British Nationality Act 1981 (Immigration Rules Appendix EU) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I again thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. As she explained, the draft British Nationality Act 1981 (Immigration Rules Appendix EU) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 seek to prevent children born after 30 June 2021 failing to acquire British citizenship as a result of their parents not having EU settled status at the time of their birth. As my noble friend has just said, it covers only late applications made or resolved at the end of the grace period on 30 June 2021. Although it is welcome, it raises a series of issues. British citizenship is granted on the date when settled status is granted.

I commend my noble friend Lady Ludford on her excellent questions to the Minister. As a consequence, I can be brief. First, can the Minister explain why British citizenship is not being backdated to the date of birth? If the parent was entitled to remain in the UK indefinitely when the baby was born, albeit that by reason of late processing or late application settled status was not granted until after the end of the grace period, surely the baby is entitled to British citizenship from birth. Secondly, how can a child born in the UK to a parent entitled to remain in the UK indefinitely be denied British citizenship because its parent did not fill in the right forms? The resonance with the Windrush generation, as my noble friend has just alluded to, is deafening.

Surely if the Government can amend the British Nationality Act 1981 by means of this statutory instrument to deal with a baby born in the UK to parents who do not at the time of birth have formal legal indefinite leave to remain but are subsequently granted EU settled status, they could amend the Act so that a baby born in the UK in such circumstances could be granted British citizenship from birth. The point I am trying to make is this: a differentiation is being made on the basis of an administrative process—the application for and granting of EU settled status—rather than on the right of the parent to remain in the UK as a result of living and working in the UK before 31 December 2020, for example. I understand that the Government’s position may be that EU citizens who do not apply for settled status before the end of the grace period without a reasonable excuse are not legally entitled to indefinite leave to remain, but that is a restriction that the Government have put in place.

In the case of the Windrush generation, the Government have quite rightly accepted that those who have lived and worked in this country for decades but who were undocumented because they did not apply for British citizenship or a UK passport were treated wrongly, and they are compensating—too slowly, and inadequately—those who were wronged. The Government have accepted that these people were entitled to indefinite leave to remain, despite the fact that they did not apply for proof of their entitlement. Why are the Government repeating the same mistake with EU citizens?

I am sure that this statutory instrument is meant to be a positive step, but for me it raises more fundamental questions. It demonstrates clearly what the Government can do if they so wish—and what they wish to do is to penalise EU citizens in a similar way to which they penalised those from the Windrush generation, not because they do not have every right to indefinite leave to remain in the UK but because they did not apply for it. We support this SI as far as it goes, but it does not go far enough.

Immigration Rules: Statements of Changes

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 27th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is not often that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, but to the following extent I do. The changes to the Immigration Rules contained in these statements are, as many other noble Lords have said, complex and bewildering. The Home Secretary heralds such changes as simplifying immigration law, but that is akin to simplifying pi by rounding it to the first 500 decimal places. It is only the most glaring changes that stand out, unless you are an immigration lawyer. How can Parliament hold the Government to account in such circumstances, when the changes have already come into effect and the other place has not even debated them yet? I am talking about more than just scale and complexity. As the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, the Home Office has the ability to make substantial changes through these statements.

Many of us were outraged that the Government, in their New Plan for Immigration, sought to treat genuine asylum seekers who have a legal right to claim asylum in the UK less favourably, just because they arrived in the UK by irregular routes. However, in these changes to the Immigration Rules, the Government have gone further, so that the Home Office does not even have to consider whether there is any merit in the claim, if the refugee has travelled to the UK through any so-called “safe” third country—unless, after six months of desperately trying to deport the refugee, it has failed to do so.

Previously, under EU Dublin III, if a refugee had claimed asylum in another EU country, their application could be ruled inadmissible and they could be returned to the country where they made their first claim. Under these new rules, an asylum claim can be ruled inadmissible just because the refugee travelled via a so-called “safe” third country, whether or not they have previously claimed asylum, and whether or not any of the countries through which they have travelled is willing to take them back. In fact, the rules allow the UK to send a refugee to any “safe” country in the world that is willing to take them, even a country the refugee has never been to and has no connection with.

Can the Minister confirm that, for six months, the substantive claim for asylum will not even be considered in such cases? The noble Lord, Lord Frost, has confirmed that the European Commission is not allowing bilateral agreements between the UK and EU member states, so all this means is that genuine refugees who arrived in the UK via irregular routes will be kept in the UK at taxpayers’ expense for an additional six months before their application is even considered.

The explanatory notes say:

“A stronger approach to disincentivise individuals is needed to deter claimants leaving safe third countries such as EU Member States, from making unnecessary and dangerous journeys”.


I have heard first hand from young asylum seekers who have made it to the UK, and their testimony is clear that places such as Italy and France are not safe, particularly for young unaccompanied refugees. Also, refugees are often English speaking, some with family already in the UK.

As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, there are no longer any “safe and legal” routes for refugees to take. The few routes that were open to some of them involved having to be identified by the UNHCR while they were in refugee camps, then often waiting for two years or more, undergoing numerous interviews, before finally being accepted. For many it is too dangerous to wait in such circumstances, so they make their own way.

Many of these refugees have endured years of suffering in their own country. Some have been tortured. They have faced dangerous journeys, extending over many months and hundreds of miles. Do the Government seriously think an extra six-month wait, albeit in inadequate Army barracks in the UK, will deter them? As a result, in the past six months, over 1,500 applications have been placed on hold and, despite a 24% drop in applications over the last 12 months, more than 50,000 have now been waiting over six months for their asylum applications to be determined—an increase of 71% on the year before.

There are also important questions arising out of these changes to the Immigration Rules concerning EU citizens in the UK who are awaiting the outcome of their settled status applications or who have applied late. But this totally inadequate means of holding the Government to account—with six-minute speech limits—means I cannot even raise these important questions on the Floor of the House. The whole process, and what the Government are trying to do around immigration, is a disgrace.

Net Migration

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, one of the things we discussed in previous debates was employers in this country not seeking to use cheap migrant labour but to rely on our domestic labour supply. We want a fair system for asylum seekers with safe, legal routes.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Home Secretary has made a lot of strengthening our approach to criminality and implementing powers to refuse entry to arrivals convicted of certain criminal offences. How can this be when EU citizens are still allowed to enter the UK without a visa and the UK has lost real-time access to the EU criminal records database? How does Border Force know whether a passenger crossing the UK border has a criminal record?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, from 1 July it will be incumbent upon people who enter this country to do so through a legal route, and the immigration system will be operating from then. It is right that we provide inadmissibility for people who do not come through those safe and legal routes.

Daniel Morgan: Independent Panel Report

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 25th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, when the Metropolitan police service refused to allow the Independent Police Complaints Commission to visit the scene of the police shooting of the innocent Brazilian Jean Charles de Menezes in 2005, I went to the then Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and told him it was the most stupid decision I had ever heard of in policing, because it would give credence to people who were expecting a cover-up. The second most stupid decision must be that of the Home Secretary to block the publication of a report into an alleged establishment cover-up over the investigation of the murder of Daniel Morgan. Does the Minister not see the parallels?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not see how there can have been a cover-up, if the Home Secretary has not yet received the report. We need to be very careful about the series of events that are required for publication to take place. I am sure that, like the noble Lord, we all look forward to the report being published in Parliament.

Right-to-Work Checks for UK Nationals

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 18th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The answer is actually quite clear: we need to check the security of what might go forward. We are undertaking a review of the value of using specialist technology, including identity document validation, in supporting the system of digital right-to-work checks to include UK and Irish citizens, as they are not in scope of the Home Office online checking services.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, not only are the Government insisting on in-person physical right-to-work checks but some parents say they are being asked by schools to produce passports to prove their child’s right to education as a result of the UK’s departure from the European Union. Can the Minister confirm whether the Home Office is requiring schools to do this and, if so, on what legal basis? If it is not, will the Minister take urgent steps to stop this practice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Well, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for a heads-up this morning, and it is important to say to him that Brexit has not changed the rights of foreign nationals to access schools. State schools do not have a role in policing the immigration system. Independent schools, with sponsor licences, do have an explicit duty to have documents proving the right to stay in the UK. I do not know the details of the noble Lord’s case, but I would be most grateful to have some further detail, and perhaps we can discuss it further.

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cash Searches: Code of Practice) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these statutory instruments. My noble friend Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted has raised important issues relating to the operation of the legislation more broadly, but as far as these SIs are concerned, the first relates to the code of practice covering cash searches under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which needed to be revised as a result of the powers extended by Section 22 of the Criminal Finances Act 2017. Although these new powers were brought into effect in Great Britain shortly after Royal Assent, as the noble Baroness explained, the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly in February 2017, until its reconstitution in January 2020, prevented the Home Office seeking the approval of the Northern Ireland Assembly to commence the relevant provisions of the 2017 Act in Northern Ireland. The Home Office has now secured that approval, hence this and the other four SIs.

Although this SI and the others being debated simply bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and there is a good reason why this was not possible before, there is one aspect of this first SI on which I seek further information from the Minister. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the codes of practice require

“an officer who is contemplating using the powers to consider the impact on the community in their use, balanced against the public interest and the benefit … the powers would add to the case.”

For me, who has no knowledge or experience of Northern Ireland, that still has particular resonance for Northern Ireland. Could the Minister explain further what the impact might be of the use of these powers in the light of the circumstances in Northern Ireland? Is there a potential for the use of these powers to be particular sensitive against the background of the Province? The noble Lord, Lord Dodds of Duncairn, mentioned that there was a protocol between, I think, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the National Crime Agency. Is this further evidence of such sensitivity? The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, wondered whether there was a diversity impact assessment and a human rights assessment, again suggesting that there might be particular issues in Northern Ireland that are not as relevant to the rest of the United Kingdom.

The second SI relates to revised codes of practice relating to the investigative powers of prosecutors to cover unexplained wealth orders, interim freezing orders, disclosure orders, extending the powers of members of staff of the Serious Fraud Office, detained property and frozen funds investigations. These are again the result of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 amending powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. As with the other SIs, other than drafting changes and responses outside the scope of the SIs, there were no responses to the public consultation. In addition, I understand that the Home Office has invited representations from the Attorney-General’s Office, Her Majesty’s Treasury, the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland and the Scottish Government, in accordance with the Proceeds of Crime Act, and each organisation has confirmed that it is content.

The third SI relates to revised codes of practice for investigations concerning the use of general asset recovery investigation powers in Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Proceeds of Crime Act, as amended by the Criminal Finances Act 2017, now that these provisions are being enacted in Northern Ireland. These are codes of practice for officers and other persons exercising their functions under POCA, as opposed to those for prosecutors contained in the second SI.

The fourth SI relates to the need for a revised code of practice in connection with the search, seizure and recovery of certain listed assets, such as precious metals and stones, watches, art works, vouchers and postage stamps, as opposed to the first, which relates to cash, gaming vouchers, fixed-value casino tokens and betting slips.

The fifth SI relates to a revised codes of practice in connection with the search, seizure and detention of property, such as cars, jewellery, electric goods and clothing, that is often of high value and can be easily moved, hidden or sold during a confiscation investigation following a criminal conviction. As with all these SIs, the need for the change is the result of the enactment of changes to the Proceeds of Crime Act made by the Criminal Finance Act 2017 that were delayed in Northern Ireland as a result of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly. As a result, with the exception of the community impact concerns, we are content with the orders.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have to get used to Grand Committee not being able to unmute me and having to do it myself, unlike in the Chamber. However, we shall go now.

I thank the Minister for introducing this order, which brings three benzodiazepines under part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act, owing to their potential harm and prevalence in the UK. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, quite rightly highlighted the issues associated with similar drugs that are legally overprescribed. As the noble Baroness mentioned, these drugs are related to Rohypnol, the so-called date rape drug, and to Xanax and Valium—well-known anti-anxiety drugs that are highly addictive, or, as the Minister called it, resulting in high dependency. In addition to their potential use to sedate victims by perpetrators of sexual offences, they are respiratory suppressants that can lead to the shutting down of the respiratory system and death, particularly if taken in conjunction with alcohol or similar drugs.

Of course, we on these Benches take a harm-reduction approach to the misuse of drugs, and the fact that one of these drugs has resulted in 12 deaths in the UK is of concern. Can the Minister give any more details of the circumstances of these deaths? Were they people with mental health issues who were self-medicating? Were they people who had taken these drugs in combination with other drugs or alcohol recreationally? Or were they drugged by others?

I ask these questions as there are concerns that the lack of mental health services for those suffering from anxiety and the extended waiting times for people to receive treatment, together with the stigma of suffering from poor mental health, may be driving people to seek substances such as these as a means of immediate relief from their symptoms, without seeking professional medical help. Pushing people into seeking drugs where there is little or no quality control and where the amount of active ingredient contained in each pill can vary enormously can lead to accidental overdose, with disastrous consequences.

Can the Minister point to any research that demonstrates the efficacy of moving psychoactive substances such as these from being covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 into being included as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971? How less likely are people to take these drugs as a result of this sort of order? Does the Minister not agree that, as far as most young people in particular are concerned, it makes little difference whether a drug is illegal under the Psychoactive Substances Act or the Misuse of Drugs Act, and that even the classification of the drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act has little impact on the attitudes of those who misuse drugs towards different substances?

Is it not time for an overhaul of the whole approach to the misuse of drugs, adopting a health-based, harm reduction approach based on educating people, particularly the young, as to the effects and dangers of different drugs, rather than an emphasis of police and other criminal justice system resources on criminalising the misuse of drugs that often have only a minimal effect? Diverting resources away from the so-called war on drugs and into effective mental health provision to reduce reliance on drugs, into drug treatment for those addicted, and into education on the effects and dangers of drugs misuse would be a far more effective way of dealing with the issues that this order is intended to deal with.

Is this order no more than rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic that is the drugs-misuse crisis in the UK? The Government’s failure to have any lasting impact on the supply side of the illegal drugs market surely suggests that the focus should now shift to the demand side, reducing the demand for controlled drugs through adequate mental health provision, education and treatment of addiction. We do not oppose the order, we just ask: what evidence is there that it will be of any benefit?

Domestic Abuse Bill

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall respond to the Minister and the Government’s amendment on the safe reporting of crimes by domestic abuse victims who have uncertain immigration status. I am very grateful to our Ministers for their sympathetic handling of this Bill and for the incredibly helpful meetings that we have had with all of them in previous weeks, and to the Government for tabling the compromise amendment. Of course, it does not achieve the reassurance that we sought with our original amendment, but it paves a way forward that could help these most vulnerable of women.

I welcome the fact that the report on the government review of this issue will be laid before Parliament and that this is put in statute by the Government’s amendment. That is definitely a step forward. I hope that the Minister can assure the House that the review will seek to identify the depth of fear of many of the victims of concern here. That is important—about half do not report crimes because they are too frightened, in particular in situations of modern slavery, for example. A concern in the field is that the six-month possible extension for the publication of the review could be used by the Government to prevent anyone making progress in the meantime. Three months would be greatly preferable. Does the Minister have any comment on that? Do they really need six months to complete this? If it means that they will do a more thorough job, I suppose we must be grateful.

Turning to the code of practice, I am concerned about subsection (1) of the proposed new clause, which says that the Secretary of State

“may issue a code of practice”

rather than that they “shall” issue such a code. Again, I am grateful to the Minister for emphasising in his remarks that the Government have a clear intention to issue such a code. It would also be helpful if he could indicate in his closing comments a timeline for the code of practice and confirm its purpose—again, this is an important point—to provide protection from the immigration system for vulnerable victims of domestic abuse whose immigration status is uncertain.

The amendment makes it clear that the domestic abuse commissioner, the Information Commissioner and

“such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”

must be consulted in relation to this code of practice. I put on record the importance of consulting survivors and specialist organisations such as the Step Up Migrant Women campaign, which, incidentally, apart from doing a huge amount of work to support these women, has been a pillar of strength in the background, behind these debates in this House. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that those survivors and organisations will be consulted. With the hope that the Minister can provide some assurance on these points, I will not oppose the Government’s Motion.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the essence of this Motion is to ensure that victims of domestic abuse, whoever they are, are not afraid to come forward to report the matter to the police without fear of being reported to immigration enforcement. No review or code of practice will reassure them without an undertaking that enforcement action will not be taken. The Government know this, and I therefore conclude that they place more importance on immigration enforcement than on protecting the victims of domestic abuse—a disgraceful position for the Government to take. We will not allow this matter to rest here, even though we are unable to take it further today.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has received strong support from the Opposition Benches throughout the progress of this important Bill, and that support is not diminished at this final stage. We will continue to press the Government on this very serious issue, to make sure victims can feel safe coming forward to report abuse. It has been a pleasure to learn from her and work with her on this amendment. The noble Baroness’s amendment provided for the circumstances where victims’ data cannot be shared for immigration purposes if they come forward to report abuse. She is content to agree the important concessions that she has obtained from the Government on her amendment and, to that end, it just leaves me to thank her and all noble Lords who have spoken so eloquently and with passion throughout the passage of the Bill.

In the other place yesterday, the shadow Minister spoke movingly about her own experiences and reiterated her thanks for some movement by the Government on this amendment. But I echo her remarks of concern by asking the Minister if we can ensure that there are buy-in services for the very victims we are talking about, that they are consulted throughout the process, and that the whole point of the code is explicitly there to ensure that data can be shared only to enable victims to receive protection and safety. We now have mention of a victims’ code, so what happens when there is a breach of the code? We need clarity; we seek to have things written into primary legislation so that there is no doubt when barriers are crossed.

I eagerly await the translation into law of this landmark legislation. I thank my Opposition Front Bench colleagues and the staff team who have so ably guided me through my first major Bill in this House; what a maiden Bill it has been to have contributed to. My thanks go to the Minister and others who have listened and acted upon amendments to make better laws alongside our charities, support organisations and, indeed, the brave survivors whose lived experiences and testimonies have spoken out loudly and clearly throughout the course of the Bill: stand up to domestic abuse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who moved the successful amendment on migrant women and recourse to public funds during the first stage of ping-pong in this House on the Domestic Abuse Bill last Wednesday, regrets that she cannot be here in person today. I pay tribute to the work that she has done—and will, I am sure, continue to do—on this issue. On her behalf, I have been asked to say the following, which also reflects my feelings:

“I would urge the Government to consider all victims of domestic abuse as victims first. It is therefore regrettable that recourse to public funds has not been made available to a small but extremely vulnerable group of migrant victims. That said, at this stage, we accept that it has not been possible to add this to the Bill. We hope that when the pilot scheme comes to an end, careful note will be taken of the results. The organisations providing support and hope to these migrant victims must be consulted, and we would do well to listen well to their experience.”

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate for championing this issue.

Again, I will boil this down to its essence. The refusal of the Government to offer equal protection to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, which is the effect of their rejection of the Lords amendment, is a clear breach of the Istanbul convention. As I said when we considered these matters last time, this Government cannot claim that this is a landmark Bill when they continue to treat those with irregular immigration status less favourably. These are some of the most vulnerable victims of domestic abuse.

We are unable to take this matter further today, but the Government cannot avoid ratifying the Istanbul convention much longer without serious reputational damage.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and pay tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for her work on this Bill. I hope I have made it clear throughout the passage of the Bill, including in my introductory remarks today, that people—women mostly—who are victims of domestic abuse should get the support that they need when they need it.

On the Istanbul convention, as set out in our latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of it, published last October, the position on whether or not we are compliant with Article 43 of the convention, to the extent that it relates to non-discrimination on the grounds of migrant or refugee status, and with Article 59 relating to resident status, is under review, pending the findings of the evaluation of the support for migrant victims scheme. We will consider compliance with Article 59 in parallel with Article 43. As such, it also depends on the outcome of the support for migrant victims scheme. Far from not being compliant, we are working towards that compliance. I hope that noble Lords are content with what I have set out today and in previous stages of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

A Member in the Chamber has indicated his wish to speak. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I should be sitting on a Back Bench, but there is no space on our Back Benches. Noble Lords might perhaps just assume that I am speaking from the Back Benches.

I have not spoken on this issue before but, as a former senior police officer, I feel that I should say a few words. I agree with the Minister that this is largely a failure of implementation rather than of legislation, but the movers of these amendments have had to resort to legislation due to frustration with the lack of progress in improving the situation. This could potentially be the result of a lack of resources, or, as my noble friend Lady Brinton said, there is a need for a change of culture—something to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, also alluded. It is very welcome that the Government are looking to refresh and strengthen the MAPPA statutory guidance. I recommend that, if at all possible, they consult with Laura Richards; I was going to say that she is an acknowledged expert, but she is the expert in this area.

One question I have for the Minister that causes me some concern relates to her remarks about stalking “within a domestic abuse context”. Stalking needs to be addressed both within and without the domestic abuse context. Can she please reassure us on that point?

[The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)]

Does anyone else in the Chamber wish to speak? No? Then I call the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this order, but I confess to being somewhat confused. Before I get on to that, I pay tribute the work that our security services and police do to keep us safe in the face of a substantial threat.

On 27 February 2020, the Government brought forward a similar order, proscribing the white supremacist group Sonnenkrieg Division—Sonnenkrieg means “sun war” in German—or SKD. My confusion is because SKD is apparently the British branch of Atomwaffen Division—Atomwaffen means “nuclear weapons” in German—which is based in the southern United States and is heavily influenced by extremist Islamist ideology in that it encourages neo-Nazis to kill and die for the cause. As I said almost 14 months ago in this House, the overlap between extremist Islamists, who advocate the violent overthrow of democracy and liberal values, and neo-Nazis is worrying. One of Atomwaffen Division’s followers apparently sees ISIL as preferable to multi- culturalism and liberal values.

As the Minister said, it recruits young people and has been active on university campuses in the United States. Some members of the British SKD convicted of terrorism offences were teenagers. Will the Minister explain why the Government are only now proscribing an organisation—Atomwaffen Division—that even Wikipedia says is also known as National Socialist Order, whose British branch was proscribed 14 months ago?

In the Explanatory Memorandum, the Government say that an instrument such as this

“which imposes duties that are significantly more onerous than before should not usually be brought into force earlier than 21 days after it is made … However, any significant delay between the laying and coming into force of the Order would alert the organisation to its impending proscription and may result in pre-emptive action by the organisation’s members designed to circumvent the provisions of TACT and/or the criminal law.”

Can the Minister explain, given that the British branch of Atomwaffen Division was proscribed 14 months ago, and that the National Socialist Order is named in Wikipedia as an alias, why it would come as a surprise to anybody that the parent organisation is now being proscribed? The only surprise is that the parent organisation, the British branch of which was proscribed 14 months ago, is only now being proscribed.

I accept that one of the factors considered by the Secretary of State is the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK, but another is the need to support international partners in the fight against terrorism. Surely, the United States of America is one of those partners. Bearing in mind that Atomwaffen Division is based in the southern United States, why was it not proscribed at the same time as the British branch of the same organisation, the Sonnenkrieg Division, 14 months ago? Indeed, the Explanatory Memorandum says:

“The Home Secretary believes that AWD is almost certainly now operating under the name NSO in the United States”


in the same way as Atomwaffen Division was operating in United States between 2015 and 2020. Yet it is only now that Atomwaffen Division is being proscribed—more than a year since it claimed to have disbanded following pressure from US law enforcement.

Of course, we support this order, but we also have serious questions as to why it has taken so long to proscribe Atomwaffen Division and its alias, National Socialist Order.

Undercover Policing Inquiry

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very pertinent point because, of course, some of the inquiry goes back to 1968, so timeliness is very important. As members of the sponsor department of a statutory inquiry, both the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary have sponsorship responsibilities that are set out in the inquiries management statement. I have personally engaged with the chair in my capacity as sponsor to discuss the progress of the inquiry and stress the importance of learning lessons promptly.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, given that the Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Act was recently passed by this House with Labour and Conservative support—giving the police the ability to give CHIS participating in protests immunity from prosecution, with no specific prohibition on CHIS acting as agents provocateur—what reassurance can the Minister give to the House that police CHIS were not involved in recent protests against the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

HMICFRS published a report just last month on policing protests. It concluded that there was no use of undercover officers in protest policing, which appears proportionate to the nature of criminality inherent in protests generally. It makes only brief reference to the ongoing undercover police inquiry.