Police National Database: Facial Images

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is a presumption of deletion in certain categories—certainly for the under-18s, for those not convicted, as the noble Lord said, and for people who have been convicted of a non-recordable offence. These can all request that their images be deleted, but there are exceptions which I think are reasonable—if there is a substantive reason to believe that someone is linked to terrorism, if they are dangerous or if they are linked to organised crime. Otherwise, there is now an arrangement whereby people can request deletion.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am surprised that there are so few photographic records available to the police. I should have thought that there was a good case for all passport photographs to be available to the police. Does my noble friend agree that given a conflict between fighting serious crime, particularly terrorism, and privacy, the British people would almost certainly regard the former as having priority?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend talks about privacy. If everybody was required to put their passport photographs towards a national database there might be a real issue with privacy. What the Government are trying to do, and my noble friend alluded to it, is to have images on record of people previously convicted of a crime. The custody image review is attempting to get rid of the facial images of those who are not convicted—and I include myself in that. If you have a passport but have not been convicted, I am not sure what benefit your photograph could be to the police national database.

Terrorist Attack: Response

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 23rd February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a vital point. In any disaster that I can think of, whether flooding, a terrorist attack or anything else, it is through everyone working together, and that mutual assistance from agencies working together, that we get the best outcomes for our citizens in such awful situations. The noble Baroness is absolutely right.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, as we are talking about terrorism, may I take this opportunity to ask the Government when they expect to stop allowing themselves to be blackmailed by terrorists and their advisers into paying out large sums in order to protect our security services?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think my noble friend knows he is completely off the scope of the Question. I cannot talk about specific incidents because of course they are matters of national security.

Passport Applications: Digitisation

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government have rejected the idea of an identity card, but noble Lords will notice that when they go through passport gates now their face is compared with the photograph on the passport. The machines that do the face recognition, which is a form of biometrics, are very accurate indeed.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, is it not a fact that a photograph is merely a rather unsophisticated form of biometrics and that the only safe way of doing this is for the biometrics of any individual to be held centrally? When a person seeks to be identified, the person trying to identify them can, online, compare the biometrics of the person in front of them with those held centrally. That means that you cannot use a fake card or anything else. You need not an identity card but a number, with the biometrics attached centrally to that number.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are a number of biometrics through which a person can be compared—it could be a photograph or fingerprints. The biometrics that we use on the British passport are very robust.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Report: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marlesford]

182: After Clause 152, insert the following new Clause—
“Anonymity before charge
(1) Section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer before charge) is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (10) insert—“(11) Where a person is accused of an offence but has not yet been charged, or has been released without charge (with or without bail), no matter likely to lead members of the public to identify them as the person who has been arrested for an offence shall be published or otherwise disclosed in England and Wales, except where subsection (12) applies.(12) This subsection applies where a magistrates’ court is satisfied that it is in the public interest to publish or disclose information of the kind described in subsection (11), and the court makes an order to that effect.””

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 182 on anonymity before charge, I refer to an earlier amendment which I moved in Committee on 2 November. It proposed substituting “lack of evidence” for “insufficient evidence” when police communicate a decision not to charge. Eight noble Lords spoke in support and I have now had the Minister’s letter of 1 December saying that the Government agree to replace the phrase “insufficient evidence” with revised wording which will be incorporated in fresh guidance, to take effect by next spring. However I am afraid that their suggestion of the words,

“the case failed to reach the evidential test”,

does not quite hit the spot. Frankly, “no case to answer”, would be better but that is probably a discussion for another day.

I am glad that the Government listened to the Committee. I am grateful to the Minister for using her influence on the Home Office. I hope she will do so again, after this debate. The matter is really very simple. There have, particularly in recent years, been a number of instances when the police have released the names of suspects or publicly identified them at a very early stage in their investigations into allegations and complaints, particularly of sexual impropriety. A most notorious example was on 14 August 2014 when the Yorkshire police arranged for the BBC to film and broadcast their entry into the house of the pop star Sir Cliff Richard. Sir Cliff must have gone through hell before it was eventually accepted that he had no case to answer.

There are many other examples. We may remember the wholly inappropriate way in which, on 3 August 2015, a superintendent of the Wiltshire police posed for television cameras in front of Sir Edward Heath’s final residence in Salisbury, encouraging people to claim that the former Prime Minister had misbehaved with children. The superintendent was launching an investigation on which the Wiltshire police have now spent over £700,000 of taxpayers’ money, with the chief constable of Wiltshire apparently determined to continue his fishing expedition indefinitely.

The method of fishing adopted by Wiltshire police seems to vary between the utterly naive and the patently absurd. I have been told by a former member of the Downing Street staff that they were contacted by one of the investigating officers, who asked, first, whether they had noticed any untoward incidents at any time in the behaviour of the then Prime Minister and secondly, whether they had noticed any young men slipping in and out of No. 10 Downing Street. Surely the Wiltshire police and crime commissioner has a role in pointing out the opportunity-cost of this farce and guiding the chief constable on priorities in the use of limited police resources.

In Committee a number of noble Lords raised this issue of the police being free to name suspects and the Minister is on record as saying that,

“it is absolutely right and proper for the police to have operational independence in deciding whether to name a suspect”.—[Official Report, 16/11/16; col. 1466.]

My response to that is simple. Searching a house is an operational matter, on which the police must make a judgment. However, to search a house they have to obtain a magistrate’s warrant before they do so. Indeed, the centuries-old requirement for a search warrant forms part of the fundamental protection of our liberties, under both statute and convention, which has its roots in Magna Carta.

The impact of modern social media means that naming suspects is a powerful weapon; indeed, sometimes even a lethal one. I am not saying that it is never sensible for suspects to be named, sometimes even at a very early stage in an investigation. In sexual cases, or cases of fraud, for example, it may be necessary for there to be publicity that will encourage other victims of the alleged offenders to come forward. Indeed, the media have always had an important role in exposing allegations in the pursuit of justice. However, the media have to follow court directions restricting reporting—and they do so.

Hitherto it has been left to the police to make a judgment on whether to name a suspect. However, it has now been shown that all too often the police cannot be relied on to make the right judgment. In their recent decisions on naming suspects they have aroused much public resentment and indignation. This has resulted not only in often irreparable damage to the reputation of innocent persons but undermined confidence in, and therefore support for, the police.

History teaches us the need for vigilance in the defence of liberty. In September 1793, at the height of the reign of terror during the French Revolution, the so-called Committee of Public Safety passed the Law of Suspects, which meant that suspects, once named, could be put under the guillotine without any trial. This continued until July 1794, when Robespierre himself was guillotined. We are a million miles from that. But the road is the same and we must not take a single step along it. It is to halt and, indeed, remedy an unacceptable situation that I am advocating the urgent need for a check on the exercise of unsupervised police powers to publish the names of suspects. That is why in Amendment 182 I propose that the police should be required to obtain a magistrates’ warrant before publishing the name of a suspect who has not been charged. I realise that my amendment as drafted may not be the full answer, but I am anxious that the Government should address what has become a serious problem. I look forward to hearing the views of other noble Lords and, of course, of the Minister. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, we have Amendment 187 in this group but, before I address that amendment, I would like to speak briefly to Amendment 182. In Committee, some noble Lords asked why sexual offences should be a special case when it comes to pre-charge anonymity. Amendment 182 addresses that question by including all offences. However, there are three reasons why we cannot support this amendment. As I will set out shortly, not only do we believe that sexual offences are a special case, but the law acknowledges that they are a special case in which the normal principles of free speech and open justice are restricted. We believe that these are important principles that should be restricted only in those cases where there are specific reasons for doing so. In sexual offences cases alone, the identity of the complainant or victim is protected. For similar reasons, we believe that the identity of the accused should be protected up until the point of charge.

Secondly, in Committee, we also heard compelling reasons why the accused should be able to lift the ban on publicising his identity, if he wishes. The accused may wish to complain at the injustice of his case or appeal for alibi witnesses to come forward, for example. Amendment 182, as drafted, would not allow that.

The third reason is that we do not believe the magistrates’ court is the right place for such a decision to be made. We believe that such an important decision should be considered by a judge of a higher court.

Amendment 187 is substantially different from the amendment we moved in Committee in a number of respects. First, it is as close as possible to the wording of the legislation that currently protects complainants or victims in sexual offences cases. Secondly, it allows the accused to lift pre-charge anonymity at any stage if he wishes to do so. Thirdly, as well as specifying the minimum rank of police officer who can make an application, and the Crown Court as the appropriate court for hearing an initial application from the police for the ban to be lifted, it would specifically require the judge to have particular regard to the possibility that further witnesses might volunteer evidence relating to sexual offences committed by the accused. We believe that such cases will be rare and such applications will be exceptional, as I will explain.

We had a long debate on this issue in Committee, and I do not want to make my case again as it is a matter of record. However, I want to address the remarks made by other noble Lords in that debate, having had an opportunity to reflect on what they said. I will address head on, and at an early stage, the shocking picture that is emerging of allegations of historic child abuse at football clubs. Most of the initial allegations that attracted so much publicity, and gave rise to the unprecedented number of further allegations being made across the length and breadth of the country, involved the former football coach Barry Bennell. Bennell was convicted of sexual abuse offences in the United States in 1994, and convicted of further sexual offences in the United Kingdom in 1998, and again in 2015, for which he served terms of imprisonment. These are not cases where pre-charge anonymity would have had any adverse effect. Indeed, I suggest that these cases point to a change in culture where victims of sexual abuse are more willing to come forward. Therefore, they undermine to some extent an argument against pre-charge anonymity on the grounds that victims need to be given confidence to name people who have been accused but not yet charged.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made this point in Committee—that publicity can lead others to come forward with supporting evidence that helps to make the case against a person who is rightly accused. But what if somebody is not rightly accused? What if somebody like Nick comes forward and makes highly damaging and groundless allegations against individuals? Is it right that these allegations and the identity of the accused are put into the public domain? How do we safeguard against others coming forward with similarly damaging and groundless allegations, particularly when the details of the allegations are made public? There is a view that the law on similar fact evidence has gone too far and that this can result in convictions based on multiple uncorroborated allegations, all of which could be false. I am not legally qualified to comment, but surely a balance needs to be struck between shoring up uncorroborated allegations by trawling for others and protecting the reputation of the accused.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, there are two differences between my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The first is that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggests that a judge should arbitrate on the question of anonymity. The second is that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, restricts his anonymity to sexual offences of various sorts. I give way at once on the question of who should deal with the anonymity. It is probably too complicated and difficult to be done by a magistrate and the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern about warrants probably not being justified in two of the cases we mentioned is a good one. On that I would certainly be ready to change my amendment.

On the question of whether it should apply widely or merely narrowly to sexual offences, I will give three examples of why it should apply widely. First, I was struck by the recommendation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, on the benefit of it being wider. Secondly, my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern was attracted by that. So, too, were my noble friend Lord Hailsham and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. I will just give three examples of why that should be the case.

My noble friend Lord Lamont mentioned the case of Mr Jefferies of Bristol, whose whole life was traduced and ruined. It was nothing to do with sex; it was to do with a case of murder. If ever there was an example of somebody who should not have been named in the way that he was, it would be him. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, mentioned care homes. Abuse in care homes, even in children’s homes, can be of a non-sexual nature. It can be malicious or psychopathic. There have been many cases also of accusations of abuse of the elderly in care homes. So I do not see the justification for saying that anonymity—whether or not we have it—should be confined only to sexual offences. If there is to be anonymity, it should be for all offences—but clearly the procedures and rules are inadequate at present and should be modified and considered.

I am afraid that I would not regard the College of Policing as the obvious candidate to rewrite this book. I would have much preferred something more serious. But I would be happy to withdraw my amendment on the basis that the Minister will come back with something rather more substantial on the need for reform—something not to be put forward in detail but to be expressed as an intention at Third Reading. I would not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, merely because I think it is quite wrong to limit it to only sexual affairs. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 182 withdrawn.

National Identity Cards

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we do have common systems of identification: 84% of people in this country have a passport and 60% have a driving licence. As the noble Lord said, many European countries have identity cards, but we have not seen any evidence that they offer any greater protection than we have in this country.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that we are quite right not to have identity cards for the very reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that all those documents are forgeable? Surely what is needed is a unique number for every citizen—because if a state does not know who its citizens are for national security, good governance and everything else, it is not in business. If there were a single number to which biometrics could be attached, it would be a big advance. We do not need the actual card.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that my noble friend is saying the same thing as me but in a different way. In this country we have passports and driving licences. As I said, there is no evidence that identity cards have improved security in the European countries that have them.

Policing and Crime Bill

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 2nd November 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Marlesford]

181: After Clause 53, insert the following new Clause—
“Lack of evidence to charge
In section 37 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer before charge), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) If a person is—(a) released without being charged under subsection (2), or(b) informed, after being questioned under caution, that no further action will be taken against the person,the custody officer shall, as soon as is reasonably practicable, write to the person to inform him that he has been released, or that no further action has been taken against him, on the grounds that there is a lack of evidence to charge him.(6B) In the letter referred to in subsection (6A), and any other written record of the decision to release the person without charge under subsection (2) or to take no further action against the person, the custody officer must use the words “lack of evidence” to describe the grounds on which the decision to release the person, or to take no further action against the person, was taken.””

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 181 seeks to right, or at least to mitigate, what I see as a wrong. In recent months, we have on many days heard, read or seen reports of individuals being investigated for crimes, particularly sex crimes. There is huge publicity, especially when one of those persons is already a public figure, which must be agony for those concerned.

Sometimes the investigation leads to prosecution and conviction, and then any sympathy one might have had is likely to evaporate or at least diminish. But sometimes it leads to an announcement by the police that there will be no prosecution, and that may be after many months. The phrase used to explain the decision is “insufficient evidence”. That is a most tendentious phrase. It implies “no smoke without fire” and is rather similar to the old Scottish “not proven” verdict.

The decision to investigate allegations must always be made by the police, but sometimes investigations come to nothing. There can then be a long period, perhaps a very long period, of waiting, and then there is the announcement of “insufficient evidence”. The essence of our system of justice is that criminal cases are tried on the facts, with a jury, with a verdict either of guilty or not guilty. That is how it should be. It is not a matter of mere semantics to object to the phrase which I have quoted. That is why I seek to change the wording in circumstances where the decision is made that there is not the evidence to prosecute from “insufficient evidence” to the much more neutral phrase “lack of evidence”. I beg to move.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

My Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Marlesford has said. He has identified something that has gone seriously wrong in recent years. The phrase “insufficient evidence” suggests the existence of some evidence. In some instances that will, of course, be right, but in other cases it will not be right—for example, in recent cases which will, doubtless, be in your Lordships’ minds. My noble friend has put forward a phrase which ought to be acceptable to the Government, but if it is not—and I am no wordsmith—perhaps I might suggest some alternatives. It would be proper to say, for example, “wrong to commence criminal proceedings” or “criminal proceedings are not justified”. Other phrases may occur to your Lordships.

What we must not do is to allow the police to come forward with a reason which implies the existence of a fire unsupported by sufficient smoke. That is not a fair state of affairs. My noble friend on the Front Bench may say that this is not a matter for statute. If the Committee is of that view, then advice could be given by ACPO to its members, but I think my noble friend has identified a real point which I hope your Lordships will support, by argument and debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Amendment 181, tabled by my noble friend Lord Marlesford would require a custody officer to do two things once a decision has been made that no further action is to be taken against a suspect because the test for mounting a prosecution, set out in the Code for Crown Prosecutors, has not been met. First, the custody officer would need to notify the person in writing that no further action is to be taken. Secondly, the written notice must use the phrase “lack of evidence” to describe the reasoning behind the decision.

The Government agree with my noble friend that written notification should be given in all cases. We consulted on this in late 2014 and Clauses 65 and 66 would require a written notification to be given to any person arrested on suspicion of a criminal offence, where the police or Crown Prosecution Service subsequently decide not to charge. This applies whether or not the person is on bail following the reforms set out in Part 4 of the Bill. My noble friend’s amendment would go one stage further and require the written notification of no further action in those cases where a person is interviewed under caution on suspicion of an offence but not arrested. We know from anecdotal evidence that, since the amendment of PACE Code G in 2012, more cases are being dealt with by the police without arresting the suspect, which may have created a gap in police practice that my noble friend’s amendment identifies. In order to give this issue appropriate consideration, I would like to take it away and consider it further before Report.

The second limb of my noble friend’s amendment would require that the written notice and any other record used the phrase “lack of evidence”, rather than the customary “insufficient evidence” used at present. It may assist the Committee if I remind noble Lords of the evidential test required by the Code for Crown Prosecutors. Paragraph 4.4 of the code states:

“Prosecutors must be satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction against each suspect on each charge. They must consider what the defence case may be, and how it is likely to affect the prospects of conviction. A case which does not pass the evidential stage must not proceed, no matter how serious or sensitive it may be”.

The absence of “sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction” could easily be characterised as a “lack of evidence” or as the presence of “insufficient evidence”. We could debate for some time the precise difference between the two phrases, which must be very small.

Noble Lords have said that there has been some comment in the media, in the light of recent high-profile cases, that the dropping of cases due to “insufficient evidence” could leave an outside observer thinking that there must have been something there. This reflects the reality of policing: that there has to be sufficient evidence to justify an arrest—that is, reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed. However, the investigative process in such cases will often end up with insufficient evidence, or, to use my noble friend’s phrase, a “lack of evidence”, that could still mean there was some evidence, but not sufficient to charge.

The Code for Crown Prosecutors is issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions under Section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985. The current version, dating from January 2013, is the seventh edition of the code, and every version since 1986 has stated essentially the same requirement for,

“sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of conviction”.

I say to my noble friend and other noble Lords that “insufficient evidence” seems to reflect the wording of the code test rather better and that it is the opinion of the Crown Prosecution Service that the current phrasing has been used for more than 30 years and works well in practice.

While I recognise that the amendment would not change the test itself, to change the way that decisions made under the code are communicated, even to the small degree proposed by my noble friend, could create confusion, as there would be a tendency to ask which test should now be applied and whether it means the same thing. It could also invite doubt in the minds of prosecutors, judges, defence lawyers and others as to the reliability of decisions made against different tests.

I also point out to noble Lords that there are two tests in the Code for Crown Prosecutors that must be met before charges are brought. It is perfectly possible for there to be sufficient evidence to meet the first test, but for it none the less to be contrary to the public interest to charge, for example, where a case is to be disposed of out of court by way of a conditional caution.

While Clauses 65 and 66 set a requirement to notify a suspect that they will not be charged, that notice would need to be given in both scenarios; that is, where there was insufficient evidence and where the evidence was sufficient but charges were not in the public interest. However, under my noble friend’s amendment, a suspect would need to be told in all cases that they were not being charged due to a lack of evidence, even though there must be sufficient evidence to charge to get to the point of considering the public interest test.

I can say to my noble friend that the Government are sympathetic to his aim of giving greater certainty to those who are investigated but against whom charges are not brought. We are minded to achieve this by non-statutory means so that prosecutors retain the necessary flexibility in cases where a decision is taken on public interest grounds.

On the issue of written notification of a decision not to charge, the Government consider that Clauses 65 and 66 already require such notification in all cases where an arrest has taken place. However, I would like to give further consideration to the issue of those interviewed under caution without being arrested. I hope that my noble friend will recognise that the precise wording of that notification is an issue best dealt with by non-statutory means and that, having heard my statement, he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Marlesford]

My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed with knowledge and experience far greater than mine. I was very gratified that there was so much support for what I had to say. I thank the Minister for what she said. She has gone a long way to accepting what I intend. I am happy to leave it to her to come back to us and tell us exactly what it is proposed to do.

The rather Socratic justification which she gave for the terminology is okay in esoteric circles, but we are concerned with what the people as a whole see, and we are back to the old cliché that justice must be seen to be done. When she says that the difference between my phrase and “insufficient evidence” is very small, I remind her that it was said that at one moment Christendom was divided by an iota.

Having said all that, I am most grateful to my noble friend for her sympathetic approach to what I have said, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 181 withdrawn.

National Identity Cards

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

My Lords, the Government’s focus is on enhancing the security of existing documents while at the same time recognising the direction of travel towards digital identities that may reduce the reliance on physical documents. Some 84% of UK citizens in this country hold a UK passport, the vast majority of which are biometric. Those who have immigration status in this country hold a biometric resident’s permit. It is not appropriate to sweep this away in favour of identity cards.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend, given what he has just said about passports, recognise that in order to defend our borders it is essential that immigration officers are fully aware of who people are, and that other nationality passports held by a British passport holder should be revealed when the British passport is scanned? At the moment that is not the case. The Home Office has constantly resisted my attempts to get this introduced, largely because it does not like other people’s ideas. Will he kindly see that something is done? Otherwise the Government will be failing in a big way in their responsibility to defend our sovereignty and borders.

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The Home Office is always open to new ideas.

EU Action Plan Against Migrant Smuggling (EUC Report)

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, we read every day that immigration has become the central issue in the referendum, and perhaps it will determine the outcome of the vote. This is hardly surprising because it is probably the biggest and most urgent challenge to the West. I think that the British people have little confidence that anybody has a grip on it, and the two reports that we are debating indicate that they are right to feel that way.

Of course, the problem is huge. Conflict has displaced 12.5 million people in Syria alone. The present situation in Greece, Italy, France and probably Germany, which now has a backlog of 460,000 asylum cases, is already unsustainable. The UNHCR expects a further 1.2 million in 2017. The migration challenge is an issue that EU policymakers, which means the EU Commission, have failed to meet.

First, the EU did not recognise that it is a global challenge and not primarily a European one. Command and control should be in the hands of the UN, as the noble Lord, Lord Soley, has indicated.

Secondly, the EU has failed to make, let alone implement, practical but crucial distinctions between asylum seekers, refugees and economic migrants. Nor has it produced reliable methods of identifying Islamist jihadists who have been infiltrating the present crisis.

Thirdly, the EU Commission has been focusing on the symptoms: the people smugglers who have caused so many deaths with unscrupulous methods by both land and sea. As we now know from my noble friend Lord Tugendhat’s report, although the EU’s Operation Sophia has, wonderfully, been saving 1,000 lives a day, it has failed to reduce illegal migration or deter the criminals who facilitate it. In practice, it has, from the start, merely offered a safe passage to destination for those in peril on the sea. Therefore, it is, in itself, a huge incentive to take the risks. Indeed, for the coming summer surge of migrants across the English Channel, it would probably be cheaper and more humane to issue them with Eurostar train tickets if, when intercepted, they cannot be returned directly to the country from which they set sail.

Fourthly, the EU Commission has laid down for each Schengen state unenforceable and unenforced quotas for the number of immigrants to be received. These quotas have, quite predictably, been ignored.

Fifthly, the Turkish deal is collapsing. In part, that is because the Turks are demanding visa-free entry into Europe, which EU Governments will not grant; added to which they have also been given the prospect of EU membership. However, both sides on the referendum campaign have made it absolutely clear that that will not happen for decades, and the Turks rightly recognise it to be a bogus offer. Also, from last week, the repatriation of migrants to Turkey is being challenged in the European Court of Justice on multiple human rights grounds, ironically by two Pakistanis being held on the Greek island of Lesbos. This strikes at the heart of the legal architecture of the Turkish deal.

In place of conscience-salving tokenism, surely it is better to face up to the horrors of reality. There has always been pressure for economic migration, but it is now magnified a thousand times by the spread of knowledge of world conditions through social media and by the current military conflicts. In practice, economic migrants will not be deterred until the standard of living in the countries to which they wish to move is only marginally higher than what they have at home. This is not a social issue: it is simply the operation of market forces. It can be controlled only through economic assessment by the recipient Governments of the numbers they need. Ultimately, that is a national political judgment—it is certainly not one for the EU Commission to make.

Last week, the EU Commission proposed a €62 billion investment fund, mainly for Africa, as an inducement to co-operate in curbing migration. I am afraid that in most African countries, a lot of that will end up in the bank accounts of the “big man” and his cronies. I am not sure that that is a clever use of EU funds.

I hope very much that the migration partnership framework, which the EU Commission announced one week ago, and which I gather could include a UN-led global resettlement scheme, may mean that it is at last moving towards what I proposed in this House a year ago. I return, therefore, for the third time, to my proposal for a holding area, probably in Libya, to which migrants would be transferred. Libya is huge—it is three times the size of France, and with only 6 million people, it is sparsely populated. It is in a state of chaos with an expanding ISIS presence, for which the international community bears quite a bit of responsibility, and where military intervention, probably by the West, will soon become necessary.

I have no time to repeat all the details, except to say that it envisages using solar power for desalination of the sea, thus making the desert bloom, and the use of NATO forces in blue helmets under UN mandate to establish, administer, protect and guard the holding area to which all migrants can be taken. There they would be sustained, cared for and processed, with some going where they want, and others returning home, with perhaps the eventual establishment of a permanent population in a new state, which I have called Refugia.

Migration: Middle East and North Africa

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Keen of Elie]

The example that the noble Lord gives is in fact an example of push factors—if I might respectfully suggest. Clearly, they do exist in that part of the world. We are, of course, prioritising the issue of addressing these problems at source. That is where our most material efforts are being made and that is where we can prevent the terrible development of the criminal enterprise, which is not only moving families and children across the Mediterranean but then, according to recent reports, trafficking these vulnerable victims further.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, whether we like it or not, it will not be possible to allow all those who wish to migrate to Europe from north Africa, the Middle East and indeed sub-Saharan Africa to do so without a dilution of the standard of living of the residents of Europe that would prove politically unacceptable? Will the Government therefore consider further my proposal of 9 July last year for the establishment of a holding area mandated by the United Nations, somewhere in north Africa—I suggested Libya—which could eventually become a new state of Refugia?

[Lord Keen of Elie]

It is recognised that our good will is boundless but our resources are finite.

Brussels Terrorist Attacks

Lord Marlesford Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bates]

The noble Viscount is right to refer to the Border Force. I can speak only for the people whom I meet, who have the highest professionalism and resolve. It has changed over the past few years. The National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 referred to that, saying that there was a case for better intelligence-led security. That is where we need to strengthen up—on the connections between the National Crime Agency and between the police and Special Branch and the security agencies. Receiving that signal and human intelligence is also very important. We cannot hope to have border posts in every cove and field across the country, as the noble Viscount suggested. Therefore, we have to rely on intelligence and on partnership with the communities as well.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Government are tightening up passport control and are seizing and cancelling British passports under royal prerogative when appropriate. But does the Minister remember that last week in a Written Answer he said to me:

“Records are not held centrally of persons holding both a UK passport and foreign passport”.?

Surely it is now urgent that Border Force officials should be able to scan a British passport and know what other passports that person may hold. Otherwise, they may be able to skip out of the country. Recently, somebody actually on bail for a terrorist offence did exactly that.

[Lord Bates]

Of course, that is also one of the reasons why we have in the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act the ability to seize passports, which are the property not of the individual but of the state that issues them. So we can seize those passports. We need more information on identity. On the point that the noble Lord makes about having two passports, we have changed the passport form to make sure that people can declare when that is the case. We have in place exit checks. All that is working in the general direction in which the noble Lord wants us to go.