50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the right reverend Prelate in congratulating my noble friend on this debate. When he left Uganda at the age of 17, my noble friend swiftly became an inspiring role model for many Ugandan Asians. Half a century later, we look with pride upon what Ugandan Asians have achieved and brought to our country. I join my noble friend in saying how marvellous it is that we now have Her Excellency Nimisha Madhvani serving as Ugandan high commissioner here, having been expelled with her family at the age of 13—my goodness, she has come on marvellously since, and it is a great opportunity to pay tribute to her.

Let me explain why this 50th anniversary means so much to me personally. In 1968, the debate on immigration changed profoundly. First, the Home Secretary Jim Callaghan introduced the Commonwealth Immigrants Act in response to the possible immigration of 200,000 Kenyan Asians who held British passports. That Act sadly set a benchmark for harsh attitudes to non-white immigrants. Secondly, Enoch Powell delivered the most appalling speech on 20 April 1968. As someone brought up in Toxteth, those two events thrust me into campaigning to counter the influence of the Monday Club within my Conservative Party.

When Idi Amin decided to make Ugandan Asians the scapegoat for his own manifest failures and expelled them from their homes, he irreparably damaged his own nation’s prospects for a generation and more. I was so proud when our Prime Minister Ted Heath took the lead in saying that the UK would be a safe haven, and set up the Uganda Resettlement Board. As Ted wrote in his memoir,

“I was determined … we would … face up to our responsibilities … We did what any civilised nation would do”.


As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has just reminded us, it took less than five minutes for the entire Cabinet, including the future Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, to agree to this courageous, enlightened and honourable policy.

However, not everyone was pleased. Public support for the admission of the Ugandan Asians fell to 6% in one opinion poll in September 1972, and the Monday Club began a reckless and irresponsible Halt Immigration Now! campaign. Matters came to a head at the Conservative Party conference 50 years ago this month. There was on the agenda a motion on immigration tabled by the Hackney South and Shoreditch Conservative Association. It soon became clear that its president, Enoch Powell, intended to move that motion personally and turn it into an attack on the Government for the admission of the Ugandan Asians. Although Powell was in the wilderness so far as the party leadership was concerned, he still had a considerable following, sadly, among the membership.

I had just become leader of the Young Conservatives and persuaded my YC colleagues that I should move an amendment to the Powell motion welcoming the Ugandan Asians. As I said in that vital debate on 12 October 1972, in a speech drafted by a determined and talented team led by Gerry Wade, “I find it completely morally indefensible, to grant a person a British passport and then, when that person is in trouble, to try to pretend it is a worthless document”. After an inspiring speech by the brilliant Home Secretary Robert Carr, alongside Ted Heath on the platform, the conference rejected Powell and accepted the Young Conservatives’ amendment.

I hope noble Lords will therefore understand why this debate is such a vital opportunity for me to pay tribute to Ted Heath and his colleagues for choosing the path of honour at a time of social, political and economic strife—a decision which has resulted, as we have heard from my noble friend and others, in the Ugandan Asian community firmly establishing itself as one of the principal driving forces behind building our successful economy.

Mr Mike Veale

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think there are some excellent examples of PCCs up and down the country, including the noble Lord, Lord Bach—Parliament’s only PCC and a very good one indeed. Should the PCC not perform well at his or her job, they can be removed at the ballot box.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister accept that it is now generally acknowledged that a series of interrelated police operations—Yewtree, Conifer and Midland—were heavy-handed, disproportionate and founded on inappropriate assumptions of guilt? It is evident that there were manifest failings of procedure, governance and natural justice. Perhaps a complaint in this House was that the police were marking their own homework. When will anyone be held to account?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In answer to my noble friend’s first question, I hope I have outlined the process by which remedy can be sought and secured for anybody accused of improper behaviour or misconduct in office. The whole system has changed, in the sense that now a police officer cannot just run, by retiring or resigning from their post, without facing the consequences of their actions.

Mr Mike Veale

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it is a matter for the office of the PCC, and it would not be appropriate to comment further on this matter.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as immediate past chairman of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation. Whatever one’s views of Mr Veale, serious questions have been raised about Operation Conifer from all sides of the House as to whether it was truly impartial, honest or effective. When on earth are we going to get a genuinely independent review of Operation Conifer?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As my noble friend is probably aware, we do not have plans to commission a review of either the conduct of the investigation into the allegations or the findings of the investigation. There have been several levels of scrutiny. Operation Conifer was subject to its own scrutiny channel, which checked and tested the decision-making. There were two reviews by Operation Hydrant in September 2016 and May 2017, which concluded that the investigation was proportionate, legitimate and in accordance with national guidance. A further review in January 2017 and the IOPC have also considered specific allegations related to the former chief constable, as noble Lords will have heard this morning.

Mike Veale: Police Conduct Report

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 7th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I understand that, having been appointed as the Cleveland chief constable in March 2018, Mr Veale resigned in January 2019 following the allegations that he had behaved inappropriately and acted in a discriminatory manner.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I want to ask my noble, and now right honourable, friend one simple question: will anyone ever be held to account for Operation Conifer? As my noble friend pointed out, it was a grotesque witch hunt against Sir Edward Heath—a public servant of the highest integrity—conducted by someone who is now deemed by the IOPC to have a case to answer for gross misconduct, with a legal hearing pending against him. Will anyone ever be held to account?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, Operation Conifer has been subjected to extensive scrutiny by its own independent scrutiny panel, two reviews by Operation Hydrant, in September 2016 and September 2017, and a review in January 2017 by HMICFRS. We have talked about the Independent Office for Police Conduct; it has also considered specific allegations relating to the former chief constable.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think noble Lords would agree that we have seen good improvement in the IOPC’s performance in the last couple of years. We are still keen to see further improvements and greater transparency, so back in February 2020 the Government introduced reforms to the IOPC to streamline its decision-making further and increase its effectiveness. There is absolutely no doubt that there is so much more to do to improve trust in the police complaints system and to raise awareness of the IOPC’s role.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Does my noble friend the Minister agree with me that questions of transparency and accountability in relation to the conduct of the police have never felt more keenly vital to our well-being as a society? In the light of all the information now available—and going back to the Question originally asked by my noble friend Lord Lexden—is it not disgraceful that the completely discredited Operation Conifer has still not been examined by a fully independent inquiry? Surely no one can have any confidence, in this or any day and age, in the police simply marking their own homework.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I most certainly agree with my noble friend that trust in the police has never been more fragile than it is at the moment. Operation Conifer underwent several rounds of scrutiny, but there is further to go. Today’s report certainly means that the police have a way to go before they regain the public’s trust.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

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

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who signed both Amendments 46 and 54, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, about no recourse to public funds. The question has been clearly set out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, added a great deal to this debate, which has been very rich thus far.

I must admit to a certain sense of déjà vu, in that we have had much the same cast as in debates on the Domestic Abuse Act, discussing much the same issues around the absolute horror of no recourse to public funds. We are talking about a particular group of people in that situation now, but I state loudly and clearly: no one who is here as part of UK society should have no recourse to public funds. That is inhumane, unjust and damaging to our society for some of the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, just set out.

It is interesting that it is almost two years since Boris Johnson claimed not to know that this status existed—that he did not know that there was such a thing as no recourse to public funds. At that time, he promised to review the policy, but I understand that there has been no overall review of no recourse to public funds, although I would be very pleased if the Minister could tell me that I am wrong about that.

But I want to add one point, which goes back to the group that we discussed before the dinner break. The Minister tried to clearly draw a line between differentiation and discrimination. I think that no recourse to public funds is very clear cut and obvious: you either have access to money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, if you are in work and need extra support to survive and feed yourself, or you do not. How can it be anything but discrimination if you do not have access to that money, despite being in exactly the same situation as the person beside you, doing the same job?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will respond to my noble friend Lady Stroud’s request to know the policy intent. Declaring my interests as set out in the register, as noble Lords may know, I have a lot of interest in what happens in our neighbouring country of France. I have been following the debates there reasonably closely over the last few weeks. In recent months, we have received more than our fair share of criticism from our French friends, who say that our asylum system is so much easier to navigate because there are so many pull factors—I recall my noble friend talking about these in her speech at Second Reading. This means that, in effect, we are a more attractive country to apply for asylum in than France, and this generates a huge amount of criticism.

My question to my noble friend the Minister is: when you look at no recourse to public funds, is that not one of the pull factors that is causing so much of this problem? I think that Clause 11 is designed to reduce those very pull factors that the French suggest are in fact causing the problem, so those of us who are for open borders should try to work this out. I always have been for open borders; I rejoice that we probably have one of the finest global multiracial societies in the world. Sadly, we do not appear to be proud of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows, I was brought up in Toxteth and went to school in Penny Lane. I love Toxteth and I am so proud of the community there, which he will know very well, because it is a viable, strong, multiracial society.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord is giving way to me, and I am grateful to him. He is right: I know those communities well; I represented them, as he knows, for very many years. The question I put to the noble Lord—because I am surprised at the case that he, of all people, is putting forward—is: will he remind the House precisely how much someone has in their hand when they have recourse to public funds? What is it that they are supposed to survive upon? How much money do they actually have? If it is such an attractive pull factor, as he has described, surely we should be reminded how much money someone is expected to live on.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

It is the principle that I am seeking to deal with. The noble Lord is quite right to ask the question, and perhaps my noble friend the Minister can do some comparisons, but there is no doubt that our colleagues in France feel that one of the key perceived pull factors causing people to get involved in these very dangerous crossings is this subject of no recourse to public funds. That is the only question I am raising. We are being heavily criticised by our French colleagues for allowing ourselves to encourage pull factors to grow and escalate, and that is causing the problem to be much more serious than it was.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My recollection of the French criticism is that they were criticising the ability of asylum seekers to work in the black economy—not the ability to be idle and live off the taxpayer. I imagine that any welfare possibilities in the UK would be less than in France. What they are criticising is the relative unregulated state of our employment market. Some of that criticism is valid; some is not, but we are all sometimes worried by illegal employment. That is what the French were talking about.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

When I look into the detail of the criticism, it is much wider than the noble Baroness is suggesting. Part of it must be NRPF—I am not saying it is the whole problem—and I just wish that we would address—

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I will just finish dealing with the point raised by the noble Baroness. We must ourselves try to identify what these pull factors are that cause people to risk their lives in the way that they do. It may well be that both the noble Baroness and I are right to identify certain parts of the pull factors, but of course we have to recognise that there are those pull factors.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

Given that the Government’s position is that they are right about the refugee convention; given that they disagree with the UNHCR but have their own interpretation under which they are honouring the refugee convention; and given that the Government’s position is that it is about parliamentary sovereignty and not the sovereignty of people elsewhere, why should we be forming our interpretation of the refugee convention on the basis of French criticism? If we are worried about pull factors, perhaps we should reinstall “Go Home” vans and a hostile environment for people seeking asylum.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My noble friend said that it would be good to identify what some of these pull factors actually are. At Second Reading, I sought to try to outline what I believed the pull factors were, and they are not things that we would want to destroy or diminish at all. My understanding of the pull factors—why people want to come to this country—is that they include our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty. These are the sorts of reasons why people want to come here. The small, pitiful amount of money that somebody gets to survive on is not something, when they are leaving Eritrea and thinking of the hellish journey that they are going to take, that is going to make them want to come here. It is much more likely that they experience push factors, which are war, famine and devastating impacts on their lives. We really need to understand the lives that are lived by these men and women who risk all to come here. We know that every system has elements that get exploited, but we have to make laws for the majority of people and the majority of cases, and to be the sort of nation that we actually want to be.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Well, I agree with every word that my noble friend has just said. What I am seeking to persuade colleagues to focus on is that surely the objective—the policy intent to which she referred—is to focus our efforts on helping people via safe and legal routes. If we can deter people from coming here in small boats and by other illegal means, we can instead focus our efforts on those people who are genuinely in need. Okay, if we are not prepared to countenance NRPF, what is our answer to reducing deterrent factors—or do noble Lords simply think that this is not an issue? If that is the case, what do we say to the French, who really do strongly believe that it is a problem?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

The noble Lord talked about focusing on people genuinely in need and compared them with people coming by irregular routes, such as across the channel. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that more than 70% of people coming across the channel have been granted refugee status, therefore they clearly are in genuine need?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am not disagreeing with the noble Baroness; I am just trying to get us to focus on what the Government are now putting forward as a policy intent, which is to reduce pull factors, push factors or whatever we call them. Surely, our whole objective in all this must be to help those who are really in need and to encourage them to come by safe and legal routes. That is surely what Clause 11 is all about.

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the objective should be to encourage people to come by legal and safe routes. However, I think that what we have at the moment is a situation whereby people are coming across in small boats because there is no other way for them to come. We have to accept the fact that the small amount of money is not the pull factor that is bringing them across. We should really consider whether we would put ourselves at risk for that small amount of money coming across the channel.

What other ways are there of doing this? My noble friend the Minister gave this House a good challenge at Second Reading when she said that all she was hearing were problems and asked: where are the solutions? At that time, one of the solutions I put on the table was a negotiated settlement with the French post the French election. Most of us would agree that, prior to the French election, we are unlikely to get a negotiated settlement, but are we really saying that, post the French election, there might not be a possible breakthrough? The diplomatic route is one that I would still be seeking to use. We as a House must be putting creative solutions on the table.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

If it is so much more generous here, why, in 2020, did the French have roughly 150,000 asylum claims while we had 30,000?

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

As with all questions affecting our colleagues in France, it is very difficult to answer that.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, what evidence are the French basing this view on? The academic evidence that I am aware of, and certainly the evidence that the JCHR draws attention to, does not support the view that public funds, or welfare more widely, somehow acts as a pull factor. The pull factors were set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud —family commitments, language and so on—and the evidence shows that the push factors are much more important. I would be very interested to know what evidence the French base this on because it may well be just reading our newspapers, which is probably not very good evidence.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Would the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, please ask the French?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I may have misunderstood the thrust of what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government, but it came over to me that the reason why we have no recourse to public funds is to disincentivise dangerous journeys—that is, people will know that there is no recourse to public funds, and if they know that it may make stop them making those journeys.

If that is the case, why cannot the Government tell us the circumstances in which no recourse to public funds will apply? Their response has been, in effect: “Someone will draw up guidelines later on, but we do not know at the moment what they will say or the circumstances in which there would be no recourse to public funds.” In that situation, it just is not credible to say that something where the Government do not know how it will be applied would act as a disincentive on dangerous journeys.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

It removes the guarantee.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

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

There he was citing the well-known formulation of Hannah Arendt. Deprivation of citizenship is such a far-reaching and draconian power that it must be accompanied by proper procedural safeguards. Clause 9 goes in precisely the opposite direction, removing the most basic safeguard—it is really just at the Home Secretary’s discretion even to tell the individual that their citizenship is lost to them. I agree that, in some circumstances or contexts, or for some reasons, this may be necessary and notice cannot be given to an individual. We can all, I suppose, imagine situations in which that might have to occur. But to permit the Home Secretary to take this drastic course, simply on the basis of a determination by them that this is in the public interest, is a procedural safeguard so weak as to be completely insupportable.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we have benefited from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, because he has reminded us that, although we have heard some very moving speeches going a little wide of the mark, Clause 9 is all about how you notify the unnotifiable.

I will go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and declare the interests that I have in the register. We as a House have to decide what we do about the criminals who wish to do us serious and long-lasting harm in the context of this. Perhaps it is too wide-ranging, but it is a necessary bid to try to ensure that, where we have people who wish to do us harm, they are somehow prevented from our giving them, under existing legislation, the ability to do so.

I have very carefully read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the key question that we now have to turn our minds to is whether we wish to empower the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice. In many ways, this debate should be all about that because, speaking I suppose as a practising solicitor, I cannot find Clause 9 as a change in the policy of deprivation of citizenship—the change proposed is all about notification. So Clause 9 does not allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship on a whim, it is not targeted at particular ethnic minorities and it does not change the reasons why a person might be deprived of their British citizenship. Clause 9 does not remove the right to appeal a decision to deprive. I cannot see that law-abiding British citizens have anything to fear from Clause 9.

We are charged by the court in the following terms. Lady Justice Whipple said this in the ruling delivered yesterday:

“There may be good policy reasons for empowering the”


Home Secretary

“to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice, but such a step is not lawful under this legislation. If the government wishes to empower the Secretary of State in that way, it must persuade Parliament to amend the primary legislation. That is what it is currently seeking to do under the Nationality and Borders Bill”.

She concluded, which brings us back to where we are now, that

“it is for Parliament to decide,”

This has been a valuable debate, but I think we have strayed too far from the key question: how do you notify the unnotifiable?

There are evil people. I am probably one of many Members of this House who has received letter bombs and death threats. When I was in the Cabinet, I had death threats from three separate organisations. Fortunately, the Post Office intercepted the letter bombs. There are people who wish to kill us, to injure us and to destroy the fabric of our society, and we must try to focus on how we are to stop that happening.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, I did not speak on Second Reading, but I am delighted to have been here today to have heard the speeches from noble Lords, and what an interesting debate it has been. I have learned a good deal, and I am indebted to the Bingham Centre, whose publications I now read avidly to inform myself about legislation that comes before this House.

I am rather pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because I was persuaded of the problems with Clause 9 by one of the paragraphs in the analysis from the Bingham Centre:

“Clause 9 departs from the requirements of the Rule of Law by allowing a British citizen to be deprived of their citizenship without even being warned about it, or told the grounds for it. There is zero judicial or parliamentary oversight of the dispensation of notice, and the grounds can be as insubstantial as the mere administrative inconvenience that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice.”


If that is what is intended by the legislation before us, there is definitely a chilling effect, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in the suggestion that this is how we should operate. I do not do demur from the argument that there will be difficulties at some point, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but these are very wide powers and they have, as the Bingham Centre says, no judicial or parliamentary oversight at the point at which they would be invoked. Giving these powers to the Home Secretary—any Home Secretary—is unacceptable. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, they would be divisive and would, in my view, not accord with the values of fairness, of justice or of equality before the law.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, there were quite a few questions there but, as I said in my first Answer, the Home Secretary has announced that she is bringing forward the periodic review of the IOPC. The Home Affairs Select Committee has taken evidence for its inquiry into police complaints and discipline and into the IOPC’s role and remit in general. As part of this, the committee questioned relevant parties, including the IOPC, regarding Operation Midland and its subsequent investigation. We understand, as my noble friend knows, that Lady Brittan has submitted evidence to this, but the overall point is that the IOPC is an independent body from the Government.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Is my noble friend the Minister aware that my experience with Operation Conifer, as the then chair of the Sir Edward Heath Charitable Foundation, persuaded me that the IOPC is not fit for purpose? Far from it—in effect, it allows the police to carry on marking their own homework, reinforcing a flawed process grievously lacking in genuine accountability. Is it not now time for radical reform?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I know that my noble friend has ongoing concerns about the handling of Operation Conifer by Wiltshire Police and the mechanisms for scrutiny of it, including by the IOPC or the IPCC, as it was at the time. The governance structures of the organisation were reformed back in 2018 to streamline decision-making and increase accountability, and we think that it has made good progress since then. The Government introduced further reforms to the IOPC in February last year, including giving it new powers to investigate matters on its own initiative.