the woman. Having a specific inclusion for victims of this kind of coercive behaviour, psychological abuse and often economic extortion would be valuable to those women who may have secured a civil divorce but are not considered to be divorced within the Jewish religion. It is in line with the key objective of the Bill, which is to raise awareness and understanding of domestic abuse and its impact on victims. The provisions categorise domestic abuse as conduct whereby one party seeks to compel the other to remain in a marriage against their will and uses an existing religious structure to perpetuate abuse and exert control.

There is a provision in law for the withholding of a civil divorce if a husband does not give a get, but in abusive cases, husbands are often in no rush to obtain a civil divorce, and with the bulk of the matrimonial assets and resources often being in their sole name, they are content to remain married without the final separation under way in the civil court.

While the Jewish religious courts have introduced communal and social sanctions with some degree of effectiveness, they are severely limited by having weak enforcement capabilities. This is why the law needs to go further to protect victims of this kind of coercive control and mental cruelty.

Women in this position must be entitled to the support afforded to other victims of domestic abuse under the Bill, whereby unreasonably refusing to grant a religious divorce means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour. That is the absolute definition of coercive control.

It is important to bear in mind that for women who experience get refusal, it is highly likely that that is just one of many abusive behaviours perpetrated against them, often escalating over the course of several years. Sustained domestic abuse serves to humiliate, degrade and slowly remove a woman’s sense of self, severely limiting her wherewithal to advocate for herself. Many women in this position have explained the trauma and absolute desperation it creates, and the fact that they have no way of legitimising their concerns. In some cases a man uses the imbalance of power in his favour simply out of spite—perhaps out of dissatisfaction with the way the civil marriage ended, or with the financial settlement afforded him by the courts.

In other cases, a man may have mental health issues—commonly a personality disorder. In one example, a young woman, A, converted to Judaism and at 19 married a man, B, who quickly became physically and sexually abusive, as he suffered from bipolar disorder, of which she had been unaware during their short courtship. She left him after less than a year, but six years later remained in limbo, unable to marry within the religion she had chosen.

These amendments would provide the opportunity to ensure that the provisions and protections were available to all, and specifically to recognise the plight of these women, removing the shadow of abuse and control. The law cannot restore their right to exercise their faith through their ability to remarry and have children within their faith, but these measures, in this Bill, can provide women with protection through the courts, and give them access to a domestic abuse protection order on the grounds of get prevention.

As noble friends have said, beth din-approved gets have been achieved by using the law, and these particular measures, more creatively and assertively, and in tandem with other steps. Nothing in the amendments makes a case for using them in the first instance, or even making them a normal feature of proceedings in Jewish law governing divorces, the overwhelming majority of which, as colleagues have said, pass easily. I am sure that such a prospect, of being urged to be in compliance, would be unnecessary and would raise deep concerns. But these measures need to be more readily available to support victims, so I hope that the Government are willing to support the amendments, as they are in the tradition of their own approach and of the important progress that the Bill offers.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I first declare my interests as noted on the register; I think the relevant ones would be as a vice-president of the Jewish Leadership Council and as a long-standing member of the United Synagogue. I have signed all the amendments in this group, and I shall not refer to them individually. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for leading on them. She said that she was speaking as a religious Jewish woman, so I thought it might be appropriate for me to speak as a religious Jewish man. These problems, which mainly affect women, are well known in the Jewish community.

Noble Lords will notice that the amendments in this group have been signed by Peers from the Cross Benches, the Conservative and Labour Benches, and by myself on the Liberal Democrat Benches. When I speak in debates, it is not often that I agree with all four of the speakers immediately before me—maybe this is due to my bad nature—but tonight I do, and I pay tribute to the details that they have added to the debate.

The questions we are asking are: what is abusive behaviour, and what is coercive behaviour? We are saying that spouses should not unreasonably prevent the dissolution of a Jewish religious marriage. Other noble Lords have mentioned the effects on the children of such marriages, and I shall expand a little on that. Previous amendments have said a lot about parental problems and responsibilities, but if no religious divorce—no get—is given, the children of that marriage cannot live separately with the divorced parent. Worse than that, the children of a marriage that is recognised in the civil courts but not in the Jewish religious courts are treated as illegitimate in the Jewish religion. What we need to do, if we can, is to use UK legislation to help those chained women.

Previous speakers have commented on recalcitrant husbands who demand to be paid off in order to give a get. We should do everything we can in UK legislation to give power to the women who have such problems. I would have given some examples, but the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has already given some graphic ones, which I am sure will be well known to the Minister.

Modern Slavery Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

In Committee, I mentioned the directive which refers to a child-sensitive approach, but it does not provide for a separate offence. Thinking about it again, it seems to me that being child sensitive—we should be and the Bill is—does not require a separate offence.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)]

My Lords, having listened to all the various learned speeches on the matter, I should like to tackle the matter from a slightly different angle. Although it is very hard to find a different angle at this stage of this short debate. What harm would be done if the new clause were included in the Bill? The Government have already moved forward with Amendment 4 but, as other noble Lords have asked: is that enough? The telling point has been made that it would clash with and be repetitive of other legislation. Are we saying that there is no legislation in this land which does not clash and is not repetitive? We have that all the time; perhaps we should not.

However, the question we must ask here is, I hope, this. If the amendment under consideration, as proposed by my noble friend Lady Doocey and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and others, was passed by this House or taken into account by the Minister after this debate, would there be a possibility of even one child not being exploited where previously that child or children may have been? I think that the numbers will be great but even if it was one child not being exploited, surely it would be worth while having this specific provision in the Bill. It would mean that it would be clarified and made more important for those who enforce the law. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies, he will say that the Government—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss]

Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord about the other point that I made on confusion. What does he have to say about confusion?

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

I thank the noble and learned Baroness very much. We are talking about semantics and about circumstances, confusion and all the other words in the English dictionary. I would in fact be cheerful if there were some confusion, if it saved one child from being exploited. At the moment, I can see that there may be some modest confusion but I do not see that that weighs in any way with having specific legislation to protect the child. Are we saying that for fear of being confused, or of clashing or being repetitive, we desire to be in the middle, which I call sitting on the fence with the nails sticking in you where they should not? That is not enough; what we want is the best protection for the child.

I have not heard any Member of your Lordships’ House, on any side on this debate, say that they are not against the exploitation of children. I think we are all of a mind on that but what is not in agreement is whether this amendment is needed. I am not a lawyer and I shall not nitpick about confusion or circumstance, or any other such word in the dictionary. But having listened to the debate, to my mind we need a strengthening of Clause 4. I believe that this amendment would do that and that it is worth any confusion—any sitting on the fence, any clash or repetition—if it saves the exploitation of even one child.

[Lord James of Blackheath (Con)]

My Lords, my Amendment 6 is in the same group. I suspect that the followers of Amendment 5 are now well past number 11 and following on in the second innings, so I wonder if I could be forgiven for taking over to speak to my Amendment 6. It is the consequence of a long-running dialogue between the Minister and I, where we have failed to agree having had a long time together on the subject, so I have brought this amendment back from its first appearance in the early stages.

Your Lordships will recall that I first raised this subject when I was reminded of my experience in working for the Australian Civil Service in London. I recounted in Committee that I was deeply suspicious of the circumstances in which I was being required to herd small children on to boats at Tilbury for transportation to Australia. They did not have names; they did not know who their parents were, or where they came from, and they were completely terrified. I was suspicious that these children were improper migrants—that they did not have the proper authority to go—and it was a very strange position. Since then, I have done a lot more research and a lot of very interesting things have come to me in the post, including a little hate mail, which was actually very useful. Because of the fact that I had admitted overseeing the transportation of some 2,500 children, I was accused of being worse than Jimmy Savile. I think that Jimmy Savile might have been quite offended at that because he is being accused in relation to 300 children, whereas I have about 2,500 on my slate.

However, in the circumstances that was interesting because it raises two questions. First, was it illegal at the time that these children were being transported and, secondly, is it something which could occur again? My own belief is now, emphatically, that it was illegal and that there was no proper authority for the transportation of those children. It involved many tens of thousands of children over 15 years; we should be deeply ashamed of it, and make sure that the Bill cannot talk about controlling slavery without making it absolutely certain that we can never again repeat this dirty little secret of our history.

I need to give a bit more detail. I am going to quote the reference for a committee report that was brought to my attention by the Child Migrants Trust, and which I was initially told by the Library no longer existed. However, I am happy to say that our wonderful Library found the only copy that it thinks officially exists today. I will read its number into the record for the House: HC 755 I and II in volume XCVI, 1997-98. That report has now been found and is on the shelf behind the inquiry desk in the Library for any noble Lords who want to verify it. I have mentioned this at the start of what I am going to say because everything I will say is verifiable somewhere in that huge book. The committee in question was a Department of Health committee from 1997 to 1998. It was a rare committee because it was funded to travel to Australia to carry out its investigations on the ground for nine days. I am afraid we do not have committees like that any longer.

The story starts at Christmas 1944, when the Prime Minister of Australia contacted the coalition Government in England and said, “You’re getting towards the end of a war and you’re going to be overrun with orphans. We want to help you. We’d like to take 17,500 orphans from you every year for the next 15 years. We want at least 150,000”. The British Government thought about this for a while and said, “We’ll talk about it”. Then they brought in the orphanages and social services. Of course these were coalition times, so Herbert Morrison was in charge. By a quaint quirk of fate, I knew Herbert Morrison very well later on because he was president of a cricket club where I was the secretary, and I could not have asked for a man of greater integrity, personal charm or dedication. He was a very human being indeed, and I cannot believe that he would ever have done anything disreputable whatever. However, what happened under his hands was appalling.

They set about getting together a policy to find 17,500 children a year who could be given to the Australians. They brought in the heads of the orphanages and got Dr Barnardo’s to head the exercise. They got the local councils to get their heads of their child agencies, which I suspect was then an industry somewhat in its infancy compared with what it is now, and started to put the process together. Then came an election. The Labour Party won it with the very high promise of Beveridge’s social reforms, including the National Health Service. I do not remember anyone telling the electorate at that time that if they wanted a health service they would have to accept that we were going to dispose of 195,000 of our children to a foreign country without trace or record being kept, but that is in fact what happened. As the head of Barnardo’s says in a clear and precise statement at the opening of the committee, “It was an economic necessity. We couldn’t afford to look after the children we had. There were too many of them. We hadn’t got enough beds and couldn’t feed them. We had to do it. It was a Government-led initiative which we had to do”. That is an interesting comment and someone might want to look it up on the record one day.

So they did it. On the face of it, things were going to be fine because the Australian Government were falling over backwards to be helpful. They said, “You send the children to us. We will have prearranged adoption homes and domestic places for each of the children and we will ship them off directly as soon as they land, after giving them a medical check, and we will then give a maintenance cash allowance to every home that takes one to look after these children. Then we’ll get the adoption process carried through the courts”. So the British Government said, “Sounds fine to us”. However, Morrison said, “We will insist upon the British Home Office maintaining an oversight responsibility for their welfare afterwards”. We need to remember that because there is no evidence that it was ever done, and we need to see what happened to that.

A change of Government having taken place, Morrison steps aside and Chuter Ede becomes Home Secretary. There was nothing wrong with Chuter Ede but there might have been something wrong with a few of his servants. The process goes like this: the Labour Government take office on 26 July 1945, and on 16 September that year the first ship sails full of children, 2,000 of them. The 2,000 children set off into the blue and are the first of 155,000 who are sent between that date and the end of 1960. After 1960, another 120,000 are sent, bringing about a total in aggregate of 295,000 children, all from orphanages and local council overspills, which could not cope with them.

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Armed Forces) (Amendment) Order 2012

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goodlad]

My Lords, very briefly, I share the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about the order, which was commented on by the Select Committee on secondary legislation. This area of the law was thoroughly looked into some years ago by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. The recommendations of the committee, contained in the second report of the 2008-09 Session entitled Surveillance: Citizens and the State, were broadly welcomed. Since that report Parliament has passed the Crime and Security Act 2010 and the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. The provisions of the latter, dealing with the retention of DNA, have not yet been brought into effect, as the noble and learned Lord pointed out. However, the intentions of the Government and of Parliament have been made clear beyond peradventure.

It seems strange, therefore, that the Government have brought forward an order which has the effect of lengthening the period during which DNA may be retained by the police service, in circumstances which will no longer be lawful when orders under Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act have been passed by Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to give the House the assurances so precisely defined and advocated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I welcome the thrust of the Motion of Regret from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. It comes from someone who contributed five times during what became the Protection of Freedoms Act, so it is not a flash in the pan. I also look forward to the Minister’s detailed reply for the Government. I should like to make a point that to some extent has already been made: the point of substance in the noble and learned Lord’s Motion is to respect the rights of the citizen when considering DNA or fingerprint records, and I emphasise that.

Prior to the Minister’s comment, which the noble and learned Lord apparently welcomes, I would like to say that the Government have taken a big step forward in enacting the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which sets in place a system of deletion and destruction consistent with the Marper judgment, which has been referred to, and human rights obligations. It is clear to anyone who looks at how DNA records are apparently kept, though, that absolute care must be taken when dealing with the material. It is both highly personal to the individual from whom it is taken and an important tool in the detection of crime.

Time is needed, of course, to put in place the policies and procedures to give accurate effect to the legislation passed by Parliament. The DNA evidence from those who have been responsible for crimes and those who have not needs to be sorted, and I gather that that evidence is voluminous and there is a time element. I am happy, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be too, that the Government will, we hope, indicate that they will have the long-term position resolved by mid-2013, as I understand it—perhaps even sooner; that the updated Armed Forces policing regulations will follow; and that both will be delivered according to the timetable. I welcome the clarification that this Motion will, I hope, produce.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, unlike the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, I do not have the advantage of knowing what the Minister is going to say in reply. Indeed, I did not even expect that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, would be the Minister replying; I was under the impression that this was a defence issue.

The order that we are covering came into force on 30 October this year, just one month ago. It amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Armed Forces) Order 2009 by providing that biometric data taken from someone being investigated for a service offence by service police can be retained for up to four years but no longer, unless within that period the person is convicted of the service offence. The Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 amended the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and introduced different rules and requirements for the retention of biometric data taken from arrested people. However, the Armed Forces are not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act.

PACE also only applied to criminal investigations being conducted by the civilian police. However, under Section 113 of the 1984 Act the Secretary of State can by order apply certain provisions of the 1984 Act to investigations conducted by the service police. This was done in relation to the taking and retention of biometric data by way of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Armed Forces) Order 2009, which has since been amended by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Armed Forces) (Amendment) Order 2011, and again by the 2012 order, which we are discussing now.

The 2011 order amended the 2009 order by increasing from two years to three the time limits that apply under that order to the retention of fingerprints, samples and impressions of footwear, and the 2012 order amends the 2009 order to allow material taken on or after 31 October 2009 to be retained for up to four years from the date on which it was taken, unless during that period the person is convicted. For material taken before 31 October 2009, the four-year period runs from that date.

It seems that the Government regard this 2012 order as a holding measure, as the intention apparently is to introduce a new order once the relevant provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 have been brought into effect, and that that new order will broadly replicate for service personnel the 2012 Act’s provisions on retention of biometric data for civilians.

As the report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee sets out, the changes that have been made and are still to be made to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 arose from a ruling in 2008 by the European Court of Human Rights that the relevant provisions in Part 5 of PACE were in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Those provisions in Part 5 allowed for the indefinite retention of fingerprints and DNA samples when there had been no conviction. As a result, Part 5 of the 1984 Act was amended by the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. However, those provisions in the 2012 Act are not expected to be commenced before mid-2013.

The purpose of the 2009 order, and subsequent amending orders in 2011 and now 2012, was, we are told by the Ministry of Defence, to make interim provision that would be compliant with the European Court of Human Rights ruling and allow the service police to retain material until Part 5 of PACE was amended. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has commented that the practical effect of continuing to bring forward these orders, extending the period for which data can be held, is potentially to enable the material to be retained indefinitely. The order that we are now discussing means that the interim provisions will be in place for at least five years after the European court gave its judgment, and even longer if there is further delay in commencing the relevant provisions of the 2012 Act. The committee has also questioned whether successive statutory instruments with the practical effect of potentially allowing the indefinite retention of material taken by service police can be considered compliant with the European court’s judgment.

These are all points which deserve a considered response from the Minister. When he replies, perhaps he could also say why the relevant provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 are not coming into force until at least the middle of next year. In Committee on the Protection of Freedoms Bill, the then Home Office Minister rejected our amendments providing for the retention of DNA and fingerprint profiles for six years, a longer period than that proposed by the Government and now incorporated in the terms of the Protection of Freedoms Act. We were told that there was a need for balance between public protection and individual freedoms, and that the Government considered that they had got the balance right and we had got it wrong. One would have thought that after that the Government would have made every effort to bring into effect the relevant provisions of the Protection of Freedoms Act as soon as possible, not to find themselves in a position where they are putting forward an order that specifically provides for the retention of biometric data for a longer time than the Government said struck the appropriate balance and rather nearer the time in years that we were arguing was appropriate.

Why was it not felt right to make provision within the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 for matters relating to the investigation of service offences, at least in relation to the taking and retention of biometric data if not to other areas, to be brought within the terms of Part 5 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984? Presumably, the situation at the moment is that if a member of the Armed Forces is being investigated by the civilian police, the provisions of the 1984 Act apply to the investigation directly, but that if that same member of the Armed Forces is being investigated by the service police then the 2009 order—as amended by the 2011 and 2012 orders—applies. Is there any reason why it is essential that this distinction continues to apply in all instances?

We understand the reasons why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has drawn this order to the attention of the House. Whether or not one believes that the Government’s decision on what specific action to take to meet the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights was appropriately balanced, it is still relevant to ask why it will be at least just over three years after taking office, and five years after the ruling, before the Government implement their decision on how to comply with a judgment with which they are not in disagreement.

Universities: Anti-Semitism

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Janner of Braunstone]

My Lords—

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we really cannot all stand up at the same time. I think that it is the turn of the Labour Party, and I rather wish that one of the two noble Lords would give way to the other.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not want to enter into another debate, and that is a separate debate although it is one that we must not shy away from. At the same time, we do not want to lose the greatness of our universities, which allow students to hear contributions that are often very vile but then also allow them to make a judgment as to their response.

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister drew attention to the statistics up to 2010. Based on the October 2011 report from the National Jewish Student Survey, 21 per cent of Jewish students felt very worried about anti-Semitism at university; 38 per cent of Jewish students felt worried about anti-Israel sentiment at university; and, more worryingly, 42 per cent of Jewish students had witnessed or been subjected to anti-Semitism in the seven months up to the survey. Will my noble friend the Minister confirm that Her Majesty’s Government consider these figures to be a real cause for concern, and indicate what steps they will take to address this issue? Can the Minister outline the approach that the Government are taking to work with universities, the academic community and the Jewish community to solve what is a real problem, despite what other Members of this noble House have said?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am sure that my colleagues in the Box have taken note of my noble friend’s concerns and the figures that he has raised today. The Government take all these issues very seriously and I reassure the House that wherever we find that we can intervene, we surely do.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Henley, to his post. Someone who makes marmalade must have a lot going for him.

Clause 4(1)(c) includes the words,

“conduct which gives encouragement to the commission, preparation or instigation of such acts, or which is intended to do so”.

in the definition of involvement in terrorism-related activity. How does this relate to the existing provisions against the glorification of terrorism? Is it a lower evidential burden? Would it capture some of the more inflammatory speeches that we hear on demonstrations supporting jihad and resistance and so on?

The Bill before us is called the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill, and I look for ways of heading off disharmony often, but not always, between different ethnic groups. For many years I sat on a police gold strategy group in north-west London. The aim was to bring together the police, headed by the then borough commander, with representatives of the Jewish community, the Muslim community, Hindus and others. The idea was to deal with problems before they occurred and to seek to engender a feeling of trust between community groups and the police. I sat on it for years and I was never sure why I was invited to be on it other than, perhaps, the fact that I was known to the police.

Noble Lords have spoken about terrorism. In the midst of all the legal arguments it is worth emphasising that it is equally important that we build up and maintain an environment where local UK communities do not give support and substance to those aiming to commit and encourage or inflame actions that undermine our British harmony. The noble Lord, Lord Howard, gave an analogy of the United States of America, which made me look at my papers. I have a quote by Joseph Singer who is a lawyer with the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review. He says in this publication:

“Minimum standards regulations do not deprive us of freedom; rather, law promotes both freedom and democracy by outlawing social and economic relationships that are ‘subprime’ because they fall below the minimum standards acceptable for human relationships in a free and democratic society. It is time we acknowledged the regulations we too often take for granted. If we do that, we can debate what those laws should be, rather than focusing on a false debate about whether they should exist at all”.

I relate that to our debate because my noble friend Lord Macdonald spoke about rebalancing freedom and security. That is what we are talking about. How do we balance the civil rights about which some noble Lords have spoken with the security about which other noble Lords have spoken? The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, spoke about the role of the Minister versus the role of the judiciary. That is a very important factor. There is a role for both and they are not mutually exclusive. In the short term, the role of Ministers in taking Executive decisions of this nature may well be necessary. All Home Secretaries seem to have been convinced by the arguments in the past. It should be part of the procedure that control orders, as they were, or TPIMs as they will be, should last for as short a period of time as possible before a case comes before a judge or the courts.

I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. There is a role for the Minister in this case. It is also necessary to keep that action as short as possible within the terms implied. Noble Lords have spoken about the possibility of having this reviewed within 15 months, two years or five years. Because the lapse of time became outdated and we thought that we could improve control orders—which is the way in which TPIMs are being talked about—I prophesy that in a period of years or even months we may be considering another change based on the experiences of that time.

We have been hearing about the use of electronic surveillance equipment. Some of that was not available even a few years ago. It has been improved and is continuing to improve. We may get to a time when it becomes “Beam me up, Scotty”, as they said in “Star Trek”. There are so many changes that will happen, and the legislation and its implementation will change as well.

I support the Bill. During its passage through this House, I hope that there will be some amendments made to it. Being 20th in the list, I will not talk about those possible amendments, but the basis of the Bill is right. There is a duty not only to civil liberties but to protect the people of this country, in as harmonious a way as possible.