Highway Code (Rule 149)

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for spotting these errors, one might say, in the government legislation. I agree with a lot of what she says, but obviously not always. Personally, I do not have any bad feeling about e-scooters and e-bikes as, so far, touch wood, I have not actually been run over or come close to being run over by them—but I have been run over twice by cars. If we look at those killed or seriously injured, it is cars that are the biggest threat. During lockdown, those killed or seriously injured fell massively, and cyclist casualty rates decreased by a third. So it is cars on our roads that are really the biggest problem.

I do not join in this criticism of cyclists; it is a tiny minority who do not obey the law, and I shout at them just as much as anybody else would here. I was coming into work, to your Lordships’ House, the other day, and a cyclist on the junction of Parliament Square went through a red light, cut across the pavement and went straight through the gates into the Commons. Without running, I followed him and caught him locking up his bike. I pointed out what he had done was very dangerous, asked who he was and could I speak to his boss—that sort of thing. Of course, he would not give me any information and I did not feel up to grabbing his pass. There are people who break the law absolutely everywhere if they think they can get away with it and, clearly, this person, who works in this prestigious establishment, thought he could get away with it as well.

If we are going to be serious about stopping people breaking laws such as using hand-held mobile phones, we need more traffic police. The traffic police in London do the most incredible job, but their numbers have been systematically cut over the years. They need more funding and they need more officers, basically.

Perhaps I may just say—this is completely off the point—please do not use the word “accidents”. That presupposes, and prejudges, that whatever happened was a genuine accident. “Oh, sorry, I didn’t mean to do that.” Actually, no, because these crashes, these collisions, these “incidents”, as the Met Police call them, actually happen mostly because people are using their phones, they are not concentrating, they are picking something up from the floor, they are drunk or they have drugs in their system. So, please, these are not accidents. Those in the road safety community get really upset about it, because they do not think what has happened to their loved ones was an accident most of the time.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for securing this debate. The Government have recently broadened the scope of the Highway Code’s rule 149, which now makes it an offence to use a hand-held mobile device for almost any purpose while driving, and not just to make and receive calls and texts. The offence caries a fine of up to £1,000 and six penalty points on the driver’s licence. So, if they commit the offence twice, the number of penalty points could lead to a disqualification.

The regret Motion raises concerns about the scope of changes to the Highway Code, and the “piecemeal” way in which it has been amended. More specifically, the Motion highlights the fact that the latest changes to the Highway Code, to which I have referred, do not extend to hand-held devices used by people on bicycles, e-bikes and e-scooters.

It would seem to me that the happy relationship between some cyclists and e-scooter users and motorists —and who does or does not get more favourable or preferential treatment—clearly remains in fine fettle. It must add an exciting additional dimension to the Minister’s ministerial role. The changes to rule 149 were implemented through the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2022 that came into force on 25 March 2022. Since 2003, it has been an offence to use a hand-held mobile phone while driving if the device is being used for “interactive communication” —that is, receiving a call or sending a text.

In 2019 the High Court upheld the quashing of a conviction of a man who had taken a video on his phone of a road traffic accident while driving. The court accepted the argument that using a stand-alone feature on the phone—recording a video, taking a photo or searching for music stored on the phone—was not an interactive communication within the definition of the regulations. In response to the judgment, in 2020 the Government launched a consultation on expanding the offence of using a mobile phone while driving. Following the consultation, the Government said that

“all use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving is reckless and dangerous, and not just when being used for the purposes of a call or other interactive communication.”

The Government also said that more than 80% of respondents “agreed with the proposal” to broaden the offence to cover the use of stand-alone features on a phone.

The original consultation document, though, did not make any reference to extending the offence to include other road users, such as cyclists or users of e-scooters. The Government’s response to the consultation stated that some respondents had raised the issue of extending the proposals to those road users, but the Government made no commitment to do so. Why did the Government make no such commitment? Does the lack of such a commitment mean that changes will not be applied to cyclists, e-bikes and e-scooters at any stage in the foreseeable future, or is there a possibility that they will be? That would add strength to the point in the regret Motion about making changes in a piecemeal way.

As I understand it, the Highway Code—I think it is rule 66—already states that cyclists should

“keep both hands on the handlebars except when signalling or changing gear”.

To what extent do the Government think this rule already prevents cyclists exercising the functions that rule 149 outlaws?

The regulations create a new exemption for contactless payments in certain circumstances. This is presumably to allow for drivers to use toll booths and drive-through restaurants—it is an interesting exemption. In recent months road traffic accidents have been reported at both, hopefully not—I say this not too flippantly—because someone took the words “drive-through” too literally. Do the Government believe that learner drivers should be taught how to safely use and negotiate toll booths and drive-through restaurants in light of the fact that road traffic incidents have recently been reported at both?

The Government say in the Explanatory Memorandum that changes to the Highway Code reflect the changes in the statutory instrument. They say:

“The government will also expand the advice contained on gov.uk to address some common misconceptions about the law on mobile phone use while driving which became evident through the consultation process.”


However:

“For those responsible for enforcement (police and courts), the government will rely on them to alter their guidance as necessary to reflect the changes to the law.”


Reference has been made to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which noted that more information had been given in the Explanatory Memorandum this time about plans to publicise the changes. The committee also stated that this House had

“made clear the strength of its concerns about the Department for Transport’s piecemeal approach to changing the Highway Code”

and that the committee remained

“concerned that the hard copy version of the Highway Code is so out of date.”

A question has already been raised on that issue, and no doubt the Minister will respond to it. I too ask what the Government’s response is to the comments made by the SLSC.

In the context of changes and whether they are piecemeal, how many more changes to the Highway Code are already in the pipeline, reflecting statutory provisions either already determined or currently going through the legislative process? Perhaps the answer is none, but it would be helpful to hear from the Government what it is. How many changes have there been to the Highway Code over the last five years? Is it the Government’s policy to make changes to the code immediately those changes have been decided, or does the department seek if possible to make changes to the code, say, only once a year?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, this part of the Bill has a very simple purpose: it is designed by the Government to make life harder for refugees. The two-tier refugee system is designed to give the illusion of there being a proper way of being a refugee, but it will inflict huge suffering and injustice on desperate people.

It is probably not the normal tactic to plan what we are going to do next in front of the Government Front Bench, but although I applaud the intentions of noble Lords who tabled the 16 amendments to the clause, the only way is to take it out of the Bill. It is so vile, so obnoxious, that it really should not be in here.

This has not been mentioned very much but we must remember that, to some extent, we have a moral duty to take refugees. A lot of these refugees are coming from countries we have invaded, or where we have interfered or done all sorts of things, whether it is burning too much fossil fuel, causing climate change, or destabilising their Governments. Please can we remember that there is a moral duty? It is all very well referring to population density and so on, but we owe these people and we should never forget that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to offer a view on what public opinion is. What I do remember is that a lot of people expressed a view on what public opinion was over climate protesters and people who threw statues into the water at Bristol, but when cases came up before a jury, they reached some very interesting decisions on guilt or otherwise. That suggests that some of those who profess to know what public opinion is may not necessarily be right when the public have a chance to hear the arguments presented to them and are then asked to make a decision.

Clause 11 is about differential treatment of recognised refugees and its impact and implications. We believe that it contravenes the 1951 refugee convention. It sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system for refugees, and it is also inhumane. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will be given sweeping powers to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim—contrary to the 1951 refugee convention, of which Britain was a founding member.

Under the clause, only those refugees who meet specific additional requirements will be considered group 1 refugees and benefit from the rights currently granted to all refugees by the refugee convention. Other refugees who are not deemed to meet those criteria will be designated as group 2 refugees, and the Secretary of State will be empowered to draft rules discriminating against group 2 refugees with regard to the rights to which they are entitled under the refugee convention, as well as their fundamental right to family unity. The different ways in which those two groups could be treated is not limited in any way by the Bill. Clause 11 does, however, provide examples of ways in which the two groups might be treated differently, even though they are nearly all recognised as genuine refugees. Those who travel via a third country, who do not have documents or who did not claim asylum immediately will routinely be designated as group 2 refugees. The clause goes on to set out how the length of limited leave, access to indefinite leave, family reunion —that is, whether family members, mainly women and children, are entitled to join them—and access to public funds are likely to become areas for discrimination against group 2 refugees.

The government policy paper, the New Plan for Immigration, proposed that instead of fully fledged refugee status, group 2 refugees will be granted “temporary protection” for a period of no longer than 30 months,

“after which individuals will be reassessed for return to their country of origin or removal to”

a safe third country. Temporary protection status

“will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution”—

in other words, a state, deliberately created, of complete uncertainty over their future for group 2 refugees.

Clause 11 would therefore make a significant and unprecedented change in the law, resulting in the UK treating accepted refugees less generously, based on the journey they have taken to reach the UK and the timeliness of their asylum claim. This attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugee is surely inconsistent with the refugee convention and has no basis in international law. The refugee convention, which was enshrined in UK law in 1954, contains a single unitary definition of “refugee”. It defines a refugee solely according to their need for international protection because of feared persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Anyone who meets that definition and is not excluded is a refugee and entitled to the protection of the refugee convention.

The Commons committee considering the Bill heard in evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ representative to the UK that this clause and the Bill were inconsistent with the UN convention and international law. If the Government disagree with that—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Lister —no doubt they will spell out in some detail in their reply their legal argument for saying that the clause does comply with the convention and international law.

This is, however, not just a matter of law but of fairness and humanity. By penalising refugees for how they were able to get to the UK, the Bill builds walls against people in need of protection and shuts the door on many seeking a safe haven. Most refugees have absolutely no choice about how they travel. Is it really this Government’s intention and desire to penalise refugees who may, for example, as a matter of urgency, have had to find an irregular route out of Afghanistan? Are the Government saying that people are less deserving if they have had to take a dangerous route to our shores? Is an interpreter from Afghanistan who took a dangerous journey to our shores less deserving than a refugee who was lucky enough to make it here on one of the flights out of the country?

The Government acknowledge that such journeys are very dangerous and sometimes fatal, yet they do not seem to appreciate the compulsion—that the alternative of not doing so is even worse—which drives people to make such journeys. If people truly had a reason to believe that they would be safe where they are, they would not make the journey. Simply making the journey more dangerous or the asylum system more unwelcoming will not change that. Of the first 5,000 people who came in 2020 by boat, well over 90% were deemed by the Home Office to be eligible to apply for asylum: they were genuine asylum seekers. They were not here illegally—but they will become illegal if the Bill is enacted.

Penalising people for how they arrived in the UK has particular implications for already vulnerable groups of refugees such as women and those from LGBT communities. Women are often compelled to take irregular routes to reach safety, as we see only too clearly in Afghanistan. There are simply no safe and legal routes. Under the proposed changes, however, women who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, will be penalised and could be prosecuted, criminalised and imprisoned. The same obstacles will apply to those from LGBT communities.

Unless the Government can provide safe routes, penalising people for making unsafe journeys is simply inhumane, although, even then, not everyone would have the time or ability to access a safe route, even if one existed. By not providing safe routes, the Government are also fuelling the business model of the people smugglers they claim their proposals will destroy, and then penalising the victims they have had a responsibility for creating. The Conservative-led Foreign Affairs Committee, of which the Home Secretary was then a member, warned in 2019:

“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups”.


The Government’s impact assessment warns that increased deterrence in this manner

“could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”

As has been said, Clause 11 also says that group 1 refugees must have

“come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.

In other words, the Government are setting an expectation that, to be recognised as a refugee supposedly deserving of the support usually afforded, the UK must be the first safe country in which they have sought asylum. Commenting on the Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:

“Requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian, and cooperative principles on which the refugee system is founded.”


It was pointed out in oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it was unlikely that

“any country close to the main countries of origin of refugees would have ever considered signing a convention if that meant that they would assume total and entire responsibility for all the refugees.”

In addition, when the refugee convention came into being in the early 1950s, there was little or no commercial air travel, so any refugee reaching this country would have to have crossed land borders from safe states. Yet there was no view then that such a refugee should be seen—as under this Bill and the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention in international law—as a criminal liable to up to four years in prison and to being sent back to France, and with any claim for asylum being regarded as inadmissible.

Even within Europe, most of the countries that refugees pass through on their way to the UK already host significantly more refugees and asylum seekers per population than the UK does. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, the UK is 17th in terms of the numbers it takes, measured per head of population. Unless safe routes are developed, all that will happen is that there will be an increase in dangerous crossings, because that will be the only way in which people can reach the United Kingdom.

As it is, France takes three times more asylum seekers than the UK, as does Germany. Global provision for refugees could not function if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country they came to. As my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and Lord Coaker have pointed out, most refugees are hosted in developing countries and the UK receives fewer asylum applications than most other European countries. Under international law, the primary responsibility for identifying refugees and affording international protection rests with the state in which an asylum seeker arrives and seeks that protection.

Clause 11 sets out a non-exhaustive list of the ways in which refugees who arrive irregularly and become group 2 refugees may be treated differently. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the purpose of this is

“to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK”,

and to encourage

“individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach after fleeing persecution.”

It is not clear, since the Government have provided no explanation, how the stated aim will result from the policy; perhaps the Government in their response will provide that explanation.

Evidence from many refugee organisations suggests that refugees seek asylum in the UK for a range of reasons, such as proficiency in English, family links or a common heritage based on past colonial histories. In addition, refugees do not cite the level of leave granted or other elements of the asylum system as decisive factors. The Home Office’s own study from 2002—I do not think there has been one since then—noted that there was little evidence that respondents seeking to come to the UK had a detailed knowledge of UK asylum procedures, benefit entitlements or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these conditions varied between different European destination countries.

Given that individuals have little knowledge of the asylum systems of the countries they end up in, it is not clear that differential treatment will dissuade individuals from coming to the UK via safe countries. However, what the Government are proposing will certainly result in a refugee population that is less secure, and it will punish those who have been recognised through the legal system as needing international protection, such as women and girls fleeing the Taliban or Uighurs fleeing genocide in China.

The Explanatory Notes also state that 62% of asylum claims in the UK up to September 2019 were from people who entered irregularly. This means that the policy intention is to impose strictures on the rights and entitlements of the majority of refugees coming to the UK, even though we take fewer than comparable countries. Those penalties would target not just those who have entered the UK irregularly or have made dangerous journeys but all those who have not come directly to the UK, regularly or irregularly, from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened, those who have delayed claiming asylum or overstayed, and even those who arrive in the UK without entry clearance and who claim asylum immediately.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

We have amendments in this group, and I will refer also to the new government amendments. I will try to be brief since I do not wish to test the patience of the House, but I have a bit to get through. In that context, I congratulate the Minister on the quite enormous stamina which she has shown so far. I have to admit that it is way in excess of my stamina for this kind of thing.

We oppose the group of new government clauses on protest. In our view, they should not be added to the Bill, which already contains government proposals in relation to protests. The Bill has been in Parliament for some 11 months. However, these sweeping, significant and further controversial powers from the Government have not been looked at for a single minute by the elected House, which is normal practice in relation to controversial measures. In this House they have had just over one hour’s consideration, after midnight at the end of Committee, which meant, in effect, that the overwhelming majority of noble Lords were denied the opportunity to participate. We have now started to debate them here on Report at 9.50 pm and have been told that Report has to be completed tonight, whether before or after midnight. This is, frankly, an outrageous way to legislate. Sometimes a Bill needs late additions to respond to events that have to be addressed immediately. However, the Government did not apply this approach to abusive and intimidating protests outside schools and vaccine centres. Instead, this House compelled them to do so last week.

We support increasing sentences for those who protest dangerously by blocking motorways. This is also likely to cause a clear risk to life, and we were all aware of ambulances being impeded last year when motorways were obstructed and of members of the public being unable to complete time-critical journeys in the timescale required. Our Amendment 150A to government Amendment 150 would apply these increased sentences where they should actually be targeted: not at every road and highway across the board but at wilful obstruction of the motorways and major roads in the 4,300-mile strategic road network—SRN—at the core of our national transport system. Instruction of the SRN results in the most disruption due to volume of traffic, a lack of alternative routes and the difficulty of getting off such a major route because of infrequent junctions, for the large amounts of traffic obstructed. Our amendment would also largely prevent the higher penalties applying to obstruction of a grass verge or pavement, which may be interpreted as part of a highway.

The Government’s proposed locking-on amendment provides an exceptionally low threshold for a broad offence. It can be triggered by an act that is capable of causing disruption to two people. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services is not convinced of the need for this power. Its report on balancing protest powers states that

“most interviewees did not wish to criminalise protest actions through the creation of a specific offence concerning locking-on.”

The reality is that powers already exist for dealing with lock-ons. What we should be looking at is proper guidance, training and, as the inspectorate raised, improving our use of existing resources and specialist officers.

Our Amendments 160A to 160C are based on recommendations of HMICFRS, including consolidating police guidance on public order in one place and keeping track of national and local needs for specialist officers. These are examples of what could have been debated and worked on, if these proposals had been given proper scrutiny time, to find the best way through, but this House has not had that opportunity. I will make a reference to suffragettes: since locking on was used by the suffragettes, I hope that the Government are not going to tell us that it emerged as a tactic for the first time between Second Reading and Report, and that they had no opportunity to bring forward carefully drafted legislation instead of the rushed, broadly drafted power now in front of us.

Government Amendments 151 to 153 on obstruction of major transport works and key infrastructure are overreaching and unnecessary, as there are already existing public order powers that can apply to these situations. Amendment 151 will have an impact particularly on environmental protesters. Frankly, we have reached a sorry state of affairs when we legislate still further specifically against those concerned about the proven threat of climate change and its impact on our way of life and that of our children and grandchildren, and the tardy action on environmental issues. As the Prime Minister himself once committed to lying down in front of the bulldozers in opposition to a third runway, one wonders how much thought he has given to these widely drawn new powers.

We are opposed to the new stop and search on suspicion powers in Amendment 154. We have concerns over their disproportionate use in relation to black and minority ethnic groups and those groups’ level of trust in the police—a problem that we have not faced up to in other uses of stop and search; we also have concerns over how widely the powers are drawn.

It is, though, the final two powers—on suspicionless stop and search and serious disruption prevention orders—that we believe are the most extreme and pernicious. Suspicionless stop and search is a power that, until now, we have used to target serious violent crime and terrorism. These new government clauses would replicate that power to target peaceful protests. Where the power is used, it would permit any member of the public near a protest to be stopped and searched without cause and without suspicion.

The second of the final two powers—serious disruption prevention orders, which can be made without a conviction—are, in effect, essentially protest banning orders. HMICFRS has said that it believed that protest banning orders

“would neither be compatible with human rights legislation nor create an effective deterrent.”

Like serious violence prevention orders, serious disruption prevention orders can be made using inadmissible evidence; they can be extended indefinitely; and breaching them is a criminal offence with terms of imprisonment attached.

These final two powers are overreaching, unwarranted powers which affect the rights of the British public. They should most certainly not be included in the Bill. The Government are trying to force them in through the back door, without full and necessary parliamentary scrutiny, including by this House.

The reason cannot be lack of parliamentary time to provide such full scrutiny—the Commons Chamber finished at 3.30 pm last Wednesday, following the Prime Minister’s performance at PMQs. We cannot support any of these last-minute, rushed and ill-thought-through broad powers in this group of new government amendments, with the exception of approving the increased sentences for wilfully obstructing motorways and major roads.

The absolute priority for us has to be opposing the Government’s suspicionless stop and search and the serious disruption prevention orders being put into statute. These, however, are down as the last new clauses in this group. Frankly, it is already quite late, and we ought to seek to have these votes as soon as possible, to ensure that as many noble Lords as possible can cast a vote.

I conclude by simply referring to what my noble friend Lord Blunkett wrote in April last year:

“Protest might be inconvenient for politicians, but it acts as a pressure valve, allowing citizens to express their views and vent frustrations that could otherwise boil over … If we suppress protest, we could see more anger towards institutions including the police, the judiciary and parliament.”


That is the direction in which we think the Government are heading with these new protest clauses.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I shall speak briefly, because I too want to get to the votes. Despite government claims to the contrary, these are draconian laws that are part of a wider assault on our democracy. We have a Government who are passing rules for us but not acting according to those rules themselves. The police protect the powerful, while getting more oppressive powers to use against the voiceless. This is an autocracy, not a democracy. The Government know that they will face bigger and more vocal protests while they get on with their dog whistle policies, which fail at the moment to distract from the terrible impact of their politics.

There will be a lot of climate change protests in future—I can see myself getting arrested, perhaps more than I have so far. Climate change is the biggest threat to human civilisation. It is an existential threat, and this Government are not acting fast enough.

The Government claim to speak for ordinary people, but it is ordinary people who protest on the streets, and the Government do not speak for them anymore; they do not speak for the great British public, because the great British public find the Bill and these late amendments offensive. The Greens here will be voting against all of these late amendments. We will not support the Labour amendment on the obstruction of the highway, only because it opens the door to the Government bringing back their original amendment. I just hope that the Government listen.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, a similar amendment was debated in Committee as part of a series of amendments relating to ensuring that safeguarding and tackling the criminal exploitation of children are a central part of the duty to reduce serious violence as set out in Part 2, with its duties on specified authorities to collaborate and plan to prevent and reduce serious violence. Children who are groomed and exploited by criminal gangs are the victims and not the criminals. A statutory duty to reduce violence cannot be effective on its own without a statutory duty to safeguard children. This amendment would provide a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation, putting a recognised definition in law for the first time.

The present lack of a single clear statutory definition has contributed to local authorities responding differently to this form of exploitation across the country. The Children’s Society says that just one-third of local authorities have a policy in place for responding to it, yet child criminal exploitation does not stop at local authority boundaries and requires a shared understanding and approach nationally. Barnardo’s has said that it has found that agencies, including police forces, do not routinely collect or record information on this type of exploitation. It reports that a number of reviews have found that children at risk are passed between agencies without meaningful engagement. Indeed, many children are not seen as victims of exploitation and abuse but instead receive punitive criminal justice responses.

A statutory definition, as we now have for domestic abuse, would improve awareness and understanding of child exploitation and its signs, and encourage joined-up working not only across the justice system but across all partners included in the serious violence reduction duty. It would give a common definition of what we are seeking to tackle in response to the abhorrent coercion and manipulation of children and vulnerable young people. This is not a minor issue. More than 25,000 children in the United Kingdom are presently at risk of gang exploitation, according to the Children’s Commissioner.

The response of the Government in Committee to establishing a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation was that they had considered it with a range of operational partners and had concluded that the definitions of exploitation within the Modern Slavery Act were sufficient to respond to a range of child criminal exploitation scenarios. However, the operational partners with whom presumably the Government considered a statutory definition will include the local authorities which according to the Children’s Society do not have a policy in place for responding to child criminal exploitation, the police forces and other agencies which Barnardo’s found are not routinely collecting or recording information on this type of exploitation, and the agencies which pass children at risk between each other without meaningful engagement. The evidence indicates that there is no consistency of approach across the agencies on child criminal exploitation, so it is clear that the existing definitions on which the Government relied when rejecting this amendment in Committee are not assisting in the way they should in responding to abhorrent child criminal exploitation scenarios.

I hope that the Government will be prepared to reflect further on this issue of a much-needed definition of child criminal exploitation as provided for in this amendment, which I move.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

I would be remiss if I did not point out to the Benches opposite that this is an issue that I have talked about quite a lot, in the context not of county lines and gangs but of the Met Police. I did not even realise that there was not a statutory definition, so I welcome this amendment. The definition talks about another person who manipulates and so on, and, of course, the Met Police manipulates children. We are assured constantly that it is a very small number, but it happens and does so apparently lawfully because the Government have not stopped it, so the Government are complicit in a crime.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Consideration of Commons amendments & Ping Pong (Hansard) & Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 9th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I am not shy about admitting that I am critical of this Government, whose majority in the other place has made them quite shameless. They have, on occasion, asked your Lordships’ House to break the law, and this is another such occasion. Sometimes we are tough and we refuse; I hope that that is what will happen today.

It was superb listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Of course, both Greens will be voting for the amendments because this is about the rule of law and human rights. I do not very often agree with the noble Lord, Lord Adonis —probably never, in fact—but on this occasion I agreed with every single word he said, and I wish I had said it first.

On the enhanced protections for children, I understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Young of Cookham, feel that something is better than nothing. But quite honestly, this is child abuse. It is child abuse by the Government—using children as spies. I cannot see how any Government who care about the rule of law could put this in legislation. It is obvious that this Government do not care about the rule of law; they protect their own while throwing others to the dogs.

This Bill provides blanket legal protection for undercover police and their informants—who could be criminals—for crimes with pre-authorised immunity. Similarly, the forthcoming overseas operations Bill creates new protections against prosecution for military personnel acting overseas. The Government have fought strongly for these protections against prosecution for the police and the military. They fought against any attempt by your Lordships’ House to reduce or check these protections.

Yet, having granted such broad protections to the police and military, even in cases of fundamental wrongdoing, the Government then refuse what is a comparatively far more limited legal defence for survivors of domestic abuse—usually women. A public inquiry is under way examining the 40-year history of government agents abusing their power while spying on trade unions, green campaigners and those in the black community fighting for justice. Police officers were using sexual relations with women as a deliberate strategy, although we are now told that it was unlawful all the time. We see this Government protecting their own from the law while allowing the abuse of vulnerable people and women. That is what this Government do.

I do not want to pile in on the noble Lord, Lord West, who said that the safety of CHIS should be paramount, but quite honestly, I thought the rule of law and the safety of the realm were meant to be paramount. If you continue to break the law as a Government, you are not increasing the safety of the realm; you are actually making it more dangerous for us all. I very much hope that noble Lords will vote for these amendments today and refuse again to let the Government abuse the law.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

I thank the Minister for her opening statement setting out the Government’s position on these motions. I also thank her for the helpful meetings that have taken place throughout the passage of this Bill.

On Motion A on Lords Amendment 1, we welcome the Government’s willingness to address this issue in the code of practice by including in the code the words, “that the person granting the authorisation must hold a reasonable belief that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate.”

On Motion B and Lords Amendment 2, we note that the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment on the basis, as has been said, that it would place sources and the wider public at risk. The Minister repeated that view when she said that the Government would not support the amendment and implored this House to accept the advice of operational experts and do the same. We are disappointed that the Lords amendment has not been accepted. As my colleague, the Member for St Helens North, said in the Commons:

“if countries that are our allies, with similar criminal justice systems and with whom we co-operate on security matters, can do this, the Government need to set out a little more forcefully why we should not.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/21; col. 431.]

I thank noble Lords who have raised their concerns today.

The Lords amendment was originally carried in this House by a small majority. We have already asked the elected House to think again on this issue, and it has not accepted the view we expressed. There was no indication, when it was debated and voted upon in the Commons, that our amendment had sufficient support to lead to a change in the Government’s position. We do not believe that sending the same amendment back a further time will produce any change in the legislation. For these reasons, we will not support the amendment to Motion B should the House divide, as it appears it will.

Motion C in respect of Lords Amendment 3 relates to the criminal injuries compensation scheme. We welcome the fact that on Report, the Government listened to the views of this House on redress for victims and have brought forward an amendment in lieu making it clear that an individual can access the scheme where appropriate. I pay tribute to the work done on the issue of redress for victims by the Joint Committee on Human Rights during its consideration of the Bill, and, in particular, by my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Massey of Darwen.

Motion D on Lords Amendment 4 relates to the authorisation of juveniles and vulnerable adults. I endorse the Minister’s comments on the involvement of noble Lords who have been particularly engaged with this issue—including my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark and Stella Creasy MP—and pay particular tribute to the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Hornsey and Lady Kidron, who tabled amendments that we supported throughout the Bill. The Minister will have heard the remaining concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. On this issue, we have not achieved everything that was asked for but we welcome the government amendments in lieu, which go further than previous government amendments on this issue.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly on this, as I think that the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, is one of those that would help to close a little gap in the whole issue. When people think about domestic abuse, they often think about physical abuse, and perhaps about emotional and mental abuse, but tackling economic abuse is just as important if we are to stamp out domestic abuse.

I have signed this amendment, as it is important that the child maintenance system is not misused as a tool of abuse. Domestic abusers must not be allowed to continue their domestic abuse by withholding or reducing their financial support for children. This amendment, like so many of those tabled to this Bill, is a reminder of how multifaceted domestic abuse is, and how abusers will exploit any opportunity they possibly can. We must deny them those opportunities and punish them for what they do.

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

Amendment 158 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance to the Child Maintenance Service to tackle the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said, we have just had a debate on the issue of economic abuse post separation, and one of the examples given of such abuse was through the perpetrator failing to pay child maintenance.

Child maintenance is an essential source of income for many single parents in enabling them to meet their children’s basic needs, including food and clothing, and is of particular importance to victims and survivors of economic abuse, who often rely on such payments for economic stability after leaving a perpetrator. Perpetrators of economic abuse are only too aware of this, however, and withholding or unreliably paying child maintenance can be a way in which they continue to control victims and survivors, including post separation. This issue does seem to highlight the importance of agencies such as the Child Maintenance Service that provide front-line services carrying out training to recognise and respond to economic abuse, as a means of domestic abuse, as part of how they operate.

Economic abuse perpetrated through child maintenance is not new, of course; it has been used by perpetrators for some time. However, the coronavirus seems to have exacerbated the situation through providing perpetrators with increased opportunities to interfere with child maintenance payments. During the present pandemic, it has been reported that the Department for Work and Pensions has redeployed a number of Child Maintenance Service staff in order to deal with the spike in universal credit claims. It has been said that this included staff tasked with enforcing or following up child maintenance.

The media have additionally reported that the Child Maintenance Service was accepting verbal evidence from paying parents seeking to stop or reduce payments in relation to their income decreasing during the pandemic, when this would usually require evidencing through documents such as payslips. In their response, could the Government indicate whether there is validity in these reports and what guidance has been issued by the Government to the Child Maintenance Service on tackling the problem of abusers continuing economic abuse by withholding or reducing child maintenance payments—not only prior to but during the pandemic?

We support the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, in raising this issue and await the Government’s response.

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

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Amendment 3 is similar to that moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath in Committee. It would require the Secretary of State to commission and publish an independent assessment on the impact of ending free movement on the social care sector, including the impact on the workforce—such as skills shortages—visa options for social care workers, and long-term consequences for recruitment, training and staff terms and conditions. The independent assessment must be published within six months of the Bill being passed and laid before both Houses of Parliament within 14 days of its publishing date.

In Committee, there was little disagreement over the current state of the social care sector: low-paid, undervalued and skilled work; a very high staff turnover rate of over 30%; well over 100,000 vacancies; and some 20% of the workforce being from other countries, including the EU, with that source of staff about to be closed down in three months’ time as a result of the advent of the points-based immigration system and the overwhelming majority of care staff not being eligible for the health and social care visa. There was, I think, a large measure of agreement too that the sector needed to place greater emphasis on training and increased professionalism, and that not everyone in the labour market would have the necessary aptitude and attitude to meet successfully the demands and requirements of care work.

The Government rejected the very similar amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, not on the basis that an inquiry into the social care sector was not needed but on the basis that a mechanism already existed that kept the social care sector under review. The Government, through the Minister, said:

“I very much agree that it is essential that policies are kept under review, particularly when the Government are introducing a new, points-based immigration system from January. Independent scrutiny and review are a good thing, but I am not sure that we need to legislate to provide a whole new mechanism.”—[Official Report, 7/9/20; col. 608.]


The Minister then went on to say that the Migration Advisory Committee had been in existence for some years, and that noble Lords should be in no doubt about the close interest that it took in the health and social care sector. It is true that the MAC reports on the social care sector. Indeed, in a wide-ranging—I think 650-page—report yesterday on the shortage occupation list, covering numerous sectors, it again expressed concern about the social care sector and argued that if the necessary domestic funding increase and pay increases it has been calling for, in its own words, “for some years” did not now materialise in a timely manner, it

“would expect the end of freedom of movement to increase the pressure on the social care sector, something that would be particularly difficult to understand at a time when so many care occupations are central to the Covid-19 pandemic frontline response.”

The MAC also said that a potential rise in labour supply to the care sector as a result of UK job losses elsewhere cannot be “predicted with any certainty”. This Bill makes an immense change to our immigration system, which will have a significant effect on our already understaffed and underresourced social care sector at the same time as we are going through a global pandemic. Our care sector has always been vital; now it is part of our front line. We need more than the regular reporting mechanisms. This amendment would provide for that much-needed specialist, timely and targeted review of social care—of workforce numbers, the impact of the Government’s decision not to include many care workers in the health and care visa, and what this all means for future planning for the sector at this crucial time, including terms and conditions and training for a talented, caring workforce.

The Government have already made the decision to change the immigration system and have said that they want to see competitive terms and conditions in the sector and not have people on the minimum wage. The Government have also said they want the right number of people to meet increasing demands with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver quality compassionate care. Those are very commendable objectives, and a recognition from the Government that they are, as my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said in Committee, the main funder and regulator and set the whole context in which the sector operates.

With the Government having decided that this low-paid, undervalued but skilled sector, with its enormous turnover of staff and vacancies running well into six figures, is now to face, on top of that, a significant source of labour being closed down in just three months’ time, social care faces a potential perfect storm. With social care facing such an unprecedented situation, now is the time for a fresh set of eyes to make an expert assessment of the impact of the end of free movement on a sector that already has existing significant problems of pay, conditions, turnover and training that need to be addressed if ever-increasing demands for social care are to be met. We need an assessment that has a major input from people who have expertise in, and specialist knowledge of, the field of social care, and can bring a fresh perspective to bear on a sector whose existing, as well as pending, problems will have to be addressed if the Government’s goals of a better paid, more highly trained and professional workforce with much lower turnover rates than at present is to be achieved.

The amendment does not ask for too much; it does not pre-emptively write the Government’s policy for them but merely asks for a timely, thorough and independent analysis of how to support our care sector and its staff and enable it to achieve the goals set in the light of the impact of the provisions of this Bill. It will help to prevent the issue of the state of our care sector being yet again kicked into the long grass. How many times in the past decade have we been promised a plan for the social care sector that has failed to materialise? This Bill is a crucial moment, and we should use it wisely. The amendment also has support from the BMA and the Royal College of Nursing. We do not want to find ourselves in a few years’ time with a social care sector that has not progressed from its present state following the imminent change in the immigration system. We need to act now, which is why the fresh independent assessment called for in Amendment 3 is needed.

In moving this amendment, I have to say that, if the Government’s response is similar to their response in Committee to the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I shall seek a Division. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, my Amendment 30 is along the lines of Amendment 3, but tougher and more radical. I would love to know that there is some support for it, but I think Amendment 3 will edge it. However, this amendment has huge support, and I thank the people from the Scottish National Party, who on a point of principle do not take their seats in the House of Lords—or what seats they might be offered. They have done all the work in getting together a huge variety of people, including RNIB Scotland, UNISON, Macmillan Cancer Support, Disability Wales, the Church of Scotland and the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. I could go on: more than 40 organisations and NGOs support this amendment.

An absolutely crucial point, which the Minister did not tackle when I presented this amendment in Committee, was that this proposal draws in all four nations. That is something that Amendment 3, I am afraid, does not mention. My amendment would probably enable the Government to have much more support for their work; it would strengthen buy-in from stakeholders across the four nations and increase the status and profile of the evaluation.

Many of the points I wanted to make have already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, very eloquently, but many bear repeating. The Government are closing their eyes to a potential problem. My key concern is about the health and social care workforce. The organisations that have contributed to this amendment are aware that some health and social care organisations rely heavily on workers from other parts of the EU and cannot continue in their present form without support. If they are allowed to fail, other parts of the health and social care system will be needed to fill those gaps.

On efficiency and effectiveness, research carried out by the Health and Social Care Alliance Scotland in communities across Scotland highlighted that people who use support and services have concerns about their future availability. That means that with the health and social care system already creaking, combined with an elderly workforce, some people will have to try to find their own ways to minimise any negative repercussions as a result of changes accruing from leaving the EU. Then there is the adequacy of public funding for the health and social care sectors. The alliance’s report raised major concerns about the impact of Brexit and the potential loss of EU funding in health and social care in Scotland, particularly to third-sector organisations, which have a key role in the provision of health and social care services. Any loss of funding will place a further strain on that whole sector, and it seems that the Government are not acknowledging that it will be a problem.

I would therefore like the Minister to answer my point that my amendment would create buy-in from the four nations, which the Government seem to be ignoring at the moment. Also, it is quite possible that without the extra workforce that we currently get through people coming from other countries, the whole system could start to fail. Are the Government prepared to put enough money into it to make sure that it does not fail and let down all the people who care about this service?

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I appreciate that the Minister said that she would write. I would be very grateful indeed if, when she writes, she will address this issue of the impact of the charges on the incomes of those who will have to pay it, particularly those on low incomes and with families with children.

There is another example of the way that the Government look at the issue. When reference was made to the impact on nurses, the answer was: “You solve it by increasing pay”. Yes, there has been a small increase in nurses’ pay, but there have not been very big increases over the past eight years. The charge is being doubled but I do not think that nurses’ pay is being doubled. I do not think that nurses will necessarily feel that the relatively small increase they have just had—they have not had much over the past few years—will be any real compensation for having to pay, for one specific item, a doubled charge. One does not get the impression that the Government have looked at this from the point of view of the impact on incomes, particularly for those among the less well off.

I think I heard a comment—I will withdraw my remarks if I am incorrect—which almost seemed to say that when low-income families are faced with this additional charge, it is up to them to arrange their finances accordingly. That was the thrust of the argument and how it came across to me. That is another indication that this has not been looked at from the point of view of the impact, particularly on people on low incomes and with children.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will write. I hope she will perhaps reflect further on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Lister about the child rights impact assessment. I hope she will address that issue in her response on behalf of the Government. I know that she will give examples, but I also hope that she will reflect further on looking at the fee-waiver rules on destitution. “Destitution” implies that one must be in a pretty desperate state before receiving any assistance. The figures on the numbers of those getting the waiver appear to bear that out. No doubt the Minister will give examples in her reply—without indicating who she is talking about or anything like that—of the kinds of situations and income levels to which those fee-waiver rules have been applied up to now. At least then we could get a feel for the issue.

The answer given on why there had been no public consultation rather took my breath away. Apparently, it was because there was a manifesto commitment to £600. That seems an extraordinary reason for saying that there will be no opportunity for people to comment on what the Government are doing in the sense of how it will apply and its impact. I would have thought that any Government would want to put something like that out for consultation to get responses from people on the impact of such a doubling of charges.

I was very surprised to find that we have a Government who believe that they should not do any further consultation on the impact of something—not the principle of whether they will do it—and on how they might mitigate that because of a figure in a manifesto that they intend not to keep but to put at a lower level than is in the manifesto, which I am not complaining about. However, if the argument is that people voted for an increase in the charge to £600—it is difficult to believe that votes in the general election were determined solely by that—then they have not got what they voted for because the charge is less than that. Again, I am not complaining about that. I find it extraordinary that that was used as a reason for not consulting and giving people an opportunity to comment on the impact on certain people of doubling the charges.

I raised the issue of the child rights impact assessment. As I said, I hope the Minister will address that in her response. I will bring my comments to a conclusion. We opposed this matter in the Commons, where the order was agreed to in a vote. I tabled my amendment today to emphasise our continuing serious concerns about the impact of this increase in the immigration health charge but it is not my intention to press it to a vote.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he reconsider withdrawing his amendment? I honestly think that the Government have got this completely wrong. That is the mood of the House. Therefore, he might get considerable support.

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for that contribution, but I have to say no; I am not prepared to reconsider the decision not to push it to a vote. We made our intentions clear beforehand and I have no intention of going back on what was said about pursuing this to a vote. However, I appreciate where the noble Baroness is coming from.

I hope that the Minister will read through this debate—I know she will, she does it automatically—because questions have been raised and, inevitably, she has not been able to respond to them all. I hope she will look at that and respond to ones she has not been able to reply to at the Dispatch Box. She has replied to a great many questions.

I also hope the Government—this pursues the point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, made—will have got the message that there is a good deal of disquiet about the impact of doubling this charge in particular areas, not least in relation to children and school shortages. I hope the Government will have got that message and will look at this again when they come to their White Paper on the future immigration system. We have to await the chief inspector’s report on Home Office fee levels and see what that says; it may or may not make a comment on the charges we are talking about. I will leave it in that context and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

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

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I spoke earlier in Committee about my opposition to the whole of Schedule 3. I shall now speak to my Amendments 68 and 69. I declare an interest: I have a journalist daughter and know many of her friends, and they could be very adversely affected by this part of the Bill because it is about the protection of journalistic material.

Because Schedule 3 of the Bill allows border officials to question, search and detain anyone at the border without any suspicion whatever, people carrying journalistic or legally privileged material might want to refuse to hand over that material without committing a criminal offence. Without Amendment 68, journalists and lawyers could be forced to hand over sensitive and confidential material at the border. This surely cannot be the Government’s intention in drafting the Bill, and it surely will not be Parliament’s will to allow such a scheme to become law.

Without Amendment 69, journalistic material confiscated at the border, including information about confidential sources, could be exposed in open court as evidence. This would be an enormous erosion of press freedom and the sacrosanct duty of journalists to protect their sources. It would have a chilling effect on individuals coming forward with information which is in the public interest. I have myself been approached by whistleblowers who are well aware of the severe consequences that await them. We must not add to the burden that deters people from coming forward with information about corrupt practices or wrongdoing.

As drafted, Schedule 3 would put sources in danger of losing their job, their liberty or even their life. The Government would never allow their confidential intelligence sources to be exposed in this way, and I ask the Minister to explain why journalists’ sources should be treated any differently.

Previously in Committee, the Minister declined to put specific protections in law for journalists on the basis that it was too broad a term. This is why my amendments and Amendment 71 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, use the existing definitions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act. I hope that this approach is more palatable to the Minister and could be adopted at Report.

I omitted to mention that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, is unable to be here today. I said that I would say a few words on his behalf, and he said that he was sure that I could find the right ones—so let us hope that I have.

My amendments are essential to protect press freedom and the confidentiality of sources. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns and bring forward amendments to fix the problems highlighted. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

We have Amendment 69A in this group. The purpose of our amendment is to provide that, where an examining officer wishes to retain an article which the owner alleges contains confidential material, the examining officer may not examine the article and must immediately send the article to the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The commissioner must then determine whether the article contains confidential material and may then authorise the examination and retention of the article under the provisions of the Bill or return it to the examining officer if it is not confidential. This would provide for the independent oversight of confidential material, as required by the Miranda judgment.

I appreciate that what the Government propose is not in line with our amendment. However, we now have the code of practice, which states:

“If during the process of examining an article it becomes apparent to the examining officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the article consists of or includes items that are confidential material, the examining officer must cease examining”,


the item. It also states:

“An examining officer should take reasonable steps to review the credentials of an examinee to verify any such claim when considering whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a specific item is confidential material”.


It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to my points, as the purpose of my amendment is primarily to find out how it is intended that the process will operate—although we would obviously be extremely grateful if the Government decided to accept the amendment. If an examining officer who reviews the credentials of an examinee feels that the credentials stand up, will they still be able to examine material which they think may be confidential? If the examinee has said that there is confidential material and the examining officer is satisfied with their credentials, is that enough to prevent the item being examined, or would the officer still be expected or able to examine an item to ascertain for themselves that it contains what appears to be confidential material?

In other words, on checking or reviewing the credentials of the examinee, if the examining officer is satisfied, does that mean that there is no question of the examining officer looking at any material that the examinee maintains is confidential, but instead they have immediately to send it to the commissioner to decide whether it should be retained?

Data Retention and Acquisition Regulations 2018

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Wednesday 24th October 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has compared these regulations to a dog masquerading as a cat. My feeling about them is that they seem more like the plotline from a political thriller than a reality that we ought to be facing. The regulations are actually a barefaced attempt by the Government to expand their creepy surveillance powers deeper and deeper into our lives. We seem to be the last bulwark here against the Government adopting Henry VIII powers that are simply unacceptable in these areas. These changes are unacceptable and we are going to do as much as we can to stop them. The Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act was already hugely controversial, and these regulations seek to extend those powers even further.

Big changes to legislation, such as this, should be done through an Act of Parliament, rather than sneaking it through, without full scrutiny, under secondary legislation. I think it is quite outrageous of the Government to try to do this. In particular, I too was at that meeting on 10 October—one of the two Peers who attended, out of 800—and I feel that at no point have our concerns raised at that meeting been looked at, discussed or taken into account. I also take great issue with the definition of “serious crime” which these regulations use to justify state intrusion into people’s communications. Serious crime, we are told, is any offence which is capable of leading to a prison sentence of more than 12 months. Such serious crimes would therefore include possession of small quantities of cannabis, the obscene performance of plays or petty theft. I personally would not indulge in any of those, obviously, but I imagine there are categories that I could fall into, in total innocence, and that offends me very deeply.

Detecting and preventing even these pettiest of crimes would be grounds for the state to collect communications data. There does not need to be reasonable suspicion that you have committed an offence, just a general intention to make sure that you have not done anything wrong. Using these powers for so-called serious crime, the police will be able to gather the location data transmitted by your phone and any other electronic device. So with very few legal safeguards, the state can track you at will. These ever more oppressive data collection laws make it ever easier to spy on each and every one of us, for even the vaguest of reasons.

These laws are going the wrong way. Of course we need proper powers to tackle terrorism and truly serious crime, but alienating a lot of the populace is not the way to go. These powers should not come at the expense of the rights and freedoms of the majority of people, who are innocent of any serious crime. I feel that the Government are turning into an ugly, greedy surveillance monster, willing to sacrifice civil liberties that are, or should be, at the heart of real democracy.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

As the Minister said, the purpose of these regulations is to reflect a ruling of the European Court on communications data acquisition and retention that the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is incompatible with European law. In the light of that ruling, these regulations have been brought forward, seeking to bring our legislation in line with European law, and of course what is before us also contains the code of practice to which the Minister referred.

The regulations and the code of practice provide for independent authorisation over the use of the relevant powers. The regulations also restrict the crime purpose for acquiring retained commissions to what is described as “serious crime”.

In the Commons, where this matter has already been discussed, we said that we did not oppose the changes made. We also said that we supported strong powers, but added that we supported strong safeguards. Although it is not entirely about safeguards, the issues that have been raised have also been about powers, but certainly much of the comment that has been made, although not exclusively, has been about the extent to which there are or are not appropriate safeguards in relation to these measures.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised issues about the definition of serious crime, which, as I understand it, is up to the member state to define. However, he also raised questions over the issue of whether the Government’s definition is too wide ranging, since it covers offences for which a penalty of 12 months’ imprisonment or more can be imposed, as opposed to what might realistically be expected to be imposed for the offence, and the fact that the definition covers, as the noble Lord said, any crime by a body corporate or any offence that involves as a key part of it,

“the sending of a communication or a breach of a person’s privacy”,

which it would appear could include minor transgressions as well as matters for which one would quite definitely expect these powers to be used.

On the issue of the custodial threshold, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, it is in relation to offences which would, as I understand it—and as I think he understands it—carry a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment. He has contrasted it to the present definitions, which can be found elsewhere, including under the Investigatory Powers Act, where the reference is to three years—I think the noble Lord said he expected it to be three years. That is of course, as he has already said, a very different issue to an offence having a potential maximum of 12 months, which it is now suggested it should be in this case.

Clearly, that having been said, and the decision having been made to lower the threshold—I think I know from what was said in the Commons what the Minister is likely to say in respect of that, and I will listen with great interest to her response—there is the issue of how, as far as the powers stand at the moment under these regulations, we will be able to stop them being abused by using them in respect of offences which could hardly be deemed to be serious. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, if you look at the kind of offences for which there can be a maximum of 12 months’ imprisonment, they can include—because you have a lower and a higher level of defence—types of offence which it would be difficult to describe as serious.

The Minister referred to the Office for Communications Data Authorisations. As I understand it, if there is a desire to use the powers under the Bill, it is to that office under the Investigatory Powers Commissioner that an application will be made. Reference has been made to using the powers in a way that is proportionate and necessary. Bearing in mind that we are talking about an offence being investigated and so do not know fully its level of severity or otherwise, an obvious question in the context of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has raised is how those deciding whether to authorise the use of those powers will judge whether we are dealing with a serious crime.

I await with interest the Minister’s response to the points that have been raised not only by the noble Lord but by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.

Investigatory Powers Bill

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this amendment, which I strongly support, so I will be brief. Even I understand the need to balance civil liberties and national security, but comparing this with stopping a few cars simply does not hold water and is not a comparison that we can make—and, personally, I am totally in favour of stopping cars, so that is not an issue.

It is almost as if the Government went to the intelligence and security services and said, “What do you want? What can you imagine wanting to keep us safe?”, and they came up with a huge list. It is like asking children what they want for Christmas: they want a huge list of things and it is not always good to give them everything they want. In this instance, it is certainly not good to give the intelligence services what they want. Indeed, they do not even want some of what the Government are offering them, so the Government have actually gone one step further and offered them more, which to me is totally counterintuitive.

There is also the issue of practicality. When you have this much information coming through, it is incredibly difficult to pick out the vital points and the important things. This could be counterproductive and make us less safe as a nation than we are already. I feel very strongly about this amendment and deeply regret that there is not more support in the House.

[Lord Rosser]

The effect of this amendment, as has been said, would be to leave out internet connection records from the definition of “relevant communications data” in Clause 84, which covers powers to require the retention of certain data. The Bill has had extensive pre-legislative scrutiny, including by a Joint Committee of both Houses, and we supported it at Third Reading in the Commons subject to, among other things, amendments being made which addressed the issue of access to internet connection records not being used in relation to minor crimes. Our amendment on the definition of “other relevant crime”, which raised the threshold from six months to 12 months, has been accepted by the Government. We will be opposing an amendment that now appears to weaken the effectiveness of the provisions relating to internet connection records, at least under Part 4 of the Bill, specifically Clause 84.

London Airport: New Runway

Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb

Thursday 2nd July 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

In 2009, as we know, the Prime Minister said that he would not support a third runway and did so with a certain degree of finality, since he said “no ifs, no buts”. Can the Minister confirm that that still represents the Prime Minister’s and thus the Government’s policy on a third runway at Heathrow? If it does not, could he draw our attention to any statement by the Prime Minister retracting his very clear policy statement that he would not support a third runway at Heathrow?