Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

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

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I support these amendments. The one thing we know about short sentences is that people do not receive any education, training, therapy—anything at all, in fact, because, well, they are not there long enough to benefit. Therefore, as the noble Lord said, why on earth do we spend all this money only to create hardened criminals? I very strongly support these amendments.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I too support the amendments. I was at the speech given by the Secretary of State for Justice last Monday, in which he said that in the last five years, there have been just over 250,000 custodial sentences of six months or less, and over 300,000 of 12 months or less. He went on to say that nearly two-thirds of the offenders had gone on to commit further crime within a year of being released. He also said that the Government were now taking a more punitive approach than at any time during the Thatcher years, which I thought was a strange admission from him. I wrote to him pointing out that this Bill appears to be him against the Home Secretary, and he replied today that “work in the area will require careful collaboration with other government departments to ensure a consistent approach to sentencing reform which reflects my ambitions and, most importantly, keeps the public safe”.

Everything has been said about the growing body of evidence that diverting children away from the formal justice system is more effective at reducing offending than punitive responses, and I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on that. I also deplore the removing of judicial discretion, which works against the Sentencing Council’s guidelines. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child resolved that the interests of the children must be placed first. Mandatory short prison sentences have been proved to be ineffective—I have seen them to be ineffective—because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, there is nothing happening in any young offender institution which is worth the while, and if people are there for a short time, nobody has time to establish their needs, let alone tackle them. Therefore, I strongly support the amendments.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I also support these amendments, particularly Amendment 32, which would remove Clause 8. I worked in an intermediate treatment centre many years ago. It was an astounding institution. May I say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for leading this extraordinary work?

I am a trustee of a mental health service for adolescents, a charity that works with a local youth offending team, and also works in schools with young men, mostly BAME boys with behavioural issues. It is called Sport and Thought, and it can transform lives; teachers are shocked at the difference that this intervention can make. It involves working with a therapist and a football coach. There are such good and effective ways of turning these young peoples’ lives around, so I really do share the concerns voiced.

Crispin Blunt, the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Prisons and Youth Justice, was speaking at an open meeting three weeks ago. I raised the question of mandatory sentencing. He said that it does not work, it inflates the numbers of people going into prison and is completely counterproductive. To have mandatory sentencing for 16 and 17 year-olds is against logic.

We must remember where we came from. About 10 years ago, we had 3,000 children in custody, by far the largest number in Europe. All parties were very concerned about this, and thanks to the work of the coalition Government, we reduced it to 1,000. We do not want to go back there. I recognise the deep concerns about this terrible offence of throwing corrosive substances at people. Yes, there must be a robust response, but in trying to protect children from these offences, let us not put them in harm’s way.

I visited a prison four or five years ago with the chair of the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. She said that because we had been so effective at reducing the numbers of children in custody, those in prison now are the very toughest and most challenging children. She said that by obliging courts to put many of the children subject to this offence into custody, they are very likely to be bullied or to traumatise themselves. It makes them into more hardened criminals in the longer term if we do this.

I have to think about our responsibility in this area. It is very easy to appoint blame but let us look at the very high rate of exclusions from schools at the moment. I think that we are still waiting for Mr Timpson’s report, but when children are excluded from school, they are so much more likely to get involved in this sort of activity. Look at the cuts in funding for early intervention services; as an officer of the All-party Parliamentary Group for Children, I know very well how all those important services for supporting families have been deeply cut, due to understandable financial and economic circumstances—but they have been cut to the bone. So many children’s centres have been closed down.

Another issue, which perhaps does not get talked about enough, is that many of these children—many boys—are growing up without fathers. In certain ethnic groups, 60% of these boys grow up without fathers in the home. My noble friend Lord Hogan-Howe was talking about investing more in mentors for such young people, which can make a huge difference in their lives.

When dealing with challenging young people, my experience from a long time of working with troubled adolescents is always that it is so tempting to come in hard, perhaps if you are working in a children’s home and a child provokes you. The extreme is known as pin down, where one might chain children to beds or whatever. It is always tempting to come in hard but the thoughtful, considerate, effective professionals stand back and try to be dispassionate. They try to do what is most effective, not what appeals most to the emotions.

I recognise the difficulty that the Government are in and that they wish to make a robust response, but perhaps they might listen to the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. I strongly support Amendment 32, which would remove Clause 8 from the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise to speak against the Government’s proposals. I remind the House that I sit as a magistrate in London. In fact, earlier today I was dealing with knife-related offences at Highbury magistrates’ court. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, summarised very fully the case that I was going to put forward so I will try to put forward different points, which were covered earlier in Committee.

The Government’s case is that the KCPO is aimed at filling a gap which is not covered by existing preventive measures, such as gang injunctions and criminal behaviour orders. The Minister has argued forcefully that the potential benefit of preventing knife crime through KCPOs outweighs the potential disbenefit of criminalising children who breach such an order. In essence, that is the argument which we have had a number of times over the last few weeks. She will be aware that many groups have advocated against these KCPOs, for the reasons that we have heard this evening.

Yesterday, I too attended the round-table meeting with the Minister in the Commons, Victoria Atkins. When I asked her for the difference between a KCPO and a conditional caution, I got a better answer than I was expecting because she said that the KCPO would provide a wraparound approach. I was a bit surprised by her words. Earlier this evening we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, about hoping to replace inadequate parenting with a more caring—I think that was the word—approach, so that parental care may be approached somehow through these KCPOs. That is absolutely great and I would support it as a good thing, but the reality is that there is no new money available. As far as I can see, the only difference between a KCPO and a conditional caution is at the level of entry into either the order or the caution.

As we have heard, the KCPO has a lower requirement. It is a civil standard, based on the suspicion of a police officer. I remind the House what the requirements for a youth conditional caution are. First, there may be a clear admission of guilt. That is one option but there is a second which is not normally remembered and where there does not need to be any admission of guilt. If the officer believes that there is sufficient evidence against the young person, they can choose to place a conditional caution even when there is no admission of guilt. Of course, all the conditions, as far as I can see, can be exactly the same either in the KCPO or the conditional caution. I do not see how the laudable aspiration of providing wraparound care or some form of parental guidance—or however one chooses to phrase it—would be better met with a KCPO than with a conditional caution.

There is the other effect, the one that we have been talking about, of net-widening when having the lower standard of proof. The people who have advised me are confident that that will bring more young people into being criminalised, which I would regret.

The Minister gave a very strong speech earlier this evening, but the reality is that there is no more money available. That is much more important than however many pieces of legislation that this House chooses to pass. I hope that the Minister will say something encouraging about putting more money into youth services for young people, because that is the true answer to this problem.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I rise to oppose the KCPO proposal, as I did in Grand Committee. I shall not repeat all the arguments that I raised then, because other noble Lords have already mentioned them. However, I ask the Minister: who dreamed up these KCPOs? Were they a Home Office invention? It appears that the Youth Justice Board, the Children’s Commissioner and local government services were not consulted. The Magistrates’ Association, the Association of Youth Offending Team Managers, the Local Government Association, The Children’s Society and the knife crime APPG are all opposed to it. We hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, that the police and crime commissioner in Durham is also opposed to it.

I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the cost, because there is no reckoning or details of the cost available to Members of this House. I question the pilot and am also worried about Amendment 63, because that seems to click in only if the KCPOs are approved. I hope that the House will not approve them.

[The Earl of Listowel]

I express my deep concerns about what the Government are proposing. I also felt that the Minister made a very strong speech, making it really clear to us again, sitting in this place, that this is about young people, usually on housing estates, being stabbed, bleeding out, dying and losing all that potential in their lives. This is a very grave situation.

That does not mean we should do anything that comes to mind to respond; we need to make an effective response. I am particularly concerned, as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Looked After Children and Care Leavers, about the criminalising of young people in care. My noble friend Lord Laming’s report two years ago focused on work to reduce the criminalisation of these children, who are so overrepresented in our prisons. The police have recently created a protocol for working with children’s homes to lower the rates of criminalisation. However, I feel certain that if this KCPO is introduced, we will see more children from children’s homes ending up in the criminal justice system. I strongly oppose what is being proposed.

We were recently briefed on county lines. Your Lordships will be aware that drug dealers are grooming children to send far and wide across the country to provide new markets for their drugs. The Children’s Society commented that it will often be children in poverty, from children’s homes, and in difficult circumstances, who are sent away to deal drugs. They will often be supplied with knives or will get them from doing this work. These are the kinds of children who get drawn into this.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

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

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I must first apologise to the Committee that I have been horribly absent, but there was an event in the other place that I had to attend—I will not bore your Lordships with the explanation, but there really was no option.

Amendment 63 aims to ensure that vulnerable children or young people found with an offensive weapon in a public place are assessed for addiction. So many of these vulnerable children and young people are addicted to drugs. If they are found to be so addicted, they should not be processed through the criminal justice system; rather, they should be referred to a rehabilitation service for help with their addiction and related problems. Many of them are homeless and have all sorts of mental health problems and so forth. The Government have recognised that short-term prison sentences are generally unhelpful. Re-offending rates following such sentences are very high. In the case of drug addicts, a prison sentence will generally achieve—I really mean this—absolutely nothing positive, but it is very likely to increase the vulnerability and addiction, and therefore the criminal activity of these young people.

Several noble Lords attended an interesting meeting yesterday where senior police officers and a police and crime commissioner from the West Midlands explained this. I quote one of the officers, “The police cannot reduce the illegal drugs market, however many drug dealers we arrest and imprison”. That is a powerful statement on behalf of men on the front line who deal with these things day in, day out. Those people spend their lives that way. Neil Woods, who has written two books about his time as an undercover officer arresting drug dealers over many years, explained that he came to realise that he was not achieving any reduction in the availability of drugs. He was completely wasting his life away, so he changed to a very different view about how these things should be dealt with.

The police officers also talked about how much more effective alternatives to punishment are in persuading young people to back away from the illegal drugs market. Ronnie Cowan MP talked about the work in Glasgow where young people are diverted from the criminal justice system and helped to return to a normal life. Perhaps the Minister will tell the Committee whether she is familiar with the work in Glasgow. If she is not, it may be worth her looking into it before Report.

This amendment is really important from the pure efficiency point of view on reducing addiction and crime in this context, but let us also look at it from the point of view of the children and young people involved. As I said at the beginning, a very high proportion of children found carrying a knife or another offensive weapon in a public place will be vulnerable children, who have become addicted to drugs or been targeted by the drug gangs. The Children’s Commissioner estimates that at least 46,000 children in England are involved in gang activity. It is estimated that about 4,000 teenagers in London alone are being exploited through child criminal exploitation in what has come to be known as county lines. These vulnerable children should be seen as victims of trafficking and exploitation rather than as criminals.

Gangs are deliberately targeting vulnerable children. They watch for a child walking home from school day after day alone, head down, looking miserable. These children are unsafe, unloved or unable to cope for one reason or another. Gangs take advantage of their vulnerability. They threaten or trick children into trafficking their drugs for them. They may threaten a young person physically or threaten a family member. They often offer food, which the child or family may desperately need, alcohol or clothing to the child or their family in return for co-operation.

Once children have received gifts, they feel indebted to the gang. They quickly feel they have no option but to continue. As many noble Lords will know perfectly well, the gangs use these vulnerable children to store their drugs and to move cash proceeds or the drugs themselves. No doubt they give them a knife or something else to protect themselves with. The county lines groups use high levels of violence, including the ready use of firearms, knives and other offensive weapons, to intimidate and control members of the group and its vulnerable victims. The victims are exposed to varying levels of exploitation including physical, mental and sexual harm. Some of the young people are trafficked into remote markets to work. Others are falsely imprisoned in their own homes, which have been taken over using force or coercion. I must say that I had not heard of that until I read it rather recently.

The National Crime Agency report County Lines Violence, Exploitation & Drug Supply 2017 analysed the exploitation of vulnerable people, including those with mental health or physical health problems. Sixty-five per cent of police services reported that county lines activity was linked to the exploitation of children. The police know perfectly well that we are dealing with victims here. Once involved, victims may want to get out of their situation but do not want to involve the police for fear of self-incrimination or retribution by the perpetrators. They are really caught in the middle. These victims may carry a knife or other weapon for self-protection, as I have mentioned. The real question is whether they are really criminals for carrying that knife for self-protection. Other noble Lords talked about what is in the mind. These children have got a knife not to attack others, but to protect themselves. That surely makes all the difference to one’s approach to dealing with these children.

This is a very complex problem but the courts and the prison system are not the right vehicles for dealing with victims. Yes, send the gang leaders to prison, though retraining and psychological treatment will be essential for them, too, if they are not to spend their time in prison, come out of it later and then start all over again, with just a little more bitterness added to what they already had. I hope we can have a discussion—a serious discussion—before Report about drug issues in relation to the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment because it advocates one public health approach, along the lines advocated in the serious violence strategy. The sad fact is, however, that too many of the intervention and preventive measures outlined in the strategy are not sufficiently resourced and may not materialise.

Last week, the drugs, alcohol and justice cross-party group that I co-chair heard about an initiative from Thames Valley Police, about which I immediately wrote to the Home Secretary, encouraging him to take an interest in it. It is a diversion scheme—modelled on the mental health diversion scheme so successfully introduced after the report by the noble Lord, Lord Bradley—requiring those found to be in possession of drugs to attend for voluntary treatment. The interesting thing was that the constables on duty in the Thames Valley streets reported that they found it extremely simple and clear to use.

As many other noble Lords have pointed out, knife carrying is a symptom of wider social issues. Many young people carry them because they fear for their lives. However, in confirmation of my warning that too many of the intervention and preventive measures outlined in the serious violence strategy are not sufficiently resourced, the Institute of Mental Health in Nottingham —I declare an interest as a member of its external advisory board—has found that only 18% of the community commissioning groups recognise that they have any responsibility for funding probation, which includes mental health and drug treatment. This emphasises the need for this significant programme of work—words used by the Home Secretary to describe the strategy—to involve a wide range of government departments, including liaison between the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Health on this issue.

[The Earl of Listowel]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. She referred to cuckooing, which is when a vulnerable adult has someone move in who then uses their home to supply drugs. I have heard of this happening in the past among care leavers. Sometimes a local authority will provide a young person leaving care with a flat but they are vulnerable and feel isolated, so it is very easy for people to take advantage of them and start misusing their premises in that way.

I attended the meeting yesterday with the former undercover detective and a senior detective from the Midlands police force. They were talking about drugs and county lines. I asked them, “Since we are dealing in Committee with knife crime and corrosive agents, do you have any advice relating to your experience on them?”. The detectives’ response was that dealing effectively with drugs would probably be a more effective way of tackling the problem than the legislation we are working on at the moment.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

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

Amendments 20 and 21 would similarly substitute community sentences for the short terms of imprisonment provided by Clause 3, which is about the delivery to residential premises. We will come to the substance of Clause 3 and what residential premises are and so on—I am looking at the noble Earl—but our view on sanctions applies, and this is the place to make it. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 4 and 5, and I will also speak to the other amendments in this group. I looked in vain for Amendment 19 on the Marshalled List and the order of groupings today but I noticed that it is not there. As 19 comes before 20 and 21, I would like to speak to that as well because it also mentions custodial sentences—

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It was in group 1.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

I am sorry. I mentioned at Second Reading that I was astonished that the Bill should bring forward the Home Secretary’s apparent desire to increase the number of mandatory short sentences while the Ministry of Justice and its Secretary of State, followed by the Prisons Minister last Saturday in the Daily Telegraph, oppose the mandatory short sentences because they were so ineffective. I would have thought that that ought to have been sorted out between the two Cabinet Ministers before the Bill was brought to the House.

When I was Chief Inspector of Prisons, I learned of the Scandinavian system, which gave to the sentencer prospectuses of what could be done with and for a prisoner. The sentencer took that into account in awarding the length of sentence and ordered that certain courses or programmes were to be completed by the prisoner so as they could rehabilitate him or herself. If the prisoner completed the mandatory parts of the sentence laid down by the sentencer, the governor of the prison could take the prisoner back to the sentencer and, because the prisoner has jumped through all the hoops that were set, ask that they please be released. That was a factor in reducing overcrowding in Scandinavian prisons.

What worries me is that our overcrowded and understaffed prisons are finding difficulty enough in producing programmes for longer-term prisoners. But they can do nothing whatever for short-sentence prisoners and therefore there is no purpose in people going to those prisons, because they will get absolutely nothing. If you expect that the purpose of the sentence is to rehabilitate, that will not happen in our present prison system. Staff shortages, for example, mean that there are not enough staff to escort people to programmes that they are meant to be attend. So even if a programme was laid down, it is unlikely that it would be completed.

I admit that community sentences need to be improved. In preparation for this debate, last week I visited the Wandsworth probation programme and asked staff what they could do with and for people accused of violent offences. They said that, at the moment, they could do absolutely nothing because they did not have the wherewithal. However, there is no doubt that, if they were given the wherewithal, they could devise a meaningful sentence that would gather credibility in the community.

I also spoke to the Justice Secretary last Thursday and mentioned that there was apparent disagreement between him and the Home Secretary. Personally, I am on his side, because I saw the effect of short sentencing in prisons and saw people coming out having got nothing. That does little to increase the reputation of the justice system in the community, and it can ill afford to lose any more of its reputation in the country.

I notice that, in her foreword to the Serious Violence Strategy, the then Home Secretary said two things. The first is this:

“The … Strategy represents a very significant programme of work involving a range of Government Departments and partners, in the public, voluntary and private sectors”.


That may be, but we have not as yet seen any evidence of this partnership working. At Second Reading, we talked a lot about a public health approach. I do not think that that approach has had time to bed in. The second thing she said was that:

“The strategy supports a new balance between prevention and effective law enforcement”.


Prevention has not yet been tried, and to lay down mandatory short sentences is imposing law enforcement on prevention and damaging the hopes that prevention may bed in and achieve something.

[Baroness Newlove (Con)]

My Lords, listening to the debate on this amendment makes me feel very nervous. As someone who has been a victim of crime by a gang of youths, and as the community champion when I came to this place, my worry is that there is an argument about short-term sentences, because of the process a prisoner goes through. I have gone into prisons and youth offender schemes, so I have done my homework and have worked with them a lot. My nervousness is because, while this is about short imprisonment, imprisonment is effective for people for whom a community sentence does not carry that weight.

Going around the country and speaking to communities, I find they do not feel that their voice is being listened to when someone is given a community sentence. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite rightly said that we need to have quality community sentences. At the moment, we have painting fences and gardening while wearing visors. I am conscious about how we shift this pattern of our community sentences and what they are worth.

In addition, there is kudos in this in the gangs that we deal with. When there were ASBOs, it was cool to have an ASBO. I am conscious that we need to look at short sentences and at the messages we are sending to the community and to the gangs, who can hold one sentence against the other. If the Government are going to go that way, I would like quality community services.

I have been out with youth offender trainers. They are short-staffed and underresourced. The intelligence I had from young people who were going into gangs was that they were not bothered whether they were going to prison or doing community service. They had no idea of what they were in trouble for. That is where the serious violence strategy needs to be better—it is about the two together. I am very nervous about community sentences. Can we have further discussions about them? They are part of the essential message we are sending to youngsters and to communities that are suffering and are scared to come forward because their lives are being threatened.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, the amendment is in my name and in those of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. We are back to group 1 and the issue of completely innocent people having to prove their innocence beyond reasonable doubt.

We discussed this at considerable length on group 1 and I do not intend to rehearse those arguments again, save to say that people acting completely innocently commit an offence as the legislation is drafted, hence the need for the amendment. That having been said, if someone has a corrosive substance with them in a public place with the intention of causing injury to someone, they commit an offence under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, which defines an offensive weapon as:

“any article made or adapted for use for causing injury to the person, or intended by the person having it with him for such use by him”.

If they have a corrosive substance in a water pistol or a washing-up liquid bottle capable of squirting the corrosive liquid at someone, it is an article adapted for causing injury. If they have a corrosive liquid in the bottle it was sold in, intending to pour it over someone, it is intended by the person to cause injury, and an offence under the Prevention of Crime Act.

To quote from the briefing on the Bill from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust, the clause,

“creates a very loose and ill-defined offence, that fails to satisfy the requirements of legal clarity and will lead to unjust prosecutions and custodial sentences”.

It continues:

“New legislation is unnecessary. Currently, someone found in possession of corrosive substances, where there is intent to cause injury, could clearly be prosecuted under existing offensive weapons legislation … Prosecutors should be required to prove intent to cause harm …The new offence puts the onus on the child”—


or adult—

“to show they have good reason for carrying the corrosive substance … Proving such a defence may be difficult”.

I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I put my name to this amendment purely to be consistent with what I said at Second Reading. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has pointed out, it could be that children are sent to collect corrosive substances from shops. They do not know that the substance is corrosive, as defined by the Act, and could be caught in possession by stop and search techniques, resulting in thoroughly unfortunate imprisonment.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the rationale behind this amendment which would, as he has acknowledged, fundamentally change the nature of the offence provided for in Clause 6. As the noble Lord pointed out, we return in part to the arguments that he put forward in the first group of amendments. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns, but I will set out the reasons why we are seeking to introduce this new possession offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference at Second Reading to the existing legislation in this area, and I will explain why it is not sufficient to tackle the problem of individuals carrying corrosive substances in public. Under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is already the case that anyone who is in possession of a corrosive substance can be prosecuted for the offence of possession of an offensive weapon. However, for the accused to be guilty of the Section 1 offence, it is necessary to prove that they are carrying the corrosive substance with the intention of causing injury. Such intent can be proved, for example, in cases where an individual has decanted the corrosive substance into a different container for the purposes of making it easier to squirt or throw at another person and also to conceal it from the police. However, the intention of Clause 6 is to strengthen the powers available to the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. We want to remove the burden on the police and the prosecution to prove that the person was carrying the corrosive substance with the intention to cause injury.

This approach is not novel; it is consistent with the possession offence for knives and bladed articles. We have modelled the new offence on existing legislation in place for the possession of knives under Section 139 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. There is also a similar offence in place in Scotland. We have put in place suitable defences for members of the public to prove that they had good reason or lawful authority to be carrying the corrosive substance in a public place. These defences are also modelled on existing legislation for the possession of knives.

I know that noble Lords may be concerned about law-abiding members of the public being stopped by the police as they leave their local supermarket or tradespeople being stopped. However, I reiterate the points that my noble friend made at Second Reading about how we envisage the new offence being used by the police. This is not about the police criminalising tradespeople, children sent on an errand or law-abiding members of the public. We would fully expect the police to use this new offence in response to information or intelligence from the local community that someone was carrying a corrosive substance in public.

Furthermore, as my noble friend also indicated at Second Reading, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, we have jointly commissioned the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory to develop a testing kit for the police to use to be able to identify corrosive substances in suspect containers. This work is well under way, and we want to have a testing kit in place before commencing the new possession offence.

We need to strengthen the law to tackle the abhorrent use of corrosive substances as weapons. This amendment would effectively leave the criminal law as it currently is. I hope that, in these circumstances, the noble Lord is persuaded of the case for the new offence as currently formulated and would be content on reflection to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

34: Clause 8, page 8, line 39, leave out “16” and insert “18”

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 34 in my name and those of others, I will speak to my opposition to the clause. My comments about Amendment 34 apply to the clause as a whole.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has already mentioned the very good briefing which many Members have received from the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust. Speaking about the new possession offences, it forecasts that the measures will be ineffective because they increase the use of ineffective short mandatory minimum sentences. They create legal uncertainty, may lead to disproportionate sentences and are likely to increase black and ethnic minority disproportionality, further damaging trust in the justice system. I apologise for saying some of this earlier in the debate on another amendment.

Amendment 34 seeks to move the application of this clause from the age of 16 to 18, and is entirely in balance with the Children Act 1989, which lays down that every person in this country under the age of 18 is a child. My contention is that, if mandatory short sentences are ineffective for adults, they are even more so for children. The appropriate sentence advised in Clause 8 is,

“a detention and training order of at least 4 months”.

That means that they will have only two months in prison and two months supervision. Bearing in mind the conditions in our prisons at the moment, and remembering that last year the Inspectorate of Prisons reported that there was not a single young offender institution in the country in which young offenders were safe, that means that—with the overcrowding and shortage of staff—two months will not be enough even to complete an assessment of what a young offender needs.

I therefore think that, in all cases of children involved in possession, custody should be eliminated from the equation—and eliminated from this Bill. As I mentioned, community sentences are in some disarray at the moment, but that does not apply to the youth offending teams, which have the benefit of being under local government control and are therefore able to reflect the wishes of the community in the community sentences that they impose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Earl has often and rightly emphasised the vulnerability of children in care and young people leaving care. I fully accept that point. However, as he has heard, the provisions under the 1933 Act constitute a very considerable duty on the court to look at the pertaining circumstances of a case. He will also know that the Sentencing Council provides exactly the kind of guidance to which he alluded. If there is any more I can say on that, I will be happy to write to him. I am sure that the Sentencing Council will not be slow to follow up on any proposal emerging from the provision in the Bill.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees]

Can you be very quick?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. I assure the Minister that this is not a matter of principle against short sentences. I have seen how ineffective they are. I know how ineffective they are, and I have been saying so for more than 20 years. It is not a question of principle; it is knowledge that they are ineffective. I fail to see why the Justice Secretary, who is against mandatory minimum sentences, is on one side saying one thing and then the Home Secretary is imposing yet more mandatory sentences on the other. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I am sure we will return to it at a later stage.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 39. I thank noble Lords for returning and doing me the courtesy of hearing this out. I really appreciate it and I will be very quick. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, put it very well—I wish she were still in her place—but I also feel very passionate about the victims of acid attacks and corrosive substance crime. I am a trustee of the Scar Free Foundation and I have met a lot of the victims, and I have been blown away by how these crimes have seemingly come out of nowhere and become a very big deal: there were nearly 1,000 attacks last year. I am very much aware of how innovative criminals have quickly become, to get around the law and invent new crimes. I am aware that our responses have got to be very quick as well. I applaud the speed with which the Home Office has reacted to this crime wave. I will not go through the list, but it is an impressive list and I completely endorse the approach.

We owe it to ourselves to recognise that this is an experimental approach: international data suggests that legislation on acid attacks is very difficult. It does not always work, so we should keep track of how this legislation proceeds and whether it is worth analysing its effectiveness and what is happening with the arrests that come out of it. That is why I suggested these two amendments: so that in two or three years’ time, we are not left worrying whether we have been on the right track and so that we have the right data to be able to fine-tune and make any changes to our approach.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in this, because so many things that were alleged about the inefficiency of various measures are unproven. For example, short sentences are said to be no deterrent. We do not know for certain, and therefore I support entirely a continuous review. We must have more data to be able to be more precise in the measures that we take.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Bethell for setting out the rationale for these amendments. I understand his intention, but I hope to persuade him that there will be adequate reporting of the use of the new powers in the Bill relating to corrosive substances without the need for statutory provisions such as this. Once the offences in this Bill are brought into force, the collection of data regarding corrosives offences will be much more accessible for police forces and will allow for a much clearer picture to be presented on the extent of corrosive attacks and the corresponding law enforcement response.

My noble friend may be aware that we are already working with the police to improve how offences involving corrosives can be better captured in police data to help understand the scale of attacks. We have submitted a joint application, with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, to the police data requirements group to establish a new data collection requirement with respect to corrosive attacks as part of the annual data requirement on all forces in England and Wales. Subject to agreement, these would allow for regular publication as part of the Office for National Statistics quarterly crime statistics.

In relation to Amendment 38, I simply point out to my noble friend that all government legislation such as this is subject to post-legislative review five years after Royal Assent. In the intervening period, there are the usual arrangements for scrutinising government policies and the operating of new powers such as contained in this Bill. For example, it will be open to my noble friend to table periodic Written Questions or initiate a debate.

Given these established methods, I am not persuaded that we need a bespoke duty to report annually on aspects of this Bill. I fully accept that this is a serious issue, but I hope I have provided my noble friend with sufficient reassurance on the action that we are taking to address it and that, accordingly, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I shall concentrate in my contribution on the possible impact of the Bill on children under the age of 18, an aspect that received less than full attention during its passage through the other place. However, I exclude Sir Ed Davey MP from any criticism for that, a number of whose resisted amendments I shall support if they are tabled by his party. However, before making that contribution, I thank Russell Taylor for his extremely comprehensive and helpful Library Briefing.

I submit to the Minister that, despite the Bill generally receiving cross-party support in the other place, there are two reasons why this House should not be invited to undertake any further stages beyond Second Reading until they have been resolved. First, I have never before come across a Bill about which the two members of the Cabinet most affected appear to be at odds over one of its main provisions. In an interview published in the Times on 26 May 2018, the Secretary of State for Justice, David Gauke, expressed his desire for there to be a limitation on the use of short prison sentences of less than 12 months, because of their ineffectiveness in reducing reoffending. As he knows better than anyone, our overcrowded and understaffed prison system finds it difficult enough to occupy longer-term prisoners, let alone being able to do anything with and for short-term ones, and the youth justice system is in particularly dire straits—the Chief Inspector of Prisons reported in 2017 that none of the institutions in which young offenders were held was safe. Yet the Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, is proposing mandatory sentences of less than 12 months for a number of additional offences created by his Bill.

Why does this matter? It matters for two separate reasons. First, some argue that harsher punishments such as mandatory minimum custodial sentences will deter people, particularly children, from committing crime. There is no evidence to support this contention. Indeed, in support of the Justice Secretary’s desire, the quarterly criminal justice statistics from the Ministry of Justice, published in June 2018, show that the number of children convicted of possession or threatening offences involving knives or offensive weapons has risen since the introduction of mandatory minimum custodial sentences in 2015. A number also argue that locking up those who carry out crimes will reduce the level of crime on the streets. Home Office research proves the expensive unreality of this argument, showing that a 15% increase in child custody numbers is needed to obtain a 1% decrease in crime.

Secondly, mandatory sentences remove judicial discretion. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that custody should only be used as a last resort. The Sentencing Council’s guidelines emphasise the need to look closely at a child’s particular circumstances when sentencing, taking into consideration their background circumstances, vulnerability and developmental age, as well as their chronological one. Removing judicial discretion works against these guidelines. I respectfully suggest to the Minister that this issue must be sorted out before the House is asked to make further progress on the Bill.

The second reason why further progress should be postponed is that the Government announced on Report in the other place that they had decided that a consultation on firearms proposals was needed. That has not taken place. In her opening statement, the Minister gave us no details of when it will be launched. Like other noble Lords, I have been lobbied by a number of firearms specialists on various points of dispute with the Bill’s terms, but in view of the promised consultation I do not propose to consider the firearms clauses, nor should the House be asked to.

No Government responsible for the protection of the public can afford to ignore the mounting public concern about the rise in knife crime and the recent spate of acid attacks in some inner-city areas, but they should be careful that, in their populist rush to be seen to take a hard line with offenders, they do not create problems by not thinking through the implications of what they are proposing. In this connection, I am reminded of the words of Archbishop William Temple, who said in 1934 that the essence of punishment is that it is the reaction of the community against a constituent member. This community has three interests to consider: the maintenance of its own life and order, upon which the welfare of all its members depends; the interests of individual members generally; and the interests of the offending member. Wrong is done if any of these three is neglected.

In their Serious Violence Strategy, launched in April 2018, the Government emphasised the importance of tackling violent crime through a variety of measures, including law enforcement, but also partnerships across a number of sectors such as education, health, social services, housing, youth and victim services—an approach widely welcomed by those working at the coalface.

Like other noble Lords, I am grateful to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice and the Prison Reform Trust for their very helpful and relevant briefings, on which I shall, unashamedly, draw. I am also grateful for a detailed briefing from Junior Smart, a former offender and winner of the Longford Prize, who works with gangs in the East End of London for the St Giles Trust. As he did, I shall discuss knives first.

The sad fact, as reported by Junior and his fellow workers, is that the main reason why young people carry weapons is for fear of being killed. Living in areas affected by serious violence can feel like growing up in a conflict zone, and a fact that needs to be appreciated and understood is that many young people freely admit that they would much rather be caught by the police while carrying a weapon than by their rivals or enemies without one. In other words, they feel like victims as well as perpetrators. Criminalising already disadvantaged young people further can have disturbing consequences, among which are: the risk of driving further inequalities and bias, damaging already fragile community relations; and driving a further rift between disadvantaged young people and authority, when many people, such as the Mayor of London and charities such as the St Giles Trust, are focused on building bridges between the two.

Short prison sentences disrupt a young person’s life in terms of housing, employment and family relationships, while not providing them with meaningful access to rehabilitation support, as all the evidence shows. A criminal record will affect a young person’s life prospects. Here I must declare an interest, in that I have been trying, without success, to persuade the Government to amend the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 through a Private Member’s Bill. At present, progress is stalled until the Supreme Court gives a judgment on a government appeal following defeats in the High Court and Appeals Court. Criminal records have been an issue for far too long.

The Mayor of London is leading a public health approach to tackling the complex causes of serious violence in London. In September last year, he announced the setting up of a violence reduction unit, bringing together police, health, criminal justice and local government. His knife crime strategy uses this approach to strengthen and empower communities to help them make a difference, working with schools, Ofsted and mental health providers—including major trauma centres —and making use of social media outlets, to address the root causes of the problem. Junior Smart, welcoming this approach, advocates the use of more individuals like him, with first-hand experience of the problem, in delivering solutions. Young people already entrenched in serious violence need patient, persistent and under- standing help to enable them to overcome barriers and realise positive change. Legislation including mandatory short prison sentences will not help a generation of young people growing up in a culture of fear.

Moving on to corrosive substances, Clause 6 creates a new offence of possessing a corrosive substance in a public place, for which Clause 8 imposes an “appropriate custodial sentence” of less than 12 months—for both adults and children—for two or more possession offences. A corrosive substance is merely defined as a substance,

“capable of burning human skin by corrosion’,

and nowhere is there a comprehensive list of what these substances are. Many household products, such as bleach, contain low levels of harmful corrosive substances. The Bill creates a situation where a child could legally be sent to buy a household product without realising that it is illegal for them to possess it in public. Furthermore, the Federation of Small Businesses, which supports the aims of the legislation, points out that the way in which Schedule 1 is worded leaves small businesses in doubt as to what products are or are not subject to the Bill, including such items as car batteries. The federation has asked the Home Office whether the administrative burdens brought about by age verification requirements can be mitigated. Will the Minister please tell the House what is being done about this?

The impact of the Bill on black and minority ethnic young people cannot be ignored, not least because they are more often subject to stop and search procedures that are already the cause of strained relations between BAME children and the police.

To conclude, violent crime is clearly a serious problem and violent behaviour needs to be prevented and stopped, but as far as children are concerned many are the victims of violence, and the creation of new offences and sanctions is unlikely to alter this view. The law currently mandates minimum sentences of four-month detention and training orders on 16 and 17-year olds who are convicted of two or more possession offences, or one of threatening a person in public. This conviction threshold should remain until there is sufficient evidence that lowering it will be effective in tackling violent crime, or until the public health approach, advocated both by the Government in their Serious Violence Strategy and by the Mayor of London and others, has been properly resourced and tested throughout the country. Until then, I think that further processing of the Bill should be suspended.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard - continued): House of Lords & 2nd reading (Minutes of Proceedings - continued): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, with so many distinguished experts contributing to this Second Reading, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and my noble friend Lord Tyrie, both of whom I congratulate on such outstanding maiden speeches, I am conscious that by speaker number 25 all that could be said has been said and that all I can do is make some additional points. Like other noble Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction and express my thanks to Russell Taylor for his excellent Library briefing, particularly because it included analysis of the very detailed and penetrating report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and of the passage of the Bill through the other place. Like the noble Lord, Lord King, I was very sceptical about the impact assessment. Impact assessments seem to be done incredibly badly by all ministries. I have to admit that, like other noble Lords, while I recognise and support the Government’s intention behind the Bill—to keep people safe and to update legislation—I remain uneasy about some of the detail.

My noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, who mentioned the increased pace and size of the threat, reminded me that my practical experience of counterterrorist operations is somewhat dated, but the principles have not changed and include the need for any action taken to be balanced and proportionate. As my noble friend Lord Anderson was speaking, I remembered being frustrated, when commanding troops in Belfast between 1978 and 1980, that the conspiracy law was so inadequate that we could not arrest those who incited people to violence when making speeches at IRA funerals.

I have two general comments as well as some detailed ones. First, having been critical for many years of the Home Office’s failure to direct and oversee the systematic processing of legal asylum and immigration applicants, I am concerned about how any of its fragile systems will cope with the demands made on them by both legal and illegal immigration after Brexit. Having lost sight of at least 631,000 legal applicants—a figure that the then Minister confirmed during the passage of the last immigration Bill through this House—and having no record of who has left the country, how on earth will border officials identify, let alone question and detain, individuals suspected of involvement in hostile activity for or on behalf of another state?

Like the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I believe that the definition of “hostile act” is extremely wide, and I worry about the lack of any threshold test before a person is detained and examined. The Minister confirmed that the Government intend to publish a draft code of practice before Committee, which I suggest will need the closest scrutiny.

In responding to proposed amendments to Clause 21 and Schedule 3 of the Bill, the Security Minister in the other place set out in some detail the Government’s riposte to the human rights committee’s concern that access to a lawyer was not adequately protected. The fact that access to such lawyers is currently patchy suggests that his explanation will need to be scrutinised in Committee.

My second general concern is about the European arrest warrant, which many noble Lords have mentioned. The other day I listened to a lecture by the EU’s head of counterterrorism, in which he deplored the potential loss to other European countries of UK intelligence in particular after Brexit, emphasising how vital an ingredient it was to all their antiterrorist operations. Of course, bilateral arrangements can be made with each one of them, but there can be little doubt that in the context of European security the European arrest warrant is a vital ingredient. The Security Minister in the other place alleged that the proposed amendment was not needed because the Government were already negotiating for the European arrest warrant, or something as identical as possible, to apply. Could the Minister please confirm that this is so?

I turn to my other concerns. I share the human rights committee’s concern about the wide scope of Clauses 1 and 2, and echo its view that to criminalise the publication of an article that may be worn or displayed in a private place risks catching a vast amount of activity and being disproportionate. The Minister indicated that the Government intend to update Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, on which Clause 2 of the Bill is based, for the digital age. I hope that update will be available before Committee. In that connection, I note the Government’s reassurance that the existing safeguards were adequate following the human rights committee’s concern that Clause 3 may capture academic and journalistic research as well as those with inquisitive or even foolish minds. I hope that is true.

Acknowledging the views of the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, about the need for convicted terrorists to be sent to prison but also the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about the current situation in our overcrowded and understaffed prisons, I am concerned that insufficient thought has been given to the implications of the increased sentences in Clauses 7 to 11. As Chief Inspector of Prisons I inspected both HMP Maze, which housed terrorists in Northern Ireland, and the special separation unit in HMP Belmarsh, which housed both Northern Ireland prisoners, some of whom were on hunger strike, and others convicted of terrorist offences. In both cases, I was very concerned about the lack of support for staff, who were put under immense strain, particularly mentally, because of the intensity of their task and their subjection to propaganda. Do the Government intend to separate terrorists from other prisoners and, if their numbers build up, do they intend to establish a Maze? Either way, consideration needs to be given to what regime might be imposed on terrorist prisoners and what additional resources, including management, support and training, ought to be provided for their guards.

Finally, I agree with all those who have recommended that the Prevent strategy be independently reviewed. I am very glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said what she did, because Muslims risk being demonised by the failure to engage with them. If the Government are so keen on revising the legislation as a whole, why not all of its parts, including Prevent?

Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations and the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Wednesday 27th June 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Ramsbotham]

That this House regrets that the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations and the Detention Centre (Amendment) Rules 2018 were made before Stephen Shaw CBE had completed his review of the implementation of the report, Review into the welfare in detention of vulnerable persons, preventing his concerns about the definition of torture from being taken into account, and resulting in a definition too complex to be easily applied by caseworkers and doctors being included (SIs 2018/410 and 2018/411).

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I will not beat about the bush. The purpose of my regret Motion is to ask the Minister whether the Government will consider the immediate withdrawal of these two statutory instruments before they can do harm to certain vulnerable individuals, and until a number of preconditions, of which the Home Office has been made aware and which I will outline, have been completed. Statutory Instrument 410 introduces the Immigration (Guidance on Detention of Vulnerable Persons) Regulations 2016, enacting the draft updated guidance contained in the Immigration Act 2016. Statutory Instrument 411 introduces a new definition of torture into detention centre rules. Together, they provide the statutory footing for the adults at risk framework, introduced in September 2016 to improve safeguards for people who are particularly vulnerable to harm in detention. As neither instrument is due to come into force until 2 July, there is still time to withdraw them and initiate the alternative action that I will put forward. If this appears a little tight on timing, I should explain that I tabled my Motion some weeks ago, but its date was confirmed by the Whips’ Office only last week. The remainder of my contribution will be an explanation of why I am making this request.

In a recent debate on the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I mentioned that the Independent Asylum Commission, which reported in 2009 and of which I was a commissioner, characterised the attitude of the Home Office to any asylum seeker, or indeed any outside advice or information, as a “culture of disbelief”. This was triggered by our hearing of a Sri Lankan victim of torture whose case was not believed by the Home Office, which resulted in him being sent back to Sri Lanka, where he was tortured again. Luckily, when he returned here for the second time, his case was believed.

In 2015, in response to growing concerns about the use of immigration detention, the Home Office commissioned Stephen Shaw to carry out a review of the welfare of vulnerable people in immigration detention. In his report he highlighted the lack of safeguards for vulnerable detainees and recommended a drastic reduction in the use of immigration detention. The Immigration Minister’s broad acceptance of Shaw’s recommendations was given statutory footing in Section 59 of the Immigration Act 2016, the purpose of which is to ensure that all individuals, particularly those who are vulnerable to harm if detained, are identified and protected. In the event, neither statutory instrument, nor the adults at risk guidance, delivers that purpose.

The proposed definition of torture is far too complex to be easily applied by Home Office caseworkers and doctors in the identification of vulnerable persons, and its concepts are clinically nebulous. For example, it invites doctors to make subjective judgments as to whether a victim did enough to resist ill-treatment or whether he or she was sufficiently robust to cope with it. Extracting the necessary information will require intrusive investigation of a vulnerable person that far exceeds the safeguards and the standard of proof that applies. In particular, the concept of powerlessness is ill suited to the determination of vulnerability to harm in detention, as both doctors and caseworkers will struggle to form a consistent and fair interpretation of such complexity.

The definition in SI 2018/411 seeks to distinguish between torture and ill treatment. That is an important distinction in international law, but entirely unnecessary and inappropriate when identifying those vulnerable to harm in detention. Even when applied correctly, the definition will exclude a whole cohort of victims of severe ill treatment who do not fall within the indicators of risk. These include victims of interpersonal violence on grounds of race, ethnicity, sexuality, tribal groups, blood feuds or clan origins, none of which presents an obvious situation of powerlessness in relation to the perpetrators of violence.

In fact, the adults at risk guidance has raised the threshold for a decision not to detain by increasing the evidentiary burden on vulnerable individuals. Under the previous policy, and not subject to the culture of disbelief, victims of torture needed only to show independent evidence of their history of torture in order to be considered unsuitable for detention, except in very exceptional circumstances. The new guidance, however, includes an additional requirement to present specific evidence that detention is likely to cause harm in order for release to be seriously considered. That evidence is extremely hard to come by before harm has actually occurred. By introducing a much wider range of immigration factors that have to be considered before a decision not to detain can be justified, the guidance has also weakened the protection offered to vulnerable people.

A number of NGOs working with immigrants immediately raised serious concerns about the adults at risk guidance, including the changes to the definition of torture, which previously had been based on case law and was not defined in government policy. This had been proved to be wide enough to include victims of torture, who, evidence showed, were particularly vulnerable to harm in detention. The charity Medical Justice and seven detainees challenged these changes in the High Court, the judge finding them to be unlawful and ordering their suspension. In addition, the judge instructed the Home Office to review and reissue the policy in a reasonable time, but did not place any obligation on the Home Secretary to define torture in the updated policy.

In parallel with this, Stephen Shaw carried out a second review—this time, of the Government’s progress towards fulfilling the recommendations in his first—which he delivered to the Home Secretary at the end of April this year. Despite promises that it would be published by the end of this month, it has still not appeared. Indeed, the Minister, who had clearly seen it when he responded to a recent Early Day Motion on the subject in another place, did not disclose any of its conclusions or recommendations to those taking part in the debate, which left them in the dark as to what he was saying. He also back-pedalled on the promised date of the report’s publication. Therefore, I ask the Minister to clarify the situation regarding the date of publication of Shaw’s second report and to tell the House when we can expect both it and the Government’s response.

The statutory instruments were laid before Parliament on 27 March this year, following a wholly inadequate and expedited consultation on the new definition of torture with a limited group of NGOs. They cautioned that no further definition should be considered in isolation from the necessary revisions to other elements of the safeguards, such as detention centre rules and the adults at risk guidance. They also asked the Home Office to await publication of the second Shaw review, to allow consideration of his findings before laying changes before Parliament. Their cautions were studiously ignored. I cannot help contrasting the Home Office’s unseemly rush to publish what is so clearly flawed with its unseemly procrastination over the short-term detention rules, taking over twice as long as World War II to publish in 2018 something originally promised in 2006. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose letter on immigration of 28 March I co-signed, was also studiously ignored when he proposed the same action.

So what to do about this mess? As I put to the Minister at the start of my contribution, the statutory instruments should be immediately withdrawn and any changes to existing policy regarding the safeguarding of victims of torture or ill treatment postponed until after the publication of the second Shaw review, and subject to a proper consultation, subject to government guidelines. There is no need to define torture in either the adults at risk guidance or detention centre rules, so the proposed definition should be withdrawn from both. The broad range of immigration factors used to justify detention of those identified as being particularly vulnerable to harm should be replaced by a return to the previous threshold of very exceptional circumstances. There should be no need for a victim of torture or ill treatment identified as likely to be vulnerable to harm in detention to demonstrate any further why he or she is likely to suffer harm in detention. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for bring forward this regret Motion on such an important subject. He has already made the case against the new definition of torture in the regulations extremely persuasively. I shall simply do two things: first, ask the Minister some questions; and, secondly, underline why this is so important.

In her letter to me of 24 April drawing the regulations to my attention, the Minister acknowledged concerns raised by some NGOs about the Government pressing ahead with these changes in advance of the publication of Stephen Shaw’s review into the implementation of his previous report into the welfare of vulnerable people in detention, already mentioned. She sought to reassure me that the changes made at this point are,

“purely for the purposes of implementing”,

the High Court judgment on the definition of torture. But that is no reassurance at all; it is the very fact that this judgment is being implemented in this way that concerns the NGOs that have years of experience of working with people who have suffered torture.

Even if the Home Office were correct in its view that it needed to act swiftly, why did it need to do so by introducing a new definition of torture in the face of well-grounded objections from these organisations? As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, the High Court did not require a new definition of torture in response to its decision. Why could not the Home Office revert to the status quo ante until after the publication of the Shaw review and then consider the question as part of the wider review of the treatment of vulnerable people?

The same question was asked by my honourable friend Joan Ryan MP at the end of the debate she initiated in the House of Commons on 14 June. However, the Minister, while acknowledging that the current adults at risk policy is far from perfect—which is welcome—did not really answer the question, even though she said that she would. She said she was not seeking to turn the clock back without explaining why, in answer to Joan Ryan’s question, and I would be grateful if the Minister could do so now.

In doing so, could she also explain why the Home Office has seen fit to disregard the views of organisations such as Freedom from Torture and the Helen Bamber Foundation, which know more than anyone about the cruelty of torture and its terrible effects? It is the evidence from these and other organisations, such as the BMA, Women for Refugee Women and, most recently, the British Red Cross, that underlines why this Motion is so important.

I find it difficult even to imagine what it must be like to have been be subjected to torture. It is too easy for it remain a rather abstract concept and to lose sight of what it means to have been deliberately harmed by a fellow human being with often devastating consequences. Yesterday I attended the 10th anniversary celebration of Survivors Speak Out. One of those survivors spoke of his time in detention. He said, “We have already suffered so much”, and compared the experience of detention with the torture that he and fellow survivors had lived through.

In its report on health and human rights in immigration detention, the BMA noted:

“Pre-exposure to trauma is a key contributor to the rates of mental health problems in the detained population. One theme that emerges from the literature is that of the ‘retraumatisation’ detention can cause—in particular for those who may have experienced trauma in the form of detention or at the hands of authority figures in their home country”.


It also noted that the detention environment can be particularly retraumatising for LGBT individuals who have faced persecution and women who have suffered sexual assault and gender-based violence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I note that many of them are more general than the point of my Motion to Regret, which is to do with detention. I shall pick up on her last point about the training of caseworkers. I would be most grateful if she could put a copy of the training programme for those caseworkers in the Library, because in the past the training of caseworkers has been one of the weak spots in the whole immigration system. I can well remember that, when inspecting immigration removal centres, I would find that the director was absolutely appalled at the low standard of training of his staff. I would pick up in particular the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the assessment of vulnerability and the register for that.

I should also like to thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for their comments. If I was the Home Secretary and I looked at the Hansard report of this debate along with the Hansard report of the debate on the two Early Day Motions in the other place, frankly I would be appalled at the amount of evidence presented in both places of officials, on whom I rely for advice and for the preparation of legislation affecting those for whom I am responsible, not listening to or taking account of the expert views of people who know far more about those they are dealing with than they do. I would be extremely alarmed at the thought of the situation continuing like that, with no plan to implement the recommendations of the second review which I had commissioned into the conduct of detention. I am glad that we will see that review before the Recess.

I am saddened that there is no likelihood of these statutory instruments being withdrawn and I recommend that in the future, after the Shaw report has been published, the Home Office should carry out the consultation it has never done with the experts just to go through everything in order to make certain that the regulations are tight and ensure that caseworkers and doctors can implement them as intended, if not as laid down. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Vulnerable Persons Resettlement Scheme

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I shall start by paying three compliments. I am afraid that my complimenting will cease there. First, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, not only on his thorough covering of all the issues, which I shall not repeat, but on tabling this Motion. Secondly, I thank Thomas Brown for his admirable Library briefing. Thirdly, and this is nothing to do with the subject other than that he is to follow me in the debate, I say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle how much I and, I am sure, many other noble Lords have appreciated the way he has read the Psalms this week.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, I recognise that this report is not entirely negative about what has been achieved, but Mr David Bolt, the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, has described the Government’s response to his report, of which it accepted only two, while partially accepting five, of his seven recommendations, as “disappointing”. As the noble Lord mentioned, he added that the Government—meaning the Home Office —appeared,

“closed to the idea that there is any room for improvement”,

in how the scheme was managed and operated.

These last words immediately resonated with me because I have had countless experiences of exactly the same Home Office attitude to outside recommendations since I first became associated with the immigration system in 1997. As Chief Inspector of Prisons, I was asked to take on the inspection of what were then called immigration detention centres. Almost immediately, I was asked to inspect Campsfield House near Gatwick, where I found that a series of riots, which had resulted in the destruction of the library and much other damage, had been started by a group who I did not think met the criteria for immigrant detainees, namely ex-prisoners. They had been sentenced to be deported, but instead of having their deportation processed while they were in prison—so that, at the end of their sentence, they were taken straight to the airport and out, as happens in the UAE, for example—the deportation process was only started when they arrived at an immigration detention centre, following release from prison. I have been campaigning against this practice since 1998 and have recommended change many times in this House, without success.

I also found that immigration detention centres were using totally inappropriate prison rules, as opposed to UN and European detention rules, on the orders of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, in the Home Office, which was responsible for the immigration system. After my inspection, my inspectors, working with officials from the directorate, produced more appropriate rules that are still in use today.

Together with my noble friends Lord Sandwich and Lady Mar, I was a commissioner on an independent asylum commission which reported in 2009 with more than 70 recommendations after an exhaustive investigation in which we involved the then UK Border Agency. Regrettably, we found what we described as a “culture of disbelief” in the Home Office, fuelled by the direction that it was then under from Tony Blair that there was to be a tipping point beyond which no further immigrants should be admitted, the policy being for officials to ensure that more applications were refused than granted. The most public manifestation of this attitude was when the then Minister for Immigration, when asked about our report on “The World at One”, about which I had spoken on the “Today” programme, replied that he had not read it but disbelieved every word of it.

I shall not go through every disappointing dealing with the immigration department of the Home Office, which the noble Lord, Lord Reid, when he was Home Secretary, dubbed as “not fit for purpose”, except to mention two which are germane to this debate. In 2012, I chaired an independent inquiry into the unlawful killing by G4S escorts on an aircraft at Heathrow of Jimmy Mubenga, an Angolan whose removal they were enforcing. During this inquiry, in which I again invited a senior Home Office official to attend every meeting, we became extremely concerned about the poor quality of casework, including the lack of supervision. We made a number of recommendations, none of which has been actioned, designed to improve the whole process of enforced removal. The fact that I had so many knowledgeable experts on my panel, and that all our evidence was carefully documented, was studiously ignored by the Home Office.

Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I took part in the Refugees All-Party Parliamentary Group’s review of the asylum and immigration system, which reported in 2015 and in which we recommended a review of the whole immigration system because there were so many flaws in it—a recommendation I would repeat today. Control of our borders is a laughable proposition under the current dysfunctional system, and I have no idea how it will cope with the demands of Brexit or the inevitable strains that will be put on it by population movement, possibly inflated by climate change.

Therefore, I plead with the Minister to encourage the Home Office, and particularly that part of it involved with the immigration process, to change the bad habits of the last too many years and stop deluding itself that all its operations are adequately managed. If it continues to refuse to listen to, or take account of, advice from those who know more about the realities of the human content of the immigration process than officials appear to do, then God save us as a nation.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Friday 27th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect I am in a minority on this side so I start by declaring an interest. I was involved in negotiations with nine departments of state as a Minister; none of them was the Treasury. Two, defence and health, were huge spending departments. Several others were also spending departments. I therefore bear the scars on my back from many discussions with the Treasury. Do I think that was a useful function? Yes, I do. It was necessary because there is an obligation on us all to ensure that, however well motivated a Minister, a Government or a policy is, it is subject to continual scrutiny. That is why there is merit in the amendment that has been moved.

I should make it absolutely plain that I fully support a 0.7% target and not only in politics. When I was chairman of a football club, we unilaterally adopted the same target for giving to charity. It is worthy, moral and has an element of leadership, as my noble friend Lord Davies said. However, for two reasons it would be quite wrong to have that target completely bereft of scrutiny by other departments, particularly the Treasury.

The first is to ensure that the 0.7% is spent not just with good intentions but with good outcomes. It is the objective effect of what we do, not just the morality of our intention, that will affect the lives of billions of people throughout the world. Each programme must be inspected to make sure that, however good the intent, it is not just making up numbers in a less effective way than might otherwise be the case.

Secondly, I have always believed that although each department has a degree of independence and autonomy, they should be part of an overall government strategy. Therefore, we must ensure not only that the individual programmes are beneficial but that the whole thrust of the aggregate of the programmes is complementary to our foreign policy, our defence policy and, indeed, our domestic policy. If not—if there is no scrutiny of a department and it is automatically given the right to spend money, unlike every other department—we could find an incompatibility between the two.

Therefore, I see no contradiction between a commitment to 0.7% being the aim and being enshrined in our policy for the future, and an insistence that that be spent to the best effect, not just for the good governance that has already been mentioned but for the benefit of the beneficiaries of that money—to ensure that it genuinely improves their lives in the best way possible.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the point so powerfully made by my noble friend Lord Butler, for reasons very much connected with what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has just said. The Committee on Soft Power, which was so admirably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Howell, considered this matter because the contributions of all the other ministries to that 0.7% must be taken into account. It should not merely be a 0.7% DfID budget. Therefore, if in future, as I hope, the contributions of all the various ministries are included in the 0.7%, it is essential that DfID’s co-ordination of that contribution—if that is what it amounts to—should be subject to the discipline of making certain that it is properly spent in the national interest.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am a mere observer of government over quite a long time. Obviously, we all support the 0.7% target and the whole gesture of telling the world that we intend to stick to it. However, you cannot translate a gesture literally into statute like this. The way that it is being done shoots an arrow straight into the heart of good government. The Treasury system of controlling spending is a complicated and sophisticated one but one that, in my view, has done very well.

The last big change to it was in the 1970s. At that time, public spending was based on the old Plowden system of allocating resources, which effectively pre-empted decisions. The House of Commons was, again and again, asked to vote supplementary estimates, which it did with virtually no discussion. The whole thing descended into total chaos and there was a major economic crisis. That was then changed to the present system, with cash limits and proper scrutiny of each proposal, by the great Leo Pliatzky, who was then the Permanent Secretary in charge of spending. That was based on the system of cash-flow management used in the private sector. Until cash-flow management came into force, an awful lot of perfectly good companies went bust because cash flow was out of control. I do not believe we can change the principle of proper control of public spending for one particular thing, however desirable and however much we support it. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.

International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Friday 6th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I defer to the noble Lord, who is the absolute expert, as acknowledged by everyone in the House, on tedious repetition.

That is why I believe that the House and my noble and learned friend and the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, need to consider the amendment seriously, because I do not believe that what they intend to happen will be achieved.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I make a very brief intervention in support of the word used by my noble friend Lord Butler and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles: flexibility. I came to support the amendment to substitute “a” for “the” because it introduces flexibility. I cite two examples. One was in the Select Committee on Soft Power, chaired so expertly by the noble Lord, Lord Howell. One of our recommendations was that consideration should be given to the lack of tie-up between DfID, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence in Afghanistan, and the need to pool cross-government contributions to aid. Secondly, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in relation to the Armed Forces, something that always worried me is the overcharging of overseas cadets coming to places such as Sandhurst, which forces them to go elsewhere. If we allowed some aid to subsidise their attendance here, it might encourage them on to our side in future, with future benefits for this country.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

Will the noble Lord comment on whether it might be better if some aid projects were managed by the military? Would that not cut down on corruption?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

All I would say is that if we are talking about 0.7%, it should include every contribution made by every ministry.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, before we go any further, can I just get something clear? Are we talking about “a” duty of “a” Secretary of State for “a” target, because we seem to be debating all three at the moment, or just one of those “a”s, and if so, which one? Can we have that made absolutely clear?

Health: HIV

Lord Ramsbotham Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is right in her analysis of what happened in the first instance. Because HIV was such a major catastrophe, it was targeted separately from the health systems. However, the lesson was quickly learned that these needed to be integrated. Our emphasis now is absolutely that this needs to be integrated with the health systems in the relevant countries, and this has benefits across the board.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

The Minister mentioned the giving of money overseas. I ask the Government not to forget the need to provide funding to look after the treatment of those people with HIV in our prisons.

[Baroness Northover]

Indeed, we are acutely aware of that. The information that I have is that we are very effective in dealing with that.