Windrush Generation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 28th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the non-affiliated Bench.

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Minister said that the majority of the recommendations from the lessons learned review had been implemented. Why was the Windrush working group disbanded before all the recommendations had been implemented?

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 29th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am afraid to tell my noble friend that I have not looked at the details of the child rights impact assessment. My noble friend the Minister will deal with that, but I am sure that what my noble friend Lady Berridge said will be considered.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister give an undertaking that, if we have discussed all the child issues by the time we get the relevant document from the Home Office, these matters can be brought back at Third Reading, once we have the relevant information?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have this morning pledged to the House to ensure that the impact assessment is with the House early next week—I hope by Monday.

Slavery and Human Trafficking (Definition of Victim) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 20th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining these regulations. It is probably totally out of order but, if I may, can I commend her for demonstrating selfless integrity by her intervention at the weekend?

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for tabling this regret amendment, which we support. We agree with him, the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and organisations such as CARE—Christian Action, Research and Education—that there should have been formal consultation before the Government came up with the definitions of victim of modern slavery and victim of human trafficking. Without consultation with the anti-trafficking sector, any definition used to determine whether someone is a victim of modern slavery is likely to wrongly exclude victims from the support and protections to which they are entitled.

It was clear from the debates that we had in this House that the whole impetus of the Nationality and Borders Act was to reduce abuse of the national referral mechanism, and it is likely that these definitions are consistent with the Government’s approach in that Act. In fact, when we debated the legislation, my assessment was that all the provisions of Part 5 were about making it more difficult to be recognised as a victim of modern slavery and tightening the restrictions on the support available. In particular, as the noble and learned Baroness has just said, the change to

“significantly impair the person’s ability to protect themselves from being subjected to slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour”,

compared with the language in the Modern Slavery Act, which states

“which may make the person more vulnerable”,

appears to be a significant restricting of the definition.

I pay tribute to the honourable Jess Phillips MP for her passionate and detailed critique of these regulations when this draft statutory instrument was considered in Committee in the other place, based on her own experience as a first responder in the NRM process and her subsequent casework as an MP. Many other organisations agree with her that the definitions raise the threshold for identification; set a definition of exploitation that is far too narrow; are not in alignment with international law; do not distinguish between adult and child victims; do not explicitly include criminal exploitation; do not feature “practices similar to slavery”, as detailed within ECAT; and overemphasise arranging or facilitating travel.

Yet again, the Government have taken the cavalier approach of saying they can interpret something—in this case, the European convention against trafficking, ECAT—in whatever way they think fit, when even the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee concludes that the definitions in the SI make the situation even more unclear, the exact opposite of what the Government claim to be doing. I agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, about the enormous progress made by the Modern Slavery Act, significantly improved by this House, but these regulations and the Nationality and Borders Act row back from that progress.

In conclusion, this statutory instrument appears to narrow the definition of who can be recognised as a victim of modern slavery or trafficking and to create confusion rather than clarity, both of which could have been remedied through a formal consultation process, which was not undertaken. We support this regret amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, both for their contributions and for their continued engagement on what is clearly a very important topic for us all. I join the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in paying tribute to the right honourable Theresa May for all that she did on modern slavery. I think that, ultimately, we all have the same goal: to ensure that victims of modern slavery are identified and supported.

Before I turn to some specific points raised, I highlight again that in drafting these regulations, our focus has been on achieving alignment with the definitions currently used operationally and set out in the existing statutory guidance for England and Wales and the equivalent non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland. I was most grateful to be able to speak to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, earlier. One thing that noble Lords quite often do, particularly during the passage of legislation, is request of me that they can see draft regulations before they are brought forward to the House. It is something that was not requested on this occasion, but I would say that, generally, where they are available, I am always happy to share them with noble Lords.

As for some of the other engagement processes that we have undertaken, during the engagement our approach to align the definition with ECAT and the Palermo Protocol was welcomed. We have ensured that this advice is reflected in the draft regulations, which align with ECAT and existing definitions set out in statutory guidance and allow for identification of victims of currently unknown forms of human trafficking or slavery. There has also been a thorough engagement process within the Home Office and with partners such as the police and other first responders, to which noble Lords referred, particularly the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, to thoroughly identify potential risks and ensure that no unintended consequences or impacts arise from the regulations. The cost and time considerations of running a full public consultation following the new plan for immigration consultation therefore outweighed the potential benefits, given the opportunities to engage on the issues relating to the regulations, but I think we can all agree that there is something to be learned from this process.

Noble Lords also mentioned the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The committee expressed one concern: that the powers conferred by what was then Clause 68(1) gave Ministers unlimited discretion to define the terms, rather than setting out in the Bill that they should reflect the provisions of Article 4 of ECAT and Article 4 of ECHR, as intended.

We have ensured that the definitions reflect those international provisions in their drafting, and the committee did not raise any other concerns that the regulations would not receive sufficient scrutiny. However, we recognise the evolving nature of these types of exploitation, and the Government can commit to keeping the terms of the regulations under review in the light of operational experience in the Home Office. The Nationality and Borders Act will also be subject to post-legislative scrutiny three to five years after Royal Assent. These regulations can be considered in that review.

The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Paddick, talked about the definition of “exploitation” being too narrow and said that the drafting fails to consider the specific circumstances of child victims. It is very important that a range of factors are taken into account when considering whether an individual is a victim of slavery. It does not diminish the consideration of age at all. This way of drafting means that the list is inexhaustive and allows decision-makers to bring in various other conditions or factors relating to the individual’s circumstances, including of course their age. The regulations are compliant with ECAT and we make it clear that they allow for different types of exploitation which emerge over time.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, posited that the definitions are limited and do not include practices similar to trafficking, including debt bondage, forced marriage and certain forms of exploitation, including criminal exploitation. As I have said, the definitions as drafted in the regulations provide scope for various forms of human trafficking and slavery to be identified that are not explicitly defined. This is set out in statutory guidance. For example, criminal exploitation is covered by the definition of either human trafficking or slavery, depending on the precise nature of that exploitation, and will remain as currently defined in the statutory guidance. Regulation 3(6)(d), which includes force, threats or deception to induce the provision of services, would cover child soldiers, given the low threshold at which a child would be deemed to have been forced, threatened or deceived, and exploiting children for illicit activities. In the current statutory guidance, debt bondage is set out as a situational and environmental indicator of modern slavery and will remain as such.

Similarly, the current guidance on adoptions and forced marriage will remain the same. For forced marriage, for instance, this is set out in paragraph 2.65 of the statutory guidance. The Government’s position on illegal adoption is covered in the statutory guidance at paragraphs 2.61 to 2.64. While there are restrictions on arranging adoptions, as set out in Sections 92 and 93 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, whether this will constitute forced or compulsory labour depends on circumstances. The position will remain the same. More broadly, slavery includes many of these practices. Debt bondage, which the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to, and forced marriage mean exercising control over someone in a way that significantly restricts their liberty. The guide is Article 4 of the ECHR, in relation to which slavery is interpreted in the regulations by virtue of Regulation 1(3).

Noble Lords have also raised concerns about the compatibility between these regulations and ECAT. I stress that the definitions set out in the regulations are compliant, as I have just said, with our international obligations, including ECAT, and align with existing operational practices. They will ensure that potential victims are identified and that those involved in identifying victims have very clear parameters on which to rely. They are compliant because, put simply, the activities and forms of exploitation mentioned in ECAT are covered by the draft regulations. Following the approach of ECAT, we have intentionally avoided including reference to all specific forms in recognition, again, of the evolving nature of trafficking and slavery, and so as not to exclude victims of currently unknown forms of exploitation.

Information Commissioner’s Office Report

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 11th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That point about “If you don’t comply” is absolutely the opposite of what the Home Office, the police and the CPS’s approach will be. The aim is to encourage victims through a very clear process on whether to hand over digital information. Our aim is to have that processed within 24 hours, because it is not right that someone feels compelled to hand over their phone or feels that the prosecution will not go accordingly if they fail to do so.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, yet again it appears that the law, and the rules set by the police and the CPS restricting access to rape victims’ sensitive personal information, are not making a practical difference. Is this not a reflection of a culture in the police, the CPS and the courts that does not treat women fairly? What will the Government do to address this?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I cannot disagree with the noble Lord that the rape review and the things we are doing for victims now are long overdue, and that there has been a culture along the chain of letting women down. Indeed, we should be making sure, and we are, that both referrals and prosecutions go forward.

Police Act 1996 (Amendment and Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 5th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is interesting to see how many people are in the House following the previous debate; I followed it with great interest. Before I start this debate, I just want to say that this will be my 1,000th contribution in your Lordships’ House.

Through these regulations, we are proposing to change the name of the Hampshire police area to “Hampshire and Isle of Wight”. This will better reflect the make-up of the police area and the communities it serves across both counties of Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. I thank Donna Jones, the police and crime commissioner for Hampshire, for her representations on this important local matter.

There is significant local support for this amendment, with 82% of local residents stating their support in a consultation carried out by the PCC. The standout reason cited was the simple fact that Hampshire Constabulary serves two counties: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Respondents also noted that those on the island sometimes feel forgotten, and there was a feeling that a more inclusive name would help to address that.

The approval by Parliament of these regulations will therefore respond to the specific requests of the people of the Isle of Wight, recognising their strong sense of identity. It will also better reflect Hampshire Constabulary’s full geographical coverage and bring the force into line with the corresponding fire service, which rebranded as Hampshire & Isle of Wight Fire & Rescue Service following the recent merger of the island and mainland fire services.

The names of police areas and the power to amend those names are set out in the Police Act 1996. Section 31A of the Act contains provisions that allow for the Secretary of State to amend these names by regulations subject to the draft affirmative procedure. This instrument will amend Schedule 1 to the Act, which sets out the names of all police areas in England and Wales with the exception of the Metropolitan Police District and the City of London police area.

This instrument will also amend Articles 34 and 35 of the Police and Crime Commissioner Elections Order 2012, which make provision in relation to election expenses in police areas. These articles include references to “Hampshire”, which, through these regulations, will be substituted with “Hampshire and Isle of Wight”. This will provide consistency throughout legislative references to the Hampshire police area.

Should this amendment be approved in both Houses, the Government intend to make a further statutory instrument, subject to the negative resolution procedure, to come into force at the same time as these regulations to reflect the name change in other secondary legislation. Together with the strong local support, I hope that I have made a clear case for enacting this important local amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this statutory instrument. I have only one question. When debates around the amalgamation of police forces have occurred previously, in that 43 is considered to be too many, one of the main concerns has been the cost—for example, in the changing of uniforms and the changing of signage on police stations and vehicles. What consideration has been given to those costs that are consequential to the change in the police area’s name? Otherwise, clearly there is considerable local support for this change. We support it, provided that the money is made available and the costs of any change to signage, uniforms and the like do not come at the cost of providing policing services to local people.

Extradition Act 2003

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 29th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend asks a number of questions. On his last, it is not the case that we send people abroad without prima facie evidence; the countries that we do not require prima facie evidence from are EU countries that have signed up to the convention on extradition. Part 2 countries include the US and the Five Eyes trusted partners.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, a review of the United Kingdom’s extradition arrangements, presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September 2011, said:

“We have concluded that the prima facie case requirement should not be re-introduced in relation to category 1 territories.”


Has anything changed since then to make such a conclusion invalid?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

No, it has not. In fact, two reviews were presented, both from your Lordships’ House: the Baker review and the one by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood.

Spousal Visas: Processing Times

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 21st June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Of course, those thorough processes were some of the things that noble Lords were asking us to cut corners on right at the beginning of this process. We have not, and we are proud of the thoroughness of our processes.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister of State for the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and the Home Office told the House on 7 June that there were 19,000 outstanding applications under the Ukrainian visa scheme. Can the Minister update the House on that number? Can she tell the House what the knock-on effect has been in terms of the number of outstanding applications for other visas?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

On the Ukrainian visas, I think there have been 188,000 applications, and I know that 130,000 have now been issued.

Civil Servants: Reduction in Numbers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, there were quite a lot of questions there. I will try and deal with some of them, maybe starting from the noble Lord’s first question about driving licences. There are no delays to the online application process for driving licences. The only delay in the driving licence system is for those with additional medical needs, and I understand that was because the PCS union went on strike and that caused a delay. Almost 99% of passports are being delivered in the timeframe of 10 weeks. I cannot remember the noble Lord’s final question, but I think I have answered most of it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Randerson had to wait three and a half months for the renewal of her driving licence after it had expired, apparently because of her title, which does not appear on her driving licence, so I am not sure that it is true to say there are no delays. The highly regarded former head of the National Crime Agency has said she fears Ministers’ plans to cut civil servant posts could have a “devastating” impact on tackling serious and organised crime, which includes people smugglers, as the Home Secretary confirmed this afternoon. What impact will these cuts have on the ability of the NCA to tackle people smuggling?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Again, there are a number of questions there but regarding the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, I go back to the point I made previously: there are no delays in the production and delivery of driving licences, and passports are being done in 10 weeks. I listened to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, because there has been a lot of noise around reductions in the NCA, and she was absolutely clear that there are no reductions in NCA staffing. Anyone who has been involved in a large organisation, as I have, will know that you prioritise areas which need prioritisation and do not do a blanket cut across the piece.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership with Rwanda

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 15th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement.

The Home Secretary began her Statement by saying:

“The British people have repeatedly voted for controlled immigration”.


This Government have dramatically increased immigration into this country, allowing visa-free entry from even more countries while retaining visa-free entry for those from the European Union. The National Audit Office estimates that between 600,000 and 1.2 million illegal immigrants are in the UK. In 2010, there were more than 10,000 removals of those illegally in the UK; in 2021, it was 113. Why are the Government increasing immigration and reducing removals?

The Home Secretary talked about “intolerable pressure” being placed on public services. In 2019, the Government allowed 680,000 economic migrants and foreign students into the country, while the number claiming asylum in the same year was 41,700. Only 6% of all long-term international migrants in 2019 were asylum seekers. How much pressure are asylum seekers placing on the system compared with other migrants?

The Home Secretary said that she welcomed the decision of domestic courts and blamed the European Court of Human Rights for grounding the flight to Rwanda. Reportedly, 130 asylum seekers were issued with notice of removal to Rwanda and the European Court of Human Rights removed three asylum seekers from the plane. Yet the Home Secretary seeks to blame a European judge in Strasbourg. How many asylum seekers won their cases in domestic courts?

The Home Secretary talked about it costing £5 million a day to house asylum seekers. The Rwandan authorities say that it will cost about the same to house a refugee in Rwanda as it does in the UK. Why are the costs so high? It is because since Priti Patel became Home Secretary, the number awaiting a decision on their asylum application, unable to work and reliant on the state has trebled. What will the cost be for those removed to Rwanda compared with those who stay in the UK?

The Home Secretary said that Rwanda was being terribly misrepresented, that it was in fact a safe and secure country with an outstanding record when it comes to supporting asylum seekers, and that those removed to Rwanda will be given generous support, language training, and help to find jobs and to set up their own businesses. Leaving aside a dozen asylum seekers reportedly having been shot when they protested about conditions in Rwanda, if Rwanda is such a desirable location, how is threatening to remove asylum seekers, and only some asylum seekers, to Rwanda, supposed to deter those crossing the channel?

Some 75% of the people affected by this Government’s policy of deporting asylum seekers, based on those crossing the channel whose claims are processed in the UK, are genuine seekers of sanctuary who have the right to settle in the UK under the UN refugee convention. They are vulnerable and traumatised. They are likely to include victims of modern slavery and victims of torture, who are unlikely to reveal the extent of their trauma on arrival in the UK. They are likely to be further traumatised by being removed to Rwanda. A Rwandan government spokesperson said today on Sky News that Rwanda does not have the facilities to care for these kinds of vulnerable asylum seekers. What will happen to these particularly vulnerable asylum seekers? Will they be returned to the UK and, if so, at what cost, both emotionally to the victims, and to the taxpayer?

The UK must take its fair share of asylum seekers and not export our legal and moral responsibilities to Rwanda. In 2020, the UK had six applications for asylum per 10,000 population, while EU countries on average had 11. In 2002, over 84,000 people claimed asylum in the UK and in 2019 it was less than 36,000. The asylum system is broken because this Government broke it. This immoral, impractical and expensive policy is not the answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments. They will understand, as I said yesterday, that there are certain things which I cannot say because of ongoing legal challenges, one of which is around costs. However, you cannot put a cost on saving someone’s life.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me about the convention on human rights. Earlier today, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary confirmed that the Deputy Prime Minister was looking into a Bill of Rights for this country. The noble Lord talked also about action on criminal gangs. I found this interesting because of some of the resistance I encountered during the passage of the Nationality and Borders Bill to tackling some of those problems. I repeat that when it comes to funding for the NCA, the NCA will have the funds that it needs to tackle some of them, and that upstream work is not an either/or, as might have been debated in the other place, but an “as well as”. We must do both. We must tackle those criminal gangs upstream and do what we can, but we must also deter the illegal crossings.

The noble Lord also asked me about victims of torture and people being taken off flights. If anyone claims they are a victim of torture, they are taken off their flight so that their claim can be assessed.

The noble Lord also asked about Afghans, Ukrainians and Syrians. Since 2015, we have resettled over 20,000 Syrians through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme. We have also been incredibly generous to our Ukrainian friends and through the schemes for Afghans. Afghans really do not need to attempt to cross the channel; they need to apply through the safe and legal routes that we have set up for the Afghan people.

The noble Lord asked about the Permanent Secretary, whose letter to the Home Secretary made it clear that he considers

“that it is regular, proper and feasible”

for the Home Secretary

“to make a judgement to proceed”

with this policy

“in the light of the illegal migration challenge the country is facing.”

It is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary

“as Principal Accounting Officer to ensure that the Department’s use of its resources is appropriate and consistent with the requirements set out in Managing Public Money”.

The reasons for writing are set out clearly in the published letter.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about there being far fewer asylum seekers than migrants. That is absolutely true. We are talking here about controlled migration and people not taking illegal and very risky journeys, across some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

Again, vulnerable asylum seekers are part of an ongoing legal challenge, so I cannot answer the noble Lord on that for the time being.

Asylum Seekers: Removal to Rwanda

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 14th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The courts have now determined twice and there will be a JR process in July. That will be the extent of my comments on the legal process, because it is ongoing.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration says that he has seen no impact of the Rwanda policy on numbers attempting to cross the channel in small boats. One hundred crossed just yesterday. The civil servant in charge of the Home Office says that he has not seen any evidence to show that the plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda will act as a deterrent. Israel tried the same policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda and it failed. When will the Government admit that their Rwanda policy is less about stopping people smugglers transporting people across the channel and has everything to do with the UK abdicating its moral responsibility to give genuine asylum seekers sanctuary in this country and its legal responsibilities under the UN refugee convention?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, we have brought 200,000 people here since 2015. As for the Permanent Secretary’s comments, he made it clear that he considered it “regular, proper and feasible” for the Home Secretary to make a judgment to proceed with this policy

“in the light of the illegal migration challenge the country is facing.”

It is the responsibility of the Permanent Secretary as principal accounting officer to ensure that the department’s use of its resources is appropriate and consistent with the requirements set out in Managing Public Money. The reasons for writing are set out clearly in the published letter.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 (Consequential Provision) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 13th June 2022 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before the House on 11 May. Following the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall—I take this opportunity to remember again the victims of that atrocity—in November 2019, the Home Secretary commissioned the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, to review the Multi Agency Public Protection Arrangements—MAPPA—used to supervise terrorists and terrorism-risk offenders on licence in the community. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, which I shall hereafter refer to as the 2022 Act, established three new powers for counterterrorism policing: a personal search power, a premises search power and an urgent power of arrest. These powers were taken in response to recommendations made by Mr Jonathan Hall QC following his review of MAPPA.

These regulations relate to the new power of personal search, the creation of which was also recommended by the Fishmongers’ Hall Inquests—Prevention of Future Deaths report. The personal search power has been inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 as new Section 43C of that Act by the 2022 Act. The new search power commences later this month on 28 June. As set out by the Government during the passage of the 2022 Act, the new search power will apply across the UK, enabling the police to stop and search terrorist and terrorism-connected offenders released on licence who are required to submit to the search by their licence conditions. The officer conducting the stop and search must be satisfied that it is necessary to exercise the power for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism.

The Government are clear that sensitive powers of stop and search should be subject to the code of practice setting out the basic principles for their use. Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 imposes a requirement on the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of search powers that are conferred by that Act. These regulations amend Section 47AA so that it extends to cover the new search power inserted into the Terrorism Act 2000 by the 2022 Act. Subject to Parliament’s approval, this consequential amendment will create a requirement for the Secretary of State to prepare a revised code of practice that includes guidance on the exercise of the power conferred by new Section 43C.

In anticipation of Section 47AA being amended, I can confirm that we are already in the process of engaging relevant stakeholders and updating the code of practice to reflect new Section 43C stop and search power. We plan to lay an order this summer alongside the draft revised code of practice for Parliament’s consideration and approval. As such, Parliament will have the opportunity to review and debate the revised code and its contents in due course. The regulations being considered today simply relate to the technical and consequential matter of whether to amend Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000 to enable the Government to update the relevant code of practice in the manner that I have outlined. I think it is something the Committee will very much support. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations and I associate myself with her remarks in relation to those affected by the Fishmongers’ Hall incident. One of the most important roles of the state is to protect its citizens from terrorism and we support every provision that can be shown to work in practice in helping to prevent and detect terrorism.

This is yet another stop and search power exercisable by the police. Generally, we are against any expansion of police stop and search powers, on the basis that existing powers are sufficient, because an increased use of stop and search does not generally lead to a reduction in crime and because of the negative impact of stop and search on visible minorities. For example, where the police are required to show suspicion, black people are seven times more likely to be stopped and searched; and where no suspicion is required, black people are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people. In addition, Home Office research shows that, above moderate levels, increasing stop and search has little or no impact in reducing crime.

However, this power—enabling the police to stop and search an offender released on licence for purposes connected with protecting the public from a risk of terrorism—appears, on the face of things, to be reasonable and proportionate. We have seen from tragic instances in the recent past, such as the terrorist attack at Fishmongers’ Hall in November 2019, that assessing the threat posed by those convicted of terrorism offences is very difficult to determine, and even those who are assessed as no longer a threat to the public and suitable for release under licence can, in reality, pose a threat to the public.

It will mainly be for the Parole Board to determine whether someone should be subject to the new powers as a condition of their licence, but the Explanatory Memorandum, at paragraph 7.2 says, “In most cases” the Parole Board will decide whether somebody should be subject to the new power. Can the Minister explain in what other circumstances someone could be made subject to these stop and search provisions, if that is not made a condition of their licence by the Parole Board?

As the noble Baroness explained, the regulations are not about the power itself—created by the Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 inserting new Section 43C in the Terrorism Act 2000—but are to ensure the requirement on the Secretary of State in Section 47AA of the 2000 Act to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the exercise of stop and search powers conferred by that Act. That also applies to the new stop and search provision. It seems a bit cart before horse to make the requirement through these regulations and only then to prepare amendments to the code of practice, which will then be laid before Parliament for approval later this year, as the noble Baroness just explained.

All in all, while we support these regulations, in so far as they place a requirement on the Secretary of State to include the new power in the code of practice required by Section 47AA of the Terrorism Act 2000, it seems to be much ado about nothing until we see the revised codes of practice.

Passport (Fees) Regulations 2022

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 23rd May 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. There were quite a few questions, so I may not be able to cover absolutely every single detail, but I will start with the points made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She and my noble friend Lady Foster spoke about people delaying—for obvious reasons due to Covid—their applications throughout 2020 and 2021. We did prepare extensively for elevated demand with no restrictions upon international travel, and those preparations have ensured that passport applications can be processed in higher numbers than ever before. In preparation for the demand for international travel returning, we have been advising customers since April 2021 to allow up to 10 weeks when applying for their passport, and this remains the case.

The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, asked about our anticipated forecast. It is 9.5 million applications in 2022, and we are on target to deliver those. We have employed 500 staff since last April, and there will be a further 700 this summer. They will be a mixture of agency and permanent staff, because we clearly do not need 1,200 permanent staff for ever to deal with quite a short-term issue. Moreover, 90% of passports in the 10-week timeframe are being processed within six weeks.

Turning to the blue passports, I also have a blue passport and I have not had a problem with it. I have not heard of the glossy-photo issue, but I will certainly take that away and inquire about it. It is possible, as my noble friend Lady Foster said, that the technology might have been faulty, but I shall not make any inference of what the issue was.

I was asked how many passports have been issued so far this calendar year. The answer is 3.3 million, and I understand that in March and April alone 2 million were processed, which is quite a number. I will need to write on the fixed and marginal costs regarding missed priority appointments, but clearly there is a cost for someone making an appointment and not turning up. On the question of staffing, no staff were furloughed during Covid; staff were redeployed to other priority government work in the Home Office—for example, dealing with the EU settlement scheme and asylum—and to DWP, working on universal credit.

Sopra Steria has doubled its workforce in supporting HMPO since the start of 2022, alongside opening up a number of new processing centres. Its efforts have enabled the registration of applications and supporting documents on our system and the return of supporting documents to keep pace with this unprecedented demand. We raised concerns with the provider of the passport advice line, Teleperformance, about its delivery and, in response, it is urgently working to add additional staff, with 500 due to be added by mid-June.

On the argument about three months versus six months, it varies, apparently. Not to recuse myself from the information that I gave on the Floor of the House—and I will look into it more thoroughly—I actually thought a letter might be on its way to the noble Lord by now. Apparently, it is six months for Turkey and three months for Spain, but I will give the noble Lord a proper answer on that, because I, too, looked at the GOV.UK website, but I was not entirely sure whether I was right, or the noble Lord was, at the end of it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Obviously, Turkey is not a member of the European Union and is not in Schengen. There is one rule for all EU or Schengen countries, including places such as Norway and Iceland, which is three months from departure.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am not going to disagree with the noble Lord. I would just like to give him a comprehensive picture, including on whether it is different if you are going into or coming out of the EU.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, often goes on about the costs versus the profit that the Home Office makes. We do not make a profit. The cost of the passport goes towards our border system; it is not to make a profit. As I said, I will get back to him on costs. I can confirm that if you have paid a premium, you get your money back if your passport does not arrive in time. I will have to get back to him on children, because I do not know the answer. On what is not refunded on missing an appointment, it is not the costs of the application but the booking fee, which is £30—as I understand it from the officials behind me.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My understanding is that if you cancel within 48 hours, you give up the booking fee. If you do not cancel and do not turn up, you forfeit the whole amount: the standard application fee and the premium. In that case, the Passport Office will not be involved in the cost of producing a passport; should that not be refunded?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I did not think that was the case, but I am not going to contradict the noble Lord; I will check. I thought it was just the booking fee that you did not get back; I will double check.

I think I have answered all the questions. I have just one last point on what we did back last year. We started notifying customers by text—I think I said that on the Floor of the House a couple of weeks ago—that their passport was approaching its expiry date. We have sent some 5 million text messages to customers who hold or are about to hold an expired passport.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I have one further question as a result of what the Minister just said. I renewed my passport early because I had to change details in it, so my passport is valid for 13 years, but it is valid for only 10 years for entry to the European Union—you cannot have a passport valid for more than 10 years. Is the Passport Office sending text messages when a passport is approaching 10 years from date of issue or when it is due to expire?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That is a very good question. I would have thought it would be at the 10-year point, but the noble Lord is absolutely right. If there are 13 years on the passport, would it send it after 13 years, and therefore your passport will be three years out of date? I will find out.

HM Passport Office: Backlogs

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Again, the noble Lord makes a good point. I will inquire as to whether we have recruited permanent staff or agency staff. If they are permanent full-time staff, they can of course be flexible to meet the needs of other parts of the Civil Service.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, at the end of 2020, when the Passport Office realised that it was 2 million short of its normal applications, why did it not encourage people to apply early, anticipating the problems that we now see?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do not know the answer to the question of why we did not encourage that. Obviously, we project numbers each year, but those numbers clearly did not transpire last year and we are now facing 9.5 million applications this year.

UK-Rwanda Asylum Partnership Arrangement

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, this provision has been in place since 1999. I do not know if it has been challenged before, but it is certainly a long-standing provision that we think meets our international obligations.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Government have clauses in the Nationality and Borders Bill to enable offshoring, which this House continues to oppose. If this legislation is necessary, why have the Government signed a memorandum with Rwanda before Parliament has approved it? If it is not necessary, why did the Government put it in the Bill in the first place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I have explained the provisions in the Bill. They are underpinned by legislation going back over 20 years but, as I explained to the House during the passage of the Bill, it is the certification process that is now in play in the Bill.

Town and Country Planning (Napier Barracks) Special Development Order 2021

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I probably should not have brought this aspect up. As I am going on to say, these centres are not detention centres; people are not detained in them. Therefore, it may be something to do with the pandemic, but if I am wrong in my assessment of why people might be inside, I will clarify that. I am assuming that they may have been self-isolating, when the restrictions were quite severe on absolutely everybody in this country.

Going back to the continued use of Napier, following the outcome of NB and others’ litigation in June 2021, the Home Office progressed work to ensure that the department could continue to use the barracks and avoid any potential breach of planning control given under permitted development rights. These were due to expire in September of last year. Given the urgency to ensure that there was additional capacity in the system and the statutory obligation on the Home Office to provide support to destitute asylum seekers, the only viable option was to proceed with a special development order. I should add that the tenancy agreement with the MoD confirms that the site will be handed back in March 2025—in three years’ time—to support the full decommissioning of the site.

On the conditions of the site, I note comments by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about Napier. Maybe I just listened to what I want to hear, but the right reverend Prelate seemed to confirm that things had significantly improved; although they were not absolutely perfect, things had improved significantly at the site. As I have said, the site is used to provide temporary accommodation for around 300 otherwise destitute adult men for up to 90 days. The average length of stay is about 70 days. Service users staying at Napier are free to come and go as they please—they are not detained at Napier. The accommodation at Napier meets our statutory obligations. It is safe, warm, dry and it provides a choice of good hot meals, as well as proper laundry and cleaning facilities.

Turning to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, a significant amount of work has been carried out to make improvements to the conditions at Napier barracks—hence, possibly, the right reverend Prelate’s comments about it. There is a prescribing nurse; dental care is provided on site, and there is access to local GP services. There is also a prayer room and a multifaith room. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham confirmed, sports and recreational activities have been re-introduced. Additional furniture, table-tennis tables and a library have been installed, and CCTV and night-time courtesy patrols have also been put in place. The Home Office has significantly improved the management and oversight at the site, with an emphasis on identifying issues early and ensuring that the accommodation is safe and well maintained. The frequency of inspections and visits has also increased.

Finally, all residents of Napier have been offered Covid-19 vaccinations. There is Covid-related signage in multiple languages, and residents have been provided with personal cleaning kits. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who asked about isolation if Covid is detected. Given that the general regulations have changed for the wider population, I imagine that it is in line with that, but I will provide more information to him if I can.

We have engaged with community stakeholders, including charities and NGOs, in relation to the site. There are regular meetings at which matters relating to the site’s operation are discussed and issues can be raised. These meetings are attended by Home Office officials, alongside representatives of the NHS, the UK Health Security Agency, the police, Folkstone and Hythe District Council and Kent County Council. In addition, several NGOs sit on the Home Office strategic engagement group and the National Asylum Stakeholder Forum, where they can raise concerns and receive updates on the site.

We have recently welcomed the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration to Napier to conduct a follow-up inspection at the site. We look forward to the publication of his report, which may identify further ways in which we can improve the service provided there. We remain fully and firmly committed to delivering an asylum system that is fair and effective and works in the interests of both the people of this country and those in need of refuge and sanctuary.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Baronesses who have spoken in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I thank them for raising other important issues and for their support for this Motion. I also thank the Minister for her response.

Whatever the pressure on the asylum system, and whatever the problem, Napier barracks is clearly not the answer. The Minister kept talking about destitute asylum seekers. Most asylum seekers are destitute—for example, those fleeing the war in Ukraine. She appeared to choose to ignore the findings of the report from the APPG on Immigration Detention, published today, which I summarised. Both the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and I asked about further centres similar to Napier— whether they were being planned, developed or brought into use. These plans appear to be surrounded in secrecy. The lack of an answer from the noble Baroness today unfortunately adds to that. I think she is going to intervene on me now.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am, because there is no conspiracy here. I completely neglected to answer both noble Lords on that point. Obviously, we keep our asylum accommodation estate under constant review and I will update the House with any developments if new centres are considered.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am not sure whether that was an undertaking by the noble Baroness to write to us with any details of plans in the pipeline. She is nodding, so that is helpful.

It is regrettable that Napier continues to be used to house asylum seekers but bearing in mind that we are at the end of a very long Session, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Police and Crime Commissioners: Budget

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, his membership of the Conservative Party is clearly a matter for the Conservative Party. Whether he should continue as PCC, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is entirely a matter for the electorate.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, what power does the Home Secretary have to overrule police and crime commissioners—for example, if they refused to increase police numbers to achieve the Government’s planned 20,000 uplift, or when the Mayor of London forced the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to resign? If the Home Secretary did not agree that Dame Cressida Dick should go, why did she not intervene at the time, rather than commission an inquiry after the event?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Clearly, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service has given notice of the end of her tenure. It appeared to be quite short notice, although she has yet to depart. I understand she will be departing in April and I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to her work. I say to the noble Lord that the police are operationally independent and the PCC sets the direction for the local area. If the public in that area are not happy, they have the remedy at the ballot box.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in relation to the Daniel Morgan family, and remind the House that I was a Metropolitan Police officer for more than 30 years, holding the equivalent of deputy chief constable rank when I was forced out of the police service for being open and transparent about what was going on inside the Metropolitan Police Service—which I will refer to as the MPS.

Honest, decent police officers are being let down by the corrupt few, and by senior officers who do not take corruption seriously enough. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, some positive claims are made in the HMICFRS report about the MPS supporting whistleblowers and its capability to investigate the “most serious corruption”. Can the Minister give an example of the result of an investigation where a whistleblower has been supported, and an example of the successful prosecution of a case of the “most serious corruption”? It is one thing to point to systems and capabilities; it is quite another to prove that they are effective.

The rest of the report is devastating. In response to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report, the MPS claimed:

“The Met is working hard to root out corruption.”


Instead, HMICFRS says:

“We set out to establish what the force has learned from its failings and whether they could recur. We looked for evidence that someone, somewhere … had adopted the view that ‘this must never happen again’”—


but it could not find anyone.

In a catalogue of failings—I have time to mention only a few of them—HMICFRS found that: the MPS does not know whether all its sensitive posts, such as those for child protection, major investigation and informant handling, are filled by people who have been security cleared; 2,000 warrant cards of police officers who have left the MPS are unaccounted for, which these former officers could use to masquerade as serving police officers, with the potential for another Sarah Everard-type tragedy; and hundreds of items including cash, jewellery and drugs could not be accounted for, meaning that vital evidence could have been disposed of by corrupt officers. It also found that officers could be pocketing money and valuables and, potentially, dealing in illegal drugs that had been seized from criminals. This has happened before and could very easily, apparently, be happening again. I could go on, but there is no time.

HMICFRS concluded:

“Since 2016, we have repeatedly raised concerns with the Metropolitan Police about certain aspects of its counter-corruption work, including … its failure to adopt … approved counter-corruption recording methods … Our advice largely went unheeded.”


If this was a local authority department, the Minister responsible would have placed it in special measures and sent a team in to take over the running of it. Instead, the Minister in the other place tries to blame the Mayor of London.

The Metropolitan Police has national responsibility for such important issues as the security of the Royal Family and protection of government Ministers, and for terrorism. That is why the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner are in law appointed by the Home Secretary, having regard to the views of the Mayor of London. Even if the Government insist that responsibility lies with the Mayor of London, their inability to take direct action is the result of the system of police and crime commissioners, which includes elected mayors, that the Conservative Government introduced. So which is it? If the Government can directly intervene, why will they not, and if they cannot, when are they going to change the system of police and crime commissioners so that they can?

The security of this country is at stake, let alone the trust and confidence of Londoners, and the Government wash their hands of it. When are the Government going to take some responsibility and take action to deal with this totally unacceptable situation?

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. I join them in conveying our thoughts to the Daniel Morgan family, some 35 years after their trauma and heartache began.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the reply to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel, the Home Secretary will do so once she has received responses from the Metropolitan Police Service and others. It will be done as soon as she possibly can after that. He also made a point about whether the Metropolitan Police Service is institutionally corrupt. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed to the fact, which I would agree with, that most police officers are honest and very hard-working people. They are trying every day to keep the British public safe and we should not tar them all with the same brush, because that would be demoralising and not true, although I recognise what the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel said.

It is also interesting to read in the report that some of the processes that the Metropolitan Police Service is not following are actually evident in good practice across the country. Nevertheless, the Home Secretary has commissioned ongoing work for police forces across England and Wales.

On the points about arrogance, secrecy and confidence in the police, I have stood too many times at this Dispatch Box and heard those words quoted back at me. It is evident that although this report provides a really important start in trying to improve things within the Metropolitan Police Service, there is an enormously long way to go. I totally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about forthcoming appointments for the Met commissioner and the head of HMICFRS; I expect both appointments to be made shortly.

In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about what the Home Secretary is doing now, he will know about the work she commissioned from Dame Elish Angiolini, which addresses several points mentioned today, including culture and corruption, and the work that is ongoing with the noble Baroness, Lady Casey. As I said, the Home Secretary has also commissioned ongoing work with HMICFRS in these areas.

Moving on to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the question about examples of whistleblowers being supported is very interesting. I suspect that, by the very nature of the investigations that take place, we would not necessarily publicly hear about whistleblowers. However, this area will probably be touched upon in the work that Dame Elish Angiolini and the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, are doing. I wholeheartedly support his dismay at the comment made in the HMICFRS report that nobody said that this must never happen again; that is depressing.

On the point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made about sensitive posts and vetting, the report clearly commented on sensitive posts and said that vetting needs to be looked at across those posts because the parameters are not clear. I also support his point about money and gifts, because the position is by no means clear in the Metropolitan Police Service. I know it is a matter for them, but police forces will want to look at that because, again, the approach is by no means consistent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point because in reading this report I observed that the Metropolitan Police is very good at doing the big things and that some of the important details, such as vetting, internal corruption, gifts, evidence and the things my noble friend talks about, were less focused on. That is something that the Metropolitan Police will have to answer through its action plans in the short and long term. On training, I expect to see it much more consistent throughout the force, but I think that perhaps in focusing on the big things the Metropolitan Police has neglected important details of the job.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

With the leave of the House, I shall ask a question for clarification. I thought I heard the Minister say that the Home Secretary would respond once the Metropolitan Police had given its response to the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report. My understanding was that the Metropolitan Police gave its response last week, which was then largely contradicted by the HMICFRS report. If I am right, can the Minister tell us when the Home Secretary is likely to respond to both reports?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I was responding to the response to the findings of the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel report. I understand that the Home Secretary will be returning to the House to update on progress once she has received responses from the MPS and others.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Consideration of Commons amendments & Lords Hansard - Part 1
Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motion M. Amendment 70, originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, and passed by this House on Report, would require the Secretary of State to

“establish a review into the prevalence of, and the response of the criminal justice system to, the offence of administering a substance with intent under section 61 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003”.

As I have made clear previously, the Government share that concern about spiking, whether it is spiking of drinks or by needles, which has prompted this amendment and we are taking the issue very seriously.

In September last year, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary asked the National Police Chiefs’ Council to review urgently the extent and scale of the issue of needle spiking. We still have much to learn, as the noble Lord acknowledged at the time, but it is clear from what the police have told us that the behaviour is not exclusively carried out with the intention of perpetrating a sexual assault. Sometimes, financial crime might be a motivation. Indeed, many reported incidents do not appear to be linked to any secondary offending at all. It seems that sometimes the act might be an end in itself, yet all examples of this behaviour are serious in their impact on the victim and in the fear and anxiety felt more widely by those seeking simply to enjoy a night out.

It is also clear that we need a response that goes beyond the criminal justice system and encompasses health, education and the night-time economy. In the Commons, therefore, the Government tabled Amendment 70A in lieu, which is drafted more broadly. It requires the Home Secretary to prepare a report on the nature and prevalence of “spiking”—which, for these purposes, we are defining as

“intentionally administering a substance to someone without their consent and with the intention of causing them harm.”

The report will also set out the steps that the Government have taken or intend to take to address it. The Home Secretary will be required to publish the report, and lay it before Parliament, within 12 months of Royal Assent.

I hope that this addresses the concerns that underpinned the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, but in a way that enables the Government to consider the issue in the round. In addition, the Government are looking at whether creating a new offence specifically of spiking would help the police and courts to tackle the issue. If we need to take action to do this, we will not hesitate to do so.

Amendments 141 and 142 provide for bespoke new offences to tackle so-called sex for rent. We are very clear that exploitation through sex for rent has no place in society and we understand the motivation behind the amendments. However, as I previously explained, there are two existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003 that can be, and have been, used to successfully prosecute this practice, including the Section 52 offence of causing or inciting prostitution for gain. We recognise the need to stamp out this terrible practice and support those at risk of exploitation. Again, on Report I set out some of the actions that we have already taken, including producing updated guidance for prosecutors and measures in the forthcoming online safety Bill to tackle harmful content on the internet.

We recognise that we need to go further. We are determined to act on the concerns that have been raised on this issue, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. Accordingly, we will launch a public consultation before the summer to invite views on the issue of sex for rent and, as part of this, we will look at the effectiveness of existing legislation and whether there is a case for a bespoke criminal offence. Following our commitment to undertake a consultation on this issue, the Commons disagreed with the Lords amendment by a majority of over 100.

All sides of the House share the heartfelt desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, to do more to tackle spiking and sex for rent. We are fully committed to doing so. We will publish a report on the nature and prevalence of spiking and the actions that we are taking in response, including consideration of the case for a bespoke offence, and we will be consulting before the summer on the issue of sex for rent. In the light of these clear commitments, I invite the House to agree Motions B and M. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group were introduced by the Official Opposition and we supported them. We welcome the Government’s undertakings in Amendment 70A in Motion B to prepare and publish a report on spiking, for example of drinks, intentionally and without a person’s consent and with the intention of causing harm, so as to establish the extent of the problem and therefore to inform what measures need to be taken to address it.

We also welcome the Government’s commitment to undertake a consultation on whether the existing law in respect of requiring or arranging sexual relations as a condition of accommodation—so-called sex for rent—needs to be strengthened. The prevalence of the phenomenon and the lack of prosecutions under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, which the Government believe covers these scenarios, indicate that such action is likely to be necessary. We are grateful to the Official Opposition, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for raising these important issues and securing government action to address them.

Home Office Visas for Ukrainians

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as to why the changes will not come in until Tuesday, it will be necessary to get the IT systems up and running, and it will take until Tuesday to get that done. What that will do, however, is free up the system generally for those without passports to be helped at VACs, and the whole system will be speeded up that much more quickly. It might assist the noble Lord—and I have given updated figures every day that I have taken Questions this week—to know that, as I understand it, as of this morning, we have now granted 1,305 visas.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, those seeking sanctuary in the UK crossing the channel in small boats, many of whom do not have passports, undergo biometrics and security checks in the UK. Why can Ukrainians, without family in the UK or passports, and nationals of other countries fleeing Putin’s war, not do the same? In particular, women, children and the elderly are unlikely to present security threats to the UK, so what is stopping the Government lifting visa requirements, as EU states have done?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, yesterday, one thing that we will not do is dispense with security checks. But there will be a lot more capacity at VACs for those without passports, because those with passports can now come here and have their biometrics taken here.

Ukraine: Urgent Refugee Applications

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 9th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. As of 9.30 am this morning, 17,700 applications had been made, and there were 1,000 grants of visas. We are expecting a further 1,000 grants of visas by the end of the day. I think that noble Lords will agree that that is a positive trajectory.

The Lille VAC will indeed be set up.

In total, we had almost 1,000 offers for the humanitarian sponsorship pathway, which I counted up from across this House, given the details I received from the right reverend Prelate and another noble Lord yesterday. I want to take back to the Home Office—as I said yesterday that I would—the offers of support which are not just from within your Lordships’ House but are coming in thick and fast from all over the country. They will be very helpful when those families and people arrive in the UK.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Ukrainian refugees arriving in Bucharest and applying to join families in the UK today are being given appointments on 28 March to have their biometrics taken. What are they supposed to do for two weeks in a foreign city where they know no one, have few belongings and little or no money, when they could be here in the UK with their families?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very understandable point. As I said yesterday to the House, I know that we are training people as we speak, and surging the capacity and capability of our VAC teams from that region.

Ukraine: Refugees

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The sponsorship scheme, as I have said, should be up and running very shortly, and DLUHC will indeed be the lead department on it. In response to the noble Baroness, I undertake, when there is a number and the scheme is up and running, to come back to the House and give details.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, surely what is needed, as well as numbers, is speed. The UK has admitted only 300 Ukrainian refugees, while the Republic of Ireland has admitted 1,800. Why is the UK dragging its feet?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that speed and numbers are vital. I understand that as of 9 o’clock this morning there were 526 grants under the family scheme. With regard to the sponsorship, however, the noble Lord is right: we need to do it quickly and efficiently.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage
Tuesday 8th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I am bringing forward Amendments 70B to 70N and Amendment 84E to allow visa penalties to be extended to countries that present a risk to international peace and security, or whose actions lead or are likely to lead to armed conflict or a breach of humanitarian law.

The existing provision in Clause 69 will already give the Government the power to apply visa penalties to specified countries that are not co-operating in relation to the return of its nationals. We will be able to slow down the processing of applications, require applicants to pay a £190 surcharge or, critically, suspend the granting of entry clearance completely. These powers are scalable, and they are appropriate both in the context of improving returns co-operation and to take action against regimes waging war on the innocent.

In particular, the Government are minded to use these powers in respect of Russia. The ability to suspend the granting of entry clearance for Russian nationals will send a strong signal to the Putin regime that they cannot invade their peaceful neighbour and expect business as usual. Although we do not believe this war is in the name of the Russian people, disadvantaging Russian nationals in this way, as part of our wider package of sanctions, will contribute to the pressure on the Putin regime.

Specifically, Amendment 70B sets out the general visa penalties provisions from the original Clause 69, which will now apply in both contexts. This includes the detail on the types of penalties that may be applied and the provision to make exemptions. This has not substantively changed from the provisions that noble Lords have already considered.

Amendment 70C sets out when a country may be specified and provides for three possible conditions. The Secretary of State must be of the opinion that the Government of the country have taken action that gives or is likely to give rise to a threat to international peace and security; results or is likely to result in armed conflict; or gives or is likely to give rise to a breach of international humanitarian law. The Secretary of State must take into account the extent of, and the reasons for, the action taken, the likelihood of further action, and such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

Amendment 70K broadly mirrors Clause 70, in that it requires the Secretary of State to review the application of visa penalties every two months. If the Secretary of State concludes that penalties are no longer necessary or expedient in connection with the factors in Amendment 70C, penalties must be revoked. This provision is a safeguard to ensure that any visa penalties applied do not remain in place by default.

I am also bringing forward Amendment 84E to ensure that these powers can be deployed in relation to the invasion of Ukraine as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, rather than waiting two months after commencement. The sooner that happens, the sooner this House and all Members can collectively act in response to this appalling crisis.

The United Kingdom stands firmly with the people of Ukraine in their struggle with Vladimir Putin’s monstrous and unjustified war. Extending these powers is a crucial step to enabling the Government to respond to hostile actions, such as those by the Putin regime, in the toughest possible manner. I ask noble Lords to support Amendments 70B to 70N and Amendment 84E for the reasons already outlined. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my first reaction to these amendments was to wonder why they were necessary. Surely it is already possible to refuse to grant visas, or to slow the processing of visas to nationals of a hostile foreign state. The Government seem to be doing a good job of not granting visas to Ukrainian nationals fleeing war, so why can they not refuse to grant visas to Russians?

On that issue, I would like the Minister to explain why the Home Secretary told the other place yesterday:

“I confirm that we have set up a bespoke VAC en route to Calais but away from the port because we have to prevent that surge from taking place.”


Later, when challenged, the Home Secretary said:

“I think the right hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier. I said that I can confirm that we are setting up another VAC en route to Calais—I made that quite clear in my remarks earlier on.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/22; cols. 27, 40.]


Can the Minister explain why the Home Secretary gave inaccurate information and then blamed the shadow Home Secretary for mishearing?

Why have the Government accepted only 508 Ukrainian refugees—as I think the Minister said earlier in the House—while Ireland has accepted 1,800? What makes the UK so unique? Are these amendments not more of the Government saying that they are going to do something, instead of actually doing something?

I am also concerned about subsection (6), to be inserted by Amendment 70B, which would allow the Secretary of State to

“make different provision for different purposes … provide for exceptions or exemptions … include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”

In other words, the new clause seems to allow the Secretary of State to do whatever she wants—including to allow into the UK whoever she wants, despite a general ban on a particular country. Where is the parliamentary oversight?

Amendment 70C would allow the Secretary of State to specify that a country is posing a

“risk to international peace and security”,

or a risk of “armed conflict”, or a risk of breaching “international humanitarian law”, if that is her opinion. There is no qualification that she should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt, for example, but simply that she is of that opinion. Again, where is the parliamentary oversight?

These new amendments allow the Secretary of State to impose, or not impose, visa restrictions and penalties on countries which, in her opinion, pose a threat. This allows her to exempt whoever she thinks should be exempted, without any parliamentary scrutiny, oversight or involvement in the decision-making. Will the Minister consider withdrawing these amendments and bringing them back at Third Reading with the necessary safeguards in place?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say at the outset that the Government have been consistent and clear about their belief that people who require international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, rather than make dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK to claim asylum here.

Inadmissibility processes, in particular the first safe country principle, are well established, both in the UK, through long-standing measures in the Immigration Rules, and internationally, including as part of the Common European Asylum System. For example, the procedures directive recognised at recital 22 that

“Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be readmitted to that country.”

An overriding objective of these processes is to prevent secondary movements by those who have already reached safety. By definition, that is not about denying safety to those who need it but about having rules which aim to reduce unnecessary travel across borders by those who are already safe.

Amendment 31 seeks to remove third-country inadmissibility powers from primary legislation altogether. It would weaken our ability to deploy inadmissibility processes appropriately and decisively within a strong legal framework, and with that, erode our ability to deter unsafe migration and focus our resources on those most in need of our help.

We are confident that the measures in Clause 15 are fair, appropriate and fully in line with our international obligations. The clause sets out the strict circumstances in which a person’s behaviour or circumstances could lead to inadmissibility action. It requires decision-makers to take account of exceptional mitigating factors that may apply when considering those circumstances. It sets out minimum criteria that must be met by any country before it can be regarded as a safe third country of return, including it being one where a person would not be at risk of persecution, would not experience a breach of Article 3 ECHR rights, and would not be sent to another place where they would be persecuted.

The primary protection afforded refugees under the refugee convention and its protocol is non-refoulement, including no onward refoulement. It is therefore clear that non-refoulement is the primary requirement of “safety”. The same is true for protection afforded under Article 3 of the ECHR. Furthermore, an individual may not meet the definition of refugee under the convention but still require protection. A state may still be safe for them where they will not be refouled, even though they are not a refugee. Therefore, our criteria for determining whether a country is safe, and for subsequently making a claim inadmissible, upholds the UK’s obligations under international law.

Nothing in Clause 15 requires extensive delay in processing inadmissibility decisions. It is right that we consider inadmissibility action and, where appropriate, seek the agreement of the relevant third country, or countries, for the person’s admission there. In some cases, particularly where we are reliant on case-by-case requests to partners, this may take some time, but we have not operated, and will not operate, the inadmissibility system in a way that puts someone in indefinite limbo, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about—able to access neither the asylum system in the country of proposed removal nor the UK system. That would be contrary to the object and purpose of the refugee convention. Our existing processes, which Clause 15 strengthens, are clear that where return cannot be arranged within a reasonable period, the person’s claim would be admitted to the UK asylum system for substantive consideration. That ensures compatibility with the refugee convention.

Individuals will have an opportunity to explain their actions and circumstances prior to claiming asylum in the UK, and that explanation will be carefully considered in deciding whether an inadmissibility decision is appropriate. They will also be able to make representations on why any safe third state is not safe in their particular circumstances. Any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to the standard principles of public law, including rationality. The inadmissibility provisions are therefore compatible with the refugee convention. For these reasons, I do not agree with the amendment seeking to leave out the clause.

Turning to Amendments 32 and 86, as we have stated on previous occasions, the UK-EU joint political declaration made clear the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements on issues around asylum and illegal migration. We continue to do that with EU member states on these issues. We have been clear that formal agreements, though valuable, are not the only way in which an inadmissible asylum seeker may be accepted for removal by a safe third country. I think it is right to seek removals on a case-by-case basis where appropriate and, with the consent of the relevant country, make that removal. This approach has formed part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020—and, until the Bill’s provisions come into force, we will continue to rely on the Immigration Rules.

The structure of case-by-case removal arrangements will not be uniform for each country of removal. A wide range of factors will still affect the formality and administration around such removals, not least the diverse organisational structures in place in the third country, the levels of centralised and decentralised decision-making, and other circumstances that may be specific to the individual. These arrangements will inevitably vary, but the framework in which cases are considered, within which third countries are assessed for safety and claimants are progressed to removal, will not. We have a clear and consistent approach to these fundamental and important issues, and we stand by our international obligations.

I do not agree that these provisions are unworkable without formal agreements in place. We aim to make the process work as a whole and to return people where appropriate. Where it becomes clear that an individual cannot be removed to a safe country, either because we do not have formal returns agreements in place or because a case-by-case removal cannot be agreed within a reasonable period, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK. To go back to the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that this will ensure that we do not keep people in limbo, in accordance with our obligations under the refugee convention. I do not think this amendment is required and ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify? She insists that the Government’s intention is not to put asylum seekers into indefinite limbo; in other words, if the Government attempt to send them back to a safe third country and fail to do so, at the moment there is a six-month time limit on that. Can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an indefinite status of limbo?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Given what I have already stated about an indefinite state of limbo, surely the Minister’s words would have some sort of weight. I have also said that any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to standard principles of public law, and that we will consider their obligation within a reasonable time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

On a point of clarification, the Minister said that the Minister in the other place had given an undertaking that children would not be offshored under this scheme. Does that mean that if a family arrives on UK shores the parents of the child could be sent overseas—offshored—while the child remained in the UK, because of that undertaking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thought that I had made it clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be offshored.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 2nd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I have just explained why not.

Can I say something at this point? The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Whip have pointed this out. Generally, after the Minister has spoken, the person who moved the amendment can ask questions of elucidation, but it is not generally the case that people who have not spoken in the debate then stand up and start adding to it. I know the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is going to be cross with me yet again, but this has been quite a long and arduous process, and it would be helpful for the House if the Companion were to be followed.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, to follow up on that point, my understanding is that anybody is entitled to ask a question of clarification on something that the Minister has said but not to engage in debate, which is allowed in Committee but not on Report.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support and the Minister for her comprehensive response on these amendments. As I anticipated, the Government want to hide behind tipping off people smugglers as to what the Government are doing to tackle the problem. But how do we hold the Government to account if we do not know what is happening, as far as Amendment 59 is concerned, on the issue of “for gain”?

I understand the example the Minister gave of the chap who had money in his wallet, and so forth. One understands that prosecutions are not always possible, and at least the money was recovered. But there is a defence once charged in the Bill; there is not immunity from prosecution. So, somebody who comes across a sinking dinghy in the channel and rescues the asylum seekers could be subject to a prolonged investigation. The Minister talked about a full examination of the circumstances. It does not prevent the person being arrested, potentially, and being held either on police bail or under investigation for a long period to examine the circumstances. The defence in the Bill is only once charged.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Bill does two things. It criminalises and treats genuine refugees as second class if they arrive via a so-called safe third country. Also, this clause potentially criminalises everyone who arrives in the UK to claim asylum even when they have flown directly to the UK. It effectively criminalises all asylum seekers arriving in the UK unless they have been resettled through a government scheme—resettlement schemes that range from few and far between to non-existent.

From what the Minister said in Committee, I understand that the idea of the clause was to ensure that migrants crossing the channel in small boats who were rescued and brought to the UK could still be prosecuted, even though they had arrived legally. She said that the new offence would cover all claimants

“who arrive without the necessary entry clearance.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1512.]

Someone who secures a visitor visa, for example, flies non-stop to the UK and claims asylum at the UK border would be guilty of an offence because their entry clearance was only to visit, not to claim asylum and stay permanently.

The Minister tried to reassure the House that this was not the Government’s intention, that the offence was intended to be prosecuted in only the most egregious cases and that the Government would be talking to the CPS. There are two issues with this. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said in Committee, this is the very definition of an overbroad criminal offence that relies on the offence being prosecuted in only a subset of cases. The second issue is the potential for government interference with the independent Crown Prosecution Service. The next thing will be the Government telling the CPS to prosecute some political activists and not others. This is a very dangerous road to go down.

Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Blunkett, to which I have added my name, would remove the offence of arriving in the UK without valid entry clearance from the Bill. We will vote with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when he divides the House.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for speaking to these amendments. I have listened carefully to the arguments raised by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, and I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendments in their names, but I remain convinced that we must have offences which apply to arrival in the UK in addition to those of entry.

I cannot overstate that the differences between the terms “entry” and “arrival” are fundamental to how offences are identified and prosecuted. The definition in Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 concerning entry is based on assumptions that no longer address the methods that have emerged for migrants to evade our border controls.

It might help if I explained the effect of the amendment and the consequence of not getting it right. I remind the House that the Court of Appeal has held that an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully in accordance with the definition of “entry” in Section 11. This means that individuals who step foot in the UK because their small boat was rescued by Border Force do not “enter” the UK in the technical sense. They simply “arrive”. Where there is no unlawful entry or attempt at entry, the unscrupulous people smugglers sending people across the channel in unseaworthy vessels that require rescue cannot be held to account for facilitating a breach of immigration law.

Amending these offences to refer to “enters” rather than “arrives in” renders them unworkable. It is wrong that an individual and those facilitating their journey should be able to evade sanction by allowing themselves to be intercepted and brought to shore. It encourages individuals to unnecessarily endanger themselves and others by travelling in small craft wholly unsuitable for the crossing.

If there is no offence of illegal arrival and if, as proposed in Amendment 58, this is not added as a breach of immigration law for the facilitation offence, then we will have practically eroded our ability to prosecute any people smugglers who are involved in risking migrants’ lives by putting them into small inadequate boats.

It is right that we should ensure that the tools exist to deter and prevent these actions for the good of all. We must provide the CPS with the ability to prosecute appropriate cases when in the public interest, so Clause 39 must refer to both those who enter the UK and those who arrive in the UK. I appreciate the concerns raised but am convinced that the proposed amendments, if accepted, would give only comfort to those who exploit and persuade people to make the perilous and unnecessary journey across the English Channel.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about interference with the CPS. That is not the case. An MOU between immigration and the CPS has been updated and will be published. With those words, I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment—I have added my name to it. The only question I have in addition to what the Minister has been asked so far is whether it is right that somebody who has been raped and who comes forward to the police as a victim, although she may not be subject to immigration control while a prosecution is ongoing, as soon the case is finished, she could be deported from the country because the police, at the end of the case, will share that victim’s immigration status? Can the noble Baroness not understand that victims are not going to come forward and report dangerous criminals who have raped them if that is the threat?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, which is to ensure that migrant victims of crime come forward to report that crime to the police and are not deterred from doing so because of concerns that immigration enforcement action might be taken against them. Our overriding priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. Guidance issued by the NPCC, updated in 2020, makes it clear that victims of crime should be treated as victims first and foremost.

The NPCC guidance provides that police officers will not routinely search police databases for the purpose of establishing the immigration status of a victim or witness, or routinely seek proof of their entitlement to reside in the UK. Also, police officers must have grounds to suspect that a person does not have legal immigration status and must give careful consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to what information to share with the Home Office and when. The reasons for sharing information must be recorded and the victim advised what has been shared and why.

There can be benefits to sharing information as it can help to prevent perpetrators of crime from coercing and controlling their victims because of their insecure immigration status. Providing the victims with accurate information about their immigration status and bringing them into the immigration system can only benefit them. This amendment would prevent that.

It might help noble Lords if I gave one example of the negative effect of the amendment. The referral of information about a migrant victim or witness enables the Home Office to provide information on Home Office systems to assist the police and other authorities to establish vulnerabilities and safeguarding needs and to assess whether the migrant might be eligible to qualify for leave under the Immigration Rules or bespoke routes. Securing immigration status may allow eligible migrants access to a range of benefits, including health and housing provisions. There are several bespoke routes available to migrant victims and witnesses of crime which enable eligible individuals to regularise their status.

Under this amendment, the Home Office could not lawfully process any applications or requests for relief from enforcement action where details of the crime reported are relevant to those applications or requests, because the applicant’s personal data cannot be used for an immigration control purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about rape, and examples would include applications or requests made for the destitute domestic violence concession, the foreign witness policy or the immigration enforcement migrant victim protocol, which is due to be introduced later this year.

I know that is not what the sponsors of the amendment had in mind, but, were it to be added to the Bill, that would be one of the effects. More broadly, noble Lords will understand that the Government are duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system to protect our public services and safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status.

I have previously said that we need to focus on ensuring that victims with insecure immigration status can access the support they need, and that is the priority. Despite the best intentions, this amendment does not achieve the outcome it seeks. The question of leave to remain is inextricably linked to the conditions attached to that leave, so it is impossible to waive the no recourse to public funds condition in isolation from consideration being given to a person’s immigration status. What is more, it has been a long-standing feature of the immigration framework operated by successive Governments that only those with settled status should have access to public funds.

The public rightly expects that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that those with irregular immigration status are identified and that they should be supported to come under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. We regularly help migrant victims by signposting them to legal advice to help regularise their stay.

This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. If adopted, it would prevent victims obtaining the support they need, whether under the DDVC or other routes such as seeking asylum. I hope, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about listening, that the noble Lords have listened and reflected carefully on the unintended consequences of their amendment and will agree to withdraw it.

Refugees and Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 28th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is what you tweet.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, given that the UNHCR has criticised the UK’s response to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in and around Ukraine, why have the Government not allowed visa-free entry of refugees from Ukraine into the UK?

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage
Tuesday 8th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to strike that balance between abuse of the system and providing refuge to those genuinely in need, but she will also know that we have several family reunion routes, which I went through the other day in Committee. With all that, and the commitment to write to the right reverend Prelate—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am sorry to intervene just when the noble Baroness thought she had finished. She said that there is already a power to remove asylum seekers while their claim is being considered. Is she referring to when the Secretary of State issues a certificate to say that a claim has no merit and someone can therefore be deported before their appeal is heard? In that case, that is a limited number of people and a very different system from the one proposed here. Can she tell the Committee how many people have been issued with such a certificate and been deported during their application process in that way, compared with the numbers the Government anticipate will be affected by this new proposal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord talks about deportation; we generally refer to deportation in the context of criminals. No, it is not under those provisions.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, we often say that we will not provide a running commentary, but I will provide a running commentary on said letter. When we break for the Statement at 3.30 pm, I shall look to the Box as to the whereabouts of the letter —which I did clear some time ago.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we have the famous Dubs letter; I do not know why others have not—maybe it was sent to selected recipients.

I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee for their support for these amendments—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whose case seemed to be that public opinion polls in the future might turn on their head from where they are now, with 70% of the public supporting asylum seekers being able to work, and that might be a minority rather than a majority.

I am losing patience with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. When he intervened on my opening remarks he accepted that, from 2012 to 2019, the majority of asylum seekers were successful in their applications and that, in 2019, 65% were successful. But in his speech, he maintained that the majority of asylum seekers’ claims were not accepted. It is getting difficult.

The Minister talked about an impact assessment in due course on the effects on the labour market of this change. What is the Migration Advisory Committee for if it is not to advise the Government on the likely impact of changes in migration policy? The MAC recommends that asylum seekers are allowed to work. The Minister claimed that if the amendments were accepted, it would go against what people voted for in 2019. Is she really saying that in 2019 people voted not to allow asylum seekers to work, particularly in the light of the evidence of opinion polls showing 70% support for the contrary?

The Minister seemed to claim that allowing asylum seekers to work was a pull factor, but then said it was complicated and more research was needed. If there is evidence that allowing asylum seekers to work is a pull factor, what is it? She talked about other countries making the UK appear more attractive to asylum seekers, yet we have already heard that the UK is an outlier in terms of most other European countries allowing asylum seekers to work. How does that happen? She also said that European countries that allow asylum seekers to work still provide them with accommodation. Asylum seekers could pay for the accommodation that they are provided with if they were allowed to work.

The Minister’s explanations are not acceptable and we will return to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, again, I thank noble Lords who have made points. I will attempt to assist the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the extension. First, I will say that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place—I hope noble Lords will indulge me; because different amendments are bleeding into different groups, I know noble Lords will not mind. The basic approach to the asylum support calculation is based on the essential needs of the claimant—but I will get him more detail and perhaps more of a breakdown if that is what he would like.

I also say before we start that I agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell: I disagree with many points that people make, but I hope I always approach the House with courtesy. I know the Committee generally does not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, but I must admire his tenacity in coming to this place, week in and week out, and making points that a lot of people do not agree with—I feel like that sometimes. That is a light-hearted point, rather than a point for debate.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could just explain to both noble Baronesses that it was facts that were in dispute, not opinions. I actually agree with a lot of what the Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, says about immigration as a whole, and I would not want that misconstrued.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

That is not in dispute; I was just echoing the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about respect, because I think it is always a good thing to be promoting.

I too listened to “More or Less” yesterday—the programme that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to—and I think the conclusion was that it depended on how you looked at it. So everyone was right and everyone was wrong, all at the same time; I think that was the conclusion. But I very much enjoyed listening to that calculation.

Anyway, before I cause any more controversy, I will start by saying that it is very clear that individuals leaving asylum support following a positive immigration decision receive the assistance that they need to obtain other housing and apply for other benefits, such as universal credit, that they are entitled to. We do not think it is sensible to increase the length of time they remain eligible for asylum support from 28 to 56 days, and I will explain why.

The asylum accommodation estate is under huge strain and demand for normal asylum dispersal accommodation —that is to say, flats and houses obtained from the private rental market—is exceeding supply. The only way to meet this demand has been to use hotels, and there are currently around 26,000 people accommodated in them. A programme of work is under way to drive down the use of hotels by obtaining more dispersal accommodation and introducing accommodation centres. This clause would impede this work—I hope that answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about “Why not 56 days?” In simple terms, the longer that successful asylum seekers remain in asylum accommodation, the fewer beds will be available for those entering the asylum system, including those temporarily accommodated in hotels at great expense to the taxpayer.

We are aware of reports that some refugees do not access UC, as it is called, or other benefits or adequate housing within 28 days. The reasons for this are complex, but the problem is not solved by increasing the 28-day move-on period, for reasons I have explained, and that is why our focus has been on implementing practical changes with the aim of securing better outcomes for refugees within the 28-day move-on period. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about some of the things that have been done during the pandemic that have actually improved the situation. These include ensuring that the 28-day period does not start until refugees have been issued with a biometric residence permit, the document that they need to prove that they can take employment and apply for universal credit, and that the national insurance number is printed on the permit, which speeds up the process of deciding a UC application.

We also fund Migrant Help which, as noble Lords will know, is a voluntary sector organisation that contacts refugees at the start of the 28-day period and offers that practical, move-on assistance, including advice on how to claim UC. I think this is a big change from the last time the noble Baroness and I spoke on the subject. We offer advice on the importance of an early claim; on other types of support that might be available; on booking an early appointment at their nearest DWP jobcentre, if needed; and on how to contact their local authority for assistance in funding alternative housing. We did evaluate the success of the pilot scheme that booked an early appointment with the local jobcentre for those who wanted one. The evaluation showed that all applicants for UC in the survey received their first payment on time—that is, 35 days from the date of their application—and that those who asked for an earlier advance payment received one, although I take her point about the advance payment. This assistance is now offered to all refugees leaving asylum support and is provided by Migrant Help, which again, as the noble Baroness knows, is a voluntary organisation funded by the Home Office.

Asylum accommodation providers are under a contractual duty to notify the local authority of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted refugee status. Refugees can also apply for integration loans which can be used, for example, to pay a rent deposit or for an essential domestic item or work equipment, or for training.

We have a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, and I can reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to ensuring that all refugees are able to take positive steps towards integrating and realising their potential. We keep the move-on period under review, but we must consider the strong countervailing factors that make increasing it very difficult at this stage. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 3rd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord and I will clarify the point on this issue. He knows that I will clarify that for him.

Amendment 67, if we can get on to that, seeks to weaken the message that this Bill strives to send. People should not risk their lives using unseaworthy vessels—I do not think anyone would think that they should—to reach our shores when they have already reached safety in a country such as France. It puts their lives at risk, and those of Border Force and rescue services. Events in recent months have all too starkly demonstrated the devastating human cost of undertaking these journeys. This provision is just one of a host of measures which aim to deter illegal entry to the UK. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people rather than for those who could have claimed asylum elsewhere.

Parliament has already had an opportunity to scrutinise these measures when they were placed in the Immigration Rules in December 2020. It has been a long-standing practice in place for many years to only accept claims for asylum in person at the individual’s first available opportunity on arrival in the UK. These provisions simply seek to place these long-standing requirements on a stronger statuary footing.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his intervention. From memory—and I have to say, no pun intended, that I am finding it difficult to keep my head above water with this Bill—we come on to pushback in a later group. Maybe the Minister might be able to say more when we get to the appropriate group on that issue.

But on this issue, there are lots of things in Immigration Rules that are not in primary legislation, and I do not understand why this particular issue is different. If it is simply to put something that has been for a long time been in Immigration Rules on a more secure statutory footing, why are we not seeing many more Immigration Rules being put on a firmer statutory footing by putting them into primary legislation? This leads me to believe ILPA—that there is some other motivation behind it related to pushbacks, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said.

But there will be an opportunity to revisit this when we come to the groups debating pushbacks, so at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am saying that there are a number of ways in which we can seek to secure this—formal, informal, diplomatic and otherwise. I am not saying there is a single solution to returns. Therefore, Clause 15 still needs to be in place.

It might not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants who have travelled via or have a connection to a safe country. The provisions that we have drafted already have flexibility that allows us to consider whether an individual has exceptional circumstances to warrant consideration of their asylum claim through the UK asylum system. As I said, this includes best interests. We also have the family reunion provisions that I mentioned earlier so, if individuals have family members in the UK, they should apply under those provisions. The inadmissibility provisions should not be used to circumnavigate those provisions and create a back door to enter the UK by dangerous means.

Furthermore, if an individual has not been recognised as a refugee, but has been provided with a different form of protection from refoulement, that country is safe for them to be removed to. To define a “safe third State” in the way suggested by the amendments ignores the other forms of protection available to individuals, which ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to.

Regarding Amendments 74, 73B, 74A and 75B, the UK should not be obliged to assess the substance of an asylum application where the applicant, due to a connection to a safe third country, can reasonably be expected to seek protection in that third country, or where they have already sought protection in a safe country and have moved on before the outcome of that claim, or where a claim has already been granted or considered and refused. This is a necessary part of achieving the policy aim of deterring those unnecessary and dangerous secondary movements. We are not alone in operating this practice. These amendments ignore the other forms of protection available to individuals that ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to. Amendments 75, 75A, and 76 would significantly undermine the aim of these provisions. The provisions as drafted send that clear message for those who could and should have claimed asylum in another safe country to do so.

I commend the spirit of Amendment 76, which would introduce a new clause to strengthen our inadmissibility provisions and deter irregular entry to the UK, particularly where that means of entry indicates that individuals have travelled to the UK via a safe country. I agree with the premise of this amendment—that access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need and not driven by criminal enterprise. The provisions in the Bill send that clear message. However, this proposed new clause probably goes too far, and would breach our international obligations. It could place individuals in indefinite limbo, which would be against the object and purpose of the refugee convention. The provisions as drafted ensure that individuals are not left in limbo, with their asylum claim neither considered in the UK nor another safe third country. If after a reasonable period it has not been possible to agree removal of the individual to a safe third country, as I said earlier, their asylum claim will be considered in the UK. The introduction of Clauses 14 and 15 as they stand aims to strengthen our position on inadmissibility, further disincentivise people from making dangerous journeys, and encourage them to claim asylum in the first safe country.

I will leave it at that. I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

The Minister said that two issues were widely recognised internationally. One was the definition of a safe third country and the other was on the first safe country principle—that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asked for the definition, in the amendments, of a third safe country, so it does not agree that it is a widely recognised international definition. The UNHCR also says that it does not recognise the first safe country principle and that there is nothing in international law about it. Does the Minister accept that, even if she says that these things are widely recognised internationally, they are not recognised by the UNHCR?

Data Protection: Immigration Exemption

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 31st January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Perhaps I could reiterate that Recital 41 states that:

“Where this Regulation refers to a legal basis or a legislative measure, this does not necessarily require a legislative act adopted by a parliament”.


We will beg to differ on that, but I am just quoting what Recital 41 says.

To address the court’s concerns, the regulations therefore amend the immigration exemption, primarily to include all the relevant matters in Article 23(2)(a) to (h) of the UK GDPR. It might be helpful if I provide some details on those matters that are not relevant and are already covered in the DPA 2018. For those particular matters, no amendments are needed to the legislation, as well as for those matters that are not relevant. I will provide some details on the measures that are relevant and for which amendments have been made.

Before I do that, I point out that the regulations introduced a statutory requirement for the department to have an immigration exemption policy document before the immigration exemption could actually be applied—that is in response to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Regulation 2(2)(b) specified what must be addressed in the policy, and the controller must have regard to it. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are working to tighten the deadlines set by the court, and we did publish the IEPD draft on 10 December on GOV.UK.

Continuing now on what is and is not relevant, the following limbs of Article 23(2) are already sufficiently covered in the DPA 2018. Therefore, no amendments will be made to the legislation in relation to those limbs. They are, from Article 23(2):

“(a) the purposes of the processing or categories of processing; (b) the categories of personal data; (c) the scope of the restrictions introduced … (g) the risks to the rights and freedoms of data subjects”.


The requirement under Article 23(2)(f) to make provision in respect of

“the storage periods and the applicable safeguards taking into account the nature, scope and purposes of the processing or categories of processing”

is not relevant, as the immigration exemption does not purport to extend data storage periods, and so no amendments are proposed in this regard.

On amendments made in relation to Article 23(2)(d), including the IEPD, the article states that where relevant there shall be provisions for safeguards to prevent abuse or unlawful access or transfer. This instrument will introduce additional measures to address Article 23(2)(d). It will mandate the Secretary of State to have an immigration exemption policy document in place prior to the exemption being relied on; that they must have regard to their IEPD when applying the exemption; that a record is kept of the application of the immigration exemption; and that the data subject be informed of its application, save in certain circumstances.

The IEPD and any subsequent updates to it will be published in a manner that the Secretary of State considers appropriate. Publication will allow for flexibility, where future concerns arise—I will take back the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made this evening. There is no requirement to go through Parliament and any future concerns, if they arise, could be addressed in a shorter timeframe.

The regulations also specify what the IEPD must address. This additional measure will promote high standards of safeguards in applying the immigration exemption, consistent with those in relation to personal data relating to criminal convictions and offences. The IEPD explains how the immigration exemption must be operationally applied and the circumstances in which data rights might be exempted. These are set out in clear and precise terms. They will form part of Schedule 2 to the DPA 2018 once in force and, as such, will clearly constitute legislative measures.

Amendments are also made to Article 23(2)(e), on provisions as to the specification of the controller or categories of controllers, and to Article 23(2)(h), which states that where relevant there shall be provisions for the right of a data subject to be informed about the restriction, unless that is prejudicial to the purposes of the restriction—we went through that during the previous debate. The instrument will amend the immigration exemption so that the controller will have to inform the data subject that the exemption has been relied upon unless to do so would prejudice the purpose of the restriction, once again proving our commitment to be as open and transparent as we are able.

I am not sure whether it was the noble Baroness or the noble Lord who asked about the consultation process, but they almost played my words back to me. We consulted the parties to the litigation and the ICO and considered carefully their observations and comments, making amendments to the draft as appropriate, but clearly we did not take everyone’s comments on board, and therefore the court process came into being. We have tried, as far as possible, to address the issues through the IEPD.

I hope that noble Lords are now satisfied—I do not think they are, judging by their faces. I shall leave it there.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reiterating the Government’s position. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her detailed analysis of the issues, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones for his support, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. To quote the Minister, I think we will have to agree to disagree. Sadly, another case appears to be inevitable. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify something? She gave us some figures; I did not have a chance to write to them down. She talked about the figures peaking at, I think, somewhere around 1,700 cases. Is that the number of stateless children born in the UK who are granted British citizenship, or are they cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I assume that it is the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here. In particular, I will give him more detail about the countries from which these cases derive.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2022

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 25th January 2022 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive points during this debate. The case example that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, gave was very pertinent to how we might approach drug use in society: seeing someone as a user but also as a potential victim. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, may have told me before his moving story about the tragic consequences of using a drug that, as he said, is not only hard to detect once taken but very difficult to detect post-mortem because of how quickly it clears from the body. If someone is in a slightly confused state, having taken it and forgotten that they have taken it, the danger is compounded. I thank them both very much for those stories. On what further work will be done on post-mortem, which in itself is a difficult thing to determine, I will get more information if I can, but we recognise the difficulty of detecting post-mortem. I assume that people whose intent is criminal exploit those difficulties.

As I said earlier, the ACMD recommended that GHBRS be moved from class C to class B. We hope that reclassification will benefit the public by reflecting our new understanding of the harms of those drugs. Increased penalties for offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, coupled with the effect of the regulation in restricting supply, are expected to deter and prevent crime, but I take the points of both noble Lords about education. The Government’s drugs strategy is not a simple one of legislation; it is about support, education and moving “from harm to hope”, as the long-term strategy on drugs we have in place is called. That symbolises what the Government are trying to do.

On investment—putting our money where our mouth is—we are investing another £780 million to rebuild drug treatment and recovery services, including for young people and offenders, with new commissioning standards to drive transparency and consistency. Strengthening the evidence base for how best to deter use, ensuring that adults change their behaviour, alongside targeted activity to prevent young people from getting into this lifestyle in the first place, is really important.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that young people do not pay attention to classification—I totally agree—so how would reclassification meet our ambition in the drugs strategy? We need to take a better approach; I think we have all recognised that. No matter who you are and where you use, you should be encouraged to change your behaviour and to face consequences if you do not. We all know that recreational drug use fuels criminal markets—they thrive on it—which has a terrible impact on those involved in supply and the communities in which it takes place.

The noble Lord also asked me about treatment available to support users of GHB. As I said earlier, there is now significant investment in treatment, which will mean that everyone who needs help with their drug use will be able to get it. Substance misuse commissioners and sexual health commissioners will be supported to work together to improve pathways between services for those who use drugs in a chemsex context, where GHB is of course frequently used, and local authorities will continue to play their role here.

On challenging the Government’s approach to drugs, we are clear that it is anchored in education and effective consequences to reduce demand, tough and intelligent enforcement to restrict supply, and evidence-based treatment to aid recovery and co-ordinated global action. As we know, the problem is a global one.

On discriminatory effects and the groups that are disproportionately affected by tougher penalties, I refer now to the MSM community. The ACMD says in its report that men who have sex with men are the largest user group of GHBRS—I do not think that is disputed. They are often taken in the context of chemsex. The changes in classification and scheduling will disproportionately impact this group. However, the potential benefits of reducing the prevalence and the harms from GHBRS will also benefit the group.

As both noble Lords have said, legislative changes in and of themselves will not act in isolation. We expect to respond shortly to the ACMD’s educational and treatment-based recommendations, which will be delivered by the Office for Health Improvement and Disparities. We hope that this will help to counteract any unintended impact of the reclassification of GHBRS.

I hope that I have answered both noble Lords’ questions. I am sure that if I have not, they will intervene on me. If there are no further points, I commend the regulation to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her comprehensive explanation. I was not suggesting at all that it would be wrong if this change had a disproportionate impact on a particular section of society. My main concern is that, to me, with the knowledge that I have of controlled drugs and the way they are used, I cannot think of anything more dangerous in terms of risk to life than GHB and the related substances. Perhaps the ACMD felt that it could not do two steps at once—in other words, it could not go from class C to Class A, because that might undermine its previous assessment of the drug. As I explained, I understand that the long-term effects of cannabis can be quite damaging to people’s mental health, but there is not the same danger of cannabis being weaponised to commit sexual offences, for it to be used as a murder weapon, as it was in the Stephen Port case, or as an overdose resulting in immediate and sudden death. Yet it is being reclassified as the same class as cannabis when it appears to me, from my experience, to be far more dangerous than cannabis. Does the noble Baroness have anything to say on that point?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I did not for a moment think that the noble Lord was objecting to the disproportionate effect on certain groups. When the ACMD considers things, it considers them very carefully and keeps them under review. I have tried to outline concern today about the stigma caused by increasing the classification on those who use the drugs, but also the desire to help people with the terrible problems that these drugs can cause. I am sure that it will keep it under review, and the noble Lord may well be right: it may recommend further classification in due course.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage
Monday 17th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords that this group includes 26 amendments, and that noble Lords are entitled to speak only once on each group, in case people were thinking of having another go. I cannot possibly speak on all 26 amendments; if I spent only one minute on each, I would be here for 26 minutes. But we on these Benches oppose all the measures in Part 3 of the Bill, including the new government amendments introduced late at night in Committee. We will come to those in a later group.

I am a former senior police officer and part of a small, specially selected group of senior police officers trained in the policing of protests. My view, and the view of the majority of police officers interviewed by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services, contrary to what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has just said, is that the limiting factor in the policing of protests on the police’s ability to control protests is the number of suitably trained police officers available, not a lack of police powers or legislation.

Not only are new powers and new offences unnecessary but there is a very real danger of dragging the police into political decisions on which protests should go ahead and which should not, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, has just said. There is a very real danger of more scenes like those we saw at the Sarah Everard vigil on Clapham Common happening with greater frequency. There is a real danger of more and more police officers being drawn into policing protests to enforce more and more restrictions and bans, taking them away from policing their communities and, as a result, further undermining trust and confidence in the police and their ability to enforce the law.

I spoke at length in Committee and do not intend to repeat myself. I refer noble Lords to the Official Report. We support all the non-government amendments in this group. Particularly, we do not agree that protests should be banned because the police think they might be too noisy—so we will be voting in support of Amendment 115.

We agree with the former Conservative Home Secretary who led on the original public order legislation in 1986 that the police should not be able to dictate where and when public meetings or assemblies should take place or to ban them completely. To quote Lord Hurd of Westwell,

“that would be an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/1/1986; col. 797.]

The Minister may say that the provisions simply bring limitations on assemblies into line with the limitations on processions, but I ask what has changed. It is still an excessive limit on the right of assembly and freedom of speech. I will therefore be testing the opinion of the House on Amendment 132. These measures are an outrageous limitation of people’s fundamental right in a democracy, and we oppose them.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by quoting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who said that good debate relies on good listening. I hope that noble Lords will listen, as they did in the previous group, to what I have to say.

My noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Coaker, were all in agreement that many of them would have been in breach of these provisions in protests that they took part in. No. I disagree with that; the police rarely impose conditions on a protest, and we expect that to continue to be the case.

I thought the noble Lord, Lord Walney, made some compelling arguments about how lucky we are to live in a democracy and how much we value protest—we can hear the drumbeats outside, which no one is going to stop. To answer the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leeds, the provisions are not new today; they have been in the Bill from the start.

The government amendments give effect to the recommendations made by both the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee. Under the Public Order Act 1986 as amended by the Bill, the police may attach certain conditions to a public procession, public assembly or one-person protest, including where that is necessary to prevent serious disruption. The Bill enables the Secretary of State to define the meaning of “serious disruption” in regulations, and we have published an indicative draft of such regulations.

However, both the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee argued that definitions should be in the Bill, although the DPRRC agreed that there should be a power to amend the definition by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The government amendments therefore take the definitions as set out in the draft regulations and write them into the Public Order Act. Again, I express my thanks to my noble friend Lord Blencathra—although I do not see him in his place—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, and the other members of the DPRRC and the Constitution Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill. I trust that the amendments will be acceptable to them and indeed to the House as a whole. The word “significant” is lifted from the draft regulations that the Constitution Committee said were not unreasonable.

Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, would remove the new noise triggers for the police to impose conditions on public processions. Amendments 123, 124, 125 and 147 would collectively do the same for public assemblies and single-person protests. In response to those amendments, I reiterate to the House that noise generated by protesters can have a significant and detrimental impact on the wider public. It is unacceptable, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham says, that certain protests can seriously disrupt the lives of ordinary people.

It is absolutely right that the Government give the police the tools that they require to tackle disruptive protests. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, stated during the debate in Committee on these measures,

“noise can be more than an irritant.”—[Official Report, 24/11/21; col. 944.]

In some contexts, it can be tortuous, and it is important to contextualise the different situations in which it can happen, such as the time of day or where it takes place. Is it outside an old people’s home, or is it in Parliament Square? Is it anti-vaxxers outside a school, or in St Ann’s Square in Manchester?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I could deal with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to begin with. My recollection is that the report on public order from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services showed that many officers did not want additional powers to deal with locking on. That is in the report. My experience is that the police are getting better and better at dealing with locking on, particularly people supergluing themselves to roadways—people are not now glued to the roadway for very long.

On hospitals that are on minor roads, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made it quite clear that he wanted the increased penalty of imprisonment for highway obstruction on the strategic road network where there is no realistic way around a blockage that has been put in. A hospital may be on a minor road, but there are other ways of getting to it, and I do not feel that that argument holds water. I will come to the noble Lord’s comments about the serious disruption orders shortly.

The Minister said that these amendments were debated in Committee. That debate started at 11.50 pm. The Minister stood up to make her closing remarks at 1 am. Does she really think that that is serious consideration and debate of these measures?

These government amendments were a hurried response to the Home Secretary’s knee-jerk, populist reaction to Insulate Britain protests at the Conservative Party conference. Consideration of this part of the Bill had to be taken out of order, to give civil servants time to cobble together these last-minute, ill-conceived, badly thought-through acts of desperation, introduced into this House late at night on the last day of Committee without any consideration by the other place. If the Government are determined to bring in these draconian, antidemocratic laws, reminiscent of Cold War Eastern bloc police states, they should withdraw them now and introduce them as a separate Bill to allow the democratically elected House time to consider them properly.

We oppose all these government amendments, for the reasons I set out in Committee—albeit in the early hours of the morning—and I refer noble Lords to the Official Report. Given the hour, we will vote against the most egregious measures: Amendment 151, which is clearly targeted at climate protesters; Amendment 155, which gives police the power to stop and search anyone and everyone in the vicinity of a protest, including innocent passers-by; and Amendment 159, by which the police can apply for an order to ban people from their democratic right to protest, even when they have never been to a protest in their life, let alone been convicted of any offence in connection with a protest. That is the power in these measures—you do not even have to have been to a protest to be banned from future ones. You do not even have to be convicted of an offence in connection with a protest before you can be banned from going to protests.

If the Official Opposition decide to vote on Amendment 148, on locking on, we will support them. We will also vote in favour of Amendment 150A, to restrict imprisonment for highway obstruction to blocking motorways and other parts of the strategic road network.

The anti-protest measures in the original Bill were dreadful. These measures, and the way they have been introduced, are outrageous.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am not sure whether noble Lords want more time to debate or me to hurry up. If noble Lords will indulge me for a minute, I will thank them for the support for the new measures that has come from one area of the House, but it is clear that a number of other noble Lords are less enamoured of the government amendments. As I said in opening the debate, I think the British public will fully support these reasonable and proportionate measures to ensure that their daily lives are not disrupted by the sorts of tactics we saw from Insulate Britain last autumn. This is not an argument for or against climate change; it is about the disruption caused to the lives of the working British public.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage
Wednesday 12th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, talked about demonising protest—I bet she is looking forward to Monday. The noble Lord, Lord Walney, talked about exclusion zones around Parliament; there are significant powers to protect Parliament from this sort of thing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has explained, this amendment is a significantly improved version of the one considered in Committee, with numerous safeguards. Unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, I am “glass half full” man: I think that the safeguards here are actually quite significant, in that it requires the consent of the leadership of any school affected or of the NHS body responsible for any vaccination centre affected and, in addition, of the local police chief. Generally speaking, the police are very averse to making political decisions and siding with one particular protest group against another, so that is a significant safeguard. It also requires the consent of the local authority leader, which is another significant safeguard. The potential for selective protection orders based on the issue being protested about—the one the noble Baroness raised in Committee—is therefore significantly reduced.

In addition, contrary to what the noble Baroness said, the statutory duty to consult the public on the order is not waived at all but can take place concurrently with the order taking effect, if the matter is urgent. It also cannot last more than 12 months; the initial grant is for six months, and it can be extended only once. If only the Government were to take such a reasonable approach to the renewal of orders in other aspect of the Bill.

In the light of recent events such as the invasion of the test and trace centre in Milton Keynes last month, we have seen the importance of such orders and the need for the police to secure intelligence and take action to prevent such interference with the vaccination effort, which does not seem to be going away any time soon. There is ample recent evidence of the need for this amendment, and we support it.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I start by joining the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in deploring the anti-vaxxers who stood outside my right honourable friend Sajid Javid’s house. I deplore it every time they disrupt our public services such as schools and hospitals. More recently, they have taken part in some very disruptive and abusive activity. On the point about Parliament made by the noble Lord, Lord Walney, we will of course debate that on Monday.

I actually share the aims of this amendment, and I am grateful for the further opportunity to debate the policing of anti-vax protests and consider the merits of fast-track public space protection orders, or PSPOs. The amendment is very similar to one debated in Committee that sought to provide the fast-track PSPOs to protect schools from harmful protests, but it goes further, also allowing for fast-track PSPOs outside premises providing NHS vaccination services. It also removes the need for a consultation in advance of a PSPO outside these premises being implemented.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out, I set out in Committee the powers of the police to protect pupils, teachers and staff from disruptive protest activity outside schools, as well as the benefits that some of the new measures in the Bill will bring. Many of these existing or new powers apply also to disruptive protests at vaccination sites. I sympathise with the noble Lord’s intention to protect schools and vaccination sites from harmful protests, but this amendment will not help to achieve that aim. It removes the need for a consultation prior to a PSPO being put in place, instead requiring consent from the relevant school or NHS body, the chief of police, and the leader of the local authority. This is unlikely to materially speed up the process in which a PSPO can be implemented as there is currently no minimum consultation period required before a PSPO can be put in place. I struggle to understand how we can implement the PSPO and run a consultation concurrently.

It is also important to note that in making a PSPO under this amendment a local authority would still be accountable, potentially in legal proceedings, for demonstrating that the order is compliant with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. Consultations can provide supporting evidence to demonstrate this compliance, meaning that a local authority could find itself subject to increased legal risks if it does not perform a consultation prior to implementing a PSPO, even if legislation states that it is not necessary. I share the unease of the noble Lord, Lord Walney, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, that it would, at the hands of a very few people, allow local areas to pick and choose which protests were politically acceptable.

Although I support the underlying aims of the amendment, in the sense that no one working at a school, hospital or other vaccination site should be subject to abusive or highly disruptive protests, powers are in place, which we are strengthening through the Bill, to assist the police and others to tackle such protests. We will be discussing many of them on Monday. The powers already include the ability for local authorities to make, at speed, a PSPO. Given this, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is happy to withdraw his amendment.

Metropolitan Police: Stephen Port Murders Inquest

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 14th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in lamenting the deaths of Anthony Walgate, Gabriel Kovari, Daniel Whitworth, and Jack Taylor, three of whom might not have died. The inquest’s conclusions provide very serious lessons for policing to consider and act upon. It is also right that independent and professional bodies have the opportunity to review the case. HMICFRS has been asked to conduct an inspection into the standard of the Metropolitan Police Service’s investigations. The IOPC will also assess whether to reopen, either in full or in part, its investigation.

I understand that the coroner ruled that on the basis of the evidence, it would not have been possible for a conclusion to be reached on whether homophobia was an overriding factor in mistakes made, but the MPS has already announced an independent review, headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, into its culture. I will, of course, take a very close interest in her findings and any recommendations she makes.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I speak as a gay former senior police officer whose former partner died, as these men died, of the drug GHB. There is an expectation that the Commissioner will front press briefings when the reputation of the Metropolitan Police is in jeopardy, as she did over the death of Sarah Everard and the photographing of murdered sisters Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry. When the jury in this case concluded that the deaths of three young gay men could have been prevented had the police done their job properly, she was nowhere to be seen. Can the Minister explain why? Did the Commissioner think this was not important enough? Is this further evidence of institutional homophobia? There may be an innocent explanation, but I hope the Minister understands how this looks.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In response to the noble Lord’s question about why the Commissioner was not publicly fronting any statements or comments, one thing we can say is that attitudes in the police have changed since the time of those young men’s murders, which is not to diminish this in any way. The Commissioner is, of course, a member of the LGBT community. I do not know the answer. I do not think it diminishes in any way the horror and the feelings of the Metropolitan Police about what has happened. I will say that, since the time of those murders, diversity within the police has improved—it has a long way to go, but it has improved—and there is more training in place to improve that diversity and the culture in which the police operate.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Report stage
Wednesday 8th December 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we support this amendment. As I said in Committee, it is not just victims of domestic violence that need help and support from housing authorities to escape serious violence; young people groomed and exploited by criminal gangs, for example, also need and deserve to be urgently rehoused in certain circumstances. The police need to provide information to housing authorities where they believe that someone is being coerced into criminal activity, where they are being threatened with serious violence if they do not comply, and where the police believe that taking the person out of that scenario by rehousing them can reduce the risk of serious violence. Many of the young people involved in county lines drug dealing have been groomed into criminality and been the victims of child criminal exploitation. They and their families are often terrorised by those higher up the drug-dealing network. In this sort of scenario, the police need to work with social housing agencies to provide a route out of serious violence. We support the amendment.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham for setting out the case for his amendment. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I fully agree that local authorities can and do make a significant contribution to local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence, and it is vitally important that all victims of serious violence who need to leave their home to escape violence are supported to access alternative safe and secure accommodation. As my noble friend has already outlined, the statutory homelessness code of guidance provides guidance on local authorities’ duties under Part 7 of the Housing Act. The amendment seeks to place a requirement on the Secretary of State to issue a code of practice under Section 214A of the Housing Act 1996.

The implementation of the serious violence duty will bring additional guidance to which local authorities will have a statutory duty to have regard. The guidance accompanying the duty, to be issued under Clause 18 of the Bill, will reinforce and complement the existing guidance issued under housing and homelessness legislation. Taken together, I hope there will be sufficient guidance in place to ensure local authorities are clear on how the legislation applies in addressing the housing needs of victims of serious violence.

I hope my noble friend agrees—and I think he would—that to introduce another code of practice in addition to the existing homelessness code of guidance and the serious violence duty guidance would lead to unnecessary confusion and duplication. I hope to assure my noble friend this evening that the points his amendment is seeking to address are already covered, and are what we are planning to do in future.

Paragraph (a) of my noble friend’s new clause would require the code of practice to provide guidance on the operation of Section 177 of the Housing Act 1996 in relation to people who are at risk of serious violence.

The Housing Act 1996, as amended by the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, puts prevention at the heart of the local authorities’ response to homelessness and places duties on local housing authorities to take reasonable steps to try to prevent and relieve a person’s homelessness. When assessing if an applicant is homeless, local authorities should consider any evidence of violence and harassment. Section 177 already provides that someone is considered homeless if it would not be reasonable for them to continue to occupy the accommodation and it is probable that this would lead to violence against them, their family or their household.

Paragraph (b) of the new clause seeks to update the homelessness code of guidance to include a chapter on the duties of local authorities. We are committed to supporting victims of serious violence and know the important role that local authorities play in making sure that such victims get support when they are in housing need.

As noble Lords will know, we published a draft of the statutory guidance for the serious violence duty in May. The debates in both Houses have helped to identify areas which need further development prior to publishing a revised draft, which will be subject to a formal consultation following Royal Assent of the Bill. Officials will work closely with the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and representatives from the housing sector to strengthen the statutory guidance for the serious violence duty. This will point to the legislation and guidance that is already set out in the homelessness code of guidance and the allocation of accommodation guidance, and showcase examples of good practice in this area which local partners can draw on to raise awareness across public authorities of the legislation which protects this cohort.

I can also give a commitment this evening that we will expand the homelessness code of guidance to include a new chapter on supporting victims of serious violence, which I hope gives my noble friend the assurance he seeks in this regard.

Paragraphs (c) and (d) of the new clause concern the role of the police in timely collaboration with housing providers on reducing the risk of serious violence to individuals, and guidance on the disclosure of information. Of course, we must do all that we can to identify and provide support to the individuals most at risk of involvement in serious violence, including those who might be at risk of homelessness.

As noble Lords have stated, many housing authorities already work with the police and other key partners to reduce the risk of serious violence, including through the provision of alternative accommodation. Where this works well, it is clear that it is vital that services such as youth offending teams, educational authorities and national probation services work together locally to provide support for the household and victim of violence. Housing alone without support, I think noble Lords will agree, is not a sustainable option.

As part of the work to prevent and reduce serious violence, specified authorities in a local area will be required to work together to identify the kinds and causes of serious violence and, in doing so, to establish the groups of individuals who are most at risk in local areas.

The new serious violence duty will facilitate this and is intended to generate better partnership working locally to further protect this cohort. The draft guidance is clear that local authorities are responsible for the delivery of a range of vital services for people and businesses in a local area, including—but not limited to—children’s and adult’s social care, schools, housing and planning, youth services and community safety, so they will have an essential role to play in partnership arrangements. The inclusion of this detail in the guidance for the new duty, alongside the existing homelessness legislation and guidance, is the most effective way of supporting these victims of serious and gang-related violence to relocate and start afresh.

To support the collaboration, Clause 9 provides that regulations can also be made to authorise the disclosure of information, which we talked about earlier, between authorities and prescribed persons, which might be external bodies for this purpose, so long as it would not contravene existing data protection legislation or be prohibited under provisions of the IPA 2016. This of course would be a permissive gateway, permitting but not requiring the sharing of information.

I hope that, in the light of the assurances and commitment I have given in relation to the statutory guidance and the relevant existing legislation on this matter, my noble friend will be content to withdraw his amendment—and I apologise for the lateness of the arrival of the letter.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2021

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 30th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is quarterly. I turn to the review of Prevent. Sorry, I did not quite finish the previous point. As to the effectiveness of resources, clearly, I cannot comment on individual cases. I can, however, assure the Committee that they have the support of the police and of the Security Service. Successive courts have ruled that TPIMs are lawful and effective tools for managing individuals engaged in terrorism. The Home Office is confident that the TPIM regime is fully resourced to manage any number of TPIMs, although they are few in number. The review of Prevent will be laid in the Houses of Parliament by 31 December.

I thought the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, about lone wolf terrorism was very pertinent. We are seeing increasing numbers of lone actors. How can TPIMs help? If a lone actor is not on the radar, it is very difficult to pre-empt what that person will do. The intelligence that our various agencies have is there to help identify people who may be vulnerable to such acts. The TPIM is threat-agnostic, and goes across a range of threats.

How can we best use external experts? I have spoken to a number in the field not just of counterterrorism but of counterextremism. The noble Lord was pointing towards this. Our current independent reviewer of Prevent is clearly an expert in his field. We are lucky to have the experts we do, giving advice to the Home Office and the Government. I think I have answered all questions.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raised a couple of issues. He suggested that the Government had justified the TPIM regime on two bases. The first is that reviews take place. Whether this is an independent decision by the Legal Aid Agency or not, we have heard that people are abandoning their reviews because they are not being funded for legal representation. Presumably they feel it is a waste of time unless they have representation. Secondly, they say that these hearings give the subject the opportunity to hear the national security case against them. Clearly, the TPIM subject does not hear the national security case in court. Perhaps there is a hint of what might lie behind it, but they do not hear the case. The Minister did not answer those particular questions. Perhaps she could write to noble Lords.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I partly answered them, but I am happy to clarify in writing. I beg to move.

Small Boats Incident in the Channel

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 25th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat that my thoughts are with all those affected by yesterday’s tragedy in the channel. I asked for the Statement to be repeated so that Members of this House who had not signed up to the debate that we just had on this subject, scheduled before this tragedy happened, had an opportunity to question the Government.

The Home Secretary talked about traffickers finding people to manipulate and said that some of them do not even know that they are coming to the UK. What evidence can the Minister share with the House that people smugglers

“threaten … bully and assault the people who get into these boats”?

What evidence is there that asylum seekers, who must know that they are in France, or at the very least in mainland Europe, who are getting into boats, do not know that they are coming to the UK?

The Home Secretary gives the impression that vulnerable people are being forced against their will into these boats. Surely people traffickers would be only too happy to save money on boats and leave those who had already paid them in mainland Europe? Is it not the truth that these desperate people, who often speak English and no other European language, and who often have relatives or other people they know in the UK, know that they cannot seek asylum in the UK unless they are in the UK?

The Home Secretary says that people traffickers

“use the money they make for other heinous crimes”.

What are the heinous crimes to which the Home Secretary is referring? She also talked about a

“wide range of operational and diplomatic work”.

How can the Home Secretary talk about boat turnarounds the day after at least 27 people lost their lives, given that it is a tactic that can only increase the risk of further tragic deaths?

On diplomatic work, Ministers have talked about processing asylum claims in places such as Albania and Ascension Island. Meanwhile, Albania angrily denies any discussion on the issue and says that it would never agree, even if there had been discussions. Are the Government just making it up, and have they not got beyond the letter A in the list of fictitious partners?

The Home Secretary talked about the Government not being able to do it alone and it being impossible without close co-operation between international partners. Has leaving the European Union made such co-operation easier or more difficult? Is it not the case that, rather than pointing the finger at the French, who take more asylum seekers per head of population than the UK, or at the people traffickers, whom Clare Moseley of Care4Calais described as a symptom of the problem and not its cause, the Government should look in the mirror? The problem is not taking climate change seriously enough. The problem is reducing the UK foreign aid budget. The problem is UK foreign policy failures. All make it more difficult for people to remain where they are. The problem with channel crossings is that this Government refuse to allow people to claim asylum unless their feet are on British soil.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, for their points. I join with them both in mourning the loss of those lives in the small boat yesterday. It is a tragedy.

In terms of the various questions they asked, I am going to slightly work backwards. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about offshoring. The Home Secretary has made it quite clear that she is considering all options and that nothing is off the table.

In terms of the heinous crimes that the Home Secretary talks about, it is interesting when you look at serious and organised criminals that these people are involved in multiple types of crime, not just people trafficking but money laundering, drugs and other things of that ilk.

In terms of evidence for bullying and people not knowing that they are coming to the UK, I am sure that the Home Secretary has said that based on the intelligence and information that she has got, so I think that stands. I assume it is fact.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said that France is not the first safe country. That is precisely the point—people are not claiming asylum in the first safe country. They are then travelling to France and trying to get to the UK.

The noble Lord asked about the turnaround tactics. They are lawful, as I explained in the previous debate. They are delivered in accordance with domestic and international law and obligations. However, I will say what I said before, which is that our priority—first and foremost—is always to save lives. Every action that the Border Force takes is safe and in accordance with the law.

The noble Lord also asked about surveillance. I do not know how frequently they are operating. That is a question of detail that I do not know. Of course, there is the fact of French law being different from UK law, so there are privacy issues around the use of drones. I know that they are working on legislation to put it through parliament. We, of course, have the joint intelligence cell, which was established back in 2020, with the UK and France working together. It is a cross-European problem. This is not isolated to the United Kingdom. All countries across Europe are seeing it.

The noble Lord asked about Dubs and the 3,000—3,000 was never agreed in Parliament and therefore was never pledged. We met our obligations under Dubs, and I outlined some of the other schemes under which people have come to this country since 2015, such as the Syrian resettlement scheme, family reunion visas and the BNO scheme. We now have the global resettlement scheme, the mandate scheme, the children’s resettlement scheme and the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. There are many routes under which people have come and will still be able to come here.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about law enforcement co-operation. That has been offered. We want to work with our French counterparts and we do through the joint intelligence cell, as I have said. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary spoke to Minister Darmanin this morning and again reiterated returns offers. As I said in the Statement, the Prime Minister spoke to President Macron last night. The Home Secretary was exploring the various gaps in our mutual capabilities and how we could solve what is now a mutual problem.

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. That claim that only 5% of people, or one in 20, have received a payment is actually a bit misleading. When we first set up the scheme, we made an estimate, which I remember saying to the House was quite difficult to make, of the number of people we thought might be eligible. That estimate was originally 15,000 and was then revised down to 11,500. It is now 4,600. Obviously, we will try our best to ensure that anyone who comes forward gets the compensation that they deserve. We now estimate, based on what I have just said to my noble friend, that 29% of people who have submitted a claim have received a payment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend’s tireless efforts. We now know that there are lengthy delays, even in clear-cut cases, to making an initial payment. But we know that the Home Office is capable of moving quickly: it has tabled 18 pages of new offences and police powers for the police Bill within two months of the Home Secretary asking for them. So what is it about the Windrush generation that means that they are not a priority for the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think that statement is incorrect. The Windrush generation and the Windrush scheme are a priority for the Home Office. I have been through some of the improvements that we have made: we are increasing the number of caseworkers, and the amount of compensation has risen quite dramatically since we put some of the changes in place, from £3 million to over £31.6 million, with a further £5.6 million having been offered. There is no cap on the amount of compensation that we will pay out. We have also removed the time limit so that as many people who can apply do.

Some of the cases can be quite complex and therefore take longer than might be normal—and, of course, we are going back decades in time—but we are keener than ever, and it remains a priority, to ensure that anyone who is due compensation will be paid it.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in what he has just said. I have heard two rumours—one, that the Government Chief Whip is urging people to keep their comments on the Bill today short. I wish to declare to the Government Chief Whip that that is not possible, bearing in mind the number and complexity of issues that we are supposed to debate today. The other rumour that I have heard is that, if the House is still debating at 2 am, only then will the debate be adjourned. If that is right, looking at the timetable, that means that the most contentious parts of the Bill—the new amendments, as the noble and learned Lord said, which have not even been considered by the House of Commons—will be debated either side of midnight. That is no way for this House to be treated.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I have not heard the rumour about keeping comments short. We are about to begin the 11th day in Committee of this Bill. In total, this House has sat for 60 hours in Committee, including starting early and going beyond 10 pm, as well as allowing three extra days. By the time when we finish today—and we intend to do so—we will have considered and debated more than 450 amendments.

As for the new clauses, they have been agreed with the usual channels and with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. I would say to noble Lords who have spoken that we intend to finish Committee today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thornhill has spoken comprehensively on these amendments, so I can be brief. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, for introducing the amendment. She rightly points to the failure of the current legislation to adequately deal with this problem on the basis of the facts that she presented. Something clearly needs to be done to ensure that the police play their part. If South Yorkshire Police can do it, why cannot every force? We support this amendment.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for his Amendment 292J. Noble Lords may have seen the ITV “News at Ten” last night on how young people are increasingly being exploited, particularly by drug dealers. That is in addition to a 6% increase in reported domestic violence during lockdown, when many more children would have become vulnerable. There is too much emphasis on the criminal justice system as a way to deal with these vulnerable young people, rather than there being a statutory duty on local authorities, the NHS and the police, as this amendment suggests. We support it.

The noble Lord, Lord Best, introduced Amendments 320 and 328. I remember being told as a young constable about the antiquated legislation—the Vagrancy Act 1824—introduced to deal with soldiers returning from the Napoleonic wars. That was in 1976—not the Napoleonic wars, when I was a young constable; they were a bit earlier. People should not be criminalised simply for begging and sleeping rough. There is adequate alternative legislation to deal with anti-social behaviour and the Vagrancy Act is now redundant. As the explanatory note says, these amendments would require police officers

“to balance protection of the community with sensitivity to the problems that cause people to engage in begging or sleeping rough and ensure that general public order enforcement powers should not in general be used in relation to people sleeping rough, and should be used in relation to people begging only where no other approach is reasonably available.”

On that basis, we support these amendments as well.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by saying that I have great sympathy with the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, to firmly stamp out the illegal eviction of tenants. This distressing activity has no place in our society and it is an unacceptable practice carried out by rogue landlords, perpetrated on tenants.

I totally agree that the police and local authorities need to work together to tackle that. Many noble Lords have spoken in today’s Committee who have experience of this type of multiagency working. It is essential in terms of supporting the vulnerable, and there are many examples of that. I always talk about the troubled families programme, which is one such intervention but it is such an important one because some people have multiple problems. It is a fantastic way for agencies to sort them out together. Local authorities and the police also have mechanisms in place to work collaboratively to tackle criminal landlords. The police are also able to establish protocols for information sharing, which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, spoke about. We expect them to use those protocols to their full extent to aid investigations into illegal evictions and enforce the law.

If the noble Baroness, Lady Blake, has examples that suggest a lack of effective co-operation, I should be very happy to pass them on to my colleagues in DLUHC. As has been pointed out, there are lots of good examples of how interventions have worked well, particularly in Westminster. If there is an issue, the solution here is not more legislation. The existing powers we have are sufficient. But I accept that it is incumbent on the police and local authorities to work collaboratively to tackle crime in their areas, including on illegal eviction investigations. As regards the point about police saying that issues are a civil matter, which the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of Cradley and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned, the police have powers of arrest and it is important that those powers are used appropriately, including on illegal eviction investigations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I was trying to say was that legislation is in place but, if it is not always followed in practice, it would be very helpful to know about it. However, I accept the final point that the noble Baroness makes.

I turn to the issues that the noble Lord raises in his amendment. If you consider first children impacted by domestic abuse, it is totally unacceptable that some children have to witness abuse carried out in their home by those whom they should trust the most. This Government have demonstrated their absolute resolve to tackle domestic abuse and its impact on children, both in legislation earlier this year—the Domestic Abuse Act—and through the upcoming domestic abuse strategy.

As part of the landmark Domestic Abuse Act, children are recognised as victims of domestic abuse in their own right where they see, hear or experience the effects of domestic abuse. This is an important step which will help ensure that locally commissioned services continue to consider and address the needs of children. Further, the Act created the role of the domestic abuse commissioner in statute to provide public leadership on domestic abuse issues and to oversee and monitor the provision of services for victims, including children. The provisions of the Act came into force on 1 November.

It is really important that young victims receive the right support at the right time—which was precisely the wording that the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong of Hill Top, used—to help them cope and recover and to mitigate the long-term impact of their experiences. We are determined to continue to improve the standard of support for victims of crime. This year the Government will provide £150 million to victim support services, which includes an extra £51 million to increase support for rape and domestic abuse victims. That includes support for children and young people.

Through the children affected by domestic abuse fund we have provided £3 million this year for specialist services for children who have been affected by domestic abuse. This funding is enabling a range of therapeutic interventions for children, such as one-to-one or group support. In addition, the Home Office is this year providing £169,000-worth of funding to Operation Encompass, a scheme which connects the police to schools through a specialist support helpline for teachers concerned about children experiencing domestic abuse. The helpline was established during the Covid-19 pandemic, as noble Lords might recall, and we are continuing to fund it this year.

Turning to the matter of child criminal exploitation, the Government are investing in specialist support for under-25s and their families who are affected by county lines exploitation in the three largest exporting force areas—London, the West Midlands and Merseyside. The Government are also funding the Children’s Society’s Prevention Programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and national basis. This has included supporting the #LookCloser public awareness campaign, which focuses on increasing awareness and encouraging reporting of the signs and indicators of child exploitation. We also fund Missing People’s SafeCall service, which is a national confidential helpline for young people, families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation.

Through cross-government efforts we are working to identify areas of learning with regard to child criminal exploitation and improving our response to it. The Home Office and the Department for Education are currently testing the effectiveness of how multi-agency safeguarding partnerships respond to serious violence and county lines through a series of deep dives. We have recently received the findings from those reviews and are considering the best way to share the learning and practice with local areas.

In the wider landscape, the noble Lord will be aware that the Government will be consulting on a victims’ Bill. As part of that consultation, we will seek views on the provision of community-based support services for victims, including children. The consultation will carefully look at how local bodies collaborate to support victims and will consider the evidence to determine where legislation could be used more effectively. Therefore, although I am very sympathetic to the aims of the noble Lord’s amendment, I hope that he is sufficiently reassured by the extensive ongoing efforts to tackle these two issues, the existing arrangements in place and, indeed, our plans to consider the duty to collaborate further as part of the victims’ Bill.

Finally, in relation to Amendments 320 and 328, I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Best, that the time has come—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. Before we get on to the Vagrancy Act and the other amendments, she talked about treating children as victims of domestic violence if they witness it, and about child criminal exploitation. There is a third group: children who witness violence, particularly in the home, and suffer adverse childhood experiences as a result which lead them into committing crime. I remember attending a juvenile detention facility in Scotland, where almost every child in custody had experienced violence in the home as a cause. The Minister talked about two issues, but there is this third issue of adverse childhood experiences leading to offending behaviour, which I believe the noble Lord’s amendment addresses in a way that the Minister has not.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My intention was not to leave out that issue; we could have a whole debate on the effect of childhood abuse, trauma and witnessing violence on the future prospects of a person when they become an adult and their increased likelihood of going on to abuse, but my intention was not to dismiss it. I apologise that I did not mention it, but the intention certainly was not to dismiss it at all.

Finally, I move to the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Best. As I said, the time has come to reconsider the Vagrancy Act—some of the language that was used is so antiquated that it would perhaps be alien to some of this generation. I agree that nobody should be criminalised just because they have nowhere to live. Back in 2018, we committed to review the legislation following mixed views among stakeholders regarding the continued relevance of the Act, given that it is, as noble Lords have said, nearly 200 years old. I am sure that noble Lords can understand that announcing the outcome of this review has been delayed by several factors. One noble Lord mentioned the dedicated response for vulnerable individuals who are sleeping rough during the pandemic, which was outstanding.

It has been imperative to understand the full picture of how and why the Vagrancy Act is used, and what impact any change to or repeal of the Act will have. Rough sleeping and begging are complex issues, and the Act continues to be used. The review considered a range of factors and at its heart has been the experiences and perceptions of relevant stakeholders, including local authorities and the police. The Act continues to be used to tackle begging, and, if repealed, a legislative gap would be left that might impact on the police’s ability to respond to it.

The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 is not an alternative in this context. The powers in the Act are available to police and local authorities to tackle specific forms of behaviour that meet the legal tests in that legislation—for example, behaviour that is likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to a victim or community. As I have said, begging is complex, but plainly it does not always come with these forms of accompanying behaviours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this group contains two completely different issues: protection of the routes around Parliament and potential places where Parliament may sit while renovation work is undertaken; and the new statutory offence of public nuisance. How putting these two issues into one group is supposed to save time, I have no idea.

Clause 58 is about the obstruction of vehicular access to Parliament. Noble Lords, particularly those with mobility issues, have had difficulty accessing Parliament, particularly during Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, although I would not describe the Prime Minister being hindered from attending Prime Minister’s Questions in September 2020 as someone with mobility issues, unless you are talking about levelling up. It is a bit late for subtle jokes like that.

These provisions go much further. They expand obstruction to include

“making the passage of a vehicle more difficult.”

Presumably, any delay caused, even slow-moving traffic, would be covered by such an offence, and this could potentially criminalise any protest within the expanded controlled zone outlined in these proposals. Protests that have resulted in Members of Parliament being prevented from accessing Parliament have been few and far between, which suggests that the existing provisions are adequate. Clause 58 is unnecessary.

Clause 59 allows the Secretary of State to move the controlled area in the event of either House of Parliament being relocated because of building works under the restoration and renewal programme. This enables the Secretary of State to impose restrictions on protest to whatever area she thinks fit, however wide, by regulations. Parliament has no chance to question or vary the extent of the controlled area; it must either accept or reject the proposal made by the Secretary of State. The clause also gives the Secretary of State power to

“make provision for any other enactment, or any instrument made under an enactment, to have effect with modifications in consequence of regulations”

under this provision. This is too much power given in regulations to the Secretary of State, who could effectively ban protest almost anywhere within a wide area around any place where Parliament may be relocated to. Clause 59 is too broad and should not stand part of the Bill in its current form.

Parliament is at the heart of democracy in this country, but what about other institutions and organisations that are also important to the democratic process? What about news broadcasters or print journalists who hold politicians generally, and the Government in particular, to account? Where is the protection from protests aimed at disrupting a free media, such as the blockading or invading of television news and radio studios and newspaper printworks? This looks very much like protecting the Government and Government Ministers while doing nothing to protect those who hold the Government and Government Ministers to account.

Clause 60 creates a new statutory offence of public nuisance, as recommended by the Law Commission, but the provision appears to be far too wide and could potentially impact on all protests. Liberty’s briefing quotes Lord Justice Laws, who said in the case of Tabernacle v the Secretary of State for Defence in 2009:

“Rights worth having are unruly things. Demonstrations and protests are liable to be a nuisance. They are liable to be inconvenient and tiresome, or at least perceived as such by others who are out of sympathy with them.”


If someone is seriously annoyed or inconvenienced, or is put at risk of being seriously annoyed or inconvenienced, by someone doing something, that person commits an offence if they intend to seriously annoy or inconvenience the public or a section of the public.

Almost every protest could be criminalised by this provision, and not just public protests on the streets, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. Are the Government a “section of the public”? If they are, take me away now. As a minority party in this House, we are, very often, unable to change what the Government plan to do, but we can seriously annoy the Government by pointing out the error of their ways and by holding them to account for their actions. Even if we do not have the intention of doing the Government serious harm—maybe—we may be at least reckless as to what harm it causes. Are we too to be criminalised by this provision, however much some noble Lords might like us to be?

The Government will point to the “reasonable excuse” defence contained in the provisions, but that applies only once a person has been charged with an offence under these provisions. The provisions do not say that a person commits an offence if, without reasonable excuse, the person does an act. Therefore, the police would be justified in arresting and charging people who believed that they had a reasonable excuse because the reasonable excuse provision applies only once a person has been charged.

We oppose in its entirety this provision as drafted, but we have Amendment 314, which removes the obstruction of

“a section of the public in their exercise of a right that may be exercised or enjoyed by the public at large”

from these provisions, to at least narrow the extent of this proposed new offence. A counterdemonstration against a far-right group, for example, would be caught by the provisions of this new offence as drafted, but not as we suggest that it should be amended. We support Amendment 315, as far as it goes, in attempting to ensure that the serious harm applies not just to one person but must be caused to the public, further limiting the extent of the offence.

We also support Amendment 315A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Morrissey, to leave out serious harm to a person if, as a result, the person suffers disease. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, we saw during the coronavirus pandemic, particularly with the attempt the ban the vigil for Sarah Everard on Clapham Common, restrictions on protest on public health grounds. That is why the police intervened in the Sarah Everard vigil. They felt that there was a public health risk. Although the provisions under which the Sarah Everard vigil was done have been repealed, this appears to be an attempt to reintroduce them. As drafted, it matters not whether the protesters intend to spread disease. They must only be reckless as to whether it would have such a consequence.

We also support Amendment 316—again, as far as it goes—but we would prefer there to be a reasonable excuse provision added to the offence itself, as I have said before, rather than protesters, for example, having to raise their reasonable excuse in court. People such as protesters, who have a reasonable excuse, should not be arrested in the first place. They should not be charged, and they should not have to appear in court. With respect to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I am sure that his amendment is right, but I am not sure that it is necessary. However, I am sure that the Minister will enlighten us.

This clause needs to be withdrawn and thought through again.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate on Clauses 58 to 60. These three clauses will help ensure unimpeded vehicular access to Parliament and implement the Law Commission’s recommendation to codify in statute the common-law offence of public nuisance.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned pressure from “wherever” regarding Clause 58. In fact, the clause gives effect to a recommendation by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which Harriet Harman is chair, to protect the right of access to the Parliamentary Estate for those with business there, including, of course, Members of your Lordships’ House. The clause amends the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 to allow a police officer to direct an individual to cease, or not begin, obstructing vehicular access to the Parliamentary Estate. If a person does not comply with a direction, they will be committing an offence and may be arrested. Currently, parliamentarians and others conducting business in the Palace can face delays in entering and leaving Parliament via vehicular entrances, both impeding the functioning of our democracy and creating a security risk, with vehicles held stationary while police clear the way.

I should stress at this point that this power does not stop people protesting in the vicinity of the Palace of Westminster. Those who want to protest outside Parliament can continue to do so but, if asked by a police officer, must allow the passage of vehicles through the Palace’s gates or face the consequences.

Should Parliament need to relocate for any reason, such as the ongoing restoration and renewal works, Clause 59 provides the Home Secretary with the power to designate a new controlled area around Parliament’s new temporary location. This would ensure that the protections afforded by the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, as amended by this Bill, applied wherever Parliament relocated to.

Clause 60 implements the Law Commission’s recommendation that the common-law offence of public nuisance should be codified in statute. We heard last week calls for the Government to be more diligent in implementing Law Commission recommendations, so I hope noble Lords will support and welcome this measure. Putting the long-standing common-law offence of public nuisance into statute will provide clarity to the police and potential offenders, giving clear notice of what conduct is forbidden.

We have followed the Law Commission’s recommendation as closely as possible. In doing so, we are narrowing the scope of the existing common-law offence. That is being achieved by retaining the use of the terms “distress”, “annoyance”, “inconvenience” and “loss of amenity” within scope of the offence but by requiring that these harms be “serious”. We are also increasing the fault element of the offence. Currently, a person would be guilty through negligence; under the new offence, that is raised to intent or recklessness. Finally, we have made it a defence for a person to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their act or omission that caused a public nuisance.

The Law Commission’s report stated that as the offence is intended to address serious cases for which other offences are not adequate, if a maximum sentence is set then it should be high enough to cover these cases. We have therefore set the maximum custodial sentence at 10 years. It is worth noting that that is lower than the current unlimited maximum sentence available under the common-law offence.

I turn to the amendments tabled to Clause 60, beginning with Amendment 314 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As the clause is currently drafted, the offence is committed if a person’s act or omission causes serious harm to the public or a section of the public, or obstructs the public in the exercise or enjoyment of their rights. The amendment would limit the scope of the offence to only where serious harm is caused to the public. That would significantly narrow the scope of the offence. Most forms of public nuisance will, by their nature, impact on only a section of the public rather than the public generally.

However, I believe it is right that the offence be committed if it affects a section of the public. It is a fundamental part of the common-law offence of public nuisance that not every member of the public need be affected but a section of the public must be. Similarly, the offence should include where the rights of the public are infringed; the Law Commission concluded it is right to do so. For example, the effect of excessive and persistent noise or the release of a foul-smelling substance or gas in a public place may affect only a small number of local residents but potentially affects any member of the public who enters the relevant area.

Amendment 315 flows from a JCHR recommendation that aims to clarify that this offence is not committed if serious harm is caused to a person. That would be achieved by removing the word “person” from the definition of “serious harm”. I understand that the noble Lord is trying to clear up ambiguity as to whether an offence of public nuisance can be committed to a person, but I remain to be persuaded that the amendment is strictly necessary. Subsection (1) of the clause already sets out that the offence of public nuisance can be committed only against the public or a section of the public, with the references to persons in the definition of “serious harm” being an interpretive provision that does not affect the scope of the offence. That said, I am ready to consider this point further ahead of the next stage.

The amendment would also raise the threshold at which the offence is committed where an individual put the public at risk of serious harm. The amendment would raise that to “serious” risk of serious harm. We have followed the Law Commission’s recommendations in setting the scope of the offence and the thresholds at which it will be committed. The commission conducted a rigorous consultation on the offence, and it is right that, in this instance, we follow the recommendations set out in the report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

They are civil orders; they are preventive measures.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

If I can assist the House, the first amendment moved in the group was that of the noble Baroness, not mine.

Emergency Services: Ministers of Religion

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 22nd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I will certainly take my noble friend’s point back. I know the College of Policing welcomes engagement with faith community leaders and others who have concerns about the current authorised professional practice to understand views and consider possible next steps for this issue.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, surely there is a difference between the perpetrator sitting at the scene of a stabbing waiting to be arrested and an explosion where forensic recovery is essential. Can the Minister not bring together faith and police leaders nationally to discuss the potential use of discretion, in appropriate cases?

Stop and Search Powers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to correct some of the inaccurate claims. The first was that the delay was due to a record level of data, but that was a misrepresentation by journalists; actually, the Home Office needed additional time to quality assure more granular record-level data. Secondly, the decision for delaying the statistics for the PCSC Bill was made by the head of profession, in line with the code of practice for statistics, and was announced at the earliest possible point on GOV.UK.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness has said, but is she aware how this delay looks? On last year’s figures, black people were 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people when the police have the power to stop and search without reasonable suspicion. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill already contains new provisions to allow even more stop and search without suspicion and, on Monday, the Government laid 18 pages of new amendments to the Bill for debate next week, further extending the ability of the police to stop and search people without any reason to think the person they are searching has anything on them. What equalities impact assessment has been made of these new powers and what was the result?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

An equalities impact assessment has been done on the Bill, as is done on every Bill, as the noble Lord knows. On how this looks, I have explained the process for producing the statistics and I hope that is satisfactory for the noble Lord. I was disappointed that this Question was not being asked tomorrow, so that we could debate it more fully, with the statistics before us.

Terrorist Incident at Liverpool Women’s Hospital

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions, and I join him in paying tribute to our emergency services, who acted so quickly to try to preserve life at the scene of the attack, and to the taxi driver, who really was a hero in what must have been an extremely frightening situation. We wish him and his family well. With regard to the first question about lone actors, clearly we get information from all sorts of sources. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the nature of terrorism is changing, and we have seen a number of lone-actor attacks in the past few years. I cannot comment on this attack further because clearly it is a live and very new investigation. The facts of the case will come out as the investigation continues, but I know that the police made a statement today. I will get back to him on the report he referred to if I can. I am not sure what more I can say about it today.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the caution that the noble Baroness has expressed about the incident itself; it did not seem to stop the Home Secretary reportedly saying that

“The case in Liverpool was a complete reflection of how dysfunctional, how broken, the system has been in the past”.


Despite that, I also express my thanks to the police, the security services and the taxi driver. Does the Minister agree that so-called lone-wolf or lone-actor attacks are some of the most difficult to prevent, whatever motivates them; and that, while the police and the security services do an outstanding job, they cannot be successful without the help and support of people from every community? What are the Government doing to build trust and confidence with communities where this is lacking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I totally agree with the noble Lord that these things are hard to predict and hard to deal with when they happen. I have seen a couple of comments, particularly from BAME communities in Liverpool, saying that they have faced hate incidences in the last couple of days, and we have seen before that, when an attack happens, quite often it is women who bear the brunt of the hatred and the name-calling. When I was Minister for Counterextremism, I remember going to many different communities, such as Muslim communities and Polish communities after Brexit, trying to provide reassurance. The police have been fantastic on the back of some of the attacks in reassuring local communities.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 17th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If the Sikh was going about his business with his knife in his pocket, he would have reasonable excuse. If he then got into a fight and the knife was not used in the commission of the common assault, the knife would be irrelevant to the case. But I must absolutely caveat my comments: the court would decide the facts of the case.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Could I further clarify what the Minister has just said? If the Sikh becomes involved in a fight and does not go for the knife that they are carrying during that offence, the Sikh can still be made subject to an SVRO, because they committed an offence and had a knife with them at the time the offence was committed, even though the weapon was not used.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have just fallen into a trap that I do not like to fall into, which is to take on specific cases. The court would have to determine the facts of the case to decide whether the knife was relevant and, therefore, whether an SVRO could be made.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

This is Committee and it is important to get this clear. My clear understanding of the legislation is that it does not matter whether the knife was used in the commission of the offence; it is simply the fact that the person had a knife with them when they committed the offence which means that not only can that person be made subject to an SVRO but any person convicted with them who did not have a knife can also be made the subject of an SVRO by the court. So, without using specific examples, can the Minister please clarify that I am correct?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I can clarify is that I will not take theoretical cases again. But the court would need to consider whether in the circumstances it is proportionate to make an order. That does not go into the specifics of any given case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank my noble friend—and he is my noble friend because he has come to my rescue time and again. I am not a lawyer and even less of an expert in criminal law.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Perhaps I could just say that those examples should include, if they are right, non-violent offences where a weapon is not used in the commission of the offence in any way, where the person only has the weapon on them, and they have an accomplice who did not have a knife on them but should have known that the person had one concealed on their person when they committed a non-violent offence without using the weapon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think I need to reflect further on what noble Lords have said. I will try to answer the noble Lord’s question in a letter before we start talking about examples. We are, after all, in Committee, and I am learning, like other noble Lords, as we go along.

Amendments 226, 226A and 226B would remove the provisions that enable a court to issue the SVRO if two or more people commit an offence but not all of them used or were in possession of the weapon—that is slightly going back on what we were discussing. When a knife offence or offensive weapon-related offence is committed, it is not always the case that all the offenders had the weapon in their hands—as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out—during the commission of the offence. But if the court is satisfied that a person knew or ought to have known that another person committing the offence had a knife or an offensive weapon during the commission of the offence, and this person committed an offence arising out of the same facts, we think it would be appropriate for an SVRO to be available. Again, I will put the various permutations and combinations to noble Lords in a theoretical way. This would allow SVROs to be made in relation to all the individuals who were involved and were convicted of such an offence, should the court consider an SVRO to be necessary in respect of those individuals.

This provision intends to cover situations such as a robbery or a fight where a weapon was used by one individual, but where other individuals convicted of offences related to the same facts knew, or ought to have known, that a weapon was being used or carried by another person involved in the offence, even if they themselves were not carrying the weapon. This is very similar to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, except that that individual was brandishing the weapon.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am sorry, but that is not what the proposed law says. It does not talk about when there is a fight and somebody uses a weapon, and a person who was with them should have known they had a weapon. What the Bill as drafted says is that anybody who commits any offence—such as, for example, smashing a car window—who has a knife in their pocket can be given an SVRO. It may be that that is what was intended, but it is not what the legislation says.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I am saying, and what I said earlier, is that it will be up to the courts to decide whether it is appropriate, bearing in mind the facts of the case, and whether the court thinks an SVRO in respect of an individual is necessary to protect the public or any particular members of the public in England and Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I completely understand that point it in the context of the previous debate. One of the things that we will be testing as part of the pilot is the impact of SVROs on the individuals subject to them, and how to ensure that vulnerable offenders—because sometimes people are caught up in these things completely unwittingly—are directed to local intervention schemes to help steer them away from crime. But SVROs used as part of a wider crime prevention approach will send a clear message that, if people are vulnerable and want to move away from crime, and in particular if they are being coerced into carrying things, or coerced generally, we will of course support them.

Amendment 228 seeks to increase the requirements for SVROs to be made. It would require that an order can be imposed only if the SVRO is proportionate to one or more of the relevant aims of the order. It is already a requirement for the court to consider the making of the order necessary to protect the public, or any particular member of the public, including the offender, from the risk of harm, and to prevent the offender committing an offence. It would be for the court to decide the seriousness of any offence, based on the individual facts of the case, and to decide whether it is necessary and proportionate for an order to be made in respect of an individual. Any order made will be at the court’s discretion.

An individual convicted of an offence involving a bladed article or offensive weapon could cause harm to any member of the public, including particular individuals. The provisions in the Bill allow a wide range of considerations to be made, so that an SVRO will have the greatest impact and protect members of the public, including the offender themselves, from the risk of harm.

Amendments 229, 230 and 231 seek to amend the evidentiary requirements for an SVRO to be made. They would provide that the court may consider only evidence led by the prosecution and by the offender and would remove provisions that allow courts to consider evidence that would have been inadmissible in the proceedings in which the offender was convicted. We think it appropriate that the court can consider a wider range of evidence about the offender that may not have been admissible in the proceedings. This goes in some sense to the heart of what we have just been discussing. For example, in answer to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the offender may have a history of knife carrying that would be relevant to whether an SVRO would be necessary to protect the public.

Amendment 239 would make the guidance to be issued under Clause 140 subject to the affirmative procedure, as recommended by the DPRRC in its report on the Bill. As I have indicated in response to other amendments, we are considering carefully the arguments put forward by the DPRRC and will also reflect on today’s debate before responding to the committee’s report ahead of the next stage of the Bill.

Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher—through the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—has tabled Amendment 240 to Clause 141, which makes provision for the piloting of SVROs. I talked about this earlier. I can assure noble Lords that we will take the matters set out in Amendment 240 into consideration as we progress the design work for the pilot and agree the terms of the evaluation. That said, the general point is that it is not necessary to include such a list in the Bill. The approach adopted in Clause 141 is consistent, for example, with the piloting provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 in respect of knife crime prevention orders.

Working with the four pilot forces our aims are: to monitor and gather data on a number of different measures—including, as I said earlier to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the impact of SVROs on serious violence; to build evidence on reoffending and the outcomes for offenders who are subject to SVROs; to understand and learn how we ensure that vulnerable people are directed to local intervention schemes; and to understand community responses to the orders.

I think we can conclude by agreeing on the need to do all we can to tackle the scourge of knife crime, which is wrecking far too many lives. I hope that I have been able to persuade noble Lords of the case for the new orders as part of our wider work to prevent and reduce serious violence, and that I have reassured the Committee—although not on certain things, on which I will have to write—that many of the issues raised will be considered as part of the piloting of SVROs in advance of any national rollout. I reiterate my commitment to consider further the DPRRC’s recommendation in relation to parliamentary scrutiny of the guidance. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, will be happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this group, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Moylan and Lord Coaker.

The Minister asked what works. The centre-right think tank Policy Exchange recently produced a report saying that, in reducing serious violence, the emphasis should be on community policing and not on stop and search. That summarises what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was saying. The Minister, in earlier proceedings in the House this afternoon, talked about how trust in the police had been seriously damaged recently. Despite that, the Government are giving the police more and more powers that are likely to further damage trust in the police.

The Minister talked about communities—particularly black communities—wanting this sort of thing in order to stop their young people dying on the streets. After I left the police, I went to a pupil referral unit, and students from the unit took me to a local council estate where a young mother holding a baby had been stabbed to death. As we looked at the scene, they said to me, “Yes, we want the police to take knives off the street, but we want them to target stop and search at the people who have got the knives.” To do that, and to target stop and search at those people who are carrying knives, the police need community intelligence, and these sorts of provisions are likely to push the community away, rather than encourage people to come forward with information. Do not get me wrong: targeted, intelligence-led stop and search based on community information can be effective in taking weapons off the street, but quite clearly, as I said on Section 60, with suspicionless stop and search, only one in 100 stop and searches results in a weapon being recovered.

The noble Baroness said that these provisions are very similar to domestic violence prevention orders on the balance of probabilities versus reasonable doubt. Throughout the course of that Bill, we persistently said that that was not acceptable, so the noble Baroness should not be surprised that we are saying it about these orders. However, we need to do all we can to reduce serious violence on our streets. The difficulty is where you have provisions such as this that prove to be counterproductive.

We will come back to this at Report—I can guarantee that. But at this stage, on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sarah Everard: Home Office Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as I have said, given the need to provide assurance as swiftly as possible, this will be established as a non-statutory inquiry because we want to get to the stage where conclusions are reached and changes are recommended quickly. This cannot be an inquiry that takes years to get to that stage. A non-statutory inquiry allows for greater flexibility, can be tailored to the issues and is likely to be faster, but we are able to turn it into a statutory inquiry if need be.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister keeps saying that the truth must come out at pace, but the Macpherson inquiry—a statutory inquiry under the Inquiries Act—took 20 months and the Daniel Morgan Independent Panel took eight years, mainly because the panel did not have powers of compulsion. What makes the Government think that the police have changed, when Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary only a few weeks ago described a “culture of colleague protection” in the police service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that at the time there was not that duty to co-operate. The various things the noble Lord mentions will all be looked at in the course of the inquiry. He is absolutely right that some of the culture and practices will be interrogated deeply to see whether any changes are needed.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. With regard to the other examples that she has found over the weekend, showing that the law is not targeted at Gypsy, Roma and Traveller people, is it not the case that under the Equalities Act the law should not disproportionately impact on any particular community, not that they should not be the sole focus? Therefore, if the changes as drafted would disproportionately impact on the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, would that still not be contrary to the Equalities Act?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I have said all along, and the proponents of the amendments that we have discussed have underlined, that the absolute majority of the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller community are law-abiding people, so this is not something that disproportionately impacts on them. It is about people who cause destruction to other people’s land and property.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 8th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, correctly, this amendment is aimed at improving the safety of police officers at the roadside. I share his concerns and want to reassure him that the safety of police officers is vitally important to this Government, as is demonstrated by our programme of work on the police covenant. I will not echo the arguments made to the noble Lord by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, on the defects of his amendment, but I want to say that we are committed to ensuring that the police have the powers that they need to protect people.

The British model of policing is based on consent, and the exercise of police powers, including the Section 163 power, needs to be transparent, fair and legitimate to ensure that the public can remain confident in policing. I am supportive of the intention behind the extension of this power, but more evidence and consultation are needed to demonstrate that it would provide benefits to officers’ safety and build support for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the proposal to extend the power. I can say to the noble Lord that we will work closely with the National Police Chiefs’ Council, the College of Policing and the Police Federation to explore these issues further and consider what more can be done to improve officer safety at the roadside. On that basis, I hope that he will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support in principle. I think it would be problematic if the lone female driver was asked to get into the police vehicle, but I am not sure that the female driver would be in danger by getting out on to the roadside.

I am very grateful to the Minister for her support for the intention behind the amendment. As I acknowledged, more consultation is required, and I am very grateful that the Government are prepared to discuss these issues further with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and the Police Federation. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have explained, Amendments 161 and 166 relate to the offence of drivers failing to stop. We know that in a small number of cases, the failure to stop might be related to an event that leads to the death of, or serious injury to, another person, but in the vast majority of cases, convictions involve low-level traffic incidents. In an extremely small number of cases, there may not be any other evidence to connect the death or serious harm with the driver who fails to stop, meaning the only offence they have committed is that failure to stop. I understand the concerns raised, but these amendments potentially risk providing for a maximum custodial sentence of 14 years for failure-to-stop offences resulting in serious or fatal injuries in circumstances where there would not have had to be evidence of a causal link between the failure to stop and the death or serious injury.

What is more, these amendments cut across the basis for the current offence. I must stress that the offence of failure to stop and report is designed to deal with the behaviour relating to the failure to stop. The offence is not to provide an alternative route to punish an offender for a more serious but unproven offence.

Where there is evidence that the driver caused harm, there are a range of other offences, including causing death or serious injury by dangerous or careless driving, with which the driver can be charged. In these cases, the courts can treat the failure to stop as an aggravating factor that adds to the overall seriousness of the offending. Where there is evidence that the driver knew about the incident and took steps to avoid detection, they may be charged with perverting the course of justice, a common law offence that already carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

Linking death or serious injury with a failure to stop as the cause would risk creating an unnecessary and unfairly severe offence. To take an example, where there was evidence of causing death by careless driving and failure to stop, the offender would face a maximum penalty almost three times higher for failure to stop than they would for causing death by careless driving—14 years compared to five years— even though the causing death offence requires proof of a fault in the standard of driving.

The law already imposes severe penalties for vehicle offences that lead to death or serious injury, but when doing so, a clear causal link must be proved between the driver’s behaviour and the outcome. The proposed amendment would essentially be equating, or in some cases exceeding, the seriousness of failure to stop with actual culpability for causing death or injury. That, as I have said but want to repeat, causes serious anomalies with other offences that could result in potential injustices, and it is why the Government cannot accept the amendment.

In relation to Amendment 166, which also seeks to amend the current offence, we are concerned by the potential impacts on what is a complex area of law. For example, it is unclear what impact replacing the word “accident” with “collision” would have; it might exclude incidents that are currently and rightly within scope of the existing version of this section. We also reiterate our objections set out above to the creation of the offence of failing to report where the collision caused foreseeable serious or fatal injury.

We are of course aware of the traumatic effects of such incidents, however rare. From what I have already said, it should be clear that this is a complex area, and any change to the law has to fit within the current driving offence framework. However, let me assure noble Lords that my ministerial colleagues at the Department for Transport understand the concerns that have been raised. I can assure the Committee that the Department for Transport is exploring options that could be pursued in this area, including but not limited to the available penalties and how the offence operates as part of long-term and wider work on road safety. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for contributing to this debate, including the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who contributed twice. I thank her for her support. I agree in principle with what the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, said about sentence inflation; we are not in favour of that. However, the Minister talked about anomalies and this clearly is one—where someone causes death or serious injury and fails to stop after an accident but where no other offences are disclosed.

This is from memory, but in the case of the MP whom the noble Lord referred to, I think the incident in his part of the world in the south-west was a case of somebody who hit something, someone wandering in the road for example, and therefore an offence of careless, reckless or dangerous driving was not appropriate. However, the driver knew that they had hit something or somebody and still failed to stop or call the emergency services.

This is not about punishing the manner of driving that has caused death or serious injury, but about the dishonesty of knowing that you have hit somebody and knowing, from the speed that you were doing, that the person is likely to have received serious injury and, because you have failed to stop, what could have been survivable injuries become fatal injuries, because medical aid is not provided immediately or within a short space of time. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, almost everybody who has a car has a mobile phone, and with the extensive coverage of mobile phone signals there is no reason why immediate assistance cannot be summoned in most cases. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said, failing to stop after an accident of this kind can mean the difference between life and death.

In my opening remarks I said that I was not sure that 14 years was the right punishment, that it needs to fit within the framework of punishment. In answer to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, there could be circumstances, such as the one that I have referred to, where offences other than failing to stop were not present. In those circumstances—for example, if somebody in foggy conditions wearing dark clothing in the middle of the night stumbles on to a roadway and is hit by a car, and the person driving knows that they have hit that individual but fails to stop—the only offence could be the failure to stop, yet it could have fatal consequences for the pedestrian involved.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that colleagues in the Department for Transport will be looking at this issue, but it goes to the heart of the previous group on how there needs to be an overall look at road traffic offences in the light of changes that have taken place. The Minister also talked about difficulties that might be created because the amendment refers to collision versus accident, whereas other parts of road traffic law refer to accidents, but I did say that throughout road traffic legislation “accident” needs to be changed to “collision”, because some of the incidents are not accidents. However, it is encouraging that the Minister’s colleagues in the Department for Transport have agreed to look at this. On that basis, for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is part of that operational independence of the police that they know what is best for their area; therefore, it might be relevant for police forces in a certain area not to have much occasion for the use of Section 60 stop and search.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Chakrabarti, for their support for these amendments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, that the issue of drugs is very complex: it needs a complex approach and stop and search of this nature is not the way to go. When I suggested to the commissioner that we did not arrest people for cannabis in Lambeth, former MP Ann Widdecombe accused me of usurping the power of Parliament: she cannot accuse me of that now.

Turning to the response of the Minister, almost her whole argument around Amendment 129 was an argument against decriminalisation, yet this amendment does not call for the decriminalisation of personal possession of drugs. It is all about focusing the police on serious crime, rationing scarce police resources by focusing them on what is really important to communities and to the courts. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that he rarely saw anybody in front of him for possession, particularly of class B drugs, unless by chance—usually it is when the police find cannabis when they have arrested the person for something else. They are there for the substantive offence and they get charged for the cannabis as well, for example.

The noble Baroness talked about the harm caused by drugs. Why, then, are new psychoactive substances not controlled by the Misuse of Drugs Act not an offence? Why is personal possession of psychoactive substances not illegal under the Psychoactive Substances Act, if drugs cause so much harm? Why is alcohol not illegal when we look at the harm that alcohol causes? But we are not talking here about decriminalisation; we are talking about getting the police to focus on what is important. As far as Section 60 is concerned, I support stop and search. I have said how important stop and search—properly focused, acting on community intelligence and focusing on those who are suspected of carrying and using knives—is, and how important Section 60 is.

The Minister talked about the figures between 2019 and 2020 and the number of weapons that stop and search removed. This is not an argument about removing the power of the police to stop and search; it is about focusing intelligence-led stop and search on taking knives off the street to be even more effective. The figures that the noble Baroness gave about the number of weapons taken off the street, I assume, are not weapons found by using Section 60. If Section 60 searches were only 3% of all searches, and only 1%—one in a hundred—of Section 60 searches find a weapon, then the figures that the noble Baroness quoted cannot possibly be about Section 60. Why is she using figures about stop and search generally when the amendment she was addressing is about Section 60? It is a blunt instrument.

The noble Baroness is right; it has to be an inspector who authorises a Section 60. Until a couple of years ago, it was a superintendent who had to authorise a Section 60. That is why there has been a 2,800% increase in the number of times Section 60 orders are issued, and that is why Section 60 is so ineffective, with only one in 100 searches resulting in a weapon, and why it is so damaging to police-community relations, which are essential to tackling serious violence.

The noble Baroness said no one should be stopped and searched based on their race. You are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched under Section 60 if you are black than if you are white. The two things do not add up. Of course nobody should be searched on the basis of their race, but the facts are that you are 18 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are black than if you are white. That is why Section 60 is so damaging and so ineffective. That is why I brought this amendment but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 129.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 1st November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I realise the hour is late, but there are two things I would like to mention. First, I am very interested in what the Deputy Commissioner Sir Steve House said. I do not know when he said it, but it does not seem to chime with the fact that, two weeks ago, I was challenged by a lone officer in plain clothes. That seems to be completely contrary to what the Minister said he announced.

Secondly, the Minister says there should not be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 because we need to move at speed. I can tell noble Lords that the Metropolitan Police never moved quicker on racism than when it was announced that there would be an inquiry under the Inquiries Act. It was not when the inquiry reported that the Metropolitan Police swung into action to deal with racism. It was absolutely ready with an answer as soon as that inquiry reported, because it knew what the problems were and realising that this was all going to become public in an inquiry galvanised it into action.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I note the noble Lord’s points and I do not disagree with him. I ask the Committee to understand the commitment of the Home Secretary. She is deadly serious about ensuring that the inquiry moves at pace and, if necessary, converting it to a statutory inquiry if it is not meeting its commitments.

I will get the date for the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Committee. The announcement from Dame Cressida Dick was on 20 October, some 11 days ago, but I will get the date on which Sir Stephen House made those comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for raising this important issue of children remanded in custody. I quite agree that police custody is not a suitable environment for children and that they should not be detained there unless it is absolutely necessary.

The provisions introduced by this Bill will amend the “tests” set out by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, also known as LASPO, which must be satisfied before the court remands a child to custody. These are intended to ensure that custodial remand is used only as a last resort, where there are no other options and it is necessary to protect the public.

Before the courts get involved, if a child is charged with an offence, Section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 provides that the police must release them either on bail or without bail pending their appearance at court, unless one or more specified conditions apply. These conditions are that the child’s name or address are not known or are not believed to be genuine; there are reasonable grounds to believe the child will not appear in court to answer bail; the detention is believed to be necessary to prevent the child committing an offence, causing physical injury, loss or damage to property, or interfering with the investigation of offences; or the detention after charge is believed to be necessary for the child’s own protection or in their own interests.

I would like to reassure the Committee that there is already a degree of alignment between police bail and court bail, and the police custody officer must have regard to the same considerations as those that apply when a court is considering whether to grant bail under the Bail Act 1976.

I acknowledge the concern that many more children are remanded post charge by the police than are remanded by the courts while awaiting trial, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined, and that this may give rise to consideration of risk-averse decision-making by the police. I do not necessarily believe this to be the case. It is important to remember that post-charge detention by the police serves a different purpose from youth remand in the courts, so it is unrealistic to expect an exact alignment of the conditions required to make decisions.

With this in mind, it is perfectly possible for the police to make a decision to remand a child post charge and for the courts to make a decision not to remand the same child to custody, and for both these decisions to be reasonable based on the evidence and circumstances before each party. In the overwhelming majority of cases, a child remanded by the police will be held for no more than 24 hours.

I also acknowledge the concern that police remand is a driver of custodial remand—that is, for example, that a court is more likely to view a child remanded by the police as dangerous. I am not aware of any data showing a causal link between police remand and custodial remand. A comprehensive evidence base comparing the circumstances whereby police bail after charge decisions are made under Section 38 of PACE would be needed, giving consideration to the threshold for grounds to refuse bail and whether custody officers have access to and apply all relevant information when making a bail decision.

Before I conclude, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks and the Home Office’s gratitude to Brian Roberts, who was the department’s expert on the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. Sadly, he died last month after 50 years of public service as a police officer and then an official in the department. He is greatly missed by his colleagues.

On the basis of my remarks, I hope the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for his support.

I am afraid that there is a bit of a pattern developing here in the Government’s responses. On the one hand, the Minister said there is “a degree of alignment” between police remand in custody of children and court remand in custody. Some 4,500 children being remanded by the police and only 884 by the courts does not sound to me like alignment.

The Minister also said a child would never be remanded in police custody for more than 24 hours. Do courts sit on a Sunday? What happens to a child arrested on a Saturday afternoon? They are going to be in custody a lot longer than 24 hours.

Unfortunately, as I say, it is becoming a bit of a theme that the Government’s responses to amendments do not appear to be factually accurate. We need to review that. I am afraid I do not find the Minister’s response satisfactory, and no doubt we will return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police: Recruits

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 28th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask that question, which has already been raised this week. New recruits are subject to a rigorous vetting and assessment process to assess suitability for the role of police officer, including testing against core behaviours and values. The College of Policing sets the standard through the vetting statutory code of practice. We utterly recognise some of the anxieties around vetting and have commissioned HMICFRS to carry out an urgent thematic inspection of force vetting arrangements, which will help to identify any areas to address.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, two weeks ago, Policy Exchange criticised the Metropolitan Police for its “unusual and unjustified strategy” of using stop and search in the face of the spike in knife crime. Compared with other metropolitan forces, such as Merseyside, it had the highest rate of stop and search and the lowest rate for apprehending drug dealers. Crucially, the Met also had the second lowest rate of officers involved in neighbourhood policing. Police community support officers form the backbone of community policing, playing a vital role in building trust and confidence and securing community intelligence, which is vital in fighting knife crime, but since 2010 their numbers have been decimated. What plans do the Government have to recruit more PCSOs, particularly in London? They have mandated recruitment of police officers; why not PCSOs?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In general terms, PCSOs will be recruited according to local need. The noble Lord is absolutely right that they are a very valuable resource for policing. They are very good at community engagement and deliver more than just that visible police presence. Prevention, problem solving and safeguarding the vulnerable remain key and PCSOs are most definitely at the forefront of this.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. Clause 13 provides a power for a local policing body—namely, a PCC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, or the Common Council of the City of London in its capacity as a police authority—to assist authorities in meeting the requirements of the serious violence duty. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was absolutely correct, as was the noble Lord, Lord Bach—as I always say, we are immensely lucky to have Parliament’s only PCC in our place; the benefit of his experience is incredibly useful.

Local policing bodies have an important part to play in convening partner agencies. PCCs and the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, as elected local policing bodies, are the voice of the local community in relation to policing and crime. This is reflected in their current functions in relation to community safety partnerships. Local policing bodies are responsible for the totality of policing in their force area—the noble Lord, Lord Bach, pointed out some of the things that they get involved with—as well as for services for victims of crime. They will therefore have shared objectives in relation to the prevention and reduction of serious violence. That is why this clause provides local policing bodies with a discretionary role in supporting specified authorities with the preparation and implementation of their strategies, as well as monitoring their effectiveness and impact on local serious violence levels. I underline that the PCC role is discretionary and that it cannot be mandated through regulations.

The PCC, the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime, and the Common Council of the City of London will not be subject to the serious violence duty as specified authorities. However, as with the existing functions of these local policing bodies in relation to community safety partnerships, they may choose to collaborate with local partnerships. They may also take a convening role to support effective multiagency working.

Regulations made by the Secretary of State may provide further detail on the ways in which local policing bodies may assist specified authorities, including convening and chairing meetings, requiring certain persons to attend such meetings and providing funding to a specified authority to support the implementation of the local serious violence strategy. They will also have a power to require information for this purpose, as set out in Clause 16. In undertaking their monitoring functions, local policing bodies may report their findings to the Secretary of State to ensure compliance with the duty.

Specified authorities will have a duty to co-operate with local policing bodies when requested to do so. However, we have made clear in the draft support guidance the need for the relevant local policing body to consider the proportionality of additional requests and anticipated costs to specified authorities before making any such requests.

The overall objective is to provide additional support and leadership, if and when required, and not to place additional burdens on those authorities subject to the duty. The approach is very similar to arrangements in place for CSPs. There has been a mutual duty on PCCs and CSPs to reduce offending since the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, to engender an effective multiagency approach to preventing and reducing serious violence, we must ensure that all relevant parts of the system play their part and have sufficient support in place to enable them to do so. We believe that local policing bodies, including PCCs, are best placed to provide that support. I take also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about funding.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I have just a couple of questions. First, what aspects of Clause 13 are local policing bodies currently not allowed to do that the clause allows them to do? Secondly—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for articulating what is in the guidance—my understanding is that crime and disorder partnerships could be the mechanism chosen to deliver on the serious violence duties in a particular area, or it could be a different mechanism, and the police and crime commissioner might want to be part of that or might not. That does not appear to provide the clarity of leadership and accountability necessary to deliver a serious violence strategy. Perhaps the Minister can explain how this all works.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I shall try to. At the moment, PCCs and other local policing bodies have the powers to work with the specified authorities to support multiagency working. The serious violence duty is a new duty, and the legislation clarifies how it will fit together. PCCs are the elected bodies; they work with local forces. The multiagency working can be through the CSPs, or there is flexibility around how the local partnerships are constituted. Because it is a new duty, it is definitely worth clarifying in legislation how it might work out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right about data protection but there are exemptions. One is the detection, prevention and reduction of crime.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister. I think I need to read what she said and compare it with what is in other clauses in the Bill because, although it is difficult to hold everything in one’s head, I am not sure that everything she said is consistent with what is in the Bill.

However, there are two specific questions that the Minister did not answer. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked what the sanction would be for failure to comply. Is it right that a mandatory order is an order of the Administrative Court to comply with a legal duty, and therefore failure to comply with a mandatory order would be in contempt of court? The second question, which I asked, was: can the Minister give examples of where public authorities involved in preventing and tackling serious violence have obstructed the efforts to achieve those objectives? If not, why is the clause necessary? I do not expect the Minister to have examples at her fingertips but perhaps she could write.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

I thank the Minister for her response on Clause 17. However, I wish to express a bit of concern. Although she assured the Committee that an individual doctor or youth worker would not be required to provide information, nevertheless an authority might well provide information, without consulting the individual doctor or youth worker, that would identify individuals who were receiving services in that authority. After the Minister’s response, I am not at all clear that we can be completely sure that this will not happen; I believe that there should be some wording in these clauses to specify that information from authorities about individuals would not be accepted if they provided it. This is an incredibly dangerous situation if individuals find that their authority has been divulging information to the police; it could destroy the efficacy of our public services—it is that serious.

I am not trying to be awkward; I just feel that we need some assurances in these clauses that individuals will not need to be concerned about the disclosure of information about them. Various subsections in Clauses 15 and 16 and so on indicate that, in looking at data protection, you must take account of the regulations in this Act. It is quite complex but it is not reassuring, if I may say so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, that was quick for a Committee debate. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for setting out the case for these amendments, which relate to the power to issue guidance in relation to the serious violence duty. I am sure we all agree that legislation works far better, in practice, when it is implemented alongside clear guidance. In the case of the serious violence duty, we want to ensure that the guidance is clear on the expectations of all specified authorities, that it provides sufficient advice in meeting them and that it highlights best practice from across England and Wales. It is also crucial that such guidance is developed in collaboration with and with input from those who will be subject to the legislation and those who represent them to ensure that it is fit for purpose.

That is why, prior to the implementation of Chapter 1 of Part 2, we will publicly consult on the guidance to support the duty. As a first step, we have published the guidance in draft to assist the scrutiny of these provisions. I have a copy of it here. We welcome feedback on the draft and will take that into account when preparing an updated draft for consultation following Royal Assent to the Bill.

Clause 18 already expressly requires consultation with Welsh Ministers, as the noble Lord said, in so far as the guidance relates to the exercise of functions under this chapter by a devolved Welsh authority. But we are committed to going further and, as part of the public consultation on the statutory guidance, we intend to invite views from key representative bodies and other relevant persons, such as the Children’s Commissioner and the domestic abuse commissioner. Given this commitment, I do not think it would be appropriate, at this point, to include a broader duty to consult in the Bill.

The stated aim of Amendment 73 is to enable the guidance to be scrutinised by Parliament. In principle, I have no difficulty with that at all; it is open to Parliament to scrutinise guidance at any time. However, the effect of this amendment, when read with the provisions in Clause 21, would be to make the guidance subject to the affirmative procedure. I am not persuaded that this level of scrutiny is necessary—and nor, for that matter, was the DPRRC, which recommended that the negative procedure should apply in this case. We are carefully considering that committee’s report and will respond ahead of the next stage. In light of the commitments I have given, would the noble Lord be happy to withdraw his amendment?

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but it was actually me who proposed these amendments.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I do apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My ventriloquism skills are not so good that the Minister would think I was the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. But I am glad that the Minister is going to consider the regulations again. I am not sure that the intention of my amendment was to ensure that guidance would be approved through the affirmative procedure. Any procedure would be better than no procedure at all, and it does not look like there is any provision in the Bill for parliamentary scrutiny of guidance, so I am grateful for that undertaking. I will go back and look again at a later part of the Bill, which includes the need to consult on guidance. I may need to come back on Report and again challenge why, in that part of the Bill, guidance has to be consulted on, but not in this part. Having said that, I withdraw my amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 27th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 80, 90A, 94, 96, and 97 in this group. I was hoping that this group might be an example of this House at its best, where reasonable and reasoned amendments have been tabled, the Government have seen and responded positively to them and the Bill could be improved as a result. We clearly do not all agree on everything yet, but what all sides of the House—including the Government —appear to agree on is that the Bill as drafted and passed by the other place in respect of Chapter 3 on the extraction of information from electronic devices is not fit for purpose.

I shall take my amendments first. The House of Lords Constitution Committee raised concerns about victims of crime not coming forward or withdrawing from the criminal justice process because they may have to hand over personal and sensitive data, particularly victims and survivors of violence against women and girls, including rape. Although the draft code of practice published by the Government includes guidance that suggests refusal to provide a device or to agree to the extraction of information from it should not automatically result in the closure of any inquiry or complaint—particularly in light of the dramatic reduction in charges and prosecutions for rape over the past five years—the committee recommended that safeguards that protect victims’ rights to privacy and guard against digital extraction as a condition for continuing an investigation or prosecution should appear in the Bill rather than in a non-binding code of practice. Amendment 80 addresses the issue raised by the Constitution Committee. I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in her powerful and compelling contribution.

This issue is partially addressed by government Amendment 93, which states that a person must not have been placed under undue pressure to provide the device or agree to the extraction of information from it and that a written notice must be provided which states that the person may refuse and that the investigation or inquiry will not be brought to an end merely because of that refusal. As well as being given the information in writing, the person should be told this orally and be reassured by the investigating officer. The government amendment does not go far enough.

I would go further and say that what people store on their electronic devices and share with each other has changed dramatically over the years. In particular, those from older generations may not be aware of the degree of openness with which explicit images, for example, are routinely shared using electronic devices, potentially leading prosecutors and jurors to draw unjustified conclusions about the behaviour of victims of rape or sexual assault in particular, whether they be male or female. Thankfully, most right-minded people no longer think a woman wearing a short skirt is “asking for it”, but there may be a way to go before the sharing of intimate photographs, for example, is dismissed in a similar way. That is why it is essential that victims are reassured in the way these amendments are intended to provide.

Amendment 90A makes a slightly different point and covers a similar area to that provided by Amendment 92 from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in relation to the extraction of information from devices used by children and adults without capacity. In relation to both groups of users, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggests that a “registered social worker” give authority for the extraction of information, in the absence of a parent or guardian, whereas, in Clause 37(3)(b), the Government suggest that

“any responsible person who is aged 18 or over other than a relevant authorised person”

can give authority. Although police constables and members of staff appointed as authorised persons by chief constables would be excluded, police members of staff not authorised would not be excluded.

From my own professional experience, I know that it is often difficult to get hold of parents or guardians or to get them to co-operate, for example by attending a police station when their child is in custody. Equally, it is difficult to get hold of a social worker, particularly outside office hours, where there may be only one or a few social workers on call, dealing with the whole range of social work responsibilities—hence the “appropriate adults” scheme was established to look after the interests of children and vulnerable adults in custody. Appropriate adults are volunteers, recruited through local schemes, who are selected for their ability to act with independence from the police. Schemes take into account volunteers’ attitudes and motivations and any other roles that they may hold. They undergo training in the appropriate adults role and undergo a criminal record—DBS—check, although a criminal record will not necessarily act as an automatic bar.

Amendment 90A seeks to find a compromise between allowing any responsible person aged 18 or over, including potentially those employed by the police, to give authority for the handing over and extraction of data from a child’s or vulnerable adult’s electronic device and the registered social worker who is not always readily available, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his Amendment 89.

I apologise—this is a long group. Amendment 96 seeks to increase the authority level for the extraction of information to a senior officer—at a rank where someone of that rank is normally on duty 24 hours a day, seven days a week, and readily available—who is independent of the investigation and can objectively assess whether the conditions that allow for the extraction of information have been met. There are precedents across policing: for example, custody officers or those authorising the deployment of covert surveillance, where someone independent of the investigation makes these kinds of decisions.

Amendment 97 is again intended to provide parliamentary scrutiny of guidance, as is Amendment 102, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to which I have added my name. I agree wholeheartedly with my noble friend Lord Beith’s Amendment 103 that the restrictions on the exercise of power to extract information in relation to confidential information must be in the Bill and not simply contained in regulations. I understand the reasons for wanting to exclude immigration officers from the list of authorised persons who can extract information from electronic devices, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in his Amendment 107.

On immigration officers, we share the belief that there should be a firewall between criminal investigations and immigration enforcement, to the extent that details about the immigration status of victims should not be passed to the immigration authorities but should be dealt with elsewhere. I can envisage circumstances where immigration officers may need to download information from electronic devices—for example, to tackle people smuggling—although I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, which was that that should perhaps be a matter for the police rather than immigration officers.

I also accept the very important point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol about the particular vulnerability of asylum seekers and their lack of knowledge of what the law allows and does not allow immigration officers to do, and how we need many more safeguards for asylum seekers in this provision. We also wholeheartedly agree with Amendment 106A regarding requests for third-party material. If I had not been overwhelmed by the volume of amendments added to the Bill every day, I would have added my name to that amendment.

We all in different ways have attempted to provide a more robust but workable regime around the extraction of information from mobile devices. The best way forward would be for all noble Lords, including the Minister, to withdraw their amendments, for the Minister and officials to meet with us before Report, and for officials to take the best from each of these amendments and those discussions, to produce a single set of amendments to which hopefully we can agree, rather than having to put down amendments on Report to the government amendments agreed in Committee. Taking the debate offline will save time on the Floor of the House on Report, when the agreed amendments could simply be nodded through. However, it appears that the Labour Opposition are content to allow the government amendments to be agreed at this stage, despite the clear differences between what they are proposing and the government amendments.

The noble Lord, Lord Hayward, made the important point, as we did on these Benches when this House debated the Domestic Abuse Bill, that these issues also affect men. The noble Lord also praised the police, who are in a very difficult position, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, alluded to, where they find themselves under pressure from the Crown Prosecution Service to go further than maybe even police officers may be comfortable going in terms of accessing personal information from victims’ phones. I repeat the question asked by the noble Lord: who speaks for the Crown Prosecution Service in this debate?

I studied politics at university, I was a very senior police officer for years, I ran for Mayor of London twice and I have been a member of your Lordships’ House for over eight years, but I still do not understand politics. Suffice it to say that, without Labour support, there is no point in dividing the Committee if the Government move their amendments formally at this stage.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, in apologising to the House for the length of my comments. It might assist the Committee if I begin with a brief overview of the provisions in Chapter 3 of Part 2 of the Bill. These provisions will establish, for the first time, a clear statutory basis for the extraction of information from digital devices with the agreement of the device user, and introduce safeguards to protect the privacy of victims, witnesses and others. I echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that it is a vast intrusion. People’s lives are on their digital devices and I understand the sensitivity of that.

The current approach to the extraction of information from digital devices has been criticised as inconsistent and, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, as being tantamount to a digital strip search, where devices were taken as a matter of course and where, in many cases, all the sensitive personal data belonging to a device user was extracted and processed, even when it was not relevant to the offence under investigation. Clearly, that is unacceptable. This resulted in privacy and victims’ groups opposing this practice, particularly in cases where the device belongs to a victim or witness.

A consistent approach is clearly needed to ensure that requests for information are made with the victim’s right to privacy in mind and to ensure that all those agreeing to provide their sensitive personal data have all the information that they need to make that decision, including details on why their information is needed, how it will be used and their right to refuse to share that information without any negative consequences. This lack of consistency is of particular concern where the offences under investigation are those such as rape and serious sexual assault, where the victim is likely to be extremely distressed, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said, and where rates of reporting and conviction are far too low.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I will do my damnedest. I will take back the noble and learned Lord’s comments and see what is in the art of the possible. I can do no more than promise that, if he is happy with that—or rather, if he will accept it.

I will move on swiftly to Amendment 107, which seeks to remove immigration officers from Schedule 3, so that they can no longer exercise the powers in this Bill. Immigration officers play a vital role in protecting vulnerable people, in particular those who may be victims of trafficking, and it is important that they are able to obtain information that may be vital to these and other investigations. I therefore do not accept that immigration officers should not have access to these powers, subject to the same safeguards that apply to other authorised persons.

Finally, Amendment 106A relates to third-party material, an issue highlighted not just by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Anderson, this evening, but by the Victims’ Commissioner, Dame Vera Baird. The amendment highlights a very important issue around the proportionality of requests for third-party material relevant to a victim. This material can be highly sensitive—for example, medical records. We agree that such material should only ever be sought where there is a reasonable line of inquiry, but we are aware that this is not always the case. There are examples where such requests cannot be justified, and this has a detrimental impact on the confidence of victims.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about written information given to victims. The police forces will use the digital processing notices developed by the NPCC for this purpose. The DPN, in layman’s terms, explains how the police extract the information, which information might be extracted, for how long it might be retained—that question was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and answered in part by my noble friend Lord Hayward—and what happens to irrelevant material found on the device. The DPN makes clear that investigators must respect individual rights to privacy and must not go beyond reasonable lines of inquiry.

The Government wholeheartedly agree that there needs to be a consistent approach to ensure that requests for third-party material are made with the victim’s right to privacy in mind and to ensure that the victim is fully informed. This principle is key to a number of actions in the Government’s end-to-end rape review, which we published in June.

Moving on to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, on Amendment 106A, our understanding is that the NPCC agrees in principle to the need for legislation but has not taken a view on a particular legislative solution. As I have indicated, this issue requires further examination, so I thank the noble Lord. I understand that the CPS similarly accepts the need for appropriate controls on access to third-party material.

The police and the CPS are working on new guidance for the investigators and victims which can be finalised after the Information Commissioner’s Office publishes its report on data in rape cases, which is due imminently. We will also consider whether a change is required to the Attorney-General’s guidelines. This will give us an opportunity to consider the broader landscape with regards to proportionality in requests for evidence from victims and whether further steps should then be taken. In terms of DPNs and involvement of the Victims’ Commissioner: yes, she has been involved with the development of the digital processing notices.

I apologise again for the length of my remarks to the Committee. The Committee has raised important issues in respect of the privacy of victims and witnesses, and it is very important we get the framework in the Bill right. I hope noble Lords will agree that we have listened to the concerns that additional safeguards should be set out in the Bill and will be content to agree the government amendments in lieu of their own. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Beith, that we will consider further their Amendments 97 and 103, and to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are very alive to the issues around third-party material. For now, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to withdraw Amendment 79.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly: I really am grateful to the Minister. It is a very big group, and it is difficult to take in everything she said. But we have to be very careful. People will be reading the record of this debate. I think I heard the Minister say that the authorised person must explain that the investigation or inquiry will not be brought to an end if they refuse to hand over their device. That is not what it says on the face of the Bill. It says the person must be given a written notice.

These might have been many decades ago, but I know of situations where police officers shoved a piece of paper in front of somebody who was either a victim or a suspect—even somebody who could not read—and said something different from what was on the piece of paper. So I think we have to make it absolutely clear in the Bill, not just in the guidance or the codes of practice, that this must be explained, which was the meaning of one of my amendments.

The other thing I think I heard the Minister say—it is late—is that the authorised person must explain to the victim that refusal would have no negative consequences. That cannot possibly be right. For example, in a rape case where consent is an issue—where, perhaps, the defence argued that there were exchanges of messages or some such things that go to the heart of whether consent is an issue—and the victim refuses to hand over their device, there could be negative consequences when it comes to trial. Again, I understand that the Minister wants to be helpful and reassuring to victims, but we have to be absolutely clear what we are promising here, if it is being said on the record in this Committee.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The hour is late. Because these things are so important, I will reiterate them in a letter to the noble Lord.

Sexual Misconduct in the Police

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 26th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I must join the noble Lord in expressing my disgust. Every one of those numbers represents a person who has been the victim of sexual misconduct by a serving police officer. On the one hand, any number is too many but, on the other hand, we should look to the legislation that we introduced last year to give additional powers to the IOPC. That includes the power of initiative, which allows it to bring forward and investigate allegations without requiring referral from the police. In addition, forces must refer all allegations of serious sexual offences or of police officers abusing their position for a sexual purpose to the IOPC. For the first time now, the Home Office will be able to collect and publish data on internal sexual misconduct by officers, and we aim to publish the first tranche in the new year.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I was a police officer for over 30 years, and I want to be proud of that fact. We do not need working groups, inquiries, inspections and a task force to reassure the public. When will the Home Secretary give the Independent Office for Police Conduct the additional resources that it needs to effectively investigate sexual abuse by police officers? As a former Home Secretary did with racism after the tragic death of Stephen Lawrence, when will she tell police chiefs: “Misogyny is a problem and you must address it now”? That is not just what we want. It is what every decent, honest, hard-working police officer wants.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I repeat my response to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that every report or allegation of police misconduct for a sexual purpose must be referred to the IOPC. It will be up to individual force chiefs to decide but if it is sexual misconduct it must be referred to the IOPC. We have that additional layer in that the IOPC now has the power of initiative. Decisions on whether officers have committed sexual misconduct, and, if so, what sanctions there ought to be, are for misconduct panels led by the independent, legally qualified chairs.

Additionally, following the recommendations of the Zoë Billingham report, we will be working closely with the new national police lead for tackling VAWG, DCC Maggie Blyth, who took up the post recently to address the report’s findings and drive forward improvements in policing’s response to VAWG.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part one & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanations and for the promise of further meetings. It might help those further meetings if I raise the issues I have now. I am concerned at her saying that approaches cannot be made directly to medical practitioners but only through these other bodies. If the result was the same—that confidential medical information about individuals was divulged—that is not much of a reassurance. I am grateful for the information that officials met with the GMC and that it agreed to help with statutory guidance. Perhaps the Minister can meet with the GMC and it can help with amending the Bill.

The Minister said that the issue with some of the amendments is that they weaken the duties in the Bill. That is the whole purpose of the amendments. Regarding the draft guidance and its emphasis on a public health approach, that is not what is on the face of the Bill. The perception of all those I have spoken to—we will come to this issue when considering further groups—is that this is all about providing information to the police. To be fair, the Minister said so in her response. The belief among many authorities is that this is all about providing information to the police and is not a two-way process.

The Minister talked about the Care Act and said that there is already a duty to pass over confidential medical information if there is an overriding public interest. Where in the Bill does it say that there must be an overriding public interest before information is passed over?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The detection and prevention of serious violence would be the relevant part, which also reads across to the Care Act 2014. There would have to be a public interest assessment and as I said, there is no mandation. But the body or doctor in question would, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, have to balance the importance of the prevention, detection, and reduction of serious violence with the disclosure of that information.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can I ask the Minister to clarify something? I think the noble Baroness said that this additional duty was not necessary, as it was with domestic violence, because the violence does not happen in the home. In the example I gave, where a drug dealer owed money harasses and threatens a family to get their money back, surely you could say that that violence is happening on the doorstep, or perhaps inside the home if the drug dealer breaks the door down. Surely there is a need in those circumstances for that family to be rehoused to reduce serious violence and get them out of the way in a similar way to a victim of domestic violence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think what I said to the House was that households containing dependent children have a priority need and that a person may be assessed as having priority need if they were considered to be significantly more vulnerable than an ordinary person would be if they became homeless as a result of ceasing to occupy accommodation by reason of violence from another person or threats of violence that are likely to be carried out. In terms of domestic abuse, it is widely acknowledged that domestic abuse crimes are committed inside the home, out of the view of the public, by household members. The changes made to the Domestic Abuse Act to extend priority need to people who are homeless as a result of being a victim of domestic abuse reflected that.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I did not quite understand when she seemed to suggest that this was all facilitation and to enable different authorities to share information—and that there was no compulsion to do so. Could she therefore explain Clause 17, where it says that,

“if the Secretary of State is satisfied that … a specified authority has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by section 7, 13(6), 14(3) or 16(4), or … an educational authority, prison authority or youth custody authority has failed to discharge a duty imposed on it by section 14(3), (4) or (5)(b) or 16(4)”,

then

“The Secretary of State may give directions to the authority for the purpose of securing compliance with the duty”


and can enforce that requirement by a mandatory order? In what way is that voluntarily facilitating the exchange of information? Clause 17 is all about the Secretary of State forcing authorities to share information.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the hour is late. Might the noble Lord permit me to discuss, perhaps in the next few days, the seeming contradiction between those two things?

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Lords Hansard part one
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, set out, this amendment seeks to further improve the timeliness of disciplinary and misconduct proceedings against police officers. It seeks to do this by amending existing regulations governing complaint and misconduct investigations by the IOPC, as well as those conducted by force professional standards departments. In substance, they seek to introduce a new system of separate independent adjudicators with powers to close down investigations which have taken longer than 12 months, where they decide that there is no “good and sufficient” reason for delay.

Again, with this amendment, I agree with the thrust of what the noble Lord and others said, namely that disciplinary and misconduct investigations should be conducted and completed in a timely fashion, for the reasons set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Hogan-Howe. Like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when I heard “10 years” I was utterly shocked. However, this amendment comes at a time when investigation timescales are already reducing and when the Government have worked hard to reduce bureaucracy in the system and not add to it.

Under the IOPC’s predecessor, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, investigations would on average take 11 months. Since 2018, under the IOPC, that has fallen by almost 30% to just eight months. The IOPC has closed more than 90% of its cases in under 12 months and is making strong progress on the number of cases that it closes in under nine months and even in under six months. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, it is in nobody’s interest for investigations to drag on for long periods unnecessarily. We recognise the impact that this can have on everyone concerned.

It might be helpful in terms of explaining the trajectory that the Government introduced a package of reforms in February last year to the police complaints and disciplinary systems. It included new provisions to improve timeliness, with an expectation that investigations will normally be completed within 12 months. If not, the investigating body must provide a written explanation of any delays and steps to bring the investigation to a conclusion. The Government expect the IOPC to go further, and it now has targets in its business plans to complete many of those investigations in under nine and six months, as I said.

There are a number of reasons why cases might take too long, including the complexity of a case, the time- scale being impacted by parallel criminal investigations, and delays in obtaining expert evidence or post-mortem reports. It might be further complicated by delays in obtaining accounts from key police witnesses and subjects. That said, it is not acceptable for investigations to go on for too long, but the trajectory of timescales is certainly downwards.

The noble Lord’s amendment would introduce an additional layer of cost and bureaucracy. It would also risk creating perverse incentives for investigators to rush to meet deadlines at the expense of the quality of an investigation, particularly in those complex cases or if historic matters are at stake.

If an investigation into police wrongdoing was terminated without being concluded and that officer might have had a case to answer for gross misconduct—I can think of very recent cases which are relevant here—this would significantly undermine public confidence and potentially the course of justice. I am sure that is not the intention of noble Lords.

The amendment also risks undermining the independence of the police disciplinary system, blurring the lines between when legally qualified persons are appointed to this role and when the same person is appointed as a legally qualified chair of a misconduct hearing. These individuals would be selected from the same pool. That fundamentally changes the role of a legally qualified chair and jeopardises the independence of their position and the disciplinary system.

In conclusion, the Government have already taken steps to reduce investigation timescales and we will be monitoring the timeliness of investigations, drawing on new data collection requirements that we introduced as part of recent reforms. I hope that, for the reasons I have outlined, the noble Lord will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this important debate, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her support for speedy justice. Obviously, this impacts the complainant as well as the officers.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his contribution. It seems very strange standing here and talking about a former commissioner in that way, but I am in police mode at the moment, I think. He made a very important point about firearms officers who volunteer to take on this enormous responsibility and are then treated so badly by the system.

The Police Federation—I am grateful for its support of these amendments—accepts that there will be delays if a criminal investigation is involved. However, there are still significant delays even after the criminal matters have been dealt with, as I outlined in the examples I gave.

I thank the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for his promise to come back all guns blazing, as it were, if I bring the amendment back on Report.

It is interesting that there is a parallel with the Armed Forces again. I spoke to a former soldier who was resigning from the police service and asked him why. He said that he was leaving because, in the Armed Forces, when something goes wrong, the most senior officer involved takes responsibility and faces a court martial, while in the police service, the responsibility is pushed down to the lowest-possible level, to alleviate the responsibility of senior officers. That is an aspect of the culture of the police service; I agree with that officer’s conclusions.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, talked about public confidence. If there is no confidence in the Independent Office for Police Conduct and the police complaints system, this will be partly due to the undue delays. Complainants are beginning to think “What are they trying to cover up? Why is it taking so long?”. It is essential that these things are dealt with in a timely manner.

I thank the Minister for her support in principle, but the examples I gave were not complex cases; they were simple, but they still took years. They did not involve expert witnesses, yet there were still delays. These are recent cases from last year.

I am sorry but I do not accept the Minister’s assertion that this amendment would result in a rush to complete investigations. These completely independent people would assess whether there were justified reasons for investigations going on as long as they had. Clearly, if these investigations were not being dealt with in a timely manner, they would have something to worry about. This is about picking up those cases in which there is unnecessary and unreasonable delay. Of course, the same chair would not adjudicate over whether an investigation was going on too long and then chair the discipline investigation.

We are on to something here and I am very grateful to the Police Federation for bringing it to my attention. We may well need to discuss this further on Report, but at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Lords Hansard - part two & Committee stage
Wednesday 20th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, there are a number of general points I need to make about the new legal duties to support a multiagency approach to preventing and tackling serious violence. I will try to make them in the appropriate group of amendments, but I hope the Committee will accept that there is a great deal of overlap.

The overwhelming response of the non-governmental organisations I have met with which have concerns about this part of the Bill is that, as drafted, it is actually about forcing agencies to support a police-led enforcement approach to serious violence—not a public health approach, or even a multiagency approach, to preventing and tackling serious violence. The Government’s own consultation on this issue gave three options: a new legal duty on specific organisations to effectively share information with the police; a new legal duty to revise community safety partnerships, the existing and well-established mechanism where local authorities and police forces work together to prevent and tackle crime, and where the local police chief and local authority chief executive are equal partners in doing whatever each partner and others can do to reduce crime and disorder; and a voluntary non-legislative approach. There was more support for a legislative approach than a voluntary one, but more respondents favoured enhancing community safety partnerships—40%—compared with a new legal duty to provide information to the police—37%—and, tellingly, the police supported equally options one and two.

Even the police, the sector most likely to benefit from a police-led enforcement approach, were ambivalent as to whether it should be a truly multiagency approach by enhancing community safety partnerships or a police-led enforcement approach. So why did the Government opt for the latter and not the former? A police-led enforcement approach was the Government’s preferred option from the beginning. These amendments, which we support, are the first manifestation of challenging that police-led enforcement approach, in that the legal duty does not sufficiently recognise that many young people, particularly those involved in county lines, are victims of criminal exploitation rather than free-acting criminals. Henry Blake is a former youth worker who draws on his personal experiences of working with at-risk young people in his powerful film, “County Lines”—a drama about one young man who is drawn into county lines drug dealing. I would highly recommend this film to any noble Lord who is unaware of the realities of county lines.

Many young people lacking family support and living in poverty find themselves groomed by adults who appear to show them the love and concern they desperately seek, and who treat them to meals in burger restaurants and buy them new trainers—something their often lone parent cannot afford. They promise them money, not just so they can afford the latest designer clothing that they need if they are not to be bullied by gangs, who see those who do not wear designer labels—even Nike and Adidas—as targets. It is not just so they can go to McDonald’s whenever they want, but so that they can help their mum put food on the table and make sure their younger sister has decent clothes to wear. I hope noble Lords can see how easily vulnerable young people are drawn into criminality, not just for pecuniary advantage but for the sense of belonging and the sense that someone is at last paying them some attention. For many, it is as much an emotional need as a financial one.

Of course, the reality is very different. The adults exploiting these young people take the vast majority of the profits of the drug dealing in which they are involving these young people whom they have groomed, and the youngsters take all the risks, often ending in violence from rival drug dealers. These young people are victims of criminal exploitation, and each one of us is to blame—not them. It is our fault that their single mothers have to do three minimum wage jobs to pay the rent and put food on the table and so, through no fault of their own, can rarely be there for their kids as most wish they could be. It is our fault that too many people do not have a decent place to live, because they cannot afford private rents for an appropriately sized home in a good state of repair, and that there is a shocking shortage of social housing and much of what exists is in an appalling state of repair. It is our fault that, as the cost of living spirals upwards, we take away £20 a week in universal credit from those most in need. The Government’s response is to force other agencies to divulge information that makes it easier for them to prosecute these victims of criminal exploitation.

That is why the Bill needs to radically change from a police-led enforcement approach to preventing and tackling serious violence to a truly public health and multiagency approach, starting with—although this is only the beginning of the changes needed—putting the safeguarding of children involved in serious violence in the Bill. That must include, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, suggests in his Amendment 50, and as both Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society have suggested, including a statutory definition of child criminal exploitation in the meaning of exploitation in Section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, suggests in her Amendment 52, training for police officers in particular, to ensure that they are aware of child criminal exploitation and actively seeking evidence of such exploitation.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for setting out the case for these amendments. I wholeheartedly agree that nothing is more important than safeguarding children at risk of harm. That is why we introduced reforms to safeguarding in 2017, which led to the establishment of multiagency safeguarding arrangements in 2019. The statutory safeguarding partners responsible for safeguarding—that is, local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and chief officers of police—are also named as specified authorities under the serious violence duty, so I would argue that it is truly a multiagency approach. This demonstrates the importance of safeguarding in protecting children and young people from involvement in serious violence. We expect that existing work to safeguard vulnerable children will link very closely with local efforts to prevent and reduce serious violence. Therefore, we do not believe that it is necessary to include a separate safeguarding requirement in this part of the Bill, and it would not be possible to do so without duplicating existing safeguarding legislation.

On Amendment 25, which would require specified authorities to prepare and implement an early help strategy, the noble Lord is absolutely right to highlight the importance of prevention and early intervention and this, of course, is the key aim of the serious violence duty. We recognise that early intervention and prevention are essential to reducing serious violence. The duty requires partners to work collaboratively to develop a strategy to reduce serious violence in their local area. We expect partners to work with upstream organisations, such as education providers and children’s social care, when developing this strategy to ensure that it covers actions that relate to early help and considers risks that occur before a young person becomes involved in serious violence. This ensures that any strategy will include early help for this cohort. We believe that it would be less effective to separate this out into an additional strategy.

Metal Theft

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 14th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

We talked about cash payments being outlawed some years ago, and in fact they have been. Some of the innovations like marking and tracing are now in place to make theft of things like railway tracks much more difficult. It is in working together through the various agencies that the various industries will help to beat this type of crime.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned marking. From over 30 years’ experience in the police service, I can tell the House that longer prison sentences rarely deter criminals, whereas the higher chance of being caught does. Why do the Government not invest in technologies such as SmartWater, rather than building more prisons?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The British Transport Police has plans whereby SmartWater would cover any shortfall in the funding required to stamp out this theft. There are a number of different innovations that are helping, and clearly the overall driving-down of theft is very helpful.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Criminal Conduct Authorisations) (Amendment) Order 2021

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 12th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

Can the noble Baroness address the question that I raised of whether it would be unlawful for an inspector who was not trained to authorise a CHIS to commit crime? If she is unable to do that this evening from the Dispatch Box, perhaps she could write to me.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said during my response to the debate, the officers who authorise are trained but the noble Lord is now getting into the area of rank and asking whether the authorising officer would have to be an inspector or above as well as trained. Rather than guess what the right answer might be, I shall write to him on that point of clarification.

Black Dog Crisis Management Company

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 11th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his point. The skills of the company were particularly useful in the context of the issue of the migrant crossings.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Baroness regarding James Brokenshire. It is a very sad situation.

Are there no internal consultants anywhere in Whitehall who could have advised the Home Office, rather than it spending public money on private sector consultants? Or was the crisis so bad that it was beyond the ability of anybody in Whitehall?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, these issues are often dealt with internally. This incident was one of some complexity and was quite novel in its aspect. That was why the STA was sought.

EU Borders: Refugees from Afghanistan

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 9th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Again, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, every asylum application should be treated on its merit. If a person left Afghanistan some time ago, before the Taliban takeover, and their application is in the system, that application will be treated on a case-by-case basis. Clearly, others came through Operation Pitting and the ARAP scheme. I repeat: anyone who finds themselves in Europe should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister clarify two of the answers that she has just given? The Government maintain that all refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in and that they will seek to return any asylum seeker who travels to the UK, particularly through EU countries that the Government consider safe. Is the Minister really saying that, if those Afghans who helped the British forces are unable to fly back to the UK and have to travel by land through EU countries, they will be refused entry to the UK because they travelled through EU countries?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

Let me clarify: no, that is not the case at all. If anyone has been accepted through the ARAP scheme or Operation Pitting, they can go to a VAC or be processed in any country in the world, so I am absolutely not saying that. What I am saying is that if someone is not coming through a legal route, they should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach.

EU Bilateral Agreements for Asylum Seekers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 6th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that no, it is not a self-inflicted disaster. Of all EU states, we have been one of the most generous. As I said previously, we do not think we are doing anything that breaches our international obligations.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister claims that the UK is very generous but, according to the Home Office, in 2019, there were around five asylum claims per 10,000 people living in the UK, compared with the EU 28, where there were 14 asylum claims per 10,000 people. What success does the Minister expect to achieve in returning asylum seekers to the EU when the UK does not appear to be taking its fair share?

Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, before I start, I wish all noble Lords, and especially the Minister, a well-deserved, restful and restorative Recess. However, before we get there, such is the importance that this Government place on violence against women and girls that this strategy was announced in the other place at 7 pm yesterday—or, as the Minister in the other place put it,

“at an unusual hour, I think it is fair to say, of the parliamentary day”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]

And here we are—last business before the Summer Recess.

A strategy should include a coherent set of specific, measurable, achievable, realistic and timely objectives, rather than what appears to be the result of a “board blast”, where every possible option is thrown in the paper. The Minister in the other place said that the strategy would build on the

“progress we have made in recent years”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1083.]

She cited London as being the first major capital city in the world to publish a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, when Boris Johnson was Mayor of London.

The current Mayor of London said this year that the capital’s streets were not safe for women and girls, and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, in response to his comments, said that the streets of London were

“not safe for everyone all of the time”.

Is that the sort of progress that the Statement referred to?

We have seen an incoherent collection of random ideas before, with the serious violence strategy published by the Government in April 2018. The difficulty is that success should be measured in terms of outcomes, not outputs. Can the Minister tell the House what impact in terms of outcomes that strategy has had on levels of violent crime in the past three years?

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just said, the Statement says that the strategy includes a

“multi-million-pound … communications campaign”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1084.]

It also talks about a £5 million safety of women at night fund, and talks about the broader, £25 million safer streets fund. Exactly what does “multi-million-pound” amount to? How many millions? The Statement is quite specific on the other initiatives, so why not on this one?

The Statement says that the Government will continue to back the police to catch perpetrators of violence against women and girls and bring them to justice, and that they have given the police more powers, more resources and more officers. How much more are this Government currently giving the police in real terms compared with 2010? What is the current establishment of police officers and community support officers in England and Wales—who are the visible policing presence on the street—compared with 2010? Although it is not just how much money is being spent but how it is spent that it is important, can the Minister tell the House exactly how much new money is specifically being targeted on reducing violence against women and girls, in support of this strategy?

It is abundantly clear what the problem is with violence against women and girls: it is the attitude of men, the culture in our society, and the belief among many men that they can do whatever they like to women because they can. They can because they are, on average, physically stronger, and they do not fear the consequences, whether disapproval from their peers or wider society, or effective sanction—whether by the criminal justice system, employers or institutions, including schools, political parties or religious organisations.

Too many men are likely to be given an encouraging slap on the back by other men for abusing women and girls, rather than condemnation. Every single person and every single organisation needs to say clearly and unambiguously that any abuse of women and girls, particularly male violence against them, is totally unacceptable. In particular, male leaders, especially political leaders, must set an example—not by being one of the lads, but by treating women and girls with dignity and respect. Noble Lords will not have to think very hard or for very long to think of an example.

We made drinking and driving socially unacceptable, and we need to make even verbal abuse of women and girls equally unacceptable, including making street harassment a specific criminal offence. We need every man to be part of the solution, not part of the problem.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I join both noble Lords in commending the VAWG strategy. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for wishing us happy holidays—I am definitely looking forward to mine. I often do last business before Recess, so the noble Lord is not wrong in his observation. None the less, this is an incredibly important Statement. My honourable friend Vicky Atkins did not say that it would take a decade, but rather that it is the start of a decade of change. It is the beginning of the journey; it is a statement of intent. I am very glad that she laid her Statement to the House of Commons last night.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about prosecutions being down and what we are going to do about it. We have absolutely acknowledged that prosecutions are down, particularly for rape. My honourable friend Kit Malthouse in another place led the rape review together with the MoJ; it concluded in May. The whole point of the rape review was to make the victim’s horrendous journey a much easier one from start to finish and to ensure that convictions, now so low, matched the number of victims coming forward in terms of proportion.

The noble Lord asked about the police lead on VAWG, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. It is not just another police lead on something; we intend to make this a specific role. This will be a full-time job, and it is absolutely the right thing to do, particularly in terms of good practice, training, et cetera. The noble Lord asked about the wait time for the helpline. I am afraid I do not know the answer, and I will have to let him know, but we will be spending £1.14 million on it.

The noble Lord also asked about NDAs in universities but not in workplaces. Of course, we are all familiar with NDAs in the workplace and there is no doubt that, if someone is made to sign an NDA and it conceals the fact that they might be sexually harassed, the NDA is null and void. On universities, we want to send a clear message to students that sexual harassment is in no way tolerable on our campuses and online environments and to take the necessary steps to ensure that it is stamped out of our world-leading higher education sector.

Both the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, talked about street harassment. Although it is true that there are existing offences that can address sexual harassment, we are looking carefully at where there might be gaps in existing law and how a specific offence for public sexual harassment could address these. This is complex and it is important that we take the time to ensure that any potential legislation is both proportionate and reasonably defined.

We are committed to ensuring that not only are the right laws in place but that they work in practice. First, £3 million will go into the national communications campaign, which noble Lords asked about. It will challenge this kind of behaviour and ensure that victims know how and where to report it. Secondly, we will ensure that police and prosecutors are confident about how to respond to public sexual harassment—for example, through new police guidance. Thirdly, to prevent it from happening in the first place, we need to deepen our understanding of who commits these crimes, why they do so and how it may escalate—for example, through our new funding for what works to tackle violence against women and girls.

Both noble Lords asked about additional money. The total funding for 2021-22 is £300 million. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additional money. That will be £43 million in addition. On funding for the police, in terms of numbers we have committed to the 20,000 and in terms of future commitment clearly a spending review precludes me from committing to anything further than that.

Police and Crime Commissioner By-election

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I think that what has happened in this election has thrown up some obvious gaps in the process. On what the noble Lord says about the stringency of standing for office, he is absolutely right—PCCs have the most stringent requirements of all UK elections. But it is right that we should be quite strict about the people who are elected to uphold law and order.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, Members of Parliament guilty of misconduct can face a recall procedure. What plans do the Government have for a recall procedure for police and crime commissioners?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, there is not a recall procedure, but the noble Lord will know that there have been PCCs whose conduct has been called into question, and there has been remedy in that.

Domestic Abuse: Older People

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 14th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord raises a really valid point: underlying all of this is the need for sufficient training to enable agencies and local authorities to refer onwards. Indeed, because tier 1 local authorities now have a duty placed upon them, that need is emphasised even further.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I know from personal experience that the perpetrators of coercive control can be so cunningly malevolent that the victim may be oblivious to it. What steps are the Government taking to raise awareness among older people of this kind of domestic abuse?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

I recognise that the noble Lord speaks from experience, which he has shared with the House on many occasions; I thank him for that. He is absolutely right to point out the very clever and cunning ways in which this abuse can take place. Older people in particular may not even realise that they are being coercively controlled. Of course, in the work that we do across agencies, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, it is up to the various people who work both within government and in the various agencies which support this work to be trained to be able to identify and then refer on these people for the help that they might need.

Independent Office for Police Conduct

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 8th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, without talking about any individuals, some time ago we made clear through legislation that going to a different force or retiring cannot exempt someone from being prosecuted or followed up for an offence for which they are a suspect. That is all I will say on that matter. It is up to the PCC whom they appoint.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, paragraph 264 of chapter 9 of the independent panel report into the murder of Daniel Morgan quotes the then deputy head of the predecessor to the IOPC as saying that while

“the IPCC … does investigate a small number of corruption cases you are aware that we are not currently resourced to carry out many or large corruption enquiries”.

Unlike its predecessor, does the IOPC have enough resources to investigate police corruption and, if not, who investigates if there are many or large corruption inquiries? Could it be the force itself that is accused of covering up misconduct?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

In terms of capacity, the IOPC budget for 2021-22 is £69.6 million and it employs approximately 1,000 staff. To that extent, I think it is well-resourced.

Police: Body-worn Videos

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 7th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My noble friend is right that selective release of video can paint a very different picture from what actually happened. This point has been made again and again. It is absolutely right that these things be released quickly and brought forward in a way that does not undermine the criminal justice system that ensues.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, if there is any possibility of misconduct proceedings or a prosecution, whether of the police officer or of those interacting with the officer, witness evidence, perhaps from a different angle or from before the camera starts to record, may be important. Witnesses may be influenced by the body-worn video footage as well as online footage, rather than by what they saw. What safeguards are needed to ensure that both body-worn video and online video do not interfere with the course of justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the noble Lord points to the fact that the police need to make decisions about what happened before the video was started, after the video was started and what might be put online. These are all factors that might undermine a criminal justice process, and I very much agree with his points.

EU Settlement Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 1st July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On a September extension, the scheme has been open now for over two years, which is a reasonable time, in our estimation. The noble Lord talked about children in particular, and I agree that they may be a particularly vulnerable cohort. Of course, with children or children in care, whatever their circumstances, if there are reasonable excuses beyond midnight of last night, they will be able to apply and that scheme will be open indefinitely so as not to disadvantage them. On benefits, we are working very hard with the DWP to ensure that all those who are entitled to benefits will keep them.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, why set an arbitrary deadline for people to claim rights they are already entitled to?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, it was not arbitrary; these things have to come to an end at some point. As I say, the deadline has come over two years since the scheme opened, which was incredibly generous. That is evidenced by the fact that now over 5.2 million people have had their applications processed for either settled or pre-settled status.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 24th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for tabling this Motion—[Laughter.] I did mean that sincerely, although it might have come out all wrong. On the noble Lord’s second point, I join him in wishing my right honourable friend Minister Brokenshire all the very best for a speedy recovery. In fact, I can update the House: he is making a speedy recovery. May I also say that it has been my absolute pleasure to cover his work for him in his absence? I wish him a speedy return.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is the responsibility of government to ensure that correct legislation is in place and that, where errors are identified, they are rectified swiftly. This second order—the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021—which we debated in this House on Tuesday and on which answers were given, corrects drafting errors in the earlier order to ensure that the law is absolutely clear.

That order, which I shall refer to hereafter as the earlier order, was debated and approved by this House on 2 March. The corrections that the second order will make to the earlier order will remove the potential for any ambiguity in the law and ensure that the law is explicitly clear. I repeat what I said during consideration of the draft order in Grand Committee on Tuesday. I say it now and I said it then: I fully accept that mistakes were made, and I again offer my full apology for the fact that errors were made. It is highly regrettable but we have been swift in taking corrective action. The department has been proactive in taking steps to improve internal quality assurance procedures to prevent such errors recurring.

I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the importance of detailed parliamentary scrutiny of secondary legislation. I also note the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, about the amount of secondary legislation. We have, of course, had a legislatively busy couple of years, and I wholly agree that proper oversight of delegated legislation is an essential function of Parliament.

It is for this reason that both this order and the earlier order were subject to the standard procedures in place to ensure that delegated legislation is fully and properly scrutinised by Parliament. That includes consideration by both the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as well as debates on the content of orders by both Houses.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was not content with my responses to points made by noble Lords during the earlier debate, for which I apologise. I was not able to answer all the questions fully, but I hope that I did respond to some of them when they were made again during the debate on this order on Tuesday. I will now endeavour to address some of the key areas raised.

One of the issues on which the noble Lord challenged me was the potential for double jeopardy to arise, whereby an individual, having committed an offence and then been detained, could be subject to both UK and French law. As I explained in Grand Committee, matters relating to the responsible state as regards offences have been considered and are the subject of specific provisions in the underpinning of Le Touquet, the purpose of which is to negate this possibility.

The noble Lord also asked me about the jurisdiction of courts and raised concerns about Article 12 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) Order 2003, which relates to the jurisdiction of courts as regards offences. Article 12 makes it clear which court, either UK or French, has jurisdiction over offences committed in the UK control zones at Calais and Dunkirk, in line with specific provisions contained in the underpinning of Le Touquet.

On whether errors occurred because of deficient processes, rather than simple oversight, they occurred because of human error. To prevent the recurrence of such errors, the department has directly informed all staff working on the drafting of statutory instruments of the steps to be taken on preventing them.

Another issue brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was Belgium and Holland. We obviously do not operate juxtaposed controls at the seaports of Belgium or the Netherlands, but I think he was making precisely that point: we do not have international agreements enabling us to exercise immigration powers in these countries, other than for the Eurostar service. We do have international arrangements underpinning the international rail regime with France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and separate domestic orders setting out those arrangements.

I hope that I have answered the specific points that the noble Lord called out for clarification. On draft SIs, I can certainly recall SIs that were previously brought in draft for noble Lords’ consideration, but I shall take both those points back: adding to legislation by secondary legislation, and the point on SIs. With that, I apologise yet again and commend this order to the House.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for her support and her helpful suggestion. The Minister said that standard procedures were followed in the amendment of the (No. 2) Order and the original order. It should not be standard procedure that the only way in which noble Lords can get answers to the questions that they raised in a debate on 2 March is to put forward a regret amendment to an amendment order on the Floor of the House. Those answers should be given promptly, following the original debate. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Law Enforcement Agencies: Duty of Candour

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

It is important to answer the noble Lord’s questions. The Home Secretary is keen to speak to the family before taking such measures forward. There were trials going on until recently. The families are very important in helping the Home Secretary on what steps to take forward.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, in March 2011 the then acting Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Tim Godwin, said of the Daniel Morgan murder:

“The MPS has accepted that police corruption in the original investigation was a significant factor in this failure.”


When the independent panel asked the Metropolitan Police to explain what the corruption mentioned in this and other admissions of corruption consisted of, it replied that

“any clarity required would have to be provided by those officers themselves.”

Tim Godwin did not join the Metropolitan Police until 1999, so he must have been briefed by the Metropolitan Police on what to say. Even now, the Metropolitan Police refuses to be open and transparent. How can the Home Secretary allow this to continue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary fully expects the Metropolitan Police to respond positively to this report and to set out publicly the clear steps it intends to take to avoid making the same mistakes again. She has written to the Metropolitan Police Service Commissioner setting out her expectations and she will update the House on progress following a response from the Metropolitan Police and others.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, on her report and her patience. I apologise to the Morgan family for the way an organisation I was part of for over 30 years has conducted itself. The only points I wish to make are that this report chimes exactly with my professional and personal experience, that this report needs to be taken seriously, and that urgent action needs to be taken as a result. The Metropolitan Police puts its own reputation before openness, honesty and the pursuit of justice, and those who are telling the truth are ostracised and forced out.

Let me give noble Lords another example. In 2005, as a police officer holding the fourth highest rank in the Metropolitan Police, I gave evidence to the Independent Police Complaints Commission inquiry into whether the Metropolitan Police has misled the family of Jean Charles de Menezes after he was mistakenly shot and killed by the police following the London bombings. The then commissioner had told the media that both he and all those advising him believed for 24 hours after the shooting that Jean Charles de Menezes was a suicide bomber, when, in fact, five hours after the shooting, his closest advisers had told me that Jean Charles de Menezes was innocent. Noble Lords will recall the trial of the Metropolitan Police for health and safety breaches, where the Met digitally altered the image of the suspect it was pursuing to make it look more like de Menezes and claimed mistaken identity.

After an uneasy truce of about 18 months, I was side- lined from being in day-to-day charge of 20,000 officers to overseeing a project with 20 officers because the commissioner had lost confidence in me. He had done so because I told the truth. As a police inspector, I was told that I was too honest to be a senior police officer, and 20 years later I found out that that was true. That was the culture of the Metropolitan Police then, and this report tells us that it is the culture of the Metropolitan Police now. It highlights various types of corruption, including what it describes as “incontrovertibly corrupt behaviour”, such as selling stories to press contacts and planting false evidence.

Research that I saw when I was a serving police officer showed that when there were surges in recruitment, as there was 30 years after the end of the Second World War and again 30 years later, there were significant increases in misconduct in those cohorts of recruits, increasing in seriousness as they secured important investigative positions within the organisation. The usual peak for misconduct was between 10 to 15 years’ service. In the early 2000s the peak was between nought and two years’ service. The report is right to highlight vetting systems, but this is nothing new. Why have the Government not taken action to address this recurring problem in the police service?

The report also highlights what it describes as a form of institutional corruption, failings in police investigations, unjustified reassurances rather than candour and a culture of obfuscation. The panel describes hurdles placed in its path, such as a refusal to recognise the necessity to have access to the HOLMES computer database, limiting access to the most sensitive information and even failing to provide a copy of the London homicide manual. It set out how murder investigations should have been conducted at the time of Daniel Morgan’s murder, and its existence was not even revealed to the panel until December 2020.

The Metropolitan Police were able to claim repeatedly that the initial Daniel Morgan murder investigation was in accordance with the standards of investigation at the time by concealing the manual that proved that it was not investigated in accordance with the standards of investigation at that time. This is how the Metropolitan Police acts now, under its current leadership. This is not just about a few corrupt police officers who thwarted a murder investigation in 1987 or even the further corruption identified after a subsequent investigation; this is about a culture that enables corruption to thrive. The kind of institutional corruption identified in this report is not some kind of academic construct, an isolated incident of a few corrupt officers. It is the tip of an iceberg that threatens to undermine policing by consent in this country. That is a matter for the Government and the Home Secretary, and it must be urgently addressed.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I again join the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, not only in paying tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan but in their appreciation of the work of the panel.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the Metropolitan Police Service will respond to the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has undertaken to update the House by the end of the year, so the answer to his question is “swiftly”. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the obstruction in obtaining documentation. On the production of documentation and the funding required to carry out the work of the panel, the Home Secretary feels that the money and resources were sufficient to carry out the investigation. To date, some £16 million has been spent on this investigation.

On the relationship with the Home Office, I do not think that it has been smooth sailing. The previous Home Secretary, my right honourable friend Theresa May, set up the inquiry and it was never the intention that the relationship with the Home Office should be difficult. The Home Office has tried to assist the panel in whatever way it can.

I do not have to hand the terms of reference for the inspectorate, but I assume that that they would have been set up for the precise reason of ensuring that there is a full inspection. On the point of the term “and others”, I presume that one of the “and others” is the IOPC. On the duty of candour to be taken forward, as I said earlier, the Home Secretary will want to speak to the family and to progress matters after that.

I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, whether the Government will ensure that such a tragedy and miscarriage of justice never happen again and that the police cannot get away with impunity. I said earlier that Section 35 of the Inquiries Act 2005 makes it an offence to commit acts that are intended to have the effect of distorting, altering or preventing evidence being given to a statutory inquiry, although this was not a statutory inquiry, and I understand that. However, it is an offence intentionally to suppress, conceal or destroy a relevant document.

On recent measures, the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, talked about historic failings. The investigations may be historic, but police corruption is something that the Government have focused on. The introduction of the code of ethics in 2014 went some way towards correcting it, as did the establishment in 2015 of a specific criminal offence of police corruption. I recall, because I took the legislation through the House, that measures to ensure that officers cannot resign or retire to evade accountability were brought in in 2017, as well as a barred list to prevent dismissed officers rejoining policing.

There are also last year’s reforms to ensure that misconduct investigations are more transparent and swift. Much work has been done by national policing to tackle corruption, particularly through the national action plan on abuse of a position for a sexual purpose. I know that HMICFRS is currently undertaking a follow-up inspection of all forces’ counter-corruption and vetting capabilities and, as I may have said earlier, the Home Secretary has asked HMICFRS to ensure an urgent focus on the Metropolitan Police Service.

Napier Barracks Asylum Accommodation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 14th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, we believed we were taking reasonable steps to give effect to the PHE advice on the steps to be taken to make dormitory accommodation as safe as possible. It was on that basis that the Home Secretary and the Permanent Secretary appeared before the committee. We acknowledge the court’s findings that the measures were not adequate and are considering our next steps. Throughout the set-up and operation of the site, the Home Office has engaged with health officials in various organisations to ensure that it is aware of up-to-date advice. While the advice to officials from PHE was that dormitory-style accommodation was not suitable, it also set out how congregate residential settings should be used if other accommodation was not available. We have been working very constructively with PHE for more than a year now.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Minister just said “we believed we were taking reasonable steps”, but the Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee, in answer to question 120, that

“we have been following guidance in every single way.”

Does the Minister agree that there is a significant difference between what she has just said and what the Home Secretary said to the Select Committee? Who is telling the truth?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we believed that we were taking reasonable steps to give effect to the PHE advice on the steps to make accommodation as safe as possible. The advice that PHE set out was that self-contained accommodation should be used where available but, if not, how non-self-contained accommodation should be used. I have to say that we acted in an unprecedented health pandemic to ensure that asylum seekers were not left destitute. We took steps, in response to advice from health authorities, and have continued to make improvements throughout. In its letter to the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, the PHE set out that we have been working with it on Covid matters since spring last year.

Abolished Offences

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I wish it were that simple. I want to acknowledge what the noble Lord has said: not only did men post-1967 face equal difficulties and persecutions for their sexuality but some of them have died—that is the tragic thing. This is complex work and we need to consider the challenging legal and practical issues in extending the scheme, but I do not want that to translate as our commitment being any less diminished.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, not only do the Government appear to be dragging their feet on this issue but there appears to have been a policy shift since Liz Truss became Minister for Women and Equalities. When the noble Baroness was Minister for Equalities, did she ever feel that the UK was focused too heavily on so-called fashionable issues of race, sexuality and gender? Could this explain the Government’s reluctance to take action on this important issue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, our commitment to this has not diminished, despite the fact that it has taken time. When I was the Equalities Minister I was, and remain now, committed to equality, and the Government remain committed to equality. I am very proud of what the Conservative Government have brought forward to advance equality.

Criminal Trials: Intercept Evidence

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 9th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, surely there must be some circumstances where intercept evidence could be used without compromising operational integrity, such as those mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beith. How many individuals could have been prosecuted if intercept evidence had been allowed instead of them being subjected to terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or TPIMs, at considerable additional cost—both financial and to the reputation of British justice?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the question of how many individuals could have been prosecuted is very difficult to answer, given that the evidence was not used. I do not know if there are figures that I can give to the noble Lord. I want to make the point that we do not actually have an objection in principle to the use of intercept material as evidence, and we have tried to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court. As I said, though, successive reviews have found that it is just not possible.

Net Migration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 27th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[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.

Undercover Policing Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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.

Immigration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement claims to have taken back control of legal immigration by ending free movement. Not only can EU citizens continue to enter the UK without a visa, using the e-passport gates at UK airports, but rather than taking back control of legal immigration the Government have extended the use of these e-passport gates to a further seven countries. Before, citizens of those countries had to have a valid reason for entry, enough money to sustain them and evidence that they would leave again. As a result, thousands were turned away at the UK border every year. Can the Minister say what checks are now done on these visitors?

The Statement says that people are dying at sea. Is this not because safe and legal routes for genuine asylum seekers are inadequate or non-existent? How many safe and legal routes are open to genuine asylum seekers? Can the Minister explain how vulnerable people in a war zone can apply under such a scheme? What advice does she have for legitimate seekers of sanctuary in those parts of the world with no safe and legal routes to the UK?

The Statement says that the UK’s asylum system should be based on need. Yet the Government propose to set up a two-tier system, based not on need or the validity of someone’s claim but on how they got to the UK. Are the Government aware of Article 31 of the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees? It states:

“The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees... provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”


Are the Government’s proposals to penalise those who do not use safe and legal routes—routes which do not currently exist and for which the Government have no firm plans or timetable—not in contravention of its international obligations?

The Statement talks about someone illegally entering the UK from France. Can the Minister say on which piece of legislation the Government rely when they claim that asylum seekers who travel through a safe country to get to the UK can only claim asylum in that safe country? Even if they had claimed asylum in an EU country, what mechanism will the Government use to deport them, now that the UK is no longer part of the Dublin regulation?

The Statement claims that the immigration system “is collapsing” under the pressure of asylum applications. In the early 2000s, around 100,000 people a year were claiming asylum in the UK. In 2020, it was 36,000—a reduction of almost two-thirds, despite an increase in the number of people crossing the channel in small boats. Is the reason that the system is collapsing not channel crossings but Home Office mismanagement? Is the reason for the increase in channel crossings not due to the fact that people can no longer claim asylum from outside the UK?

Can the Minister confirm how many of the 42,000 failed asylum seekers who have not left the country are in the process of appealing a Home Office decision, when, on average, 50% of those claims are usually successful? Of those who have exhausted the legal process, why has the Home Office not deported them?

This is not a common-sense approach to controlling immigration. This Statement highlights a catalogue of government failures, along with an illegal proposal to discriminate against those legally seeking sanctuary in the UK and a hollow promise to help the most vulnerable at some unspecified date in the future. The policy has thrown open the UK border to even more countries while slamming the door shut on genuine asylum seekers. I have the greatest respect for the Minister—even though she rises in an attempt to defend the indefensible.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I found them quite interesting. I always find the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, interesting. However, in a funny way we agree on some of the issues, although it would not seem so on the face of it. The last question that the noble Lord asked was: why has the Home Office not deported people who have exhausted their claims? In the proposals is the idea of a one-stop process in order that people do not keep on bringing claims, including on the steps of the plane or whatever the mode of transport might be, when being returned to their country of origin. The noble Lord asked why there had been an increase in channel crossings. It is due to criminality. There is a commonality within this House and the other place that we want to stop that criminality. All that it does is feed human misery and cause deaths, quite often in the English Channel. The criminals are the only ones who profit from it.

The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked a totally fair question: what are the legal routes? The legal routes are not being proposed but asked about in the consultation process, in which I hope a lot of people will engage. In fact, thousands have done so already in relation to what legal and safe routes look like. Resettlement, whereby we have given refuge to more than 45,000 people since 2010, has been an incredibly efficient way in which to get to this country from the regions really vulnerable people who need our refuge. Obviously, if someone has a visa and the situation changes while they are in this country, that is another legal route. A good example of that might be Myanmar at the moment. If there is no visa regime in place in the country of origin, people can travel to the UK to claim asylum. But, as I say, there are the three obvious routes, including resettlement, and a consultation process is under way, which will elucidate the answers for the Government to consider.

The noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, talked about controlling our borders and leaving the EU. Yes, we make absolutely no bones about that. One of the reasons why the British public decided that they wanted to leave the EU was so that we could take control of our borders. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right; it is not necessarily any more about numbers but about having control over who comes in and out.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about the BNOs. The estimate that about 320,000 people will come here is correct; there is no restriction on them. He also talked about people from war-torn countries. Of course, they are the very people we want to give refuge to. That was the origin of the resettlement scheme: so that people in Syria and the MENA region could get our refuge. We have now extended resettlement to include anywhere in the world where people might be vulnerable as a result of either persecution or war.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about successful appeals. That goes back, again, to the one-step process. Appeals are frustrating the whole process of giving genuine people asylum, and it is important that we do not allow gaming of the system. We want the most vulnerable to be able to avail themselves of our asylum.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about pending agreements with France. Yes, discussions continue with EU partners and he will know that I do want to go into the details of that on the Floor of the House. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether we are complying with the refugee convention. Yes, we are. On the issue of first safe country, the system was established under Dublin. It is nothing new that people who arrive in safe countries should not then seek to come to this country if, in fact, they have been given refuge in a safe country. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also raised the issue of inadmissibility rules. They are of long standing and existed under Dublin.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the abrupt cessation of the Dubs scheme. The number of people under it was based on the ability of local authorities to take asylum seekers. We made it very clear to Parliament at the time—and Parliament was in agreement—that we could not commit to bringing people here if we could not house them within local authorities.

In terms of e-gates, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right. The ability to get into this country via the e-gates has been extended to include seven countries. However, if you have not signed up to the EU settlement scheme and, therefore, cannot prove your right to work or rent, your journey is very restricted thereafter. The noble Lord asked how someone in a war zone applies. This is why I keep talking about resettlement—someone in a war zone should be picked up within our resettlement schemes. I repeat: some 45,500 people have been given refuge since 2010. The noble Lord posited that we were going to penalise people who do not use safe and legal routes. The people we really want to penalise are the people traffickers, the criminals—those who make money out of other people’s misfortune and, quite often, death.

Police: Sarah Everard Vigils

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

My Lords, noble Lords will recognise that banning protests was not at the heart of what the Government did; banning protests was part of keeping the public safe in this global pandemic—keeping down the numbers of people who get infected and therefore keeping people out of hospital.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, last week, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services published a report that found that,

“when forces do not accurately assess the level of disruption caused, or likely to be caused, by a protest, the balance may tip too readily in favour of protesters.”

The author, Matt Parr, a former Royal Navy officer, is currently suing the Home Office, claiming that he is being paid less than a colleague because he is a white man. Politically, do the Government believe that the rear-admiral is the best person, and HMICFRS the best organisation, to be conducting the so-called independent review into the protests by women on Clapham Common, in the light of its recent report and the tribunal action?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con) [V]]

On the noble Lord’s former point, this is obviously an equal pay matter and that process will take its path. I think that HMICFRS is the right organisation to investigate, because it is the body that we would appoint to do such work.

Stop and Search

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 3rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the report by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary Disproportionate use of police powers—A spotlight on stop and search and the use of force, published on 26 February.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government support the police in the fair and legitimate use of stop and search and, where necessary, reasonable force to tackle criminality and violent crime. We have worked with the police to put safeguards in place to ensure that no one is targeted because of their race.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, like previous research, this report doubts the efficacy of stop and search in reducing serious crime—but, more importantly, it highlights the impact of disproportionality on trust in, and the legitimacy of, the police. Some 40 years ago, in his report on the Brixton riots, Lord Scarman said that enforcement of the law needed to be balanced against the negative impact of enforcement on communities. This report effectively criticises the police service for not having learned the lessons of the 1981 Scarman report. What action are the Government going to take?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I trust the police to use their powers in a fair way to tackle serious violence and protect communities. It is right that these powers are used to stand firm against criminals who break the law. Every knife taken off our streets is a potential life that is saved, and, in 2019-20, stop and search removed over 11,000 weapons and firearms from our streets and resulted in over 74,000 arrests. It is a tragedy that young black men are disproportionately more likely to be the victims of knife crime—no one should be targeted because of their race. The extensive safeguards in place now, such as statutory codes of practice and the use of body-worn video, are important safeguards to ensure that it does not happen.

Operation Midland

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. This is all about victims. It is important that victims come forward—so often they have not. When we look back at past times, perhaps when I was a child, and some of the subsequent cases that have come to light, it is clear that victims were consistently failed, certainly in the area of child sexual abuse.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

Lord Brittan’s accuser was interviewed by Wiltshire Police before he was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police, and he wrote blogs about the alleged incidents. Sir Richard Henriques found numerous inconsistencies between his Wiltshire interviews, his blogs and his MPS interviews, yet the information on the search warrant used to invade Diana, Lady Brittan’s home stated:

“His account has remained consistent and he is felt to be a credible witness who is telling the truth.”


How can the Home Office sit on the sidelines in the face of such evidence and the suffering of Lady Brittan?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not undermine the suffering of Lady Brittan but, with regards to the individual to whom the noble Lord refers, a remedy was sought. That individual was convicted of perverting the course of justice, and now sits in prison.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this has been a comprehensive debate. As noble Lords have explained, Amendment 148 would insert a new clause to ensure that those whose immigration status would exclude them from benefits and the right to rent can receive support and find a place to live if they are the victim of domestic abuse in circumstances that would otherwise leave them destitute and homeless. It sets out clearly what evidence must be produced to show they are a victim of domestic abuse.

As noble Lord, Lord Rosser, explained, abusers use survivors’ immigration status as a means of coercive control. As noble Lords have said, no one should be prevented from escaping domestic abuse because they cannot afford to leave or because they have nowhere to go, not least those who are additionally vulnerable because of their immigration status. Amendment 151, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, requires the Secretary of State to make changes to the Immigration Rules to extend the number of victims of domestic abuse who can apply for, and be granted, indefinite leave to remain. It proposes that they should be granted limited leave to remain for not less than six months to enable this, or longer if the application is awaiting a decision, including access to support and accommodation during that time. As noble Lords have said, it is likely that victims of domestic abuse could be in danger were they to be forced to return to their country of origin, as the example graphically described by the right reverend Prelate demonstrated. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, has said, while the current pilot is welcome, it is not necessary. We know all we need to know to take the issue forward—a point reinforced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, and my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece have explained, Amendment 160 gives effect to Article 4(3) of the Council of Europe convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence—the Istanbul convention—that requires all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, to receive equal protection against domestic abuse and equally effective support and, as such, encapsulates the essence of Amendments 148 and 151. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, has said, if Amendments 148 and 151 were agreed to, we could ratify the Istanbul convention. As he said, either this is a landmark Bill, or it is not. I agree with the noble Lord: this all comes down to money—money that the Government appear to be unwilling to spend.

It is concerning that the Home Office has responsibility both for providing support for domestic abuse survivors and for enforcing immigration legislation. With only 5.8% of refuge places available to survivors who have no access to public funds, as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, has said, something clearly needs to be done. With those affected numbering in the low thousands, it would not take much to implement these recommendations, and we support them. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, failing to take action would make it feel as though the state were complicit in these women’s suffering.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group centre on support for migrant victims of domestic abuse. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and my noble friend Lady Helic for proposing the new clauses.

All Members of the Committee will share the view that anyone who has suffered abuse, regardless of their immigration status, should first and foremost be treated as a victim. Where we differ, perhaps, is on how support is best provided to meet that end. Amendments 148 and 151 seek to provide, for all migrant victims of domestic abuse, at least six months of leave to remain, a route to indefinite leave to remain and access to publicly funded support. Amendment 160 seeks equally effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse, irrespective of their status, while also referring to Article 4(3) of the Istanbul convention.

If I have correctly understood noble Lords’ objectives in tabling these very thoughtful and well-intentioned amendments, they are seeking to expand the existing destitute domestic violence concession and the domestic violence rule to cover all migrant victims of domestic abuse: to place the DDVC in the Immigration Rules, as well as lifting immigration restrictions, for any migrant victim of domestic abuse. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill recommended that the Government consider similar changes to the DDVC and DVILR. However, its recommendations did not include proposals to incorporate the DDVC scheme in the Immigration Rules.

As noble Lords will be aware, in response to the Joint Committee’s recommendations the Government committed to a review of the overall response to migrant victims of domestic abuse. That review has been completed and its findings were published on 3 July 2020. We were grateful to the specialist sector for the views and evidence provided during the review. However, it was unclear which groups of migrants are likely to be most in need of support, how well existing arrangements may address their needs, how long they might need support, and how they could be supported to move on from safe accommodation. It was clear, however, that a robust evidence base is needed to ensure that funding is appropriately targeted to meet the needs of migrant victims.

My issue with Amendment 151 is that it is based on a misunderstanding of the rationale for the DDVC and the domestic violence rule. Both were, and are, intended to provide a route to settlement for migrant victims who hold spousal visas. The system was designed in this way because, had their relationships not broken down as a result of domestic abuse, these victims would have had a legitimate expectation of staying in the UK permanently. Neither the DDVC nor the domestic violence rule was designed to support those without this legitimate expectation. This Government are concerned that expanding the scope of both would undermine the specific purpose that gave rise to them and introduce a route to settlement that might lead to more exploitation of our immigration system—or indeed of vulnerable migrants.

For this reason, at Second Reading in the House of Commons, the Safeguarding Minister announced that the Government would invite bids for grants from the £1.5 million support for migrant victims scheme. Such grants will look to cover the cost of support in a refuge or other safe accommodation for migrant victims of domestic abuse who are unable to access public funds. The Government will use the scheme to better assess the level of need for these victims and inform spending reviews about longer-term funding, which is very important. The competition for the scheme was launched on 15 December and closes on 8 February—today. The scheme will then run until 22 March, which answers the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

As I have indicated, our review has highlighted that a better evidence base is needed for migrant victims who are not eligible for the DDVC. Since 2017, the Government have provided over £1 million from the tampon tax fund to support migrant victims with no recourse to public funds. While clearly this fund has helped to deliver much-needed support for a number of individuals, and much has been learned, regrettably we require a more complete and reliable evidence base to enable us to make those long-term decisions. We particularly want to establish a robust dataset that we can interrogate about the circumstances in which support is most needed, the duration of support needed, what kind of support works best, and how individuals exit from support to regain their independence. We would like to do this work to ensure that the information that we need is available to inform future policy-making and that the decisions taken are sound.

I turn to Amendment 160. The support for migrant victims scheme and the associated evaluation work clearly illustrate that the Secretary of State is taking steps to ensure effective protection and support for all victims of domestic abuse. This scheme will be available to all migrant victims at the point of need while their eligibility for the scheme is assessed and other routes of support are explored.

The Government have been clear that migrant victims of domestic abuse should be treated first and foremost as victims, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hussein-Ece, and others, said. Data collected through the course of this scheme will provide the information that we need to assess current provisions and ensure that effective protection and support is available to migrant victims of domestic abuse. Therefore, while I am grateful to my noble friend and appreciate the sentiment and intention behind her amendment, we do not believe that this is necessary in light of the action that we are already taking. The provisions in the Bill apply equally to all victims of domestic abuse, whatever their status, including the ability to apply for a domestic abuse protection order or the provisions in respect of special measures and the prohibition of cross-examination in person.

A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Helic and the noble Lords, Lord Hunt of Kings Health and Lord Griffiths, have talked about the Istanbul convention. It is important to recognise that legislation is not needed to comply with Articles 4 and 59 of the convention. As set out in the latest annual report on our progress towards ratification of the convention, which was published on 22 October last year, the position on whether the UK is compliant with Article 4(3) 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 residence status, is of course under review, pending the evaluation and the findings from the support for migrant victims scheme.

On the suggestion in Amendment 148 that the no recourse to public funds condition is lifted for all victims of domestic abuse, the Government believe that this is the wrong response. It is not subject to further definition in any way and would be a disproportionate and costly method of providing support for migrant victims. It is worth recognising that the principle of no recourse to public funds was established as far back as 1971, and no Government have sought to reverse that position. Successive Governments have taken the view that access to publicly funded benefits and services should reflect the strength of a migrant’s connections to the UK and, in the main, become available to migrants only when they have settled here.

These restrictions are an important plank of immigration policy, operated, as I have said, by successive Governments and applicable to most migrants until they qualify for indefinite leave to remain. The policy is designed to assure the public that controlled immigration brings real benefits to the UK, rather than costs to the public purse. It does this by prohibiting access to public funds other than to those with indefinite leave to remain, refugees and protected persons, and those granted discretionary leave.

Nevertheless, exemptions from those restrictions are already in place for some groups of migrants. These include refugees or those here on the basis of their human rights where they would otherwise be destitute. Those on human rights routes can also apply to have their no recourse to public funds condition lifted if their financial circumstances change and there is a risk of destitution, imminent destitution, risk to the welfare of a child or exceptional circumstances. Equally, as I have said, migrant victims on certain spousal visas can already apply for the destitute domestic violence concession to be granted limited leave with recourse to public funds.

Health Measures at UK Borders

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 4th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the Government’s approach to border biosecurity appears to be all over the place. They previously had travel corridors in place, but they then scrapped these and imposed the requirement of a negative Covid test and 10 days’ quarantine on all arrivals into the UK, unless travellers pay for an expensive test-to-release scheme, where a further negative test five days after arrival in the UK can shorten the quarantine. Enforcement of these rules appears to be lax, to say the least.

The Government also introduced travel bans on direct flights and on non-UK citizens travelling from countries where the variants first identified in Brazil and in South Africa are prevalent, including Portugal, where many flights from Brazil arrive into Europe. The reason the Government gave was that this was on the basis that further research needed to be carried out on these variants to establish whether they were more contagious, more dangerous and more vaccine resistant. How closer are the Government to answering these three questions about the new variants and what criteria will need to be met on how contagious, dangerous or resistant they are before a decision can be made as to whether these restrictions can be lifted or varied?

The Government say that they are going to introduce compulsory hotel quarantine on UK nationals arriving from these so-called red list countries. How many rooms will be required? UKHospitality, the trade body representing the country’s hotels, said yesterday that it had no information on how the system might work, and leading hotel chains around Heathrow told PoliticsHome that they have not been contacted to assist with any type of scheme. When will the scheme be in place?

Her Majesty’s Official Opposition are calling for all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory hotel quarantine. The argument appears to be that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has said, new Covid variants could occur anywhere in the world. However, Labour want the existing list of exemptions from quarantine on arrival into the UK to be maintained. This includes, for example, workers who travel at least once a week into and out of the UK.

Sir Keir Starmer said yesterday that 21,000 passengers arrived in the UK on Monday. What are the Government’s estimates of the hotel capacity required were all arrivals into the UK to face compulsory 10-day hotel quarantine? Taking the example of Australia, which has adopted such a policy, there are hundreds of thousands of Australian nationals unable to return home because of limited Covid-safe hotel capacity or because they cannot afford the cost of compulsory hotel quarantine. Do the Government expect similar problems here in the UK?

What consideration have the Government given to, at the very least, extending their ban on direct flights or on non-UK nationals from entering the UK, and extending their compulsory hotel quarantine policy for UK nationals, to include countries where there is no rapid genomic sequencing capacity? There, a new or existing Covid variant is unlikely to be identified quickly enough to prevent infections in the UK.

How much of a risk do travellers from outside the UK actually present? In the light of the high level of infections in the UK, both in terms of total numbers and as a proportion of the population, what is the probability that a new, more contagious, harmful or vaccine-resistant Covid variant will result from a mutation of the virus within in the UK, compared with the probability that this will occur in a country with few or no Covid infections? Is the recent E484K mutation of the variant first identified in Kent, that is similar to the variant first identified in South Africa, an example that the threat of dangerous mutations lies as much, if not more, within the UK as it does overseas?

Taking the examples of Australia, New Zealand, the Isle of Man or even Norway—where I am speaking from now—where Covid infections are low or non-existent, test and trace is effective, and where there is rapid genomic sequencing capability, what is the reasoning behind quarantining arrivals from such countries when they arrive in the UK. In short, what is the basis for the Government’s strategy towards border controls—if they have one? It certainly does not seem to be based on either science or common sense.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their comments. I join the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in mourning the 109,000 people who have died. It is a terrible time, and our hearts go out to their families. Both noble Lords asked a series of interesting questions. I say from the outset that the strategy is based on two things. One is reducing transmissibility; the second is supressing any new variants. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked a very interesting question about the probability of a new more deadly virus, both from without and within the UK. That is a question that nobody can answer until it actually happens, because viruses mutate all the time: some in a weaker form, some in a stronger form. We know that new variants that we have seen recently are more transmissible, not necessarily more deadly, but supressing new variants because of the danger that the noble Lord talks about is absolutely the right thing.

I do not agree that we have got the strategy wrong, or that the strategy has been all over the place. All along, the strategy has been guided by the science. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, makes accusations about the Prime Minister. We do not often have spats like this, but his right honourable friend Keir Starmer has been heard to say he mourned the passing of our use of the European Medicines Agency. Thank goodness we did not follow the Opposition’s strategy. The noble Lord also talked about how pleased he was about vaccinations. It is absolutely incredible: over 10 million people vaccinated. In terms of the vaccines’ interaction with the new variants, we think from results so far—although it is quite early to tell—that there is still some protection from some of the new variants we have seen.

All along, we have followed the FCDO advice. The regulations and powers that we have been making under the Coronavirus Act have come regularly. One thing to be borne in mind is that we have reduced travel by 90%, and of course self-isolation as a practice has been in place since last year.

With regard to review of the red countries, countries are of course under review all the time. In Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was saying, everyone has to isolate. That is as may be, but we think the strategy we are employing is absolutely the right one.

It is important that we reduce the risk by reducing the number of people who enter the country who could be a new threat in terms of the variants and mutations, as I have said. We have already implemented numerous measures and protections to reduce that risk, but of course, last week new additional levels of protection at our disposal were announced. Some are forthcoming regarding hotels, as noble Lords have said. I understand that the DHSC will be leading on that and announcements will be made in due course.

I understand that the IS will be checking more than 5,000 people coming into the country and will contact all those who have arrived 10 days prior, as it has been doing and naturally has been asked to do, with regard to self-isolation. There will be an increase of about 1,000 targeted follow-up visits a day from that enhanced police presence at ports, borders and airports.

On enforcement, I understand that, as there have been, there will be fines for not complying with this, and of course the enforcement being done by police and Border Force will be stepped up. Capacity in hotels is a piece of work that DHSC will be carrying out.

I understand the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about compulsory 10-day quarantine in Australia. That has been very effective there but of course, Australia has some features that are entirely different from ours and which make it easier for people to quarantine.

The noble Lord also asked about countries with no genomic sequencing, which I thought was an interesting point. We are lending our expertise to countries to help them with their genomic sequencing because, of course, this is a problem not just for the UK but for the entire world. Genomic sequencing capabilities that help us will help the rest of the world.

Domestic Abuse Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 1st February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, our Amendments 55 and 56 in this group are designed to prevent information about victims of domestic abuse that could be used for immigration control being disclosed by the domestic abuse commissioner. These amendments go further than Amendment 154, as they talk about information provided to the domestic abuse commissioner whether a request for support has been made or not.

The danger is that the information, supplied by either the domestic abuse commissioner or somebody seeking support, is shared with the police. There have been numerous reported examples where the police have passed the details of victims and witnesses of crime to immigration officials, including a case in 2017 of a woman who alleged she was raped and kidnapped. She was first taken to a haven, a centre for victims of sexual assault, but was subsequently arrested and questioned about her immigration status.

In 2015, the last year for which I can find figures, police tip-offs to the immigration service of the details of crime victims and witnesses occurred on over 3,000 occasions—in one year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, said, such sharing of information makes genuine victims of domestic abuse less likely to come forward to receive the help and support that they so desperately need. These victims are likely to be even more vulnerable to coercive control than those with regular immigration status.

Amendment 154 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, similarly requires the Secretary of State to make arrangements to ensure that personal data of a victim of domestic abuse that is processed for the purpose of requesting or receiving support is not used for immigration control purposes, along with domestic abuse witness and victim data. We support these attempts to prevent the disclosure of this information for immigration control purposes.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Meacher, for setting out the case for these amendments, which seek to prevent personal information about victims of domestic abuse being shared for the purposes of immigration control. I recognise that the effect of Amendments 55 and 56 is more narrowly focused on the sharing of information under Part 2 but, in responding to these amendments and Amendment 154, I will focus my remarks on the broader issue.

I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, will understand that I will leave the debate on migrant women, who feature in Amendment 148, until we get to it, because this group is about data sharing. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, I point out that “hostile environment” was of course coined by the Labour Government back in 2007, not under my right honourable friend Theresa May.

The main purpose of these amendments is to make sure that migrant victims of domestic abuse are not deterred from reporting that abuse or seeking support for fear that immigration enforcement action will be taken against them. I want to be absolutely clear: our main priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status.

A number of noble Lords mentioned guidance on this. In our response to the Joint Committee in July 2019, the Government were clear that all victims of domestic abuse should be treated as victims first and foremost. This is set out in relevant guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council—in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox.

In addition, assistant commissioner Louisa Rolfe, the national policing lead on domestic abuse, in giving oral evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, was clear that there will be circumstances where information sharing between the police and immigration authorities is in the interests of safeguarding a victim of abuse. There can be many benefits to sharing information, as it can help to resolve a victim’s uncertainty about their immigration status—referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley—but, most importantly, it can remove the desperate situation in which the perpetrator’s controlling and manipulative behaviour continues because of their status: this too was referred to by the noble Baroness. When victims come forward for support, sharing information can help prevent them facing enforcement action, if they are identified by immigration enforcement in an unrelated setting.

To ensure that victims’ needs are put first, the National Police Chiefs’ Council strengthened its guidance in 2020, setting out a clear position on exchanging information about victims of crime with immigration enforcement to encourage a consistent approach across the country. This gives us confidence that data sharing will operate in the interests of the victim.

Alongside our duties to protect victims of crime, the Government are equally duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system, not only to protect our public services but to safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status. The public rightly expect that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that, when individuals with an irregular immigration status are identified, they should be supported to come forward under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. This data exchange is processed on the basis of public interest, as laid out in Articles 6 and 9 of the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018.

The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, also referred to the outcome of the super-complaint relating to police data that is shared for immigration purposes. Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services published its report into the super-complaint in December last year and made a number of recommendations, which we are carefully considering and to which we will respond in due course. It is right that we properly take account of the recommendations in this report. In response to the report, we have committed to review the current arrangements and to publishing the outcome of the review within the six months set by the inspectorate, which is by June. I expect the outcome of this review to be implemented through further updates to the NPCC guidance or other administrative means, and that primary legislation will not be required. To enable us to complete this review in line with the inspectorate’s recommendations, I ask that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, withdraws her amendment.

Police National Computer

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 19th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, let me try to bring some clarity to what has happened. The records that have apparently been deleted are those of people arrested but not charged, or charged but not convicted. These are sometimes, but not always, deleted. If someone is arrested but not charged or not convicted for one of more than 200 serious offences, their fingerprints and DNA can be retained for up to five years. If they have previous convictions for a serious offence, their fingerprints and DNA can be retained indefinitely. It may be that there are no fingerprint or DNA records for any of these people, other than those taken when there was no conviction. These are the records that have apparently been deleted. Meanwhile, some that should have been deleted have not been.

Although the people whose records have been deleted may not have been charged or convicted on this occasion, their DNA or fingerprints may be found at crime scenes in the future. If their fingerprints and DNA have been deleted, there is no way of proving forensically that they were at these crime scenes.

Some 213,000 offence records, 175,000 arrest records and 15,000 person records have potentially been deleted. Some 26,000 DNA records, 30,000 fingerprint records and 600 subject records may also have been deleted. This mistake could result in criminals who would otherwise be convicted of serious criminal offences not being identified, arrested, charged or convicted.

The Statement says that other databases such as the police national database can be checked, but my understanding is that the script run on the PNC deleted records on linked databases. Can the Minister confirm that?

Because of the variety of records that have been deleted—offence records, arrest records, person records and DNA and fingerprint records—it will be very difficult to put the jigsaw puzzle back together by collecting the pieces from different databases where the data may still be recorded. Is that the Minister’s understanding?

The first question, which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked, must be: why was there no back-up? In October, senior police officers wrote to the Home Office to say they had “lost confidence” in its ability to complete big IT projects. What evidence is there to support this view?

Work on the national law enforcement data programme is in serious trouble, as the noble Lord said. This replacement for the police national computer and the police national database began in 2016 but is not expected to be completed until 2023, significantly delayed and overbudget. That is despite the existing systems running on obsolete hardware, using obsolete software.

To take another example, the new emergency services network was due to replace the system of radios and other mobile communications used by the police, the Motorola Airwave network, by 2019. That Home Office IT project has been delayed, meaning the existing Airwave system has had to be maintained for at least three years beyond its planned end of life, which is costing an additional £1.7 million a day. The final total is expected to reach close to £2 billion.

The facts are that the Government not only cut police officer numbers by over 20,000 between 2010 and 2020 but failed to invest in the systems that the police rely on to be effective. They have committed to recruiting 20,000 new police officers—dressing the window—meanwhile allowing what is unseen but vital to fall apart.

Following the end of the transition period on 1 January, the police lost real-time access to the European Union Schengen Information System, SIS II, meaning that front-line officers no longer have real-time access to data on 40,000 fugitives and dangerous criminals. It is now clear that these officers, who put their lives on the line for us every day, cannot rely on UK systems either. What are the Government going to do, not just to retrieve the lost data, but to ensure that the Home Office IT systems that the police rely on are fit for purpose? At the moment, it is absolutely clear that they are not.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I will start with that assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick: this does not relate to SIS II. This issue was a human error. Both noble Lords talked about IT systems; again, this was a human error, but it would be churlish of me not to discuss what the Home Office is doing about IT systems. We are delivering a number of new national IT systems to replace ageing critical national infrastructure and provide modern digital services that extend and enhance police capability. They have already delivered some valuable new capabilities to front-line policing: for example, to do fingerprint checks in the field and to extend ANPR coverage significantly.

Noble Lords are right that there have been some delivery challenges. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the ESMCP, where I share his frustration. I have been focusing on it closely, and a new programme director was appointed in August last year, with the support of an interim SRO. The focus has been on greater transparency to the emergency services. On that note, the emergency services need confidence that the programme will deliver, for which testing has to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was right in his breakdown of the numbers. On the point that this is not serious, it is. I do not think that my right honourable friend the Policing Minister tried to downplay that yesterday, in any way. It is serious. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who asked whether the deletion is not that important—no, it is important. It is important to show how the process that my right honourable friend outlined yesterday is going to work. The first stage is to bring back the data, not to try to restore that which has been deleted, as that could cause worse problems. We will do a close analysis by the close of play tomorrow. We will recover the relevant data and, fourthly and importantly, we will ensure legal compliance in all the moves that we make.

Back-ups are, of course, held for all systems but due to the scale, the complexity and the dynamic nature of how the affected systems interact, restoring from back-ups needs to be undertaken in a very controlled manner. Our technical teams are now working at pace to identify how to do this safely. As I said, we should complete this analysis very shortly, and it will give us the full picture of what needs to be done.

On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about deleted records on police systems, I understand that the engineers managed to stop some of the activity before it could proceed any further. That is certainly a part of the analysis that is being done today, and the extent of that will be further understood.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why we do not have an external review. The reason it is an internal review is because it is an issue of human error and the Home Office engineers are having to work at pace to identify the full list of affected records. The analysis is due to be completed, as I say, very shortly. There will be a lessons-learned exercise. Of course there will be a full lessons-learned review. As for who will carry out that, it may be an external person. I can certainly find that out for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

Extradition Arrangements: European Union Member States

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, what assessment have the Government made of the additional cost of trials of those wanted in the UK having to take place in the accused’s home country, and to what extent will that be a consideration in deciding whether to pursue a prosecution?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

As I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, it is probably quite early to say what those additional costs would be, but the decision on whether to pursue a trial would be based not on costs but on the likelihood of that trial being successful, either for the accused or indeed for the victim.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 13th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for the leading role he has played in achieving consensus around Amendment 24. I start by reminding the House of the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, in his summary of a similar group of amendments in Committee. He used the analogy of torture, where the ends do not justify the means, in the same way that using children as informants or agents is difficult to justify under any circumstances. Regrettably, banning the use of children as covert human intelligence sources is outside the scope of the Bill. He went on to recall the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, who suggested as an alternative to using children using people over 18 who look younger, as the acting profession often does, particularly when dealing with adult themes.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out that there is a very fine line between grooming and persuading children to act as covert human intelligence sources. My noble friend Lady Doocey quite rightly pointed out that these children are already vulnerable and exploited, particularly in the case of county lines, without the need for them to be further exploited by the police. We do not send children into war, so why do we send them into potentially more dangerous situations as CHIS, as a number of noble Lords have asked this afternoon? A very experienced police handler of informants told me that, in his experience, even adult CHIS are open to manipulation, let alone children. If you are a child, a non-documented migrant or a victim of human trafficking caught by the police committing crime, you are likely to look for any available way out. You do not need to be blackmailed in such a situation; you are likely to grab at any opportunity, including being tasked to commit crime as a participating informant, a point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Young of Hornsey, in Committee. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said, we are talking about the power imbalance between the police and these vulnerable people, including children.

The Minister’s response in Committee was to cite a High Court judge, Mr Justice Supperstone, who was convinced by the police that it was okay to use children in this way. They appear to have been less successful in convincing the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham. When I was seeking promotion to the most senior ranks in the police service, on a six-month course at the national Police Staff College, we were told that we were moving from superintending ranks, where we had to operate within the existing paradigm, to ACPO ranks, where our responsibility was to change the paradigm. Despite the High Court’s decision, we need to change the paradigm. As the noble Lord, Lord Young, says, the court did not consider the active involvement of children as CHIS in crime.

The Government, in response to our deliberations in Committee, have come up with their own alternative. I am as unimpressed as the noble Lord, Lord Young, with this attempt. First, in relation to authorising the use of children, it amends secondary not primary legislation—much easier for the Government to subsequently change and impossible for us to amend. The only change to primary legislation is on post-event reporting. The government amendments, particularly Amendment 26, prohibit the use of children under 16 to commit crimes against their parent or guardian, but not 17 and 18 year-olds: this is already the case, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, said. It creates the position of a “relevant person” who is responsible for the risk assessment and for ensuring that an “appropriate adult” is present if the child is under 16. This risk assessment and the presence of an appropriate adult are already required in legislation. In the case of 17 and 18 year-olds, the appropriate person has only to consider,

“whether an appropriate adult should be present”.

Again, that consideration is already required.

Saying that a child criminal conduct authorisation should be limited to four months instead of 12 is also not a real change. Child CHIS can only be authorised for a maximum of four months and a CCA cannot be granted unless the child has been authorised to be a CHIS, so a review after four months is already inevitable. Overall, I would summarise the proposed alternatives the Government are putting forward as too little, too late.

Amendment 24, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has been a long time in the planning. I join with the noble Baroness in thanking Stella Creasy MP and Just for Kids Law. It covers vulnerable adults as well as children—the case for which was made strongly by my noble friend Lady Hamwee this afternoon—which the government amendment goes nowhere near. The presence of an appropriate adult would be mandatory for all children and vulnerable adults under this amendment, instead of being compulsory only for under-16s, as in the Government’s alternative. It sets out the very limited circumstances when a child could be used, where the best interests of the child must be paramount. The child or vulnerable adult is not to be put at risk of physical or psychological harm, and the Investigatory Powers Commissioner must be informed. The Minister may say that these restrictions are so limiting that it may result in children and vulnerable adults not being used at all. That is a risk we should be willing to take.

In the absence of Amendments 12 and 13, we support Amendment 24 as the best of the available options, though I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, that it does not involve the independent prior authorisation contained in her Amendment 14. However, as I have just said, it does include informing the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as soon as possible. If anyone thinks that 16 might be an appropriate age for drawing the line, I would urge them to watch the film “County Lines”, directed by Henry Blake. It brings out the horror of the impact of county lines drug dealing on teenagers, including older teenagers, and powerfully makes the case for immediately removing children from these circumstances. Important points were made by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, about the lifelong impact of adverse childhood experiences such as involvement in county lines. Regrettably, contrary to the assertion of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, Amendment 12 does not prevent using a child as a CHIS; it only prohibits tasking them to commit crime. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, some adults are at least as vulnerable as some children.

Amendment 24 is a compromise, but it is comprehensive in that covers both vulnerable adults and children, and we support it strongly for the reasons so clearly expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, for his kind words about my right honourable friend James Brokenshire. I inform the House that he read all the lovely comments from Monday’s debate and was very touched by them.

Also, in response to my noble friend Lord Young of Cookham, I apologise for the late arrival of the letter. I hope he has had a chance in the course of this debate to look at it.

This has been a very thoughtful debate on an incredibly important issue. I have listened very carefully to the points made by all noble Lords throughout the preceding debates on the safeguards that should apply to children. At this stage, I must say to my noble friend Lord Cormack, who bemoaned the advent of certain behaviours over the last 20 or 30 years, that I am afraid to tell him that they go back far longer than that. I also thank all noble Lords who have engaged with me on this issue directly, in particular the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Rosser, who gave up their Saturday afternoon, together with Stella Creasy, to speak to me and my right honourable friend James Brokenshire. I must say that I think we all found that conversation very helpful.

I hope that all noble Lords will recognise the substantial amendments that the Government have put forward to ensure that robust safeguards are in place in legislation for the very rare circumstances in which a juvenile CHIS may be tasked to participate in criminal conduct. Noble Lords have been told that the courts have found these safeguards to be inadequate. That is not the case at all. The High Court considered the safeguards for juvenile CHIS in 2019 and expressly found them to be lawful. In fact, Mr Justice Supperstone explicitly rejected the contention that the scheme is inadequate in its safeguarding of the interests and welfare of juvenile CHIS. He also set out his view that it was clear that the principal focus of the framework for juvenile CHIS is to ensure that appropriate weight is given to a child’s best interests and that the practical effect of the enhanced risk assessment is that juveniles are

“only utilised in extreme circumstances and when other potential sources of information have been exhausted.”

The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, asked whether a child impact assessment has been conducted, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, suggested an independent review of authorisations of juveniles. This has happened. The independent Investigatory Powers Commissioner conducted a review of all public authorisations of juveniles and the conclusions of that review were reported in March 2019 to the JCHR. The IPC was satisfied that those who grant such authorisations do so only after very careful consideration of the inherent risks and concerns around the safeguarding of children. The public authority’s duty of care to the child is a key consideration in the authorisation process. The IPC also highlighted that juvenile CHIS are not tasked to participate in criminality that they are not already involved in and that becoming a CHIS can potentially offer a way to extricate themselves from such harm. The decisions to authorise are made only where this is the best option for breaking the cycle of crime and the danger for the individual.

In moving the government amendments today, I will not move Amendments 35, 38 and 49, which relate to devolved activity in Scotland. This is because, as I hope noble Lords have seen in the letter I issued earlier today, the Scottish Government are unable to support the Bill. Respecting the Sewel convention, the Government will not legislate without the consent of the Scottish Government. Therefore, at Third Reading I will bring forward amendments to remove from the Bill the ability to authorise participation in criminal conduct for devolved purposes in Scotland. Authorisations necessary for the purpose of national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom relate to reserved matters and the relevant public authorities will still be able to grant authorisations for these purposes for activity in Scotland through the powers contained within this legislation. An authorisation necessary for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder is not in itself reserved. An authorisation granted for the purpose of preventing and detecting crime or preventing disorder may therefore relate to devolved matters, and it will be these matters to which the Bill will not apply.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Thursday 3rd December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said and appreciate that she has to stick to her script, but it gives the impression on occasion that there is no point in making contributions to debate because what I have said appears, from what she has said, to have been completely ignored. I will repeat exactly what I said. I said that of course the Government may say that in addition to being necessary the granting of a CCA must be proportionate—the issue that she mentioned—and it would not be proportionate to deploy a CHIS if the criminal activity was minor. That is almost word for word what she said. However, I went on to say that the same argument applies to the interception of communications in RIPA, where necessity is limited to serious crime, as defined in our Amendment 31. That second point seems to have been completely ignored by the Minister. I accept that that is probably because she has, understandably, just stuck to her script. It comes back to the point that I made, which is: what is the point of making speeches in debates if what noble Lords say is ignored by the Minister?

The Minister said that these amendments would limit how CHIS could lawfully be deployed and seek to restrict their deployment, and authorities would be less able to investigate crime. This Bill is about criminal conduct by CHIS, not their deployment. It is about giving authority to agents and informants to commit crime, and grant complete legal immunity to CHIS in those circumstances. There is a world of difference between deploying a CHIS and authorising them to commit crime, and then granting them immunity from prosecution. Yet the whole basis of her argument, from what I understood her to say, is that there is no difference between the two. In which case, what is the purpose of the Bill?

I say again: why is the interception of communications limited to serious crime if there is no need to limit the deployment of CHIS, who are going to be authorised to commit crime? Why should they not be limited to serious crime? That is a question that the Minister has failed to answer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord, with whom I am actually good friends, makes a valid point: what is the point in making speeches if points are ignored? I often find that I make the same points over and again, and they are completely ignored because such is the will of people to make their opposite points. However, on this occasion, he is absolutely right. I did not address his point about RIPA and it being confined to serious crime. In the interception of communications, we are dealing with machines. In the deployment of humans, we are dealing with something else. I apologise to him for not answering his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I have just one question. She said that the scenario I suggested could not happen because police forces had dedicated source units. Can she point to where in the Bill or in the codes of practice it says that that has to be the case? If not, the Bill or the code of practice is defective.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will appreciate that not every Bill contains every minute detail of issues such as this, but I hope that, with my having made the statement on the Floor of the House, the noble Lord is satisfied that there cannot be conflict. However, I would be very happy to speak to him about this before Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I have received a request to speak after the Minister, and hand signals suggest it may be the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her explanation. I am not sure I explained myself well enough to her in terms of who is covered by legal immunity. It is not if the CHIS goes beyond the CCA, but if the CHIS remains within the CCA. So, if the CHIS operates exactly in the way the handler has told them to, and the handler tells them only what the authorising officer has authorised them to, but it is not necessary or proportionate, it is corrupt or a mistake, who is covered by the CCA? Who is covered by the immunity, even though the CHIS has not gone beyond what they were asked to do?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I say again that each situation will be different, but I understand the noble Lord’s point that if the CHIS is acting as instructed, but the handler has gone beyond where they should have gone, it would be the handler’s authorising officer who would be liable for that activity. There would be an investigation, but at that point, we are talking about a theoretical case. If it was the handler who had acted beyond their purview, the handler would be liable for that handling activity, or the authorising officer. It is late, I am tired, and I have suddenly forgotten my thread.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I hope to provide the clarity that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, seeks and persuade the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that this is not necessary in the Bill. The current authorisation period of 12 months is consistent with the authorisation for the use and conduct of CHIS, which will need to be in place before criminal conduct can be authorised. Keeping the Bill consistent with the powers laid out in Section 29 will ensure that this power remains operationally workable for the public authorities listed in the Bill.

In the updated CHIS code of practice that accompanies the Bill, it is clear that a criminal conduct authorisation should be relied upon for as short a duration as possible. There is also a requirement on authorising officers to undertake regular reviews to assess whether the authorisation remains necessary and proportionate, and is justified. An authorisation must be cancelled when that is no longer the case.

Authorisations will be specifically and narrowly drafted and, in many cases, the specificity of the authorisation will mean that the criminal conduct authorised is in effect narrowly time-limited. However, there will be occasions when this conduct necessarily extends longer than a four-month period; CHIS who are members of proscribed organisations is a good example of this.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

I thank the Minister for what she just said and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for her support. I do not quite understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. If 12 months is specified as the length of a CCA in the Bill then why, if we want to change it to four months, should it not be in the Bill? The Minister is saying it is consistent with the period for authorising CHIS, but not the period for authorising juvenile CHIS. It is a much more serious issue than simply authorising CHIS, as we have discussed. Authorising someone to commit a crime and giving them immunity from prosecution is far more serious than simply deploying CHIS.

To say that it makes it easier if the length of time is the same for one as it is for the other is to ignore the seriousness of this deployment—authorising CHIS to commit crime. If you were to follow the noble Baroness’s argument to its logical conclusion, you would not need the Bill to authorise CHIS to commit crime, as it would be just the same as deploying CHIS. No doubt we will return to this on Report but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Covert Human Intelligence Sources (Criminal Conduct) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 1st December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am very happy either to write to the noble Baroness and outline what I said in more detail or meet with her before Report.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. I accept what she and the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, said about it being a senior officer. In urgent cases, however, the police officer who actually grants the criminal conduct authority would be only at inspector level, which is not very senior. Criminal or civil liability would probably rest with the handler because the handler is the one who made the request to the senior officer—but I am glad that that has been clarified.

The Minister dismissed our Amendment 47 on the basis that it looked like prior judicial approval. It is not prior judicial approval at all and it deserves to be looked at. The Minister said that retrospective oversight is the best solution, but once a criminal conduct authority has been granted, so has legal immunity. So what if the CHIS has been corruptly tasked to commit a crime and commits a crime that should not have been committed? With only retrospective oversight, that CHIS and that handler are still immune from prosecution. How can that be right?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

If I understand the point from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that the CHIS is authorised to commit something that is later deemed unlawful, my understanding of it—I will stand corrected if officials tell me differently—is that the person who authorised the unlawful conduct would themselves be liable for the deployment of the CHIS. Clearly, what the CHIS did would also be looked into post facto, but the person who authorised the deployment would be liable for that conduct in the deployment, I think.

UK Terrorism Threat Level

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 10th November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I want to start by paying tribute to Lords Sacks—Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. He may no longer be able to speak to us directly, but what he said lives on. In 2013, he wrote an article for the Spectator entitled “Atheism has failed. Only religion can defeat the new barbarians”—by whom he meant those who threaten western freedom by religious fundamentalism, combining hatred of the other, the pursuit of power and contempt for human rights. He was in effect saying that moderate religion is the answer to religious fundamentalism, not anti-religious campaigning.

There is no justification for violence. The horrific terrorist attacks we have seen on mainland Europe and here in the UK in recent years I condemn unequivocally. My thoughts are with all those affected.

Can the Minister set out the UK Government’s position on free speech? Is free speech to be at any cost, no matter what the impacts on others? Because we condemn violence, no matter that it is unjustified, that does not mean we should not try to understand why people are drawn into it. Terrorism cannot be condoned under any circumstances, but if we are to counter it effectively we need to understand what motivates it. To that end, can the Minster say what research has been conducted into the impact of lockdown on the spread of extremism, particularly using the internet? What is the likely impact on vulnerable individuals—with no moderating interaction from others—and on their mental health? What are the Government doing to encourage, promote and ensure access to a moderate religious counternarrative to violent extremism allegedly based on religion?

The Home Secretary’s Statement talks about the increased threat level being used by the police to determine the level of their overall protective security activity. This includes additional police officers deployed to “certain places”. Can the Minister explain which places or what type of places these additional police officers are being deployed to?

The police are already stretched because of the Covid pandemic. It is at times like these that the importance of resilience in the police service is brought into sharp focus. Not only are the police having to enforce lockdown restrictions, police demonstrations against Covid regulations and deal with an enhanced UK threat level; they also have to do the day job of fighting crime and responding to calls for assistance. Many of these calls have nothing to do with crime, and include having to help increasing numbers in mental health crisis. This Government continued to reduce police numbers long after police leaders told them the cuts had gone far enough. Can the Minister explain where the additional police officers the Home Secretary refers to in her Statement will come from?

No doubt the Minister will be keen to tell the House about the additional police officers currently being recruited and the progress towards the government target of recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers, but can the Minister say what is the net increase, if any, in the number of police officers has been since the initiative was announced? What is the total number of police officers now compared with the 143,800 full-time equivalent officers in England and Wales police forces in 2010?

An essential part of combating terrorism, particularly the forms of terrorism we have seen in recent years, is community intelligence, intelligence built on trust and confidence created by police community support officers and local community police officers. What is the current number of police community support officers compared with 2010, and what proportion of police officers are currently employed as local community officers?

I have the utmost respect for our police and security services, and I am confident they do all that they possibly can to counter terrorism within the resource restraints they have been forced to operate under. I pay tribute to their skill and dedication. It is not, as the Home Secretary maintains, just about passing legislation. It is about properly resourcing the police and security services to give them the resilience they need to be able to respond to crises such as these.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their comments and questions. I join them in expressing solidarity with France and Vienna in the tough times they have had, as well our sympathies with the families affected. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in paying tribute to Rabbi Sacks, who was a great asset to this House and who always spoke with such wisdom on these matters.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the raised threat level would affect daily life. This matter is under continuous operational review by JTAC. Deployments of police in certain areas of our daily lives will be changed according to threats. In terms of the resources needed, my predecessor—way back when—the right honourable Sajid Javid recognised the changing demand on the police. Under his successor, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, the 20,000 police officer uplift was made; it was, in fact, a manifesto commitment. I understand that we are almost at the 6,000 level. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the number of PCSOs. I do not know exactly how many we have in this country. That is a matter for local forces and chief constables, in collaboration with their PCCs. The number is decided according to the needs of the local area. However, I will try and get that number, if it is available. He asked for some other details, which I shall also try to get for him.

Both noble Lords asked where the additional resources would come from when the threat level went up. Deployment will be a matter for operational decision. Of course we recognise that additional police demand is there. Both noble Lords mentioned crisis. Police grant can be applied for and, no matter what it is for, it will be given if the case is made.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked if the threat was UK-wide. Yes, it is. There is separate consideration for Northern Ireland in relation to threats within it. He asked about the Prevent review. We are in the final stages of interviewing for our independent reviewer of Prevent and it is anticipated that the review will be done promptly. I deliberately did not give a timescale because we did not want to be where were last time, with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, having to step away. We did not want to create too much time pressure.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also talked about international co-operation and what more we can do. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, will know that, particularly in relation to the EU, we remain absolutely committed to that co-operation on law enforcement.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, outlined the necessity for free speech but with limits, of course. If it impinges on the threat to the individual, it crosses the line. He talked about terrorist and extremists’ use of the internet. I could not agree with him more. I hope that the online harms White Paper will become a Bill very soon and deal with some of those issues, particularly the duty on internet providers to their users. He also asked which places had benefited from protective security. He will know that I cannot talk about that, for the benefit of those places. He mentioned the police having to do their day job and police numbers. I hope that I went through that in sufficient detail but I will top it up with additional information for him.

Covid-19: Christmas Breaches of Restrictions

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I can confirm that the Home Office has provided additional surge funding. I agree with the other points he made, certainly regarding the guidance. The pattern of the virus changes, going up exponentially and falling; we must respond to what it is doing at the time.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we have seen from the scenes of people partying in the streets of Nottingham last week, and outings to Barnard Castle, that just because something is illegal does not stop people from doing it if there is a desire to do so and a reasonable prospect of getting away with it. When will the Government stop relying on unenforceable laws and start putting their energy into educating people, explaining to them that socialising at home with people from different households is potentially putting their friends and loved ones’ lives at risk?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. There were 20,223 fixed penalty notices in England and Wales between the end of March and the middle of October. The most important point that the noble Lord makes is that individual responsibility will be crucial to tackling the virus. Like him, I have seen irresponsible behaviour, and while the healthy ones among us will be okay as a result of it, our grannies and those who are medically vulnerable may not be.

Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens v Home Office

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 19th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Baroness will forgive me if I do not talk about the case in point, because there is ongoing litigation. We will look at the judgment with interest and see what is to be done from there.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is? Controlling immigration is of benefit to all citizens and should therefore be paid for by all citizens.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The whole rationale behind the fee is to pay for the costs of the border, and not everyone goes through the border. I take the noble Lord’s point, of course, that maintaining a strong border is a cost to everyone.

Covid-19: Child Trafficking

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord will want, as I do, to see the online harms White Paper become a Bill in Parliament. Much work is going on to tackle that sort of abuse, which is probably on the increase during the Covid pandemic. On conspiracy theorists of all descriptions—including anti-vaxxers and those against 5G masts, which we saw at the beginning—clearly that sort of misinformation can be incredibly harmful.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about the role of local authorities. Covid-19 has led to the scaling back of some crucial local services, one of which is on-site workplace inspections to identify child and adult victims of trafficking and rescue them. Can the Government tell the House how many inspections have been carried out since the start of the pandemic?

Emergency Services Network

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 24th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)]

I call Lord Desai. No? We will move on. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this new emergency service network will operate on old 4G technology, and current estimates are that it will cost £33,000 per user. We learned from the King’s Cross fire and the 7/7 terrorist attacks the importance of this network working on the London Underground but, to date, it does not—even though my own iPhone does. How and when will this be resolved?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to the importance of emergency networks in the London Underground. In fact, that work and that testing has begun with TfL— I visited one of its sites in Canada Water—but it has been delayed because of Covid-19, for very obvious practical reasons. I can assure the noble Lord on this. The testing is absolutely imperative, so that the technology that we have works in emergency situations such as those he referred to.

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

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 16th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, I do not think that we, as a country, have been backward in coming forward to other countries that need our help. We are working closely with Greece. As I said, we have given it money to deal with some of the most vulnerable people on its islands, and we will continue to do that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, but what I heard in the first question from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was about taking refugees from the camp in Lesbos. She talked exclusively about unaccompanied children. Germany had initially agreed to take 400 unaccompanied children, but has now changed that decision and will take in 1,553 refugees from Lesbos, making up the difference in the numbers with adults. Can the Minister clarify that the Government’s position on not taking adult refugees from anywhere in Europe has not changed despite the disaster in Lesbos?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

What I said was that we did not participate in the EU relocation scheme; I am not sure whether we ever have. I am saying that we will absolutely meet our obligations under Dublin, and if a request comes from the UNHCR for us to take displaced people from Greece who are eligible to come under Dublin, we will of course consider that.

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

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 14th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for expecting me to speak after her. I have two points. The first is that we seem to be playing a whack-a-mole game about whether the amendments are relevant to the Bill or discriminatory. Let us hit the other one on the head: the only reason these amendments are restricted to EEA and Swiss nationals is that the clerks would not allow broader amendments, because they would not be within the scope of the Bill. They are not discriminatory; they aim to get rid of the hostile environment for everyone. That is the first issue.

Secondly, on the specifics, I apologise to the Minister for not making it absolutely clear which group of people I was talking about when I was saying that the right-to-rent scheme did not work. I was talking about EEA and Swiss nationals, at the end of the transition period, and all those other nationals who can now use the e-passport gates to enter the United Kingdom for six months without a visa.

I demonstrated in my speech that these individuals could rent for up to 12 months without a landlord being in peril of a civil penalty or any other penalty. Indeed, if during that 12 months they produced another ticket, boarding pass or travel booking—or a copy of any of those—they could further extend their rental with the landlord, because they had produced evidence that they had arrived in the UK within the previous six months. Therefore, you can see that they could extend and extend their rental of a property, completely undermining the right-to-rent scheme. Only those nationals who can use the e-passport gates, who get six months’ visa-free travel, can circumvent the system in that way. Those other foreign nationals who require a visa cannot do that because the landlord has to check digitally with the Home Office. The Minister may say that eventually everything will be digital, but this will not be digital. There will not be a digital way to check the rights of people who have six months’ visa-free entry to the UK. It will still be done on the basis of passports, tickets, boarding passes and bookings. That is the point I am trying to make.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I see the noble Lord’s point. We need a further discussion or, indeed, an exchange of letters on this before Report. The first letter that I sent him clearly did not do the trick, so we will have further discussions on this.

I know exactly why noble Lords have tabled amendments that refer to EEA and Swiss nationals, because it puts them within the scope of the Bill. It does not make it any less discriminatory technically and legally, however, but I get his point.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Morris of Bolton) (Con)]

My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. She started and ended by talking about the letter that is sent to people about their status, which can be saved on their computer as a PDF. The Government have said, time and again, that, as proof of the recipient’s immigration status, these letters are not worth the paper they are printed on. It is disingenuous of the Minister to pray in aid these letters in answer to these amendments.

I know the Minister is going to write to me regarding previous amendments. Perhaps she could add whether or not, at any stage in the future, the Government intend to provide digital proof that an EEA or Swiss national who is on a six-month visa-free visit to the UK is here legally.

Finally, the Minister talked about vehicle excise licences going digital and said that no physical disc is now necessary. Can she tell the House what the increase in evasion of vehicle excise licences has been as a result of going completely digital?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I think the noble Lord knows very well that I cannot give him that figure. However, I take his point that the letter is a confirmation and not a proof—I think I said that in my remarks. The digital proof is a very good way of sharing specific information with people such as employers or landlords as proof of status, but I conclude that we will not agree on this one.

Investigatory Powers (Communications Data) (Relevant Public Authorities and Designated Senior Officers) Regulations 2020

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 9th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 21 April be approved.

Relevant documents: special attention drawn to the instrument by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, 13th Report. Considered in Grand Committee on 2 September.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, these regulations add more public authorities to the list of those who can access sensitive personal information in the form of communications data, such as itemised telephone bills. So sensitive is the issue that Parliament decided that additions to the list of public authorities had to be approved by the super-affirmative procedure. When these regulations were debated last week in Grand Committee, we were told that the Home Office had agreed to the addition of those public authorities on the basis of detailed business cases submitted to it by the public authorities concerned, which Members of this House have been unable, until 12.30 pm today, to see. The Minister agreed that it was not possible for this House to properly scrutinise the decisions of the Home Office without seeing the business cases, and that the business cases had not been published as they contained sensitive information, but said that she would arrange for Members to scrutinise the business cases in a private meeting.

This morning, when I saw that these regulations were due to be approved by the House, I inquired of the Minister’s office why we had not been offered a private meeting to examine the business cases. As a result of my inquiry I was emailed, at 12.06 pm this afternoon, and invited to view the business cases at 12.30. There are five business cases, and from memory, I think the Minister said that they were “lengthy”. I do not think it reasonable to expect Members of this House to scrutinise five business cases, which apparently justify giving the five additional public authorities access to sensitive personal data, in the 45 minutes between the offer being made to view them and the regulations being approved on the Floor of the House. Call me old-fashioned, but I believe that this House should be given the opportunity to scrutinise regulations properly before it approves them, rather than afterwards.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I understand the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. A private meeting before this SI is approved would certainly have enabled him and others to form a view on whether they agreed with the SI in the light of the business cases they had seen for adding these further public authorities to the list. I listened with interest to the Minister and, as I understand it, that opportunity has not been made available until the last few minutes, almost literally. I wait with interest to hear what she has to say on the points that he made.

Digital Evidence

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 7th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The question of legality is good and pertinent. The ICO found that there is a complex legislative interplay in this area. Officers should be extracting data from victims and witnesses only when it is strictly necessary as part of the investigation. We are working with the police and the CPS to ensure that the proposed framework meets both the requirements of officers to fulfil their lawful duties to pursue all lines of inquiry and to meet their duties of disclosure, as well as providing clarity and transparency about the safeguards and assurances to complainants on their right to privacy.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the recent Court of Appeal case makes the issue of examination of the contents of mobile phones and other electronic devices of both complainants and accused far more complex. It is not simply a question of the police investigators receiving additional training. Quite often, the Crown Prosecution Service instructs officers to carry out further investigation. What co-ordination is taking place between the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice to make sure that the training is consistent, both for the police and the CPS, and is in line with that Court of Appeal guidance?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: there has to be consistency and training has to be sufficient across the piece. The CPS, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice are working through this together. The rape review, led by the Home Office, the Attorney-General’s office and the Ministry of Justice, is considering fully the reasons for a drop in referrals, to which the noble Lord has alluded in the past, and whether the digital disclosure is part of this.

Channel Crossings in Small Boats

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 3rd September 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I would never wish to finish someone else’s sentence, but what I can say about the clandestine channel threat commander, Dan O’Mahoney, is that he has been appointed, as the noble Lord says, and has overall operational and policy responsibility for this rather serious problem. Since there is a multiagency responsibility here which requires working with the French authorities and UKVI, we felt that it needed a single person empowered and accountable to seize control of that situation and get it fixed. What I assume will be in the joint action plan is an explanation of how the multiagency response will work. Of course, these things work best in a multiagency way.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that the best way to stop the criminal exploitation of those desperate to seek sanctuary in the UK and to ensure that they do not risk their lives crossing the channel is to enable refugees to claim asylum without being physically in the UK and to provide safe and legal routes into the UK?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the need for legal routes. Of course, we have a number of those. Under Dublin, someone can claim asylum in the first safe country that they arrive in, which is of course all the states of the EU. We have our national resettlement scheme, under which we have resettled more people than any state in the EU, and 46,000 children have received our refuge since 2010. We also have family reunification visas, of which we have issued 29,000 in the past couple of years. That is not to say that what is happening is right; it absolutely has to be tackled. With what has been happening with small boats, the only people who benefit are people traffickers and criminals.

Knife Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood of Green. Lord Young? I will move on to the next speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, whatever is happening now, it is clearly not working. Research by the College of Policing shows that high levels of stop and search had barely any effect on violent crime. Instead, it can destroy trust and confidence in the police among the very community that the police need active support and co-operation from if they are to be effective in tackling knife crime. Will the Government consider bringing together police leaders and community leaders to discuss a way forward?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Home Secretary already meets policing leaders and other stakeholders on tackling crime. On the noble Lord’s first point, safeguards are in place to ensure that stop and search is used lawfully and not based on race or ethnicity. On his point about the increase in knife crime and the link to stop and search, I can say—and this is not a defensive point—that the rate of increase has slowed. However, I agree that we have so much further to go, and that working together across different departments and with different stakeholders is absolutely right.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard) & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 29, I will also speak to the other government amendments grouped with it and to which it relates. I thank noble Lords who have scrutinised the alcohol licensing measures in this Bill and, in particular, those who have made points regarding late opening hours. The Government have listened to and understood the concerns around the possibility of associated noise nuisance and anti-social behaviour occurring when a late licence is in existence.

Taken together, Amendments 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 38 and 44 introduce a standard cessation time of 11 pm to operators trading under the new off-sales permissions. They also limit the ability of those premises which are licensed after midnight to resume off-sales at that time, restricting their ability to do so until they open for business the following day. With these amendments, new permissions will apply only until 11 pm or until the current licensing hours for that premises end, whichever is earlier.

We have also tabled Amendment 45, which addresses those premises that may have restrictions on their licences that do not permit the use of a beer garden or other outdoor space beyond a certain hour. Amendment 45 will limit the ability of a premises to carry out off-sales under the new permissions where they are already limited from selling alcohol for consumption in an outdoor area of the premises. That is, if a premises cannot use its outdoor area beyond a particular time, it will not be permitted to carry out off-sales beyond that time under the new permission either. This amendment is a further safeguard to help to ensure that this measure works for local communities and not against them.

I thank again the noble Lords with whom I have engaged inside and outside of this Chamber, who have helped to bring forward these constructive amendments that the Government have tabled today. I look forward to further debate. I beg to move Amendment 29 and look forward to responding to the other amendments in this group.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 40, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, and to the other amendments in this group. For the benefit of those who may have just joined us, let me summarise. The Government have got themselves into a right two and eight. Amendments 29 to 41 deal with bars, pubs and restaurants that have licences to sell alcohol on their premises and which will temporarily be allowed to sell alcohol for consumption off the premises as result of this Bill.

The Bill does not redefine the area covered by pavement licences as being part of the licensed premises. As a consequence, drinks served within the area covered by pavement licences will be off-sales. To enable alcohol, such as glasses of wine and beer, to be served at tables within pavement-licensed areas, the Government have had to lift the current restriction on alcohol off-sales being only in sealed containers. The unintended consequence of lifting this restriction is to allow the unrestricted sale of alcohol from these premises in wine and beer glasses, for example, to people who can then walk down the street, drinking where and when they want.

Local residents do not want people drinking outside their homes, away from licensed premises, with the potential for disorder, violence and urinating in the street, particularly late at night. In addition, broken straight beer glasses can cause horrifying injuries, whether when deliberately broken and used as a weapon or when people fall on to broken glass.

This brings me to the amendments. The Liberal Democrats’ Committee amendment, which sought to restrict off-sales to no later than 11 pm, has been given effect by government Amendments 29, 31 to 34 and 36 in this group, which obviously we support. I thank the Minister for securing this—albeit limited—concession. However, these amendments do not prevent street drinking away from pavement-licensed areas and neither does Labour’s Amendment 39 in this group, albeit that it restricts it to street drinking from plastic cups.

Our Amendment 40 restricts off-sales in open containers to pavement-licensed areas, beer gardens and the like, but also supports businesses by allowing alcohol to be taken away from restaurants, pubs and bars in sealed containers. If the restaurant or pub is too full when you get there—because of social distancing, for example—it allows you to take alcohol home from those premises in an unopened bottle, can or other sealed container, as currently applies to existing off- licences, supporting hard-pressed businesses as a result. Amendment 41, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, does not allow alcohol to be taken away from the premises under any circumstances, which would hinder trade.

In a meeting with Ministers last week, the Government agreed to discuss Amendment 40 with us before Report but they have failed to do so. I explained in Committee why existing provisions and the provisions in the Bill are inadequate to deal with street drinking and disorder. As a consequence, I give notice that I intend to divide the House on Amendment 40.

Metropolitan Police: Racism

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 15th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the Metropolitan Police Service about the steps being taken to address racism within its ranks.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government condemn racism and racists. Racism is abhorrent and has no place in our society. This Government remain committed to working with policing to broaden representation and enhance accountability to help the police make their relationships with the public even stronger. The drive to recruit 20,000 officers over the next three years gives us a significant opportunity to support the police to become more representative of the communities they serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, the chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation is reported in the Guardian as saying that the reason why black people in London were twice as likely to be given lockdown fines by the police was because

“anyone out in the first four weeks was a drug dealer”.

I checked the accuracy of the officer’s remarks with the journalist before making a formal complaint. The Metropolitan Police Directorate of Professional Standards refused to look into the matter. The Metropolitan Police Federation did not reply when I asked it about what the officer is reported as saying. What does this say about the culture of the Metropolitan Police, and what action do the Government intend to take to change it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, several things are happening at this point in time. The NPCC announced its intention to develop an action plan on 18 June, on the back of the Black Lives Matter protests. The College of Policing has also reviewed and applied positive action to the senior national assessment centre and its strategic command course for chief officer candidates. The recruitment of those 20,000 police officers gives us a golden opportunity to increase diversity of representation within the police.

Business and Planning Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 13th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Do not worry, my Lords, this is not going to be a long statement. I thought it might assist noble Lords to know that I intend to table an amendment on Report to introduce a standard cessation time of 11 pm for operators to trade under the new off-sales permissions.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her promise of an amendment but, regrettably, we have a series of amendments in this group: Amendments 26, 30, 32, 34 and 35. I will briefly put on the record what they are, although they are set out in the Marshalled List.

In addition to the amendment promised, the Government need to think about amendments that aim to prevent street drinking and disorder, particularly late at night, where late-night licences are in operation for on-licence premises in the vicinity of residential premises, as the Minister has suggested she will do. If revellers who have already consumed a lot of alcohol are allowed to purchase alcohol to take away just before premises close, sometimes just before 3 am, there is a danger that they will simply party in nearby streets, to the detriment of local residents. The Minister’s suggested, albeit completely last-minute, promise of an amendment is welcome to that extent, but, whatever the hour, if alcohol is sold in open containers such as pint beer glasses, there is every incentive to consume it in surrounding streets rather than take it home or to the office. If alcohol is sold without restriction as to the kind of container—such as pint beer glasses—in which it can be supplied, as allowed under the Bill, there is a danger of injury either by assault or by accident; for example, were someone to fall while carrying a beer glass. The potential for both assault and accident increases with consumption of alcohol.

At Second Reading, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tried to allay these concerns by pointing to the provisions in the Bill to review and revoke off-sales if premises were causing problems, and the power under Section 76 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to close down premises. Those provisions are largely unworkable as they require the particular premises responsible for the problem of street drinking, violence and disorder to be identified. In central London, for example, there are hundreds of on-licence premises within short distances of one another, and it would be practically impossible to identify from which premises the revellers causing the problems had bought their alcohol. There are more than 100 premises with post-1 am licences in Soho alone.

Some of those most likely to be affected, represented by the West End Community Network, will support what the Minister has promised because they support an 11 pm end time for off-sales and have not asked for a restriction on when off-sales can begin. Can the Minister explain why the Government have left it until tonight to give even the slightest indication that they are prepared to bring forward their own amendment? Will she agree to meet me and other interested Peers between now and Report to discuss both the Government’s proposed amendments and the other amendments in my name in this group? In the meantime, despite what the Minister has said, I move Amendment 26 in order for her to respond at the end of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the off-sale of cheap alcohol is not a novel concept in terms of the Bill. I totally concur with the noble Baroness’s concerns about the harms of alcohol and about the accessibility of cheap alcohol attracting people who might not have enough money to go to the pub. Ironically, that is why I support pubs: because drinking is done in a much more controlled way. Licensees have an obligation to chuck people out of the pub if they are behaving irresponsibly. Therefore, landlords are prohibited from selling off-sales as well as on-sales to someone who is clearly drunk. It is a good safeguard.

[Lord Paddick [V]]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Sheikh, for supporting Amendments 30, 32 and 35. There appears to have been a mis-communication over the extent of the amendments that the Government were going to bring forward on Report, which took me slightly off guard—so, with the leave of the House, I will say something more.

I thank the West End Community Network, the Soho Society and the Covent Garden Community Association for their briefings on these issues. I am grateful for the Minister agreeing that new off-sales should be limited to 11 pm. But the Minister does not appear to have heard my reasoning as to why the measures she set out to vary off-sales licences and the power that the police have to close on-licence premises are not effective. I will not repeat them again; I will allow her to read them in Hansard.

Reading Terrorist Attack

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 23rd June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this was a dreadful attack on innocent people, and we condemn it. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives, the injured, and the police officers, ambulance crews and members of the public affected by this terrible incident.

There has been much discussion in recent weeks about policing, in both this country and the United States. This incident, where unarmed officers ran towards, tackled and detained a dangerous and armed suspect, reminds us how police officers put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is right to ask probing questions, but it is also right to remember that we rely on the police for our safety. Our thanks should also go to the members of the public who supported the emergency services by administering first aid while waiting for paramedics to arrive.

The matter is under investigation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, and I know the Minister will not respond to questions about the suspect. So, despite any reservations I may have, I will continue on the basis that this was a terrorist attack, rather than it being the result of mental illness or motivated by prejudice.

We have the best police and security services in the world. I was part of the Metropolitan Police Service for over 30 years and I was awestruck by the capabilities of the security services when I was briefed on the Investigatory Powers Bill by representatives of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. We have also seen numerous pieces of legislation over the years to extend the powers of the police and security services, and the powers of the courts to sentence those convicted of terrorism offences and to prevent their early release. Indeed, there is legislation before the other place as we speak. Yet lone wolf terrorist attacks appear to be increasing. As my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael said in the debate on the Statement in the other place,

“if the answer to this problem were to be found in a formulation of the law, we would have found it by now.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1089.]

The problem is this. Too many people—some traumatised by their experiences in war-torn parts of the world, but many British-born young men—are being radicalised, either in prison or online, and there is not enough collaborative work with communities to address the problem. It is neither possible nor proportionate to keep all of the thousands of people who may be of concern to MI5 under surveillance, and the overwhelming majority will do no harm. The tiny minority who decide to carry out so-called “lone wolf” attacks can change from “harmless” to “dangerous” overnight, and almost always only close friends, relatives or community members who are around them will notice that change.

In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public being the eyes and ears of the police so that we do not need a police officer on every street corner watching for criminal activity, so communities, friends and relatives need to be the eyes and ears of counter- terrorism. In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public having trust and confidence in the police, communities, friends and relatives must have confidence in the Government’s counterterrorism strategy generally and the Prevent programme in particular.

I have referred to him before and I do so again: my friend and the former head of the anti-terrorist branch, John Grieve, said that the police and security services cannot effectively tackle terrorism alone; they need the help of the public. As the current head of counterterrorism policing said today:

“If you see any suspicious activity, don’t hesitate to ACT—report it.”


Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from genuine and comprehensive community policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, whereby concerned communities, friends and relatives feel safe in passing on their concerns to officers they trust. Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from communities, friends and relatives feeling it is safe to pass on their concerns to the Prevent programme.

My two questions to the Minister are these. When will the Government reintroduce the genuine community policing that they have decimated over the past decade not just with drastic cuts in the number of police officers, which they are going some way to addressing, but with the devastation of police community support officers, so that there can be a dialogue of equals between the police and the communities they are supposed to serve, rather than the police simply explaining the policing they are imposing on those communities? When will the Government appoint an independent lead for the review of the Prevent programme, in whom communities have trust and confidence, to produce a programme that communities can feel safe passing their concerns to? Unless the police, community services and communities work together, these lone-wolf attacks will continue to be very difficult to stop.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I join both noble Lords in expressing condolences to the families of those killed and in wishing a speedy recovery to those injured. I also join them in praising our emergency services, who ran towards danger to help those people whose lives were in danger, in particular the unarmed policeman who went to help. The noble Lords are both right to point out that I am very constrained in what I can say, and I thank them for understanding that constraint. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that we have the best police and security services in the world. I wholeheartedly agree, as I do on policing by consent.

Both noble Lords pointed out that this was yet another lone attack. There have been 25 terrorist attacks thwarted since 2017, which is a tribute to the police involved.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about more resources. He will have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary say yesterday that an additional £90 million will be in place this year for CT policing, because we need the resources in place for police to be able to respond to these dreadful events. As for other types of policing, 20,000 additional police officers are due to be recruited over the next few years. On community policing, it is the PCC who decides on the type of policing required for a particular area; it is a decision at local level, and that is absolutely right.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about lessons learned from Fishmongers’ Hall and cited the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill; that is one thing. In February this year the Security Minister announced plans to introduce the legislative Protect duty. The proposals would require certain operators of public venues and organisations to consider their preparedness for and protection from a terrorist attack.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for community engagement, and I could not agree more. This problem cannot be solved by any one agency or by government. As the noble Lord said, it is not just about legislation; we need interventions at all levels of society, including public vigilance and confidence in reporting to the police.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Serious Violence Taskforce. In the last few months it was replaced by the National Policing Board, which is an excellent forum for these sorts of things—the interventions we can make for our communities—to be not just discussed but actioned.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked when the Government will appoint an independent reviewer of Prevent. The process is under way and we aim for that review to be complete in September next year.

Public Order

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 9th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, this Statement is entitled Public Order and I declare an interest as being one of a small cadre of senior officers trained to lead the policing of disorder. Following my work as the police commander in Brixton—the so-called capital of black Britain—I accepted an invitation to address a University of Minnesota conference on the disproportionate incarceration of African Americans in the city where George Floyd tragically lost his life.

As the police themselves have said, and as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has just mentioned, the overwhelming majority of the Black Lives Matter protesters in the UK at the weekend were peaceful. There is justified anger about racism in the UK, in all its forms and in all parts of society, but there is a difference between explaining behaviour and justifying it. The appalling attacks on police officers and the damage to property cannot be justified, even though I understand that people are angry, that they feel they are not being heard, and that they believe demonstrating is the only way they can bring about change.

Policing by consent in the UK means policing with the support and co-operation of the public but when people refuse to comply with the reasonable and lawful requests of the police, officers have to switch from persuasion to the use of force, often instantly. That is difficult for individual officers and police leaders when peaceful protests turn violent. Often officers in ordinary uniform have to withdraw under a hail of missiles before officers in riot gear can replace them. It is not the police retreating or losing control of the streets; it is a necessary tactic but one that can lead to police casualties, and I send my best wishes to all former colleagues who have been affected by the violence they experienced this weekend, which, as I have said, was unacceptable.

In recent times police have deployed evidence gatherers—observers speaking into recording devices, and camera operators who record offences as they are committed—so that officers do not have to risk escalating the violence and depleting their numbers by arresting people at the peak of serious disorder. Instead, they investigate, identify and arrest those responsible after the event. It is a difficult operational decision whether to intervene at the time to prevent copycat offences, or to leave it until later, to prevent an escalation in violence and the risk of depleted police numbers being overwhelmed. But what it is not is the police allowing criminals to get away with it.

Of course, the coronavirus regulations prohibit gatherings of more than six people but this needs to be balanced against the human rights to free speech and the right of assembly, also established in statute. Unfortunately, following the Dominic Cummings fiasco, the Government are on very thin ice when people are apparently allowed to use their own judgment when it comes to obeying health regulations. Even Border Force officers are being told to “encourage” the completion of passenger location forms, and not to enforce the law on the quarantine of UK arrivals.

I have three questions that I would like the Minister to answer. First, in the light of these demonstrations, what health advice have the Government given to the police, and what PPE have the Government provided to ensure that officers are protected from coronavirus in such circumstances? If the Minister is going to say that the protests are illegal, that is clearly not stopping them taking place, and officers still need protection. Secondly, what action are the Government taking to acknowledge the justified concerns of those protesting about racism in the UK, to reassure them that they are being heard and that further demonstrations are therefore unnecessary? If the Minister is tempted to say, as one of her colleagues has suggested, that there is no racism in the UK, I remind her of the Wendy Williams report, the David Lammy review, and the disproportionate numbers of BAME people dying from coronavirus that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned. Thirdly and finally, what pressure are the Government putting on the police service to either address the disproportionality or explain why you are 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched in the UK if you are black than if you are white, and two-and-a-half times more likely to die in police custody?

If the Minister is tempted to mention knife crime, I refer her to Home Office research that shows a 10% increase in stop and search results in only a 0.01% drop in non-domestic violent crime. If the Minister, for whom I have the greatest respect, is tempted to say that it is an operational matter for the police, why is the Home Secretary publicly criticising operational policing decisions around the toppling of the statue of a slave trader in Bristol? If the Home Secretary can put pressure on the police to make arrests, she can put pressure on the police to address disproportionality.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have raised. I join them in wishing the officers who have been injured a full recovery. I understand that the figure to date is 62 and that 137 arrests have been made. I also join the noble Lords in condemning the violence. I can understand and totally concur that black lives matter but violence undermined what those people were trying to very peacefully protest about, as the noble Lords said. With regard to the destruction of the statue of Edward Colston, both noble Lords have condemned the violence, and neither are sorry to see the back of a slave trader. I can understand those points but there is a broader point about doing things in a democratic and peaceful way. Actually, that statue could have been removed years ago, had it been done in a democratic way.

It is sad that the story is no longer about Black Lives Matter but has been overtaken by violence. Behind this, of course, is the brutal killing of George Floyd; so awful was that video that I could barely watch it. Let us remember him rather than some of the violence, but we cannot escape from the need now to tackle it.

We also need to look at the public health dangers that were caused by people being far too close to one another. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the disparities involved, with black men being more susceptible to coronavirus. No one is quite sure why that is, but it certainly seems to be the case. It is all the more worrying that so many people were gathered so closely together on Sunday.

The noble Lord asked me about the Wendy Williams report response and when Parliament will hear it. Wendy Williams was very clear, as I recall from when I read out the Statement about her report, that she wanted the Home Secretary not just to have a knee-jerk reaction to it but to take some time to reflect on it, and that is what she will do. The response will be with Parliament within the allotted time limit.

The noble Lord talked about racism continuing to impact lives and about the Home Secretary understanding the burning injustices that it inflicts upon society. She talked yesterday about a whole-government response to inequality and injustice. This does not just come down to one department; actually we are all responsible for it, and so indeed is society.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the overwhelming majority of people protesting peacefully, and of course he was right. He talked about how difficult it is for the police when a peaceful protest suddenly turns violent. Of course it is; they suddenly have to adjust to a different set of circumstances, often with absolutely no notice. He talked about body-worn video helping the police, and that is true: rather than making arrests at the time, they can go back to study the video. That helps from the point of view both of the police and indeed of anyone who is being accused.

The noble Lord talked about the health advice to those front-line police. The public health advice to front-line police is absolutely the same as that for any member of the public. We know that the police are well equipped with PPE, and they should deploy it as appropriate.

The noble Lord talked about acknowledging concerns about racism in this country. I acknowledge it—I came here in the 1970s as an immigrant—and I know the Home Secretary acknowledges it as well. We have made improvements in BAME recruitment to the police, but we certainly have not got there, and Sunday was almost an explosion of that frustration.

On the noble Lord’s point about black people being 10 times more likely to be stopped and searched, the most recent publication of stop and search figures for the year ending March 2019 showed that there were a total of 383,629 searches, resulting in 58,876 arrests under Section 1 of PACE and Section 60 of CJPOA. That is down from a peak of approximately 1.2 million stop and searches in 2011. Of course, the thing about stop and search is that it is designed to help those vulnerable people who might be at risk of attack themselves. However, for both Section 1 and Section 60 there is a larger proportion of those stopped and searched who self-identify as black or BAME.

Covid-19: UK Border Health Measures

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 4th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Speaker]

The noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon, has withdrawn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the regulations make clear that you do not have to complete a passenger locator form prior to arrival in the UK. You may not have internet access abroad or be computer literate. What happens if someone does not complete a form and is not one of the one in 10 spot-checked by Border Force at the UK border? How will their quarantine be enforced?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is advised to have a form completed before arrival at the airport. I understand that Border Force will check whether people have forms completed and will enforce if people do not. I assume—though not with absolute certainty—that forms will be available at the airport should people not have filled them in before they get there. There will be strict enforcement of the filling in of these forms.

Historic Sexual Offences: Investigations

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I read the words of Diana Brittan. I hope that the whole House will take comfort from the fact that, when the House of Lords Appointments Commission decides whether people will come into your Lordships’ House, it should consider whether that person will bring the House into disrepute.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that complainants should always initially be cared for as genuine survivors of sexual offences but investigations should always be an objective search for the truth, and that there is no contradiction in such an approach?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord knows that I agree with him.

European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 2nd March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the UK withdrawing from participation in the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and membership of Eurojust.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the UK stands ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. An agreement in this area should support data exchange for law enforcement, operational co-operation between law enforcement authorities and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This agreement should equip operational partners on both sides with capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has not even attempted to answer the Question. Not being a member of Europol or Eurojust relegates the UK to observer status, rather than driving and directing pan-European law enforcement operations and intelligence sharing. The Government say that they want a similar agreement to that reached by Norway and Iceland to replace the European arrest warrant, but that agreement took 13 years to negotiate and implement and does not allow extradition of an EU member state’s own nationals. Is it not inevitable that the UK will be less safe and less secure if we withdraw from these arrangements?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The first thing to say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement on this. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and operational analysis in 2018.

Pre-charge Police Bail: Time Limit

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 26th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, we fully intend to put this on a statutory footing. RUI has increased following the legislation we passed some two or three years ago, sometimes to more than what bail would have been. We have to look at this area, but I take what my noble friend says.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, when this matter was debated before the Government placed restrictions on police bail, police chiefs, the Police Superintendents’ Association and we on these Benches told the Government that these limits and restrictions were unrealistic. As a result, in 2017-18, 46,674 people were released under investigation in London alone, which is the worst of both worlds: allegations hang over the accused indefinitely with no power for the police to impose conditions. When will the Government start to listen to those who know what they are talking about?

Facial Recognition Surveillance

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 27th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I like the way the noble Lord got the identity card in; I was wondering when he was going to deploy it. The Question is on AFR, which we can use to identify criminals because it is a unique biometric, which an identity card may not necessarily be. I am not going to get drawn on identity cards today, but I congratulate the noble Lord on managing to get them in.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I take the Minister back to my noble friend’s question about the Information Commissioner’s Office statement in October 2019, which said:

“We reiterate our call for Government to introduce a statutory and binding code of practice for LFR as a matter of priority.”


Why are the Government putting the cart before the horse and allowing live facial recognition before a statutory, binding code of practice is in place?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord that the ICO criticised some areas. However, last Friday it acknowledged a number of improvements. LFR is used for a policing purpose; it is used to detect serious criminals and might be used to find missing people. The framework in which it operates includes common-law powers, data protection, human rights legislation and the surveillance camera code.

Health: Alcohol Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 21st January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a valid point. Alcohol harm has a cross-government response, involving departments such as health, education and the Home Office. If we do not work together, we will diminish our responsibilities as a Government. In the troubled families programme, which is led by MHCLG, alcohol and substance abuse contribute to an awful lot of the problems in some of the families it deals with.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I was going to ask almost exactly the same question. Misuse of alcohol and drugs is often the result of suffering and hurt in people’s lives, which is an issue of health and welfare, not of Home Office enforcement. What are the Government doing to improve people’s well-being, tackle poverty and discrimination, and address the causes of substance misuse, rather than simply the symptoms?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will try to answer the question differently. The noble Lord points to the wide variety of harms that alcohol causes—the economic cost is something like £21 billion a year. We can see the involvement of alcohol abuse when looking at domestic violence—later this year, we will be considering the domestic abuse Bill—and the effect it has on children. The children of alcoholic parents must suffer terribly, and of course poverty is one of the effects of alcohol.

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued) & Committee stage & Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard continued): House of Lords
Wednesday 15th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their comments. I support them in drawing my and the Government’s attention to the various elements of co-operation that are so crucial in keeping our citizens safe.

It has never been in doubt that it is in everyone’s interest to maintain that strong relationship with the EU in this area. The political declaration provides the framework for the strong relationship, including co-operation on the specific capabilities that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has set out in his amendment. However, the precise details that noble Lords seek will be a matter for the next phase of negotiations that will be carried out, I hope with flexibility, in this and other areas. A statutory requirement to negotiate—a matter discussed quite vocally in this Chamber today—is neither necessary nor appropriate.

On the role of Parliament, I refer noble Lords to the strong commitment given by the Prime Minister that Parliament will be kept fully informed of the progress of the negotiations and will have the opportunity to scrutinise any legislation required to enact the future relationship. Therefore, a reporting requirement is not needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about Norway and Iceland and their extradition agreement with the EU. Apparently, it is now in force as of 1 November last year.

I am sorry that I cannot fill in any detail but no detail is yet forthcoming. However, I hope the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Warner, for his support and his perspective, from his experience in the Home Office, on how important this issue is. He made an important point about the Government acknowledging the weakness already of the UK criminal justice system without losing these EU mechanisms. I am also grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe.

It is all very well for the Minister to keep putting matters off by saying, “This is going to be negotiated and I can’t say what the details of the negotiations will be.” Time is running out. That excuse will not be available in less than 12 months’ time and we are concerned that our law enforcement agencies will be handicapped as a consequence of losing some, if not all, of these EU mechanisms, as the National Crime Agency lead for Brexit told us in a briefing a few years ago.

I am grateful for the correction on the modified European arrest warrant arrangements with Norway and Iceland, which apparently came into effect on 1 November last year. That means that they took 18 years to come into effect. If that is the kind of timescale we are looking at to get a similar agreement between us, as a third-party country, and the EU, we are in serious trouble. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

ISIS: British People

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 23rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I not only recognise but acknowledge and agree with the noble Lord’s point. I appreciate the time that we had to talk about some of these difficult issues. Where a child is a British citizen, we will work with partners to try to find a safe route to return them to this country, as he says.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, is it not a principle of British justice that an accused person is innocent until proven guilty in a legitimate court of law? On the basis of what evidence are these British nationals denied entry to the UK or even denied British citizenship? Should the UK not do what almost every other country is doing and repatriate its nationals, albeit to face trial if necessary?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, different countries have different approaches. I am aware of what they are doing. Where the noble Lord talks about being innocent until proven guilty, I assume that he means people who have gone to Syria to fight. He is right to say that these people should be brought to justice, and that is why we are having conversations with our international partners to look at the best method to work this out in an internationally agreed way.

Crime: Police Numbers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I explained to the noble Lord, these things are multifactorial. The increased pressure on police, the increased demand on police, the changing nature of crime and certainly some of the issues we have seen in the last couple of years have placed unprecedented pressure on police. The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, often mentions the efficiency and effectiveness of the police, as well as the resources and capabilities that we support them in having.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, there is documented evidence from the College of Policing that stop and search is effective only up to a certain level, after which increases produce no drop in crime. Certainly in knife crime hotspots, the amount of stop and search is above that effective level. Why are the Government making it easier for the police to engage in stop and search without any reasonable suspicion? Does the Minister accept that excessive stop and search can be counterproductive? I speak as someone who was involved as a police sergeant in the 1981 Brixton riots.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is important that police officers have good relationships with their communities so that there is an element of trust in the police and what they do. As we have discussed before, it is also important that stop and search is intelligence-led rather than just being indiscriminate in certain parts of London and other areas of the country, as the noble Lord talked about.

Counterterrorism: Martyn’s Law

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 22nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand my noble friend’s point. However, take as an example two types of venue: the Parliamentary Estate, and the mitigating measures that the parliamentary authorities have put in around the estate to make your Lordships’ House and the other House safer following the London attacks; and venues where people might go to listen to music, and so on. The Government have a long-standing work programme to provide the owners and operators of these crowded places with high-quality advice and guidance. Therefore, when I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that we are considering it, I mean that we need to look at all the various things that are in place and come up with the right solution.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Manchester Arena bomb was detonated outside one of the entrances. Crowds outside venues arguably present an easier target for terrorists. Does the Minister agree that legislation is necessary because security measures should include the build-up of large numbers outside venues, potentially in public spaces, as well as the security of those inside the venues?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, you cannot think about a crowded venue without thinking about the people outside. I sometimes find that when I am leaving this building in a car, we simply cannot get out. It is quite frightening to be stuck trying to get out of a venue. When we talk about venues, we are talking about both the outside and the inside and what people do when they are stuck trying to get in or out.

Metropolitan Police: Use of Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 16th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that we are talking about two entirely different things. Nobody disputes the right to protest. Everyone is well educated on some of the climatic changes that are taking place. This is about bringing a capital city to a standstill.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while recognising that many citizens support Extradition Rebellion’s aims, it risks losing that support by disrupting London’s road transport, particularly the bus network that the poor and disabled rely on most. Would a ban on obstructing roads rather than a blanket ban on all protests by Extinction Rebellion be a more proportionate response? Will the Minister answer my noble friend’s Question about what discussions the Government have had with the Metropolitan Police on this issue?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the final point, the noble Lord will know that it is an operational matter for the police to make that judgment call; that is what they have done. He said, “Extradition Rebellion” —I think he meant Extinction Rebellion. On whether the police could impose conditions not allowing these people on the roads, the condition was actually on assembling in Trafalgar Square. It has been very difficult to engage with these people. The MPS—the Metropolitan Police Service—still stands ready to engage but, to date, that engagement has been very difficult.

Road Closures in Central London

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with my noble friend that it is monstrous. People may be unable to seek medical treatment or, indeed, emergency treatment in St Thomas’. Exactly the same thing happened in Bristol, where somebody could not get to see their dying parent, who died before they could get to see them. It is monstrous. As I said, half the sites are now cleared, and I hope that the area around St Thomas’ Hospital will be accessible to all those who need to go there.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, dealing with the nature and volume of demonstrations we are currently seeing is very resource-intensive. Does the Minister agree that the dramatic reductions in police numbers under this Government not only impact on day-to-day policing but reduce the resilience of the police and their ability to respond to such demonstrations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Certainly, this current set of protests has been very resource-intensive. Obviously, the noble Lord will join me in being very pleased about the plans for 20,000 more police officers over the next three years.

Sir Richard Henriques Report

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 8th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, in drawing up the terms of reference for the inspection, HMICFRS will come to its own conclusions about what the noble Lord has just outlined. I think taking into account the IOPC’s recommendation means taking a view of it in the round.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Richard Henriques’s report states that there were such inconsistencies between the fantasist Nick’s statements to Wiltshire Police and his later account to the Metropolitan Police that it was obvious that Nick’s account could not be relied on. In the full knowledge of that information, the senior investigating officer told a press conference that what Nick had said was “credible and true”. How can the so-called Independent Office for Police Conduct exonerate all those involved in such circumstances? Who are the IOPC trying to protect, and who was the DAC in overall charge of the investigation’s line manager at the time?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

First, the noble Lord will know that Wiltshire Police dismissed the claims of Nick. On his question of who the IOPC is trying to protect, the IOPC is independent of both government and the police, and it is absolutely right that such a body exists to be able to scrutinise them.

Asylum Seekers: Employment

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 7th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It was the Prime Minister who said that the Home Office was reviewing the matter, and therefore I do not assume that there is a change in the position. I hesitate to say this to the noble Lord, but I am sure that it will be done in due course.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while the application is being processed, the Government give some seekers of sanctuary no support at all—they can stay but with no recourse to public funds—or they provide them with such low subsistence that it is impossible for them to buy essentials such as clothes or shoes. Either they have a legitimate claim to be here or they should be deported, but why should they be made destitute while their application is being considered?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that either their claims should be considered or not, and that should be done swiftly, which is what I was saying to the noble Lord, Lord Reid. The sooner that people’s applications are considered, the sooner these things can be determined.

British Citizenship

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 3rd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will consider that in due course.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, refugee families often have to make repeated applications for leave to remain, before becoming eligible for British citizenship, paying thousands of pounds at each stage, potentially costing tens of thousands of pounds overall—way above the actual cost to the Home Office of processing their applications. Does the Minister accept that the government policy of overcharging positively discourages those seeking sanctuary in the UK? All these people want is to contribute to and integrate with British society.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Home Office does not make a profit from application fees. The income that it derives is used to fund other vital areas of the borders, immigration and citizenship service. We have always provided refugees with exceptions to the need to pay application fees for leave to remain, in specific circumstances. That might be for refugees or those living in local authority care.

Facial Recognition Technology

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 2nd October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a good point. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, the use of this technology is being looked at by the ICO. It has launched an investigation following concerns about the use of LFR by managers of shopping malls in and around King’s Cross. I have explained the oversight process to the noble Lord but, as I said to other noble Lords, it is very important that the technology is used proportionately and within the law, and of course the court judgment last month confirmed that that was the case.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister not concerned that using custody image databases that include pictures of unconvicted people in conjunction with facial recognition technology is potentially a breach of innocent people’s human rights? Is this not another reason why the Government need to take action?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I outlined the types of people who could be on a watch list. They are persons wanted on warrants, individuals who are unlawfully at large, persons suspected of having committed crimes, persons who might be in need of protection, individuals whose presence at an event causes particular concern, and of course vulnerable persons—we must not lose sight of the fact that the technology can be incredibly useful in detecting vulnerable people.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 1st October 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—LIFG—was established in the early 1990s and aimed to replace the Gaddafi regime with a hard-line Islamist theocracy. The group mounted a terrorist campaign inside Libya in the mid-1990s, including a 1996 attempt to assassinate Muammur Gaddafi, before becoming part of the wider global Islamist extremist movement in the 2000s.

In 2008, the group formally merged with al-Qaeda. The LIFG has been proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK since October 2005. That decision was taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information, and was approved by Parliament. It is clear that the LIFG was concerned in terrorism at that time.

However, the group announced that it was disbanding in 2010. Some of its former members continued to be involved in terrorism, aligned to other groups, or have been involved in fighting since the 2011 Libyan revolution. Some are now involved in more moderate pursuits, such as mainstream Libyan politics or everyday occupations. The LIFG is now assessed to be defunct and no longer exists.

Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 the Home Secretary has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations if she believes it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Having reviewed the information available about the current activities of the LIFG, after careful consideration the Home Secretary has concluded that there is now not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the LIFG is currently concerned in terrorism, as defined by Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000.

Accordingly, the Home Secretary has brought this order before the House and, if approved, this means that being a member of, or providing support to, this organisation will cease to be a criminal offence on the day that the order comes into force. The decision to deproscribe the LIFG was taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information.

As noble Lords will appreciate, it would not be appropriate for us to discuss any specific intelligence that informed the decision-making process. The Government do not condone any terrorist activity. Deproscription of a proscribed group should not be interpreted as condoning any previous activities of this group.

The British Government have always been clear that the LIFG was a brutal terrorist organisation when it existed. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activity and incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals under criminal law. We are determined to detect and disrupt all terrorist threats, whether homegrown or international. Proscription is but one tool in the considerable armoury at the disposal of the Government, the police and the Security Service to disrupt terrorist activity.

The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription potentially interferes with an individual’s rights—in particular, the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights on freedom of expression and freedom of association—and so should be exercised only where absolutely necessary. A decision to deproscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of the case, and it is appropriate that it must be approved by both Houses. If agreed, the order will come into force the day after the debate in the other place. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order, but I am a little confused. The Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the order states that in January 2019 an application was made to the Secretary of State for the deproscription of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group—the LIFG. It also says:

“The Proscription Review Group (PRG), a cross-Government group … makes recommendations and provides advice … on the implementation of the proscription regime including the case for proscription and consideration of deproscription applications … The PRG”,


as the Minister has just said,

“has assessed that the group is now defunct and no longer exists”.

What is not clear to me, even after what the Minister has said, is who made the application for the deproscription.

We discussed the proscription of terrorist organisations at length during the passage of the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill in December last year. We learned that very few organisations have applied to be deproscribed, not least because it is very expensive. In one case that was referred to during that debate, apparently it cost £300,000 to secure deproscription. Presumably in this case the application was not made by the LIFG, a defunct organisation that no longer exists.

During the debate on the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, attempted to reinstate and put on a statutory basis an annual review of the activities of proscribed organisations—something that apparently had happened routinely until four or five years ago—and the deproscription of those lacking a statutory basis for continued listing. Have the Government adopted the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, at least to the extent that they are now reviewing proscribed organisations to establish whether they meet the statutory requirement for proscription? If so, during that debate the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also said that at least 14 of the 74 organisations proscribed under the Terrorism Act 2000, not including 14 Northern Ireland groups, are not concerned in terrorism and therefore do not meet the minimum statutory condition for proscription. If there has been a government review resulting in the proposed deproscription of this organisation, when will the other organisations to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred be deproscribed? I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has largely raised all the points that I was going to refer to, so I will not detain the House for long. However, I was surprised about the application and just want to ask about a couple of further points.

First, what happens if this group, which we are told is defunct and no longer exists, reappears? Secondly, are any frozen assets held in the UK at present and, if so, will it be possible for them to be unfrozen and for people to get their hands on them? I would be very interested in hearing the answers to those two points and those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. With that, I will not detain the House further.

Immigration Staff: Recruitment

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked a number of questions, one of which was about border staff. He will know that we have recruited almost all the 900 staff that we undertook to recruit in preparation for Brexit. I will write to him with a longer answer on the inspectorate because I do not have the details at my fingertips today.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, is the real problem at the Home Office not the culture, which is still being driven by trying to achieve the target of reducing net immigration to the tens of thousands? This House has recently passed legislation that effectively continues free movement of EU citizens in the event of a no-deal Brexit. So, the only way that this ridiculous target can be achieved is by the ruthless pursuit of anyone who can be deported, even for the most minor of reasons. Does the Minister not agree that the hostile environment may have changed its name, but it persists?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I have said before, the hostile environment started under Alan Johnson and ended under my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The noble Lord has made the point about culture before, and he is right that the culture of an organisation is key to the way its policies operate. There are no targets of the kind that the noble Lord described. We have a general ambition of reducing net migration but targets—particularly in the hostile environment, as the noble Lord referred to it—no longer operate.

Immigration Detention: Victims of Modern Slavery

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 18th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He asked why victims of modern slavery were not detected prior to detention. Quite often, Home Office staff pick up the fact that people are victims of modern slavery. It is not the case that the 507 individuals were detained after getting positive reasonable grounds. As stated clearly in the FoI response, the figure relates to people who had positive reasonable grounds when entering detention or while in it. Further analysis of the figures shows that, of the 507 people in question, 479 received the positive reasonable grounds decision during a detention period. Of those, 328—68%—were released within two days of that decision. In total, 422—88%—were released within a week of the positive reasonable grounds decision. Of the 57 who were detained for eight days or more following the positive reasonable grounds decision, 46—81%—are foreign national offenders.

On the data and the differences in the figures, my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister was absolutely correct to say that there is no central record of those who received a positive conclusive grounds decision and are detained under immigration powers. While the information might be available from the live Home Office case information database, known as CID, it would be for internal management only. For example, some data may be incomplete, and every FOI response is caveated as such.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it is not just the victims of modern slavery but survivors of rape and other serious sexual assaults whose details are being passed to immigration officials by the police, with a view to deporting those who are undocumented migrants. Perpetrators of modern slavery and rapists will be telling these victims, with good reason, that they cannot go to the police because they will be deported. Vulnerable people are being raped and then deported because they reported the rape to the police. Does the Minister not accept that this kind of data sharing between the police and immigration officials is preventing modern slavery and rape being tackled effectively, and that it has to stop?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I say to the noble Lord, as I think I said the other day, that someone who is a victim of modern slavery, which may well include those who have been raped—these people are exploited to an insufferable degree—should be treated first and foremost as a victim. The abuse and trauma they have suffered should be dealt with first and foremost. However, it is also true that other issues may be involved, such as immigration control. Quite often, in a number of cases, that immigration control will in and of itself protect the victim, because the whole picture will come out. But I reassure the noble Lord that, if someone comes forward who is a victim of modern slavery, they will be protected and treated as a victim first and foremost, and will get all the support they need.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 15th July 2019 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this draft order differs from recent amendments to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 in that it is based on changes to scientific and technical detail in existing legislation and does not introduce further controls on compounds under the 1971 Act. I thank the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs—the ACMD—for its expert advice on this technical matter, which has informed the draft order before the Committee.

The order was first laid before Parliament on 4 June. Its purpose is to amend Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act by reducing the scope of the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids. I assure noble Lords that this amendment does not repeal the generic definition of synthetic cannabinoids under the Act, and compounds commonly known as Spice and Mamba will continue to be subject to controls under that legislation. The measure is brought forward as a result of the recommendation from the ACMD published on 22 December 2017.

It may be helpful if I explain to the Committee the history of the control of synthetic cannabinoids under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, as it helps to frame the context of this amendment. The ACMD, the independent experts who provide advice to the Government on the misuse and harms of drugs, first published guidance in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids. This is a group of compounds that mimic the effects of cannabis and are commonly referred to by brand names such as Spice and Mamba. The ACMD recommended that synthetic cannabinoids should be captured under a generic definition— as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act—due to their associated harms and widespread availability, and it followed the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and the second generation in 2013.

The ACMD advice also recommended that these compounds be placed under Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, as it could not determine any known medicinal or therapeutic benefits from these drugs. Any drugs listed under Schedule 1 are deemed to have little or no known medicinal or therapeutic benefits and can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.

Shortly after these changes came into effect on 14 December 2016, representatives from the research community contacted the Home Office and the ACMD, informing them that a large number of research compounds not suspected as being synthetic cannabinoids were inadvertently captured under the generic definition. As a result of the controls placed on these compounds, institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences to conduct certain aspects of their research. The licensing process ensures that there is a minimised risk of misuse and diversion of, and harm from, controlled drugs. However, the Government have no desire to unnecessarily impose licensing requirements where compounds do not pose risks of harm. Accordingly, it is important that we amend the generic definition to remove a regulatory burden on the research industry relating to compounds that were never intended to be controlled. On that basis, the ACMD recommended in December 2017 that the scope of the generic definition be reduced.

The order amends the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to reduce the breadth of compounds controlled as third-generation synthetic cannabinoids. The ACMD’s amended definition will ensure that compounds which have been found to cause harm will continue to be caught by the generic definition. I assure the Committee that the Government are acutely aware of the continued harms posed by the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids, and I want to make it clear that the order does not revoke the generic definition. Harmful synthetic cannabinoids such as Spice and Mamba will continue to be controlled through the generic definition.

The order, if accepted and made, will come into force on 15 November. To complement it, a further statutory instrument will be introduced to make parallel amendments to the generic definition under Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 and in the Misuse of Drugs (Designation) (England, Wales and Scotland) Order 2015. As a result, the compounds currently captured unintentionally will no longer require a Home Office licence for the conduct of research as they will no longer be controlled.

I hope that I have made the case to amend the generic definition of the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids to remove the compounds that were unintentionally controlled from the generic definition. I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the draft statutory instrument.

It is regrettable that, in 2016, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs advised the Government to include such a wide definition of third generation synthetic cannabinoids. Between 40,000 and 90,000 compounds captured by this wide definition were not synthetic cannabinoids and therefore were not intended to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. In addition, it inhibited research by requiring researchers to obtain a Schedule 1 licence.

That highlights a series of issues with the Government’s approach to drug misuse. First, the ill-thought-through Psychoactive Substances Act, while making previously so-called legal highs illegal, did not make the possession of such substances an offence—only their manufacture, sale and supply, even though some of the substances are more dangerous than the substances controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act that they were designed to replace.

Secondly, as a result, the ACMD still has to play catch-up with synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs, such as synthetic cannabinoids, which need to be controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act because they are so dangerous. To get ahead of the game, on the basis of what the Minister said and what is contained in the material published by the Home Office on the SI, the ACMD appears to have gone to the other extreme and banned swathes of innocuous substances.

Thirdly, these synthetic alternatives to controlled drugs were created only because the controlled drugs that they were designed to replace were illegal. For example, I know a doctor who has had to deal with a number of patients with serious psychiatric problems caused by these synthetic alternatives; they took the synthetic alternatives because they were legal at the time, but they would not have had psychiatric problems if they had stuck to the controlled drugs that the synthetic alternatives were designed to replace. My understanding is that the synthetic cannabinoid Spice, which the Minister mentioned, induces far more psychosis and is far more addictive than even the strongest form of cannabis, for example. Can the Minister confirm that?

Fourthly, this sort of mistake further undermines the credibility of the system of controlled drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. Drugs are being classified primarily on the basis of politics rather than scientific evidence. For example, the previous Labour Government downgraded cannabis from class B to class C on the basis of scientific evidence only for the same Labour Government, under a new Prime Minister, to reclassify it back to class B for political reasons. Some drugs, such as GHB or GBL, that cause a large number of deaths—particularly among gay men, including a former partner of mine—are in class C while MDMA or ecstasy, which cause far fewer deaths, are in class A. We do not oppose the correction of this mistake by means of this SI but we clearly state it again: drug misuse should be treated as a health issue, not a criminal justice issue; all the efforts of government and law enforcement should be focused on harm reduction, not criminalisation; and the Government need to expand their review of drug misuse to include law changes, including potentially legalising and regulating controlled drugs.

The Liberal Democrats are not the only ones saying this. Last week, a survey showed that twice as many people were in favour of the legalisation of cannabis than against it. Research published last week showed that fewer teenagers used cannabis when it was legalised in the United States. The debate on drug misuse is changing. We believe that it is time that the Government paid attention to that.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for her explanation of the content and purpose of the draft order, which we do not oppose. It amends the Misuse of Drugs Act by narrowing the previous definition of synthetic cannabinoids, as the previous definition has had the effect of requiring compounds that are not of concern to be licensed as class B drugs.

Following the control of the first generation of synthetic cannabinoids in 2009 and of the second generation in 2013, the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs first published advice in 2014 on the third generation of synthetic cannabinoids—a group of compounds commonly referred to, as the Minister said, as Spice and Mamba, which mimic the effects of cannabis. The ACMD recommended that these compounds be captured by way of a generic definition as class B drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act. It also recommended that the compounds be placed in Schedule 1 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001, meaning that they can be legally accessed only with a Home Office licence, which is generally issued for research or industrial purposes.

Following the ACMD’s recommendations, the changes came into effect on 14 December 2016 but, as has already been said, shortly after their implementation the ACMD and the Home Office were told by research bodies that the breadth of the definition meant that it captured a large number of research compounds, many of which were not synthetic cannabinoids. The effect of this was that research institutions had to obtain Schedule 1 licences when they should not have needed to do so.

The ACMD recognised that its advice that led to the 2016 changes had unintended consequences. As a result, it made a further recommendation in December 2017 to the effect that the scope of the generic definition be reduced. Accordingly, this order amends the generic definition of third-generation synthetic cannabinoids by replacing the term “univalent” with a defined number of substituents. This will apparently reduce the number of compounds unintentionally captured by the generic definition, estimated by industry at more than 40,000 substances, while retaining those that have not been found to cause harm. As the Minister said, the revised definition does not alter the position for class A drugs or the licensed medicines previously excluded.

When this order was discussed in the Commons, the Minister said,

“so that while those compounds that have been found to cause harm are captured by it, fewer compounds are unintentionally captured”.—[Official Report, Commons, 3/7/19; col. 1263.]

In view of the Commons Minister’s words, how many compounds will still be unintentionally captured by the amended order that we are discussing now, and what level of inconvenience or difficulty will that continue to cause the research community in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sector in respect of having to continue, where necessary, to apply for Schedule 1 licences? How cumbersome, time-consuming and time-delaying is the process of applying for Schedule 1 licences, the need for which this order is designed to reduce but apparently not eliminate, in respect of compounds “unintentionally captured” by the 2016 changes? Bearing in mind that the ACMD made its recommendation, which led to the Government making this draft order some 18 months ago, why has it taken as long as it has to reach this stage?

The ACMD’s 2014 recommendations did not come into effect until mid-December 2016. Again, what was the reason for the apparent delay of at least two years? If consultation took place during that lengthy period, did any individuals or organisations raise the problem about the breadth of the definition that the research community raised shortly after mid-December 2016? If not, why did the ACMD—or anyone else—not realise the problem that this order seeks to address before its recommendations were implemented? Did the changes that were brought into effect in mid-December 2016 properly reflect the ACMD’s recommendations of two years or more previously? If not, is that one reason why the problem of the breadth of the definition came to light only after the mid-December 2016 changes came into effect?

This draft order does not seek to address the issue of the use, or rather misuse, of drugs. The UK now has, I believe, the highest recorded level of mortality from drug misuse since records began. I hope that we will soon hear from the Government the different approaches, based on what would most effectively reduce harm, that they intend to consider and adopt in response to a drug situation that appears to be getting worse.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their points. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that this is regrettable—I agree. It is never a good place to be in, having to amend legislation for this reason. He is right that research was taking far longer because of the application process. That is why we have the order today. He also made the point that psychiatric problems would not be as problematic as they are with synthetic versions. However, I have thought back to several examples that I am aware of, for example, skunk weed, which has caused psychiatric problems. He asked whether I could confirm that Spice is more addictive than non-synthetic cannabis. It is indeed stronger than some other drugs. That is why it is controlled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, in line with the expert advice. The SI does not change the control of Spice.

He also made the point that drugs policy should be aimed at reduction. Of course, reduction of the use of drugs is at the heart of what we are trying to achieve, particularly—

[Lord Paddick]

I said the aim of policy should be harm reduction, not reduction in use.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The two probably go hand in hand—the harm of drugs and the use of them are quite parallel to each other—but I take the noble Lord’s point. He made a slightly different point and maybe I just took licence because I could respond in the way that I did. He also talked about the legalisation of cannabis. He knows that the Government do not intend at this point to legalise cannabis. In fact, the statutory instrument is not about the legalisation or otherwise of cannabis but, again, he took the opportunity to bring the issue up.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why it has taken so long to get here, given that the recommendation was made back in December 2017. The initial recommendation from the ACMD in December 2017 acted as interim advice, covering a range of proposed solutions for the Home Office to consider. Officials then liaised with the ACMD on the feasibility of the proposals and the ACMD made short-term recommendations amending the generic definition and longer-term recommendations. Following those recommendations, from spring 2018 the Home Office engaged in a targeted consultation with the research community on the proposals, which confirmed at the end of 2018 that it supported the short-term solution of amending the generic definition. Steps were then taken to make this legislative amendment. The unintentional capture did not come to light until after the introduction of the legislative changes in 2016. After receiving representations from the research community, the Home Office and the ACMD then acted.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many compounds will still be unintentionally caught by the MDA. The nature of a generic definition is such that it is not possible to specify an exact number of compounds. I will write to him with further detail once I have confirmed that point. We are continuing to work with the ACMD on longer-term solutions. With that—

Public Spaces Protection Orders

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 11th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think residents affected by anti-social behaviour would agree with the noble Earl. It is important that these powers are kept in force, as residents should be able to live their lives without the effects of anti-social behaviour—literally on their doorsteps in some cases.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I have been in your Lordships’ House only for almost six years, but I have lost count of the number of times that we have explained to the Home Office how its legislation as drafted could be misused. The Government then say that they do not intend the legislation to be used in that way. Trusting local authorities or the police to use legislation only in the way intended is no longer good enough. When will the Government incorporate measures into legislation to ensure that it cannot be misused?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord may be referring to the rough sleeping strategy and how the Home Office uses it. The Home Office is not looking to trick rough sleepers into providing their data to be used for enforcement purposes—a criticism that has been made against us. However, we have been working with local authorities and charities to design an information-sharing protocol that protects the rights of vulnerable individuals but also allows for the effective operation of the RSS.

Children: Criminal Exploitation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 9th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the criminal justice system acknowledges that women subject to coercive control who attack their abusive partners may be the victims of crime rather than perpetrators. What are the Government doing to encourage all the agencies in the criminal justice system to acknowledge that vulnerable young people who commit criminal acts under the coercive control of criminal gangs may also be victims rather than perpetrators?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord and I have discussed this at length, and I do not disagree that someone who is caught up in county lines activity or similar types of activity is both a victim and perhaps a perpetrator through the coercion of a third party. He will know that the knife crime prevention orders—I know he disagreed with them—were introduced in an attempt not to criminalise children but to divert them out of the activity in which they had become involved or into which they had been coerced.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 4th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, on the first point, the hearings are inquisitorial and enable the inquiry to test witnesses and their evidence. All core participants are provided with the evidence; their legal teams are permitted to propose questions for the witnesses and apply to the chair for permission to put them. Regarding the point that the noble Lord made yesterday, I cannot comment on the handling of specific investigations but, as I said then, current police guidance is very clear and adopts a similar approach to that advanced by the petition to which the noble Lord refers. Suspects’ identities should not be released before charge, save in exceptional circumstances and with proper oversight. I am not aware of evidence to suggest that the police are not following that guidance.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, for too many years, victims of child sexual abuse have been ignored; it is now their time to be heard. What consideration have the Government given to special provisions where serious allegations of child sexual abuse are made against those who have died or are otherwise unable to defend themselves?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question. For too long, those victims have been ignored. On the anonymity to which he refers—we talked yesterday about his Bill—I explained in my Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, about the presumption of anonymity, save in exceptional circumstances.

Sexual Offences: Anonymity

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 3rd July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, first, I should apologise: I said that 10,000 signatures were needed; I meant 100,000 signatures. On the noble Lord’s point about independence and the presumed culpability of those who have been accused, the report stipulated that no inference of guilt was to be drawn but that the individual would have been interviewed under caution.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that being accused of many offences, including those of dishonesty, can have a devastating impact on someone’s reputation? Will she meet me to discuss whether the Government will support my Private Member’s Bill that would provide anonymity after arrest, which gives allegations credibility, until someone is charged for all offences unless a judge orders otherwise?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I would be very happy to meet the noble Lord—in fact, we met before his Bill had its Second Reading.

Metal Theft

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally agree with my noble friend that this issue is a problem for churches, but I would say that both rural and urban churches probably suffer from it. The sentencing guidelines on theft highlight that where a theft of heritage assets causes disruption to infrastructure, this should be taken into account when assessing the level of harm caused. I would be very happy to meet my noble friend and a delegation.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in her Answer to a Question last week about the dramatic increase in catalytic converter theft, a Minister—it was not the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford—stated:

“Metal theft is down by 73% since the scrap metal Act was introduced in 2013”,


as the noble Baroness has just said. However, when challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, that Minister went on to say that,

“metal theft has increased by 30% over the past year”.—[Official Report, 20/6/19; cols. 841-42.]

I accept that both statements may be true, but is it not misleading to rely on the change since 2013 to create the perception that metal theft is not a current cause for concern when, clearly, it is?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that my noble friend was trying to confuse the two figures. She acknowledged that although metal theft was up 30%, it was still down 73% since 2013. The two statements are not incompatible.

Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (Specified Scottish Authority and Barred Lists) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 26th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining this order. I now understand why the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, wanted to speak first—I too am relying on the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s 53rd report, so I will try to say things in a slightly different way.

I understand that the purpose of the order is to ensure that those placed on a barred list by the Disclosure and Barring Service in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are not also placed on the barred list in Scotland by Disclosure Scotland for exactly the same reason—so-called double barring—so that, if there is a successful appeal in one jurisdiction, the person does not have to go through a second appeal process in the other jurisdiction. I also understand that this protection against double barring was supposed to have been brought in in 2012 and is being done now simply because of an oversight, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out.

I further understand that the current computer systems do not allow automatic checking of the Disclosure and Barring Service against the Disclosure Scotland barred list but relies on the DBS, for example, asking Disclosure Scotland to do a manual search of their list if it believes the subject has a Scottish connection. There is no date, other than beyond January 2020, for changes being made to the IT systems to allow automatic checking, as the contract with the current IT company has been terminated but the system is being maintained by the current company until the new one takes over in 2020.

While I can understand the reasoning behind the protection against double barring, is it not in the overriding interests of public safety for the name to appear on both lists, rather than relying on the Disclosure and Barring Service making a specific request of Disclosure Scotland if, and only if, they suspect a Scottish connection, at least until the IT issues have been sorted out?

To avoid the scenario where a successful appeal to the Disclosure and Barring Service does not result in the barred person being removed from the Disclosure Scotland list, if the person is barred for exactly the same reason in Scotland, what is to stop the Disclosure and Barring Service, as a matter of course, alerting Disclosure Scotland whenever there is a successful appeal against inclusion in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland list, and vice versa? The Government have failed for seven years to implement the protection against double barring. What difference will another six months or so make, until a reliable IT system is in place that can automatically check one list against another, particularly as there seems to be a perfectly reasonable workaround—or have I misunderstood?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have raised questions on this SI. Like the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, I requested that the whole thing be translated into English so that I could fully understand it—noble Lords will agree that the language is quite technical. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for his general support for consistency being employed through the use of this statutory instrument.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the issue was identified and what the reason was for delaying the introduction of the SI. It was identified in May 2018 and was the result of a move of departments—to the Home Office. Departmental responsibility changed following its enactment and we think, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, that it was an oversight. Once the failure was identified, the Government brought forward the order at the earliest opportunity to give effect to paragraphs 6 and 12 of Schedule 3 to the SVGA.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly asked about safeguarding gaps. No safeguarding gap is created by this order not having been in place. Individuals in Scotland, or England and Wales, who pose a risk of harm have continued to be subject to rigorous consideration and, where appropriate, included on the barred lists. It was an interim measure—although a rather long one—done by MoU. It is now, quite properly, done by statutory instrument in your Lordships’ House and in the other place.

The noble Lord also asked about out-of-court disposals. I totally agree with him that it is vital that employers have the right information when they are recruiting people to work closely with children, or indeed other vulnerable groups. That is why, in addition to details of convictions and cautions, the enhanced DBS check is referred to local police forces to include any information the chief officer believes to be relevant to the application, and ought to be disclosed. That might include details of a serious offence dealt with by a community resolution or other out-of-court disposal.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also raised the question that was asked of my honourable friend in the other place, Victoria Atkins MP, about the international exchange of criminal records. She will write to the House on the subject and the response will be shared. I do not, I am afraid, have that answer in front of me at this point.

Brexit: Border Controls

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in November 2018, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration was quoted in the Telegraph as saying that Britain’s borders had been left open to illegal immigrants because of a chronic staff shortage at ports. The Border Force replied that it was recruiting 1,000 officers nationally,

“to meet normal staff turnover”,

as well as an additional 300 front-line officers. More than six months on, how many short of the new 1,300 Border Force officers are we, and what continuing gaps in the UK border does that leave?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope the noble Lord will be pleased to know that we have recruited, and are in the process of training and bringing up to speed, 900 Border Force officers. In addition to that, we are preparing for the summer and EU exit. He will also know that, in respect of e-passport gates, we have expanded eligibility to include the B5J plus Singapore and South Korea, increasing e-passport gate capability, which should make travel through the border a lot more streamlined.

Immigration and Asylum Applications

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 19th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not have the number with me and I am not sure that the reason for persecution because of faith will be available. However, I will certainly have a look for my noble friend.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, human rights appeals and EU free movement appeals are allowed in more than 50% of cases. Despite what the noble Baroness has said, the former suggests a continuation of the hostile environment culture at the Home Office and the latter sheer incompetence. Why is the Home Office not learning from these cases and adjusting its initial decision-making criteria accordingly? Any learning organisation would see a steady decline in the proportion of successful appeals, not an increase.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Human rights appeals are often quite lengthy and those which end up before the tribunal come with new information to be presented, sometimes just a couple of days before the actual hearing, resulting in the higher number of wins on appeal. However, I totally accept the point and I do not think that I have shied away from the fact that our performance could be better. We are doing a number of things to improve our appeal rate win.

Hate Crime: Homophobic and Misogynistic Attacks

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 11th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that I join him in wholeheartedly condemning the attacks in London and Southampton. Perhaps the London one was the most surprising of all, given London’s diversity and its generally tolerant and liberal approach; it is being widely reported as both homophobic and misogynistic. There may be other factors but that is for the court to determine. The noble Lord will know that the hate crime action plan sets out our plans to tackle all forms of hate crime. We refreshed it last year; in addition, our VAWG refresh, which was issued in March, includes sexual harassment. We are committed to conducting a study of sexual harassment.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, racially and religiously aggravated offences carry a maximum penalty that is one step higher on the sentencing ladder than the same offences if motivated by homophobia, transphobia or disability hatred. The Conservative Party, in both its 2015 and 2017 manifestos, said that it was going to review this. Why are the Government presiding over a situation where homophobic, transphobic and disability hate crime are treated as being less serious than race or religious hate crime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord will know that I do not think they are in any way less serious. However, I acknowledge the concerns over the parity of different strands of hate crime within existing legislation. That is precisely why we asked the Law Commission to conduct a full review of hate crime legislation and where there might be gaps. I know that it will consult widely later this year and make recommendations to government on this next year.

Illegal Seaborne Migration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 5th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The prime objective of the boats which find people in the English Channel is to save lives at sea. That is always the prime objective.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Statement describes how dangerous the Channel crossing is and says that 30 people have been returned to France and other member states under the Dublin regulation. How many asylum seekers have been allowed to remain in the UK and what is the UK doing to provide safe routes for these people, so that they do not have to risk their lives crossing the Channel? What do the Government intend to do if the UK is no longer a member of the EU, no longer party to the Dublin regulation and no longer able to return asylum seekers to other member states?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not have the actual number for how many asylum claims have been successful but, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, most of the people who arrive claim asylum and we attempt to determine those claims within six months. On the Dublin regulation, clearly we will meet our obligations on asylum for people who claim it in this country. Returns under Dublin actually make up a relatively small proportion of the people who we go on to return, but we will continue to work with the French and other European partners on returns. In terms of safe routes, at the heart of this issue is that people should claim asylum in the first safe country where they arrive and not make dangerous journeys across the Channel, which is of course one of the most congested shipping lanes in the world. It is an incredibly dangerous place in which to be in a small boat.

Stalking

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Baroness makes a good point. She will know that we have asked the Law Commission to look at various types of hate crime. Misogyny is among the things they could look at to see whether there is anything further we can do in legislation to enhance the types of crime we consider hate crimes.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, coercive control can sometimes be so subtle and perpetrators so manipulative that victims may not even be aware of it themselves. Does the Minister agree that compulsory sex and relationship education is an essential part of keeping young people safe from this type of offence?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that coercive control can be so subtle that the victim of it does not realise, sometimes until many years down the line, that financial control or mental manipulation is happening to them. Sex and relationship education is to be made compulsory. Every young child needs to know what a healthy relationship looks like, as opposed to a coercive or manipulative one.

Emergency Services Network

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 14th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are a number of factors involved in what is not a satisfactory situation. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, I am not going to pretend that it is a satisfactory situation. Some of the technological solutions and the infrastructure have run mainly according to plan, but there is now the testing phase, which is going to be done incrementally. That is probably the right way to do it, so that if any part of it is not running as planned, it can be changed. But there are a multitude of problems, for which a multitude of solutions are needed.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Motorola owns the current Airwave communications system used by the emergency services, and it is also a main supplier for the new system. It is being paid £1.4 billion to keep the existing system going beyond its contracted date, and stands to benefit even more if the project is delayed further. How did the Home Office get itself into a contract that rewards one of the main suppliers for delays?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What the noble Lord points out is correct. As I said to the noble Lord, currently a change notice is being prepared for signing to reset the situation. I think that Motorola acquired the contract after it had the Airwave contract, rather than at the point when the contract was signed. But a change notice is being issued to try to resolve the situation.

Victims of Crime: Mobile Phone Data

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 8th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

First, I commend the noble and learned Lord. Despite his efforts the other day, he was not able to get in when I answered the Urgent Question—or it may have been a Statement. However, he has now asked his Question and I am able to focus on it. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of consent. The JSC does not specifically cover consent but there is a discussion on privacy issues and its recommendation on this issue is, essentially, to have good guidance. The noble and learned Lord mentioned guidance and I will quote from the Select Committee’s report, which said:

“It is important that those who come forward to report serious offences, particularly those of a sexual or otherwise sensitive nature, are treated by investigators with respect and sensitivity. Their personal information should be handled in the same way and in accordance with their rights to privacy, where that is consistent with the interests of justice. The law is clear in that the right to a fair trial is an absolute right which cannot be violated to protect the right to privacy. We heard differing views on whether disclosing certain private information was always necessary to uphold the right to a fair trial, and this emphasises the need for clear guidance on this point”.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, if social media indicates consent to sexual activity between the two individuals concerned, both before and after an alleged sexual offence, surely it would be proportionate to examine it and disclose it. Trawling social media for patterns of behaviour would surely not be proportionate, as it does not tend to prove or disprove the matter at issue: namely, whether consent was given on the occasion in question. Does the Minister not agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes an important distinction between trawling social media and identifying evidence that could be used in a trial. As I said to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the NPCC and the CPS have invited a number of organisations to discuss their concerns around this, and I am sure that what the noble Lord talked about will come up in these discussions.

Identity Cards

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not sure how my noble friend’s two points tie together. He talks about an identity number, and of course a national insurance number is a form of identity number. Certainly it proves a person’s right to work in this country. I am not sure how a separate national identity number would add to the mix; nor am I sure how my noble friend thinks that national insurance numbers are corrupt, unless he is saying that they are used corruptly, but I am sure that the same would also potentially be true of national identity numbers.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the police are trialling new fingerprint technology that allows police officers to use their smartphones to identify people in less than a minute if they have a criminal record. Heathrow Airport is introducing voluntary facial recognition instead of passports and boarding passes. Does the Minister agree that identity cards are a bit old hat, as is the legislation to control the use of facial recognition and other biometric recognition, which is in urgent need of attention?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point about the new technologies that the police and airports are using. I heard about the trial of facial imagery at Heathrow Airport. Now, every time you go through a gate at an airport, a machine recognises you by your face. However, he is absolutely right that the governance of the use of facial imagery, fingerprints and the new emerging technologies has to be looked at very carefully.

Overseas Students: TOEIC Tests

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord and welcome him back to his place on the Front Bench. He asked several questions, the first being “Why the delay?” This is an issue of widespread fraud—setting up and using these test centres and colleges— that took place over several years. He will know that, under this Government and indeed under the coalition Government, we have now closed more than 900 such colleges since 2011.

On those who may be wrongly accused, the noble Lord will recall the report by Professor Peter French, which concluded that the number of false matches was likely to be very small and that the system would give people the benefit of the doubt, so the number of people wrongly accused was likely to be extremely low. The courts have always said, even when finding against the Home Office on individual facts of case, that sufficient evidence should be there to make an accusation of fraud, but it is up to the individual then to rebut it. However, we recognise the concerns; we do not refute the concerns raised by a Member of the other place. That is why the Home Secretary has now asked for further advice and why the NAO is also investigating, and the Home Secretary will respond when he has sight of both that advice and the NAO’s findings.

The noble Lord asked whether a settlement was reached. It was. For reasons of commercial confidentiality, I cannot discuss that, but I will see whether I can find out more for him.

The noble Lord also talked about the hostile environment. This is not about being hostile to people who want to work or study in this country. To use a study visa in order to work is to try to game the system, which is exactly what was going on here and why we closed down so many of those colleges.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Fatema Chowdhury came to the UK from Bangladesh in 2010 and finished her law degree in 2014 at the University of London. She was at one stage detained for a week after being accused of cheating in the English test, which she denies. I appreciate that the Minister cannot comment on individual cases, but can she say how likely it is that an individual had to cheat in an English language test but then went on to successfully complete a double degree at the University of London? Why is the hostile environment towards immigrants created by the Home Office still alive and kicking?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the issue at the heart of this was not the questioning of people’s competence in English but the fact that a fraud was committed. I cannot say to the noble Lord how many people found themselves in detention, because we do not disaggregate those sorts of figures. Of course, as for individual cases, I am not at liberty to discuss them.

Victims of Crime: Mobile Phone Data

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 29th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while we accept that this is a complex issue, the facts are undeniable. It is estimated that only one in five rapes is reported to the police, with fewer than two in every 100 cases reported to the police resulting in a prosecution, let alone a conviction. This development is not going to help. While there may be an argument in some cases where consent is at issue—as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said—there can be no justification for a blanket requirement. What consultation has taken place with women’s groups, such as the End Violence Against Women Coalition, about the potential impact such a requirement will have on the willingness of rape victims to come forward or to continue with a prosecution once the rape is reported to police?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord strikes the balance of where we should be—in other words, encouraging women to come forward and, when they do, feeling that their case will be dealt with properly through the criminal justice system. I hope I can comfort him by saying that it is not a blanket requirement. On consultation, the groups that were invited to comment on the form included Rape Crisis, the End Violence Against Women Coalition, the Survivors Trust and Galop, as were Dame Vera Baird and the ICO. The ICO has an ongoing investigation into how this data is used and the CPS has committed to reviewing the forms and the process in the light of that.

British Citizenship: Children

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord and thank him for all he does in this area. The sooner that appointment is made, the better.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, families are key to the prevention and deceleration of radicalisation. Does the Minister not think that to allow foreign fighters to return from the so-called Islamic State to face justice, deradicalisation and reintegration is far more likely to make the UK safer, rather than depriving them of British citizenship, which runs the risk of maintaining or increasing hostility towards the UK?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Obviously, people do return, and those who return face the most robust force of the law on why they have travelled to Syria. On deprivation, these decisions have been made 150 times since 2010, and the Home Secretary does so with the most robust information and advice before him.

Passports

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 10th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes a good point. Countries such as the US offer travellers leave to go for a fixed period of time so they can use their passport right up to the 10-year limit. It would therefore be rather confusing to make ours valid for 10 and a half years. I know exactly the point she is making, though.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, by the end of the year, some British passports will be blue, some will be maroon, some will have “European Union” on the front and some will not. Does the Minister agree that this will be confusing to not only British passport-holders but foreign security personnel, and that this increases the risk of forged passports going undetected because of the variety of official documents?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I give the British public more credit for their intelligence than does the noble Lord. Of course, the Croatian passport is not burgundy, it is blue, and there is a reason for that. The Croatians did not want the association with communism writ large on their passports in the form of the red colour. Some people might rather like it, though. I do not think that it is confusing. The wrong thing to do would be to scrap a load of remade passports. There is absolutely no law against what we are doing. We intend to continue to make the blue passport available from later this year, and I look forward to ordering mine.

Protestors’ Rights

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 9th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, why do companies need injunctions? If the protest is lawful, the police should facilitate it. If it is illegal, the police should take action against those involved. Is current legislation inadequate, or are there insufficient police resources?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Lancashire police received nearly £3 million in special grant in the year 2018-19, so I do not think the resources are inadequate. The two processes need to run alongside each other—both the application to the court by the organisation concerned, and indeed the upholding of law and order by the police.

Immigration Detention

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Not only have the overall detention figures gone right down—they are lower than since the collation of figures began in 2009—but the number of children in detention has gone down drastically. The safeguards have also improved since those times. The noble Lord is absolutely right to ask this, because the safeguards and the well-being of children are absolutely paramount, whether a child is in detention or not.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with consistently more detainees being released into the community from immigration detention than are being removed from the UK, does the Minister accept that this suggests that the initial decisions to detain frequently lack rigorous assessment of why detention is necessary and justified?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said, the figure of 92% of people being released from detention, who have been there perhaps for immigration bail or other forms of review, is the result of our not wanting to keep people in detention and doing so only to remove them.

Freedom of Expression

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Probably both.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill, we argued that the power given to Border Force to detain people for up to six hours should be based on reasonable suspicion, while the Government argued it should be able to detain people without any suspicion. Is the detention of the pro-remain supporter at Gatwick not an example of how Border Force can now, thanks to the Government, lawfully overstep the mark?

Windrush Compensation Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. This is a shameful episode in our country’s history, where those who came here to help the UK were wrongly denied the right to remain. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Benjamin for her tireless and successful campaign for a Windrush Day. It is sad that this scandal casts a shadow over what is meant to be a celebration of everything the Windrush generation and their descendants have contributed to the UK. It is difficult to see how the wrongs of unlawful deportation, where some of those affected have died in poverty overseas, can be made right. Rather than accepting claims from the estate of those who have passed away and from close family members, will the Government approach those affected and proactively offer compensation?

While the Government await the results of Wendy Williams’ review, there are some things that they could and should do now. They need to address the ongoing “hostile environment” created by such measures as the right to rent scheme. As Liberal Democrats, we argued when the scheme was being discussed in this House that, as a recent High Court case has found, forcing landlords to carry out immigration checks on potential tenants is likely to be discriminatory, not just against immigrants but against black and minority ethnic Britons. Why are the Government appealing against that finding when they say that they are dismantling the hostile environment?

Can the Minister also explain why Windrush generation individuals who received settled status without being given the ability to prove it are now being asked to prove that they are of “good character” and why, if they fail to do so, they could be refused right of abode, settlement or citizenship? On page 14 of 19, the Windrush scheme application form states:

“Please give any other information which will help us decide whether you are of good character. Please use an additional sheet if necessary”.


I thought those who had a right of abode in the UK would automatically be given the right to remain. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is going on.

The Government accept that the roots of the Windrush scandal lie in a policy that saw people receive settled status without giving them the ability to prove it. Will they therefore accept the Liberal Democrat amendments to the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill currently before the other place, so that EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who are granted settled or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme are provided with physical documented proof of that status, so that they can prove it?

A compensation scheme is one thing. Government action to prove they have learned lessons is quite another.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions and join the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in commending the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for all the positive work that she has done in this area. She is a joy to work with and a great advocate for the members of the Windrush generation.

Turning first to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about exactly how the scheme will work, I rarely use a prop in this place, but I happen to have one on me. I refer him to the complete guide to the Windrush compensation scheme, which can be found both in physical copy and on the GOV.UK Windrush compensation scheme website. The rationale behind this came about through the consultation to learn at first hand from the various stakeholders how the scheme might work best and most efficiently. Making the application form as easy to complete as possible was the number one priority, while reaching out proactively to people was the second.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the various events taking place. Clearly an event is being held in Parliament today with the Home Secretary, and 15 community events have been planned over the next three months. They are open to anyone of any nationality. The first will be held in Lambeth Town Hall this Friday and a full schedule will be published shortly on GOV.UK. He also rightly made a point about social media. It is the best way to get information out as quickly as possible and we are using it to publicise the scheme. I will be tweeting and I hope the noble Lord will retweet my message because we all have a leadership role to play in this.

The FCO is also working to promote the scheme overseas because we want as many eligible people as possible to claim. So that they can do so, promotional materials are being sent to all posts. Tomorrow, the Immigration Minister will brief the Commonwealth high commissioner in the UK. We are placing adverts for the scheme and the events in core publications. Here in the UK, we will write to those who have already been supported through the task force to let them know about the compensation launch, as well as to those who have signed up for updates on Windrush. The onus is on us all to go through the channels we know to publicise the launch of the scheme.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, also asked about the definition of “close family members”. They include a mother, a father, a child, a brother or sister, a wife or husband, a civil partner and unmarried long-term partners living together. All fall within the remit; if someone has been affected by some of the detriment relating to the Windrush generation, in turn their close family members will also have been affected.

I have answered the question about social media. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about the events taking place. Oh, the Box got it wrong and I was right: it was the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. In any event, it is helpful for all of us to know what events are going on and where. I have a list of the various places: Bradford, Birmingham, Bristol, Leicester, Manchester, Swansea, Cardiff, Newport, Belfast, Nottingham, Glasgow and London.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the hostile environment. This has been batted around quite a lot. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said earlier, successive Governments do not have clean hands over what has been described as a hostile environment. Unfortunately, it started under Labour and finished under the current Home Secretary. Being in a compliant environment is far more appropriate.

The noble Lord also talked about the “proof of good character” provision. There has always been a good character test for a reason. Clearly, if someone fails it through criminality, that needs to be brought to the fore.

He also talked about the physical document. A lot of discussion has taken place about this issue in terms of the EU settlement scheme. People feel uneasy that they do not have a physical document. In fact, what the Government are bringing forward is the use of a digital token. Such a token cannot be lost like a physical document and it will assist people in whatever area of life they need help with, be that work, rent and so on. The digital token can be checked for that specific purpose, although obviously there is a data protection issue here. I recognise that some people do not like not having something physical in front of them, but of course they will be notified by email or letter that their claim has been processed and has gone through. However, I accept the point being made by the noble Lord. He also asked whether we will support the Lib Dem amendment to the forthcoming immigration Bill. We shall consider it when it comes to your Lordships’ House, and I am sure we will have a great discussion on it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is a very good point. I do not know whether there is a right of appeal. Obviously there are a number of different categories, some of which will be yes or no because it is cut and dried, but others may not be. I will write to the noble Lord on the appeal process.

[Lord Paddick]

Will the Minister give me further clarification on the good character issue? Clearly if somebody is a British citizen or has a permanent right to remain in the UK, which a lot of these Windrush people have, even if they are convicted of a criminal offence, they cannot be deported. Why are the Windrush generation being asked about previous convictions and to prove their good character before they are given written confirmation, if you will, of what is the case: that they are British citizens or that they have the right to remain?

Police: Recruitment Criteria

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to admire my noble friend for managing to weave in something that is so important to him. To make a very serious point, the whole aim of this is to have the highest standards of policing in our forces.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Scottish Justice Minister has ruled out direct entry into Police Scotland at inspector and superintendent level, because he considers experience of policing to be essential. He says:

“While training is, of course, important, officers must carry the authority and the respect of communities they serve, and also of their colleagues”.


I strongly agree. Why does the Home Office not agree?

Independent Child Sexual Abuse Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 25th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally understand my noble friend’s point, and I know the feelings there are in this House about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has a Private Member’s Bill going through the House; on some of its substance, HMICFRS will undertake a review, and the Government want to wait until the outcome of that before taking any further action.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it is clear from the Gatwick Airport drone incident in December that current guidelines—even the updated guidelines that the noble Baroness talked about—are not sufficient to protect those falsely accused of any offence from adverse publicity. How many more innocent people are going to have their lives ruined before the Government legislate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord comes back to his Private Member’s Bill, in the sense that he is talking about the media. His Bill deals with media reporting before charge and after arrest. Again, I say to him that DCMS is minded to wait until HMICFRS has reviewed police guidance on media relations before considering whether further action should be taken.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

3rd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 19th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will now speak to the amendments regarding kirpans, and in doing so express my gratitude to the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Singh, and my noble friend Lady Verma. They have all been tireless in their promotion of this issue; I hope that the amendments will provide an outcome satisfactory to everyone. In particular, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, for his advice and to the organisation Sikhs in Politics, which has engaged positively with officials on the development of these amendments.

As noble Lords will recall, we held a round table on the issue of kirpans following the debate on these clauses in Grand Committee. This identified a gap in the current defences in that the cultural practice of gifting large ceremonial kirpans by Sikhs to eminent non-Sikhs was not covered by the “religious reasons” defence. These amendments will therefore create a defence for a person of Sikh faith to present another person with a curved sword in a religious ceremony or other ceremonial event, as covered by Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

These amendments will also create a defence for Sikhs of possessing such swords for the purposes of presenting them to others at a ceremony and for the recipients of such a gift to possess swords that have been presented to them. The amendments also ensure a defence is available for the ancillary acts, such as manufacture, sale, hire or importation, where those acts are for the purpose only of making the sword available for such presentation. Finally, the amendments enable the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to commence the provision in relation to Northern Ireland, other than in relation to importation, which is a reserved matter.

As noble Lords will be aware, the amendments do not mention the word “kirpan”. Kirpans vary considerably in their size and shape, with the only common factor being their association with the Sikh faith. It would not be possible to include a defence for kirpans without defining them legally. However, we are clear that these defences are specifically aimed at kirpans and we will include a reference to kirpans in the final Explanatory Notes for the Bill. We will also make it clear in the statutory guidance that defences of “religious reasons” and gifting by ceremonial presentation include, in particular, the possession, supply and gifting of kirpans for those purposes. We will certainly continue to engage with Sikh organisations, including Sikhs in Politics, when we develop the statutory guidance. I hope that, given what I have said, noble Lords will be able to support these amendments. I forgot to mention the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in my thanks, so I do that now.

I turn to the amendments on compensation arrangements. Amendment 10 will amend Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so that any future order made under this section which has the effect of banning possession in private of an offensive weapon may also make provision for the surrender and payment of compensation for such weapons. This amendment therefore provides statutory authority to introduce surrender and compensation arrangements for any future orders bringing additional offensive weapons into full prohibition. Without this amendment and the authority it provides, there could be doubt as to whether compensation could be paid for any future prohibited offensive weapons.

I should point out that this amendment differs slightly from the existing provisions found under Clause 48, which allow for compensation payments to be made for offensive weapons which the Bill prohibits private possession of. Clause 48 requires the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to provide for such payments by regulations. However, this amendment provides that the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers or the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may make provision for surrender arrangements and the subsequent payment of compensation.

This is an important difference as it allows the authority discretion in deciding whether or not to pay compensation for future items that become prohibited by way of an order. There may be exceptional circumstances in which it is considered that payment is not required under Article 1 of the Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, it is anticipated that in most circumstances, a payment would be appropriate, as is the case for weapons the possession of which is prohibited under this Bill. None the less, providing this discretion to pay or not to pay compensation for future items is important.

Amendments 14 to 19 will ensure that cyclone knives fall within the compensation and surrender arrangements as they stand in the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that cyclone knives were prohibited by virtue of the Bill through a government amendment in Committee in this House. This minor amendment will allow for compensation to be paid to owners of these knives, in the same way that the compensation arrangements apply to the other offensive weapons which the Bill provides private possession of.

Amendment 20 then amends the date by which a person needed to have owned or contracted to acquire a cyclone knife in order to claim compensation. The date, 20 June 2018, is already set out in the Bill, and continues to apply to these weapons, private possession of which was prohibited by the Bill on introduction. The date of 22 January 2019 will apply to cyclone knives. This will allow anyone who owned or contracted to acquire a cyclone knife, up until the date that the government amendment prohibiting them was introduced, to claim for compensation.

Amendments 21 and 22 are consequential. Amendments 26 and 27 relate to Northern Ireland. Clauses 47 and 48 will come into force upon Royal Assent. However, these amendments allow the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to commence these provisions locally.

I remind noble Lords that the compensation regulations which we have published in draft are subject to the affirmative procedure following assent to the Bill. Accordingly, they will need to be debated and approved by both Houses before they can come into force. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the amendments relating to kirpans—even though the legislation does not refer to kirpans as such—because of the importance to the Sikh community of presenting the ceremonial curved sword as a mark of esteem.

Representatives from the Sikh community have also pointed out the difficulties that some Sikhs have in carrying a kirpan on their person as part of their religious observance. Although it is accepted that it has not been a problem in terms of prosecution, the fact that possession of a bladed article or pointed instrument is an offence—without the need for any criminal intent—has created difficulties for Sikhs when visiting attractions such as Madame Tussauds and the London Eye. Sikhs have been barred from going into those attractions because of having a kirpan on them. The security guards are working on the basis that the law states that possession of a pointed instrument or a bladed article is an offence, and therefore a person is not allowed to bring it in. I do not know whether there is any scope here. The Minister has already mentioned the Explanatory Notes for the final legislation, including instructions about what is and is not a kirpan. Could anything be mentioned in those notes regarding the issue that some Sikhs have with regard to entry to those sorts of premises?

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly will. Obviously, the police are operationally independent of the Home Office, and I do not know why they would be setting targets for this. The noble Baroness referred to the letter of Lord Justice Fulford, which says that 17 juvenile covert human intelligence sources, or CHISs, have been used in the past three years. When she refers to targets, I assume she means targets upwards, but I will certainly look into the matter.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that all those under the age of 18 should be treated as children, yet the Government allow the police to recruit 16 and 17 year-olds as informants without an appropriate adult being present. Accepting that it does not have to be a parent or guardian if they are also involved in criminality, can the Minister explain why such children cannot be questioned as a suspect in a criminal investigation without an independent adult being present but they can be recruited as an informant?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord and I have gone over this on a number of occasions; the situation reflects the emergence into adulthood of 16 and 17 year-olds. That said, where anybody undertakes covert human intelligence, there is always an independent assessment of various aspects of their personality, their willingness and their ability to undertake such a difficult task.

Immigration (European Economic Area Nationals) (EU Exit) Order 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House approves the draft Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. Delivering a deal with the EU remains the Government’s priority. We are nevertheless preparing for a range of scenarios. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, the legal default in UK and EU law is that the UK will leave without a deal on 29 March unless something else is agreed.

UK domestic law has given effect to our obligations in the fields of immigration, nationality and asylum arising from our membership of the European Union. The UK has also been subject to directly effective EU law. When we leave the EU, aspects of our legislation and retained direct EU law will fail to operate effectively. They will contain deficiencies if they are not modified or revoked by this instrument.

These regulations make changes to a range of measures in domestic primary and secondary legislation to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in law arising from the UK’s exit from the EU. They ensure that our statute book operates on exit day if the UK leaves the EU without a deal until new legislation on these issues is commenced.

First, the instrument makes the technical changes required to correct wording in our legislation that describes the UK in terms of our membership of the EU or the European Economic Area. The changes do not alter the effect of the legislation. Similarly, it makes technical amendments to domestic legislation that refers to EU rights that are retained by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.

Secondly, this instrument revokes relevant retained EU legislation relating to immigration. It also revokes a number of instruments that give effect to the UK’s membership of EU asylum acquis and which will be inoperable on exit. This is because, by leaving the EU, the UK also leaves the asylum acquis. This instrument therefore revokes the Dublin regulation and the Eurodac regulation.

The instrument makes a number of transitional and saving provisions—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

It is the other instrument.

Immigration, Nationality and Asylum (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 18th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can give an absolute assurance to the noble Baroness that those obligations, which we take seriously and have done for decades, will continue to apply in giving people who need it asylum or refuge. That is why I just went through the various channels and resettlement schemes that we have engaged in. It does not diminish our will to give people who need it refuge and asylum in our country.

I shall move on, but I stay on Dublin. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who asked about any other international agreements affecting asylum that would be affected by Brexit.

[Lord Paddick]

No, it was not.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

No, it was not; I am making that up, but I think someone asked it. As a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the ECHR, we are committed to continuing to fulfil our responsibility. The UK is part of a number of EU readmission agreements with third countries; we are working to replace a number of them with bilateral agreements.

I think this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Our attitude is not changing towards asylum seekers because of Brexit. She will know, because I have said it before, that in 2017, the UK received the fifth highest number of asylum claims in the EU, and since 2016, we have accepted more Dublin transfers than we have returned, as I referred to earlier. In the year ending June 2017, we resettled more than 16,000 refugees from outside the EU, more than any other EU member state and more than a fifth of all resettlement to the EU. We can also be proud of our leading role in supporting children affected by the migration crisis. Since the start of 2010, the UK has granted more than 51,000 children resettlement, refugee status or alternative forms of protection.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, definitely asked about admissibility, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to it as well. We have always believed that people should be prevented from making claims in more than one country and on multiple occasions. Asylum should always be claimed in the first country that a migrant reaches, as the noble Baroness said. It is vital that our new system does not encourage asylum-seekers who have already reached a safe country to choose to move elsewhere, so we will continue to assess each asylum claim on its individual merits, as set out in the Home Secretary’s Statement to the House on 7 January.

If an individual has travelled through a safe third country and failed to claim asylum, that will be taken into account in assessing the credibility of their claim. This is a widely held principle accepted by the UNHCR, and it is important to send a clear message to smugglers and traffickers and discourage secondary movements. The standards for protection and assistance will in no way be diminished by the UK’s exit from the EU.

On returning asylum-seekers, the UK is attempting to negotiate an ongoing EU-UK readmission agreement which will replace the current Dublin return capability, and this would ideally be underpinned by a biometric system like Eurodac, although clearly it will not be identical to Eurodac. Inadmissibility rules are domestic law and will still be in place regardless of whether the UK leaves the EU.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked why we are using an SI, not the Bill, to legislate. It is important to ensure that the statute book is operable on exit date, especially in a no-deal scenario. As the Bill has just completed its Committee stage in the Commons, we do not expect it to make it in here by 29 March. With that, I hope that I have answered all the questions and I commend the Motion.

Prevent Strategy

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is indeed right. Our gods, whoever they are, care about how we treat each other and work together. On the question of whether “prevent” is too weak or has become too divisive, what is often forgotten is that many of the referrals—in fact, almost half now—arise from concerns about the far right. I hope that the noble Lord will feed into the review when it comes.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, what lessons have the Government learned from the numerous attempts to appoint the chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that will help to ensure that the independent inquiry into Prevent has the trust and confidence of the communities most affected?

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for these amendments. I am particularly grateful to him and the Sheffield knife manufacturers for coming to meet me the other week for what I thought was a very helpful and constructive meeting.

We are returning to something we debated in Committee: whether trusted traders should be exempt from the prohibition in the Bill of arranging delivery of bladed products to residential premises or a locker. When we considered these amendments previously, I said that test purchases continue to show that a significant number of online sellers fail to undertake adequate checks to ensure that knives are not sold to under-18s. The most recent test purchases of online retailers, conducted in late 2018, showed that 42% of the retailers sampled failed the test and sold knives to persons under 18.

As the noble Lord has explained, his amendments seek to address this problem by saying that where we know someone is a responsible retailer they should be able to continue to send their products to a person’s home address or a locker. This would apply only to the dispatch of bladed products under Clause 18 and not to the sending of corrosive products to a residential premise under Clause 3—presumably on the basis that the noble Lord is content that corrosives should not be sent to a person’s home.

These amendments would transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation, and for ensuring that all sales are handled properly, from the seller to the Government. They would do this by requiring the Government to set out the details of the proposed trusted trader scheme, which would then allow for the delivery of bladed products to residential premises. A trusted trader scheme would require sellers to demonstrate that their age-verification systems and procedures, from the point when they receive the order to the point that their designated delivery company hands the item over, are robust and that they can guarantee that the knife will not be handed over to a person under 18.

The Government are not persuaded, in the light of the results of recent test purchase operations, that sellers can provide such reassurance in a systematic and consistent way. Only by requiring age verification at the point where the item is physically handed to a person at a dedicated collection point is it possible to guarantee that a bladed product will not be handed over to a person under 18. Setting up, administering and overseeing a trusted trader scheme would create a further burden on the Government or local authorities, with inevitable cost implications. Simply being part of a scheme, or being in possession of a seal of approval as a trusted trader, does not guarantee compliance with the conditions of the scheme. Many of us know this to our cost, having hired a plumber or builder accredited by a trusted trader scheme. Such a scheme would impose regulatory burdens on participating businesses. In addition, it would need to be administered by an independent regulatory body or by local authorities, albeit with the expectation that participating businesses would be required to meet the cost of running it.

I hope that I have provided a clear explanation of why the Government do not consider that the noble Lord’s amendments would provide the necessary assurance that young people under 18 cannot get hold of knives using online sellers. In coming to this view, I have reflected on the recent helpful meeting with Sheffield knife retailers—which I am very grateful to the noble Lord for arranging—in which something was said about Amazon’s view on the issues this amendment raises. He knows that I cannot promise anything, and we are yet to have a definitive statement on it, but I hope that this being the case, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, could she just qualify what she said about the test purchase results? Was this a failure in age verification at the point of purchase or at the point of handover?

The noble Baroness also talked about a burden on the Government to design an age verification scheme, but is that not exactly what this Bill does with knives that are bought overseas and that are handed over at residential premises?

Thirdly, could the Minister again tell me why age verification at handover point is likely to be better than age verification on the doorstep?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Such a scheme would impose an additional burden. The noble Lord talks about other burdens; I am not denying that there will be burdens on various people from the introduction of whatever scheme comes in, but this would very much pass on that burden to local government.

As I understand it, the failures in online test purchases have lain at the point of sale.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It comes back to the noble Baroness’s point about consultation. In developing the guidance, we must and will engage with business and organisations such as the BRC. The intention is that it will be developed with them. We could have a circular argument here about whether things should be directly specified in the Bill or how helpful the guidance will be in helping retailers and the criminal justice system, but guidance generally will help the Government keep pace with developments.

Amendment 86 is similar to Amendment 81 and again seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance. We have already debated government Amendment 106, which will enable the Secretary of State, Scottish Ministers and the Northern Ireland Justice Department to issue statutory guidance on certain parts of the Bill, including those dealing with offences of remote sale and delivery of knives. We intend that there should be guidance to retailers on what items are prohibited from dispatch to residential premises or a locker under Clause 18. I think the government amendment is adequate to cover this.

[Lord Paddick]

I apologise for persisting but the Minister referred to table knives being excluded from this prohibition. The table knife that I was given to eat my roast beef with in a restaurant yesterday could cause serious harm to an individual by cutting. Is it or is it not therefore a table knife? This will inevitably lead to a decision by major retailers such as John Lewis not to deliver any knife of any description to residential premises for fear, as the Minister said, that if there is a prosecution the supplier will have to provide a defence in court to the offence. Not many suppliers will be prepared to take that risk.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for returning us to this difficult issue about what we do in relation to overseas sellers of knives. Noble Lords will recall that the issue is that while we can place requirements, such as those under Clause 18, on remote sellers based in the UK, we cannot do the same in relation to overseas sellers. This is because we cannot practically take extraterritorial jurisdiction over sellers based abroad. We have tried to address this through the provisions in Clause 21. These provisions make it an offence for delivery companies in the UK, which are operating under specific arrangements to deliver bladed articles on behalf of overseas sellers, to deliver those articles into the hands of a person under the age of 18.

We accept that this is not the complete answer to the problem because overseas sellers can simply send the items unmarked through the international mail. This is exactly the situation that my noble friend’s amendment seeks to address. It would provide a power to confiscate bladed articles that are sent from overseas to a UK residential address and which are, first, not subject to specific arrangements between the delivery company in the UK and the overseas seller and, secondly, not labelled to show that age must be verified on delivery.

Although it is not clear from the amendment, the power is presumably to be exercised by Border Force because the amendments refer to detecting the articles in transit from overseas. The amendment would mean, in effect, that only bladed articles sold overseas which are subject to specific delivery arrangements in the UK would be allowed. I can therefore sympathise with the intention behind this amendment.

However, there are a number of problems with the amendment. At present, Border Force can seize two types of bladed articles. It can seize weapons prohibited under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, such as zombie knives and death stars, and Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which covers flick knives and gravity knives, because the importation of these weapons is banned. It can also seize any weapon which it believes is evidence in relation to a criminal offence.

This amendment would mean that Border Force would have a power to seize items which are not prohibited by law and where they are not evidence in relation to a criminal offence. This would mean that a wide range of items which are going to a residential address in the UK from overseas could be seized and handed to the police to be destroyed. The amendment is not limited to overseas sales, so it would mean that bladed articles sent from a relative overseas to someone in the UK could also be seized. It would mean that someone bringing back a bladed article from their holiday, such as a souvenir, could have it seized or that a fencer returning from a competition overseas with their swords could have them confiscated by Border Force. It would mean that articles which have been legally sold overseas and legally bought by someone in the UK could be seized.

Secondly, the amendment assumes that there is some way of detecting such articles. Not all items coming into the UK are scanned, so unless Border Force happens to come across bladed articles as part of routine searches, they are unlikely to be detected. Even if such items were detected, Border Force would need to ascertain whether they were being sent to a residential address. For example, it would need to decide whether 12 High Street is a residential or business address. Finally, it would need to establish whether they were subject to specific arrangements between a delivery company and the overseas seller. It would then have to have arrangements for handing the articles to the police for destruction. This would all have significant resource implications for Border Force. It is for all these reasons that I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend’s amendment. I hope that in these circumstances he will withdraw it.

[Lord Paddick]

Before the Minister sits down, will she explain why the Government cannot exert extraterritorial jurisdiction over foreign websites when they are doing exactly that when it comes to online pornography on overseas websites? In that case the BBFC, acting on behalf of the Government, gets in touch with the online pornography website and threatens them that unless and until they have approved age verification on their sites, BBFC will instruct UK internet service providers to block access to those websites from the UK. Why cannot a similar system be used to block overseas companies which are known to be selling prohibited weapons to the UK?

[The Earl of Erroll]

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely correct, as Part 3 of the Digital Economy Act provides. In her response, the Minister said that the sender would not know whether they were sending to a residential address. A UK business has exactly the same problem, yet she was using this to justify blocking UK sales. I do not see how she can apply one rule to UK companies and another to foreign companies. We need to be even-handed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I understand it, we cannot. We have had the example of pornography. The system I am referring to relates to online sales. Am I right in thinking that the system referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, relates to streaming? He will correct me if I am wrong.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. These are paid-for websites. People are paying for a service—there is an exchange. There is another option—I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me. Most financial transactions involving foreign websites are processed by UK credit card companies and so forth. The other way of ensuring that these transactions do not take place even though the company is beyond the UK’s jurisdiction is to ask UK card companies not to process payments to those particular companies. That is the second string to the BBFC bow in order to stop under-18s in the UK from, effectively, buying pornography from overseas websites. Similarly, the Government could put pressure on UK card companies to not process payments to overseas companies which are selling prohibited weapons to under-18s in the UK.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will agree that not all their sales would be of prohibited items.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

To assist the Minister further, I can assure her that there are more websites worldwide providing pornography than there are providing offensive weapons, yet that has not prevented the Government taking action.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for his intervention. I was not making a glib comment about a trawl; regarding the examples of card companies and delivery companies, we are taking action where we can, but I acknowledge, as I have all the way through the Bill, that we are trying to find the right balance. It is not absolutely perfect, but we are using everything in our armoury to help us guard against the sale of knives to those aged under 18.

Knife Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 4th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his question, because there is a disproportionate number of young people as both victims and perpetrators of knife crime. The young chap who was killed on Saturday night in my neighbourhood is just one example. I have talked about the £22 million early intervention youth fund to support communities on early intervention and prevention with young people. There will also be the £200 million youth endowment fund over 10 years, which the Home Secretary has announced and which will enhance that, along with a consultation on the new legal duty to underpin a public health approach to tackling serious violence. The notion that any one department or measure is the answer to this is not true at all, as the noble Lord will absolutely know. This issue is more complex and it transcends government departments. We all need to work together on it, but he is absolutely right to start with young people.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It talks about early intervention with young people, yet since 2010 there has been a 26% reduction in government support to local authorities. It talks about the police having the resources to tackle serious violence, yet compared to 2010 there are 20,000 fewer police officers in front-line roles. It talks about a statutory public health duty, but there is no mention of additional resources to support that duty. This Government are responsible for creating the environment where this knife epidemic has been able to take hold, and they should take responsibility for funding solutions. For example, why will the Government not adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, to have centrally funded, ring-fenced money for community police officers? We need visible policing in high-risk areas to reassure communities and to build trust and confidence, so that the police and communities can work together to take knives off the streets.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point to early intervention, and I mentioned some of the funding streams that either have gone forward or will be going forward to that end. He also talks about the police; both I and the Home Secretary have absolutely acknowledged the pressure that the police have been under, particularly over the last couple of years. As the Home Secretary said, he will be making up to £970 million available next year. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is not in his place, but I pay tribute to him and the work that he did while he was Metropolitan Police Commissioner on reducing some of the problems of knife crime in communities in London. I am sure that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend Vicky Atkins will be in discussion with the noble Lord on some of the learning points from his tenure for how we can address this really terrible growing issue.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Tuesday 26th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Turning to my noble friend’s question, if your home is also your registered business address, then clearly is it both. The noble Lord actually raised that point in Committee. The residential address can be either just a residential address or both a business and a residential address.

Returning to my other point about someone being prohibited from selling a product to a home address, we want to avoid any liability regarding checking age falling on the delivery company when the item is handed over. This is because delivery companies indicated in our discussions with them that they might simply refuse to deliver items on behalf of sellers if the legal responsibility for checking age falls to them. We are willing to accept this risk in relation to overseas sales because we are less concerned about the impact on overseas sellers, should their trade be affected, but for UK sales we do not want to place a liability on deliverers because there is a risk that they will then refuse to deliver any bladed items. The Government position is therefore that any liability for ensuring that any remotely sold corrosive and bladed products in the UK are not sold and delivered to under-18s should fall solely on the seller.

I have one final point to make, about a meeting that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and I had with the Sheffield knife manufacturers. As a result of that meeting, I want to satisfy myself of the position in relation to a couple of major delivery companies to ensure that that has not changed. Nothing in the meeting led me to doubt the position, but I just want to clarify that. In the meantime, I ask the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his qualified support for these amendments. As far as the explanation from the Minister was concerned, however, if you are a sole trader, you could be considered to be conducting your business from your home address. The Inland Revenue would be the only ones who knew that, and that information would be confidential. Therefore, there is no way that a delivery company could establish beyond reasonable doubt whether your residential address was a business address or not. As with a lot of this Bill, it clearly has not been thought through. The Minister has completely avoided the fact that this significantly disadvantages UK businesses as opposed to overseas ones. If they do not inform the UK delivery company what is in the parcel, there is absolutely no comeback on the delivery company whatsoever. Anything can be delivered to a residential address, whether it is a bladed article or a very strong acid ordered from an overseas business.

The Government say they want to avoid putting a liability on delivery companies, but this legislation puts liability on delivery companies if they are delivering corrosive substances or bladed articles from overseas. The only difference concerns whether the company is from the UK or overseas. Again, the Minister failed to answer how age verification at a collection point is more secure than on the doorstep. She completely failed to address the issues I raised. However, there are far more important things to get on to so at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the government amendments in this group introduce knife crime prevention orders. Noble Lords will recall that these amendments were debated in Grand Committee on 6 February but were withdrawn because it was clear that they did not attract universal support, as the procedural rules in Grand Committee require. The government amendments before us today are the same as those debated in Grand Committee. Given that we have already had a substantial debate on these new civil orders, I do not intend to go through every aspect of them. However, it is worth stating again why the Government have brought forward these measures and to summarise how they will work.

All noble Lords will appreciate that we face a significant increase in knife crime at present, particularly in London but also in other major cities and across the country. It is sad to say that hardly a day goes by without further horrific examples of the devastation that such crimes cause, not only to individual families but to entire communities. We must do everything we can to stop this increase in violent crime.

The latest police recorded crime figures published by the Office for National Statistics in January for the year ending September 2018 show that there have been close to 40,000 knife-related offences. This is an 8% increase compared to the previous year. The number of homicides where a knife or sharp instrument has been used has increased by 10% in the last year to 276 offences. Of all recorded homicides in the latest data, more than four in 10 involved a knife or a sharp instrument. Police-recorded offences involving the possession of an article with a blade or point rose by 18% to approaching 20,000 offences in the year ending September 2018. This rise was consistent with increases seen over the past five years and is the highest figure since the series began in March 2009.

It is vital that the police have the powers they need to prevent knife crime and protect the public from the devastating effects of violent crime on our streets. When we prosecute young people for knife crime, it is already too late for families when their sons and daughters are lying in hospital or dead on the street. This is tearing some of our communities apart and if there are measures available that might help to tackle this issue, then we must not hesitate to put them in place.

These new civil prevention orders will enable the police to more effectively manage those at risk of being drawn into trouble and help steer them away from crime, and the Government make no apologies for bringing them forward. The orders are aimed at three groups of people: young people who have been carrying a knife; habitual knife carriers of any age; and those who have been convicted of violent offences involving knives.

In the case of young people, the police may have intelligence that a young person routinely carries a knife but for a variety of reasons they have been unable to charge them with a possession offence. Before risky behaviour escalates, a KCPO, as they are called, could be in place to divert the person away from a life of prolific offending.

As I have indicated, people who the police deem to be habitual knife carriers could also be subject to a KCPO. This would include people who may have previous convictions for knife crime or where the police have intelligence that they regularly carry knives. The KCPO would enable the police to manage the risk of future offending in the community. This is the cohort that the police see as their main target for these orders. They estimate that there are about 3,000 habitual knife carriers across England and Wales, although that is not to say that all that cohort would be made subject to a KCPO.

It may be helpful if I explain briefly how the orders will work. An application for a KCPO can be made by a relevant chief officer of police to a magistrates’ court or, in the case of young people, the youth court. A court may make an order only if it is satisfied that the defendant had a bladed article without good reason in a public place or education premises on at least two occasions in the preceding two years, and that the order is necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence involving knives. A KCPO can also be made on conviction where the defendant is convicted of a relevant offence and, again, the court thinks the order is necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence involving knives.

A KCPO may require a defendant to do anything described in the order and/or prohibit the defendant doing anything described in the order. The KCPO can include any reasonable prohibition or requirement which the court is satisfied is necessary, proportionate and enforceable. An order could therefore include things such as curfews or restrictions on going to a particular place.

A KCPO can also include positive requirements, and we think these are particularly important. A positive requirement could be attending some form of knife awareness training or a programme to move young people away from knife crime. Some of these programmes are already being funded under the serious violence strategy, and we are keen to build on the excellent work that is already under way to help divert young people from violent crime and is often provided by groups which have first-hand experience of dealing with knife crime in their communities. Where a KCPO imposes such a requirement it must specify a person who is responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. For instance, if the requirement is attendance at a knife awareness intervention, the person designated to supervise compliance may be the youth worker providing the intervention.

KCPOs will have a maximum duration of two years and must be reviewed by the courts after 12 months. KCPOs issued to under-18s will be expected to be subject to more regular reviews, an issue which we will address in guidance. There are provisions for variation, renewal or discharge of KCPOs on application by the defendant or the police. There are also provisions for appeal against the order. Breach of the order, without reasonable excuse, is a criminal offence subject to a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

Young people are clearly an area of great concern to a number of noble Lords. The police tell us that the age at which people carry knives is getting lower. We also know from hospital data and from the police that younger and younger children are involved in knife crime as both victims and perpetrators. If we are serious about tackling the epidemic of knife crime on our streets, the measures we take must apply to young people.

I must point out that the civil orders available for dealing with sex offending apply to children as young as 10 and last for up to five years rather than the maximum of two years available under KCPOs. Likewise, the maximum penalties are up to five years in prison rather than the two years we have with KCPOs. I know that noble Lords might argue that sex offending is different and somehow more serious. I am not sure that argument is true given the number of knife-related deaths that we are now witnessing in our cities.

I know that noble Lords will also argue that it would be better to go the anti-social behaviour injunction route, which of course applies to children as young as 10. The argument here is that having contempt of court rather than a criminal offence for breach would make the orders more palatable because it would mean that children would not get a criminal record. The advice that we have had from police, some of which we heard yesterday at the round table, is I think advice that we should listen to very carefully. It is that making it a criminal offence to breach an order is important if we want the order to be taken seriously. I do, however, understand concerns about the application of these orders to young people. That is why we set the minimum age of 12, and that is why youth offender teams will need to be consulted on any orders against defendants under the age of 18. It is why we have said we will consult publicly on the guidance with community groups and youth organisations and others before these orders are brought into force.

This Government are determined to do all they can to protect the public and keep people safe. We must seize every opportunity to end the senseless cycle of violent crime that is corroding our streets. Knife crime prevention orders are not the complete answer to violent crime, but they most certainly will help. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I said a lot about knife crime prevention orders in Committee. Tonight I am going to focus on pre-conviction knife crime prevention orders. Despite the Government’s claims to the contrary, they will result in many young people being criminalised instead of being diverted away from the criminal justice system. How can we be so sure? Because they are almost a carbon copy of anti-social behaviour orders, which did exactly that—criminalised swathes of young people for breaching a civil order imposed on them on the balance of probabilities but where a breach of the order was a criminal offence, exactly the same as these provisions.

A court has to be satisfied only on the balance of probabilities that, on at least two occasions, the defendant had a bladed article with them without good reason or lawful authority in a public place on school or further education premises. If they were caught in possession of a knife, they could be prosecuted. This is not about young people being stopped and searched and being found with a knife. This is about hearsay evidence, information from informants, the police being tipped off that someone is a knife carrier. An interim order can even be imposed without the defendant’s having the chance to put his side of the story. Imposed on the balance of probabilities, a breach of the conditions can result in a criminal record and up to two years in prison.

These are anti-social behaviour orders reinvented. They are primarily aimed at young people, as young as 12. It may have been a long time ago, but we were all young once. Young people make mistakes; they can be reckless, forgetful, mischievous. The orders would impose, on people who are more chaotic than responsible adults, conditions such as: being at a particular place between particular times on particular days; being at a particular place between particular times on any day; presenting themselves to a particular person at a place where they are required to be; participating in particular activities between particular times on particular days; prohibiting them from being in a particular place with particular people; participating in particular activities; using particular articles or having those articles with them. An order that imposes prohibitions can include exemptions to those prohibitions. They have to tell the police within three days if they use a name which has not previously been notified to the police, or they decide to live away from their home address for more than a month. What does,

“uses a name which has not previously been notified to the police”,

even mean? What if their schoolmates give them a nickname that they have become known by? Do they breach the order if they use that name? The young person is going to need a PA and carry a list of conditions with them at all times which they have to constantly refer to, to make sure that they do not breach the order.

Children are children. These orders can be imposed on young people who have never been in trouble with the police and have never been convicted of a criminal offence, and they could be sentenced to custody because they did not turn up for football practice as the order required them to do or because they were told not to associate with certain people but those people kept following them around. It would be easy for me or other noble Lords, let alone a child, to breach some of these conditions if they were imposed on us, and these orders would last a minimum of six months and up to two years.

Returning Jihadists: Treason Act

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 21st February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend is right to raise this matter because we have to constantly keep our laws under review to keep up with the fast-moving methods by which terrorists will seek to destroy the unity of this country. Laws are kept under review. Noble Lords have talked about an espionage Bill and a treason Bill. Certainly the CT Bill in which my noble friend took part was significant in updating some of our laws.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday the Minister implied that it was difficult to prosecute those involved with ISIS as we had, in effect, no extradition arrangements with Syria. That is why the Government had to deprive people of their British citizenship. Many of these people want to return to the UK but the Government are preventing them from returning to face justice by depriving them of their citizenship. Is the Government strategy confused or is it just me?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It might be the noble Lord because it is difficult to prosecute people in Syria, where we have no consular access. People have been prosecuted when they come back to this country and have been put into programmes such as Channel to try to rehabilitate them. There are a number of different remedies available to the Government and the Home Secretary to bring people to justice.

Citizenship Status

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Viscount’s assertion is absolutely correct. Under international law, someone cannot be rendered stateless unless they are a dual citizen with citizenship of another country. However, I disagree with his view that the Home Secretary’s decision was wrong in all sorts of ways. Clearly, anyone who goes out to Syria and voices their support for ISIS is a danger to the UK if they return home.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, what does the Minister make of the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, on today’s “Today” programme? He said that rather than depriving subjects of their British nationality, we should take responsibility for our citizens; otherwise, other countries will start doing the same to us, depriving British dual nationals of their other citizenship and dumping their problems on us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with much of what the former Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said. However, on taking responsibility for our citizens, if our citizens decide to take responsibility for themselves and go to one of the most dangerous parts of the world and engage with proscribed organisations, that is their decision. Therefore, given that we have no consular access in Syria, it is very difficult in any circumstances for the UK Government to take responsibility for one of our citizens who decides to travel beyond our reach.

Police: Recruitment and Retention

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 12th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and all that she has achieved on some of the recommendations that have come out of the report. On the three recommendations she talked about, there are several things going on. She will have seen the race disparity audit, which is published by the Government and continually updated on the government website to show exactly where the disparities lie and where improvements need to be made. Last year, the NPCC produced a diversity, equality and inclusion strategy led by Chief Constable Gareth Wilson. It attempts, across all areas of the police, to increase inclusion and diversity. The superintendents’ association and college have a mentoring and coaching scheme precisely to improve the recruitment of BME staff. The figure has improved, but the noble Baroness is right to ask the question because we have much further to go.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am told that, recently, almost 50% of all black and minority-ethnic officers of superintendent rank and above in the Metropolitan Police were under investigation of one kind or another. It is also alleged that a recent promotion selection process in the Metropolitan Police contained a test that was known to be culturally biased, and that some BME officers who passed every other part of the assessment were failed because they did not pass the culturally biased part. Will the Minister look into what appear to be allegations of institutional racism?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these are very serious allegations indeed and I will of course look into them. If officers are under investigation, it may be more difficult for me, but the allegation that 50% of BME staff at superintendent rank or above are under investigation is very concerning.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Ping Pong (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 11th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the central point here is whether or not we are in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. My view is that we are not. Article 1 of the 13th protocol does not prevent member states providing assistance to a third country, where that assistance contributes to the use of the death penalty by that country. Even if the amendment related to the use of the designation power, under Section 52 of the 2016 Act—which would be the gateway for the flow of information from the UK—it would still not prevent designation in the absence of assurances about the use of our material. That is not to say that we will be sharing information for the pursuit of the death penalty. Noble Lords have heard, on many occasions, that I am not going to pre-empt our negotiations with the US, but this shows that not only is the amendment unnecessary but it may not do what its sponsors hope.

The case of the foreign fighter, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about, shows that we are compatible with the ECHR, for the reasons outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that any agreement would have to be put before Parliament. That is absolutely the case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, talked about this being the negotiation stage. I would put it further back than that: it is the pre-negotiation stage. It is a framework Bill, on the basis of which treaties would be negotiated and made.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that, when a treaty is put to Parliament, if the House of Commons approves it, then it does not matter what the opinion of this House is; the treaty is ratified even if this House votes against it? I obviously agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, that whether this is a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights has yet to be tested in court—certainly not at the European level. Will the Minister explain why the then Foreign Secretary had to say that seeking death-penalty assurances in the ISIS case was unique and exceptional, if the Government were not concerned about people executed on the back of evidence provided by the United Kingdom?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right. The treaty would be put to the Commons; the Lords could certainly have a view but that might not be taken into account by the Commons. That is nothing unusual. The Commons quite often exerts its supremacy.

Migrant Crossings: Naval Assets

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that as we approach Brexit we should be mindful of some of the events that might happen around it. We will shortly have a director in post at JMOCC, which I hope gives him some comfort. The nature of a crisis would determine the co-ordination response.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister will have seen a report in the Sunday Times that the Government have reduced a promised £22 million towards a public health approach to tackling knife crime to £17 million. Is that where the Home Office found the money to pay the Ministry of Defence? If so, can she explain why the Government see keeping desperate refugees out of the UK a priority over saving the lives of British youngsters on our streets?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, when I saw the article in the Sunday Times, I realised it was wrong. The noble Lord is absolutely right to state that £22 million was committed. It still is committed; £17 million of it has already been allocated. That is not to say that the additional £5 million will not be forthcoming, because it will. In terms of desperate refugees, I think he might be referring to the PNQ that he is about to ask, but these are serious criminals.

Deportation: Jamaica

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 6th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, it would not be appropriate to comment on individual cases, particularly those subject to ongoing legal proceedings. It may be helpful to know that a number of factors impact on a person’s planned removal from the UK. This does not mean that the original decision to remove the individual was incorrect. If barriers to their removal are resolved and they are not granted a form of leave, the person remains subject to deportation as required under the UK Borders Act 2007.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Yet, lawyers representing some of those due to be deported say that the reprieve is permanent. Yesterday, I asked the Minister how the Government could be sure that those they intended to deport as foreign national offenders were actually foreign nationals, bearing in mind the mistakes that had been made with the Windrush generation. The Minister said that she had been assured that all those being deported were foreign nationals. Yesterday, in the other place, the Home Secretary said that the law required him to deport foreign nationals convicted of serious offences and that if he did not deport them, he would be breaking the law. As I say, overnight it has been reported that five of those due to be deported are no longer going to be deported. Can the Minister explain: did the Government mislead the House, or has the Home Secretary broken the law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have not misled the House, nor has the Home Secretary broken the law. I thought I had made clear in my original Answer that the original decision to remove an individual is not incorrect, but there may be factors that need to be resolved, such as fresh asylum claims and other reasons why a fresh appeal might be lodged, which might mean that someone is not deported but might ultimately be deported. Therefore, neither is true.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 6th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the new clauses to be inserted into the Bill by Amendments 73A to 73U introduce knife crime prevention orders. These new civil preventative orders will provide the police with the powers they need to more effectively manage people engaged, or at risk of engaging, in knife crime and help steer them away from crime.

As noble Lords in the Committee will agree, knife crime is devastating for victims, their families and for our communities. We must do all that we can to combat this epidemic. The latest police recorded crime figures, published by the Office for National Statistics in January for the year ending September 2018, show that there were 39,818 knife-related offences—an 8% increase compared with the previous year. Noble Lords will not have failed to notice the headlines in the Evening Standard on Monday.

The number of homicides where a knife or sharp instrument was used has increased by 10% in the last year to 276 offences. Of all recorded homicides in the latest data, over four in 10 involved a knife or sharp instrument. That proportion is higher than the previous year when the figure was 37%. Police-recorded offences involving the,

“possession of an article with a blade or point” ,

rose by 18% to 19,644 in the year ending September 2018. That rise is consistent with increases seen over the last five years and is the highest figure since the series began in the year ending March 2009.

The total number of homicides in London in 2018 was 134. The Metropolitan Police had the largest volume increase, accounting for 35% of the total increase. In 2017, there were a total of 116 homicides.

It is vital that the police have the powers they need to prevent knife crime and protect the public from the devastating effects of violent crime on our streets. It is already too late when we prosecute young people for knife crime. The police have asked for a new order which will help them to manage those at risk of knife crime in their communities.

Knife crime prevention orders will provide the police with the powers they need to steer people away from knife crime, where there is evidence that they carry a knife. The orders are aimed at those young people most at risk of engaging in knife crime, people the police call “habitual knife carriers” of any age, and those who have been convicted of a violent offence involving knives. Their simple purpose is to help protect the public, and to help respondents leave a dangerous lifestyle involving knife-related crime. In the case of young people, the police may have intelligence that a young person routinely carries a knife but, for a variety of reasons, they have been unable to charge them with a possession offence. Before risky behaviour escalates, a KCPO could be in place to divert a person away from a life of prolific offending.

People whom the police deem to be habitual knife carriers could also benefit from KCPOs. These are people who may have previous convictions for knife crime, or on whom the police have intelligence that they regularly carry knives. The KCPO would enable the police to manage the risk of future offending. This is the cohort that the police see as their main target for these orders. It is estimated that there are some 3,000 habitual knife carriers across England and Wales. The orders will enable the courts to place restrictions on individuals such as curfews and geographical restrictions, but also requirements such as engaging in positive interventions. KCPOs are not a punishment, but a means to support the individual who is subject to an order to stay away from crime.

It may be helpful if I explain how the order will work. KCPOs are available on application and on conviction. An application for a KCPO can be made by a relevant chief police officer to a magistrates’ court or, in the case of young people, the youth court. A court dealing with an application may make a KCPO only if two conditions are met. The first is that the court is satisfied to the civil standard—on the balance of probabilities—that the defendant had a bladed article, without good reason, in a public place or education premises, on at least two occasions in the preceding two years. The second condition is that the court considers the order necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence. An application can be made with or without notice, but it will be made without notice only on an exceptional basis. If an application is made without notice to the defendant, the court may only make an interim order, which will take effect on service and will last until a full hearing takes place.

A KCPO is also available on conviction following an application from the prosecution, and where two conditions are met. The first condition is that the defendant is convicted of a relevant offence. This means a violent offence, or an offence where a bladed article was used by the defendant or another in the commission of the offence, or the defendant or another had a bladed article with them when the offence was committed. The second condition is, again, that the court considers the order necessary to protect the public or prevent the defendant committing an offence.

A KCPO may require a defendant to do anything described in the order, and/or prohibit the defendant from doing anything described in the order. The KCPO can include any reasonable prohibition or requirement which the court is satisfied is necessary, proportionate and enforceable. A KCPO which imposes a requirement must specify a person who is responsible for supervising compliance with the requirement. For instance, if the requirement is attendance of a knife awareness intervention, the person designated to supervise compliance may be the youth worker providing the intervention.

KCPOs will have a maximum duration of two years and must be reviewed by the courts after 12 months. KCPOs issued to under-18s are expected to be subject to more regular reviews. There are provisions for variation, renewal or discharge of KCPOs on application by the defendant or the police. There are also provisions for appeal against the making of the order. A breach of the order without reasonable excuse is a criminal offence subject to a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment.

KCPOs are closing a gap in the law that has hindered the police in taking an active rather than a reactive approach to diverting people away from knife crime and managing the risk of knife crime offending. They provide an opportunity to take a proactive and preventive approach, re-engaging with them at an early stage and helping to protect those most at risk of using knives and, of course, of falling victim to them.

There are other civil orders available, such as gang injunctions and criminal behaviour orders, but not all individuals in the targeted cohort are gang members. Criminal behaviour orders could be used in some cases, but such orders are available only when a court is sentencing a person for an offence. It is important that the police have the right tools for the right situations and can make use of them.

Of course, the police have a range of powers to deal with knife crime, including the existing offence of possessing a bladed article in public without good reason, and stop and search powers under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. However, given the unacceptable scale of knife crime, it is important that the police have a broad sweep of possible powers to use as circumstances dictate. KCPOs will be a valuable addition to the tools available to the police to disrupt harmful behaviours, while avoiding the premature criminalisation of individuals. We expect them to be targeted at a relatively small but high-risk cohort.

This Government are determined to do all that we can to protect the public and keep people safe. This is why we are redoubling our efforts to end this senseless crime. The introduction of KCPOs has been welcomed by the National Police Chiefs Council and the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners. On behalf of the NPCC, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Duncan Bell said:

“The introduction of knife crime prevention orders will provide us with further means to help deter young people from becoming involved in knife possession and knife crime”,


while West Yorkshire’s Labour PCC has said that he fully supports the new knife crime prevention orders.

I commend the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, who is not in his place, for his prescience in tabling Amendment 77, which also calls for the introduction of KCPOs. I hope one of the noble Lords on the Labour Front Bench will agree that we should grasp the opportunity provided by the Bill to legislate now for KCPOs, so that we can do everything in our power to stop the tragic loss of life and serious injury caused by knife crime that is all too evident on our streets. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me to discuss these amendments before today’s debate. It will come as no surprise to her that we vehemently oppose them and will object, should she insist on them at this stage.

Noble Lords will recall ASBOs, anti-social behaviour orders, introduced by the then Labour Government in the face of an epidemic of anti-social behaviour. They were opposed for many reasons. They were an order that could be made on the basis of the balance of probabilities against very young children with no previous convictions, yet the breach of one of those orders was a criminal offence with a custodial sentence attached. In effect, the criminal burden of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—was circumvented by making the order subject only to the civil burden of proof, while a breach of the order resulted in a criminal conviction. As a result, hundreds of young people acquired a criminal record through that unfair and unreasonable route. This was rightly seen as disproportionate, and the subsequent coalition Government—in a move championed by the then Home Secretary, Theresa May—removed ASBOs from the statute book.

Other reasons for scrapping ASBOs included their ineffectiveness in curbing anti-social behaviour, the high rate of breach of the conditions of the orders, the difficulty in monitoring compliance and the resources required to ensure their enforcement. In some communities, having an ASBO was seen as a badge of honour, and peers looked up to someone if he had acquired one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have not found the comments destructive, although I thank my noble friend for the points that he made. I will not press the government amendments today. I take on board completely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about the timing of the amendments. We will bring the amendments back on Report when again we will have a full chance to discuss them. The practice of noble Lords speaking only once on Report has fallen slightly by the wayside because noble Lords seem to speak several times in Committee and on Report.

To sum up today’s debate, we all seek the same end, but the means by which we would get there differ. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, at the outset for clarifying a number of points that I did not know the answer to. He has saved me having to write to the Committee. I also thank my noble friend Lady Newlove for the very real-life experience with which she speaks and which we never fail to be moved by.

It is clear from the debate that some of the support for KCPOs is qualified. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick—and the theme was carried on by other noble Lords—said that KCPOs seek to criminalise children. As the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, said, their aim is quite the reverse. They are to prevent young people getting into criminality.

[Lord Paddick]

I never suggested that the aim of the orders is to criminalise young people. I said that young people being criminalised is the inevitable outcome of the orders.

Westminster: Security

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord raises an important point in the light of the various anti-Semitic incidents that have taken place recently. Ministers have agreed to fund security measures on an exceptional basis, as part of the Westminster ceremonial streetscape project. I am not entirely certain whether that project extends down to the Victoria Tower Gardens, but I shall find out for him. However, it is important that such places are fully protected. Assessments of the threat in and around Westminster are of course carried out every day.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we have all seen the ugly scenes outside Parliament of parliamentarians being subject to abuse. The worrying thing about the enhanced security in the vicinity of Parliament is the number of officers who are being taken away from policing their local communities, or having yet more days off cancelled, to provide the security necessary because of the mishandling of Brexit by this Government. Will the Home Office reimburse the Metropolitan Police for dealing with these problems, which the Government have created?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that is a bit of a low blow. It is certainly understood that any protective measures needed will have to be paid for by the authorities which commission them. If the Metropolitan Police is needed, its time and effort will therefore have to be paid for. I have seen many demonstrations outside the Houses of Parliament on a range of issues and I thank the police, who stand ready to protect the public and Members of Parliament from them.

Windrush Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 5th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Viscount for his clarification. Certainly, the approach that we took post Windrush was that the task force took not a lenient but a generous view when people came forward to try to prove their status and right to remain in this country. There was not a culture of saying no, but of saying yes when people tried to get that documentation approved.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Home Secretary insisted in the other place that the planned charter flights to deport people from the UK to Jamaica would involve only foreign national offenders, and the Minister has just talked about the sorts of individuals involved. But how can the Government be sure that they are foreign nationals, bearing in mind that hundreds of the Windrush generation who were entitled to live in the UK have been wrongly deported, made unemployed and denied benefits? How can the Government give British citizenship to those brought to this country as infants or children and pay compensation to those wrongly denied work and benefits but at the same time deport offenders who have similarly lived all their adult lives in the UK and have no memory of living anywhere else?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord asked how we can prove that everyone who is the subject of the debate today is a foreign national offender. I am reliably informed—and I have asked repeatedly—that all the people who will be deported are foreign national offenders. The answer is yes. They are not only foreign national offenders but serious criminals. On the subject of people who came here as infants or children, obviously someone who was here before 1973 would have an assumed status, but just because you came here as an infant or child does not exempt you from the provisions in the UK Borders Act 2007, which the Labour Government rightly brought in to ensure that people convicted and sentenced to 12 months or more should be deported.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 30th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, says, these amendments return us to the debate we had on Monday about the proper construction of the offences in the Bill. We had a good discussion on Monday, and I will not cover the ground in the same detail as I did then.

Amendment 40A would alter the defence provided in relation to the sale of bladed articles. Section 141A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 provides that it is an offence to sell, with some exceptions, articles with a blade or point to persons under the age of 18. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove that he or she took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence. Clause 14 modifies the operation of the defence in relation to remote sales to include a number of conditions that must be met as a minimum. Amendment 40A removes the post-charge element of the defence and instead requires the enforcing agency to make a judgment whether the seller took all reasonable precautions before a charge is made.

I understand the noble Lord’s intention, but the defence provided in the Criminal Justice Act 1988 has been in place for quite some time. I am not aware of any problems or concerns with how the police, prosecutors and the courts apply the legislation. It has been in place for over 30 years, so it cannot be said that we are introducing a new construct into the criminal law.

Amendments 42A and 43F provide that failure to take all reasonable precaution in relation to the offence of delivering a bladed product to a residential address would be criteria to be taken into account before a person is charged. This is in contrast to the defence provided under Clause 18, which can be invoked when a person is charged with the offence.

Amendments 57B and 57C apply the same principles to Clause 20, which is concerned with the delivery of bladed articles sold by sellers based outside the UK. Clause 20 applies to delivery companies that have entered into an arrangement with a seller based abroad and provides that it is a criminal offence for a delivery company to deliver a bladed article into the hands of a person under 18. It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under Clause 20 to prove that he or she took all reasonable precautions and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

In practice, the enforcing agency—the police, the CPS or local authorities—will always consider whether the seller or the person who delivers the article has taken reasonable steps and exercised due diligence before bringing a charge. It would not be in the public interest to bring a prosecution if the enforcing agency considers that it is very likely the court will find that the seller had taken all reasonable precautions to avoid committing the offence. As I said before, this type of defence has been in place for some considerable time in relation to the sale of articles with a blade or point, and we are not aware of any issues in its operation.

In short, the approach taken in the Bill both in relation to knives and corrosives is well precedented. The existing law has operated for 30 years without difficulties, and it would further complicate the law and lead to confusion if we now adopted a different approach in the Bill. I suspect—as in the discussion on Monday—noble Lords will want to return to this issue, but for now I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, for his brief intervention and to the Minister for her response.

The fact that the defence is similar to that in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, but contrary to almost every other piece of legislation on the statute book, including the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 which specifically deals with offensive weapons—that is, you are not guilty if you have a reasonable excuse for your actions—does not persuade me, I am afraid, that the Government are right in this case and that we are wrong. The Minister mentioned that the prosecuting authorities would not bring a prosecution if the person had taken all reasonable steps, but that does not stop the person being arrested and detained before that charging decision is made. The problem is still there. It is contrary to most criminal law on the statute book and it is the current legislation, rather than the amendment, that adds to the confusion. We will return to this on Report, but at this juncture I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for explaining the trusted trader scheme. I hope to set out the context of the provisions of the Bill. I agree with the Committee that evidence is important to this end.

It is already an offence to sell a knife to somebody under the age of 18, but we know that some sellers are not doing enough to stop children buying knives online. Evidence from online test purchase operations shows that a worrying number of online sellers sampled failed to have effective age-verification procedures in place. Trading standards conducted two online test purchase operations in 2008 and 2009. A test purchase operation commissioned by the Home Office conducted in 2014 showed that 69% of the retailers sampled failed the test. This was a slight improvement on the exercise five years previously but showed that a large majority of online test purchases failed and retailers were breaking the law.

A further test purchase operation was carried out in December 2016. The results showed that 72% of retailers tested failed to verify the age of the purchaser at the point of accepting the order and only 19% went on to require further evidence of age and refuse the sale when the evidence was not produced. Recent test purchases targeting online retailers conducted in late 2018 under the Government’s new prosecution fund show that 42% of the retailers sampled failed the test and sold knives to persons under the age of 18. We have evidence that online retailers are selling to people under the age of 18.

[Lord Paddick]

Can the Government give any evidence about how many under-18s are buying knives online other than those people masquerading as being under 18 and carrying out test purchase operations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

All the information I have is the test purchases. If test purchases show a failure in the system, that suggests to me that there is an ongoing failure in the system. It does not matter whether the person is actually 18 or is pretending to be; if the system is failing, the system is failing. If an online seller is selling to someone who says they are under 18, the system is failing and the Government are concerned by that. We know that test purchases show that under-18s are being sold knives. In most cases, it is not possible to determine whether the knife purchased is being used in crime, but we have evidence that young people say that buying a knife online is easy. That information was obtained when we were researching the knife-free campaign.

We know through the test purchases that the sellers are breaking the law and we hear the evidence from young people. With the provisions in the Bill, we are sending a clear signal to online sellers that their age- verification processes must improve. The fact that there is still a high rate of failure should be a matter of concern to noble Lords and tell us that the provisions in the Bill are needed. It is not enough for retailers selling remotely simply to ask the purchaser to tick a box to say that they are over 18. It is unacceptable when it comes to delivering the article simply to hand it over to a person without verifying their age or, worse, simply to push the package through the letter box or leave it on the doorstep without any checks about the age of the recipient. We know the tragic consequences of not having strong checks in place to prevent under-18s buying knives online, from the beginning of the transaction through to the end of the sale process.

I utterly understand the thinking behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but it would in effect transfer the responsibility for complying with the legislation and responsible sales from the seller to the Government, by requiring the Government to set out the details of the proposed trusted trader scheme, which would then allow for the delivery of bladed products to residential addresses. The scheme would require sellers to demonstrate that their age-verification systems and procedures, from the point when they receive the order to when their designated delivery company hands the item over at the point of delivery, are robust and that it is not possible that a knife will be handed to a person under 18. In the light of the results of recent test purchase operations, however, we are not persuaded that sellers can provide such reassurance in a systematic and consistent way. We believe that only by requiring age verification at the point where the item is physically handed to a person, at a dedicated collection point, is it possible to guarantee that a bladed product will not be handed over to a person under 18.

There is another point. Setting up, administering and overseeing a trusted trader scheme would create burdens of its own, although I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it could be self-funding.

[Lord Paddick]

That is not what I said.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry—well, I would have accepted the point. In addition, simply being part of a scheme or being in possession of a seal of approval as a trusted trader does not guarantee compliance with the conditions in the scheme. I hope that I have been able to set out the Government’s explanations—

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She repeated something that she mentioned on Monday, which I questioned but did not receive a response on. Why is age verification at the point of handover at a delivery point likely to be more thorough or more successful than age verification at the point of handover at the front door of a residential premises? The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested a scheme whereby the delivery agent would take a photograph of the driving licence or passport to show proof of age at the front door. I accept from what the noble Baroness has said that the age-verification process that online retailers put in place must be thorough and rigorous and that there must be penalties for those who fail to comply, but I do not understand the blanket ban on delivery to residential premises when people have carte blanche to order online and collect from what could be a local newsagent. Last week, I ordered something from Amazon and collected it from a convenient store where the people are very busy. I do not see what advantage there is, when it comes to age verification, for such an article to be handed over at a collection point rather than at the front door of a residential premises.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to be unhelpful to my noble friend the Minister, but can she point to any cases involving knife crime where the knife was acquired online?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope that I have outlined what the Government have found through these test purchase failings. They have improved over recent years, but there is undoubtedly a basic failure in the system of the online purchase. Regarding the sanction for current failures in the system, it is a criminal offence, although it has been shown not to be a terribly compliant environment. It is far easier to have robust arrangements in place at a central delivery point rather than on each and every doorstep. That is the thinking behind the delivery point rather than the residential address.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister. There is no such thing as a central delivery point. When you ask for these articles to be delivered to a delivery point, they are all over the place. There are five within a mile of where I live—corner shops are the places where these items are being delivered. In support of that, does the Minister have any information on these test purchase operations? Specifically, how many of these knives were successfully delivered to somebody who appeared to be under the age of 18 at a residential premises, and in how many of the offences were the knives delivered to a collection point? This might provide the evidence that the Government seem to have that it is much safer for it to be delivered to a collection point than to the front door of a home.

Brexit: Security

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 29th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, Cressida Dick, has said that the way in which we currently quickly extradite and arrest people will have to be replaced, but it will be more costly and slower and will potentially put the public at risk. Does the Minister agree? Will the Government admit that the UK will be less secure outside the European Union, deal or no deal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not necessarily agree with the second statement, but one thing I can say to the noble Lord is that the way to avoid no deal is for the House of Commons, which is currently deliberating on it, to agree to a deal.

Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick]

Would it help the Committee to suggest that the Government have put in Clause 4 exactly the sort of things the delivery courier should be looking at to take reasonable precautions?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, that is where the guidance comes in. All roads are leading back to the guidance. I hope I can leave it there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as we have discussed, Clause 3 makes it an offence, where a sale is carried out remotely, for a seller to deliver, or arrange for the delivery of, a corrosive product to residential premises or to a locker. Given the concerns over the use of corrosive substances in violent attacks and other criminal acts, to restrict access effectively we believe that it is necessary to stop delivery to private residential addresses. This does not mean that corrosive products cannot be purchased online in the future, merely that individuals will be expected to collect the product from a collection point where their age can be verified before the product is handed over to them. This provision is important as it will ensure that checks are made and that the purchaser will need to prove that they are 18 or over in order to be able to purchase and collect a corrosive product. If the purchaser cannot collect the corrosive product in person, they would have to be able to send a representative who is also over the age of 18.

We have also included an exemption within the provision to ensure that deliveries to businesses that are run from home—such as a farm—would not be affected by the prohibition on delivery to a residential address, for example, where corrosive products are ordered by small family-run businesses, such as metal working, soap making or even farms, in the case of the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. We have also provided defences that are available in cases where the individual has taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid committing the offence.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, questioned why both Clause 3 and Clause 4 are needed. Clause 3 relates to the dispatch of corrosive products bought online in the UK to a residential premises or locker in the UK. We cannot apply the same restrictions on sellers who are based overseas without taking extraterritorial jurisdiction for this offence. Such a step would be inappropriate for a sales offence such as this and, in any event, there would be practical difficulties mounting a prosecution given that an overseas seller would not be within the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Clause 3 is therefore supported by Clause 4, which makes it a criminal offence for a delivery company in the UK to deliver a corrosive product to a person under the age of 18 where that corrosive product has been bought from a seller overseas and where the delivery company knows what it is delivering. The purpose of Clause 4 is to try to stop overseas sellers selling corrosives to under-18s in the UK and having them delivered to a person under the age of 18. There is no overlap between Clauses 3 and 4; we think that both are needed. Clause 3 deals with UK online sales and Clause 4 deals with online sales from overseas sellers.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, again brought up the use of home as a business, which he has mentioned to me before. It will be a matter for the seller under Clause 3 to satisfy themselves that the delivery address is being used for a purpose other than residential purposes. If they cannot satisfy themselves, they should not deliver to that address. Again, it is something that we can deal with in the planned guidance. He also mentioned to me previously his concerns about Amazon’s terms of trade in relation to the sale of alcohol. We are clear from evidence of test purchases of knives that we cannot rely on such terms of business to ensure that the law on age-related restrictions is properly adhered to in the case of online sales.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I have to confess to being even more confused than I was before. Is the Minister saying that you can purchase corrosive substances from a seller overseas and have them delivered to your residential premises, but you cannot get corrosive substances delivered to your residential address if you order them from a UK seller? That appears to be the effect of Clauses 3 and 4.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, I am.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lord, if I may have a second go, until very recently I did not support particular protections for shop workers. Being from a policing background, I know we have taken the steps in the law to protect law enforcers, and recently there has been a Bill to protect all emergency workers in this way. But here we are talking about people who are intent on violence; they are looking to get their hands on knives or corrosive substances to commit violence. That is the sort of person that these shop workers are likely to confront, and that is why I am now convinced that this is the right thing to do.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said I would say that there is no problem. I am not going to say that, but I am very grateful to him for explaining his amendment. He attaches particular importance to affording greater protection for retail staff, and his noble kinsman, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, raised this question last week. It was a very good opportunity to discuss the issue, which is of great concern. I understand the concerns of retailers and their staff about being threatened or attacked in the course of their duties, including as part of verifying a person’s age when selling a corrosive product. As my noble friend Lord Deben said, it may be those very people who want to buy these things who will be those who mete out the abuse on retail workers. Nobody should have to experience this sort of behaviour at their place of work, especially when providing a service to members of the public.

As I said at Second Reading, the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability held a roundtable on 11 December with David Hanson MP, Richard Graham MP and representatives from the retail sector, including USDAW and the British Retail Consortium, to discuss what more we can do ensure greater protection for shop workers. Last week, I met USDAW to see what more we can do to ensure these greater protections. Following the discussion at the roundtable I am very happy to update the Committee. We will be taking forward the following actions: first, the call for evidence, which I spoke about last week and is intended to help us ensure that we fully understand this issue and look at all the options for addressing it; secondly, that we provide funding to the sector to run targeted communications activity to raise awareness of the existing legislation that is in place to protect shop workers; and thirdly, we are refreshing the work of the National Retail Crime Steering Group, co-chaired by the Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability and the British Retail Consortium. An extraordinary meeting of the group, focused exclusively on violence and abuse towards shop workers, will take place on 7 February. That discussion will help to shape the call for evidence.

In addition, the Sentencing Council is reviewing its guidelines on assault. A consultation on a revised guideline is anticipated to commence this summer. These measures are intended to complement existing work under way to tackle this issue. For example, the Home Office is providing funding of £1 million for the National Business Crime Centre over three years between 2016 and 2019. The centre was launched by the National Police Chiefs’ Council in October 2017 to improve communication between police forces on business crime, promote training and advice, and help to identify national and local trends.

In addition, through the national retail crime steering group, which includes representatives from across the retail sector, the police and others, we are taking forward a range of work to strengthen the collective response to these crimes, including: the creation of a “crib sheet” for retailers to use when reporting violent incidents to the police so that they get the information they need to support a timely and appropriate response; exploring options for improving consistency in the recording of business crime by the police, which will include a short pilot analysis of forces applying business crime flags; and the development of guidance on impact statements for businesses to increase their use. These statements give businesses the opportunity to set out the impact a crime has had and are taken into account by courts when determining sentences.

I know that there are concerns about the adequacy of the existing legislation for protecting those selling age-restricted products. The call for evidence is intended to help us understand better how the existing law is being applied and whether there is a case for reform, including in the context of the sale of age-restricted products. However, I want to provide some reassurance about the legislation we have in place, without dismissing noble Lords’ points. A wide range of offences may be used to address unacceptable behaviour towards shop staff—including those who sell age-restricted items—covering the full spectrum of unacceptable behaviour, from using abusive language to the most serious and violent crimes.

Some of the existing offences available include behaviour that causes another to fear the immediate infliction of unlawful violence, which is already an offence of common assault under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Where shop workers are threatened or experience abusive language, this may be captured by the offences under the Public Order Act 1986. There is also the Offences against the Person Act 1861, which means that assaults against shop workers could be considered as assault occasioning actual bodily harm under Section 47 of that Act. In addition, courts have a statutory duty to follow sentencing guidelines when considering any penalty to be imposed further to criminal conviction, unless it is not in the interests of justice to do so. In all cases, the fact that an offence has been committed against a person serving the public may be considered an aggravating factor for the purpose of passing sentence.

In answer to my noble friend Lord Deben and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, the specific offence in Amendment 3 could be counterproductive and encourage prosecutions for the new obstruction offence with a maximum penalty of a fine—I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made that point as well—rather than a more serious offence, such as assault, which carries a higher penalty. That said, and going through the list of offences that this may capture, we understand retailers’ concerns about the risk of their staff being threatened or attacked—particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, for smaller retailers, such as corner shops. The call for evidence is intended to improve our understanding of the issue and identify potential solutions. We will seek to issue the call for evidence as soon as is practically possible.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether shop workers were law enforcers. It is a moot point on which I think we will agree to differ. I was trying to make the point that they are not policemen but they have to uphold the law. With that, I hope that I have given the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, enough to help him to withdraw his amendment.

Shop Workers: Protection

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 23rd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am very happy to meet USDAW, which I fully expected might be one of the things I would do during the passage of the Offensive Weapons Bill. The noble Baroness will know that attacking a person serving the public is already an aggravating factor in sentencing guidelines. The Minister for Crime, Safeguarding and Vulnerability will be discussing the way forward on the call for evidence with the national retail crime steering group. We do not have a closed mind on a way forward and I look forward to meeting USDAW and hearing its concerns about this serious matter.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, when shop workers enforce the law—for example, on the sale of age-restricted items—they are acting as law-enforcement officers. Does the Minister think that when shop workers perform these duties, they should have similar legal protections to those afforded to other law enforcers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not agree that they are acting as law-enforcement officers. One could take that to its ultimate conclusion and say that everyone who upholds the law is acting as a law-enforcement officer. They are simply saying that, for example, the sale of alcohol, tobacco and, in future, corrosive substances, to underage people is against the law. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, the call for evidence will bottom out exactly what is needed in the future. Nobody wants to see shop workers or any workers who deal with the public being abused in any way. I look forward to a constructive way forward on this.

Homophobic Hate Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 22nd January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord raises one of the most important things: a trend in hate crime that we are seeing is the perceived anonymity of online hate crime. Particularly for children who are bullied, which the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was about, that is carried with them all day because they bring their phones home, and that can produce some dark thoughts in their minds. The online harms White Paper is due shortly, and I very much look forward to working with the noble Lord on the legislation.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why 23% of recorded homophobic hate crimes resulted in a charge in 2014, but only 13% resulted in a charge in 2017? What impact does the Minister think these statistics will have on the confidence of the perpetrators of homophobic hate crime and the fear felt by victims?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Like the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the noble Lord raises an important question. In general, the changes in the charge rates are likely to be the result of improved crime recording by the police, and of forces taking on more complex crimes, such as sexual offences, which of course take longer. We welcome the fact that more victims are coming forward and reporting crimes to the police. However, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, the CPS and the police are working together to look at this disparity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there are certain aggravated offences in the hate crime area. We absolutely accept that the things the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was talking about are hate crimes, but they do not currently carry the aggravated offence.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, there was a commitment in the Conservative Party manifesto to make homophobic hate crime an aggravated offence. Are the Government going to fulfil the promise they made in their manifesto or not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes, my Lords, but the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, was talking about a different type of aggravated offence.

Migrant Crossings

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 7th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for his supportive words. Of course, we all recall what happened with Operation Sophia. We are working with the French because they feel exactly the same as we do—that this situation needs to be dealt with swiftly and carefully.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, according to news reports, these desperate people are saying to reporters that they are risking their lives to travel across the channel because they are not being dealt with humanely or justly in France. If it turns out that France is not taking a humanitarian approach to this and the UK is, is that a reason why we should not allow these people to seek asylum in this country?

Secondly, how will the UK leaving the European Union affect such traffic, bearing in mind that the Dublin III regulation applies to EU countries? Presumably it will no longer apply to us when we are outside the EU.

Future Immigration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 19th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. It says that,

“for the first time for more than 40 years, we will be able to say who can, and who cannot, come to this country”.

Can the Minister confirm that, currently, EU citizens and their families who want to stay for more than three months must have sufficient resources if they are not working so that they are not a burden on the state, and that EU citizens and members of their family can be expelled from the UK on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health? Can she also confirm that the UK can refuse, terminate or withdraw any free movement rights in the event of an abuse of those rights, or fraud? In other words, does she accept that we have considerable say over who can and who cannot come to or remain in this country as a member of the European Union?

The Statement says that the new policy will bring annual net migration down to more sustainable levels,

“as we committed to do in our manifesto”.

The Conservative Party manifesto promised to cut net migration to below 100,000, but the Statement also says:

“There will be no cap on numbers”,


for skilled immigration. Do the Government think immigration will go up or down as a result of a “no cap on numbers” immigration policy?

How can the future immigration system make sure, as the Statement says, that immigration works in the best interests of the UK when the policy is determined by the Home Office? Surely the number of doctors and nurses needed, and of those needed to work in social care, should be determined by the Department of Health and Social Care, for example, and not by the Home Office?

If immigration is to be restricted by salary level only, what about the thousands of immigrants who work in the construction, hospitality and social care sectors, and in the NHS, on low salaries? Highly skilled does not necessarily mean highly paid. Do the Government expect EU countries to prevent British workers earning less than the equivalent level of salary working in the European Union?

What is the estimated cost to the public sector and industry of having to engage with the visa system compared with the current visa-less system of employing EU nationals?

The Statement says that the policy will operate from 2021 but will be phased in to give individuals, businesses and the Government the time needed to adapt. Does that mean that the policy will operate from 2021 or only parts of it? If so, which parts?

How many years will it take for the Home Office to recruit and train the additional staff to implement the new systems required? By how much will the Home Office have to expand to grant permissions to EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members before they can come to the UK? How many people did this amount to in the last year for which the Government have figures? How many EEA and Swiss nationals do the Government anticipate will be refused entry under the new scheme to help reduce net migration?

By how much will the Home Office have to expand to process applications and enforce the temporary 12 months-on, 12 months-off scheme for low-skilled and seasonal workers? How many of those workers, who will not be able to access any benefits despite paying British tax and national insurance, will be put off by the new arrangements, not least by the fact that they will not be able to return to the UK for 12 months? What is the Government’s impact assessment? Can the Government confirm that there is intended to be no low-skilled immigration in the future and what the impact will be on public services and UK businesses?

It is clear that this White Paper has not been thought through. It is impractical, unnecessary and cannot possibly be implemented in full for many years to come. Like Brexit, immigration policy based on this White Paper will be damaging to our economy, to our public services and to public confidence.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. I contrasted the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, with those made by the shadow Home Secretary in the House of Commons, who said that, whether you are a doctor from Poland or a doctor from Pakistan, a single immigration system will work for you. The noble Lord then went on to say that he supported a single immigration system based on skills and not on where you are from.

Both the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why it had taken so long to get to this point. Noble Lords will remember that the MAC reported just in September. It was important to hear its advice. Moreover, the immigration White Paper suggests a change in the immigration system that we have not seen for a generation—more than 40 years—so it is important that the White Paper discusses all the various aspects that will affect the new system.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about UK citizens working in the EU. Clearly, the EU will have its own arrangements for UK citizens, but we have tried today to outline the system for anybody in the world who wants to come to work and live in the UK.

Both noble Lords mentioned the target. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made it clear this morning that we are committed to our manifesto pledge of controlling immigration to sustainable levels and that we favour a skills-based system that meets the needs of the UK economy.

Both noble Lords talked about the £30,000 salary threshold. That was a suggestion that will go out to consultation. We will hear various views on that figure from businesses across the country. The noble Lords also mentioned NHS workers. Nurses and certain medical practitioners are already on the shortage occupation list, which will continue to operate.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the disincentive to students. Far from this country providing a disincentive to students, we have seen the number of students from outside the EU grow year on year. So I do not accept that point.

Both noble Lords talked about temporary workers, be they construction workers or other types of temporary worker. We will keep that under review: of course it is important that people who come here for a short period, even if it is to fill gaps in the labour market, meet the needs of the economy. We expect a full review from the MAC on that in due course. In the interim we will be listening to businesses about what their needs are and what their experiences have been during that time.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about EU citizens, who must currently have sufficient funds to come here and can have those rights curtailed. Therefore, we have control of our migration system. However, free movement rules under the current system are quite broad and we need to take back control of our borders. We will not be in the European Union, although we fully view ourselves as being in Europe. He asked about additional staff. We will ensure that we have the staff to meet our future needs. Announcements have been made in the last couple of days about providing additional resource for Brexit and I am sure that, as time goes on, we will have more detail on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about the numbers of Swiss and EEA nationals refused. Under free movement we have very limited ability to refuse Swiss and EEA nationals who want to come to the UK, but in future they will have to meet the UK Immigration Rules, which will be the same for the whole world.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 17th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I agree with the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of communities. They are important in assisting the police and security services in countering not only terrorism but extremism. Amendment 33A would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament each year setting out how the ports powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to this Bill have been exercised.

Reiterating some of what I said earlier, the Government agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is unnecessary. We entirely agree that transparency and accountability are appropriate in governing the exercise of the new hostile activity ports powers, as is the case with the existing counterterrorism powers. I reiterate, however, that such mechanisms are already in place through the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation with respect to Schedule 7, and the future role of the IPC for Schedule 3. Part 6 of Schedule 3 already requires the IPC to review the use of the powers by making an annual report. We envisage this working in a very similar way to the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who reports annually on the use of counterterrorism powers under the Terrorism Act, including those in Schedule 7.

Noble Lords should be reassured that the commissioner, like the independent reviewer, will be afforded full access to any Schedule 3 record on request and information on how the powers have been exercised. The scope and content of these reports will be at the discretion of the commissioner, as they have been for a number of years regarding Schedule 7. The annual reports by the independent reviewer are augmented by the quarterly statistical bulletins, published by the Home Office, on the operation in Great Britain of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The latest bulletin was published on 6 December and, incidentally, recorded a further 25% decrease in the number of Schedule 7 examinations compared with the previous year. The number of Schedule 7 examinations has now fallen by 79% since the data was first collected in the year ending 30 September 2012. The published data already includes information about the ethnicity of examinees and the number of detentions.

As I said earlier, we are considering with the Home Office chief statistician the appropriate arrangements for publishing statistics on the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers, but we would expect to publish equivalent statistics to Schedule 7. The statistical reports in respect of Schedule 7 do not currently identify the religion of examinees, but we are ready to explore this with the Home Office chief statistician, the police and others. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. What comes across to me in her response to this and other amendments is that there is a degree of transparency and accountability, in that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will look at the Schedule 7 powers and the IPC, presumably, will examine those under Schedule 3. It is all very well for the Government, the independent reviewer or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be satisfied that these powers are being used appropriately, but they are not the people who need to be convinced that they are being used fairly: it is the communities—particularly the Muslim community—that need to be convinced. Publishing the religion of people being subjected to these powers is crucial if we are to get the Muslim community to work with us to defeat terrorism.

As I said when I introduced the amendment, people, or groups, can switch almost overnight. For example, the attempted bombings on 21 July 2005 were a carbon copy of those on 7 July, which did not go according to plan. They were supposed to involve four bombs on the Underground, and the copycat attacks on 21 July involved three on the Underground and one on a bus because of what happened on the 7th. That is how quickly the first attack was copy-catted by another group. It is the friends, neighbours and close associates of these lone wolves and groups of friends who will pick up on the changes in their behaviour that show they are moving from being radical to being violent and potentially deadly. It is therefore absolutely essential that we do everything we possibly can to win the trust and confidence of the communities from which these people come.

I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the Home Office statistician will be looking at the issue.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

The Minister said that the Government will be looking at this with the chief statistician and the police. Can she give a timeframe for that? If she cannot do so now, can she come back to the House before too long with an idea of when we might expect some further information on this work?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will come back to the noble Baroness in writing.

[Lord Paddick]

On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police Funding Settlement

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 13th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should declare an interest as, having been a police officer for more than 30 years, I am a police pensioner.

As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has increased the amount that police forces have to contribute to police pensions? According to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, that will amount to £165 million in 2019-20 and £417 million in 2020-21. The Government are providing £153 million to assist with increased pension costs, which is a shortfall of £12 million in the next financial year, and there is nothing in this settlement for the year after. How are police forces expected to plan ahead when they will potentially have to give back an additional £430 million to the Treasury for police pensions?

In a letter today from the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, the Government say that they are increasing the government grant to PCCs, which is,

“the first real terms increase in the Government grant funding since 2010”.

Yet the Statement that the Minister has just repeated says:

“Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms”.


Which is it: protected or increased? If it is the latter, by what percentage in real terms is it being increased? Can the Minister confirm that since 2010 central government funding for the police service has fallen by 30% in real terms, according to the National Audit Office, with overall funding down 19% in real terms, taking into account the police precept?

The Statement says that this year every force’s funding was protected in real terms. A more accurate picture can be given by looking at the picture since 2015. The number of police officers has fallen a further 4%, the number of community support officers has fallen by 18% and the number of special constables has fallen by 27%. Partly as a result of public spaces now being devoid of uniformed officers, knife crime is up 62%, firearms offences are up 30% and homicides are up 33% over the same period. Demand is rising and becoming increasingly complex, as the Government admit. There are crucial capability gaps, particularly in detectives and investigations, and the government response to this crisis is woefully inadequate.

Instead of making real progress in reversing the devastating cuts that this Government have imposed on the police service, they push responsibility for any meaningful increase in police funding on to police and crime commissioners and council tax payers. They say:

“The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs and they will have to make the case to their electorate and be accountable for delivery of a return on that public investment”.


In other words, the Home Office is saying, “Don’t blame us for increases in council tax and don’t blame us if you don’t notice any difference”.

Meanwhile, the Government are wasting millions of pounds propping up the existing out-of-date emergency service communications network while a new network, which relies totally on a commercial mobile phone network, is years behind its planned implementation. What would have happened to our emergency services if the new communication system had been in place by now, as planned, and had been based on the O2 network, which lost all 2G, 3G and 4G connectivity last week?

The police service and the brave officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us are at breaking point. When will the Government realise that the police service needs a substantial real-terms increase in central government funding and a guarantee to cover all unexpected increases in pension costs in order to avert a crisis?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the Government’s own part in this situation—that is, the funding position that we find ourselves in—and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the very similar point that we had caused a crisis in public safety. I have to say to both noble Lords that 2010 saw the advent of the new coalition Government of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems after one of the worst economic crashes that I have known in my lifetime. Any responsible Government would have had to have taken measures to take that in hand and control it. Both noble Lords are right that funding has been tough, but I could not say that the blame should all be laid at this Government’s door. We have tried to live within our means as opposed to overspending and ultimately creating problems for the next generations through public debt and the deficit.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about how the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—

Religious Hate Speech

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 5th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we need to be careful to balance the two issues. I know why the noble Lord picked “insult” and “abuse” because they sound quite strong words, but insult and abuse and hatred are quite different things. I take the noble Lord’s point: on the face of it, they seem quite strong words.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I was the police spokesperson after the 7 July bombings in 2005 in London when 52 innocent people lost their lives. I was asked in a press conference whether I felt that it was the result of Islamic terrorism. I said that I thought that the phrase “Islamic terrorism” was a contradiction in terms. I went on to say that I believe that the UK is a much better, more law-abiding country because we have a strong Muslim community. I believe that now as much as I did then. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do agree with the noble Lord that the conflation of Islamism and Islamic is widespread. Not only should we understand where the two terms come from—Islamism, of course, comes from the collapse of the Ottoman empire—but that Islam itself is a peaceful religion and Muslims in this country contribute to the variety and diversity of our country.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for moving her amendment. She has set out her position on this clearly and consistently, but I hope that your Lordships will indulge me if I rehearse the reasons why the Government cannot support the amendments.

As the noble Baroness said, Clause 1 amends Section 12(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act 2000, under which it is currently an offence to invite another person to support a proscribed terrorist organisation. An invitation in this context may be explicit or indirect, and may be implicit or opaque, but for a conviction to be secured the prosecution must be able to prove that the person intended to influence others to support the terrorist organisation. I recognise that, when considered in the abstract, this may appear to be the right threshold for the offence. However, in its operation it has been shown to leave a significant gap in the ability of the police, the CPS and the courts to act against hate preachers and radicalisers, as noble Lords have pointed out. This is because such individuals will often be careful to err on just the right side of the law. They will express opinions and beliefs which, in the judgment of a reasonable person, would be likely to have the effect of encouraging others to support proscribed terrorist groups but will stop short of statements which would go far enough to allow the CPS to prove that they intended such encouragement. This is despite them clearly and unambiguously risking harm to the public by virtue of their expressions.

This gap is illustrated by some of the cases to which I have previously drawn the House’s attention, and which were described by Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons. I urge noble Lords to examine that evidence carefully. In those cases, it was not possible to prosecute prolific and high-profile preachers of hate who had made highly inflammatory public speeches which were very clear about the speaker’s own support for terrorist organisations and methodology and which were on any reasonable assessment likely to cause their audience to be influenced to support a proscribed organisation. They included open admiration for Daesh and other terrorist groups and praise for their methods, ideology and activities.

However, I hope I will reflect the views of many noble Lords when I say that the current position strikes the wrong balance if it allows such obviously harmful behaviour to go unchallenged. This is behaviour that can have a powerful effect in initiating or moving along the process of radicalisation. There are radicalisers and hate preachers who have, time and again, been shown to have played a prominent and influential role in the backgrounds of those who have been convicted of planning or carrying out terrorist attacks.

Clause 1 is intended to close the gap I have described by bringing within the ambit of the Section 12(1)(a) offence individuals who are reckless as to whether they will cause this harm to arise. We have previously debated what is meant by “reckless”, but I think it is worth briefly setting this out again, before I turn to my concerns with the noble Baroness’s proposed amendments to Clause 1.

To answer the noble Baroness’s question, the term “reckless” is a well-established and well-understood concept in the criminal law, and one with which the courts are familiar, in particular as a result of clear case law established by the then Appellate Committee of this House in 2003 in the case of R v G and another. A person acts recklessly where he or she is aware that in the circumstances there is a risk that their conduct will result in the proscribed outcome, and they none the less engage in that conduct in circumstances where a reasonable person would not.

So, under Clause 1, a person might act recklessly if, in the course of addressing an audience consisting primarily of individuals whom he believes are of an Islamist extremist mindset, he speaks of his own support for Daesh, believing he has a degree of influence over the audience and being aware of the risk that members of the audience will be influenced by him to support Daesh. I hope noble Lords will not disagree when I say that a reasonable person would not, and should not, proceed to make that speech in those circumstances. A person who none the less does so would therefore be doing so recklessly. It may not be possible to prove beyond reasonable doubt an intention to influence their audience to support Daesh, but I consider it appropriate and proportionate that the courts can hold them to account if they are reckless in this way. Clause 1 will ensure that this is the case.

Turning now to Amendment 1, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, set out a concern that the reference to a statement that is “supportive” of a proscribed organisation might risk a person being found guilty of a terrorism offence having tweeted their support for a legitimate political objective which happens to be shared by a proscribed terrorist organisation. She gave the examples of support for an independent Kurdistan and for the withdrawal of Israeli troops from the Occupied Territories, both of which are entirely legitimate standpoints but which are also objectives of, respectively, the PKK and the military wings of Hamas and Hezbollah. I have previously assured her, and I am happy to repeat those assurances, that this is not the case. In her example, there would be no suggestion that the person supported terrorist methods to achieve the political objectives to which they aspired or that they supported any proscribed terrorist organisation. There would, therefore, be no basis on which a reasonable person might equate such a statement with support for the PKK or for the proscribed wings of Hamas or Hezbollah or might anticipate that a listener would be influenced to support those organisations. As such, the statements would not meet the recklessness test and would clearly not be caught by Clause 1.

The noble Baroness further highlighted in Committee that the existing Section 12(1)(a) offence refers to,

“inviting support for a proscribed organisation”,

whereas Clause 1 refers to,

“opinion or belief that is supportive of a proscribed organisation”.

She suggested that “supportive” is, intentionally, a broader wording, which will cast the net of the offence more widely than would be the case if the word “supports” were used instead.

I think we are all clear that there is no difference in meaning in the context of the drafting. The existing Section 12(1) offence criminalises those who invite others to support a terrorist group. That word has the wider meaning that the noble Baroness described, repeating what the court said in Choudary, but in the new offence, we are talking about an opinion or belief. As a matter of syntax, an opinion or belief cannot support an issue; a person supports something. That is why parliamentary counsel has used the word “supportive” here. There is no intention to introduce a wider concept than the existing offence. Crucially, new Section 12(1)(b) requires that a person will be encouraged to support a proscribed group by the expression.

However, I can offer the noble Baroness a clear assurance that it would in any event have no meaningful impact on the effect of the clause, the scope of the offence or the range of causes that would be caught by it. This would be exactly the same whichever formulation were used.

Amendment 2 would remove the recklessness test and replace it with one that effectively repeats the existing position in the Section 12(1)(a) offence, so it would still be necessary to prove the same deliberate act of invitation to support.

The noble Baroness has made it clear that she does not support the purpose of Clause 1, and I respect that view, even if I do not agree with it, but I should make it clear to noble Lords that the amendment would entirely nullify the utility of this clause and, as such, were it to be made, we might as well simply strike the whole clause from the Bill.

I hope that with that explanation, noble Lords are satisfied and the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

Before the noble Baroness sits down, perhaps she might address the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I heard what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, had to say, but I do not agree. I hope that the reasons I set out explained why I do not agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for taking us through an explanation of his amendment and explaining it with reference to Amendment 15 and his point about people who have a reasonable excuse.

In relation to viewing terrorist information in Clause 3 and entering or remaining in a designated area in Clause 4, the amendments would reconfigure the offences. Rather than the person who committed the offence of engaging in prohibited conduct being acquitted because they use the defence of having a reasonable excuse, there would instead be an exception—they would not be capable of committing the offence in the first place in circumstances where they have a reasonable excuse.

In relation to the offence of publishing images under Clause 2, there is currently no “reasonable excuse” defence. Rather, the offence is committed only if an image of an article is published in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. Amendment 3 would insert the same reasonable excuse exception that I have just described, which would operate in addition to the reasonable suspicion requirement concerning the circumstances in which the image is published.

Noble Lords have set out their arguments that there should be, at the outset, no question that a person might be guilty of an offence if they have a reasonable excuse for engaging in the activity covered by these offences. It has been argued that that approach will prevent the CPS from charging a person in these circumstances rather than the person potentially being charged and then having to invoke a “reasonable excuse” defence. I recognise that the approach of structurally rearranging the legislation may seemingly provide a greater degree of comfort to a person who finds themselves under suspicion in respect of one of these offences despite having a reasonable excuse, but I am not persuaded that these amendments would secure the outcome sought in relation to Clauses 3 and 4.

Amendments 4, 5, 8 and 9 are unnecessary as they would, in practice, make no material difference to the position of subjects of investigations and of defendants facing a charge under these clauses or on the matters that the prosecution will need to prove and that the court will need to resolve.

We have debated how the existing safeguards influence investigative and prosecutorial discretion, and how they prevent cases from proceeding where there is evidence that the person has a reasonable excuse. The amendments in my name which expand on these provisions in Clauses 3 and 4, and which we will shortly come to, will strengthen these safeguards further by providing indicative lists of reasonable excuses.

I shall go briefly over this ground again. Charges may be brought only if the CPS determines that the full code test is met. This is met only if there is evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction, and if so, whether a prosecution would be in the public interest. Those are very important points. If there is evidence to suggest that the person has a reasonable excuse for engaging in the otherwise prohibited conduct, there will not be a reasonable prospect of conviction because they will be able to successfully invoke the “reasonable excuse” defence. Furthermore, it would not be in the public interest and would be fundamentally inappropriate for prosecutors to charge a person who they believe is likely to be innocent of any criminal conduct as a result of having such a defence. The effect of this is the same as that envisaged by the noble Lord’s amendments. In either case, the CPS will not bring a prosecution if there is evidence that the person has a reasonable excuse which the CPS considers could not be disproved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.

Furthermore, neither the existing model nor that proposed by the noble Lord provide immunity from either investigation or prosecution purely on the basis that the person states that they have a reasonable excuse. Under either model, the police will need to investigate the person to establish what activity they have been involved in and whether they may have a reasonable excuse for it, and to gather evidence.

It will rightly remain open to the CPS to prosecute if it believes, following the investigation by the police and on the basis of the evidence gathered, that the person does not have a reasonable excuse, despite any assertion that the person might make to the contrary. Under either model it would then be for the person to advance their reasonable excuse, for the prosecution to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt, and ultimately for the jury to determine whether or not it is a reasonable excuse. Unless we were to introduce a unilateral immunity from prosecution for any person who declares themselves to be innocent, this must always be the position and the noble Lord’s amendments would not change it.

Although these amendments would not make a significant change to the practical operation of the law in this area, they would depart from the commonly taken approach in the criminal law where offences provide a “reasonable excuse” defence. In particular, they would overturn what is a well understood and settled position, with clear case law, in relation to Section 58 of the Terrorism Act, which Clause 3 amends. I do not think that it would be wise to do so unless there was a very persuasive case for it, which I do not think is being made here.

I turn finally to Amendment 3. Clause 2 in its current form does not make any provision in relation to reasonable excuses. But it is not an offence of strict liability and it cannot be committed by the mere fact of publishing an image. Rather, it is committed only in particular circumstances which the prosecution is required to prove beyond reasonable doubt. These are where the image is published in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

We have previously debated the operation of this aspect of Clause 2, and I am happy to reiterate the Government’s clear position that it will provide both certainty and protection for those who have a legitimate reason to publish images of flags or other articles associated with proscribed organisations, and who are not themselves members or supporters of the organisation. This clear limitation on the scope of the offence is the best way to provide a safeguard for individuals such as journalists or historians, and the addition of a reasonable excuse provision is not necessary in addition. Indeed, it would be likely to overcomplicate and undermine the operation of the offence.

The Government do not consider that a person should in fact have a reasonable excuse for publishing such an image in circumstances which do not meet the criteria of the offence; that is to say, where a court is satisfied that the circumstances give rise to a reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a terrorist organisation. Indeed, I would query whether there is a scenario which would not be covered by the existing safeguard but which should be considered a reasonable excuse. I cannot think of one. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. The Government seem to be relying on the CPS charging decision, which is very different from the decision that an operational police officer in an uncontrolled environment makes at the time about whether to arrest or not to arrest. The Minister said that there was no material difference, which there is not in terms of successful prosecution. However, it makes a difference to the likelihood of a person being arrested or people being deterred from engaging in completely legitimate activity for fear that they may be arrested, whether they have confidence in the police making the right decision or not.

The Minister talked about a commonly taken approach in law, yet I gave the example of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, where a person does not commit an offense of possessing an offensive weapon if they have “lawful authority” or “reasonable excuse”; that is determined by the operational officer on the street at the time. I am afraid that I find few of the Minister’s arguments compelling. However, we will return to this issue, particularly in relation to designated areas, when we come to the fifth group of amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage (Hansard - continued): House of Lords
Monday 3rd December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. We on these Benches have for some time had a concern about the so-called conveyor belt theory that radical, non-violent, extreme views necessarily lead to radicalisation and violence. Many groups in this country hold what most of us would consider to be extreme views, such as fundamentalist Christian groups and ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, where we have no concerns at all that their extreme views will lead to radicalisation and violence.

There are other factors at play that receive no consideration as far as the Bill’s measures are concerned. We also express our concern that the Bill would tend to put people off debating extreme views, during which the counternarrative can be expressed, peoples’ dangerous views can be openly debated and their ideas shown to be false. The Bill and other measures like it are likely to close down that debate. Ultimately, a battle of ideas is the way to address the underlying issues rather than the approach the Bill takes.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for their explanation of these amendments. One of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, challenged the Government on was the rationale behind our counter- terrorism work. Perhaps it would be useful to set out some of that for him.

As stated in Contest, government and academic research has consistently indicated that there is no single sociodemographic profile of a terrorist in the UK, and no single pathway or, indeed, “conveyor belt” leading to involvement in terrorism. Terrorists come from a broad range of backgrounds and appear to become involved in different ways and for differing reasons. Few of those who are drawn into Islamist terrorism, for example, have a deep knowledge of the faith.

While no single factor will cause someone to become involved in terrorism, several factors can converge to create certain conditions under which radicalisation can flourish. These include background factors such as aspects of someone’s personal circumstances that might make them vulnerable to radicalisers, such as being involved in criminal activity; initial influences such as people, ideas or experiences that influence an individual towards supporting a terrorist movement; and an ideological opening or receptiveness to extremist ideology.

Most individuals who experience this combination of factors will not go on to become involved in terrorism because there are protective factors that safeguard against their doing so. These range from having no opportunity to develop extremist contacts to having other, more important priorities in their lives, such as their family, career or community. A small number of people who lack these protective factors may become radicalised. In these circumstances, a range of social and ideological influences can combine to intensify commitment to a terrorist cause and provide opportunities for them to act.

The process of radicalisation is driven by universal psychological needs for identity and belonging—those words are very important in this context—meaning and purpose, and, of course, self-esteem. Where these are met by constructive sources radicalisation will not flourish, but we also know that as a person deepens their involvement in terrorism this process will typically include voracious consumption of online propaganda. When in a group, further engagement in terrorism is also likely to include the individual isolating themselves from non-extremists and participating in low-level activity such as the radicalisation of others, or facilitation, fundraising, et cetera. There is some research to indicate that lone-actor terrorists have a higher incidence of certain mental and developmental health conditions than the general population, but I must stress that no one should assume that a terrorist suffers from a mental health condition or that a person with a mental health condition is a terrorist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, helpfully proposed an amendment in Committee to close a gap he had identified on accounts which a terrorist offender is entitled to operate but does not hold in their own name—for example, because they are an authorised signatory to the account of the relative or employer. I recognised then that there might well be merit in the amendment and committed to take it away to consider it further. I have just done that and find myself in agreement with the noble Lord that this is indeed a gap in the current Bill and that his suggestion will close it and improve the Bill.

Amendment 27 therefore implements his suggestion, for which I am very grateful, and I commend the amendment to the House.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, but I cannot possibly claim credit for the amendment: it is actually the work of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That having been said, we are very grateful that she listened to our arguments. We hope that noble Lords will realise that we on these Benches look to be hopeful, not necessarily negative about legislation. We hope that closing this loophole shows that we are working together to try to improve legislation.

Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 28th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

I do not want to prolong the agony for the Minister, but the point about America is that the tax people pay there does not pay for healthcare. That is why people have to have insurance. Immigrants come to this country, get jobs and pay national insurance and income tax, which pays for healthcare. But only immigrants have to pay a charge in addition to the national insurance and income tax they pay to fund the health service. Can the Minister explain why?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Temporary immigrants have to pay the healthcare charge, but anyone with indefinite leave to remain or who is a citizen of this country contributes to the NHS through general taxation. We are not going to agree on this.

Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 21st November 2018 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs for its advice, which has helped to inform the draft order before us. The order was first laid before Parliament on 17 October and will control pregabalin and gabapentin as class C drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. Should the order be made, pregabalin and gabapentin will be subject to permanent control under Schedule 2 to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 through an amendment to Part 3, which specifies the drugs that are subject to control under the 1971 Act as class C drugs.

The order follows the recommendation from the ACMD to control the two drugs under class C of the 1971 Act, as their harms are comparable with those of other substances controlled as class C drugs. To help those with a legitimate medical need access these drugs, and subject to Parliament’s approval of the order before the Committee now, we will schedule both drugs under Schedule 3 to the Misuse of Drugs Regulations 2001 through regulations.

Pregabalin and gabapentin are prescription medicines which are used to manage a number of disabling long-term conditions, including epilepsy. They are also licensed for the treatment of general anxiety disorders. In its advice, the ACMD identified a number of harms—in particular, it drew attention to the dangers that can arise when the drugs are used in combination with other central nervous system depressants. In these circumstances, they can cause drowsiness, sedation, respiratory failure and death.

The ACMD also highlighted the risk of addiction that pregabalin and gabapentin presented, as well as the potential for illegal diversion and medicinal misuse. Its advice also drew attention to the concerns of health staff in prisons who reported a high number of prisoners being prescribed the drugs without a thorough assessment of their needs.

Across the United Kingdom, there have been significant increases in the prescription of both drugs: pregabalin prescriptions have increased from 2.7 million in 2012 to 6.25 million in 2017, while gabapentin prescriptions have risen from 3.5 million in 2012 to over 7 million in 2017. In tandem, there has been an increase in the number of deaths related to pregabalin and gabapentin since 2009. In the last five years there have been 408 deaths where pregabalin was mentioned on the death certificate, and 203 in the case of gabapentin. This compares with four and one for pregabalin and gabapentin respectively in 2009.

By controlling the two drugs, we will restrict the potential for misuse by making diversion and their illicit supply more difficult but without compromising access for those who have a legitimate need to access the drugs for healthcare purposes. Parliament’s approval of this order will enable UK law enforcement to take action against those who illegally supply these drugs and against those who illegally possess them. Possession of a class C drug is an offence resulting in up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, and the supply or production of a class C drug is an offence resulting in up to 14 years in prison or an unlimited fine.

If approved, the order will send a clear message to the public that the drugs should only be in the possession of those who have been legitimately prescribed them. We hope that the significant supply offences for class C drugs will make people think twice before they consider diverting pregabalin and gabapentin into the illegal market.

The measure to control these drugs is scheduled to come into force in April 2019. Given the widespread use of the two medicines, this will help to provide the healthcare sector with sufficient time to implement the new requirements. I can assure Members that all relevant information will be communicated to other stakeholders and the wider public. The Home Office will issue a circular with legislative guidance for the police and the courts. Guidance will also be published following engagement with interested parties about the effect of the legislation in preparation for it coming into force in April. In addition, the Government will continue to update its messaging on the harms of these substances.

I hope I have made the case to control these harmful drugs and I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the order to us. As she has said, this puts two substances into class C of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, on the recommendation of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

We support any evidence-based scientific approach to reducing the harm caused by drugs, legal or illegal. My question is very simple. The noble Baroness talked about a very clear message being sent to the public, but why do the Government not always act on the scientific, evidence-based assessment of the ACMD?

The problem with drugs classification under the Misuse of Drugs Act is threefold. First, based on independent scientific assessment, drugs are not classified according to the potential harm that they cause. For example, GHB—gamma-hydroxybutyrate—is believed to cause a significant number of deaths—perhaps as many as several a week in the UK alone. Yet it is classified as a class C drug. Cannabis which, to my knowledge has not been the direct cause of any drug-related death, is a class B drug. Because of this, and several other misclassifications of which I could give examples, the classification of drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act has fallen into disrepute among those who might arguably be helped most if they knew that the classification of drugs was based on how dangerous they were.

At this stage, I should point out an interest to the Committee. A former partner, who then became my best friend and who was very experienced in the use of recreational drugs, died from an accidental overdose of GHB.

Secondly, because the classification system does not reflect potential harm, only potential sentence, it has become irrelevant to most drug users. They quite simply work on the basis that the penalty is irrelevant to them as they have no intention of getting caught.

Thirdly, any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act carries a heavier penalty than a new psychoactive substance covered by the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016 in that possession of a new psychoactive substance is not an offence, whereas possession of any drug classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act is an offence. This is even though some of the new psychoactive substances are more harmful than drugs classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act.

Our drugs laws are a mess, the Government’s drugs strategy is ineffective and, if we are to stop our young people dying, we need a fundamental rethink. We called for a scientific, evidence-based review of our drugs laws when we debated the Psychoactive Substances Bill—a proposition both the Conservative and Labour Benches refused to support. Therefore, I note with interest the comments of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Victoria Atkins, in the other place, when this order was discussed by the Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee on 12 November this year, at 6.05 pm, where she said that the Government have announced,

“an independent review of the misuse of drugs in the 21st century”. —[Official Report, Commons, Tenth Delegated Legislation Committee, 12/11/18; col. 4.]

Can the Minister provide the Committee with further details of who will be conducting this review, what their terms of reference are, and any other details that may be of interest?

Policing: Priorities

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that I have stood at this Dispatch Box before and said that it is up to local police forces to set priorities for their local areas, because they will differ from area to area. It is important to note—I have said this before as well—that both the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister recognise the increasing calls on police time and the different demands facing them, particularly in light of events in the past year. There is an additional point about how the police operate. It will not be any surprise to the noble Lord that some police forces are far more effective than others, and it is important to think of ways in which they could collaborate, make better use of technology and be more efficient as time goes on.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in the current scenario in which there is significant rationing of policing services because of central government cuts to police budgets, it is no longer acceptable for the Government, and the Home Office in particular, to wash their hands of the consequences. When will the Home Office provide the leadership needed and tell the police service what it should stop doing, because it cannot do everything that the public want with the resources it has been given?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Home Office has no intention of telling the police what they should stop doing because, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there will be different priorities in different areas. It is up to local police forces to decide what those are. As for the other acknowledgement by the Home Office, which is that the police are facing new demands and have faced increasing calls upon their time over the last year or so, both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary fully recognise this and are working with the Treasury to get a better settlement.

Police: Serious and Violent Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 15th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Government’s assessment at this point in time—I refer again to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and my honourable friend the Policing Minister—is that the police have had huge increases in demand. The pattern of crime is changing, as the noble Lord pointed out. Knife crime is a particular issue in London and county lines are spreading the problem across forces. I know that the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister recognise this and are looking to work on the funding picture.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, public health approaches such as those mentioned earlier can take a decade to produce significant results and meanwhile, young people are dying. Effective, targeted stop and search based on community intelligence requires a significant investment in community policing to build trust and confidence in the police and restore the flow of information about who the knife carriers are, so that the knives can be taken off the streets. When will the Government make such an investment? This is a clear example of where more resources could save lives.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I acknowledge that a public health approach is not a quick fix, but in Scotland, where there has been a public health approach for some time, it has been incredibly effective. I know that officials have been talking with the Scottish violence reduction unit and sharing its experience and insight into just how effective a public health approach can be.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, in opposing the additional powers conferred by Schedule 3, for some of the reasons she has just mentioned. We have already debated whether the powers in Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act are used appropriately in every case. From complaints made to me, I believe that there is increasing concern that Schedule 7 powers may be being used arbitrarily—particularly against black and other ethnic minority passengers—resulting in missed flights with no compensation.

As the briefing provided by Liberty suggests, Schedule 3 covers a potentially vast and uncertain range of behaviours. Paragraph 1(1) refers to,

“a person who is, or has been, engaged in hostile activity”.

As the noble Baroness said, the Bill defines hostile activity as any act which threatens national security, the economic well-being of the UK or which constitutes a serious crime, where the act is,

“carried out for, or on behalf of, a State other than the United Kingdom or … otherwise in the interests of a State other than the United Kingdom.

However, the person need not be aware that they are engaged in hostile activity, and the state for which the hostile act is being carried out need not even be aware that the hostile act is being carried out. As the Bill is worded, someone from Paris or Frankfurt travelling to the UK to encourage UK businesses to relocate to their city in the face of Brexit will be caught by these provisions, because his mission would threaten the economic well-being of the UK and would be in the interests of another state—France or Germany. In a later group, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has an amendment in relation to what the definition of hostile act should be, and we will return to this subject then.

This schedule and the powers it contains, according to the Home Office briefing we were provided with, is supposed to be a response to the attempted assassination of Sergei and Yulia Skripal, yet almost all commentators agree that this was an act of terrorism already adequately covered by Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. Perhaps the Minister can give an example of a hostile act that has been committed against the UK that was not an act of terrorism.

The fact sheet provided by the Home Office suggests that these provisions are needed because:

“The UK faces a sustained threat from hostile actors seeking to undermine our national security in a wide variety of ways”.


Can the Minister explain how every and all acts that threaten the economic well-being of the UK are a threat to national security, and why the wording used in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is not used here—for example, with regard to the issuing of bulk interception warrants under Section 138(2) of the 2016 Act, where the issue of a warrant has to be,

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom”,

but only so far as those interests are relevant also to the interests of national security?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we have already debated a number of points related to the new ports powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill. Groups of amendments to come will address other aspects of these provisions. That being the case, I will limit my remarks in responding to this stand part debate to explaining the overarching case for these new powers to combat hostile state activity. Schedule 3 will serve to address a current gap in our ability to tackle the threat from hostile state actors by introducing provisions to allow an examining officer to stop, question, search and detain persons at a UK port or the border area in Northern Ireland to determine whether they are or have been engaged in hostile activity.

For the purposes of this legislation, a person is or has been engaged in hostile activity if they are or have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of a “hostile act” that is or may be carried out for or on behalf of a state other than the United Kingdom, or otherwise in the interests of a state other than the United Kingdom. An act is a hostile act if it threatens national security, threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, or is an act of serious crime. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, asked about the types of activity that would threaten the economic well-being of the UK. Acts of that kind include those which damage the country’s critical infrastructure or disrupt energy supplies. The power absolutely will not be used to target the legitimate activity of foreign businesses, an example of which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The noble Baroness also asked whether the power will be used in a discriminatory fashion. The response is an emphatic no, it will not. That is because selection based solely on ethnicity, religion or other protected characteristics is quite clearly unlawful. Selection for examination will be informed by a number of considerations, including available intelligence about hostile activity, as listed in the criteria set out in the draft code.

The events in Salisbury were a stark reminder of the impact that hostile activity can have on the safety and security of our communities. The use of a military grade nerve agent on UK soil demonstrated very clearly the lengths to which hostile actors such as the Russian state will go in order to achieve their illegitimate ends. We should not underestimate this threat. The Director General of MI5, Andrew Parker, set out the position in stark terms in a speech delivered in Berlin in May:

“We are living in a period where Europe faces sustained hostile activity from certain states. Let me be clear, by this I … mean deliberate and targeted malign activity intended to undermine our free, open and democratic societies; to destabilise the international rules-based system that underpins our stability, security and prosperity … Chief protagonist among these hostile actors is the Russian Government”.


It is not often that the general public are so exposed to the work of hostile actors. These actions highlight a contempt for public safety, the rule of law and international norms. However, they are consistent with the activities of the Russian state and others which our operational partners work tirelessly to counter.

In introducing these new powers, the Government are seeking to provide the additional capability needed better to detect, disrupt and deter the threats from these hostile actors. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, put it in his evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee in January, if it is accepted that we need powers to stop and examine people at ports to combat terrorism, should not the police have similar powers to stop people on a similar basis who pose an equal but different threat to national security? In the Government’s view, the answer to the question must be an unequivocal “yes”.

It is worth reiterating that the provisions of Schedule 3 are not entirely novel. They will in many respects mirror existing powers to stop and question persons at the border to determine whether they are terrorists, but will instead be used to determine whether a person is or has been engaged in hostile state activity.

The Government are not saying that, simply because we have these powers for counterterrorism purposes, it justifies expanding them to hostile activity. Rather, we are saying that we have experience in exercising these powers; we already know the vital role that they play in countering the activities of terrorists, and we have taken into account the views of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on the exercise of the powers to ensure that the subject of an examination is appropriately safeguarded.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked for examples of hostile activity that would not be considered a serious crime or even be captured under current UK law or constitute terrorism. Examples might include unauthorised disclosure under the Official Secrets Act 1989; foreign intelligence officers building relationships with government officials with a view to influencing decision-making or recruiting them as an agent, or foreign intelligence officers receiving protectively marked information or stealing research plans for the UK’s next aircraft carrier. Section 1 of the Theft Act 1968 is applicable to tangible and in-action property, but does not cover information. It may be possible to prosecute a person for theft of the medium on which sensitive information is recorded, but the offence would carry limited sentencing.

The threat to this country from hostile state activity is greater now than it has ever been. It is therefore vital that the police are equipped to disrupt and deter such activity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord provides a very good example. It might not amount to reasonable suspicion, but there would certainly be a pattern of activity or information which allowed that officer to stop the individual.

[Lord Paddick]

Will the Minister answer my question about why the wording from the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 is not used? It attaches to the consideration of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom the further consideration of the interests of national security to differentiate between acts such as I described, of envoys from Paris and Frankfurt trying to steal UK business, and the example given by the Minister of somebody looking to target the electricity infrastructure.

The Minister said that the powers could not be used to target people on the basis of race and religion because it would be illegal. In which case, can she explain why, in one police force area, you are 25 times more likely to be stopped and searched if you are from a black or minority ethnic background than if you are white? Why is that happening when it is illegal?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Police stop and search is very often intelligence based. There may be areas where there is a higher than average proportion of black people. Quite often, some of the gang activity is black on black, but you cannot be stopped because you are black.

[Lord Paddick]

The force I am quoting from is Dorset, if that helps the Minister.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That does help me, and of course it is where the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, lives. The noble Lord makes a very good point in that instance. As for envoys trying to steal business, there is nothing wrong with healthy business competition, but undermining the economy, through critical infrastructure, is entirely different. He also asked about the IP Act and I will write to him on that. The answer just handed to me contains a quotation from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who wrote:

“If Schedule 7 is being skilfully used, therefore, one would expect its exercise to be ethnically ‘proportionate’ not to the UK population, nor even to the airport-using population, but rather to the terrorist population that travels through UK ports”.


That is a far more eloquent description of the proportionality. I will write to the noble Lord about the IP Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My reading of the amendment is that it would differentiate between a Schedule 7 encounter, where the person is not entitled to silence and has to answer questions because they commit an offence if they do not, and the informal process that leads up to a Schedule 7 encounter.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank noble Lords for their points on this amendment. I start by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that the IPC has been consulted throughout the drafting of the code.

The interactions between noble Lords probably go to the root of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The section on screening outlined in the Schedule 3 code, which mirrors the existing guidance for the equivalent CT powers, is there to provide ports officers with clarity on the distinction between questions that can be asked by police officers in the ordinary course of their duties with a view to deciding whether to examine someone and questions that are permissible only once a Schedule 3 examination has commenced; that is, those questions designed to elicit information to enable an officer to determine whether the person is or has been concerned in hostile activity.

We have all come across police officers as we go about our daily lives and are used to seeing them on local streets and in tourist hotspots or protecting our national infrastructure. Wherever officers are on the ground, it is reasonable to expect them to interact with the public. It is not only a reasonable expectation but a vital aspect of front-line policing.

Such interactions will vary and depend on the specific purposes. They may range from polite conversation between an officer and a member of the public to a situation where an officer wants to query why a person is acting in a certain way or why they are present in a certain place. In such circumstances, police officers do not rely on specific powers of questioning; rather, they are simply engaging members of the public during their ordinary duties, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, pointed out. It is no different when officers are stationed at UK ports.

It would be unusual if officers did not interact with the public in this way. It would be even more unusual if front-line officers were not able to use those interactions to determine whether any further action was needed. It is unfortunate that, in trying to clarify this distinction between what would constitute questioning or interaction during ordinary police duties and questioning that can take place only once a Schedule 3 examination has commenced, the language and intention of the code have somehow been misunderstood.

Let me be clear: what is referred to as “screening” in the draft code is not a prescribed process or procedure that ports officers must adopt before selecting a person for examination. It is a clarification of what questions can be asked, if appropriate, prior to selection for examination, as against the questions that can be asked only during an examination.

It is quite possible that a ports officer will speak to members of the public at a UK port in the course of their duties with no intention of selecting them for an examination of any kind. Of course, the person’s behaviour might lead the officer to consider use of a police power, but Amendment 63A could have the unfortunate implication that, in other contexts and absent specific statutory powers, officers are unable to talk to the public or request to see their documents in the ordinary course of their duties to determine whether they need to take the further step of invoking their legal powers. It would define such questioning as being part of the Schedule 3 examination itself, rather than something that takes place before an examination. All that said, even though I do not agree with the amendment, we will consider whether further clarity is needed in the code before formally laying it before Parliament for a debate and approval by both Houses. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, briefly, I agree in principle with the intention behind the amendments, at least on confidential journalistic material and material that is subject to legal privilege. However, I recognise the dilemma of how you determine whether it is confidential information unless you just take the person’s word for it. Clearly, if you just accepted the person’s word that the matter was confidential, anybody could get away with not handing over documents. I do not think that Amendment 69A could work in practice in real time, but there is a real problem here that needs an explanation and some reassurance.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords with my explanation, but I thank those who have raised their concerns about the use of Schedule 3 powers to compel a journalist to reveal their material, including confidential material.

In drafting the Bill, we have been alive to such concerns and at pains to ensure that adequate safeguards, which I think noble Lords are talking about, are in place to protect confidential material, including confidential journalistic material. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed out, the new retention powers in respect of confidential information require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who has to be satisfied that certain conditions are met before granting that authorisation.

In earlier debates on the powers under Schedule 3, I explained that a number of foreign powers and hostile actors are becoming even more bold and inventive in their methods. For example, as I outlined earlier, intelligence officers and their agents actively use the cover of certain professions, including journalism, the law and others. To ensure that our police officers are equipped to detect, disrupt and deter such activity, it is critical that they are able to retain, copy and examine documents or other articles that may include confidential journalistic or legally privileged material. That is why Schedule 3 introduces new powers and mechanisms to allow for such action to be taken where the article, which may include confidential material, could be used in connection with a hostile act or to prevent death or significant injury.

I recognise that the protection of journalistic material held by any individual examined under ports powers is a sensitive matter and one where we clearly need to get the safeguards in the Bill right. I want to be clear that the powers in Schedule 3 are not intended to disrupt or impede the vital work of journalists in any way. Journalistic freedoms of speech and expression are the absolute cornerstone of our democracy, which should be protected in the exercise of any police powers. The provisions in the Bill, however, are aimed at those who seek to abuse our legal frameworks to put our national security at risk and who are often trained to do so.

Amendment 68 would allow a person to refuse a request for documents or information where the information or documents in question consist of journalistic material, as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, or are subject to legal privilege. In practice, this would prohibit the examining officer from verifying that the material in question was confidential and would require the officer to take the examinee at their word. Amendment 69A is similar and, while it does not quite go as far as allowing a person to refuse to provide requested documents or information, it would prohibit an examining officer from verifying that that material was confidential. Instead, it would be for the IPC to determine the question.

Restricting powers in this way would be problematic, particularly where the examinee is a trained hostile actor. Amendment 68 would provide a ground for a person to refuse to hand over documents or information simply by claiming that the material is journalistic or legally privileged. Furthermore, it would mean that the examining officer could not seek to examine such material, where there was a need, by retaining the material and applying for IPC authorisation. Amendment 69A is also concerning, as it would impose a restriction on the examining officer such that they were unable to establish their own reasonable belief that the article consisted of confidential material. The police have a duty to protect our citizens and prevent crime. They cannot be expected to take at face value the word of someone they are examining who, in some cases, will be motivated to lie.

It is important to note that there are additional safeguards to govern the retention of property under Schedule 3 that consists of, or includes, confidential material. The IPC will authorise the retention and use of the material only if satisfied that arrangements are in place that are sufficient for ensuring that the material is retained securely, and that it will be used only so far as is necessary and proportionate for a relevant purpose—that is, in the interests of national security or the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; for the purposes of preventing or detecting serious crime; or for the purposes of preventing death or significant injury.

The Government are of the view that it is reasonable to expect that an examining officer will need to review material, to conclude one way or the other that specific items are, or include, confidential journalistic or legally privileged material. That being said, the draft Schedule 3 code of practice is clear:

“If during the process of examining an article it becomes apparent to the examining officer that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the article consists of or includes items that are confidential material, the examining officer must cease examining and not copy these items unless he or she believes there are grounds to retain it under either paragraph 11(2)(d) or (e)”.


The provisions in paragraph 11 of Schedule 3 contain the retention powers involving oversight by the IPC and the safeguards that I described earlier. I acknowledge that handling confidential material requires vigilance and discretion to safeguard it against unnecessary examination or retention, which is why the mechanisms under paragraphs 12, 13 and 15 of Schedule 3 in relation to these retention powers require prior authorisation of the IPC to be sought, save in exceptional circumstances, before an examining officer is able to examine such material.

We are therefore confident that the safeguards provided for in Schedule 3 and the associated draft code of practice are sufficient to protect the work and privacy of legitimate journalists and lawyers, and are consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Schedule 7 case of Miranda that,

“independent and impartial oversight … is the natural and obvious adequate safeguard”,

in examining cases involving journalistic material.

Amendment 69 would extend this bar to information and documents where the material falls under the definition of journalistic material, as defined by the PACE and IP Acts. Such a position would go much further than safeguarding the examinee against self-incrimination. By extending the statutory bar to cover information or documents that are considered journalistic material, Amendment 69 could prevent evidence of a hostile act being used in criminal proceedings where it had been acquired through the legitimate examination of confidential material on the authorisation of the IPC. This would significantly undermine the ability of the police and the CPS to prosecute hostile actors who have used journalistic cover to disguise their criminal activities and been uncovered through the Schedule 3 examination powers.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, an officer can proceed to verify that material is confidential, subject to IPC authorisation, and look at confidential material, even if satisfied of the credentials of the journalist who might nevertheless be a hostile state actor.

Amendment 71 concerns the definition of “confidential material” in paragraph 12(10) of Schedule 3 and the associated protections. For the purposes of Schedule 3, confidential material adopts the definition of the IP Act. This definition covers, for example, journalistic material and communication that the sender intends the recipient to hold in confidence. As I explained, this material would fall under the definition of confidential material. It cannot be used or retained by an examining officer unless authorised by the IPC.

With those explanations—I am sorry they were so lengthy—I hope that the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Because they are implicit in the Bill and, I guess, Schedule 7.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate. Perhaps reasonable suspicion of a particular individual is going too far, but I suggest to the Minister that the nationality of those suspected of coming to the UK to do harm to the UK, their arrival time and where they have come from might be the sort of intelligence that Assistant Commissioner Basu was talking about as fragmented and incomplete, not information about a particular individual. Whether that amounts to reasonable suspicion is arguable.

To give a personal example, every time I tried to go to the United States, I was taken to one side and all my personal property was gone through. This addresses the point about alerting people to the fact that they may be under suspicion. If it happens once, you think it might be random; when it happens every time, you begin to think that there might be some suspicion. There is a redress system where you write to the Department of Homeland Security. It writes back to you some months later saying, “We can’t say whether you were under suspicion or not, whether you are on the list or not, or whether you have been taken off the list or not”. This is not giving away the methodology, or giving some intelligence to terrorists, but insisting that there is something more than simply an arbitrary approach to the situation.

I am getting increasing reports from individuals suggesting that examination might be being used arbitrarily or without due care, which is the other expression used by the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, makes a very powerful point. If the guidance says that stop and searches should not be arbitrary, why not have that in the Bill? I understand what the noble Baroness says, but how many people have the time, inclination or means to take civil action against the Border Force in circumstances where they feel that they are being improperly targeted? Surely it would be much better to have it in the Bill.

In summary, I will carefully reflect on what the noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said, and at this point I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Then I shall just agree.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the explanation that the noble Baroness has given. Obviously, Schedule 7 does not allow a suspect the right to silence that is normally afforded to somebody who is suspected. Safeguards therefore need to be put in place. My query is on new subsection (3), at line 14 on page 20 of the Bill; what does this mean? It says:

“An answer or information may not be used by virtue of sub-paragraph (2)(c) unless … evidence relating to it is adduced, or … a question relating to it is asked, by or on behalf of the person in the proceedings arising out of the prosecution”.


I accept that the Minister read that out very slowly and carefully, but it reminds me of my mother, who, when speaking to somebody who does not speak English, speaks loudly and clearly in English again to try to get them to understand, but unfortunately it does not really help. Perhaps the noble Baroness, together with officials, can see whether there is some way in which that can be deciphered for me.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly will, although I resent being compared to the noble Lord’s mother.

Stop and Search Powers

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 12th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Regarding conversations, the British Transport Police hosted a police and public consultation forum on 2 November. It was a policing seminar on stop and search where debates were had on the effectiveness of stop and search on emerging knife crime and violence. As part of the seminar, the possibility of removing the requirement for reasonable grounds was debated within the group, but it was not put forward by senior officers and was only part of an informal discussion with stakeholders. The Home Office was not in attendance, and the NPCC issued a corrective statement to editors.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. She talked about government reform of stop and search, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred to action taken by the former Home Secretary, now the Prime Minister. Is the Minister aware that there has been a 75% reduction in stop and search since 2010-11, but no reduction in the number of black people stopped and searched, so that black people are now nine times more likely to be stopped and searched for certain offences than white people?

The argument is put forward that stop and search tends to be in high crime areas with socioeconomic deprivation, which have a higher percentage of minority groups. Is the Minister aware that the top-ranked forces for black/white disproportionality are Dorset and Suffolk? We are facing a knife-crime crisis in this country. In 2010-11, half of stop and search was for drugs. In 2016-17, almost two-thirds of stop and search carried out by police was for drugs, not for weapons, and the rate at which drugs were actually found was lower for black people being stopped and searched than for white people.

The Statement that the Minister has just repeated said that stop and search is a valuable tool provided that it is used properly. Does the Minister agree that these statistics tend to suggest that stop and search is not being used properly to deal with the epidemic of knife crime? If so, what do the Government intend to do to address the problem?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, rightly pointed out, the move to a much more intelligence-led stop and search has been more effective. But on the point about the number of black people being stopped and searched, we are quite clear that nobody should be stopped on the basis of their race or ethnicity. Forces must make sure that officers use those really quite intrusive powers in ways that are fair, lawful and effective.

The figures cited by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, were highlighted by the Race Disparity Audit. I am sure he knows that. They make clear the importance of the transparency introduced by the reforms to stop and search which enable forces to monitor and explain the use of the power. He has just outlined a couple of forces in which there is a huge increase in the proportion of black people stopped and searched compared with the rest of the population. It is absolutely right that the police must explain the use of the power and make efforts to improve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the notion of searching everybody who goes through an Underground station would, I am afraid, be unfeasible. In addition to knives, there are other metal things that people might carry in their pockets. I can foresee that system as being entirely unworkable. I go back to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser: intelligence-led stop and search is the most effective way to deal with some of the problems we are seeing.

[Lord Paddick]

As nobody else appears to be burning to ask a question perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to comment on the fact that the percentage of stop and search that is done to look for weapons is abysmally small and that drugs are the reason given for 75% of stop and search, notwithstanding the link between the two?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree that the percentage for weapons is not high, but the percentage is an awful lot higher in terms of the number of arrests made. It is becoming a more effective system. I agree with the noble Lord that the number of arrests made as a consequence of stop and search could be higher.

Knife Crime

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 5th November 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would agree that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the policing Minister have acknowledged the increasing calls on police time and resources, particularly over the past two years, but our analysis points to a range of factors driving serious violence, most notably in the drugs market. The Government, therefore, understand that police demand is changing and becoming much more complex. Noble Lords will know—I have said it before—that the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service has visited police forces across England and Wales and that was why the funding settlement of more than £460 million in 2018-19 was arrived at. Early intervention is, however, crucial in this area, particularly for young people.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, these deaths are a tragedy, and our thoughts are with all those affected. Clearly there are long-term issues, which the noble Baroness has referred to, but if we are to get knives off the street we need the police and communities to work together so that stop and search can be accurately targeted at those actually carrying the knives. How can this be done when community policing has been devastated by the Government’s cuts to police budgets? There is nothing in the Government’s anti-violence strategy about increasing police resources.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the noble Lord points to something important about stop and search—it has to be intelligence-led and there have to be sufficient police officers to deal with it. In terms of the community, the noble Lord points to something very important. Community projects to tackle knife crime may be one of the most effective ways of dealing with this scourge that has blighted communities for the past few years.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 31st October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their contributions to the debate, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for what I believe are helpful amendments. I appreciate that they are intended to ensure more comprehensive coverage of the information to be notified.

Amendment 36 relates to the notification of the details of any motor vehicle which a registered terrorist offender is the registered keeper of, or acquires the right to use. Sadly, we have seen the use of motor vehicles as weapons in a number of recent terror attacks. Here in Parliament we have seen first-hand the devastating impact that such an attack can have, in the Westminster Bridge attack which took place last year. The benefits are obvious, ensuring that convicted terrorists are required to inform the police of any vehicle of which they have use.

I therefore fully recognise and support the intention of Amendment 36. It is essential that the provision should extend properly to vehicles which are borrowed or hired, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made. Hired vehicles were used in both the Westminster Bridge and Finsbury Park attacks last year. The terrorists responsible for the London Bridge attack attempted to hire a much larger vehicle than the van that was eventually used in the attack. This was just in the UK. We have also seen the use of vehicles as weapons in the Nice truck attack in July 2016, the Las Ramblas attack in August 2017 and the Berlin Christmas market attack.

I assure the noble Lord that this issue was carefully considered in the drafting of Clause 12, and that the existing reference to vehicles which the terrorist offender acquires the right to use will fully cover vehicles that are borrowed or rented. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make this point. I therefore suggest that Amendment 36 is not needed, and I hope the noble Lord will feel content to withdraw it.

Amendment 38 similarly relates to a possible gap in the information to be notified to the police, in this instance relating to financial accounts. As currently drafted, this clause specifies that an offender must provide details of any account that they hold with a financial institution, or that is held by a company through which they run a business. Amendment 38 would expand this to refer also to any financial account which the registered terrorist offender is entitled to operate. The noble Lord has explained that this is intended to cover a scenario where a terrorist seeks to use an account which is not held in their name but over which they have effective control, for example because it is held in the name of their child or a relative for whom they have a power of attorney.

I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, which may have considerable merit in ensuring that the notification requirements cover all accounts which a terrorist offender might be able to use for terrorism purposes. The amendment requires more detailed consideration but, for now, I hope the noble Lord will not press it pending that consideration, and on the assurance that I will let him know the outcome of that consideration ahead of Report.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for his support, and for the comments of the Minister. I welcome the fact that the Government will look carefully at Amendment 38. On Amendment 36, I ask that the Government also look at whether, when somebody hires a car, the contract says effectively that the person does not have the right to use that vehicle for an illegal purpose; that could be a gap in the legislation as drafted. I hope that the Minister will appreciate that we are trying to be helpful and supportive in suggesting these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that my noble friend in fact agrees with my point, if I am not mistaken.

[Lord Paddick]

Can the Minister just confirm that, even for those terrorism offences that might be considered more minor—not that any terrorism offence is minor— there is no chance at all of rehabilitation for those individuals: that they will for ever, or for a very considerable time, pose a risk and that a complete change of behaviour is not possible?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to say that there is always a chance of rehabilitation, given the deradicalisation programmes that go on, but there will always be an element of risk, I would suggest.

Brexit: Border Control

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, the Minister talked about an additional 600 staff being recruited in 2018-19. Does she not agree that there were in fact 450 fewer full-time equivalents in Border Force in 2017-18 than there were five years ago, despite a significant increase in the number of people coming across the border?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I did not actually talk about 600 staff; I talked about 900 in three lots of 300. In fact, the number permanently employed in Border Force at the end of 2017-18 was 7,700, and the forecast for 2019 is 8,600.

Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 29th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, under Clause 2 it will be an offence to publish an image of an item of clothing or other article associated with a proscribed organisation,

“in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of”,

the organisation, as noble Lords have pointed out. This provision updates for the digital age the existing offence at Section 13 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalises the display in a public place of such an item in such circumstances. That existing offence applies only partially in cases where a person publishes an image online. While it would be likely to catch a person who publishes an image of, for example, a Daesh flag displayed on the streets, it could be argued not to apply to publication of an image of the same flag displayed within a private home, even if both images are made available to the general public by publishing them online in the exact same way.

The purpose of Clause 2 is to put beyond doubt the application of Section 13 to any case where a person publishes an image of something which it would be unlawful to display in person. It does this by inserting a new offence into Section 13 as its new subsection (1A). This is important to ensure that the law applies properly to contemporary online activity. In the 18 years since the Section 13 offence was enacted, we have of course seen an exponential growth in the importance of the internet in day-to-day life, and sadly its role in radicalisation and the spreading of terrorist propaganda is no different. This includes publishing images of flags and logos associated with proscribed terrorist organisations. We therefore need to update our legislation to reflect these developments and to ensure that all public spaces, including those online, are properly covered by laws which prohibit the publication of such material. Amendment 7 would simply remove this provision in its entirety, rather than seeking to amend or improve it, leaving the gap I have just described and leaving our terrorism legislation out of date and incomplete.

Amendments 8 and 9 would add a reasonable excuse defence to the new Subsection (1A) offence I have outlined. Both specify certain examples of reasonable excuse. Amendment 6 includes instances where publication of the image was not intended to be in support of a proscribed organisation, whereas Amendment 7 makes this category an absolute exemption.

Noble Lords have indicated that their intention is to ensure that the offence does not catch those with a legitimate reason to publish images of items associated with proscribed terrorist organisations, in particular in the context of historical or academic research or family photographs, or who otherwise publish such images without nefarious intent. I am very happy to support both the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments. The Government have no desire to criminalise people for simply going about their legitimate professional activities or their normal family life, but these amendments are not needed to secure that outcome. In fact, the same outcome is already secured by Clause 2.

To explain why that is so, it is important to note that the mere publication of an image associated with a proscribed organisation is not enough on its own to constitute an offence under the existing Section 13 offence or the new offence that will be added to it by Clause 2. The offence will be made out only if the image is published in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation. This provides a clear and effective safeguard. For example, in a case where a journalist features an image of a Daesh flag in a news report on the activities of the group or an academic publishes such an image in a book or research paper, it would be clear from the circumstances that they are not a member or supporter of Daesh. Similarly, where a person publishes, say, an old family photo of an ancestor standing next to an IRA flag, the offence would not bite unless all the circumstances of the publication suggest that that person is a member or supporter of the IRA.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the sensitivity of symbolism, pictures et cetera and Northern Ireland, if he will indulge me, I will move on to the specific Northern Ireland point on the next amendment.

This approach provides no less certainty to such individuals that they will not be caught by the new offence than would the proposed reasonable excuse defence, and it offers the advantage that the same formulation—

[Lord Paddick]

Will the Minister address the example I gave at Second Reading and again today of somebody who does not realise when taking a selfie that there is an ISIS flag behind them on their friend’s wall? In what way would it be clear that those circumstances are not intended to lead to a reasonable suspicion that the people in the photograph are supporters of ISIS?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I was going to explain it in my own words, but I think the notes agree with me. On the innocent selfie with the ISIS flag in the background, the offence is clear: it is committed only where all the circumstances in which an image is published give rise to reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or a supporter of a terrorist organisation. The picture in and of itself is not the offence. I hope I have explained that clearly to the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, briefly, I support the amendment. Judging from the Minister’s non-verbal reaction to it, the consultation proposed seems extremely sensible given the history in Northern Ireland. On whether or not the police will use these powers in a public order situation, the police are very experienced—I declare an interest as a former advanced public order trained police officer who dealt with such situations—and, clearly, a decision has to be made on the basis of the circumstances at the time whether items can be safely seized without escalating the situation. The police service is very well equipped in deploying professional photographers and others gathering video evidence which can be used instead of, or in addition to, seizing those items. So although I agree with the sentiment behind the amendment concerning Northern Ireland, I do not share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the seizure of items potentially escalating a situation.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained, the amendments relate to the new power to seize flags and other articles provided for in Clause 2(4). Under Section 13(1) of the 2000 Act, it is an offence to wear or display in a public place an item of clothing or other article in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable suspicion that the person is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation. The seizure power in Clause 2 is intended to ensure that the police and the CPS have the best evidence to pursue a prosecution for a Section 13(1) offence.

Of course, the police already have powers to seize evidence following an arrest, but in some circumstances, particularly in the context of policing a march or demonstration, arresting an individual may not always be an option if the legal tests in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for making an arrest are not satisfied; or arrest may not be the appropriate policing response at that time if, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, pointed out, it is judged that it would provoke further disorder. In such a case, if the police wish to take action against a person displaying an item such as a flag or banner, instead of arresting the individual, the officer may choose to report them for summons on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 13(1) of the 2000 Act.

The new power introduced by Clause 2(4) would enable the officer, in these circumstances, to seize an item such as a flag which they reasonably believe to be evidence of the Section 13(1) offence in the absence of an arrest. The officer must be satisfied that seizure is necessary to prevent the evidence being concealed, lost, altered or destroyed. By preventing the loss or destruction of such items, this power will better support investigations and will provide and better preserve more evidence to help take forward prosecutions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

After the debate, I shall go back and check, but those are the ones we have consulted on this aspect.

Of course, this will be a discretionary police power like any other, and its application in Northern Ireland will be an operational matter for the PSNI, but we will consult and update those partners further, as necessary, prior to the provision coming into force.

The change that Clause 2(4) makes to Section 13 of the 2000 Act is to confer a power on the police to seize flags or other articles associated with a proscribed terrorist organisation as evidence of an offence under Section 13(1). This is intended to ensure that the police and CPS have the best evidence to pursue a prosecution.

Of course, the police already have powers to seize evidence following an arrest, but in the context of policing a march or demonstration, it might not always be an option if the legal tests in the PACE Act 1984 for making an arrest are not satisfied, or arrest may not be the appropriate policing response at that time.

In such a case, if the police wish to take action against a person displaying such a flag, instead of arresting the individual, the officer may choose to report them for summons on suspicion of committing an offence under Section 13(1) of the 2000 Act.

I think I may have been given papers which are forcing me to repeat what I just said.

[Lord Paddick]

They are.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Ignoring what I just said—I am not sure how that happened—I hope that, with the explanation I have given, the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

Border Force: Heathrow Airport

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The reason I have not given the noble Lord those figures is because I cannot give them. We are certainly looking through the aviation strategy to provide improvements and looking at the service level agreements that we have made.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, those entering the UK from outside the EU and the EEA are stopped at the border to check that they are not moving here permanently and that they are not going to work here illegally, hence the queues. What plans have the Government put in place, if we leave the EU, to ensure that EU citizens are not moving here permanently or moving here to work illegally, bearing in mind that the Government have promised that there will be no border between the EU and the UK on the island of Ireland?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that, when passengers come into this country, Border Force ensures that this country maintains its safety and security for all. The arguments around the CTA are well trodden, with the Government not wanting a hard border between Ireland and the UK. Of course, the CTA existed before the EU itself, and will do after we leave.

Immigration

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 25th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will make three points to my noble friend. First, I join him in paying tribute to the staff of the Home Office. So often they get forgotten and come in for an awful lot of stick in Parliament from one extreme end of the argument or the other—that is, that we are being too soft or too hard on people wishing to come to this country.

My noble friend talked about China. I am about 99% certain that China is part of our visa waiver pilot. I will get back to him on that, but I am pretty certain that it is. Therefore, some of the problems that his colleague faced should not have been the case. I will look into it and get back to my noble friend.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee asked the Minister whether those affected would receive a personal apology rather than the general one that the Home Secretary has given. Will the Minister answer that question? On a more general point, the Statement seems to suggest that officials were to blame for not following policy, but surely Ministers are responsible for implementation and the culture at the Home Office, not simply for policy. Are the Government admitting that they are guilty of not having a grip on the operation of the Home Office? Ministers cannot, should not and must not blame officials for their own failures.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely concur with the last point the noble Lord made. We are the representatives of the Government. We are not blaming officials. We are looking at the wider system. Guidance which was wrong was corrected and we are looking to see whether there is other guidance that is wrong and needs to be corrected. I again pay tribute to the staff of the Home Office. This is not a blame game. We are trying to put right something that is clearly wrong. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is planning to issue a personal apology, but he clearly publicly apologised today and I believe that that apology was most sincere.

Sexual Offences

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a very good point: unless we can understand the root causes of this, it is very difficult to tackle it. There have been several similar cases of the abuse of children. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said:

“I will not let cultural or political sensitivities get in the way of understanding the problem ... I’ve instructed my officials to explore the … characteristics of these types of gangs and if the evidence suggests that there are cultural factors that may be driving this type of offending, then I will take action”.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, according to the Sunday Times, the Chancellor of the Exchequer thinks that the police would help their case for more money if they were more responsive to local residents and investigated crimes such as burglary, rather than labour-intensive investigations into historical sexual offences. Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have to apologise to the noble Lord because, although I read the Sunday Times, I did not read that particular article. But nobody can be in any doubt about the commitment of this Government commitment to tackling this type of abuse, and in particular that of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. Child sexual abuse has been declared a national threat and the Government are investing millions of pounds to enable officers to actively seek out and bring these types of offenders to justice. Last February, the Government published our tackling child sexual exploitation progress report and we have announced a £40 million package of measures to protect children and young people from sexual abuse, exploitation and trafficking, and to crack down on offenders. This has included £7.5 million for a new, ground-breaking centre of expertise that will identify, generate and share high-quality evidence of what works in preventing and tackling child sexual abuse and exploitation. We have put a significant increase in resources into the NCA, leading to a near doubling of the CEOP command’s investigative capability, and an additional £20 million has been committed up to 2020 to maintain this. There is a further £20 million of transformation funds going into the regional organised crime units, which do a superb job in bringing to justice perpetrators who target children online.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 22nd October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, unusually, I shall be supporting Amendment 1 but I shall also speak to Amendments 2 and 3 in this group. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have added our names to Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy, but we feel that the amendment to Clause 1 as drafted does not go far enough.

Before I come to that, however, I wish to say that I wholeheartedly support what the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said about the provisions of the Bill. Bearing in mind that they are likely to be mutual, in that similar provisions would be in a Bill in a country with which we are going to enter into a treaty, it is very important to have a death penalty assurance in that treaty, which is what the amendment seeks to do. In addition to what the noble Lord has said about UK Ministers saying that we in the UK are opposed to the death penalty, Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, together with Protocol 13 to which the UK is a signatory, provides for the total abolition of the death penalty. In early meetings with the Minister, we were led to believe that that death penalty assurance would be part of any treaty. However, we feel we need that reassurance in the Bill.

As I say, we took the unusual step of both supporting and amending the Labour amendment on the basis that we both agree on the principle of Amendment 1— that the Government should not enter into a treaty that would require UK companies to provide electronic data to law enforcement in a country that had the death penalty unless the treaty contained assurances that the death penalty would not be implemented if data provided by UK companies was used. We believe that the prohibition on entering into a treaty with a country that has the death penalty should be broader than just the data covered by Section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, which is what Amendment 1 covers, because that provision covers only the interception of communications in the course of transmission—wiretaps, listening in to telephone conversations and that type of electronic data. A British company could hold personal information about an individual that could be crucial in an investigation for an offence that carries the death penalty in the country making the request. Such electronic data would not necessarily be in the course of transmission but held on servers in the UK.

Our Amendment 2 would therefore include,

“any other enactment which provides for the collection of electronic data”.

Amendment 3 makes it clear that the prohibition on entering into a treaty would not apply if an assurance had been given that the death penalty would not be imposed whether either intercepted communication or any other kind of electronic data had been provided under the Act. That amendment is consequential on Amendment 2.

We want to ensure that no UK company is complicit in providing electronic data of any kind that could lead to someone being executed. I beg to move.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

I thank both noble Lords for speaking to their amendments today and express my gratitude to all Members of the House for their contributions both in Committee and today on Report—I think it is the same two noble Lords, but perhaps there are one or two more.

I stress to the House the importance of the UK-US data access agreement. The agreement will allow the UK authorities access to valuable evidence and intelligence directly from US communication service providers. The House should be made aware that the vast majority of CSPs and their data reside in the US, not the UK. The Bill gives our law enforcement a strategic advantage in the fight against the threat we face.

Indeed, in almost every serious criminal investigation, we expect those we investigate to be using services provided by CSPs based in the US. The agreement will make a significant contribution to the detection, investigation, prevention and prosecution of serious crime and terrorism. The Government have been working towards the agreement with the help of US CSPs and the US Government for several years following the recommendation from the then Prime Minister’s data envoy Sir Nigel Sheinwald.

All Governments and any future Governments have the duty to put the security of their people first. It will always be in the public interest to ensure that our police and agencies have access to the necessary intelligence and evidence in order to fulfil that duty. Just as it was under the previous Labour Government and as it is today, Ministers must always be mindful of the current threat environment they find themselves in. That is why we believe that better scrutiny of these agreements and accountability for future treaties is the best way to ensure that the Government’s principles are tested, rather than prescribing a rigid format for treaties that have not yet even been mooted, let alone being currently under negotiation.

Of course, the Government’s objective is to obtain a satisfactory death penalty assurance, but negotiations are ongoing and not yet concluded. Playing the discussions out in public may make it much harder to conclude them effectively.

Let me be clear to the House: there will be an assurance in the agreement. We can expect it to rule out the direct use of information obtained under the agreement as evidence in a prosecution where the death penalty might apply. Parliament will scrutinise the final detail of any agreement and the assurance it contains. We have already tabled an amendment today clarifying that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process will always apply to relevant international agreements, ensuring that Members have two opportunities to scrutinise a treaty.

But I am willing to go further. Noting the concerns that noble Lords have expressed, the Government will commit to bringing forward an amendment in the Commons. Such an amendment would not pre-empt negotiations with the US, or any future agreement with another country, but would instead absolutely guarantee that Parliament has the chance to conduct proper, thorough scrutiny of relevant agreements and death penalty assurances.

The amendment I envisage would ensure that Ministers cannot make regulations to designate any agreement with a country which retains the death penalty for incoming requests without first laying before Parliament the agreement and details of any assurances obtained. There would then be a defined period during which Parliament would have a chance to examine those details, and this could include scrutiny by any relevant committees.

Finally, the Secretary of State would be obliged to consider any recommendations made by a committee in relation to the assurances before laying regulations to designate the agreement. Of course, the regulations themselves would then be subject to the usual process of parliamentary scrutiny, during which time Members of both Houses could consider any recommendations and respond to them.

Ultimately, it is right that Parliament has a say on the difficult decision between not concluding negotiations on agreements and securing the death penalty assurances we would like. Both the amendments tabled by Labour and Liberal Democrat Peers could lead to our being unable to conclude a data access agreement with the US. If we find ourselves in that situation, law enforcement agencies and the UK intelligence community will continue to be denied timely access to valuable evidence and intelligence.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that Section 52 of the IPA covers only material intercepted in the course of transmission. That is not entirely correct. It can authorise obtaining stored communications as well as intercept. As I said, there is a balance to be struck here. That is why I ask Members not to tie the Government’s hands in negotiations. Instead I will commit to amending the Bill in the Commons to ensure that Parliament has ample opportunity to scrutinise any future treaty and, if relevant, its death penalty assurance.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Unless she wishes to contradict me, I think she just said that these treaties are very important to the extent that the British Government are prepared to allow people to be executed on the basis of data provided by British companies to overseas law enforcement. The essence of these amendments is that that should not be allowed and we want that reassurance on the face of the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do contradict the noble Lord. I am asking noble Lords not to tie the Government’s hands in negotiation.

[Lord Paddick]

Forgive me, but I do not see the difference between what I said and what the Minister has just said, unless she wants to clarify further.

We are concerned about this because of the recent case of Kotey and Elsheikh, in which the American authorities asked for information from the British on two people who were part of an ISIS cell. The Home Secretary decided that the information would be provided without a death penalty assurance. We are concerned that what might considered a one-off case which contradicts the British Government’s usual global opposition to the death penalty is now going to be enshrined in treaties. I understand what the Minister said about Section 52 of the Investigatory Powers Act, but that is not our understanding and I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 2.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their points. There has been nothing in our own domestic law that requires a UK provider to comply with an overseas order. There will therefore be no conflict with domestic law if a CSP decides that complying with a foreign order would put it in breach of its obligations under the GDPR.

The existence of any conflict with UK data protection law does not have the effect of making the order from the other country invalid. Equally, the existence of the order does not compel the UK CSP to ignore its data protection obligations under UK law. It will be for the CSP on which an order is served to reconcile and comply with all legal obligations it is under. It could apply for the variation or revocation of the order, or use the dispute resolution mechanism that we expect all specific international agreements to include. That said, we do not think that this is likely to be necessary in practice. The GDPR contains several “gateways” which permit the cross-border transfer of personal data, including in response to a request or order from overseas law enforcement.

I know the noble Lord’s concerns about data protection, and I absolutely sympathise with him. We have discussed this before, and I think that ultimately we all want the same thing: adequate protection for the privacy rights of individuals. I hope that my explanation will satisfy the noble Lord that the Bill does not in any way threaten data protection rights, which are robustly protected by existing legislation. UK CSPs will continue to be bound by the GDPR and the Data Protection Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw Amendment 12.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister. I understand that she has just said that a communications service provider could refuse to comply with an order coming from overseas if the CSP believes that that would bring it into conflict with the GDPR and the Data Protection Act, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 16th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the Minister. Can she clarify? Under the old system, the assistant chief constable or equivalent would have to renew the authorisation every month; under the new system, it is my understanding that the assistant chief constable will only be involved every four months if there is a renewal and is not involved on a monthly basis as under the old system.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have this answer somewhere, if the noble Lord will bear with me. It is a statutory requirement for the authorisation to be at the rank of assistant chief constable. I think the noble Lord knows that. The monthly review is not a statutory requirement, but as a further safeguard we have included it in the updated code of practice.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. The question was: is the monthly review undertaken by the assistant chief constable or by the officer who sought the authorisation to use the child as a CHIS?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that the monthly review is done by the assistant chief constable. Have I still not answered the noble Lord’s question? The monthly review might be carried out by the authorising officer, but it is not a statutory requirement.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very sorry. My understanding was that the monthly review is done by the officer who applied to use the CHIS, not by the assistant chief constable. Have I got that wrong?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not know whether the noble Lord has that right or wrong. I will have to come back to him on that point. Just so he does not think I am derelict in my duty, I did ask that question but I will have to come back to him on it.

I turn to the second question, which was not about the changes that we have made but about the existing distinction in the safeguards, where an appropriate adult must be present in all meetings with a juvenile under the age of 16, but not for those aged 16 and 17. The noble Lord compared this with rules around the interview of juveniles under caution, where interviews of all under-18s require an appropriate adult to be present. I point out that 16 and 17 year-olds can absolutely request that somebody be present—a social worker, an appropriate adult or even a lawyer—but it is not mandated. That probably will not satisfy the noble Lord, but the law recognises that parental responsibility diminishes as a child matures. There are therefore a number of areas where the law treats over-16s differently from under-16s. For example, they can apply for their own passports or join the military.

Internal police guidance on deploying juvenile CHIS contains detail on how to safeguard and promote the well-being of the juvenile CHIS, including how to assess their maturity and capacity to give informed consent, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned, a requirement to ensure that handlers are properly trained to deal with young people—they have day-to-day responsibility for the CHIS and must raise any issues surrounding matters including the safety and welfare of the CHIS with those responsible for authorising their deployment—and requirements to consider all aspects of safeguarding the young person.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that it would be police operational, but I will clarify for the noble Baroness whether operators in the children’s sector were also involved.

The updates to the CHIS code of practice in 2014 and 2017 were subject to formal public consultation, with no concerns raised about either the use of juveniles as CHISs or the safeguards that apply. But this provision has been in place for 18 years and it has probably had more scrutiny in the last two months than it ever had during those 18 years—and that is a good thing.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also outlined an absolutely harrowing case study. I understand that those issues, if we are talking about the same ones, are being considered by the undercover police inquiry and that the Home Office is co-operating fully with the inquiry. We have responded to requests for information and have given the inquiry access to our files and records.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, raised the issue of further oversight. I think that I went through that point when we last debated this. It would not be a simple matter; it would be one for primary legislation. Nevertheless, I take his point. I hope he feels that, under the leadership of Governments of different political colours, the safeguards have been enhanced and are robust, and that there is strong and effective oversight in the form of Lord Justice Fulford.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the public consultations on the provision. It was subject to statutory public consultations—most recently in 2017-18—and views from all were absolutely welcome. It is not incompatible with existing legislation—but, as I have just said, this House has given it more scrutiny than any other.

I have two more scraps of paper. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about the authorising officer. The authorising officer should, where possible, be responsible for completing subsequent renewals and any other related security or welfare issue—but I do not think that that answers his question. I now know what that question was, and the other scrap does not answer it, either, so I will get back to him on that specific point.

This House has given this really serious issue the time, scrutiny and questioning that it deserves, after 18 years of it passing largely unnoticed by either House of Parliament. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, for raising this in the first instance and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for raising it today.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for bringing this provision to the attention of the House. As he said, using children in this way puts them in danger, and if any of us were in any doubt about that, the harrowing story that my noble friend Lady Hamwee told the House clearly indicates that.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made the important point that surveillance commissioners formerly and now judicial commissioners review the deployment of child CHISs after the event. There is now a recognised definition of a child as a person under 18. We should be talking about child CHISs, not juvenile CHISs, in this debate. An eminently sensible suggestion was made. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, many surveillance powers are subject to the double lock whereby both a senior officer and a judicial commissioner agree to the use of the surveillance technique. Why can that not be used in this case?

The Minister kept talking about the enhanced safeguards provided by these regulations. We still do not know whether the independent senior officer—the assistant chief constable—will be looking at these cases every four months instead of, as previously, having to look at them every month because the assistant chief constable could authorise for only one month at a time. We still do not know who is doing the review. If it is being done by the officer who applied to the assistant chief constable, rather than by the assistant chief constable himself or herself, I do not think anybody could describe that as an enhanced safeguard.

The Minister said that a child being interviewed under caution for a criminal offence is not comparable with being recruited as a CHIS. It is far more dangerous to be recruited as a CHIS than it is to be interviewed. The fact that 16 and 17 year-olds can be recruited as CHISs without an adult being present but cannot be questioned about a criminal offence does not strike me as an enhanced safeguard. Whether the legal framework governing the authorisation and use of juvenile CHISs, when taken as a whole, is clearly capable of being exercised in a way that is consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child is an issue that the courts will be asked to consider. Therefore, on that question we perhaps do not need to take things further today.

I am very grateful to the Minister not only for the time to debate this twice, once in Grand Committee and once in the Chamber, but for the time she has spent discussing these issues with me and trying to clarify what we need on the record. Unfortunately, I do not feel that we have got there this evening. There are unresolved matters which the Minister has agreed to write to noble Lords about. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 15th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly recognise the point that the noble Lord makes about the feeling that people are promoted from the inside and, therefore, that perhaps officers do not apply from other forces. On female turnover, we should welcome the fact that we have a female commissioner of the Met police, which is fantastic news. The chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council is also a woman, and the director-general of the NCA is also female. However, I understand the noble Lord’s point. I also think that chiefs themselves have a role to play in attracting and encouraging talent coming up through the pipeline. The College of Policing published a code of ethics, guidance on flexible working and guidance on the use of positive action to increase the recruitment and retention of underrepresented groups, including females.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it has always been the case that incumbent chief officers have had an advantage over outside candidates, but this has been made worse by the fact that there is a one-to-one relationship between the police and crime commissioner and his or her chief officer team. Why will the Home Office not reimpose the requirement that a national Home Office-led assessment is part of the selection process? Even the noble Lord, Lord Sugar, has a panel of experts to help him decide who his apprentice will be.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The PCC, in recruiting his chief constable, has to be mindful of the quality of candidate he is recruiting. The thing about PCCs, which was not true of police authorities when they existed, is that the public can hold them to account at the ballot box.

Operation Conifer: Sir Edward Heath

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 11th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that the noble Lord might have meant 2015 but I absolutely take his point. A review, which of course it would be open to the PCC to instigate, may consider whether any of the allegations that he talks about—the remaining six—would have justified a decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to prosecute. But as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, the ability of the reviewer to do this would depend on the evidence that was brought forward.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that the chief constable has not been effectively held to account for Operation Conifer. The Minister says that it is not a failure of the Home Office. It must therefore be a failure of the police and crime commissioner. Is it not time to break up the often too cosy one-to-one relationship between chief constables and police and crime commissioners and revert to police authorities?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In the time that PCCs have been established, they are generally accepted to have worked well.

Children: Covert Human Intelligence Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 13th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child states that the interests of the child must be paramount in all decisions and actions that affect children. When the Government recently decided to weaken the safeguards on using child informants, despite the environment in which they operate becoming more dangerous, they consulted the people who use these child informants but not one organisation or individual that is responsible for their welfare. Can the Minister explain how this is putting the needs of the child first?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I absolutely dispute what the noble Lord has said because, far from weakening the safeguards, we have strengthened them by ensuring that the appropriate adult is someone who is professionally qualified to take on the role. The UK ensures that the principles of the convention are considered and realised through the approach taken, both in the legislation and in other measures, to ensure that children’s rights and interests are safeguarded.

Windrush

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes two very good points, the first being about justice being seen to be served for the Windrush generation, to which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is utterly committed. To that end, he has asked Wendy Williams to conduct a review and report back by March. I agree with my noble friend, too, that clarity for both our elected officials and unelected officials gives the public confidence in Parliament. The Prime Minister said earlier today:

“I reassure my right hon. Friend that the Home Secretary has been looking at this issue, and the Cabinet Secretary is looking at this. We are committed to publication, but the form of that is currently being considered”.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the action of the Home Office in relation to the Windrush generation may be welcome, but how many others who were legally in this country but without documentation from areas other than the Caribbean have been similarly wrongly deported or deprived of the means to live in this country? What assurance can the Minister give that the appalling treatment of the Windrush generation has not been repeated in relation to others?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a point that he has made before, and it is a very good one. Certainly, the review being carried out by Wendy Williams will teach us some lessons for the future to ensure that this never happens again. In addition, as I think I mentioned the other day, this issue makes clear the importance now of identity assurance.

Police Forces: Financial Stability

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 12th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

To address the last question first, both the Policing Minister and the Home Secretary recognise the demands on the police. They have said it before and my right honourable friend the Policing Minister said it again today. Not only is the picture of crime changing, but the police have had to deal—so bravely—with the various terrorist attacks we have had over the past year. When it comes to understanding demand, I have said before that my right honourable friend the Policing Minister visited all 43 forces in England and Wales leading up to the comprehensive settlement for 2018-19, which provided that £460 million increase. Looking forward to the next spending review, he stated in December last year that he would revisit plans to change the funding formula at the time of the next spending review. I have outlined the 2018 settlement, but in 2019-20 he will seek to maintain the protection of the broadly flat police grant, alongside the same flexibility of the precept that happened this year.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the NAO report finds that central government funding for the police service has fallen by 30% in real terms since 2010-11, resulting between March 2010 and March 2018 in a 15% reduction in police officers, a 40% reduction in PCSOs and a 21% reduction in other police staff. Despite what the Minister has just said, the NAO says the Government have,

“no national picture of what forces need”.

Do the Government agree with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, who said yesterday:

“This is not a service that needs reform, this is a service that needs support and needs resources … the NAO report shows this”?


Will the Minister finally admit that the Government can no longer argue that the police service has sufficient resources to deliver an effective service? The NAO says that the Government do not have a clue whether or not the police service has sufficient resources.

Brexit: Europol

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that this facility continues to operate. To that end, the Commission has been very clear that it wants to continue co-operation on internal security, including extradition and Europol. I also point out that, at the recent press conference on 31 August, Michel Barnier recognised the progress in our discussions on security. Our focus now should be on trying to define an ambitious partnership.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, a European arrest warrant has been issued for the two Russians suspected of being responsible for the Wiltshire poisonings. But Norway and Iceland, both of which are in the EU single market and the Schengen area, have been waiting for 13 years to be part of the European arrest warrant—and they are still waiting because they are not members of the EU. What chance does the UK have of retaining the EAW if we are outside the EU, the single market and the Schengen area?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord points out the issue of the two Russians. Of course, as well as an EAW an Interpol red notice was issued for those two people. The UK has made a significant contribution to Europol. It is important to note that in 2017 the UK was the highest contributor of data relating to serious and organised crime to Europol’s analysis project. We are also in the top three member states that contribute intelligence each day to different databases in Europol, and the UK is driving or co-driving almost half of all EU law enforcement projects in the fight against serious and organised crime. That is a very good reason why we should continue.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 10th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

While we are waiting, am I right in thinking that in the recent Facebook case it was not that the service provider did not want to provide the information that would be of use to UK law enforcement but that domestic law in America did not allow it to provide that information, and that in the overwhelming majority of cases to which this legislation would apply we anticipate that the service provider would be more than keen to provide the data, provided it can be done lawfully, and that this mechanism provides the lawful means of doing that?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the noble Lord is probably quite right. It goes back to what I was saying at the beginning of my response. If there were doubts about compliance, or that began to become apparent, MLA would be the process that we would revert to if this was not forthcoming. Ditto, the American side would probably institute the MLA process to ensure compliance.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 5th September 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. I, not least, look forward to the discussion that we are going to have.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the comments of all noble Lords on this group of amendments. I do not want to prolong the agony; I accept that the Bill is about outgoing requests but in order for outgoing requests to be complied with, there would be an expectation by the foreign state that a similar application to the UK would be met. We are potentially talking about UK service providers providing evidence to a foreign state that would enable that state to carry out the death penalty on a suspect. Having agreements based on trust and mutual respect, rather than a legally binding agreement, where if there are differences of opinion about what particular terms mean there would be some form of dispute resolution—no more reassurance than that—while the IP Act 2016 could impose restrictions, but might not, all seems rather vague and general. When we are talking about someone’s life potentially being ended, we would seek more concrete reassurances that evidence provided by the UK is not going to lead to that.

I understand that the intention is to have an agreement with the United States of America as a whole. However, bearing in mind that the death penalty is an issue in some states but not others, and that other agreements would be on a case-by-case basis—presumably on the basis of the human rights record of the states that the agreement was entered into with—it seems odd that a blanket agreement could be entered into with the USA when there is that crucial difference between states as to whether the death penalty could be carried out. Obviously, we are in Committee, which is about understanding concerns and the Government’s position. We need to further develop that in meetings and on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I hope that this amendment will not require any further meetings or probing on Report. The Bill provides that an appropriate officer is able to apply for an overseas production order where an indictable offence has been committed, where proceedings in relation to that indictable offence have been instituted or investigated, or where the order is sought for the purpose of terrorist investigations. Therefore, the clause is already limited to officers who are exercising law enforcement functions. In fact, the clause already makes clear that where a listed appropriate officer has functions other than for law enforcement purposes, it is only where the appropriate officer is exercising functions in relation to the investigation or prosecution of criminal conduct that they may apply for an overseas production order. For example, a person appointed by the FCA can conduct both civil and criminal investigations and the clause ensures that they can apply for an overseas production order only in connection with criminal investigations or prosecutions. I hope that that provides reassurance.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that explanation provided by the Minister. The meeting of 20 minutes we have scheduled before Report will not be further extended as a result of this amendment and I beg leave to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 11 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. We debated long and hard in this House about when and how law enforcement agencies and the security services can secure authority to access bulk data. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016—not to be confused with the investigatory powers Act 2018, which exists only on BBC1 on Sunday evenings—contains some safeguards against state access to bulk data and it is essential that those safeguards are not circumvented by the Bill. The Government will no doubt say that accessing bulk data held overseas is not the purpose of the Bill, but what other reassurances can the Minister give that the powers under the Bill will not be used inappropriately by law enforcement agencies? Amendment 11 seeks to achieve this by amending Clause 3(2), changing the definition of “electronic data” to exclude bulk data. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Again, I hope that I can provide clarity on the noble Lord’s amendment. When applying for an overseas production order an officer must specify or describe the electronic data sought under an order. In addition, the judge must be satisfied that a number of requirements are met before making an order under Clause 4. These include that the judge must be satisfied that the person against whom the order is sought has possession or control of all or part of the data specified in the application; that the data requested is likely to be of substantial value; and that it is in the public interest for all or part of the data to be produced. It is very difficult to see how a judge could be satisfied that these requirements are met if they were considering an application for an order seeking bulk data.

The reason is that bulk data requests are for sets of information, often about a large number of individuals who may or may not be known to law enforcement agencies. The Bill has been drafted to require appropriate officers to consider carefully what data they are targeting—which, of course, is not the case with bulk data—and where the information is stored, in order to help with the investigation and prosecution of serious crime, in addition to demonstrating that the data will be of substantial value to the investigation and in the public interest. It feels to me that there are sufficient safeguards in place, because of the processes I have outlined, and I hope that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation. I am not sure that it entirely satisfies us about the potential for misuse of the legislation, but we will reflect on what she said and perhaps discuss it with her before Report.

[Lord Rosser]

If there is any doubt in this matter, as I understand it from the briefing that we had from the House of Lords Library, the UK’s Deputy National Security Adviser, giving testimony to the US House of Representatives’ Judiciary Committee in June 2017, said that the UK Government were “in full agreement” with the US Department of Justice that a UK-US bilateral data sharing agreement should limit access to targeted orders for data and not bulk access to data.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord because that underlines my point.

[Lord Paddick]

If that is the case, there is no reason why it should not be stated in the Bill.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sorry, but I think I need to intervene. All sorts of things could be stated in the Bill, but given its purpose, I do not think it is necessary. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, pointed that out.

[Lord Paddick]

With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, he is talking about a bilateral agreement with United States of America and not a global reassurance given by every country with which we might enter into an agreement. Therefore, my concerns remain but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his points and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for his intervention. The effect of Amendment 19 would be to exclude confidential journalistic material from the scope of an application and order. I should first point out that Clause 4 reflects the position in the PACE Act 1984. Journalistic material can already be sought under Schedule 1 to PACE through special procedure, and under Schedule 5 to the Terrorism Act 2000, when it is held by a company or person based in the UK. The Bill extends this to circumstances where the data is held by an entity based outside the UK and where a relevant international arrangement is in place.

I do not think that we should introduce in the Bill a difference between material that can be obtained—subject of course to appropriate requirements and safeguards—when it is held in the UK, as opposed to being held by an entity based on the country with which we have entered into an agreement. I should also stress that similar standards are set out in the Bill as already exist in domestic legislation, and that the term “reasonable grounds for believing” is readily used by our court system. Reasonable belief requires more than just a guess or a hunch. It will require the judge, marshalling all the facts before them, to come to an assessment on whether the information sought does or does not contain this type of data. It is not the first time that that standard has been used in legislation, and of course it will not be the last. Where confidential journalistic material is sought, the Bill requires that such applications can only be made on notice. That means that anyone put on notice, which can and may include the journalist whose data might be sought, has the opportunity to make representations to the court as to whether it is appropriate for the data to be obtained.

The effect of Amendment 33 as drafted would be that an application for an overseas production order that included confidential journalistic material had to be made on notice to a data controller and the data subject. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment but I do not agree that it is required, for two reasons. First, the rules of court will set out the process by which a judge can ensure that anyone affected by the order is notified of any given case. Consideration of notice by the judge relating to such a request is left to his or her discretion to allow for the circumstances where notice to a data controller, data subject or anyone else is deemed appropriate by the judge when granting an overseas production order. I think giving the judge discretion to determine which is appropriate in any given case is the right approach.

Secondly—this is a point that I have made before and will make again—we are providing in the Bill the means to serve an order on a company based outside the UK in a country with which we have a relevant agreement, in the same way as is currently the case with a company based in the UK. In those cases the respondent and any other person affected by the order would ordinarily be given notice and therefore the opportunity to make representations, unless under rules of court the judge is satisfied that there are good reasons for not doing so—for example, because of the risk of prejudice to the investigation. We are proposing that the same should apply to overseas production orders.

The intention of Clause 12 is to require an application for an overseas production order to be made on notice where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the electronic data sought consists of, or includes, confidential journalistic data. The effect of the clause as drafted is that notice should be served on the respondent—that is, the person who would be required to produce the data if the order is made. In most cases, this would be a service provider rather than the customer on whose behalf the data is stored. However, a requirement to give notice to the respondent under Clause 12(1) does not preclude the judge considering the application from exercising his or her own discretion under rules of court. Under rules of court they may require notice to be given to other persons who may be affected by an order requiring the production of confidential journalistic material, including a person who in his or her professional capacity has acquired that data. It will be a matter for the judge’s discretion, but he or she is likely to insist on notice being given unless the applicant can demonstrate that doing so would prejudice the investigation—for example, where the journalist himself or herself is the subject of the investigation or prosecution.

An example of where it might not be appropriate is where there is a hacking investigation and the journalist might actually be the subject of an inquiry. The judge may decide that putting someone on notice could potentially harm the investigation or risk the dissipation of the material. It is the Government’s intention, however, to ensure that where an application relates to confidential journalistic data, notice can and should be served on journalists and on whoever the judge deems appropriate given the circumstances of the application. The PACE Act 1984, for example, requires service to be made on the respondent only, otherwise notice requirements are set out in court rules.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made an important point about sanctions to comply. It is difficult to construct a proportionate regime to ensure nondisclosure prior to an order being made and, in practice, law enforcement would not apply for an order where there was an unacceptable risk of damaging disclosure. I ask noble Lords not to press their amendments and I shall consider their comments before Report, if that is amenable to them.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for her explanation and her offer to consider further the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and I have raised in connection with these issues. Obviously, Amendment 19 is a probing amendment, a mechanism by which to debate these issues, but with the promise of further discussions to come before Report—perhaps the Minister could also establish whether the Government have consulted the National Union of Journalists on these issues—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Rendition of UK Citizens

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I reiterate that we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances. The Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill is about outgoing requests. It gives UK law enforcement authorities the power to request electronic data stored abroad where an international arrangement exists for use in UK investigations and court cases. We will ensure that any future international agreement is consistent with our long-standing policy of opposing the death penalty.

Perhaps I may also comment on the change of approach. We have not changed our approach. I refer noble Lords to the Overseas Security and Justice Assistance Guidance, which incidentally is long-standing. Part a) says:

“Written assurances should be sought before agreeing to the provision of assistance that anyone found guilty would not face the death penalty”.


Part b) reads:

“Where no assurances are forthcoming or where there are strong reasons not to seek assurances, the case should automatically be deemed ‘High Risk’ and FCO Ministers should be consulted to determine whether, given the specific circumstances of the case, we should nevertheless provide assistance”.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we are told that the UK did not want to try these people in the UK because we were concerned that we did not have enough evidence. Clearly, the Americans also thought that they did not have enough evidence—otherwise, why would they seek assistance from us? If UK and US pooled intelligence is sufficient to convict the accused, the Home Secretary could have avoided this political and moral dilemma by asking the US for its intelligence and agreeing to try the accused in the UK. Why did he not do so? Did the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister decide that the death penalty should be an option?

My party’s position is clear: we oppose the death penalty in all circumstances in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights Article 2 and Protocol 13, to which the UK is a signatory. We take a principled position on this issue. Can the Minister please clarify the Government’s position?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In addition to what I have just said, the UK’s position is that we will bring the perpetrators of very serious crimes to justice and we will work with our international partners to do so.

Immigration (Provision of Physical Data) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for explaining these regulations to the House. I am not as concerned as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about whether this is a pilot as my understanding is that there will be a period of three years from now for EU citizens to register and overcome any of the problems that may arise during the pilot scheme, so I am slightly more relaxed on that front. Can the Minister confirm that the continued operation of these regulations will be subject to satisfactory negotiations being concluded with the European Union and each of the 27 remaining EU countries, which will decide on a country-by-country basis what conditions they will impose on UK citizens’ residence in their countries if we leave the European Union? As the Minister will know, some European Union countries already require UK workers to register while others do not.

Can the Minister confirm that the database of photographs of EU citizens applying for leave to remain in the UK will be kept not just for the purpose of initial identification to ensure that the applicant matches their national identity document, but in perpetuity? Can she also confirm that every employer in the United Kingdom is expected to carry out a check of every prospective employee against Home Office databases to ensure that the individual has the right to work in the UK, whether they are a citizen of the UK, the EU or any other country?

The Minister has already confirmed that only non-EU members of EU citizens’ families will be required to supply a set of fingerprints along with a photograph. If I understood her correctly, this is to ensure that they have not been involved in crime or that in other ways it would not be desirable for them to remain in the UK. Again, will these fingerprints be retained on a database after they have been checked against, for example, criminal records? If the answer to both those questions— about photographs and fingerprints—is yes, are this Government changing their position on having a national identity card database, because this sounds like the beginning of that process?

The regulations are about EU citizens’ status in the UK if we leave the European Union. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept that the following question is within the scope of this debate. Can she confirm whether I correctly understood from the briefing by officials that she kindly arranged that there will be free movement of EU citizens into the Republic of Ireland, even if the UK leaves the EU: that there will be no immigration checks on anyone either at the border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland or at any crossing point between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?

Can she therefore confirm that there will be no way that the UK could control inward immigration from the EU via the Republic of Ireland even if we leave the EU, that the only immigration controls will be those carried out by banks, landlords, the NHS and employers, and that, therefore, an unlimited number of EU nationals could live indefinitely in the UK if they came through the Republic of Ireland?

Can she also confirm that the UK’s border security will be totally reliant on the checks carried out by Republic of Ireland immigration officials who, in any event, will be unable to question any EU citizen as to their reason for entry under free movement rules? Presumably, the Irish Government have always been happy to share responsibility for guarding the EU’s external borders, but what discussions have the UK Government had with the Irish Government about their immigration officials effectively policing the UK border from the Republic?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank both noble Lords for their questions. The first question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, was about an evaluation of the private beta phase, or the pilot phase, which I can confirm will run from 28 August until October. On amendments to extend the scheme any further, we will provide further information in due course about our plans for the phased rollout of the EU settlement scheme later this year so that, in line with the draft withdrawal agreement, it is fully open by 30 March next year. Those plans will absolutely reflect the experience of the pilot phase and the learning that we draw from those who choose to apply under the scheme during that phase.

There will not be a formal report back, but any extension of the scheme will be subject to parliamentary consideration of the required changes to the Immigration Rules for the scheme, further to those for the private beta phase laid on 20 July. We will explain clearly any changes and the reasons for making them at that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I understand that any changes at all in the Immigration Rules for the scheme will be laid out, and why they will be laid out. We will need new Immigration Rules to extend the pilot to other groups, which is what I think the noble Lord was asking.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am now slightly confused. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Presumably, if the pilot works perfectly with this pilot group of EU citizens, it can then be rolled out to cover all EU citizens without any further regulation. Is that the case?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I understand that this is a specific pilot scheme for a specific purpose, so it would then have to come back for extension to other groups. It will be the same thing, but for other groups. I hope that that explains it clearly. It will come back.

On the question of the receipt and retention of the photograph, there are three reasons why we need to receive and retain them. First, as part of the basic checks required to protect the scheme from abuse, we will compare the photograph with the one in the applicant’s identity document to confirm that they are one and the same person. Secondly, by keeping a record of the photograph, we can help secure the person’s identity and the status we have granted them against any attempt by another person to use those in a fraudulent application. Thirdly, the photograph will be contained in the secure digital status they receive under the scheme and will thereby provide a convenient means by which they can, for example, evidence their right to work to an employer. I will say a bit more about that shortly.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the photograph not meeting requirements and being chucked out. There will be a lot of guidance on how to take a photograph that matches and meets the requirements. If an applicant submits a photograph that is not sufficient, the Home Office will proactively contact them in a positive way—which I think the noble Lord was also driving at. I will underline that we are looking for a reason to grant this status, not refuse it. If there are any problems of any sort with an application, we will contact the applicant to help them resolve the matter, rather than reject it. I think that that was at the heart of the noble Lord’s question.

The noble Lord also asked about costs to the applicant. The agreement reached with the EU allows a fee of up to the cost of an equivalent document for UK nationals. We have used the cost of a passport of £75.50 as a point of reference. A fee of £65 to apply for status under the EU settlement scheme is in line with the current costs of obtaining permanent residence documentation, and it will contribute to the overall costs of the system. The fee for a child under 16 will be half that: £32.50. Where an applicant is granted pre-settled status under the scheme, from April 2019 there will be no fee when they apply for settled status. Applications will be free of charge for those who hold valid permanent residence documentation or valid indefinite leave to enter or remain, or for the children in local authority care. To charge a lower fee than the current fee that EU citizens are charged for permanent residence documentation would disadvantage those who have already paid the £65 fee to require that documentation to confer their exercise of free movement rights. To charge a higher fee would disadvantage those who have followed our advice since the referendum that they did not generally need to apply for EU documentation.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the consultation. We have been engaging with stakeholders throughout the process, including the user groups we have established, involving EU citizens’ representatives, embassies, employers, and others. These groups are helping us to develop the scheme and get it right. We have engaged with EU citizens at every stage of the development process and will continue to do so. We will also continue to expand our communications to ensure that EU citizens are aware of the scheme, how it will operate and what information they will need to provide, and so that they are reassured that they will have plenty of time in which to apply for their new UK immigration status.

Immigration Detention: Shaw Review

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 24th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I have a feeling that we do not release the number of staff that we have in our detention estate, but I will double check. If we do I will get those figures to the noble Lord.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, with the greatest respect, we should be looking for outcomes, not outputs. We should be looking for results, not activity. So why is the number of people being detained for more than six months still increasing? I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said about this potentially being an increasing problem, but can the Minister tell the House what percentage of people are being detained, as opposed to those who are not? Is that percentage increasing or decreasing?

ONS New Crime Statistics

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Friday 20th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Office for National Statistics has pointed to improvements to police recording and increased willingness of victims to report certain crimes such as sexual offences and domestic abuse as important factors in explaining trends in police recorded crime. However, there has been a genuine increase in serious violent crimes, so we have announced new laws to address them. The serious violence strategy represents a step change in the way that we respond.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, overall crime is increasing and violent crime, as the Minister has just said, is increasing at an alarming rate of more than 10%. The crime survey does not reflect this because of the underrepresentation of young men, who are predominantly the victims of violent crime. Nor are murder and manslaughter offences reflected in it. Crimes that are more complex to investigate, such as rape, are an increasing proportion of the total, requiring more police resources to investigate them. Meanwhile, the proportion of offences resulting in a court appearance fell from 11% to 9%, the lowest since comparable records began in 2015. Despite government claims to the contrary, central government funding for core policing continues to fall in real terms, with the number of police officers at the lowest level since comparable records began in 1996. At the same time, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services said in its State of Policing report of 2017:

“On the whole, the inspections we have carried out during the past year show that the effectiveness and efficiency of the police service are improving”.


When will the Government accept that the continued, damaging, real-terms cuts to core policing budgets are helping to drive up crime, and when will they reverse them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Question. I say at the outset that the Government understand that police demand is changing and increasingly complex, as the noble Lord said. That is why, after the Police Minister spoke to all forces in England and Wales, we provided a comprehensive funding settlement which will increase total investment in the police system by more than £460 million in 2018-19. That includes £50 million for counterterrorism, £130 million for national priorities and £280 million in force funding for increases in council tax precept income. He will have also heard the Home Secretary saying that he understands what the demands on the police have been, particularly over the last year with all they have had to deal with, and that he will prioritise this in the next spending round. However, the overall picture is that public investment in policing has gone up from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion in 2018-19. The workforce of the police has remained broadly stable over the past year. I add that many forces have indicated that they either plan to protect the number of police officers or will in fact recruit further in the coming year.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 18th July 2018 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, who introduced some of the committee’s concerns. I apologise for the quite unsatisfactory Explanatory Memorandum, about which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and to a certain extent the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, gave very good explanations and far more of the context, which is a learning point for me and for the Home Office. I repeat the point that all noble Lords made about the welfare of the child being paramount. The noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said that he is a parent; I am too. It is the most important thing that we are discussing.

I will start by addressing the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2018, which the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee expressed concern about and which has, in the main, been the subject of interventions today. Over the past 18 months, at the Security Minister’s instigation, the Government have been conducting a review with operational partners of the covert human intelligence source, or CHIS, authorisation framework to consider whether it is working as effectively as it could. This included consideration of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Juveniles) Order 2000 which put in place a set of enhanced safeguards that apply specifically to the authorisation of a CHIS under the age of 18, demonstrating that the ability to authorise people under the age of 18 as a CHIS is not something new. That has become clear in the course of discussions.

While investigators might wish to avoid the use of young people as a CHIS, we must recognise that, unfortunately, some juveniles are involved in serious crimes both as perpetrators and as victims. Consequently, young people might have unique access to information that is important in preventing and prosecuting gang violence, terrorism and child sexual exploitation offences. Noble Lords will undoubtedly be aware of reporting in the media recently—this was mentioned in the debate—on the escalating county lines phenomenon which, along with the associated violence, drug dealing and exploitation, has a devastating impact on young people, vulnerable adults and, of course on the communities they affect.

The existing juvenile CHIS regime allows for the use of a juvenile CHIS to be authorised for just one month at a time as compared to a 12-month authorisation for those over the age of 18. This can make their deployment more difficult to manage, which in turn can be unhelpful both to them and to law enforcement. It can also act as a deterrent to law enforcement seeking CHIS authorisation in some circumstances where immediate results might not be obtained during a one-month period, even if a longer, carefully managed deployment could provide a significant operational dividend.

To reduce the pressure to obtain immediate results from such an authorisation while still ensuring the protection of the juvenile, we are increasing the maximum length of a juvenile CHIS authorisation from one month to four months, requiring an authorisation to be reviewed at least monthly which will enable these deployments to be conducted in a more measured way. I will go into more detail on that in a second. Additionally, we have strengthened the protections around the appropriate adult required to be present at all meetings between the source and the public authority tasking them, and we are keeping the existing prohibition on all sources aged under 16 being tasked in relation to a parent or person with parental responsibility, which reflects the increasing independence of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 and that parental authority reduces accordingly—the point about 15 going on 25. I hope that reassures noble Lords that these changes are not about administrative convenience.

We think that these amendments will improve the operational effectiveness of the juvenile CHIS regime, while strengthening the protections for young people in this area and the safety and welfare of young people undertaking this important and dangerous role. This remains absolutely paramount.

[Lord Paddick]

Can the Minister explain how deployments are more difficult to manage if they are authorised for only one month? Presumably the deployment can continue and there is a review by an assistant chief constable or a commander to renew the authorisation, without interfering with the juvenile or the deployment. In those circumstances there would be no pressure to produce results within a short space of time if all we are saying is that the authority can be renewed by this more senior officer at the end of one month on an ongoing monthly basis, but it is very important that somebody of that seniority—that removed from the investigation—objectively decides that that authorisation should continue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

For the convenience of the Committee, I will go through the process. Authorisations for the juvenile CHIS should be granted at an enhanced level, which is set out in annexe A of the code of practice. For example, for a police force this would be by an assistant chief constable, in comparison with the adult CHIS, where an authorisation would be considered by a superintendent. The code of practice requires that, where possible, the authorising officer who grants the authorisation should be responsible for considering subsequent reviews and renewals. That is how each month the whole thing is revisited to continue for a further month, up to four months. But all these processes need to be documented and considered by the handler, the controller and the authorising officer within the public authority and will be fully open to inspection by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner as well. This creates, in our view, a comprehensive framework of safeguards which ensure that the conduct is necessary and proportionate to protect the interests of that young person. With regard to increasing the maximum, they may not be able to finish off what they started within just one month and hence a monthly review, up to four months, is in place. The noble Lord is looking slightly confused so I will let him intervene.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

Can the Minister confirm that the monthly review would be undertaken by an assistant chief constable or commander?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Yes.

[Lord Paddick]

I still do not understand the difference between the current system, where that authorisation would have to be renewed by a commander or assistant chief constable each month, and a four-month authorisation that is reviewed every month.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Under the current system it is only one month, whereas under the new system it would be up to four months but with a review every single month—and, yes, by the same senior officer.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I understand it. I apologise to noble Lords. The current system is limited to one month. The new system would be up to four months, but with a review every month.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the Minister. At the moment, an assistant chief constable or a commander can authorise a juvenile CHIS to be deployed for a month. At the end of that month there can be an application from the handler to the senior officer to renew the authorisation so that it has the effect of continuing for another month, and so forth, for as long as it is necessary. The new system that the noble Baroness is suggesting is a four-month authorisation with a review by the commander or assistant chief constable at the end of each month. What is the difference between the two systems?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

Perhaps I can assist. The handler decides that the CHIS needs to be in a gang for three months. The handler will know that, under the current system, at the end of each month, for three months, they will have to go back to the commander or assistant chief constable to renew the authorisation. What is the problem with that system that is overcome by the changes being suggested?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, because he seems to put things so clearly. I get the noble Lord’s point. Perhaps I may think about it and write to noble Lords, because I now understand exactly the point that the noble Lord is making—thanks to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge.

I will now move on to the appropriate adult point. We have strengthened the protections around the appropriate adult required to be present at all meetings between the source and the public authority tasking them. I think that I have already said this. We are keeping the existing prohibition on all sources aged under 16 being tasked in relation to a parent or person with parental responsibility. This reflects the increasing independence of a child approaching the age of 18.

I will now touch on the issue of consistency of approach.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very sorry; I know that it is late. I quoted from the draft revised code of practice. Paragraph 4.3 states:

“Public authorities must ensure that an appropriate adult is present at any meetings with a CHIS under 16 years of age”.


An appropriate adult has to be present at the interrogation of a criminal suspect under 18 years of age. My question was: why is there a difference between the two?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord did ask that and I did not answer it satisfactorily. I will write also on that point.

Perhaps I could move on to the oversight regime. The independent oversight of these investigative powers was first legislated for by the Police Act 1997, and the powers are now overseen by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who also oversees the powers provided for in the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The commissioner, like those oversight commissioners his role has replaced, provides the guarantee of impartial and independent scrutiny of the use of these tactics. The oversight commissioners have published reports annually, and, in his final oversight report in 2017, the Surveillance Commissioner commented that,

“standards of compliance have steadily improved in my view, and addressing it generally, they are high”.

The Government accept that the Explanatory Memorandum originally laid alongside the juvenile CHIS order did not go far enough and, as the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, said, the revised version was laid last week. It provides greater detail on the changes made by the order and on the use of juveniles as CHISs more generally. However, I have to make it clear that the Explanatory Memorandum should not be read alone. As I have set out, those charged with authorising and handling young people who act as CHISs have access to extensive guidance available to them to ensure that juveniles are safeguarded. The Explanatory Memorandum is clearly not the right place for the detail that the code contains. Such detailed guidance on the use of these sensitive tactics is necessarily not in the public sphere, as to do so may undermine operational practices and have the potential of putting the CHIS in harm’s way.

The fact that these two orders were laid at the same time is not a fluke—rather, it is the continued development of a suite of statutory safeguards and associated guidance, revised and updated to ensure that these powers are used proportionately and in accordance with the law.

I will now turn to some of the issues which were raised by noble Lords. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, talked about using children as spies—and this relates to the numbers. I can say to noble Lords that the numbers are extremely low. We do not disaggregate by age, but as I say, the numbers are low.

Operation Conifer: Funding

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thought I did know the answer and that I had reiterated it on several occasions. On the question of why not HMICFRS, the Secretary of State can at any time, under Section 54(2B) of the Police Act 1996, require HMICFRS to undertake an inspection on a specific police force or forces, which can be limited to particular matters or activities or a particular part of the force that he or she is concerned about. This power enables the Home Secretary to commission urgent inspection activities, and such inspection reports must be published. The Secretary of State also has powers under Section 54(3) of the 1996 Act to direct HMICFRS to carry out,

“other duties for the purpose of furthering police efficiency and effectiveness”.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in light of the noble Baroness’s last answer, why have the Government not used these powers to enable HMIC to go to that force and carry out the inspection, as she suggested? Legally, it is not possible to libel the dead, but in practice it clearly is. It is not time that the Government considered a change in the law?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As regards not being able to libel the dead, that has always been the case, but we keep legislation under review. The reason why this will not be done by HMICFRS is that it can carry out an inspection either of the whole force, part of the force or a particular activity of the force, and in this instance the Home Secretary does not see that this would be appropriate.

Immigration: Hostile Environment

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Yes, I did, but—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

The Home Office Committee is reported as saying that, unless the Home Office is overhauled, the scandal will happen again for another group of people. For example, there is nothing in this Statement about the fact that officials in the Home Office are being put under pressure by being given targets for removals from the UK. How can officials use their discretion and compassion if they have to deport another 10 people by the end of the week?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will have heard the previous Home Secretary talk about previous targets for removal, which there were, and which had stopped for this year—they had been ceased. There were no targets for the deportation of criminals. But the noble Lord got to the nub of the point. The Home Office and the new Home Secretary have said that we need to take a far more humane approach to dealing with people—because these are people and not just numbers. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the way in which the Windrush issue has been dealt with under the leadership of the new Home Secretary has been more than humane. He has put a prime focus on ensuring that anybody inadvertently removed by the compliant environment measures that were in place are proactively sought, and remedial action will be taken to ensure that, through the compensation scheme, any hardship they have suffered will be recompensed in due course. The noble Lord is right in the sense that the culture needs to be changed—the new Home Secretary talked about that as well—to understand and recognise that we are dealing with human beings here.

Visit of President Trump: Policing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I most certainly can. As the noble Lord will know, there are established processes for PCCs to make an application for additional funding if they face unexpected and exceptional expenditure—and I am sure this is such expenditure—which would otherwise create a serious threat to the force’s financial stability and its capacity to deliver normal policing.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I shall continue the theme of funding. We continue to believe that the police are underfunded, particularly considering that 60% of funding for police services comes from central government and that amount is reducing in real terms. Police officers on mutual aid operations to ensure President Trump’s safety are being housed in gymnasiums. There are hundreds of officers in one space on camp beds. Male officers are having to pass through sleeping areas designated for female officers. Some female officers are being accommodated on the floor of squash courts where there are no beds, simply a mat on the floor for them to sleep on. These officers are having to spend three nights in these conditions and are then expected to work 12-hour shifts. Why has the Home Office not proactively stepped in to ensure that forces have sufficient funds to provide civilised accommodation for these officers? How do the Government expect police officers to treat the public fairly if this is the way the Government treat them?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I totally sympathise with the noble Lord’s point. Police officers who work in the line of duty to protect the public should absolutely be given decent accommodation. I shall quote the NPCC’s spokesman:

“Some of the accommodation pictured today for officers supporting the major operation for the US Presidential visit is not acceptable and below the standard of other accommodation for this operation”.


I understand that Essex Police is working at speed to resolve this and to ensure that the affected officers will be decently accommodated. The spokesman also thanked the officers who raised this issue because what the noble Lord outlined is utterly unacceptable.

Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there have been so few speakers this afternoon that anyone would think there might be a football match on tonight. However, I thank both noble Lords for their very constructive comments and questions. I have been furiously writing everything down and I hope I also have the answers but if I have not, I will follow them up in writing.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether this could allow for an agreement with the EU. Obviously, we are going through negotiations with the EU on Brexit, but it is absolutely possible that we could eventually make an agreement either with specific countries or with multiple states in the EU. That is almost certainly a possibility. He also quite sensibly asked whether this will affect the adequacy judgment in the context of Brexit. It is about getting data from outside the UK into the UK, but UK providers responding to requests under any agreement would need to comply with data protection law, which is of course aligned with EU standards, as we saw when we were going through the Data Protection Bill recently.

The noble Lord also asked how the Bill affects the evidence proposal published by the Commission. EU member states and wider international partners are considering this very question of cross-border access to electronic data. The European Commission has published proposals on this issue which we are currently considering. The UK’s opt-in applies to the regulation and the Government are committed to taking all opt-in decisions on a case-by-case basis, putting the national interest at the heart of the decision-making process. We are currently scrutinising the regulation, and we will make a decision on whether to participate in due course. The proposed evidence directive could be implemented before the end of the envisaged implementation period.

The noble Lord also asked whether contempt of court is enough if the CSP has no assets in the UK, which slightly goes to the point the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made about seizing assets. Both are a possibility, but we anticipate working closely with overseas providers to create a high compliance environment. Given the general support for this, we hope that is the case. It is possible that some providers may have no UK assets, but those firms are unlikely to be within reach of any enforcement mechanism. We can always resort to MLA in the case of non-compliance.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked about what happens if you get more evidence than you asked for. The data received will be subject to the usual data protection laws and existing laws on data handling and retention. Law enforcement will be provided with guidance on how to handle data when using an overseas production order. I think he also asked about what happens if you need multiple different requests.

[Lord Paddick]

The question was: if you identify further offences from the information that you have requested, would you then need to go back to a judge to enable that evidence to be used?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My view would be that, yes, you would because it would be a new request, but I will confirm that in writing. I would not wish to give the noble Lord misinformation at the Dispatch Box.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how the US or other countries will be able to get information from the UK. The proposed agreement will be reciprocal and we would expect any country with which we have an international co-operation arrangement also to benefit from this more streamlined process for data and evidence gathering. The condition for any international arrangement or future arrangement is that each country recognises the other’s rule of law—that is an important concept for the Bill—due process and judicial oversight for obtaining and dealing with information and evidence with regard to serious crime. Each agreement will be specific in scope in respect of the circumstances in which it can be used. Section 52 of the IP Act 2016 will be used to designate international agreements, and that will be the basis for another country to request information from UK service providers. The Secretary of State has the power to impose additional conditions when designating an agreement under that section.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what would happen if the other country had a lower threshold for what is regarded as reasonable belief. What do we do if this arrangement is all about the mutual recognition of legal systems? The UK would not agree to any arrangement where the threshold for obtaining data did not provide similarly protective standards to those in the UK. The agreements will recognise a shared acceptance of the laws in another country with which we are entering into an agreement. It will recognise the other’s rule of law, due process and judicial oversight for obtaining and dealing with information and evidence with regard to serious crime.

Under any proposed agreement the UK would require the other country to set out the powers it intended to use in pursuance of requests made under the agreement. The UK would also ask the other country to commit that it would not rely on another power unless agreed by both parties. In addition, it would specify the evidential standard required before requests were made and ensure that the UK was satisfied with those standards before designating an agreement for incoming requests.

The noble Lord asked which countries we are negotiating agreements with. We expect the first relevant international arrangement to be with the US, unlocking the potential for streamlined access by UK law enforcement, but any future international arrangements would, like the agreement with the US that we have been discussing, be based on the recognition that robust protections for privacy are present in each country. Of course, not every country would meet those high standards, and any agreement that we reached with another jurisdiction would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny in the usual way. As discussed, that usually involves laying the agreement in Parliament for 21 sitting days without either House having resolved that it should not be ratified.

The noble Lord asked what powers exist to nullify incoming requests. The Bill is about requests from the UK rather than to the UK, but UK-based providers will not be compelled to comply with overseas orders and, if they do, must comply with data protection law. The agreement itself will be subject to the usual scrutiny by Parliament, as I have said.

The noble Lord also asked about the timescales for production orders versus MLA. Under an overseas production order, the standard time for compliance is seven days. However, the judge may shorten or extend this time depending on the circumstances of the case. Therefore we expect this to be a much quicker process compared with MLA, which can take up to 10 months unless there is a particular urgency. The noble Lord asked how many we were anticipating. We anticipate approximately 40 to 50 outgoing requests for electronic data. I will write on the other point regarding MLA numbers. I am guessing that there are more because it has a broader scope, but I will write to the noble Lord.

I have tried to cover every point; I am not sure that I have but I will of course follow up in writing any that I have not. In the meantime, I beg to move.

Amesbury Incident

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 5th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made earlier in the other place. This is clearly a shocking and unexpected development, and our best wishes go to the couple and those who responded—and continue to respond—to this incident.

I understand that the incident is ongoing and we should not make assumptions, but does the Minister agree that there appears to be a lack of motivation, which might suggest that this is not a deliberate poisoning? In the last 10 minutes or so, the police have said that the couple have been contaminated by handling a contaminated item. Somebody from the Chief Medical Officer’s staff told the “Today” programme this morning that in high concentrations the nerve agent can be absorbed through the skin but in lower concentrations it has to be ingested. Is there any indication that the victims may have injected the substance? It would clearly be reassuring to members of the public if that was the case.

On the one hand, a chemical weapons expert is quoted by the BBC as believing that the latest victims could have come across the Novichok that poisoned the Skripals after it had been haphazardly disposed of. On the other hand, a Russian scientist who first exposed the Novichok programme cast doubts on that theory, saying that Novichok would have decomposed in the four months since the attack on the Skripals. The Minister talked about the expulsion of Russian diplomats across the globe as a consequence of what happened before, but what if the Russian scientist is right that this is a fresh batch of the nerve agent? What would the international implications of that be? The Russian scientist told the BBC that this must have been a separate incident because Novichok was unstable, especially in damp conditions. Can the Minister add to this?

I know that it is difficult, as I am about to tell the House in the debate that follows this Statement, to provide clear information in the early days following such an incident. That is difficult to do but the public need to be told whether this is a new attack, which could throw doubt on the whole matter, or whether it is an accidental poisoning caused by leftovers from the Skripal attack. Residents are very concerned. What can the Minister say to reassure them? When we had the previous nerve agent attack, we learned more from the media than we learned from the Minister’s Statement in the House. Can she provide the House with some additional information that will help your Lordships to understand what has happened and reassure the residents in the area affected?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, for their very constructive comments and questions, as is usual following this type of incident and the making of such a Statement to your Lordships’ House.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked first about the names of the victims. I know that they have been in the press but we have not confirmed their names. He and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about local residents being very concerned. Of course they will be concerned; they have had two almost identical incidents in their vicinity in the last few months. I hope that the words of Dame Sally Davies and the police have provided some comfort to them that the risk is low, while saying that people should remain vigilant and not touch things such as syringes, which might be dangerous, and that if they see anything they are concerned about or feel unwell, they should immediately contact the helpline.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the different location and he is absolutely right. Not only did the events of the weekend take place in a different location but the couple in question do not appear to have visited any of the original sites. He also asked whether there would be constant reassurance of the public and constant updates to them as time goes on. We have seen over the past couple of days that the police and Dame Sally Davies have been very forthcoming in the information that they have given to the public. Any funding or assistance required will of course be forthcoming. Some 100 counterterrorism police detectives have been deployed and mutual aid from other police forces has been sent to Amesbury to assist.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned a crucial point: the local economy. I know it suffered the first time round and people will be very concerned. Another department, MHCLG, provided a lot of assistance in the aftermath of the previous event and I expect it will deploy similar assistance to the local area following this one.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked several questions, some of which I will not be able to answer. One was about whether it was a deliberate poisoning. The police have said that the poisoning was due to handling a contaminated item. He spoke about injecting the poison and made a point about the Russian scientist who said that in his opinion it was a fresh batch. I cannot substantiate any of those points. As the investigation proceeds the facts will become much clearer and it is not for me to comment on them at this stage.

Airports: Border Force

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 26th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are 254 e-gates operating across the country, including the juxtaposed controls. E-gates respond to the patterns of people-flow across the border. Although some of the e-gates are sometimes closed, one finds that when demand increases, they re-open. That is a wise way of managing traffic across the border.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, further to what the Minister has just said, is it not true that there needs to be a certain number of immigration officers per e-gate and that, in fact, the e-gates are not all open when they should be because of a lack of staff? What discussions have the Government had with Heathrow Airport Ltd about increasing the number of Border Force staff at the airport, bearing in mind that the Border Force is struggling with two runways, let alone three?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that there are immigration officers at e-gates and that e-gates are sometimes closed but, as I explained, this is in relation to the projected flow of passengers across the border, and sometimes if a plane has been delayed, it can create congestion at the border. We have 250 e-gates, but we are investing in staff at the border in the coming year.

Brexit: Identity Cards

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 25th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank my noble friend for that question, and for forewarning me of it. I have talked about cost and civil liberties but, in addition to the things which my noble friend talked about, I draw attention to the fact that an increasing number of transactions and interactions, including the majority of identity frauds now occur online, where documents are far less effective in proving identity. I will take back what my noble friend said, but we should recognise that there is now a thriving market in fraud with actual, physical documents.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in 2005 experts at the London School of Economics estimated that the introduction of an ID card scheme would cost up to £18 billion. Taking account of inflation and the total absence of any Brexit dividend, does the Minister agree that £26 billion would be better spent on the National Health Service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The quite swingeing costs were certainly a consideration when the coalition Government decided to scrap identity cards or take them no further. I do not know about the £20 billion figure, but abolishing the scheme saved the taxpayer at the time £86 million and removed the need for a total investment of £835 million. What the Government choose to spend the money on will be a collective matter for the Government.

Brexit: European Union Police Databases and Extradition Arrangements

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 20th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, these are political choices that will be decided in the course of the negotiations. I think that both sides will be realistic in the final analysis and in what is ultimately agreed. I have full confidence in that.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the European arrest warrant, as Mr Barnier said yesterday, is based on trust underpinned by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights, the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and the concept of EU citizenship and free movement. As the Government have rejected all these foundations, how do they expect to retain access to the European arrest warrant after we have left the EU?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As to the European arrest warrant and other matters, as I said to the other two noble Lords, these are political choices. What we have in the EAW and other matters, such as ECRIS and SIS II, is strong co-operation between us and our European Union partners. I know the noble Lord will agree with me when I say that the most important thing when we leave the European Union is that we have a safe Europe in which our citizens can live.

Drugs Licensing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 19th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his words of congratulation. The history that he tells is interesting. Successive Governments have not done this and today is an historic day in the advancement of a substance that may prove to have huge benefits for all kinds of conditions. I worked with sufferers of multiple sclerosis for 10 years and the use of cannabis-derived products—and now Sativex—helped to ameliorate some of their spasms. They did not want to get high; they just wanted to stop the spasms that happened day and night.

I recommend that we look at the original report because I bet there will be a bit of déjà vu when we do. I thank the noble Lord for his comments and his sound advice.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, it would be appropriate to draw a parallel with opium. The fact is that heroin—a derivative of opium—is a dangerous and addictive illegal drug, whereas morphine has a medical use derived from opium. Here we are talking about the medical derivatives of cannabis—which it would be helpful to move to a different schedule—and not about the legalisation of recreational use.

The Statement says that there are currently no legally recognised medicinal or therapeutic benefits, but it also says that the Home Secretary has issued an emergency licence to allow Billy Caldwell’s medical team to access cannabis based on medicine to treat life-threatening seizures caused by a severe form of epilepsy. As a consequence, Billy has now been discharged from hospital. Can the Minister explain why the clear medicinal and therapeutic benefits of cannabis are not legally recognised?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord underlines precisely why we are where we are today. Clearly, for those two little boys it has had obvious benefits and—once the doctors and the clinicians who are treating them are satisfied that those benefits of the cannabis-based medicine are real and that without them they would go back to their previous suffering—that entirely underlines why this review is well worth doing.

The noble Lord is right to make the point about opium, which of course is schedule 2—which states that it has medical benefits—but is class A in terms of control. Cannabis is schedule 1 but class B. He is also right that this review is well overdue and I look forward to some of the work that will be done over the coming months. It will take time because cannabis is a complex drug and it is important that the proper process is followed and sound clinical judgments are arrived at.

Immigration: “Right to Rent” Scheme

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 6th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have no intention of scrapping the scheme. The first phase of the scheme, in the West Midlands, was subject to evaluation by Home Office Analysis and Insight to test its impact on discrimination, vulnerable groups and homelessness, as well as its impact on the sector and local authorities. The Home Office report published on 20 October 2015 found no evidence that the scheme was having any adverse impact on any of these. It is important that noble Lords note that the right to rent scheme is relatively new. It should not be seen in isolation but as one of a number of provisions that deter illegal immigration and restrict the number of illegal migrants establishing a settled life in the UK.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the chief inspector’s report calls for monitoring and evaluation of the right to rent measures in terms of racial and other discrimination. He, like many in this House when the issue was debated, is concerned that risk-averse landlords could refuse to rent to black and minority ethnic tenants or those who have foreign-sounding names. Will the Minister tell the House how the Government are monitoring racial and other discrimination, and what baseline data they are using to determine whether discrimination has increased as a result of the right to rent scheme?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As I said to the noble Baroness, an evaluation by the Home Office found no evidence of discrimination. We have found no levels of discrimination to date but we intend to reconvene the panel and monitor the effects of the scheme, as we do with any legislation.

Police: Firearms

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 4th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord rightly raises a number of concerns. We know there have been challenges in recruiting additional firearms officers. To date, we have recruited 650 and hope to reach 1,000 by the end of this year. Developing a pipeline of skills is very important when we are looking to recruit. In doing so, we want firearms officers to feel that they can do their job with the safety of a legal framework around them.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, police firearms officers are volunteers who make split-second decisions to protect us all. Does the Minister not agree that they deserve some legal protection in return?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think the final part of my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, made precisely that point. We absolutely acknowledge the way the police have to make—in the blink of an eye—what are sometimes life-and-death decisions. They had a particularly challenging time last year during the several terrorist attacks that took place in this city and in Manchester. I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, acknowledged in his report how well the police responded in those situations.

Children: Gangs

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 10th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I pay tribute to my noble friend’s work over the years involving young people. I am certainly happy to meet him to learn from his expertise in this area. I think it is true to say that the true scale of exploitation, including the number of victims, remains an intelligence gap. The National Crime Agency pointed this out. I would be happy to meet my noble friend to discuss it.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, many young people are unaware of the realities of gang membership: discipline enforced by stabbings, the rape of women and girls, and street dealers whose lives are put at risk while those who supply them with illegal drugs take most of the profit. Is the Minister aware of the work of Growing Against Violence—GAV, a charity of which I am patron—which works in schools to destroy the myths around gang membership in order to dissuade young people from getting involved with gangs, knives and drug dealing? Is this not exactly the sort of work that the Government should be supporting?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that any work such as GAV’s is to be commended. We are not only developing some of the existing good practice but expanding our knowledge of the extent to which county lines are affecting our most vulnerable children. The noble Lord is right to point out that drugs market violence may be facilitated and spread by things such as social media—another area on which we need to clamp down.

Renewal of G4S Contracts

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I cannot disagree—in fact, I do not think that anyone would disagree—with the noble Lord that watching the “Panorama” programme was very uncomfortable. It was shocking, and I do not think that anyone would disagree with that. He asked why the contract was extended for two years and whether other options were considered. The two-year extension to May 2020 was to allow for the reprocurement of services. It is not an unusual amount of time when such a reprocurement is being undertaken.

The procurement and the longer-term contract will be for the provision of the operation, management and maintenance of Brook House and Tinsley House and the pre-departure family accommodation at Tinsley House, as I pointed out. It is to allow the Home Office to consider any relevant conclusions from the independent reviews by Stephen Shaw and Kate Lampard. The Home Office has received the Stephen Shaw report, and both are due to be published in the summer. All bidders in the current competition were told of this decision on 4 May.

The noble Lord rightly asked what the Government are doing in the light of the shocking findings by “Panorama”. Since the programme aired, the Home Office has worked closely with G4S to ensure that it responds vigorously and at pace to the issues highlighted by “Panorama”. The former Home Secretary, and Ministers Brandon Lewis and Caroline Nokes, have met G4S senior managers regularly to review progress, and that oversight will be maintained. We have set out very clear expectations for G4S in responding to the issues at Brook House highlighted by “Panorama”, and we are currently satisfied that G4S has responded well. It has appointed a new manager and dismissed nine members of staff; enhanced staffing levels with recruitment and training plans in place; introduced body-worn cameras for staff to provide more transparency and assurance around procedures there; refreshed and promoted its whistleblowing procedures, with additional training provided at the centre by the Jill Dando Institute; put in place an improved drugs strategy; and, as I mentioned, commissioned the independent review by Kate Lampard, which will report this summer. I think I have now answered all the noble Lord’s questions.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer. The Government’s explanation for releasing this information on the Friday of a bank holiday weekend—because the decision was made during purdah—begs the question: why was it made during purdah? Can the Minister explain how granting a two-year extension to G4S to run these facilities, despite the undercover BBC report, is consistent with the fact that the new Home Secretary no longer wants a hostile environment for illegal immigrants? Whoever gets the contract, is this not what happens when people are detained not knowing how long they are going to be detained, and with more than 160 people a year being detained for four months or more? Surely an absolute limit on immigration detention, as exists in most civilised countries, would provide the incentive the Home Office clearly needs to resolve these cases quickly one way or the other.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He asked why there is a two-year extension, especially when G4S was the subject of the “Panorama” programme. I hope I have outlined to the noble Lord, through my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, what the Government’s expectations of G4S will be in this period—and the full reprocurement will provide a solid basis for further progress on all the issues I have outlined. We will continue to monitor the progress and the performance carefully. The conclusions, in due course, of Kate Lampard’s review and Stephen Shaw’s wider follow-up review will provide further opportunities to learn the lessons and embed good practice, both at Gatwick and across immigration detention more widely.

The noble Lord made the point about the hostile environment, and I have said several times since the new Home Secretary has been in post that that is not a term he wants to see, because of the connotations. He is more interested in a compliant environment, with people complying with immigration rules. As for people not knowing how long they will be detained, we are clear that people are detained for as short a time as possible. It must be noted that 92% of people in detention are not there for more than four months. Indefinite detention is against the law: it is not something that we do. Therefore, people are in detention for as short a period as possible.

Windrush

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 1st May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. First, he asked what the Home Office will be doing to right the wrongs. The new Home Secretary has made some things very clear. He has made it quite clear that he does not like the term “hostile environment”, which he feels does not reflect the values of this country. The term was not invented recently; it was coined some time ago—under a Labour Home Secretary, I must say, but that is by the by, because Home Secretaries have used the term ever since. He has made it quite clear that, in line with the values that he and most of us share, there should be a compliant rather than a hostile environment.

The noble Lord also asked about putting people before numbers. My right honourable friend also made it quite clear, as did the previous Home Secretary only last week, that we want a humane environment. Some of the mechanisms set up for the Windrush generation will make it as easy as possible for people to get the documentation they need. Where necessary, officials will liaise with other government departments to ease the burden on those people who are here as of right. The noble Lord talked about the compensation scheme—in fact, he asked me about it at the end of last week. The Home Secretary has reiterated his commitment to a compensation scheme. He will be consulting on the scheme and, as I said, an independent person will be in place to oversee it. I hope that answers the noble Lord’s questions.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Windrush fiasco is the result of Home Office deportation targets. If officials are given targets and the case before them qualifies on the face of it for deportation, and they are short of their quota for that week or month, how can they be expected to use their discretion to act humanely, even in the face of exceptional humanitarian circumstances? Of course, illegal immigrants should be pursued, but how can targets for removals be consistent with a compassionate approach to exceptional cases? The Minister said that the new Home Secretary has said that he will do whatever it takes to put this right. Does not she agree with me that, to put this right, we need to abandon removal targets in the Home Office?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

One thing that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary also made clear yesterday was that he wants to look at those targets, take a view on what targets have been set or are being set, and take a view on the whole issue of targets going forward. I am sure your Lordships’ House will have more information on that, as he embeds himself—he has been there only just over 24 hours—and makes decisions on his priorities and where the policy will go.

Muslims: Population Growth and Sharia Law

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 30th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I could not agree more wholeheartedly with the noble Lord. He and I are of Irish descent and first-generation Irish respectively. In fact, when we look around your Lordships’ House and this country, there would not be many of us if we did not have immigration.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that domestic law in most Muslim-majority countries is based on modern western legal systems and that sharia is actually a moral code that requires Muslims, among other things, to be just and fair in their dealings with everyone and always to promote what is good and to prevent what is wrong? Will she join me and the overwhelming majority of this House in celebrating the appointment today of the first British-Pakistani, born of Muslim parents, to hold one of the great offices of state?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly agree with the first part of the noble Lord’s question and am very pleased to be able to join him in welcoming Sajid Javid as our new Home Secretary. While I have an opportunity, I also pay tribute to my right honourable friend Amber Rudd.

Home Office Removal Targets

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 26th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Ministers have set out their ambition for increasing returns, but have not set the Home Office specific numerical targets. The idea of government setting removal targets goes back a number of decades. For example, in 2003 Tony Blair set a target of halving the number of asylum seekers within a year, while in 2007 Jacqui Smith made a commitment to remove 4,000 FNOs within a year. Senior managers in the Home Office have set targets in the past to drive performance locally, including last year, but have now moved away from doing so for this reporting year.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, if the Home Secretary is to resign, I am not sure what she should resign over: the fact that targets for removal were set or that she did not know that such targets existed, even when they were displayed on posters on the walls of the Home Office. In addition, the BBC has reported today on an inspection report by the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration from December 2015 showing targets for voluntary departures of people regarded as having no right to stay in the UK. They are not local targets but overall Home Office targets for removal of illegal immigrants from the UK—contrary to what the Minister has just said.

Does the Minister accept that, if officials are given targets for the number of people they must deport, it will be very difficult for them to use their discretion and be compassionate? The current culture at the Home Office is rotten to the core and Ministers, not officials, need to take responsibility.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I echo the noble Lord’s point about discretion and compassion. I agree with him: I am not sure what the Home Secretary should resign over because she has done a wonderful job. She has made it quite clear that, if there is a culture such as the one which has been worried over, that culture will change. We want the Home Office to remove more people who are here illegally, but I repeat that Ministers have not set specific targets for this year. We are clear that we would like the number of removals to increase. Reducing the size of the illegal migrant population and the harm that it causes is a key component of an effective immigration system, and what the public would expect as a matter of fairness.

On the posters to which the noble Lord referred, local managers may use visual tools to heighten team activities, which could include but not be limited to staff movements, work activity and performance. But, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said this morning, she will look at the performance environment as a matter of urgency.

Windrush Generation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 23rd April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have seen the Immigration Minister’s case pile—not case file—and it is true that many cases come in through the Immigration Minister’s box. It is really important, particularly in a situation like this, that those with genuine cases are dealt with quickly. I hope that there are not people out there seeking to capitalise on this situation.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister comment on the staff survey results published in the Independent today which show higher levels of discrimination and harassment among staff in the Home Office than in any other government department? Does this not prove that the Government have created a hostile environment inside the Home Office as well as in the country as a whole?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as an immigrant working in the Home Office I cannot comment on the staff survey because I have not seen it. This Government want to create a hostile environment not for people who have every right to be here but for people who seek to pervert the system of legal immigration. Yes, we want to create a hostile environment for illegal migrants, but we want to make every effort to ensure that people who are here lawfully are supported, particularly the Windrush cohort in confirming their settled status in this country.

Police: Independent Inquiries

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 19th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I should clarify that it is the Independent Office for Police Conduct rather than misconduct, as the noble Lord knows. The IOPC can investigate a matter referred to it, but it also has call-in powers to require referral. In terms of investigating a police force, the IOPC is independent of government and the Home Secretary does not have the power to direct it to investigate a force or any of its officers. The key functions of the IOPC include providing independent oversight of the police complaints and discipline system, considering appeals when people believe that a police investigation into a complaint has got it wrong, and carrying out its own investigations into the most serious and sensitive matters relating to police conduct.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand the concern of noble Lords about the reputation of the right honourable Sir Edward Heath, but what about Bishop Bell, Lord Brittan or Sir Cliff Richard? It pains me to say this, but the police and the media cannot be trusted to comply with their own regulations on this issue. Will the Minister meet me to explore how my upcoming Private Member’s Bill to legally preserve anonymity before charge might be supported by the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am always happy to meet the noble Lord; we meet regularly. I understand all the cases that he talks about, which have gone through various mechanisms of investigation, and am happy to meet him to talk about his Private Member’s Bill.

Operation Conifer

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 17th April 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am certainly aware of the very strong feeling in your Lordships’ House. I am also aware, and have made it clear to others, that there is a clear process in place should the PCC wish, as he indicated a year ago, to set it in train.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, this is not the only case. In the Cliff Richard case in the High Court yesterday, it was revealed that the police had tipped off the BBC, resulting in South Yorkshire Police feeling “forced” to tell the BBC when Sir Cliff’s home was going to be raided. Does the Minister not agree that the National Police Chiefs’ Council’s guidelines are clearly insufficient and that the time has come for legislation, as recommended by Sir Richard Henriques, to prevent the publication of the names of subjects until they have been charged with an offence, unless authorised by a Crown Court judge?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There is certainly a presumption of anonymity before charge. I know the noble Lord will appreciate that it is not appropriate for me to comment on that specific case as it is currently the subject of legal proceedings.

Brexit: Border Control

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 29th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad that the Minister mentioned technology. At the moment, because of EU citizens’ free movement, they use the e-passport gates at Heathrow, whereas non-EU citizens have to prove that they are not coming here to work illegally before they are admitted and cannot use the e-gates. Non-EU citizens can queue for more than two hours at the passport gates. How long will the queues be when EU citizens cannot use the e-gates?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, what this Government want when we exit the European Union is for there to be a smooth process at the border. The noble Lord is absolutely right to mention the e-gates because they have been a great innovation and demonstrate how technology is so helpful at the border, saving customers a huge amount of time. Obviously, the Government want to see a smooth process at the border.

Manchester Arena Attack Review

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 28th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the national counterterrorist reaction and response, I think the noble Lord will agree that generally the overall response was excellent. There was an issue with the telephony system. Part of that issue was that there was no backup system. That has been thoroughly reviewed and a backup has been put in place. It was not something we would have wished to have happened on such a terrible night. I hope that that sort of issue will never arise again because of the measures we have put in place.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. As a senior policer officer, I have been directly involved in the immediate response to terrorist incidents, including the attacks on London on 7 July 2005, and the aftermath is typically chaotic for several hours. Secondary explosive devices and/or marauding gunmen are real possibilities, as we saw in the November 2015 Paris attacks. If either of those alternative scenarios had transpired in this case, the criticism could well have been of the police and the ambulance service for putting their unarmed crews in danger. Does the Minister agree that these are extremely difficult calls to make but that once the decision has been made by the police, who are the lead agency in such situations, that decision needs to be communicated to all the emergency services so as to provide a united response? Can the Minister tell the House who in government is taking responsibility for ensuring that communication between emergency services is effective in these situations?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I pay tribute to the noble Lord and the part that he played in the Metropolitan Police. He must have some incredible experience of such things. He is absolutely right about the immediate aftermath, which is why there are various phased processes for the police and emergency services to go through afterwards. On the terrible possibility of a secondary attack, he is completely right to point out that communication is key, and the joint emergency services interoperability principles come into play. Events such as the 7/7 bombings, through which I am sure the noble Lord was operational, identified the need to improve that joint working between the emergency services. The JESIP, as it is called, was set up to improve how the police, fire and ambulance services work together when responding to those multiagency incidents when they are not specifically CT focused. That was not the case in this instance; it is most relevant in major incidents involving mass fatalities and significant numbers, such as those seen in Manchester and London last year—therefore, providing a key component to the UK’s ability to adequately prepare for a terrorist incident.

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) (Custodial Premises) Subordinate Provisions Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 27th March 2018 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, in bringing forward this statutory instrument the Government are seeking to restore the long-established principle that responsibility for enforcing fire safety regulations across the whole of the Crown’s custodial and detention estate should lie with those who have been appointed or authorised as Crown inspectors by Ministers in England and in Wales. At present, Crown inspectors in England and Wales are not the enforcing authorities for fire safety in the small number—about 7%—of custodial and detention premises where the Government have contracted out the provision of services to private providers.

That this was a significant issue became apparent in 2016 when responsibility for Crown inspectors in England transferred to the Home Office. Crown inspectors, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice instigated an investigation into the contractual arrangements in place for the provision of custodial or detention operations. As a result of this detailed review of contracts and ownership arrangements, it became clear that a number of contractual arrangements had been put in place for the operation of these premises, which had had the effect of transferring ownership or occupation for the purposes of the fire safety order away from the relevant Crown departments to private companies. Where this has happened, the responsibility for enforcing compliance with fire safety regulation has similarly been transferred away from our dedicated teams of Crown inspectors, and lies instead with the individual local fire and rescue authorities in which the relevant premises are located. This is not what was intended when the fire safety order was enacted in October 2006.

At that time, the then Government were clear that, irrespective of any contractual arrangements that were in place with the private sector for the provision of services, they wanted Crown inspectors to be the sole enforcing authorities in these types of premises. Indeed, they went so far as to spell this out in the guidance on enforcement that they published, to which all those with enforcement responsibilities under the fire safety order are required to have regard.

Now we are aware that the policy intent no longer aligns with the law, we want to rectify the position and ensure that the original policy of Crown inspectors inspecting, and where necessary enforcing, fire safety regulation across the whole of the Government’s custodial estate is re-established. We want to ensure that there is absolute clarity, both now and in the future, about the scope of enforcement responsibilities for the fire and rescue authorities and the Crown inspectors. This order therefore amends article 25 of the fire safety order to set out specific legal definitions of the full range of custodial premises for which the Crown inspectors are to be responsible. These will be established beyond doubt and will not, as is currently the case, be contingent on the often complex contractual leasing or ownership arrangements that may now be in place. Essentially, this order delivers through legislation the clarity that was intended by the 2007 policy guidance on enforcement.

It is the Government’s intention, shared by our counterparts in Wales, for there to be a single national organisation in each of our areas of jurisdiction: an organisation charged with the responsibility and invested with the specific skills and expertise necessary to provide three key things.

First, we want Ministers and relevant departments—which of course have the ultimate responsibility for fire safety in these types of custodial and detention premises—to benefit from the strategic oversight of fire safety compliance across the whole of the Crown’s custodial estate that is available where a single national body is in place. Secondly, we want there to be a clear and easily accessible route established for ensuring that any concerns relating to fire safety in our custodial estate can be raised immediately and addressed promptly by those with day-to-day responsibilities for fire safety management. Where reluctance or poor communication militates against appropriate action, we want an immediate escalation mechanism—direct to Ministers, if necessary—to be in place and delivered through our national fire and rescue advisers. In England, this means the Chief Inspector of the Crown Premises Fire Inspection Group. In Wales, as in Scotland, it means the Welsh Government’s Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser. Thirdly, we want a dedicated cadre of fire safety inspecting officers, each with the necessary training, maintained and regularly updated, to operate safely and effectively in this unique type of premises, where the risk to life in the event of a fire is generally high.

The order will re-establish robust national arrangements across all of the Government’s custodial estate. As such, it will specify the full range of custodial premises for which the Government are responsible, providing absolute clarity on the scope of the Crown’s responsibility for inspection and enforcement. This will ensure that our dedicated team of experienced Crown inspectors are clear that they have the powers to ensure that appropriate fire safety standards are in place to protect the lives of those living in, working on or visiting the Government’s custodial or detention estate. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing the order. I heard from what she said that this anomaly, whereby privately run prisons and custodial premises were not being inspected by national inspectors, was stumbled across when responsibility for Crown inspectors was transferred from the Ministry of Justice to the Home Office. Will she confirm that that is the case, and is it not a little worrying? How long might it have continued if that transfer had not taken place? Clearly, it is very important to have consistency across all privately run prisons and other places of detention, rather than to have the potential for different standards being applied by local fire and rescue services. On that basis, we support the order.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I am very happy to support the order before the Grand Committee. It is certainly very sensible to have the experts in fire safety and security to be looking after the whole of the estate. I am very happy to support it.

I have one query; it is a little disappointing—I refer to page 5 of the impact assessment at paragraph 1.9. I am surprised that we still have this ridiculous “one in, three out” rule. It does not apply here because the Government have clearly tested it against that ridiculous rule. It is an example of the worst kind of ideological, political dogma. You would have thought, in the aftermath of a tragedy such as Grenfell, we would not be using it, but clearly the Government still are. I hope that any regulation is in force at any time because it is necessary and proper. I cannot believe we still have this arbitrary rule. It is a matter of much regret, which I will probably take up elsewhere. Other than that, I am very happy to support the order, but I was surprised to see this when I read through the papers this morning.

Police: Emergency Calls

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, no one in need of urgent help should have their emergency call unanswered. While answering 999 calls is an operational matter for the police, we have maintained protection for police spending so that forces have the resources that they need to carry out their important work. It is for the police to determine how best to allocate their resources and manage their communications with the public.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, today Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services has highlighted major concern that policing is under significant stress.

“About a quarter of forces are all too often overwhelmed by the demand they face”,


and are not meeting the one-hour standard for responding to 999 calls that require an immediate response, with one force taking an average of 14 hours to respond to such calls. Although these calls are not those where life is immediately in danger, they include domestic assaults where a partner has left the scene but could return at any moment, a category of call that has increased by 88% over the past year.

This week, the UK Statistics Authority ruled that the Government misled the public with the claim of an extra £450 million for local forces when, in fact, central government funding is falling in real terms—and has been for years. Would today, as we remember the sacrifice of PC Keith Palmer, be a good day for the Government to finally admit that the police service is now underfunded and say that they are going to increase central government funding for the police service?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I first join the noble Lord in remembering today the sacrifice that Keith Palmer made to protect people in the Palace of Westminster. There will be a memorial in, I think, about 20 minutes’ time in Westminster Hall to remember the attack a year ago. The MPCC and the APCC called for £440 million of extra funding in 2018-19, with additional counterterrorism funding and increases in council tax precepts on top. They wanted this funding for an extra 5,000 front-line officers for proactive policing by 2020. The funding increase for next year is made up of main government grant, protected at flat cash; up to £270 million from increase in council tax precept income; a £15 million increase in counterterrorism police funding; and a £130 million increase in national priorities, mostly special grant, for exceptional costs and technology. On the point about domestic violence, I totally agree with the noble Lord. We have provided £11 million through the police transformation fund to support new police interventions to tackle domestic abuse, with a focus on early intervention and prevention.

Online Hate Speech

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 15th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)]

My Lords—

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, on the basis that the House cannot get enough of the European Union at the moment, I ask whether the Minister has seen the Reuters article dated 19 January entitled “Social media companies Facebook, Twitter, Google’s YouTube have accelerated removals of online hate speech in the face of a potential European Union crackdown”. Does she agree that pressure brought to bear on social media companies by the 28 countries of the European Union is likely to be far more effective than the UK dealing with these companies alone?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope I can assure the noble Lord that in fact the UK does not come from a position of thinking that it can deal with these things alone. It is not just a European problem; it is a global problem. On the European point, one of the key aims of the EU code of conduct on countering illegal hate speech online is to increase the proportion of illegal hate speech online that is reported within 24 hours. We fully support that.

Incident in Salisbury

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 8th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and pay tribute to the emergency services, an issue I shall want to return to shortly. We are also concerned for the police officer and the other victims, their families and friends.

I appreciate that the investigation is ongoing, but can the Minister confirm that one of the victims was a Russian citizen who was a British spy or double agent, and that President Putin has in effect made death threats against such individuals? The Government should be telling Parliament as much as they can about such incidents, not as little as they can get away with while hiding behind the fact that there is an ongoing investigation.

The Statement talks about well-rehearsed CBRN procedures, but these are deployed when it is a known CBRN threat. What reassurance can the Minister give that such procedures will be reviewed so that first responders are not put in danger, as the police officer who first attended this incident has clearly been put in danger? The Statement talks about protecting British citizens, but what risk assessments are carried out on Russian citizens living in the UK, particularly those who may have risked their lives to assist the UK in the past?



We on these Benches have repeatedly expressed concern about reductions in Border Force, with reliance placed on electronic gates and remote ports and small airfields not having sufficient protection—a situation that is likely to be made worse if we continue to Brexit.

I understand that hostile foreign powers might produce very convincing fraudulent documents to get their assassins into the UK, but can the Minister speculate how on earth a highly toxic nerve agent was smuggled into the country, assuming it was not stolen from a government facility in this country? Is the Minister satisfied that Border Force is properly funded and that our borders are secure?

I pay tribute to the emergency services but I also pay tribute to the security and intelligence services. In the interactions that I have had with those services, I am confident that we have among the best security and intelligence services in the world. Clearly, however, in an arms race with hostile foreign powers, we need to ensure that those services are properly funded.

I pay particular tribute to the police service—as in this case, they are often the first to arrive at the scene of incidents, never knowing what dangers they face. I wish the officer in this case a speedy recovery. The Government have continued to say that we need fewer police officers because crime is falling, but this incident is just one example of the police being the service of last resort. They have to deal with people in distress and, as we saw last week, respond to people trapped in the appalling weather—nothing to do with crime. These brave police officers never know the sorts of dangers that they are facing and can end up, as this officer has, seriously ill in hospital. Sometimes they give up their lives in order to protect us, as Keith Palmer did nearly a year ago in this place. Yet the Government appear in the eyes of operational police officers to be treating the police service with contempt—freezing their salaries, cutting their pensions and reducing police budgets in real terms. Will the Minister tell the House when the Government are going to reverse their anti-police agenda?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

First, I echo the words of the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Paddick, in praising our emergency services in the highest possible terms for what they risked to help these two individuals, which of course led to one of the policemen being taken ill. He is still in hospital. It brings into play the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the danger to our emergency services and whether all risk assessments are done to mitigate such injury to the police.

Certainly I can say that in the CBRN area these procedures are constantly reviewed and people are trained to the highest possible level—but in an emergency like this we can all appreciate that sometimes people’s lives will be at risk. People are put in danger, and that is why we have the highest regard for the police. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about police budgets. The police told us last year the number of additional police officers needed to do their job. We feel that in the budget they can attain this year they will have those police numbers—and more—to do the job that they do. That does not detract from the fact that the injury to this police officer, and indeed the death of PC Palmer some months ago, bring into sharp focus the dangers that police put themselves into.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked me to reiterate the Government’s determination to bring the perpetrators to justice. I said that in my Answer to the Question earlier and I repeat it now: we are absolutely determined to bring the perpetrators to justice.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked whether I could confirm that one of the individuals was a Russian spy. I am not in a position to comment further on the victims, other than in the Statement where I confirmed their names.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked about borders, how the substance came into the country and how sure we are of effective border control. I am not prepared to comment on an ongoing operation; I know that the House got slightly exasperated with me earlier, but I cannot. We adopt a rigorous approach to border security, and agencies work together at the border to manage a range of threats, including those posed by terrorism and serious and organised crime. This includes carrying out 100% immigration and security checks at the primary control point, advanced checks where available and intelligence-led targeting at ports. Border Force has at its disposal a range of capabilities to detect, target and identify substances and materials that could cause harm.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 1st March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I know that the PCC has been in correspondence with other noble Lords. I am reluctant to talk about individual correspondence at the Dispatch Box. I am sure the noble Lord will understand why that is, but I think he will also understand why this Question has come up again today.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I would like to broaden this out. Can the Minister explain how party-politically aligned police and crime commissioners can effectively hold chief constables to account? We have a situation at the moment with Labour and independent police and crime commissioners blaming central government real-terms cuts to police budgets for reductions in policing services, while Conservative police and crime commissioners toe the Conservative Party line, claiming that budgets are being maintained. Who is really to blame for drastic cuts in police numbers? Is it inefficient chief constables or is it the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there certainly are PCCs who stand under party-political banners. There are also independent PCCs. I do not think that there are any Lib Dem PCCs, although the Lib Dems are very good at political campaigning. It is for PCCs to hold their chief constables to account. It is also for police and crime panels to scrutinise PCCs, and they do.

Yarl’s Wood: Hunger Strike

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have given private notice.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government take detainee welfare extremely seriously. Any detainee who chooses to refuse food and fluid, for whatever reason, is closely monitored by on-site healthcare professionals. There are a number of established ways in which detainees can make representations on their individual case and about conditions of detention. Individuals are detained only for the purposes of removal from the UK.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, about 400 people are detained at Yarl’s Wood detention centre, nearly all of them women. One Algerian woman came to this country at the age of 11 and has been here for 24 years. It was not until she applied for a passport that she was found to be undocumented and detained at Yarl’s Wood. She has been there for three months so far. Does the Minister agree that one of the main reasons for the hunger strikes is that people are being detained unfairly, unreasonably and indefinitely? One woman has described it as like being kidnapped, not knowing when it will end or what will happen to her. The Minister will, of course, say that the Home Office detains people only for as short a period as possible, but at the end of 2017 one person had been in immigration detention for four and a half years. Does the Minister agree that it is time to introduce a 28-day limit on immigration detention, except in wholly exceptional circumstances?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There may be a multitude of reasons for refusing food and fluid. As the noble Lord has pointed out, they may be in protest against their detention but there may also be dietary and religious reasons.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 27th February 2018 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, this fees order is to be made using the charging provisions in Sections 68 to 70 of the Immigration Act 2014 and its purpose is to make only a relatively small number of changes to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which, along with the Immigration and Nationality Fees (Amendment) Order 2017, remains in place. The changes are needed to ensure that the charging framework set out in secondary legislation for immigration and nationality fees remains current and supports plans for the next financial year.

The Committee will wish to be made aware that there is an error in the draft order and its Explanatory Note. Following further review of the section of the order that deals with circumstances in which a fee may be set in respect of the provision of biometric identity documents, it has been identified that the change we were seeking to make by Article 2(4)(a) has no effect. This is because of the way in which the related legislation—the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations 2008—operates. The intention was to permit the Home Office to charge a fee when a person fails to collect their biometric residence permit within the required time limit, which is not intended as a penalty or fine, but is in line with fees charged for replacement biometric residence permits, where the department incurs extra production costs. However, the Immigration (Biometric Registration) Regulations do not in fact require an application in those circumstances—hence there is no service for which a fee could be charged. Though the Explanatory Note states that Article 2(4)(a) does have an effect, this is incorrect. Before such a change can take effect we will need to amend the Immigration (Biometrics Registration) Regulations 2008. In the interests of transparency for all, the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum has also been amended to clarify the issue.

The 2016 order continues to set out the overarching framework and maximum amounts that can be charged for immigration and nationality functions over the current spending review period, as previously agreed by Parliament. Changes made by this order are intended to clarify existing powers in connection with entry clearance to the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Isle of Man. The order will update powers to charge fees when offering premium services in relation to the islands and also make clear that the current definitions of a “sponsored worker”, “unsponsored worker”, “sponsor” and a “certificate of sponsorship” apply in respect of applications to the Isle of Man. Two further changes will delete obsolete provisions, for which no fee is currently set within regulations.

The 2016 order also permits a fee to be set for the acceptance of applications at a place other than an office of the Home Department. This provision currently allows the Home Office to charge a fixed fee when delivering an entirely optional, premium service to enrol biometrics at a place of convenience to service users. Under plans to modernise services offered, the order will now allow for fees to be set at an hourly rate. This will provide greater flexibility and allow a fee to be charged at a level that is commensurate with the time taken to deliver such services.

To be absolutely clear, this change does not affect the Home Office’s basic services, for example, as provided to applicants who enrol their biometric information at a local post office. The amendment is applicable only to those who seek to enrol their biometrics at a place of convenience that they themselves want to specify.

Finally, the order will also update the power to charge for services offered on behalf of certain Commonwealth countries and British Overseas Territories, where such services may not be offered within consular premises.

To recap, we are seeking to make a small number of changes to the 2016 order and maintain the framework for immigration and nationality fees. We are not seeking to make changes to the overarching charging framework, nor to the maximum fee levels that were agreed by Parliament and set out in the 2016 order, other than in respect of the premium service fee about which I have spoken. Individual fee levels to be charged over the course of the next year will be set by new regulations that are due to be laid before Parliament in March 2018.

I commend the order to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for explaining the order and for her confession about the error in it. We have a fundamental objection to the approach that the Government are taking to move to a position where fees are charged to cover the costs of providing border, immigration and citizenship services. The security of the UK border is one of the most important mechanisms by which the Government keep us safe and we should not expect those who want to do the right thing and apply for leave to remain and, eventually, citizenship, some of whom come to this country as destitute refugees, to be forced to fund what is fundamentally the duty of the Executive.

Having said that, I understand that these regulations make only one change to the overall fee structure, where the biometric capturing part of an application comes to you and where the eye-watering fixed fee of £10,500 is to be replaced by an extraordinary hourly rate of £2,600. Will the Minister confirm that this is not the actual cost of providing the service, but a fee based on what the market can bear? Will she also explain why the Home Office is not maximising the profit from such a service to enable it to reduce fees in other areas, rather than giving this lucrative money-earner away to a private company? I understand that there needs to be two people to carry out the biometric capture, but if this is purely on the basis of cost recovery are we paying Home Office officials £1,300 an hour? Can I apply for a vacancy?

We support these regulations as far as they go and we look forward to the main event, when the actual fee levels for 2018 are set out in the forthcoming regulations next month. I give the Minister notice that those regulations are likely to be a completely different ball game.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for setting out the reasons behind this order and for the clarification she gave in her opening remarks. I too was fascinated by the level of fee charged changing from an overall maximum fee of £10,500 to a fee of £2,600 per hour. Some of us have occasionally done per diem work—I suppose we are not unused to it now—but our eyes can only water at the thought of such an hourly rate. It would be good to know where the justification comes from.

I also add to a point made by the noble Lord, which is that essentially a commercial provider is going to do the work. Although the Home Office will retain full oversight and jurisdiction, the relevant fee will relate to the cost associated with the commercial partner travelling to the location of choice as requested by the applicant. The mind boggles. Can they go anywhere? Without detracting from the quality of the people who will be applying for this service, it makes one wonder what exactly the commercial provider is there to do. Is this rate seriously based on the cost of that commercial provider? Does it build in a profit? It must. I must say that the Explanatory Memorandum begs more questions than it answers on those details.

Nurseries and Schools: Protection from Terrorism

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 8th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am very aware of the noble Lord’s advice and recommendations on governing bodies and a single person on a governing body. Governing bodies have to make a judgment as a whole on the health, safety and protective measures that they need to put in their schools. As for guidance, clearly the last year has been unprecedented in terms of security generally and our schools are no less vulnerable. The DfE is currently reviewing its health, safety and school security advice, giving consideration to how guidance material can improve advice that is given to schools.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is referring to is recommendation 121 of his comprehensive report about London’s preparedness to deal with terrorism. Recommendation 11 of that report states that it is essential that UK policing is able to maintain the required international arrangements that currently work to keep us safe. There is no precedent for a non-EU country that is outside Schengen to have access to the essential intelligence databases SIS II and ECRIS, and the European Commission has said that a non-member state cannot have the same rights as a member state. Does the Minister accept that whatever the desired outcomes, we are likely to be less safe if we leave the EU? It is about not what everybody wants but what is legally possible.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

In terms of London’s preparedness, the noble Lord will know that there has been quite an uplift in the CT policing budget. In terms of the EU, he will also know through the various debates we have had that the UK has been a leader in work across Europe in law enforcement and counterterrorism data sharing. We have had the pleasurable experience of the passage of the Data Protection Bill, during which law enforcement and other matters were discussed. We very much want to continue that to the extent that we have put the law enforcement directive into UK law.

Investigatory Powers (Codes of Practice) Regulations 2018

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 1st February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Sometimes the problem with interventions is that you do not get around to saying what you were going to say. Perhaps noble Lords will be patient. The noble Lord, Lord West, put it very succinctly and illustrated what we mean by bulk data.

Where the content of a communication is to be examined when it is of a person known to be in the British Isles, a separate targeted examination warrant must be obtained, which is in itself subject to approval by the Secretary of State and a judicial commissioner. The codes of practice that I have been outlining today provide additional safeguards on the use of bulk powers relating to filtering data, the training that must be obtained by those examining it and how bulk data should be handled, retained and destroyed.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also asked if warrants allowed interference with devices of innocent people and asked how that was compliant with the ECJ ruling—the question on everyone’s lips. Equipment interference is subject to stringent safeguards and any warrant must be necessary and proportionate and must be approved by a judicial commissioner. This House has, of course, approved those strong safeguards.

I see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, looking quite interested, because the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Butler, asked about the Liberty challenge to the IP Act and the Government’s response to it. The judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal on Tuesday this week—I presume that that is the one that they are referring to—relates to the challenge brought against the DRIP Act. It has now been replaced by provisions in the Investigatory Powers Act, and therefore the judgment relates to legislation that is actually no longer in effect. The provisions in the Act challenged by Liberty, which will be heard at the end of February in the High Court, relate to targeted communications data and, therefore, are not relevant to the debate today.

I move on to the technical capability regulations. I was asked whether they would stifle innovation. To be clear here, none of the regulations that we are discussing today in and of themselves place any burden on industry. To suggest that the Investigatory Powers (Technical Capability) Regulations 2018 would damage companies operating in this country is to misunderstand what the provisions in those regulations actually do. Those regulations do not themselves impose any requirements on telecommunications or postal operators. Rather, they set out what obligations could be imposed on an operator through a technical capability notice. The power for the Secretary of State to give such notice is set out in the Investigatory Powers Act itself, and has therefore already been approved by Parliament. There are stringent safeguards in the Act regulating the use of technical capability notices to minimise the impact on businesses, including that the notice must be necessary, proportionate and approved by a judicial commissioner. As I have already said, before giving a technical capability notice to a relevant operator, the Secretary of State must consult that operator. In addition, the Secretary of State must consider a number of factors before deciding to give a notice. Those factors include the technical feasibility and likely cost to the operator complying with the notice, which goes to the heart of ensuring that a notice does not damage a company’s interests.

The Act also makes it clear that the Secretary of State must ensure that arrangements are in force for securing that relevant operators receive an appropriate contribution in respect of their costs incurred in complying with the Act, as the Secretary of State deems appropriate. Such costs include those incurred in relation to complying with a technical capability notice. The Government’s policy is that the appropriate contribution is calculated on a case-by-case basis to ensure that the operator makes neither a loss nor a gain from complying with the Act. A number of the draft codes of practice that we have debated today include an entire chapter on technical capability notices, giving further information about their use, including details of the cost recovery process and the sorts of activities it is anticipated that the Government would fund as part of an operator maintaining a capability.

I may be repeating myself here, but the noble Lord, Lord Butler, asked about making sure that the codes of practice on retention records are made consistent with this week’s ruling. The judgment related to the retention of communications data by telecommunications operators is not being debated today. The CJEU ruling was not about safeguards for equipment interference or for access to bulk communications data. The IP tribunal considered the specific issue of whether the CJEU judgment applied to bulk communications data and has made a further reference to the CJEU on this very point and on whether the bulk communications data regime is within the scope of the judgment’s safeguarding requirements.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I realise that I am intervening a bit late, but I did not want to interrupt prematurely, as I did before. Will the Minister comment on techUK’s specific suggestion that the regulations impose an additional aspect to the technical capability notice, in that the Home Office will be alerted to changes in innovation in systems and development? I do not think that the noble Baroness has addressed that specific issue.

Crime: Scooter and Moped Gangs

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is right that these crimes can become in themselves a fashion or a trend. With regard to the options open to the judiciary, clearly precedents can be set in respect of the types of crime committed in terms of future sentences meted out.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that the Metropolitan Police is having some success with police on scrambler bikes dealing with this type of crime, but its overall vehicle fleet is having to be cut because of budget cuts, to the extent that some criminals are being de-arrested because there is no prisoner transport available. I understand the Government will insist that they are maintaining police funding, but the Metropolitan Police says that it has suffered £600 million in cuts since 2010, with another £400 million in cuts in the pipeline. Who is right about police funding, the Government or the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, as I said yesterday, police forces across the country have requested increases in funding and, as I outlined yesterday, that is what they have got, with the potential offered by some of the technologies available to them to release 11,000 police officers to do whatever jobs individual forces feel are appropriate. On the noble Lord’s point about scrambler bikes and in the context of the first part of my answer, I know that this is a particular problem in London and if police forces feel that that is the investment they should make then they should be free to do so.

Policing and Crime Act 2017 (Maritime Enforcement Powers: Code of Practice) Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 22nd January 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Policing and Crime Act 2017 provides police officers and other law enforcement with certain powers in the maritime environment so that they are able to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute criminal offences that take place on vessels where the courts in England and Wales have jurisdiction. These provisions close a gap in enforcement powers, ensuring that law enforcement officers are capable of functioning effectively to tackle crime on sea as on land. This is because Section 30 of the Police Act 1996 places a geographical restriction on the exercise of police powers, limiting these to England and Wales and the adjacent waters; that is, the territorial waters which extend to 12 nautical miles.

The maritime provisions, once commenced, will give the police and other law enforcement at sea similar powers to those available to enforcement officers in relation to drug trafficking and modern slavery. The difference is that these powers cover all offences under the law of England and Wales. In summary, these are: the power to stop, board, divert and detain a vessel; the power to search a vessel and obtain information; and the power to arrest and seize any relevant evidence.

The Policing and Crime Act enables law enforcement officers to use these powers in relation to certain ships in international and foreign waters as well as the territorial waters of England, Wales and Scotland. Principally, the vessels will be UK flagged, but law enforcement will also be able to act on non-flagged vessels and foreign ships in certain circumstances in international waters as well as territorial waters. These powers are important because crimes such as rape, murder, firearms offences and grievous bodily harm can take place on UK-registered ships beyond the territorial waters limit, just as they can within those waters or on UK soil. There are other crimes specific to the maritime context, such as illegal fishing, unsafe vessels, piracy and marine theft, which the police must be able to tackle just as effectively as when the crime is committed on land.

Before these new powers are brought into force, a code of practice issued under Section 94 of the Policing and Crime Act will need to be put in place for English and Welsh law enforcement officers to follow when arresting a person under Section 90 of the Act. The code must set out certain rights and entitlements of persons arrested under Section 90, particularly the information to be made available to them on arrest. The Government have now prepared this code of practice, and it was placed before the House on 16 November 2017, together with these regulations. The regulations are necessary to ensure that the code of practice will be in force at the same time that the maritime powers in the Act are commenced.

The code provides guidance as to the information that should be given to a suspect at the time of their arrest. It makes it clear that suspects should be provided with a summary of their rights and warned if it may take more than 24 hours to bring them to a police station. The code will ensure that law enforcement officers provide suspects with information; this includes ensuring that those detained understand what is said to them. Officers will also be obliged to make arrangements to safeguard the health and welfare of arrested persons.

To ensure that the code will be practical and effective, the Government have consulted the law enforcement agencies that will use this code, representatives of the legal profession, devolved Administrations, other external organisations and interested government departments.

Police Scotland is currently drafting equivalent but non-statutory guidance concerning the exercise of its maritime enforcement powers, and we are working closely with the Scottish Government to ensure that this guidance is appropriately aligned. The Northern Ireland provisions will also be covered by non-statutory guidance. The Northern Ireland maritime provisions will be commenced separately to those of England, Wales and Scotland, at a date determined by the Northern Ireland Executive.

The maritime powers in the Policing and Crime Act are essential if we are to ensure that our police and other law enforcement are equipped to be effective at tackling criminality, to enforce the law and to protect the public. However, when these powers are used, it is vital that they are used properly, particularly when a person’s liberty is restricted as under the power of arrest, and that is why the code of practice and these regulations are so important. I ask noble Lords to support the new code, and I commend the regulations to the House.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. I am not sure how illegal fishing is to be enforced against just as effectively as if it was committed on land, but I accept the general point.

We raised concerns during the passing of the primary legislation regarding the extent of these powers, bearing in mind that, as the Minister has said, they allow a law enforcement officer to arrest a person for anything that is an offence in England and Wales on a United Kingdom ship in British waters, in foreign waters or even in international waters. I raised the prospect during those debates that there could be a special constable on a cruise ship pulling out of Southampton who gets into an argument with someone who pokes him in the eye, and who then decides to arrest that individual and orders the “Queen Mary 2” to return to Southampton. The regulations and the power in the Act would allow that. There is nothing in the guidance to officers on the use of discretion, or indeed on whether the powers should be restricted to more serious offences.

The other slightly worrying issue in the draft code is the reference to the Act including,

“a power to require a person on the ship to provide information about themselves and about anything on the ship. The purpose of this is to enable law enforcement officers to take control of the ship”.

I hope that the special constable will not be steering the “Queen Mary 2” into Southampton, with his common assault suspect.

More seriously, in addition to those concerns about the rank of the officer who is using these powers, there is the seriousness of the offence. While I accept that the sorts of offences that the Minister mentioned—rape, murder, firearms and grievous bodily harm—are very serious offences, it is not an exclusive list.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 21st December 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the threat level in the UK, which is set by the independent Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack in our country is highly likely and could occur without warning.

While we can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat to the UK and our interests abroad, and to disrupt those who would engage in it. Recognising that terrorism is a global threat that is best tackled in partnership, it is also important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs. Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt terrorist activities.

The four groups we propose to add to the list of terrorist organisations, amending Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 are, first, al-Ashtar Brigades. This includes a number of aliases of this group: Saraya al-Ashtar, the Wa’ad Allah Brigades, the Islamic Allah Brigades, Imam al-Mahdi Brigades and al-Haydariyah Brigades; secondly, al-Mukhtar Brigades, including Saraya al-Mukhtar; thirdly, Hasam including Harakat Sawa’d Misr and Harakat Hasm; and Liwa al-Thawra. This is the 22nd order under the Act.

Proscription sends a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes that it is concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise this discretion. These include the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism. The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and is unable to operate in the UK. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public, such as flags, which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation.

Proscription sends a strong message to deter fundraising and recruitment for proscribed organisations, and the assets of a proscribed organisation can become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. Proscription can also support other disruption of terrorist activity, including, for example, the use of immigration powers such as exclusion from the UK where the individual is linked to a proscribed organisation and their presence in the UK would not be in the public interest. Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary only exercises her power to proscribe after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes information taken from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that reflects consultation across government, including with intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-government Proscription Review Group supports the Home Secretary in her decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of each particular case—but, given the impact the power can have, it is appropriate that proscriptions must be approved by both Houses.

Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra are currently concerned in terrorism. As noble Lords will appreciate, I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, but I can provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn.

The first group that this order proscribes is the al-Ashtar Brigades and its aliases. The al-Ashtar Brigades is a Bahrain-based Shia militant organisation that was established in 2013. Its aim is to overthrow the Bahraini al-Khalifa ruling family through violent militant operations. It lists the ruling al-Khalifa family, Bahrain security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attack. The group has been responsible for numerous attacks in Bahrain for which it has claimed responsibility, including a jail-break of 10 convicted terrorists which led to the death of a police officer in January this year; an IED attack in a bus station in Sitrah, which was claimed by the group under the name Wa’ad Allah Brigades in February; and an attack on a police vehicle near the village of al-Qadeem in July. More generally, the group has promoted violent activity against the Bahraini Government, as well as the British, American and Saudi Arabian Governments on social media.

The second group is al-Mukhtar Brigades, also known as Saraya al-Mukhtar. The al-Mukhtar Brigades is also a Bahrain-based Shia militant organisation that was established in 2013. It lists the al-Khalifa ruling family, Bahraini security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attack. The group’s activities include the continued promotion and glorification of terrorism via social media throughout 2017.

The third group to be proscribed is Hasam and its aliases. Hasam is an extremist group targeting the Egyptian security forces and the overthrow of the Egyptian Government. The group announced its creation on 16 July 2016 following an attack it conducted in Fayoum governorate, Egypt. In September 2016, the group claimed responsibility for the attempted assassination of assistant prosecutor General Zakaria Abdel-Aziz, and the attempted assassination of the former Grand Mufti of Egypt, Ali Gomaa, a month earlier. The group has claimed responsibility for over 15 attacks. Between March and September this year in Cairo, it carried out small-arms fire attacks in March, May and July and IED attacks in March, June and September; the latter exploded close to the Myanmar embassy in Cairo.

The last group to be proscribed is Liwa al-Thawra, which is another extremist opposition group using violent tactics against Egyptian security forces, and seeking an end to the Egyptian Government. It announced its creation on 21 August 2016, following an attack in Monofeya, Egypt. The group has claimed responsibility for attacks, including bombings and assassinations. They include an attack in Monofeya, Egypt, in August 2016; the assassination of Egyptian Brigadier General Adel Regali in October 2016; and, in April 2017, the bombing of the Egyptian police training centre in Tanta, Egypt.

In addition to adding these groups, we propose to remove Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin, which is an offshoot of the political Hezb-e Islami Party, formed in 1977 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. HIG is anti-western and desires the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan. Since 2001, its main objective has been the removal of western forces and influence in Afghanistan, as well as restoring Islamic law. HIG has been proscribed in the UK since October 2005. However, on 22 September 2016, the group agreed a peace deal with the Afghanistan Government. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that HIG is currently concerned in terrorism as defined by Section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Home Secretary also has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations, if she believes that it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Accordingly, she has brought forward this order and, if approved, this means that being a member of, or providing support to, HIG will cease to be a criminal offence on the day the order comes into force. The decision to de-proscribe HIG was taken after extensive consideration and in light of a full assessment of available information.

The Government do not condone any terrorist activity, and takes a cautious approach to de-proscription. De-proscription of a particular group should not be interpreted as condoning any previous terrorist activities of that group. The British Government have always been clear that HIG was a terrorist organisation. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription must remain within the law and are not free to spread hatred, fund terrorist activities or incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals who engage in such activity under the criminal law. We are determined to detect and disrupt all terrorist threats, whether home-grown or international. Proscription is just one weapon in the considerable armoury at the disposal of the Government, police and security service to disrupt terrorist activity. The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription potentially interferes with an individual’s rights, in particular the rights protected by Articles 10 and 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be exercised only when absolutely necessary. The order before the House today demonstrates that, when proscription is no longer necessary, we are prepared to act to de-proscribe groups that are no longer concerned in terrorism.

In conclusion, I believe it is right that we add the four groups, the al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra, and their aliases, to the list of proscribed organisations in Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000. Equally, we believe that it is proportionate to remove HIG from that list. Subject to the agreement of this House, the order will come into force on Friday 22 December.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that I will be brief. However, these are very serious matters. As the Minister just outlined, this measure can interfere with people’s human rights. Therefore, I have to ask: can she tell us any more about the four organisations being proscribed? I understand that the first group has been involved in attacks in Bahrain and is suspected of financing terror in Qatar; the second group has also been involved in attacks in Bahrain; the third group has been involved in attacks in Egypt; and the fourth group has been involved in attacks on the army and the police in Egypt. However, clearly, this order primarily has effect in the United Kingdom. Is the Minister able to say whether there is any evidence that these groups are active in, or have supporters in, the United Kingdom that would require such draconian steps to be taken? However, I understand that it may not be possible to give those details for security reasons, as she said.

As regards the group being de-proscribed, again it is good to see that the Government are actively considering groups that have been proscribed in the past, and are prepared to de-proscribe where the evidence suggests that is merited. My only concern is that the reasons the Minister gave for de-proscribing the organisation to which she referred raise questions about the amount of evidence available to support the proscription of the other organisations, bearing in mind the alternative measures that can be taken against individuals, in particular, who might be supporting terrorism in the United Kingdom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I do not want the noble Baroness to regard this as a challenge to what she has just said; I am merely asking for confirmation. Is it really regarded as a security issue to give any indication of which of the five factors set out in the Explanatory Memorandum weighed with the Home Secretary in her decision? I ask that in the context of the noble Baroness’s opening statement, when she referred to supporting international partners in the fight against terrorism, which is one of the five factors. One could take it as a pretty good hint that that was a factor, but that would then be inconsistent with the noble Baroness’s statement that she cannot say which of the factors weighed in the mind of the Home Secretary on this issue.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, perhaps I can assist. I do not know whether it is beyond my pay grade to suggest something to the Minister but perhaps she could consult after today’s proceedings and, if there is any other information that she can possibly put into the public domain, perhaps she can write to us.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That is a very helpful suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will understand that I am cautious on these occasions. I would not want to breach national security at the Dispatch Box, but if there is any further general information that I can give, I will give it.

UK Borders: Surveillance

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 18th December 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord makes a valid point about our offshore patrol vessels—and there are no plans to get rid of them. However, my point, which I hope I was not making lightly, was that the most effective work we can do at the border is intelligence-led work that is successful at pinpointing areas of high risk.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in April last year the then Home Secretary, Theresa May, confirmed in the other place that in 2016-17 the Border Force agency’s revenue budget, which covers staffing, would be 0.4% less compared with 2015-16. However, the Government insist that Border Force spending has been protected because spending on technology such as electronic passport gates has increased. Can the Minister explain what happens at many of the ports of entry where there are no electronic passport gates in the light of the reduction in Border Force staff? Can she also confirm that most of the time, even where there are electronic passport gates, there are not enough staff to keep them open?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

On the first part of the noble Lord’s question, he is absolutely right that we have invested in technology such as e-gates, and just before the Calais clearance, my right honourable friend Amber Rudd in the other place stated that £36 million would be committed to support France in the Calais camp clearance. However, on his main point, which is about people being at ports and borders at all times, if we lined this country wall to wall with people, it would still not be as effective as going after the intelligence-led risk, which operates so well.

Online Hate Speech

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 30th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, in his tweet criticising our Prime Minister, President Trump talked about “radical Islamic terrorism”. Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between Islam, a religion, and Islamism, a violent political ideology that seeks to overthrow democratically elected Governments and liberal values, and that the expression “Islamic terrorism” is both a contradiction in terms and deeply unhelpful? We must clearly differentiate between violent criminals and the followers of a religion.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right to make that distinction between Islam and Islamist extremism. I make the point that the overwhelming majority of Muslims in this country are law-abiding, peaceful people who abhor Islamist extremism. The Prime Minister has always been clear that where these ideologies exist, they must be tackled head on. That is precisely what the UK Government are doing at home and in co-operation with our international partners. For example, I previously mentioned the co-operation to remove terrorist content from websites. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out the distinction. We must all see what has happened for what it is.

Drug Dealing Telecommunications Restriction Orders Regulations 2017

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 29th November 2017 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, these regulations were laid before Parliament on 12 October. The drug dealing telecommunications restriction orders—DDTRO—respond to an operational requirement of the police and the National Crime Agency to support them in tackling the issue of “county lines” drug dealing and its related violence and criminal exploitation.

As noble Lords probably know, “county lines” is the police term for urban gangs supplying drugs to suburban areas and market and coastal towns, using dedicated anonymous mobile phone lines. We are particularly concerned about this form of drug dealing because of the high-harm nature of this activity. County lines gangs target and exploit children and vulnerable adults, who are then at high risk of extreme physical and sexual violence, gang recriminations and trafficking. In the National Crime Agency’s latest threat assessment of county lines, three-quarters of police forces in England and Wales reported exploitation of vulnerable people in relation to county lines, including children as young as 12.

The mobile phone line is central to county lines activity, with some prominent lines making in excess of £5,000 per day. However, the phone number has limited personal data associated with it and the handset is typically located well away from street-level drug-dealing activity. Such factors make it hard for the police to gain possession of the handset and to pursue criminal prosecutions against an individual for the activity on the line. Where it is possible to do so, and where there is sufficient evidence, the police will pursue prosecution. However, where prosecution is not possible, the police and the NCA have been clear that closing down the phone lines will seriously disrupt county lines drug dealing and the associated violence and exploitation.

With that background in mind, I turn to the details of the regulations before us. The DDTRO Regulations are made pursuant to Section 80A of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which sets out the power to make regulations which enable courts in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland to issue DDTROs. In essence, the regulations provide the civil courts with the power to make a drug dealing telecommunications restriction order, and set out the process and procedure for doing so.

The applicant for a DDTRO—that is, the police or the NCA—will have to satisfy a court that on the balance of probabilities the device has been used, is likely to have been used, or is likely to be used in connection with drug-dealing offences. The court will also have to have reasonable grounds to believe that the order would prevent or restrict the use of a communication device in connection with drug-dealing offences.

It is important that the initial DDTRO application hearing is conducted in private and without notice to ensure that the phone owner does not know that their line will be closed. If forewarned, the phone owner is likely to take action to negate the order by changing phone numbers in advance. The regulations also provide a number of safeguards to ensure swift resolution if a phone owner is impacted in error. This includes the ability for the applicant authority to disapply the order of its own volition, as well as the right of an affected person to appeal an order at a public hearing.

I hope noble Lords will approve these regulations. They will give the police a vital tool in their efforts to tackle county lines drug dealing and protect vulnerable individuals from being exploited by county lines gangs. I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation. I have some specific questions about these orders and a general comment about the Government’s approach to illegal drugs and related issues. We support these measures but we have wider concerns.

As the Minister has explained, these regulations allow law enforcement agencies to make an application to a court to disconnect mobile communication devices, such as mobile phones, where there are reasonable grounds to believe that an order would prevent or restrict their use in connection with drug dealing. These orders can be made without notice to the people affected, in private and at the request of the applicant, without any details being disclosed to anyone. I can understand the need to protect covert human intelligence sources who may be involved in supplying information to the enforcement agencies and I also understand what the Minister has said—that if people were told in advance, it might enable them to change their telephone numbers in advance—but surely this is going to be only a marginal benefit, as it will soon become apparent to the drug dealer that their phone has been disconnected. Unless I do not understand the issue fully, it would not take very long not only for an alternative number to be secured but for the suppliers and clients to be notified of what the new number is. What is the real advantage of keeping the whole process secret—other than protecting sources—set against the benefits of having, as far as possible, an open justice system? Can the Minister explain how these measures present any more than a minor irritation to the drug dealers? In her explanation, she talked about these measures seriously disrupting drug dealers, but surely it would be very quick and easy to re-establish their lines of communication.

Moving on to wider issues, these measures are symptomatic of the Government’s approach to illegal drugs—tinkering around the edges in the vain hope of appearing to be doing something. But the inescapable fact is that there is an insatiable demand for illegal drugs, from young people who smoke small amounts of cannabis to the rich and famous who use cocaine. The fact that these drugs are illegal is no longer a consideration for millions of recreational drug users in the UK. As with most forms of prohibition—as we have learnt from history—stemming demand is clearly ineffective and, as a result, the law is being brought into disrepute. Addiction to illegal drugs, on the other hand, should be treated as a health issue and not a criminal justice issue. It is the sufferer’s addiction that is the issue and not the drugs that they are addicted to.

As with any insatiable demand, there will clearly be a supply. The only effective way to deal with illegal drug supply is to take out the whole distribution network from source to street. During the period of the “peace dividend”, between peace in Northern Ireland and the rise of Islamist terrorism and the far right, the police and the security services were able to mount a limited number of operations that did just that—take out importers, distributors and street dealers. The combination of the diversion of the security services back to their core function of anti-terrorism and the reduction in police resources means such operations are no longer possible.

There was a story in the Times this week on this very issue of county lines, which reported:

“Thousands of children and teenagers are being used by criminal gangs as drug runners ... The National Crime Agency ... believes that the ‘county lines’ drug trade, in which urban gangs move Class A drugs and cash between inner-city hubs and out-of-town locations, is out of control”.


I spoke a few weeks ago in Parliament to some young people whose lived experience is that drug dealing, with all its inherent risks and dangers, presents the best way to make money as far as they are concerned, whether to support a reasonable lifestyle or to put food on the table for their families. Prison was seen by them as a place where they can meet with their friends. As one young woman recently released from Holloway prison explained, it was somewhere where she had “the best time”, to quote her exactly. She added, admitting the irony, that when her local police station was the base for a safer neighbourhood team and she saw uniformed officers on a regular basis she felt safer, but not anymore.

In a society where discrimination against the young, and black and minority ethnic people, persists in the job market, where young people’s lives are blighted by criminal records acquired at a young age, and which, from young people’s perspective, gives them little or nothing and no hope of making a decent living by legitimate means in the future, they believe drug dealing to be a legitimate option. All this creates a parallel society where young people feel they have to arm themselves with knives and guns to make themselves feel safe, whether they are engaged in drug dealing or not, resulting in record numbers of young people dying on the streets from knife crime and of people dying on our streets from taking illegal drugs because there is no control of the strength or composition of the drugs they are taking. What is the Government’s response to this alarming picture? It is to cut off the phones of drug dealers, if and only if they find out what numbers the dealers are using—something that can be rectified by drug dealers within hours.

There is a crisis in this country enveloping increasing numbers of young people. Of course we should make life difficult for drug dealers and these measures may have a marginal impact, but a major rethink about the legalisation and regulation of drugs, the treatment of addiction, the incarceration and criminalisation of young people, providing opportunities for young people to earn decent money legitimately, and the decimation of community policing, is desperately needed.

Randox and Trimega Laboratories

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 27th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions. He is absolutely right: it is indeed a very serious matter and the Government do not take it lightly. He will have noticed that the WMS of 21 November was a fulsome Statement and there is now an investigation going on which will take some time. He questioned the abolition of the FSS. The alleged manipulation predates the closure of the FSS, which was never involved in family cases—that was Trimega. He talked about Trimega being part of Randox. I must make it clear that at this point Trimega was not part of Randox. Trimega closed and Randox set up: yes, the two individuals were employed at Randox, but Trimega was not part of it.

The noble Lord also asked whether the numbers would ever be known. They may never be known accurately, but we think that approximately 10,000 tests were affected. The nature of what allegedly went on here means that we can never make this fool-proof because, as the regulator herself said, no reasonable set of quality standards could be guaranteed to prevent determined manipulation by skilled but corrupt personnel.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, while we agree that determined, skilled and corrupt practitioners in the public sector could equally have produced such a scandal, and that the performance of the former public sector Forensic Science Service was not without criticism, what lessons have already been learned, and what new safeguards are already in place, to prevent this happening again? The Minister said that the Government are considering what lessons can be learned, but surely there are immediate steps from the initial findings that can be implemented—and should have been implemented by now. What action have the Government already taken to reassure the public?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

As the noble Lord points out, because this is an ongoing investigation the full lessons of what went on here cannot be appreciated yet. However, the Government have, of course, taken steps since January 2017, when we found out about this alleged manipulation. We supported the police’s initial response to the news of manipulation, including officials advising of the impact on the marketplace and the regulatory impact. The Home Office advised the NPCC in the creation of the silver groups working on the operating protocol for forces, the forensic service providers and the CPS. We facilitated the agreement of commercial terms between Randox and the independent testing companies and sat on the technical advisory group of forensic experts which advised the gold group on the retesting strategy.

As the Statement said, the DfE has liaised with local authorities in England to review their records and will consider what action needs to be taken from there. The MoJ, together with the DfE and HMCTS, has worked closely with the police to identify family and civil court cases where a toxicology test was undertaken by Trimega. We have advised the NPCC gold group and the team that is working with the CPS to ensure that the appropriate disclosure is made. We have asked all forensic toxicology suppliers to review their practices and have asked the Forensic Science Advisory Council to consider a number of measures to strengthen provisions to reduce the risk of malpractice and to help rapid detection. We are supporting the UKAS internal review and have briefed the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Family Division of the High Court. We have done a lot since we found out about this.

Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 13th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My noble friend makes the crucial point that where people are falsely accused and have their names in the media, their lives can literally be ruined. Noble Lords may have seen things in the paper over the weekend. The College of Policing guidance provides that, where an investigation identifies a false allegation, it may be appropriate to support a prosecution for attempting to pervert the course of justice. Steps should be taken to test the validity of statements and corroborative accounts and to establish an accurate picture. The decision to support a prosecution would be an operational matter for the relevant chief officer.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, Sir Richard Henriques did an independent review of the Metropolitan Police’s conduct in these matters. His conclusion was that:

“Until anonymity is enforced by statute, it is inevitable that many accused will lose their anonymity at an early stage of an investigation”.


Why will the Government not legislate?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we touched on that extensively on the then Policing and Crime Bill; the noble Lord was part of that debate. The police’s decision on whether to name a suspect is a matter for the chief officer, who must authorise any such disclosure. Following some of the debate, and ongoing with the College of Policing’s authorised professional practice guidance on relationships with the media, the College of Policing recently undertook a consultation on a fresh iteration of the guidance. That guidance is clear that the rationale for naming an arrested person before they are charged must be authorised by the chief officer, and that the authorising officer must also consult the Crown Prosecution Service if considering the release of a name.

Prevent Strategy

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 6th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is extremely unhelpful and can be divisive when such stories hit the media. With regard to how that might fit into Prevent, the Prevent programme is fundamentally about supporting vulnerable individuals and safeguarding them from being drawn into terrorism. It is safeguarding in a similar way to how we would safeguard people from drug abuse or physical and sexual abuse. I will not comment on individual cases, but that would be the clear distinction between the two.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister remind the House why the Government refuse to allow an independent review of Prevent, as recommended by the former reviewer of terrorism legislation, and why they refuse to publish their own review? At the moment, we have criticism of Prevent which the Government say is without foundation, but that assertion is in itself without foundation.

Immigration Centre Detainees: Pay

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 4th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is important to recognise that the work undertaken is entirely voluntary. It is not to supplement the work of the contractors. Contractually, the IRC providers must make a minimum number of opportunities available for detainees to participate voluntarily in this paid activity. As I explained to the noble Baroness, detainees’ position regarding pay rights is not the same as for those who are not in detention.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I can give the Minister another opportunity to answer the Labour Front Bench question. Can she confirm that most of the immigration centres are run by private companies, in which case, what happens to the additional profit that these companies make from employing inmates at £1 an hour instead of employing someone on at least the minimum wage to do the same tasks?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I have to repeat myself: people are not compelled to work; it is entirely voluntary. The money that they are paid is not in line with rates of pay for the non-detention population and therefore is entirely different. The work is not there to prop up these private companies’ profits, but they are obliged to make these opportunities available should detainees wish to avail themselves of them.

Police: Senior Posts

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 29th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, this country has seen some unprecedented events during the past three months in terms of the terrorist attacks and the terrible incident at Grenfell Tower. The police and emergency services not only have stepped up to the plate but have been under a lot of pressure in that time, both mental and physical. In the light of the recent attacks, we are engaging with the police about the demands that they face, to ensure that they continue to have the resources that they need to keep us safe.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I do not believe that the Minister answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, so perhaps I may rephrase it. If the Government are not considering appointing admirals of the fleet who have never commanded a warship or field marshals who have never led troops into battle, why are they considering appointing chief constables who have no experience of policing?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the direct entry scheme would not apply to chief constables or the commissioner of the Metropolitan Police; the senior officer roles I talked about do not include them under current legislation. I hope that that helps to answer the noble Lord’s question. I will address one aspect of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, that we talked about in our meeting, which was the pipeline of suitable people coming through. Recruitment is now under way for the 2017 cohort of the direct entrant inspectors and superintendents, with demand considerably increased compared to 2016. This direct entry scheme will see the recruitment of 19 superintendents across the nine forces as well as 56 inspectors, bringing people with fresh ideas and experience, but that does not deny the need for those skills which will have to be brought to the force, or the need for these people to complete the PNAC and the SCC.

Terrorist and Extremist Propaganda: Online Sources

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 28th June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord, as always, makes insightful points. Of course there is a big difference between religion and culture and it is often in the attempt to conflate the two that we come up against such horrible types of terrorist activity. The Prime Minister said the other day that we must be prepared to have difficult conversations and I totally agree. Just because conversations are difficult does not mean that we should not have them, and they may lead to a much smoother way forward.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Government realise that the only effective sanction against overseas pornographic websites that refuse to implement age verification is to ask UK internet service providers to block those sites. Bearing it in mind that it would be disproportionate to block sites such as Facebook and YouTube, how do the Government intend to deal with terrorist and extremist propaganda if technology companies do not do enough?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. I pay tribute to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who has spent an extensive amount of time over the past few weeks and months talking to communications service providers. Only on Monday, Twitter, Facebook, Microsoft and YouTube announced the formation of a global internet forum, primarily to counter terrorism but also, through that collaborative way forward, to tackle some of the things that the noble Lord mentioned, such as extreme pornography.

Terrorist Attacks

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and express the condolences, thoughts and best wishes of those on these Benches to all those affected by these tragedies. I also express our thanks and admiration to the emergency services involved in each of these incidents, particularly the armed officers who had to take the difficult, split-second decision to shoot the suspected perpetrators of the London Bridge/Borough Market attack. Our thoughts should also be with those officers and their families.

I have four questions. Can the Minister confirm that central government funding for the police service is increasing in real terms? What account has been taken of the additional financial pressures on the police service, such as the apprenticeship levy, and the additional operational pressures, such as the public inquiry into covert policing and the post-event investigations into these terrorist incidents? Is it not time to restore community policing, an invaluable source of community intelligence, after a cut of 20,000 police officers and 24,000 police support staff since 2010? Does the Minister agree with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis that the Met is struggling because of a lack of resources? We welcome David Anderson’s role in reviewing the handling of recent terror attacks. We welcome the idea of a commission for countering extremism, but we need to understand what that means. We also welcome an independent, evidence-based review of Britain’s counterterrorism strategy, including an independent, evidence-based review of Prevent. Can the Minister give any more detail about the commission and can she confirm that the review will be independent and evidence-based?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the points they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, made some very constructive points about police numbers and having the resources to meet the needs of the police in the work they do. Since 2010, police forces have increased the proportion of officers working at the front line and proved that you can continue to cut crime with a smaller, more agile workforce. This is going to be important as we consider capabilities going forward. Since 2015—I hope this goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—we have protected overall police spending in real terms. We have increased the counterterrorism budget, and we have funded an uplift in the number of armed police officers. We have also increased the budget of our security services. There are more officers and staff involved in counterterrorism policing than ever before. However, the challenge is not simply about maintaining police numbers. As the nature and complexity of the threat changes, as noble Lords have said, so does the nature of the skills needed to tackle that threat. We have all seen that in recent weeks. We are in an ongoing and constructive dialogue with the police, including the Metropolitan Police. I do not recognise the cuts that the noble Lord talked about, but we will be talking to the police about ensuring that the right powers, capabilities and resources are in place.

The noble Lord talked about the David Anderson review, which will look into why the attacks took place and whether further work needs to be done. It will look into the historical aspect; not just things that have happened over the last few weeks but those in the past as well. Going forward, the review will also look at how we protect our citizens and whether any changes, including legislative changes, are needed as we proceed. But of course it is very early days. We want a thorough review, not a quick one, to make sure that we get things right in the future and respond to changing threats and those which might emerge.

The noble Lord also talked about the Manchester attacker and whether he was known. I hope noble Lords will understand that these matters are subject to police inquiry and that it would be wrong of me to start discussing any of these details, but of course the review will look into what the answers are. I think I have answered both noble Lords’ questions, but I might have missed one from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. If he wants to repeat anything, I would be very happy to answer.

Terrorism: Domestic Extremism

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 26th April 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, last week the Minister for Prisons said:

“Any form of extremism must be defeated wherever it is found”.


Can the Minister remind us of the Government’s definition of extremism, as used by that Minister last week? Does it include Jehovah’s Witnesses?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, a Jehovah’s Witness may or may not be an extremist depending on their activity. Extremists seek to justify behaviour that contradicts and undermines our shared values. If that is left unchallenged, those values that bind our society together start to fall apart: women’s rights are eroded, intolerance and bigotry become normalised, minorities are targeted and communities become separated from the mainstream. That sort of behaviour cannot go uncontested.

Brexit: Crime Prevention

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 30th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to continue sharing sensitive personal information with other European Union member states for the purposes of crime prevention and detection following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are clear that our commitment to co-operation with European allies on security and law enforcement will be undiminished as a result of leaving the EU. The effective use of data to underpin that co-operation will be an important consideration as we look to establish a new relationship with the EU, but it is too early to say what the future arrangements might look like.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the issue of information exchange has taken on an added significance this week. I hope the House will forgive me but I take the avoidable death of one of my former police colleagues very seriously. Less than a week after four people died as a result of terrorism on our doorstep, does the Minister think that the implied threat made by the Prime Minister in her Article 50 letter—backed up yesterday by the Home Secretary—that the UK will withhold security co-operation with the EU if it does not get the trade deal that it wants, was insensitive, reckless, an empty threat, or all three?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I too pay tribute to the people who lost their lives last week and who still lie in hospital injured. However, I take exception to what the noble Lord says. The letter says that both sides would cope, but our co-operation would be weakened. We want and we believe that the EU wants security to be part of a new partnership. That is why it is part of the negotiation. The “threat” was not a threat at all—it was a matter of fact.

National Identity Cards

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 14th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we believe that the investment we are making in better security, use of intelligence and cybersecurity is a much more effective use of resources.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the Government’s position on ID cards is clear, and we support it. However, an even greater intrusion into privacy has been highlighted in today’s Guardian by the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, who said that:

“The problem is when new and advancing technology is brought together by well-meaning people that actually invades people’s privacy, or worse, leaves privacy at risk of theft or uploading on YouTube”.


He concludes that,

“regulators and the government were struggling to keep up with the pace of technological change”.

What are the Government doing about it?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

One of the reasons why the Conservative Party opposed identity cards was because of the civil liberties issue which the noble Lord outlined. However, he is absolutely right to point out that the Government should also always be mindful of privacy versus the advances in technology that such information can give us.

Illegal Imports: Dangerous Materials

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 13th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government take the issue of guns and drugs arriving in this country very seriously. The noble Lord and the House will have heard me talking previously about Operation Dragon Root last October, in which 800 potentially lethal weapons were seized and 282 suspects were arrested. In addition, 80 kilograms of illegal drugs were seized. I do not know how that compares with the noble Lord’s weight, but that is a lot of drugs.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, currently at UK airports EU citizens use automatic gates, which check only that the person seeking entry is the passport holder. Once we leave the European Union, EU citizens will have to be questioned about the purpose of their visit, as there will be no automatic right of entry. How will the Border Force cope without a massive increase in resources, particularly when it is already failing to meet its own targets in terms of delays?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord has asked me a bit of a hypothetical question in terms of numbers. However, he asked about e-gates, which have provided a very efficient way of handling people at passport control. Not only are they very efficient but, in terms of the facial recognition service that they provide, they are very accurate. Just to give the noble Lord an example, one officer can deal with five e-gates.

Police National Database: Facial Images

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is a question of balance. It is a balance between enabling the police to do their job and to have a good database of criminals and those who have been convicted but also, as he says, if you are an innocent person, of not having your face on the database.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why the police are apparently not going to identify and remove the photographs of innocent people that are currently on the database? If there is a name and a date of birth connected with each photograph, why cannot that be run against the police national computer? If the Government are saying that the police can develop a national identification database, why do they not say so? At least the Labour Party is being honest that that is what it wants. Why cannot the Government?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am not sure I entirely get the tenor of the noble Lord’s question. If you are not convicted of an offence and your image is on the database you can request that it be—

[Lord Paddick]

From now on.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

From now on; the noble Lord is absolutely right. However, if your face is currently on the database, you can say, “It has been on there for 10 years and please will you remove it?”.

Crime: Firearms

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 9th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

What the noble Lord points out is not an explosion in the problem but a revelation in the solution, because that four-week operation showed us that a new approach to intelligence collection and sharing is the way forward. The operation that I think he is referring to—Operation Dragon Root—yielded excellent results.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, most of the illegal firearms smuggled into the UK are from Europe. Can the Minister explain how UK law enforcement agencies can continue to exchange information and intelligence with EU countries about gun smuggling after Brexit without complying with EU data protection laws, which are set and regularly updated by the EU? What are the Government going to compromise on—security or sovereignty?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think that I have déjà vu here, because the noble Lord asked me that the other evening when we had a three and a half hour debate on the subject of security and policing between the UK and the EU. As I explained then, and will explain now, co-operation will be not just absolutely key going forward but one of the top priorities for this country.

Brexit: Customs and Border Staff

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 6th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, there has been a 25% reduction in funding per passenger for the UK Border Force since 2011. The Minister mentioned that e-gates—automatic gates—at airports for EEA nationals mean that the reduction in funding has not resulted in a lessening of security. Can she say what will happen when we leave the European Union and EEA nationals will no longer be subject to this, rather worryingly termed, soft border regime?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the number of full-time Border Force employees has ranged from approximately 7,600 to 8,100 in the past few years. As I said earlier, there may have been a reduction perhaps last year in workforce because it is within that range but e-gates and other infrastructure improvements have improved the system. In 2016-17 we invested £68 million in capital for infrastructure improvements.

Child Migrants: Italy

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 25th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There are several questions there. The noble Baroness continued the theme of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He spoke of children whom we would dearly like to assist who are living in conditions that are less than satisfactory in European countries. I cannot stress enough that we can help only when the country in question gives us leave to come and help. We have got a long-standing secondee in Italy. There are also NGOs in Italy such as UNHCR.

As to specifying the number, the Government have committed to transferring a specified number of refugee children to the UK from within Europe. They will specify that number in due course.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, unaccompanied child migrants are likely to have been subjected to significant trauma. Can the Minister tell the House what assistance the Government are giving to ensure that accompanied child migrants receive appropriate psychological support, whether they are in Europe or in the UK?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I think I touched on this in my response to the right reverend Prelate, but the noble Lord is absolutely right to raise this subject. He will know that the Government already have in place a comprehensive strategy for safeguarding children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children, who arrive here severely traumatised and in some cases require a package of care. The Immigration Minister’s joint Written Statement with the Minister of State for Vulnerable Children and Families on 1 November committed the Government to publishing a strategy for the safeguarding of unaccompanied asylum-seeking and refugee children in England, and the children who have been identified for transfer from Europe.

The good news is that we have already been working with local authorities, charities and other organisations to make sure that plans are in place to give these children the immediate support they need—which I think was what the noble Lord was alluding to.

Taqiyya and Al Hijra

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 24th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am sure that this House would be very happy and more educated for hearing from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury. I thank the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York for putting the whole thing into context. Fleeing persecution is not the same thing as denying your religion.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we should leave to one side what appear to me to be blatant attempts to stir up hatred against the Muslim community. Instead, I want to ask the Minister a question on what she said in her Answer about strengthening partnerships with communities. Do the Government agree with the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson QC, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Select Committee that there should be an independent review into the Government’s Prevent strategy, and if not why not?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord will know that we regularly review Prevent. In fact, Prevent has been reviewed quite recently, and has been seen to help those who might be targeted by people who wish to put poisonous ideologies into their heads—in other words, the victims of these people—to turn their lives around.

Brexit: Hate Crimes

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 19th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is hypothetical but I hope I can reassure my noble friend that the Government are prepared and have learned the lessons from some of the events we have seen in the last year. Again, to go back to the noble Baroness’s Question, some of the language has been quite inflammatory, both in the media and from some members of the community following the EU referendum. I think that both as a society and as a Government, we are prepared, and we are engaged consistently and constantly with representatives of the various communities across the country.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, the latest crime figures show an increase of about 200 hate crimes a week in 2015-16 compared with the previous year. There has been a 40% increase in hate crime since 2013-14. This is not a spike but a trend and police action is simply addressing the symptoms. What assessment have the Government made of the causes of these increases and do they believe, as we do, that the increase in populism and nationalism is behind these significant and worrying increases?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I heard various tales post-referendum about the various communities—

Passport Applications: Digitisation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 18th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord points out precisely the criteria that are used to measure quality and are required for photographs. Those security standards are no different in the online application process than they were in the old paper process. There was no more risk of the customer getting it wrong under the old system than there is under the new system.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, under the old system, as it is called, somebody has to certify on the back of the photograph that it is a true likeness of the passport holder. How is that going to be achieved if it is a completely digital application process?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the current service, which has been in place since April last year, is available only to adults over the age of 26 who have previously held a British passport. That is where the rigour is in the new process.

Pitchford Inquiry

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am glad to hear that the noble Lord is absolutely innocent. I never doubted it. Clearly, the Home Office sponsors the work of the inquiry but we do not direct its work. I do not know whether the noble Lord has asked the inquiry whether that is its intention.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, there are about 9 million custody photographs held on a police database, and the police cannot say how many of those pictures are of innocent people and how many are of people who have been convicted. What safeguards are in place to ensure that police databases comply with human rights law and data protection laws, particularly when they appear to contain personal details of those who have never been charged and convicted?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is a strict code of ethics on how people’s photographs are held if somebody has not been convicted. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord further on the matter that he has raised.

Asylum: Sexual Orientation

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I think that I have explained twice that it is management information only and that it is not yet sufficiently quality assured to be published. We need published information to be robust.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how this House can hold the Government to account if they refuse to publish the figures?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I can only repeat the answer that I have now given three times.

Calais: Child Refugees

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 13th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, when this question about the government regulations concerning which children should come here last came before your Lordships’ House, on 16 November, my noble friend Lady Sheehan asked about the legality of the guidance, in that it appeared to change the definition of a child and restricted asylum applications on the basis of country. The Minister did not answer the question then; maybe she would like to take the opportunity to do so now.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I do not think that I did restrict the criteria with regard to country. I said that any child who was under 12, at risk of sexual exploitation or from a country with a high asylum grant rate would be eligible.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I am trying to illustrate that alleged victims’ willingness to come forward is now more common because they feel that they can come forward and they are more likely to be believed. There are not huge numbers of convictions in sexual abuse trials, and to go back to the position where anonymity was granted would be a retrograde step.

[Lord Paddick]

Can the Minister clarify that? I think she just said that there is a low conviction rate in trials involving sexual offences. That is not accurate. In rape cases, for example, the conviction rate at trial is more or less over 50% and more or less in line with the conviction rate in other offences.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Many cases do not come to trial. I was trying to illustrate the reluctance of people to come forward. People are still reluctant to do so, and the Government do not want to create an environment in which we go back to the practices of times gone by, which is why we have so many allegations of historic sex offences.

Noble Lords asked about safeguards, and of course, as my noble friend Lord Faulks said, we have the magistrates’ court and the High Court. We have College of Policing guidance, which states that the police should not routinely release information about suspects before charge. However, it also makes clear that there are limited circumstances in which the release of such information can be justified.

Sexual Abuse: Harassment of Suspects

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, there is a general presumption of anonymity pre-charge but there are operational reasons why the police might wish to release names. I must say, however, in the context of this week, that if the legislation on pre-charge anonymity recommended in the review was in place today, it would have prevented the UK media reporting the claims that we have heard this week and last of some of those alleged victims where there had been no arrests.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that pre-charge anonymity, and legislating for that, is one potential solution to the problem, but that pre-charge anonymity is a complex issue, with passionately held views on both sides, and that it cannot be adequately dealt with in an Answer to an Oral Question?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I agree with the noble Lord in that we have debated this issue during the passage of the Policing and Crime Bill. We have had some very good debates on it and I understand that there are strong feelings on both sides. However, the point here is that we need to get the balance right. There should be a presumption of anonymity, but in cases where it may allow evidence to come forward or where new victims could feel comfortable in coming forward, it should be the police’s operational decision to release names.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 7th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support Amendment 169B in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Kennedy of Southwark.

I accept the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about reasonable cost as opposed to full cost recovery—or, at least, I could accept it if it was an approach the Government took across the board. However, in Committee I drew a parallel with the Immigration Act, where the Government proposed a philosophy of full cost recovery for visa applications and for the Immigration Service generally. I asked the Minister then, if she was not going to agree with amendments tabled to ensure full cost recovery for the issuing of firearm certificates, to explain why a different approach is being taken to the principle of full cost recovery when it comes to immigration. In particular, I asked her to refute the obvious allegation that the Government are discriminating against foreign nationals as against those who go hunting with guns for sport. I cannot recall the Minister specifically responding to that question; perhaps she could address it today.

Having apparently agreed in Committee to the principle of full cost recovery for firearms certificates, the Minister went on to say that there was a public consultation on these issues and that,

“there might be good reasons not to set fees at full cost recovery levels, either for a transitional period or for certain categories of licence holder”.—[Official Report, 9/11/16; col. 1163.]

There are very good reasons why visa applications and the like should not be set at full cost recovery levels, yet the Government appear determined that they should be, without any public consultation or a transitional period. Can the Minister explain why foreign nationals are being treated differently from those who possess firearms?

I asked the Minister in Committee what consultation there had been with groups that represent immigrants or those who might apply for visas before the Government implemented full cost recovery for immigration visas. Can the Minister please answer that question for the record, as she was unable to do so in Committee?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, perhaps I may first deal with some of the questions that have arisen out of Amendment 169A. Both the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Hailsham asked about the age threshold of 17—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, probably thought that it was too low and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, thought it too high. The age of 17 or over for borrowing rifles reflects the current position under Section 16 of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988—which the noble Viscount may have taken through Parliament himself.

The noble Viscount asked about firearms accidentally left in someone’s house. I understood that if you held a firearms licence yourself, it was okay for someone to leave something in your house, but I am not certain on that point so I will write to him.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked whether the provisions were new. The answer is both yes and no, because they amend current legislation. After careful consideration, we have decided to clarify and align the existing provisions for the borrowing of a rifle or shotgun to practise the hunting of animals and the shooting of game or vermin on private land. He also asked whether individuals with a qualifying criminal record are prohibited from possessing a firearm under Section 21 of the 1968 Act. It is for the lender to satisfy himself or herself that a borrower does not have a relevant criminal record when he or she is lending them a firearm.

The lender would have to be present. If the borrower needed to go to the toilet, for example, they would have to leave the certificate-holder with the weapon while they went to the loo.

I will just respond to Amendment 169B from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The Government agreed that fees for firearm certificates should be set on a cost recovery basis. I am happy to confirm, as I did in my letter to the noble Lord, that the cost of these certificates is expected to reflect the full cost of licensing once a new, more cost-effective online licensing system is in place. We already increased the fees for civilian firearm certificates in line with this objective, and Clause 117 allows us to set fees for licences issued by the Home Office and the Scottish Government. As I think I said in Committee, this will save the taxpayer around £700,000 a year.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Wednesday 30th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. The government amendments in this group do not go far enough—for example, in publishing the results of any consultation in full and on the process of the consultation itself, which we believe simply cannot be left in the hands of a police and crime commissioner. We also oppose in principle that police and crime commissioners should be allowed to take over fire and rescue authorities, for many of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave this afternoon and in Committee, particularly, as we dealt with in Amendment 1, the issue around coterminosity. We also share the concerns about the employment implications of merging police services and fire and rescue services in a single employer model under a police and crime commissioner.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendment 19 in this group. The amendment would require that the Secretary of State cannot make an order to provide for the police and crime commissioner to be the fire and rescue authority under new Section 4A unless this has been agreed by all relevant local authorities. This amendment is supported by the Local Government Association.

In Committee, the Minister seemed to want to have her cake and eat it—to use a topical phrase. When these issues were discussed, she said at one point that,

“the Government are not mandating the transfer of fire and rescue authorities to police and crime commissioners. These provisions are locally enabling and acknowledge that local leaders are best placed to assess what would work … in their areas”.

But then later she said:

“Where there is clear merit in a transfer taking place that could benefit local communities, it would be wrong to allow vested local interests to stand in the way”.—[Official Report, 14/9/16; col. 1520.]

Local authority councillors are democratically elected to represent local people. One of their responsibilities is the fire and rescue service. Police and crime commissioners have been democratically elected to oversee policing, based on a manifesto that covers only policing. I believe that the Minister was right to say that local leaders are best placed to assess what would work best in their areas, and wrong to describe as “vested local interests” the democratically elected local authority councillors who do not agree with their police and crime commissioner about the PCC taking over local fire and rescue services. Our amendment is in line with the Minister’s initial comment in Committee, rather than her later comment.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)]

My Lords, the Government came into office with a clear manifesto commitment to enable fire and police services to work more closely together and to develop the role of our elected and accountable police and crime commissioners. The provisions in Part 1 of the Bill, including those in Clause 6, give legislative effect to that commitment.

It is clear that better joint working can strengthen our emergency services, deliver significant savings to taxpayers and, most importantly, enable the emergency services to better protect the public. While there are many excellent examples of collaboration between the emergency services across the country—I draw noble Lords’ attention to the excellent overview of such collaboration recently published by the Emergency Services Collaboration Working Group—the picture of collaboration remains patchy and more needs to be done to make collaborative working the norm. The directly accountable leadership of PCCs can play a critical role in this by securing better commissioning and delivery of emergency services at a local level. This is not about a merger or a police takeover; nor is it an erosion of the brand identity of the fire service. By overseeing both services, PCCs can strengthen the services by maximising the opportunities for innovative collaboration between policing and fire, and ensure that best practice is shared.

It has been said many times before, but I should stress again, that the provisions in Clause 6 providing for PCCs to take on responsibility for fire and rescue are totally locally enabling. A one-size-fits-all approach would clearly be inappropriate and it should be up to local communities to have a say in how their services are provided. PCCs will be able to take on responsibility for fire and rescue only where a strong local case is made that it is in the best interests of either efficiency, economy or effectiveness, on the one hand, or public safety, on the other, and where they have consulted the relevant local authorities and the public. Removing the provisions from the Bill that enable PCCs to take on governance of fire and rescue denies PCCs the opportunity to drive forward local reform. In a number of areas—for example, Essex, Northamptonshire and Hertfordshire—we know that PCCs are already working closely with their fire and rescue authorities to consider the local case.

Requiring there to be local agreement before a transfer of governance can take place, as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, would introduce unnecessary and unjustifiable barriers that serve to inhibit positive collaboration taking place at a local level. If there are valid reasons for a local authority’s opposition to a PCC’s proposal, these will be identified in the independent assessment process and the Home Secretary will approve a transfer only where a case has been made that it is in the interests of local communities. It would not be right to let parochial local interests—to take up what the noble Lord said—get in the way of reform where there is a clear benefit to the public.

In Committee, I was clear that the Government’s intention is for the process by which a PCC brings forward a business case for the transfer of responsibility for fire to be as robust and transparent as possible. It is important that this process commands the confidence of all parties and that local views are properly taken into account. To provide even greater assurances on this point, the Government have put forward a number of amendments which strengthen the consultation and transparency duties on PCCs. These amendments respond to a number of helpful and important points raised by noble Lords during the earlier stages of the Bill.

First, Amendment 9 will replace the existing duty on PCCs to seek the views of people in their police area with a duty that requires them to consult them. This strengthening of the duty makes explicit the Government’s expectation that PCCs will take local views into account when developing their business case and responds to concerns that the existing duty to seek views is not strong enough. In addition, Amendment 10 places an explicit duty on PCCs to consult with persons representing the views of employees and of members of the police force who may be affected by their proposal. I would expect this to include trade unions and staff associations such as the FBU, Unison and the Police Federation.

Amendment 16 will additionally require the PCC to submit a summary of the responses to such consultation to the Home Secretary to inform her decision on the proposal where the PCC does not have local agreement. It remains appropriate that it is for the PCC to determine the manner in which they should consult local authorities, the public and employee representatives, and Amendment 13 makes that clear. In the interests of transparency, Amendments 11, 15 and 17 will also require the PCC to publish the outcomes of their local consultation and the Secretary of State to publish the independent assessment that she secures of a PCC’s business case, where they do not have the agreement of the relevant local councils.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, tabled further amendments to these provisions, which seek to further prescribe the process by which a PCC consults on his or her proposal and the requirements on the Home Secretary to publish an independent assessment. As I have already set out, I am very keen, like the noble Lord, to make sure that the process by which a PCC seeks to take on the responsibilities of a fire and rescue authority is as robust and transparent as possible. However, I hope the noble Lord would agree that many of the points that he has raised are properly a matter for guidance rather than for primary legislation. The circumstances of each local consultation will be different, so we should not unduly fetter local flexibility to put in place proportionate arrangements that recognise the nature of each local business case. The amendments, while well intentioned, risk cutting across the local accountability of PCCs and risk Whitehall dictating matters that should rightly be left to local leaders.

In response to the noble Lord’s important concerns, however, I can be very clear about the Government’s expectation that the PCC’s consultation will be undertaken in an appropriate manner and be of an appropriate duration to allow local people to express their views and for the PCC to have them taken into account. Further, we would expect the PCC’s response to the consultation to cover the matters that the noble Lord has listed in Amendment 12. The Home Office will work closely with the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the Association of Police and Crime Chief Executives to ensure that their guidance on the development of PCC business cases incorporates these points. However, I should stress again that it is for the PCC to determine locally how to achieve such outcomes based on the nature of the case, its complexity and its understanding of the best ways to engage with local communities.

Furthermore, government Amendment 17 will ensure that the independent assessment is published as soon as is practicable after the Home Secretary has made a determination. In practice, this will ensure that all parties have sufficient time to consider the findings before an order is made. Adding in what amounts to a statutory one-month pause in the process in every case again strikes me as unduly complicating the procedure for making these orders and risks increasing local uncertainty as the process is drawn out. I might add that having received the independent assessment, there is no assumption that the Home Secretary would necessarily approve a PCC’s proposal. She will base her decision on the evidence presented. I hope that noble Lords will agree that the government amendments set out a clear expectation that there should be a comprehensive consultation, that the process will be transparent, and that local views will be properly taken into account.

I also indicated in Committee that I would give further consideration to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, regarding public safety. As I set out during that debate, public safety is a core function of the emergency services and we consider that any assessment of the impact of a proposed transfer of governance on effectiveness would include an assessment of its impact on public safety. None the less, I am content to make provision on the face of the Bill that puts this matter beyond any doubt. Government Amendments 5, 6 and 35 explicitly provide that the Secretary of State may not make an order transferring responsibility for fire and rescue to a PCC or implementing the single employer model under either a PCC or a combined authority mayor where it would adversely affect public safety.

I shall deal with the other government amendments in this group. As the Bill is currently drafted, when a PCC implements the single employer model and so delegates fire functions to a single chief officer, schemes that may be made by the Secretary of State transferring property, rights and liabilities from an FRA or the PCC-style FRA to that chief officer are one way only. On the terms and conditions for police and fire and rescue personnel, when staff are transferred from an FRA to the PCC, and under the single employer model from the PCC to the chief officer, they would be covered by the principles of the Cabinet Office code of practice entitled Statement of Practice of Staff Transfers in the Public Sector, taking into account the considerations associated with bringing two workforces closer together. For example, we propose that under the single employer model, complaints, conduct and death and serious injury matters for both the police and the fire service are treated on a consistent basis. PCCs will need to consider how to best reflect a more closely aligned workforce locally when preparing their business case, including consultation with the relevant unions where necessary, as I said previously.

On the question whether the proposals will take firefighters, emergency fire control staff and fire support staff out of national pay and conditions, pensions and other arrangements, the terms and conditions of firefighters and control staff are negotiated on a UK-wide basis via the National Joint Council for Local Authority Fire and Rescue Services. The NJC has no statutory basis and it is for PCC FRAs to decide whether to remain members. PCC-style FRAs will also have the same ability as FRAs to negotiate changes to terms and conditions at local level, while remaining members of the NJC, but PCCs would need to approach the NJC if they wished to become members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

Before the Minister sits down, could she clarify something? She described the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, as unnecessary interference in what should be a locally determined matter—the nature of the consultation process. However, when it comes to deciding whether the police and crime commissioner should take over the fire and rescue authority, against the wishes of the democratically elected local councillors, that is not seen as an unnecessary interference in local decisions.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope I have outlined clearly that the Home Secretary would take a view on this issue and on all representations that have been received when making her decision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I hope it is not going to be another letter because, from my dim and distant memory of local government officers’ political restrictions, I recall that up to a certain level of officer, you are free to canvass and engage in political activity. You are also free to stand for elected office in an authority other than your own. I think I may have to write, now that the noble Lord is heading for the door, on the matter of elected office for local authority officials because that will be looked at in the regulations.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and to the issues raised by my noble friend Lady Hamwee. She cannot be in her place today, but she has asked me to pass on her thanks for the amendments that the Government have brought forward in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for the opportunity to address the misunderstanding over Amendment 47, which was previously tabled in Committee. However, I am again going to have to disappoint the noble Lord as the Government cannot support either of these amendments. The Bill provides for the delegation of the ability to authorise those who can be designated bodies for the purposes of the new super-complaints system.

I welcome the noble Lord’s suggestions of who should perform this function but I do not agree that this task can be performed by bodies that might themselves want to raise super-complaints, or by multiple agencies. For the system to have legitimacy, we need to avoid a conflict of interest in this role. That is why the Bill creates this distinct role, as we do not consider it appropriate that HM Inspectorate of Constabulary designates the bodies that can come to it with super-complaints.

All three bodies put forward by the noble Lord could potentially add significant value as designated bodies, should they wish to apply. It would be a shame if, for example, Citizens Advice were precluded from raising issues through the super-complaints system. In the interests of a smooth and speedy process, I suggest that this role should be undertaken by an individual or single body, not by a committee.

The critical point here is that the criteria for designation are clear and unambiguous so that authorisation is a simple and objective process. That is why we will consult widely on the criteria in due course, and I encourage all those who have an interest to feed in their views. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about timing: it will be in the coming months.

Having consulted to establish clear criteria, we believe it is unnecessary to subsequently consult on any list of bodies deemed to have met the criteria, as required by the noble Lord’s Amendment 46. This risks slowing the whole system down, delaying designation and further delaying the point at which bodies can submit super-complaints to HMIC.

I reiterate the Government’s commitment to consulting widely on the criteria. As part of that process, we would welcome the input of noble Lords on bodies or organisations that may be suitable for designation or for the role as the authorised person. I hope the noble Lord, having considered the Government’s arguments, will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his support for these amendments and for the explanation given by the Minister. Obviously I am disappointed that she felt she could not support them. Clearly there would have to be a distinction between the role of authorised persons and the role of designated bodies. The suggestions we made were on the basis that these organisations had vast knowledge of the voluntary bodies and third party organisations that work in their areas. There would have to be a distinction if they were appointed as authorised persons, and they would not be able to be designated bodies themselves, but that is something that the Government could make a decision on.

I am grateful for the reassurance around the consultation that will take place over the criteria that will be used in order to decide which bodies should be designated. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 59 is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I, too, thank the Government for the change that they have made regarding the word “Independent”. This amendment tries to ensure that that is not simply a cosmetic change and that the new body will be even more independent.

The amendment would change the current position where a member of the Independent Police Complaints Commission cannot be someone who holds or who has held office as a constable in any part of the United Kingdom or someone who has worked under the direction or control of a chief officer or equivalent office in Scotland or Northern Ireland. The current legislation specifically excludes anyone making decisions on casework or investigations, for obvious reasons. The public are not reassured about the independence of the police complaints investigation body if those making such decisions are either former police officers or those who have worked for the police.

The amendment would prevent other members of the new body being serving or former police officers or those who formerly worked for the police. In Committee the Minister said:

“We do not think that there should be statutory restrictions on those who are members of the office—in effect, the board of the reformed organisation. The core functions of the office are set out clearly in the Bill and include ensuring the good governance and financial management of the organisation. These functions are quite distinct from the functions of the director-general. The director-general, as the single executive head, will be solely accountable for all casework and investigation decisions, not the board. It is not right that a suitably qualified individual could not be appointed to a corporate governance role as a member of the board simply because he or she once worked as a police civilian, perhaps for just a short period many years previously”.—[Official Report, 26/10/16; col. 258.]

There is very little trust or confidence in the IPCC among many who bring complaints against the police and many others, including me, because we do not believe it is independent enough. How will having members of the board of the new body—the rebranded body—who are former employees of the police service improve that trust and confidence? It certainly does not do it for me. Although the Minister says that the director-general will be solely accountable for all casework and investigation decisions, in practice he will not be making all those decisions—unless he works 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Even if the board members are there to ensure good governance and financial management, their decisions could be crucial to the effective investigation of serious complaints by deciding the way the rebranded organisation operates, its structure and so forth, and the way resources are apportioned.

The Government keep saying how important it is to bring people with different skills and experience into the police service. If the police service is in such desperate need of new blood, because the Government believe it does not have enough talent of its own, why are the Government so keen for those from the police service to be part of the new body that will be investigating the most serious complaints against the police? Barring those previously employed by the police service from holding crucial positions within the rebranded Office for Police Conduct—with or without “Independent” stuck on the front of it—would be a small price to pay for providing reassurance that it is truly independent. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Independent Office for Police Conduct will have a vital role in securing and maintaining public confidence in the reformed police complaints system. That is why the Bill provides for an absolute bar on the new single executive head of the organisation—the director-general —ever having worked for the police. The Government do not believe it is appropriate for the Bill to impose further statutory restrictions on membership of the office beyond the post of director-general.

The corporate structure of the IOPC is radically different from the existing commission model. The new board—the office—will have a majority of independent non-executive members, and its functions are set out clearly in the Bill. These include ensuring good corporate governance and financial management. Importantly, the board’s functions do not include responsibility for investigations and casework decisions, for which the director-general alone will be accountable. This is in contrast to the current position, where commissioners undertake such investigative functions.

If a highly suitable individual applies for a non-executive role, perhaps as a finance expert, it would be wrong to reject them automatically simply because many years previously they worked for a short period as a police civilian, perhaps in a relatively junior role. To ensure that the organisation can deliver high-quality and timely investigations—the predominant driver of confidence—the director-general will wish to ensure that the organisation has a diverse mix of people. As part of this, the director-general may wish to employ a number of people who have valuable policing experience, as the IPCC does now.

Under the new model, investigations and casework decisions will be undertaken by employees, all of whom will be working in a single line management chain reporting to the director-general. The Government fully expect the director-general to decide that certain employee roles, including some senior operational and public-facing positions, should not be filled by those with a police background, but those decisions should be a matter for the director-general.

We recognise that confidence is also driven by the perception of the organisation as impartial and independent from the police. That is why the Bill provides the director-general with an explicit power to determine the functions and roles that are not open to former police officers. This means that the director- general can go further than the current legislation, which requires only that a minimum of six people cannot have worked for the police—namely, the chair and a minimum of five other members of the commission. The Bill also strengthens existing arrangements in relation to transparency by setting out a requirement on the director-general to publish a statement of policy on the exercise of these particular powers of recruitment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I start by agreeing wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Blair, that this seems too broad in what it could allow. As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, says, it could result in volunteers being equipped with revolvers. I also have the same concerns that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, has about a self-defence weapon being used in an aggressive as opposed to a defensive way.

We support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have Amendment 107 in the group, which says that Clause 38 should not stand part of the Bill and seeks to achieve the same end as Amendment 106, which is to prevent police community support officer volunteers from being provided with CS spray or any other firearm that the Secretary of State might authorise by regulation in the future. My understanding, contrary to that of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is that special constables can be equipped with CS spray at the moment, and will continue to be, so I do not think that the changes in the Bill will have the effect he suggests.

The only remarks that I would add to those already made by noble Lords are that police volunteers carry out excellent work and are a valuable addition to the police family. However, with reservations already being expressed about whether paid police community support officers should be using force, and in the absence of any paid PCSO having been authorised to use CS spray by any chief constable anywhere in the United Kingdom—if I remember the debate in Committee correctly—changing the law to allow chief constables to give CS spray to volunteer PCSOs seems both unnecessary and unreasonable.

Secondly, as alluded to by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, if chief constables need additional volunteers who can exercise the use of force, including with CS spray, because they do not have the resources any more to pay full-time police officers, whatever the rights and wrongs of that, there is a route open to them, which is to recruit more special constables, who have all the powers of a regular police officer and who are paid only expenses. We on these Benches will support the Labour amendment on this issue.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, these amendments return us to an issue that was debated at length in both the other place and in Committee in this House, namely whether it is ever right for designated members of police staff, or the new category of designated volunteers, to carry CS or PAVA sprays for defensive purposes—I stress the point that this is for defensive purposes.

I should point out to the House that, although most of our debates have been about whether it is right for volunteers to carry defensive sprays, Amendment 106 as drafted would also prevent chief officers equipping their existing paid staff, such as PCSOs, with such sprays. I assume this is not intention of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, but it would be helpful if he could clarify this when winding up.

When we debated this issue in Committee, a number of noble Lords expressed the view that the use of force is somehow incompatible with the PCSO role, and even more so for volunteers. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that the appropriate route for an individual who wishes,

“to volunteer to get involved in the use of force in the exercise of police powers”,

is,

“to become a special constable”.—[Official Report, 26/10/16; col. 267.]

I think he said that again today. However, it is important to put on record that, given the long-standing tradition of policing by consent, I would hope that no one who wishes to help with the policing of their community, as a police officer or a member of staff, whether paid or as a volunteer, does so with a view to using force against their fellow citizens. There are of course myriad roles which police officers, staff and volunteers perform regularly that do not involve the use of force.

Indeed, as we have discussed, the primary role of a PCSO across England and Wales is to engage with members of the public and to carry out low-level interventions such as dealing with anti-social behaviour. However, as was discussed in the House of Commons earlier this month, it is a sad fact of life that both police officers and PCSOs are assaulted and injured on duty. For example, in 2015-16, 270 assaults were reported by PCSOs in England and Wales, and those figures do not include the British Transport Police. It should be noted that this figure includes only assaults that officers report to their health and safety or human resource teams. In some cases, officers will choose not to report cases, as it is usually not compulsory to do so. Therefore, in reality, this figure is likely to be much higher.

We must therefore ensure that chief police officers are able to use their operational experience to make judgments as to the necessary level of defensive equipment and self-defence training that they make available to their officers and PCSOs. The only other option for chief police officers would be to withdraw their PCSOs from areas where there was a threat to their safety, potentially making disorder more likely if members of the community were unable to engage with a familiar face in uniform.

The situation is in essence no different from that of special constables, who are themselves volunteers. They have all the powers of a police officer, and a significant number are trained in the use of defensive sprays. I also point out that a small proportion of specials are trained in the use of public order tactics, so the use of force by appropriately trained police volunteers is not a new idea.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has tabled Amendment 107, which would remove Clause 38 from the Bill. The change to Section 54 of the Firearms Act 1968 made by Clause 38(2) is consequential on the provisions in Clause 37 enabling designated volunteers to be given access to defensive sprays. It therefore follows that if Amendment 106 were agreed to, Clause 38(2) would be unnecessary. However, Clause 38(3) deals with a separate point, making it explicit that special constables are members of a police force for the purposes of the Firearms Act 1968 and therefore do not require a certificate or authorisation under the 1968 Act when equipped with a defensive spray. Accordingly, the amendment goes wider than I believe the noble Lord intends.

A question was asked about the most appropriate route for an individual who wishes to perform front-line policing to join the specials. I think I have already addressed that point but I add that there might be reasons why an individual who wants to volunteer to help to make his or her community safer chooses not to join the specials. These reforms will enable those who wish to help to keep their communities safe to do so even where they are unable to meet the requirements for being a special—the time commitment, for example, or they may be in an occupation where they are prevented from being a special, such as being a Border Force officer, but still have skills or experience that could be of value.

My noble friend Lord Hailsham asked about the order-making power in Clause 37(6) enabling the Home Secretary to make regulations that would allow police staff and volunteers to use a firearm. The power is primarily intended as a form of future-proofing. Should, for example, a new form of defensive spray that uses substances other than CS come on to the market—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, the amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee asks that Clause 46 not stand part of the Bill. Clause 46 gives power to the Secretary of State to make regulations that specify the ranks that may be held by police officers other than chief officers of police.

We have been here before—in 1993—with the Sheehy review into police responsibilities and rewards. Among other recommendations of that review was the abolition of the ranks of chief inspector and chief superintendent. After an expensive process of offering chief inspectors early retirement, that decision was reversed, leaving the police service with a deficit of suitably qualified and experienced chief inspectors. One consequence was that overnight—or, perhaps I should say, over the weekend—I went from being a uniformed chief inspector with no experience as a detective to being a detective chief inspector in charge of CID at Notting Hill.

Another recommendation of that report was to abolish the rank of chief superintendent. Instead, in the Metropolitan Police, we had grade 1 and grade 2 superintendents, one in charge and the other a deputy. They were both called “superintendent”, they both wore the same badge of rank, but one was more senior than the other. Such nonsense did not last long, and the rank of chief superintendent was subsequently reinstated. More recently, some police forces have decided significantly to reduce or not appoint officers to particular ranks, as suits the local circumstances of each force.

History has shown us, and present practice continues to demonstrate, that we do not need the Secretary of State to designate which ranks may be held by members of police forces; it is far better to allow chief constables to decide for themselves which ranks they need and which they do not. By all means let the Secretary of State or the College of Policing issue guidance to chief officers as to factors they should take into account when deciding which ranks to have. But, please, let us not make the same, very expensive—in terms of both money and loss of experience—mistake again. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, policing needs a greater say in how it structures its own organisations. It was the College of Policing’s leadership review that initially recommended a review of rank structure. It recognised that the rank structure as set out in the Police Act 1996 and the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 was not serving the needs of all forces. To support this police-led reform, Clause 46 will give the college the power to recommend regulations setting out what the rank structure should be. Chief Constable Francis Habgood, who is leading the review of the rank structure, is working with the National Police Chiefs’ Council to develop proposals that will work across all forces.

Having some commonality across forces is essential. The public have the right to expect the same high standards of service from every force and there needs to be clarity for the public around the exercise of significant police powers that can impact on civil liberties. Indeed, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and other legislation, expressly requires certain decisions to be taken by an officer of a specified minimum rank, very often an inspector or superintendent. I note that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on pre-charge anonymity specified that an application to a court to waive anonymity has to be made by an officer of at least the rank of inspector. Such key protections for the citizen cannot operate meaningfully without a national rank structure. Furthermore, the Government are committed to a national pay framework for police officers, where again there must be consistency across forces. A consistent rank structure also makes interforce collaboration easier, which is a critical consideration given the many complex challenges facing modern policing that require forces to work together.

This is not to say that every force must have officers of every rank. The Metropolitan Police has, for example, recently announced that it is to do away with the rank of chief inspector and it is open to other forces to follow suit. As I said in Committee, the Government make no presumption about the rank structure that may be proposed by the College of Policing in future. I believe that we should let the work of Chief Constable Francis Habgood continue and not constrain police leaders in how forces should be organised. Parliament will have the opportunity to examine the proposals for changes to the rank structure once the College of Policing has made its recommendations, as these will need to be set out in regulations which will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

I agree that decisions are best taken locally wherever possible, but there are circumstances where we need a clear national framework. This is one such case, albeit one where the reforms provided for in Clause 46 will afford chief officers a measure of local flexibility. With those words, I hope that the noble Lord feels content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that explanation which, unless I have got completely the wrong end of the stick, seems to me to be completely contradictory. The noble Baroness says that there needs to be commonality across police forces, yet then gives the example of how the Metropolitan police service is not going to appoint anybody to the rank of chief inspector.

The noble Baroness says that it is necessary to have a clear national framework—we have a clear national framework in existing legislation, which specifies the ranks. So I really do not see why we need the Secretary of State to be given the power to make regulations about what ranks there should and should not be. For example, were the Secretary of State, by regulation, to say that there must be officers of the rank of chief inspector, where would that leave the Metropolitan Police if it has decided not to have any chief inspectors, as it apparently has?

The noble Baroness also talked about how it was important for the public for there to be commonality across all forces. If the Commissioner of the Met can decide not to appoint somebody to a rank that the Home Secretary has, in regulations, said that there should be, there will not be commonality across the country. I accept what the noble Baroness says in terms of the need for a national structure—which currently exists. What does not need to be done is for that system to be changed; what is needed is for chief constables to be given guidance as to which ranks they need, which will vary from force to force. The Metropolitan Police, in its chief officer ranks, for example, has a completely different rank structure to other forces. Yet, the Government do not seem to want to change that. Commanders do not exist anywhere other than in the Metropolitan Police and the City of London Police. Deputy assistant commissioners do not exist in any other force. So there is not commonality now and there is no move by the Government to enforce commonality across the country when it comes to chief officer ranks.

I find the Minister’s explanation incomprehensible. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Stalking and Domestic Violence

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 24th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government have put a significant amount of effort into introducing these stalking offences. Certainly the victims need ongoing support, and that is one of the things that the Government provide.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, hopefully those noble Lords who listen to “The Archers” will have a greater understanding of the issue of coercive control following the Helen Archer case. I declare an interest in that I have first-hand experience as a victim. Does the Minister not accept that for many perpetrators, domestic violence and coercive control form a pattern of behaviour that is likely to be repeated and that the chances of reoffending are high? Surely public protection panels have a duty to engage with these offenders.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Stalking, coercive control and domestic violence are not generally one-off offences but recur time and again. There are perpetrator programmes with which some of the charitable organisations we work with engage. It is sad that it is the other way round and the victim tends to flee the scene of the offence, as opposed to the perpetrator receiving that kind of ongoing work.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 21st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, changes to the inquiry—four chairs so far, another review and another lead counsel—do not just leave survivors disappointed, as the Minister in the other place said this afternoon; they are retraumatising for survivors. Do the Government have confidence that all those involved are being appropriately consulted about the future of the inquiry? These may be operational decisions, but Ministers must satisfy themselves that this inquiry is being properly run. With 13 strands, 250 lines of inquiry, 164,000 documents, 80 cases a month being referred to the police and 500 victims having come forward so far, is the Minister confident that the inquiry and the police have sufficient resources to deal adequately with these issues in a reasonable timescale?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, all reasonable resources are being provided for the inquiry’s purposes. I underline the point that lack of resource is not an issue. Resources are there to meet the needs of the inquiry. Last year it underspent slightly. I do not think there is any question that there is not sufficient resource in money and manpower.

The Government have confidence in the chairman, having appointed her, but I must underline again that this is an independent inquiry. It is not for the Government to interfere in the inquiry and we have every confidence that it will proceed with pace and clarity, as the chair outlined herself.

Immigration Act

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 16th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am disappointed that the noble Lord is disappointed in the Statement, because he and I have worked so productively over the last few weeks and months on Calais. In October, we updated our country guidance on Eritrea to reflect the court judgment, but we cannot base a threshold on possible future grant rates. The threshold is based on overall grant rates for the year ending June 2016 and the nationalities that have a grant rate of 75% or higher are Sudanese and Syrian.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I am still very confused. Having made an arbitrary decision on eligibility based on country of origin, which has no relevance to an individual’s asylum claim, can the Minister explain why the Government are excluding children who potentially would have a valid asylum claim here in the UK?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, we are not basing the criteria on country of origin. I repeat that we will consider: all children aged 12 and under; all children referred to us by the French authorities assessed as being at high risk of sexual exploitation; and those nationalities most likely to qualify for refugee status in the UK aged 15 or below.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 4th sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 9th November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the Government agree that fees for firearms licences should be set on a cost-recovery basis. We have already increased the fees for civilian firearms and shotgun certificates issued by the police in line with this objective. Clause 115 addresses firearms licences issued by the Home Office and the Scottish Government. They therefore concern fees for licences to possess non-civilian prohibited weapons, and for shooting clubs and museums. Currently, most of these types of licence do not attract a fee. Where a fee is charged, it is set at a level well below the cost of administering an application.

Amendments 204 to 206 would require the Government to set all fees at a level that would achieve full cost recovery. The administration of these licences, including assistance from the police, costs the taxpayer an estimated £700,000 a year. The Government agree that licence holders, not the taxpayer, should pay for this service. Clause 115 therefore provides a power for the Home Secretary to set fees for these licences. As the then policing Minister, Mike Penning, explained when similar amendments were debated in the House of Commons, we intend that the fees should be set at a level that will achieve full cost recovery. We will then set out the proposed fees in a public consultation, which we intend to publish shortly.

The consultation will invite views on the implementation of these measures and we welcome responses. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked when the Section 5 fees are planned to be introduced. It will be in April 2017, subject to the planned consultation. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. However, there might be good reasons not to set fees at full cost recovery levels, either for a transitional period or for certain categories of licence holder. We will consider the responses to the consultation on these matters before deciding on the level that should be set. In doing so, we will be guided by the principle to which I referred above: that the costs of licensing should fall to the licence holder rather than to the taxpayer.

Amendment 207 relates to the fees charged by the police for shotgun and civilian firearms certificates and for registered firearms dealer licences. In 2015, we increased fees for those certificates substantially. This was the first increase in the licence fee since 2001. The increase reflected the fact that the cost of the licences had fallen far below the cost to the police of their administration. Fees increased between 23% and 76%, depending on the type of certificate.

When we consulted on the fee levels for certificates issued by the police, we were clear that the cost of licences should reflect the full cost of licensing once a new online licensing system was in place. Work is under way to secure that system. In the meantime we are committed to undertaking an annual review of the fees. There will be a comprehensive review of police licensing fees in five years’ time. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured that it is indeed this Government’s intention that firearms fees should reflect the full cost of licensing and that on this basis he will be content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, what consultation was there before the Government implemented full cost recovery for immigration visas with those groups that represent immigrants or those who might be applying for visas?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

May I write to the noble Lord on that? I do not have the answer on timing to hand. I apologise.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to the comments that I made about the presumption against pre-charge bail, which I think is compelling in the Government’s attempt to reform the system. There will be presumption in favour of release without bail—in other words, do not bail someone unless there is a good reason to put them on bail, which in many ways would free up the system. Bail should be used only where it is both necessary and proportionate. The fact that almost one-third of people are released within 28 days anyway is, I think, compelling evidence for the arguments that the Government are making.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am very grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on this matter. As he just said, there is agreement on all sides that we need to protect the human rights of those people arrested and bailed by the police. But there needs to be a balance between the protection of human rights and the practical impact on the police, particularly in the light of the significant cuts in police numbers, the even greater cuts in the number of detectives, who would be mainly involved in investigating these matters—and trying to do so within a 28-day limit—and the reduction in the number of police superintendents, who would have to authorise a further extension. The noble Baroness said that 28 days was not arrived at by chance and that people should not be on bail for years. The amendment suggests 56 days, not years. It is just a proportionate increase to the maximum limit proposed in the Bill.

It is unfortunate that the noble Baroness appears to be trying to argue this on party lines, talking about what the Liberal Democrats did in coalition. Unlike other political parties, the Liberal Democrats like to base their decisions and legislation on the evidence. The evidence from academics that I put forward, which the noble Baroness has not addressed, points in the opposite direction to the Home Office impact assessment. The noble Baroness failed to answer when I asked why there was a difference between the Government’s view and the findings of academic research and representations from the Superintendents’ Association. She quoted from a 2013 College of Policing report. I quoted from a 2016 College of Policing report, which Professor Zander said backs up Professor Hucklesby’s conclusion that 60 days is a far more appropriate period and strikes the right balance between the human rights of those bailed and the practical issues facing the police. Clearly, we will return to this at other stages on the Bill but, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

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

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I did not intend to speak on this matter but the issues the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, raised, particularly around religious dress, need to be considered very carefully. I bear in mind the scenario that the noble Lord, Lord Dear, presented us with where constables on the street, faced with individuals who they interpret as deliberately trying to conceal their identity, are radioing an inspector for authority who is not at the scene and cannot make that assessment himself or herself. That is potentially difficult. I am not a lawyer and I may have misread it, but my reading of the existing legislation was that it allows for a scenario where written authority could be given contemporaneously with the actions of the officers on the ground. Can the Minister therefore help the House by saying whether the Government think that the amendment is necessary? However, I absolutely accept that flash mobs and spontaneous public disorder are becoming an increasing problem, as we saw in the riots in London only a few years ago, which were driven by social media.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is right that the permission in writing can be given after the event, but we now find that that is not an ideal situation. On what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, proposes, both national policing leads and others would welcome a clarification on this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, answered the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for me, but I will repeat it, as it is important. With regard to removing face coverings for religious reasons, for example, the Act states that when an authorisation is in place, a constable can require a person to remove a face covering only if the constable reasonably believes that the person is wearing the item,

“wholly or mainly for the purpose of concealing his”,

or her “identity”. Of course, it is for individuals to ensure the fair and proportionate use of their powers.

If the noble Lord is content to withdraw his amendment—it sounds as though he is—I will give the matter further sympathetic consideration in advance of Report.

Orgreave

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 1st November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, first, I must point out to the noble Lord that there were no wrongful convictions on the back of Orgreave. The Home Secretary made her decision having taken the time to look at the documents. She has been in post for some three months and has met families and campaigning MPs. The fact that she has reached a different decision from the one which the noble Lord wants in no way means that it is dishonourable. It was a difficult decision to make; she made it in consideration of all the facts and I think that it is the right one.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was a serving police officer at the time of Orgreave and for 23 years thereafter. Has the Home Secretary completely missed the point about the need for an inquiry into Orgreave? We know from Hillsborough that police evidence was changed to put the blame on fans. The suggestion is that Orgreave was another example of the prevailing culture in the police service at the time: to preserve the reputation of the police at all costs, including if necessary by altering evidence. There is evidence to suggest that this may be in the culture in some police forces even now. Does the Minister not agree that the events at Orgreave cannot be written off as having happened too long ago, and that lessons relevant to policing today can still be learned?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is very important to point out that the IPCC looked at this last year. It has said that if any further information comes to light, it will also look at that. The PCC for South Yorkshire Police is considering what elements of the force’s archive relating to Orgreave to make available to the campaign, while an archivist is also being employed for that purpose.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part one): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will correct this if I am wrong. While I am not guessing, I am assuming that, particularly where you have the model with a mayoral PCC as well, the mayoral precept will enable some of those mayoral functions. On the additional resources, I would like to write to the noble Lord before Report as I would not want to say something to the Committee now that simply was not true.

Amendment 127 to Clause 22 relates to the ability of PCCs to delegate their complaints-related function. The amendment seeks to clarify the difference in language in the subsections of the clause, and I am happy to do that.

The reason for the difference in language between the subsections is that it aims to replicate the language already used in the corresponding Acts. Although subsection (1) uses different language to that in subsections (2) to (4), the policy intention and result is the same. Local policing authorities should and will be able to delegate their complaints-related functions. Regardless of whether any complaints-related functions have been delegated, the local policing body will retain ultimate responsibility for the complaints performance in its area. This follows the same model as chief constables delegating their complaints responsibilities to more junior ranks, where the chief constable is still ultimately responsible for the outcome.

I hope that those comments have reassured noble Lords and that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation on Amendment 127, which is a probing amendment. I am not as enthusiastic about her response to Amendment 124, and I am grateful that we have the noble Lord, Lord Bach, here as a living, breathing police and crime commissioner who can bring his experience to this. I have to say that, bringing my experience as a police officer, I believe that there would be great benefit if there was one system that members of the public knew and could rely on. For example, it would be of great benefit to the public if the decision on whether complaints were investigated was taken out of the hands of the police.

The Minister said that the purpose of the new provision was to restore trust. If the purpose is to restore trust and a PCC decides not to take up the offer, what are the constituents in a PCC’s area to think about that? However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 125 is tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I shall speak also to Amendment 126. In Schedule 5, Part 1 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2000 is amended after sub–paragraph (6) by inserting a new sub-paragraph (6A) in relation to when a complaint against police must be recorded. It states that a complaint must be recorded if,

“at any time the complainant indicates a wish for the complaint to be recorded”.

Our amendment adds a requirement that the complainant must be asked whether he wishes the complaint to be recorded and states that unless he positively indicates that he does not wish the complaint to be recorded, it must be recorded.

From a wealth of personal experience in this area, I know that it is very easy for a complainant to be misled, albeit unintentionally, about whether his complaint will be formally recorded or even to be dissuaded from having a legitimate complaint recorded. The current wording gives the police or the local policing body, if it takes over responsibility, the ability not to record a complaint unless the complainant specifically asks that it be recorded. If the police inspector at the front counter tells the complainant not to worry but to leave it to him as he will have a word with the officer concerned and there is no specific request that the complaint be recorded, it could result in a complaint not being recorded when the complainant believes that it has been. This amendment is designed to reduce the chance of that happening.

Amendment 126 relates to a different issue: the conduct of chief officers of police. Part 3 of Schedule 5 is intended to require the referral of all complaints and matters concerning the conduct of chief officers to the Independent Police Complaints Commission by inserting new paragraphs into Part 3 of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002. They provide new powers to enable the Secretary of State to specify in regulations that the IPCC must independently investigate all complaints, recordable conduct matters, and deaths and serious injury matters which relate to the conduct of a chief officer or the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police.

Assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police wear the same badge of rank as, and are considered to be at least the equivalent of, chief constables or chief officers. In fact, they are paid at the highest rate of chief officer, with the exception of the commissioner and deputy commissioner of the Met, a salary equivalent to that of the chief constables of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, Police Scotland, the West Midlands Police and Greater Manchester Police. The assistant commissioner of the City of London Police wears the insignia of, and is considered equivalent to, a deputy chief officer and is outside the scope of this provision and the amendment. Will the Minister explain why assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police are not included with the deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police as officers complaints about whom must be referred to the IPCC? Our amendments would add assistant commissioners of the Metropolitan Police to the list of compulsory referrals. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for explaining the purpose of the two amendments. The handling of complaints about the police must be customer-focused, simple to understand and transparent throughout. It is widely accepted that the current system is confusing, complicated and, in many cases, unclear. Through the reforms made in the Bill, we are ensuring that cases are dealt with quickly and effectively, for the benefit not just of the public but of officers who have done nothing wrong. Many forces already currently operate customer service teams through which all complaints about the force are filtered and whereby they try to resolve quality-of-service issues as soon as possible. The reforms in the Bill explicitly provide for that sort of model and try to make it as bureaucracy free and straightforward as appropriate.

The evidence is that this approach works. In Derbyshire in 2014-15, for example, 47% of issues raised about the force were handled outside of the formal complaints system. In Northumbria, where the triage team sits in the office of the police and crime commissioner, 36% of issues raised about the force in the first six months of 2014 were handled in this manner, with 92% of complainants happy with how their issue was handled—and this is increasing. The Government want to encourage forces and local policing bodies such as PCCs to adopt this more customer-focused approach and to resolve as many complaints as possible quickly, simply and to the complainant’s satisfaction through this route. Amendment 125 would require complainants explicitly to confirm that they were content for the force or PCC to seek a customer service solution to their issue outside of the formal complaints system. I put it to the noble Lord that this approach risks limiting what forces can achieve through informal resolution.

The Government believe that this confirmation process would lead to fewer issues being dealt with in this way and, contrary to the policy intent, increase the number dealt with in the formal system. We think it right that, unless the complainant has offered an alternative view or the complaint falls into one of the categories outlined in the legislation for why this form of resolution is inappropriate—I shall discuss the safeguards shortly—the force or PCC should first have the opportunity to draw on their experience to seek to resolve the matter through its own customer service processes. I reassure the noble Lord that the Bill includes extensive provisions to ensure the complainant is in control in this process and that forces can resolve issues outside of the complaints system only when it is appropriate to do so.

There is a clear expectation on PCCs, with their new explicit responsibility for oversight of the complaints system locally, as provided for in Clause 21, to ensure clear communication is provided to complainants about their rights when they make a complaint and how the process will work. This includes explaining that, if at any point a complainant wants his or her complaint to be recorded, it will be recorded. If the force pursues a customer service solution that falls short of the complainant’s view on what constitutes a satisfactory resolution, they can request that the complaint be recorded and handled formally. There is a statutory duty at the outset of a complaint to contact the complainant to understand how the complaint might be best resolved. Statutory guidance will also make clear that, 10 days after receipt of a complaint, it should be formally recorded, even if a customer service approach may have been proportionate. This is to ensure that this form of resolution is limited to only those issues that can be resolved quickly. Beyond that, if there is any indication that the complaint might result in disciplinary or criminal proceedings, or might meet the criteria for mandatory referral to the IPCC, it must be recorded.

Finally, there will also be a requirement on forces, to be detailed in regulations or secondary legislation, to keep some information on the issues they resolve outside of the formal complaints system—the name of the complainant, the issue, and how it was resolved. This will allow PCCs locally to scrutinise those data and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary to inspect the robustness of the decision-making of forces in deciding what is suitable for an informal resolution. Given these safeguards, we are satisfied that there is no need for an explicit requirement that the complainant must agree at the outset to an issue being resolved informally. Ultimately, the priority for most complainants is that their complaint is dealt with to their satisfaction and as quickly as possible.

I turn to Amendment 126. The complaints and discipline system is designed on the premise that, unless matters are of exceptional seriousness and sensitivity and are therefore referred to the IPCC, they should be dealt with—in accordance with the legislation—within the force’s chain of command. The exception is where there is no ultimate senior officer, such as would arise where a complaint is made against a chief constable. In these cases, most complaints are investigated by the IPCC but some may end up being investigated by chief constables of other forces. In his independent review of the police disciplinary system in England and Wales, Chip Chapman recommended that all such investigations should be undertaken by an independent body. The Government agree with this recommendation and that is why the Bill introduces a new regulation-making power that will require complaints regarding the conduct of chief officers to be referred to the IPCC to determine whether it should conduct an independent investigation or direct an investigation. However, although the rank of Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service is one of the highest ranks in England and Wales, there is no need to include it in the proposed measure because it can be reasonably expected that the commissioner or deputy commissioner will oversee any investigation. I hope that this clarifies the matter and that, on the basis of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel free to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As far as Amendment 125 is concerned, I have no issue with a complainant being offered the option of informal resolution or a “customer service solution”—I never heard of that when I was in the police service; it shows how things have moved on—or a formal complaint. The problem we keep encountering in this House is the Government saying, “Well, it’s going to be be in statutory guidance and of course, in practice, if it’s a serious complaint or something that should be recorded, it will be recorded”. Unfortunately, the real world is not quite as ideal as the Minister makes out.

As far as Amendment 126 is concerned, I was with the noble Baroness until she said that matters needed to be referred to the IPCC where there was no ultimate senior officer. Quite clearly, in the case of the Deputy Commissioner of the Met, which is a specific rank for which any complaints have to be referred to the IPCC, there clearly is an ultimate senior officer: the Commissioner of the Met. Unfortunately, the explanation given by the noble Baroness does not help me to understand why the Deputy Commissioner of the Met is specifically mentioned.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I can explain a bit further. While new paragraph 5(1)(a) of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, inserted by Schedule 5 to the Bill, does cover the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, this is because, in the Police (Conduct) Regulations 2012, the deputy commissioner is treated in the same way as the commissioner. The Secretary of State is responsible for appointing the investigator of any conduct matter relating to both the commissioner and deputy commissioner. There is no mechanism to allow investigations into the deputy commissioner to be conducted internally. I hope that I have not confused the noble Lord further; I am just seeking to clarify the position.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 126A, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will speak to Amendment 165A in this group.

Clause 18 deals with sensitive information received by the IPCC and restrictions on disclosing that information. It amends Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 by inserting new Clause 21A, subsection (3) of which defines sensitive information as including,

“information obtained from a government department which, at the time it is provided to the Commission or the paragraph 18 investigator, is identified by the department as information the disclosure of which may, in the opinion of the relevant authority … cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.

When this House recently considered the Investigatory Powers Bill, where matters were considered to be related to the economic interests of the United Kingdom it was made explicit that these were only where the economic interests were directly linked to national security. Amendment 126A would insert the wording,

“so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”,

to make it explicit in this Bill as well as in the Investigatory Powers Bill. Amendment 165A makes a similar change to the term “economic interests” in Clause 35, which amends Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996 in relation to the restriction on disclosure of sensitive information acquired by Her Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, Clause 18 increases the protections afforded to any sensitive information that is obtained by the Independent Police Complaints Commission in the course of its investigations or by a police or National Crime Agency investigator conducting an investigation under the direction of the IPCC. Clause 18 ensures that where the IPCC or investigator receives “sensitive information” it must not disclose that information without the consent of the “relevant authority”, as defined in the clause. To assist the IPCC or investigator in fulfilling this requirement, Clause 18 places a duty on the person providing the information to make the IPCC or investigator aware that the information is sensitive and to provide enough detail to permit the identification of the appropriate “relevant authority”. Clause 35 does likewise in respect of sensitive information received by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary.

“Sensitive information” in this context means: first, that provided by or that which relates to the security and intelligence services; secondly, information derived from interception; and thirdly, information provided by a government department which may, if disclosed, cause damage to national security, international relations or the economic interests of the country or any part of it. In such instances, the government department must identify it as such when it provides the information to the IPCC or investigator. Amendments 126A and 165A seek to narrow the third part of this definition by carving out information which may cause damage to the economic interests of the UK or part of the UK, unless there is a national security link. In effect, this would mean that the IPCC, investigator or HMIC would not need the relevant authority’s consent to disclose certain economically sensitive information that could, if disclosed or handled inappropriately, have a negative economic impact on the country. The drafting approach taken in the Bill in relation to the definition of “sensitive information” is not new. The drafting simply replicates the existing definition in paragraph 19ZD of Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002, which these provisions replace.

I stress that the primary purpose of Clauses 18 and 35 is not to prevent sensitive information being provided for legitimate reasons, such as to the CPS in the event of criminal proceedings, but, rather, to protect that information and ensure that it is handled appropriately. Simply because a piece of information falls under the definition of “sensitive information” in Clauses 18 or 35, the relevant authority cannot unreasonably withhold its consent to its disclosure; it is a matter of public law that decisions made by the relevant authorities must be both reasonable and rational. The Government are simply closing a gap to provide additional certainty and reassurance around the handling of sensitive information, not to prevent any greater disclosure than is absolutely necessary.

I hope that that has clarified the matter for the noble Lord and that he is content to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that lengthy explanation, but it does not answer the question that I asked. The drafting may not be new but my understanding is that it is inconsistent with the Investigatory Powers Bill. We sought clarification and the Government agreed to put it on the face of the Bill that economic interests meant economic interests that are likely to impact on national security. It may be consistent with previous legislation but my understanding is that it is not consistent with the most recent legislation. That is the question that I hoped she would answer. I understand and accept everything that she has said; it is what is missing that is key.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Perhaps I can provide further clarification, although I am not sure that it will clarify matters much better. Clause 18 talks about,

“the economic interests of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”.

Clause 62 of the Investigatory Powers Bill says,

“in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom so far as those interests are also relevant to the interests of national security”.

There is a variation in the drafting of the two Bills because the provisions serve entirely different purposes. It is right that where authority is being sought to obtain communications data or to issue warrants for the purpose of the economic well-being of the UK, it should be done only where it is also relevant to the interests of national security. In Clause 18 of this Bill, the definition of “sensitive information” is intended to provide a safeguard to ensure that, whenever the IPCC handles particular types of information that originate from the security services or from government departments, it checks with the relevant authority before disclosing that information. The noble Lord does not look convinced but I hope that that has provided further clarification.

[Lord Paddick]

I need to improve my poker face skills. I am very grateful to the Minister for that explanation. I will read it to see whether I can get the answer to my question from what she has said, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the important amendments in this group relate to the circumstances in which disciplinary action may be taken against former police officers and former special constables.

Clause 28 will allow for the extension of the disciplinary regime to former officers where an allegation arose before they resigned or retired, or arose within a period of time following their resignation or retirement. The relevant period will be specified in regulations and we have made it clear that we intend to specify 12 months. On Report in the Commons, the then Policing Minister undertook to bring forward amendments which would set aside the 12-month time limit in exceptional circumstances. The government amendments in this group make good on that commitment.

I start by recognising, as the whole House does, that the vast majority of police officers and special constables conduct themselves with absolute integrity. They serve our communities with distinction and loyalty throughout their careers and, in doing so, demonstrate the values set out in the College of Policing’s Code of Ethics on standards of professional behaviour. Nevertheless, and regrettably, a small minority do not meet the high standards of professionalism that the public rightly expect. The public also expect those suspected of serious misconduct to be subject to formal disciplinary proceedings and that, where officers are in the wrong, they are held to account for their actions. Indeed, that is what both the public, and the majority of decent, dedicated and hard-working police officers in this country deserve.

The Bill already contains significant reforms to increase the accountability of former police officers. As I have indicated, the provisions in Clause 28, and the accompanying regulations, will ensure that where an allegation that could have led to dismissal had the officer still been serving comes to the attention of a force within 12 months of an officer’s resignation or retirement, or where an individual resigns while an investigation is ongoing, this can be investigated or continue to be investigated and that, where appropriate, disciplinary action can be taken to hold the officer to account for serious wrongdoing. Where a case is proven, the new police barred list will ensure that the individual concerned is prevented from future service in policing.

These are important steps, but we need to go further, particularly in the wake of high-profile cases where there is a perception that retired officers suspected of committing the most serious acts of gross misconduct have not been held to account where such acts cause serious harm to public trust and confidence in policing. In these cases, which can emerge long after individuals have left policing, there is more to be done to prevent the perception that officers who have left policing are able to evade accountability. We recognise the strength of feeling in relation to such cases and, in particular, the public concern that police officers who commit the most serious acts of wrongdoing should be held to account for their actions. The Government also recognise the importance of ensuring that the measures introduced are proportionate for policing as a whole and fair for individual officers.

The amendments that stand in my name achieve this important principle of accountability and do so in a way that is robust, fair and proportionate. In effect, these create the new exceptional circumstances test, which will be applied by the IPCC and, in due course, by the director general of the Office for Police Conduct, following the reforms to the IPCC. In our view it is right that the decision as to whether the exceptional circumstances test is met is taken by an organisation independent of government and free from any politicised decision-making. The IPCC carries out its role and functions in a way that is well established within the sector as the independent watchdog for policing.

It would be only in those cases where this test is met and the IPCC has determined that it would be reasonable and proportionate to do so that disciplinary proceedings could be instigated. In deciding whether the exceptional circumstances test is met, the IPCC will have to have regard to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, inefficiency or ineffectiveness, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police and the public interest. We will set out in regulations the matters to be taken into account by the IPCC in making such a determination.

This will mean that disciplinary proceedings can be brought in relation to the most serious matters which are considered of an exceptional nature where serious and lasting harm has been caused to public confidence in policing as a result of the wrongdoing. As with the original provisions set out in Clause 28, the exceptional circumstances test will not operate retrospectively. As such, these provisions will apply only to those officers who are serving on or after the date that they come into force. Where there is a finding that the former officer would have been dismissed at a subsequent misconduct hearing, the individual will be barred from future service in police and other law-enforcement agencies.

Amendment 138 gives effect to these changes in respect of former police officers, Amendment 140 in respect of former special constables and Amendment 144 in respect of former MoD police officers. Amendments 139, 141 and 145 clarify that, in cases where the investigation or disciplinary proceedings concerning the former officer, special constable or member of the Ministry of Defence Police arise from a decision to reinvestigate a matter previously closed, this can lead to disciplinary proceedings only in cases which either meet the exceptional circumstances test or where the reinvestigation commences within the specified time limit. Amendments 160, 161 and 162 are consequential on the main amendments and the changes to the governance of the IPCC. They provide that, in future, these determinations will be made by the director general of the Office for Police Conduct.

Amendments 149, 150 and 151 clarify the operation of the police advisory list. The amendment makes it clear that the duty on chief officers and others to report officers to the College of Policing applies only in the case of officers who at the time of leaving the force are under active investigation. The amendments will mean that in circumstances where an officer was previously under investigation while serving but the investigation concluded with no disciplinary proceedings being brought and subsequently the officer leaves the force, the duty to report the officer to the college shall not apply. This eliminates potential ambiguity in the legislation and makes it clear that reports are required only when an individual is subject to an ongoing investigation.

Amendments 142 and 143, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, are directed at the same end as the key government amendments in this group. I hope that, having heard my explanation of the government amendments, the noble Lord is satisfied that they deliver a similar outcome. I commend the government amendments to the Committee and I beg to move Amendment 138.

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, we broadly welcome the government amendments in this group and, subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, has to say on the Labour amendments, they seem to cover similar ground.

I have some questions, but I agree with the Minister that the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, decent people who want only to do their best to protect and serve the public. However, if an officer has left the service and, within 12 months, an investigation takes place which, if the officer was still serving, could have resulted in that officer being sacked, what sanctions would be available against such an officer, other than their name being added to the banned list?

I understand that “exceptional circumstances”, in terms of the most serious acts of wrongdoing, needs to be defined by an independent body. We will come later on in our considerations to talk about the Independent Police Complaints Commission and whether it is truly independent. It is slightly concerning that one criterion that the IPCC would have to look at, in deciding what action to take, is the impact on public trust and confidence in the police, because it could take the decision that the impact of exposing serious misconduct through an investigation would have such a detrimental impact on that trust and confidence that it would use it as a reason not to investigate rather than an obligation to do so. So we have to be very careful about the grounds on which the IPCC should or should not consider something to be exceptional wrongdoing.

Clearly, many members of the public will be very concerned, or disappointed, that the legislation will not be retrospective, particularly with regard to those involved in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. The concern is not with the rank and file officers in that case; the concern is with what happened in the aftermath, and the leadership exercised at Hillsborough. However, as I say, we are generally supportive of the government amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords who have responded to both the government amendments and the other amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about the ultimate sanction for someone who had retired. The ultimate sanction is that the officer is found to have committed gross misconduct at a public misconduct hearing, with the panel finding that the officer would have been dismissed, and, therefore, as a consequence, should be added to the police barred list. Inclusion on the police barred list would see the officer banned from any future service in policing and added to the published list for a period of five years. Perhaps the noble Lord was referring to a police officer in this situation who had retired anyway and had no intention of going back into the police. However, if I had served 40 years in an organisation, such a judgment would be a pretty awful outcome for my career. Therefore, although there would be no actual effect on the person’s life, the ultimate judgment of misconduct in public office would fulfil that purpose.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way but my understanding is that, in the past at least, it has been possible in exceptional circumstances for a disciplinary authority to reduce the pension, for example, of somebody who is dismissed or forced to resign from the police service. Will the noble Baroness write to me explaining whether that sort of sanction might be available?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I will certainly write to the noble Lord. I can envisage such a situation where somebody was sanctioned before they retired. In fact, I have the answer—the cavalry arrived in the nick of time. The measure will not directly impact an officer’s pension. However, if criminal activity is identified following an investigation and the officer is convicted, it will be open to the force, as now, to apply for some of the officer’s pension to be forfeited.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, was disappointed that the measure was not retrospective in circumstances such as Hillsborough. I think that most noble Lords would share that disappointment. However, we make laws in line with established principles. It is in line with established principles that new laws generally should not be retrospective. They will apply only to officers who are serving when the relevant provisions are commenced. These matters do not in any way affect criminal investigations and prosecutions which, as now, can be pursued at any stage. So, yes, it is disappointing, but it is in line with established practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the exceptional circumstances. I repeat that the IPCC will have regard to the seriousness of the alleged misconduct, the inefficiency or the ineffectiveness, the impact of the allegation on public confidence in the police and the public interest. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Blair and Lord Condon, for making the very important point about the necessity and proportionality of these measures.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

My Lords, Amendment 164A is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. I will also speak to the other amendment in the group, Amendment 164B. Clause 35 addresses the powers of inspectors—that is, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary—to obtain information, to secure access to police premises, and other matters by substituting paragraphs 6A and 6B in Schedule 4A to the Police Act 1996. New paragraph 6B talks about the powers of inspectors to obtain access to police premises and paragraph 6B(1)(a)(iii) talks about who can be served with a notice requiring them to allow access to premises, including,

“a person providing services, in pursuance of contractual arrangements (but without being employed by a chief officer of police of the police force or its local policing body)”.

The amendment deletes “but” and replaces it with “with or”, so it would cover a person who is employed by the police, as well as someone who is not. Amendment 164B makes a similar change to who can appeal against such a notice. I beg to move.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the amendment presumably aims to ensure that inspectors have comprehensive access to premises used for policing purposes, and that Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary is able to inspect the totality of policing in a landscape where functions are increasingly delivered by multiple agencies. The noble Lord nods; I thought that was probably the aim. The Government wholeheartedly agree with that aim, which is the purpose of this Bill’s inspection provisions.

The amendment does not actually further that aim. The current wording already ensures that inspectors have access to any premises used in the delivery of policing functions, whether they are occupied by the force itself, the local policing body, another emergency service acting in collaboration with the force or a private company carrying out the activities of a force under a contract. I put it to the noble Lord that these amendments would not, in practice, extend the categories of premises to which an inspector had access. Any premises occupied for the purposes of a police force by persons employed under contract by the chief officer are already captured in these provisions. That being the case, I think the noble Lord would agree that the amendments were unnecessary. I invite him to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. Clearly the amendment is not designed to extend the category of premises that HMIC would be able to access. It is about extending the category of person upon which a notice could be served. It appears to us that the wording in the Bill is restrictive and needs to be broadened. We are trying to broaden the category of person on which the notice can be served.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It might be helpful to the noble Lord to hear that this is covered by government Amendment 166, which ensures that any other person who is,

“by virtue of any enactment … carrying out the activities of”,

a police force is subject to inspection.

[Lord Paddick]

I am grateful for that second explanation and will consider it carefully. In the interim, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. It is of course very difficult not to stray into other amendments when talking about something in the round. I thank my noble friend Lady Redfern for laying out her experience of using volunteer police officers in Lincolnshire. It must be one of the first areas in the country to do that, so it was very useful to have that information in the round. In thinking about my noble friend Lord Deben’s point about the importance of the public knowing the difference between a volunteer and a special police constable, or indeed a fully trained officer, I asked myself whether I wondered, when my children were at school, what the difference was between the teaching assistant and the fully trained teacher. In fact, as long as they both contributed to my child’s education, I was not that much bothered—but it may be an issue for some people and I recognise the point that my noble friend makes.

Amendment 167 returns to an issue that was debated at length in the House of Commons: namely, whether it is ever right for designated members of police staff, or the new category of designated volunteers, to carry these particular sprays for defensive purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has also given notice that he intends to oppose the question that Clause 38 should stand part of the Bill.

I hope that I can assist the Committee by first explaining what Clause 38 seeks to achieve. It makes necessary consequential amendments to the Firearms Act 1968 to ensure that police volunteers come within the definition of “civilian officers” for the purposes of that Act. The effect of this is that they do not then need a firearms certificate or authorisation under either Section 1 or Section 5 of the 1968 Act in order to carry a defensive spray. The clause simply puts community support volunteers and policing support volunteers in the same position in relation to defensive sprays that police officers and police civilian staff are currently in.

Clause 37(6) makes it clear that police staff and volunteers cannot use other weapons within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968 unless the Secretary of State makes regulations under new Section 38(9B)(b) of the Police Reform Act 2002. Any such regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Lord Paddick]

To clarify what the noble Baroness has just said, could the Secretary of State, by regulations, authorise police volunteers to carry guns, if they were so minded?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I will repeat that Clause 37(6) makes it clear that police staff and volunteers cannot use other weapons within the meaning of the Firearms Act 1968 unless the Secretary of State makes regulations under new Section 38(9B)(b). Yes, it does read like that—but, as the law currently covers this, it is only trained police officers within London who can be armed.

[Lord Paddick]

Yes, but I think the Minister has just agreed with me that, through regulations, the Secretary of State could allow police volunteers to be given guns without the need for a firearms certificate. That is slightly worrying.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I am pretty much as certain as I ever can be about anything that it is not the intention of the Bill to allow volunteers to carry guns—but I suspect that I need to provide some further clarification, and hopefully I will do that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

I do not want to prolong the agony, but another aspect of this is that members of the public should be reasonably sure about what level of force they are going to encounter from whom. As I say, special constables now are virtually indistinguishable from regular police officers; if a special constable decides to use a defensive spray, that will not come as a shock to the member of the public. In terms of the way that the member of the public interacts with a police officer or special constable, they may or may not use force against that individual on the basis of what they anticipate the reaction of that person to be, or the ability of the person to respond to it. When it comes to a volunteer police community support officer, who does all the wonderful things that the Minister said earlier, I think it is going to be a bit of a shock, and an unreasonable one, to expect such a volunteer to respond with an incapacitant spray.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, may I perhaps make a bit of progress on what I was already outlining? Much of what I am going to say answers the questions that noble Lords are asking.

The argument has been put forward that issuing PCSOs with defensive equipment is somehow incompatible with those officers’ primary role, which is to engage with members of the public in their communities. If we examine the way in which different forces equip their PCSOs, we can see that there are different approaches. Some forces equip their PCSOs with body armour and some do not, and the same is true of handcuffs, yet all forces use their PCSOs as the key point of engagement with their local communities. I was one of the people who was very sceptical about PCSOs, but they now have a lot of respect in communities across the country. If the prevailing security situation were such that a particular chief officer considered it necessary to issue their PCSOs with defensive sprays—I emphasise to noble Lords that none has to date—the Government consider that they should be able to, subject of course to the test of suitability, capability and training already set out in the Police Reform Act 2002.

It has also been argued that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of defensive sprays, to which our response has two limbs. First, if an officer or volunteer has not been properly trained in the use of any power, the law simply does not allow a chief officer to designate that officer or volunteer with the power in question. Section 38(4) of the Police Reform Act 2002, as amended by Clause 37 of the Bill, already states that a chief officer cannot designate the person with a power unless they are satisfied that they are both suitable and capable of exercising the power and that they have received adequate training in the exercise and performance of the powers and duties to be conferred.

However, we do not consider that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of defensive sprays. On 31 March this year, there were over 16,000 special constables in the 43 police forces in England and Wales and the British Transport Police, all of whom have the full powers of a police officer, performed on a volunteer basis for at least 12 hours per month.

I was grateful to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, at Second Reading, on his strong support for members of the special constabulary, with whom he will definitely have worked during his career policing. As he said, special constables receive extensive training and have all the powers of a regular constable. Many of those specials patrol on a regular basis with their full-time colleagues and they carry identical equipment, including body armour, batons and defensive sprays—again, in exactly the way as their full-time colleagues. It is therefore patently not the case that it is impractical to train volunteers in the use of such equipment. Any volunteer who did not want to carry such a spray, could not undertake the training or was not suitable would not be designated by their chief to carry and use it, even if others in their force were so designated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick]

On a very similar point, the Minister just said that while chief constables have the power to issue incapacitant spray to PCSOs, no chief constable has done so to date. Why do the Government now feel it necessary to give chief constables the power to give incapacitant spray to volunteer community support officers?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is simply to give chief officers the flexibility to use their workforce and their volunteer force to the best end in fighting crime and reassuring communities. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, asks why, for example, a volunteer cannot simply become a special constable. There are many reasons why you might want to be a volunteer rather than a special constable. We are focused today on the deployment of PAVA and CS spray, but actually a volunteer could be a police volunteer. They could be a retired accountant, for example, or a retired lawyer, and may want to bring their skills to the police but may not want to volunteer for any more than that, or indeed become a special constable.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard - part two): House of Lords
Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for her explanation of this amendment to Clause 48, which amends the 1996 Act to require the Police Federation, in fulfilling its core purpose, to protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and of transparency —as the noble Baroness said. There was a discussion the other day about what the public interest is. I understood that, in a different context, it was not what the public were interested in but something quite different.

In the spring of 2013, the Police Federation commissioned a review to consider whether any changes were required to its operation or structure to ensure that it continued to promote the public good as well as the interests and welfare of its members. The panel’s final report, Police Federation Independent Review, known widely as the Normington review, was published in January 2014 and made 36 recommendations to improve trust, accountability, professionalism and member services. Recommendation 1 was the adoption of a revised core purpose that reflects the Police Federation’s commitment to act in the public interest. The Police Federation accepted the review’s recommendations in their entirety and has already publicly adopted a revised core purpose on a non-statutory basis. The Normington review was clear that a reformed federation would act in the interests of both its members and the public.

Clause 48 focuses on how the Police Federation discharges its representative role—namely by considering the public interest in its actions, in the same way that the police uphold the public interest in all their actions, whether that is fighting crime on the front line or representing colleagues as a member of the federation. The clause does not conflict with the Police Federation’s representative purpose and will not, for example, require it to act against the interests of its members. The ambition here is to ensure that the federation does not operate against the public interest. Indeed, the Police Federation itself, acting in line with the recommendations of Sir David Normington and his review, asked the Government to enshrine its revised core purposes in legislation. That is exactly what this clause achieves.

Sadly, as the Normington review highlighted, a culture of “narrow self-interest” has permeated the federation in recent years—one of “distrust and division”, as he described it. The Government wish to support the federation in proving that it can serve its members and respect the public interest in providing a representative voice for police officers, with professionalism and integrity.

The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made a point about changing the purpose of the Police Federation as set out in the Police Act 1996. Clause 48, as worded, is clear that the federation must protect the public interest and maintain high standards of conduct and transparency in fulfilling that purpose. The Police Act 1996 sets out what the federation should do and Clause 48 sets out how it must deliver that.

The noble Lord also asked what happens when the public interest and the interests of the police diverge. The Normington review was clear that a reformed federation would act in the interests of both its members and the public. Section 59 of the Police Act 1996 provides that the purpose of the Police Federation is to represent members of the police forces in England and Wales in all matters affecting their welfare and efficiency.

Could the federation be challenged in the courts? It could, on the basis that it was not fulfilling its purpose as set out in Section 9(1) of the Police Act 1996 in a way that protected the public interest, but it may already be challenged on the basis that it was not fulfilling its existing purpose.

I hope I have provided some explanation and that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Lord Paddick]

I do not think the Minister answered my question about what the clause adds over and above what is within the Nolan principles.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

The Nolan principles underpin every single aspect of involvement in public life. Obviously, this is specific to the police in a certain context, but I think the two should go hand in hand. Obviously, there are different aspects to the police compared with other public professions, but anyone who is in public office needs to sign up to the Nolan principles. This is an aspect that applies to the police.

Criminal Justice: Anonymity

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Tuesday 25th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I can tell the noble and learned Lord that guidance and reference material is published by the College of Policing on its Authorised Professional Practice website. It discourages the naming of suspects save in clearly identified circumstances. The College of Policing is consulting on that guidance and we look forward to reading what that throws up.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, although there is a principle of being innocent until proved guilty, when it comes to sexual offences the attitude of many of the perhaps irresponsible media, and certainly the attitude of many members of the public, is that the principle is that there is no smoke without fire?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

I certainly agree with the noble Lord, and in fact we spoke about this very point yesterday. We talked about the need for balance, as well as the responsibility of the media. We can all think of cases where the media have reported in perhaps totally irresponsible ways, so in that sense I concur with what he says.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 17th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, the inquiry has made good progress since it was established. It is not appropriate for me or the Home Secretary to be briefed in detail on the activity of an independent inquiry while it is under way. However, the inquiry has indicated that it is making good progress in all 13 investigation strands. Preliminary hearings have taken place, evidence has been called for, and the inquiry has received more than 47,000 documents. A research project has been established to support the inquiry’s existing investigations, assist to scope and define future investigations, publish original research on child sexual abuse and analyse information that the inquiry receives from victims and survivors. In addition, sessions have been arranged for hundreds of victims and survivors to come forward and share their experiences with the inquiry. Noble Lords may have seen a statement made earlier today by the chair on her view of the terms of reference. She says that she believes that the terms of reference for the inquiry are necessary and deliverable. She had previously undertaken that an interim report would be with the inquiry before the end of this financial year.

On financing, as I said, the inquiry had a budget of £17.9 million last year. It underspent on that by some £3 million.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, we on these Benches are concerned that lessons of past child sex abuse cases should be learned and applied as quickly as possible. Can the Minister reassure the House that immediate steps to address obvious weaknesses in the way such cases are dealt with will not be deferred pending the outcome of this inquiry?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I understand that an internal review of the inquiry will take place. The noble Lord talked about consideration of current cases. Sorry, will he repeat the final bit of his question?

[Lord Paddick]

The concern that we have is that because this inquiry is taking such a long time, there might be some obvious weaknesses in the way that these cases are currently being dealt with that could be addressed but are being put off because the inquiry is still ongoing.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

That would be a matter for the inquiry to consider. It is an independent inquiry and it is not for us to try to micromanage or dictate what it does. It is independent. But I take the noble Lord’s point and I am sure the inquiry will be mindful of that.

Orgreave: Public Inquiry into Policing

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Wednesday 20th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

Like my noble friend, I remember those years, because I lived in a mining village in the north-east. As she considers all the evidence from the campaign, the Home Secretary will weigh up what it says and decide whether to pursue an inquiry. She will do that quickly.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I declare that I was a serving police officer at the time of the miners’ strike, but I played absolutely no part whatever in its policing. Would the Minister agree that holding a public inquiry at the same time as criminal and police misconduct investigations could create legal complexities, and that the Home Secretary needs to take the views of the IPCC carefully into account, along with the views of the others involved, even if the IPCC is not making the decision about the public inquiry itself?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

It is important to understand the two roles—the noble Lord of course does. The Home Secretary will arrive at her conclusions based on the evidence she looks at over the next few weeks. The IPCC will take a view as an independent body.

Terrorist Attack in Nice

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 18th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and congratulate her on her new appointment, which I personally warmly welcome. I say “personally” because I am sure she will be a formidable adversary, but I welcome her on a personal level. I add our condolences from these Benches to all those affected by the horrific events in Nice—a truly horrifying massacre of innocent people.

As a result of my research on the Investigatory Powers Bill, I have been privileged to visit the headquarters of MI6 and GCHQ in recent months, and have been astounded by what those services are capable of and the work that they do. They deserve the highest praise. I know from personal experience in the police service of the expertise that exists in terms of policing events involving public order where large numbers of people gather. I am greatly reassured by the combination of those two bodies in the UK. Can the Minister comment on what appears to be a worrying trend that, far from being devout religious individuals holding extreme religious views, the people involved in these sorts of attacks are socially excluded, vulnerable petty criminals influenced by those advocating violent extremism based on a grotesque distortion of true Islam? I want to make an important distinction: they are being influenced by violent extremism, which should be seen as distinct from simply extremism, which the Statement mentioned.

Whether terrorist outrages are carefully pre-planned events, planned and co-ordinated by Daesh from Syria, or the actions of lone wolves inspired by Daesh, preventing them effectively depends on the sharing of intelligence across international boundaries. We need to know where to concentrate our limited resources, based on that intelligence. Can the Minister reassure the House that saving human lives will be placed above Brexit politics, and that the new Foreign Secretary is urgently acting to preserve and enhance links with our European Union partners so that effective counterterrorism co-operation improves rather than declines as a result of the UK leaving the European Union?

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many British citizens were victims of this attack. It is too early to say, but when we do have that information I am sure it will be shared with noble Lords across the House. He also asked about British citizens living here, or in France, being worried. The FCO has information on its website which is regularly and frequently updated. Citizens can contact the consulate, either at home or abroad, for updated advice about whether to travel or to find out whether their loved ones have been involved in this atrocity. The noble Lord talked about the lessons learned from Nice. He makes a very valid point. A COBRA meeting was held on Friday; we are always learning lessons and updating security to do things better. I am proud of the work that we have done in collaboration with the French authorities since this terrible attack. The noble Lord asked about strengthening funding for the security and intelligence services. We will be putting an extra £2.5 billion into them.

The noble Lord also asked about hate crimes increasing—they have. They increased after Paris last year and they increased after the EU referendum. I would not be surprised if another incident did not trigger another spike in hate crimes. In my other job, I talked about how communities have been quite resilient and come together since the Brexit vote. The Polish community certainly felt very strongly that the community around it was very much its friend. The community had come together to comfort and help each other in the wake of these events which were caused by a few criminals. That is what they are—criminals—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, they are extreme, violent people. We need to think about how our communities build up that resilience and to build on the cohesion work we have done to ensure that if anything else threatens us we are resilient to attacks and hate crime.

The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, is absolutely right that the individuals who commit these crimes are not originally motivated by religion. They are isolated, bitter individuals who use some of the online forums that are so accessible and encouraging to them to promote, in the case of Nice, an extreme act of violence. Of course we do not know what has motivated this individual but I am sure that we will soon find out. The noble Lord also made a very good point about saving human lives being above Brexit. We have always worked with our neighbours in France, including before we even had a European Union. We will continue to collaborate with them, as we have done so effectively over the last few days.

UK: Number of Households

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Monday 29th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

There is no doubt that there is pressure on housing demand from all sorts of sources, including immigration. The point that I was trying to make is that we want skilled people to come here to fill some of the skills gaps, but we do not want people simply coming here to look for work without having secured a job.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, would it not be a far more positive approach to stop blaming immigration for the lack of housing and to start building more homes?

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Revision of Code A) Order 2015

Debate between Baroness Williams of Trafford and Lord Paddick

Thursday 22nd January 2015 Grand Committee

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, the statutory instrument before us will bring into effect a revised Code of Practice A issued under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, also known as PACE. This code, laid before this House under Section 67(7) of PACE, governs the police’s use of stop-and-search powers. It sets out what the powers are, the preconditions for their use and how they should be exercised.

I shall briefly explain how we have arrived at the revised Code A before us. On 30 April last year, the Home Secretary announced to Parliament a comprehensive package of measures to reform the use of stop and search. The principal aim of these reforms is to ensure that the police use their powers effectively, fairly and in a way that promotes community confidence. There was overwhelming evidence that reform was right and necessary. The Home Office carried out an extensive public consultation on the powers, which attracted more than 5,000 responses and presented a clear case for reform.

Additionally, HMIC published a report in which inspectors reviewed the use of stop-and-search powers in all 43 forces of England and Wales. The findings of the HMIC inspection were very concerning. It reported, for example, that 27% of stop-and-search records they examined did not contain reasonable grounds to search people; many of these records had been endorsed by supervising officers. If the HMIC sample was representative, it means that a quarter of the 1 million or so stops carried out under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act last year could have been illegal. This is why the Government have committed to revising the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code of Practice A: to make clear to all officers what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion. This is the legal basis on which police officers carry out the vast majority of stops. It is also why the Government have made it clear that, where officers are not using their powers properly, they could be subject to formal performance or disciplinary action.

The proposed changes to the code do not alter the nature of the stop-and-search power. Rather, the intention of the revised Code A is to provide a clear direction to those leaders, trainers, supervisors and officers exercising the powers themselves that the use of this power is conditional on there being a genuine and reasonable suspicion that the officer will find the article in question. Therefore, the police cannot choose to stop and search on the basis of a hunch, a social or racial stereotype or otherwise. The revised PACE Code A before your Lordships is central to the use of stop and search; for this reason, it is essential that we get it right. The revisions have been subject to an eight-week consultation and enjoy a broad spectrum of support. If we are to improve professionalism in the police, increase public confidence and enhance accountability, I urge noble Lords to support this revision of Code A. I beg to move.

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, as a former police officer with more than 30 years’ experience, and as someone who has been concerned for some time about the use of stop and search by the police, I welcome these regulations. The important aspect of the new guidance is the fact that stop and search has to be conducted on the basis that the prohibited item will actually be found on the individual. That is the crucial point. I still have concerns that it is not merely changes in legislation or guidance to police officers that is required, but a change in the culture of the police. The evidence that my noble friend the Minister presented showed that not only did a number of the stop-and-search forms examined by HMIC not contain the necessary evidence from the officer who conducted the stop and search, but these stop-and-search forms were actually supervised and no action was taken. While welcoming particularly this aspect about the prohibited item, I think more needs to be done. Hopefully, the Minister will be able to reassure us that the College of Policing is following up the changes in the guidance with a commitment to improving the training given, both to front-line officers and to their supervisors.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Once again, I thank the Minister for her explanation of the background to, and purpose of this order, which we support. The order, as the noble Lady has said, brings into force a revised code of practice that is intended to make clear what constitutes reasonable grounds for suspicion when police officers decide to exercise their statutory powers of stop and search. It also indicates that, if these powers are not exercised lawfully, performance or disciplinary procedures could be instituted.

As the Minister said, and as the Explanatory Memorandum also states, Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that 27% of the stop-and- search records that they examined did not contain reasonable grounds to search people. The inspectorate attributed this to poor levels of understanding among officers about what constitutes reasonable grounds and poor supervision.

On the point that has just been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, in relation to culture as much as anything, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that a review is taking place of the national training on stop and search through the College of Policing. Perhaps the noble Baroness could indicate when it is expected that the review will be completed. The Explanatory Memorandum also states that,

“the College of Policing will consider introducing a requirement that stop and search training should be subject to assessment and refreshed on a rolling basis”,

with failure to pass meaning that,

“officers could not use the powers in the course of their duties”.

Can the Minister indicate when a decision is likely on whether to introduce this requirement referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum?

Perhaps I may also raise a few points on the consultation that took place on the revisions to the code of practice. Were any significant issues raised by the campaigning and community support groups and organisations referred to that responded not adopted and, if so, what were they? If I read it correctly, the Explanatory Memorandum indicates that responses were received from six police forces and one police and crime commissioner. In view of the importance of appropriate use of the stop-and-search powers for good police and community relations, that would seem, on the face of it, to be a low level of response from the police. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in her reply and say whether the Metropolitan Police was one of the forces that responded.

The Explanatory Memorandum sets out in paragraph 12 the success criteria for the changes. One of the criteria is:

“Reduction in the use of stop and search and improvements in police and community relations”.

Is there a target for the reduction in the use of stop and search? The Explanatory Memorandum states that the implementation and impact of the changes in the code of practice will be monitored “on an ongoing basis”. When is it likely that information on the progress being made will first appear in the public domain?

Having asked all those questions, I repeat that we support the order.