Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Bishop of Leicester]

My Lords, I support this group of amendments and it is a pleasure to follow noble Lords and benefit from their considerable wisdom—I am in awe of the learning and wisdom on display this evening. I do not want to repeat a lot of what has been said, so I will keep my speech very short.

I have one or two reflections on Amendments 165 and 166, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester has added her name. She is a regular visitor to prisons across the country and supports the network of chaplains in our prisons who have direct evidence in relation to the mental health of prisoners.

As others have said, we know that many IPP prisoners are stuck in the system and that appropriate psychiatric care in the community is not in place to manage their high-support needs. IPP prisoners suffer greater mental distress and disorders than the wider prison population and, in many cases, it can be said that the sentence itself is the cause of the distress. It disrupts relationships and inspires hopelessness, anxiety, despair and alienation.

I welcome the changes proposed through this Bill, but, for the sake of the prisoners in question and the wider community, we need to ensure that they are getting the appropriate aftercare that they are entitled to and that it is extended in the way proposed in Amendment 166.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am not a lawyer but I do have some experience of visiting prisons, thanks to the Koestler Trust, which takes art into prisons. I was quite a close friend of the late, much- lamented and learned Lord Brown, so I feel quite strongly about what I have heard. I have been very moved by this discussion and the toing and froing between quite considerable legal minds.

What I took from my time visiting prisons was that essential ingredient of hope. The arts sometimes gave hope but, of course, there were instances, which we have been hearing about with IPP, where hope had been vanquished. I want to make only one simple point. No greater tribute could be paid to the late Lord Brown than that the Government acknowledge the point he made, and that other noble Lords are making, and come to some arrangement to bring to a close this system, which is not only iniquitous but almost cruel. People need to know at the end of the day that there is some chance of once again leading a normal life.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, on the first group of amendments my noble and learned friend the Minister said that there was a cohort of IPP prisoners who had never been released and he suggested that it was because they did not meet the tests of the Parole Board. My concern is that the prison system has not been able to offer the rehabilitation necessary for these prisoners to demonstrate that they could safely be released. That is why I strongly support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Moylan.

I also have strong support for the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, particularly because it refers to prisoners whom the Secretary of State would release if he was able to but cannot. There must be a great cost to keeping those prisoners in prison who are there because the Secretary of State does not have the power to release them.

Victims and Prisoners Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, and I particularly emphasise the points we have heard about having people with expertise. The right reverend Prelate spoke very clearly about this.

This can also be very much affected by dialect-inflected accents which mean that it can be very hard for everyone, including members of the judiciary, to understand what is being said. I spoke before in your Lordships’ House about an occasion where I actually heard the word “car” misread as “cow”. Of course, you do not really want a collision with either, but the Highway Code can deal with only one of those two. In the interests of justice, clarity is important and interpreters must be well trained. The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, mentioned Wales, where I spend a lot of time. Of course, there is a huge area here for confusion. We need people who are to a certain extent site-specific. For example, if you are in Newcastle or Liverpool, you may well—if you come from London and, like me, from the BBC—have trouble understanding exactly what is going on. But it is imperative in the name of justice that people are well-trained and can really do the job properly, so I strongly support my noble friend’s amendments and I very much look forward to what the Minister has to say about them.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Benjamin would have liked to speak from these Benches today, but, unfortunately, she cannot be here. She told me that, in signing all these amendments, she supports the attempt of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to strengthen interpretation, in particular, but also access to services in other languages. Much has been said, and I will not repeat it, but we need to commend the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who has from every possible aspect in your Lordships’ House—whether in debates or on legislation—ensured that we think about the importance of other languages that are not our first or our own. One of the key things that has come through this short debate is that that relates to not just the traditional languages that we may have perceived through learning at school or going on holiday but the rights of people who are deaf to have BSL interpreters; to have easy-read or particular interpreter support for children or those with learning difficulties is equally vital.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds reminded us that this is all about fair access for victims, and he talked about “the culture”. I worked at Cambridge University for 20 years in various roles and on two or three occasions had to help foreign-language students when they had been victims of crime. They had good English, but they did not have confident English to deal with what had happened to them in the aftermath of an incident, let alone understand the culture of how our system works—whether it is the police or the criminal justice system. Having an interpreter to whom they can explain what has happened and in return to hear how the process will happen—importantly, that must neutral, as many noble Lords have mentioned—is vital.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for raising the issue of vulnerable groups because that is important too. He might be amused to know that I am now the step-grandmother of a six year-old child for whom Welsh is very much her first language—I am trying to catch up. A child of that age just speaks the language as it comes and even in the family environment it can throw you when you do not understand. How much more important is that when you are navigating a system such as the criminal justice system?

My noble friend Lord Marks set out the important reasons for the criminal justice system that we professionalise language and interpretative services. We absolutely support that on these Benches and I hope the Minister will listen favourably to all the comments that have been made so far.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, my point, which I hope is a helpful one, follows on from what the noble Baroness has said but also from what the Minister said about the need for interpreters; he was talking about Clause 55, but I can see the same thing happening here.

A few months ago in your Lordships’ House we discussed the whole nature of the qualification of interpreters. We came to a conclusion that, sadly, this was often wanting. Justice and democracy are served only if people who have to make a case for themselves are understood, and if they are talking to someone who can put their case cogently. My question to the Minister is: when he talks about interpreters, is he talking about people who will be adequately qualified?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as other noble Lords have said, there is an overlap between the last group of amendments and this one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, for setting out specifically what the issues are here, particularly the additional complications of the potential incompatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore workers being asked to act in contravention of people’s human rights. There have been instances where whole aeroplanes were chartered and immigration officers have accompanied people who were being removed, but here we are talking potentially about removals in numbers that we have never seen before—if the Government are to be believed.

The Government seem to be asking transport workers, who have not been trained in self-defence, to safely detain people or safely restrain them if they resist. They are not paid to do that sort of work or cope with those sorts of risks. What about employer liability insurance? What happens if a fight develops between a transport worker and one of the people being deported, and the person being deported ends up suing the transport worker? What about indemnity? What indemnity are the Government going to provide to these transport workers, who are effectively being used as agents of the state?

Again, what consultation has taken place with trade unions and transport operators around the feasibility of the proposals contained in the Bill? As the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Brixton, pointed out, and as my noble friend Lord German pointed out in the last group, there was the potential for seafarers to be prosecuted under the Nationality and Borders Bill if they attempted to rescue people from drowning in the English Channel, if they believed that they were illegal migrants. Now we are talking about potentially prosecuting transport workers who fail to act as agents of the state in detaining people for removal. How can that possibly be part of what a transport worker signs up for when they take on their role?

As my noble friend Lord German said in the last group, the UK Chamber of Shipping has written to noble Lords. The overall problem with this measure can be summed up when it says:

“We are greatly concerned about these clauses becoming law which could require the ship’s master and crew to detain passengers, something which they are not trained to do, at the direction of the Government”.


As I said on the last group, this whole clause seems to be an act of desperation and something that the Government really need to think about again.

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Saturday 10th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pickles (Con)]

My Lords, as a schoolboy, I read The Queens and the Hive by Dame Edith Sitwell. The book describes the court of Queen Elizabeth I. There is a description of her Privy Council, towards the end of her reign, facing fear and confusion over what a change of sovereign would mean. Even the oldest counsellor on the Privy Council had known only one monarch. The Privy Council of Good Queen Bess was much smaller than the one I joined in 2010, but I can sympathise with the dilemma. I have just celebrated my 70th birthday but on the day I was born, the Queen was already on the Throne. She is the only monarch I have ever known; my grandparents’ generation would live through six different sovereigns.

The late Queen was born into a turbulent world. Britain was recovering from the First World War, the Russian civil war was barely over, European royal families were dropping like ninepins and revolution was everywhere. We know that this story ends happily, but it was not preordained. Our country could easily have slipped into becoming a republic. It did not because of the way the monarchy adapted to the modern world. Admittedly, the modern monarchy was built on her grandfather’s good sense and her father’s example of public service, but the modern monarchy is now built around her late Majesty’s sense of duty and service; it is in her image.

Her late Majesty led by example and was keen to push good causes along. I have had personal experience of this latter point. In 2005 she became the patron of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust and stayed for a full 10 years. His Majesty King Charles III replaced her as patron when he was the Prince of Wales. He has proved to be equally enthusiastic and generous with his time. I should declare I am the vice-president of the Holocaust Memorial Day Trust.

Her late Majesty learned about the horrors of the Nazis as a teenager. She had a deep appreciation of the importance of survivors. In 2015, 70 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, she reminded us:

“Many refugees and survivors of the camps and ghettoes found a home in the United Kingdom and have given us their energy and commitment.”


To the surprise of many at a Holocaust memorial event in 2005 at St James’s Palace, she broke with royal protocol to mingle with survivors. We have a description of what happened from a friend of many in this Chamber, the late Rabbi Lord Sacks:

“One of her attendants said that he had never known her to linger so long after her scheduled departure. She gave each survivor—it was a large group—her focused, unhurried attention. She stood with each until they had finished telling their personal story.”


At this reception, the Roma and Sinti were included for the first time; two Romany survivors were presented to Her Majesty.

In 2015, Her late Majesty visited Bergen-Belsen, where 50,000 prisoners were murdered by violence and neglect. She was accompanied by her beloved husband the Duke of Edinburgh. They walked together among the mounds of the mass graves. There was no pomp or ceremony of any kind. The BBC movingly described them as

“just a couple from the wartime generation taking their time to reflect and to pay their respects.”

On the visit, the royal pair met one of the liberators of the camp, the former pilot Captain Eric Brown. The Queen asked him what sorts of scenes greeted the British troops when he arrived. He said:

“I told her this was just a field of corpses … She was listening very carefully. I would say she was quite affected by the atmosphere here.”


For many survivors, the Queen and the Royal Family are synonymous with the welcome they received in the UK. Let one of them speak for them all. Joan Salter MBE said:

“I came to the UK as a child survivor of the Holocaust in 1947 and I remember the excitement surrounding the Queen’s coronation. For someone who came from so much upheaval and trauma, the Queen has been an important symbol of wisdom and stability for me.”


Many of us could say the same thing.

Our late Queen now rests in the arms of the Almighty. She may do so with the certainty that her legacy of duty and service is safe and secure. God save the King.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I will talk about music, but will concentrate largely on animals, which were so loved by our late Queen, as we have already heard from all around your Lordships’ House. It is a great honour and privilege to be able to pay tribute to such a much-loved monarch.

I was fortunate to serve on the committee for the Queen’s Medal for Music and repeatedly saw how the Queen embraced nervous recipients and talked at length, putting them at ease and making them feel comfortable. They were all charmed. On one occasion, sitting next to Her Majesty during a fiendishly difficult piano piece with fistfuls of notes, we remarked how three hands would really be useful. The soloist departed, came back to take a bow and stumbled as she came on to the stage. There followed the observation: “Three feet would be good too.”

From three feet, to four: the royal corgis, of which we have heard much—they would expect nothing less—were always put to dutiful use. We have heard examples of it. It is quite a clever use of these animals. I make no excuse for repeating a story some noble Lords will already have heard. On my BBC Radio 3 programme, “Private Passions” and in his book, the war surgeon David Nott recalled how, returning from Syria and in a state of terrible post-traumatic stress, he was placed next to the Queen at a lunch at Buckingham Palace.

Her Majesty said, “Tell me about things in Aleppo now.” David was in such a completely paralysed state that he found himself unable to speak. Sensing his hurt, the insightful monarch summoned a footman to fetch the biscuit tin. She passed the tin to David, who, momentarily, in his confusion, thought this was a royal command to eat one of the dog biscuits. He then realised that he was being invited to feed the aforementioned quadrupeds. As, now distracted, he did so, the Queen touched his hand, saying, “Now, that’s better, isn’t it?” Her Majesty had, through her insight, rescued and relaxed him and set free his tongue.

The Queen had a much-loved red Labrador called Sandringham Sydney. As chairman of the Royal Ballet governors, I had to write an annual report to our royal patron. I could not resist naughtily adding a handwritten postscript:

“On another matter, arguably of less national importance, I have a red descendant of Sandringham Sydney who has produced puppies and my brother-in-law is so besotted with his puppy that he dreamed he put him down for Eton.”


I had two letters back. One rather formally acknowledged the Royal Ballet report, but the other was clearly revelling in the concept of putting a dog down for Eton. I loved the idea that my missive was replied to with two compartmentalised communications—the formal and the humorously canine. From then on, whenever I met Her Majesty, the problems of preserving and continuing that red colour through the work of the Sandringham kennelman would be a welcome byway from the usual niceties of retrograde inversion and music that perhaps were a little difficult to comprehend on occasion.

Let us move on to another favoured creature. It is a great sadness to me personally that my brother-in-law, Michael Bond, did not live to see Paddington Bear—his creation—charm the nation and Her Majesty. Was not that sequence a wonderful example of the great sense of fun that Her Majesty had? Her sense of mischief and delight in the absurd, which she bequeathed to her children, underlined her ability to connect with people and laugh at the unforeseen.

Finally, has not the Queen somehow continued her benevolent influence, as parliamentarians here and in the other place have, in my humble opinion, risen above themselves to make such eloquent and moving tributes? So too did our new King, Charles III, passionately. Long live the King.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The pressure has come from the people of the United Kingdom, who elected this Government with an overwhelming majority.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

In that case, will the Minister accept that, in a way, and given what we have heard from other noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, it is part of the Government’s strategy to toughen up on migration and immigration? That is really what this is about.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

Absolutely, we want to toughen up on illegal migration. We want to make sure that people who have a right to come in are able to do so, and to make sure that people who do not have that right cannot come in. We want consistent and better decision-making. It is really as simple as that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, I spoke at length on this amendment in Committee and attended the meeting with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, who also signed the amendment. It has led to a full and thorough response from the Minister, and we expect him to announce a full and independent review. If that is right, that is extremely welcome news. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, in saying that it would be extremely helpful to have an indication of the timescale of such a review—if that is to be announced—because of the imminence of the renewal of the contracts. It would also be extremely helpful for us to have an indication of how the independence of the review will be assured, because independence is a relatively flexible word, and it is an extremely important part of this.

For all the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the standard of interpretation is incredibly important to the maintenance of justice where there are litigants, parties or witnesses for whom English is not their first language. We talked about the importance of having the undisguised and unchanged evidence of the witness before the court in an evidential case without the interpreter’s view of matters intervening. That calls for the very highest standards of quality and for any review to be completely independent.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I too spoke in Committee, and I have been copied in on the very helpful response from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson. I felt he was trying to embrace this important subject. To extend the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, a little, one has to understand that when people are in court, it is not just a question of interpretation; quite often, it is case of compassion and being able to communicate with a witness or a defendant. If there is a language barrier, those are the first things that tend to go out of the window.

Just to lower the conversation slightly, I mentioned in Committee an occasion on which the word “cow” was confused with the word “car”—a cow was observed travelling at 90 miles an hour.

I think it would be good to finish my brief contribution to this debate by repeating the explanatory statement of the noble Baroness:

“This amendment would establish minimum standards for qualifications and experience for interpreters in courts and tribunals, along the lines of the Police Approved Interpreters Scheme.”


I find it very hard to see why the Government would not want to embrace that.

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

Clearly, we agree with everything that has been said. Rather than repeat it all, I will just compliment the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, on her amendment. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

Assisted Dying Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, if we were considering a Bill to extend palliative care far and wide, I suspect we would encounter no dissent in your Lordships’ House, as has already been suggested. Palliative care experts, for whom I have the greatest respect, say that nobody should die in agony these days. But we know that they do: we have had many letters from families and from doctors.

I realised, when my parents died, that I was grateful that I was able to say to the ward sister—and my father had very advanced dementia—“Please don’t overly combat pneumonia, ‘the old man’s friend’, if it happens”. In fact, he was given a gentle release by slipping into a coma. It is true that some people can almost drown, but that should not happen. However, I was grateful for this natural end, even if our decision could be said to have hastened it. This, today, is a different matter, but I personally see the extension of a moral imperative: in a sense, we were not taking every opportunity to ward off death.

Until cases like Shipman meant that death was more closely scrutinised, doctors felt, I suspect, more able to help patients on their final journey. Some probably still do, and I wish that were more often the case. I live on a farm. Observing the agonising death of a neighbour, my farming partner said to me, “We would be prosecuted if we allowed an animal to suffer like that.” We would be prosecuted, but I am afraid that we allow human beings to suffer like that. It is a pretty appalling comment on where we are.

I want to see us, as a society, embrace death. I believe that this Bill will help us to do that, safe in the knowledge that in the end there will be a choice. As everybody has said, that is what this is all about. For my part, I desire that choice. I do not recognise that we are asking judges or doctors to carry out euthanasia, although I am prepared to be corrected by greater experts on the law. We are asking that patients be given the means to make that choice for themselves. This is a choice that, I think, many of us would ultimately like.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Fullbrook, on a fine maiden speech. I am sorry that we will have to wait for that of the noble Baroness, Lady Fleet. Congratulations too to the Chancellor on the initial financial interventions he made to try to keep business and the arts still standing, but there is pitifully little in the Queen’s Speech on that desperately challenged creative industries—in particular music, in which I declare my interest as listed in the register.

The decision to concentrate the Chancellor’s resources on existing and proven organisation— understandable in many ways—has left many individuals to fall through the support net. I of course accept that one cannot please all of the people all of the time but, sadly, a confluence of government policies means that we now have a profoundly worrying outlook for the creative industries, despite the fact that the Government are always at great pains to point out that they value and acknowledge the billions of pounds that these industries generate for the Exchequer.

I have a quick question for the Minister. If 20,000 football fans can sing “Abide with me” at Wembley, why can a socially distanced choir still not sing together? If, indeed, real value is given to what creativity has brought to this country—not just financially but socially and aesthetically—surely we ought to be securing its future by investing in the opportunities and training that we give to succeeding generations. Yet we seem to be doing quite the reverse. First, disastrously, the arts came off the national curriculum and, while hubs do a certain amount for music, once again many fall through the system. Now we are told that there is to be a 50% cut in higher education for arts subjects. What are we to make of that? What do the Government think that says about their priorities, in particular for the less privileged—those who come from disadvantaged backgrounds and who we are keen to see level up?

My noble friend Lord Bird potently made my point: social cohesion improves when people are given the creative means of self-expression. The number of children and young adults who find their way into music, art or dance because of enlightened exposure at a tender age is remarkable. Whether it is the London Symphony Orchestra, a string quartet or Radiohead, the ability to learn an instrument or read music at school had led to our having the musicians and composers who have brought this country worldwide admiration and income.

So what of these artists? Frankly, the post-Brexit agreement, or lack of agreement, on touring is disastrous. We are told that the DCMS is in consultation with representatives of our cultural organisations, and that advice will be offered on how to deal with visas and work permits for the 27 countries involved. However, that is shutting the stable door after the horses have bolted. We were assured by the Prime Minister that the problem would be sorted, and recent legal scrutiny commissioned by the Incorporated Society of Musicians suggests that it could and should have been. In fact, no visible progress has been made at all. Oliver Dowden’s statement to the Culture Select Committee last week did not, I am afraid, encourage me that we were about to see any significant change. The rules still vary from country to country. Some only allow up to 14 days’ stay and we still have no prospect of a solution to the road haulage problem. The Government seem to be paralysed, unable or unwilling to help.

I believe, and have been assured, that the truth is that the EU wanted this vital exchange of ideas and performances much more than our Government did, or do. Let me put it another way: in order to preserve the Government’s absolute obsession with their immigration red lines, the creative industries and musicians in particular were sold down the river—a river flowing now towards the open sea where they will doubtless meet the fishermen who feel that they too were sold unfulfilled promises.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Mann.

Prisons (Substance Testing) Bill

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I join colleagues in their tributes to the late Dame Cheryl and support the Bill which is part of her legacy. I do not have anything like the expertise of many noble Lords on this subject today, unlike my noble friend Lord Ramsbotham, whose concerns I endorse. However, for many years I was trustee of the Koestler Trust, which takes the arts into prisons. Indeed, I went to Wormwood Scrubs to see this in action. This links into the more general point that I seek to make, which the Government’s own 2019 review, the Black review, described as

“the link between the quality of the prison and use of drugs”.

It found that a lack of purposeful activity and the sense of boredom and hopelessness that it causes was a significant factor in driving the demand for drugs. The review highlighted the connection between drug use and unrest and violence in prisons, stating that these issues

“disrupt the chances of recovery for those with pre-existing problems and create opportunities for violent organised crime groups to make significant profits”.

In my maiden speech in 2013—how the years do pass—I cited the case of a man to whom we in the Koestler Trust supplied the use of a guitar. The offender wrote to thank me; it was a very moving letter, and I have never forgotten it. He said:

“Playing this instrument has completely changed my life and I really think that had I had this means of self-expression when I was young and in a state of considerable turbulence I might not now be serving life for murder.”


I understand that a Conservative Government feel strongly that prison should not be some sort of holiday camp, but I fear we have gone too far in the other direction. Prisoners are often locked up for most of the day with little to prompt rehabilitation or get the imagination going, so no wonder that drugs offer a form of escapism. Of course, prisons need to be able to test for the ever more complex drugs being used and manufactured, and I have no quarrel with the purpose of this Bill in that respect. However, it addresses the effect and not the cause. I have said before in your Lordships’ House that I would love the Government to at least study some of the prisons in the Netherlands and Scandinavia, where they have had remarkable success in reducing repeat offending and starting offenders on the map to a more constructive way of life.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Tuesday 16th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as regards injustice, as I have previously said, the commissioner has apologised both to Lady Brittan and to Lord Brammall. On the shortcomings of the IOPC, we agree that there is room for further progress. The Home Secretary has raised concerns about the IOPC’s performance, and in October 2019 she formally requested a report on the IOPC’s plans to increase efficiency and effectiveness—that is on the Home Office website. The Government are not minded to initiate a public inquiry into either Operation Midland or Operation Conifer, because both operations have already been subject to considerable scrutiny.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]]

My Lords, we all want to avoid terrible cases like this. Some people are concerned that if there is anonymity up until charging, which of course would stop cases like this one and that of Cliff Richard, people may not come forward with important information. However, does the Minister agree that if people come forward after charging, that is still possible and in fact more possible, because the CPS will by then have looked at the allegations and found out whether there was anything worth pursuing?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, there is indeed a difference between pre and post charge. The Government believe that, in principle and in general, there should be a right to anonymity pre charge in respect of all offences. But—it is an important but—there will be exceptional circumstances where there are legitimate policing reasons for naming a suspect, such as an imminent threat to life. The guidance in this regard is governed by the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice on media relations, which states:

“Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances … such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or where police have made a public warning”.


After charge, as the noble Lord indicates, the position is different.