Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

My Lords, I support the change in position made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, between Committee and today regarding allowing Parliament to discuss the prosecution code without it being incorporated in a statutory instrument. It might help the Director of Public Prosecutions, the director of the Serious Fraud Office and the prosecuting authorities generally to have the views of Parliament expressed in a debate in Parliament before the code is finally adopted.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, Amendments 116DA and 116DB revisit an issue that we considered in Committee: namely, parliamentary scrutiny of a code of practice for prosecutors to support the DPA scheme. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, said, the issue has changed somewhat. In providing for a code of practice for prosecutors in relation to DPAs, the Government have been clear that the intention is to ensure consistency with other statutory provisions relating to guidance for prosecutors on operational matters. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, referred to HSBC and the related US experience. As has been said previously, the DPA is a new addition to the UK system, and we will be looking to apply it at a future point. However, for now the Government’s position has been made clear.

The code of practice for DPAs, in the same way as the code for Crown prosecutors, will provide guidance on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in making decisions and on key procedural and operational matters concerning DPAs. The independence of prosecutors is fundamental to the effective operation of DPAs. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate for the code for DPAs to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of the Serious Fraud Office. The Government have absolute confidence in the directors.

I hear what my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay mentioned in support of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Beecham. However, the Government do not consider it necessary to make the code subject to parliamentary scrutiny. As DPAs become enshrined in UK law, I am sure that we will return to these issues. Indeed, the opportunity remains for any noble Lord to raise this issue through appropriate parliamentary procedures, be they QSDs or any other.

The approach to publication of the code provided in the schedule is wholly consistent with that under Sections 9 and 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 in respect of the code for Crown prosecutors. The code of practice for DPAs, both the first and any future versions, will be provided to the Attorney-General by way of the Director of Public Prosecutions’ annual report, and he will in turn lay it before Parliament. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not raise any concerns about this proposed approach for the code of practice. The code is an operational document that needs to be responsive to the context in which it operates. The proposed amendments would, in particular, restrict the directors’ ability to amend or update the code as necessary to reflect timely changes in the law or lessons learnt having utilised the DPA process. The key elements of a DPA are clearly set out in the Bill. The code of practice will support the operation of the process, and the directors have committed to consult on its contents.

Amendment 119A would introduce a new and very broad basis for corporate criminal liability. Currently, there is a statutory basis for dealing with specific offending on the part of corporate bodies, for example, statutory provisions exist for dealing with corporate manslaughter, bribery and regulatory offending, such as health and safety rules. There is, however, no legislation which expressly creates general criminal liability for companies. Wider corporate liability is founded upon common law rules which attribute liability to a corporate body where the conduct is on the part of the directors, officers and those who occupy roles at the corporate centre. However, reliance is often placed on individual liability where there are many punishments and sanctions available to deal with economic or financial wrongdoing. This is, to a degree, due to the fact that corporate prosecutions are much more difficult and complicated than individual prosecutions and furthermore cases often involve lengthy and costly investigations.

The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also referred to this point in relation to the Bribery Act 2010. The extent to which the current law of corporate criminal liability can be improved upon by employing the new “failure to prevent” formulation incorporated in the Bribery Act 2010—which the noble Lord’s amendment seeks loosely to emulate—is a matter for long-term examination. As I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, appreciates, the Bribery Act has been in force for less than 18 months. It is appropriate to allow the provision in the Act to bed down before we examine the extent to which the formulation could be usefully rolled out into other areas. However, I assure the House that the Government are committed to ensuring that investigators, prosecutors and the courts have the right tools to address financial and economic crime effectively, as is evidenced by Schedule 17.

DPAs have been specifically designed to ensure that corporate bodies are held responsible for alleged financial or economic wrongdoing on their part by providing an alternative means of disposal and a broader scope of sanctions. We remain satisfied that it is correct for the Government to focus on offering an additional route for holding to account organisations that are willing to engage in the process or otherwise face prosecution rather than on the basis of the liability itself. The noble Lord, Lord Beecham, also asked me to speculate on any level about the Sentencing Council and what it may arrive at. I am sure he appreciates that it would be totally inappropriate for me to speculate in that regard. In light of my explanations, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, will withdraw his amendment.

Minority Ethnic and Religious Communities: Cultural and Economic Contribution

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 24th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria. I do so on three fronts. First, I congratulate him on initiating this most vital debate which celebrates the contribution of all communities to Britain. Secondly, I congratulate him on the 150th anniversary of the Zoroastrian trust funds and, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the Zoroastrian community on that achievement. Thirdly, I congratulate the noble Lord on his personal contribution not just to this Chamber but to the country and business community at large. I assure him that I speak on a factual basis when I say that he is an inspiration to many youngsters from all communities and backgrounds in our country.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, if you glance at the list of speakers, you will see that there are speakers not just from some defined minority communities but from all communities. That is what Britain represents today. The strength of our diversity is evident. A speaker who is to follow me shares my surname and another comes from Wimbledon, like me. Noble Lords speaking today are testament to the dedication, devotion and commitment shown by many communities throughout the country, and indeed by former generations such as people of my parents’ generation who made Britain their home and were willing to work hard. To my mind the most important point is that their success truly reflects the incredible country in which we live.

As we celebrate and recognise the contributions of different communities, particularly the Zoroastrian community, and the contribution that faith has made to Britain, we should also pay tribute and recognise the fact that our country is one where opportunity, progress and perseverance are rewarded, where freedom of religion is not just protected but promoted, and where the strength of our country is evident in the diversity of what Britain is today.

I wish briefly to focus on two elements—first, in terms of my professional background in business and the City. Glass ceilings, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, have been broken. Look around the Square Mile and you will see the diversity of our nation in the people who work in that most important of London areas— not through regulated quotas but by an evolution in our society, a meritocracy and sheer hard work.

Secondly, as a Muslim in Britain, I consider Islam to be under the microscope, and often headlines are made because of the work of splinter and radical elements who present Islam in a negative and erroneous way. It clear that there are many Muslim communities in Britain—including my own, the Ahmadiyya Muslim community—that demonstrate not through words alone but through actions that they are not just law-abiding citizens but active and productive contributors to the economy and welfare of our society. Therefore, as we rightly condemn those who burn flags on the return of our brave troops, we should also recognise the efforts of Muslim communities such as mine, whose youth groups have raised thousands of pounds through poppy appeals and, indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, have most recently celebrated Her Majesty’s Jubilee by raising a quarter of a million pounds for British-based charities.

Like other Peers, I recognise that all communities serve actively on the front line. They serve their Queen and country. Today, as the world focuses on London, with Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee and the arrival of the Olympics, from churches to synagogues, from mosques to temples, and from gurdwaras to community centres—indeed, in every street in every home across Britain—let us raise a glass, say a prayer, or in some cases both, to celebrate these two historic occasions, and also our country and people who make Britain the absolutely incredible place that it is.

Prevent Strategy

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Noon, for initiating this debate.

9/11 and 7/7 changed Britain and the world. From London to Lahore, from New York to New Delhi, terrorism cannot be ignored. A new kind of terror emerged with 9/11, as we saw on 7/7, attacking the very basis and basics of British society—a society enriched by its secular democracy, multitude of faiths and diversity of communities. The terrorists used the ultimate weapon, destroying their own lives to take the lives of others. They sought legitimacy then, as they do now, 10 years on, by cloaking their vile and heinous acts in the name of religion—of Islam. Yet these criminal acts are far removed from the principles of Islam which, not only in its teachings but in the essence of its very name, stands for peace. Islam unreservedly and totally rejects all forms of terrorism and violence. Islam—indeed, all religions—cannot sanction violence and bloodshed of innocent men, women and children in the name of God. However, the reality is that there are some who seek to hijack noble religions and principles, to perversely interpret them and through their misguided actions, often fuelled by extremist preachers, seek to bring about terror. As 9/11 and 7/7 demonstrated, they succeed in carrying out such acts.

Against this backdrop of real and present danger which surfaced 10 years ago and continues to this day, we need to take action on prevention and, more importantly, a permanent and lasting solution to eradicating this evil from our society. Therefore, I welcome the new Prevent strategy, for it recognises the need to tackle the ideological challenge and the threat from those who promote terror and extremism. It is not aimed at those with legitimate religious beliefs. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said, to be devout in faith should not be equated to extremism; indeed, if you are truly devout about faith you are anything but an extremist.

Prevent deals with all forms of terrorism, but I seek my noble friend the Minister’s assurance that, while wider programmes dealing with extremism and its implications do not fall under the regime of Prevent—they are co-ordinated by the Department for Communities and Local Government—there is no disconnect between the two, as the noble Lord, Lord Noon, has said. I would further ask that educational programmes aimed at curbing the rise of extremism in our future generations—such as the excellent 9/11 Education Programme, launched nationally in September this year and already rolled out to 20 schools, supported by many, including my noble friend Lord Fink—are also co-ordinated with a more cohesive programme. I would also seek the Minister’s assurance that stringent steps are taken to eradicate these extremist preachers who come to our shores to preach hate. There should be a simple message sent to them: they are not welcome.

Prevention of terrorism, integration of communities —as the noble Lord, Lord Noon has said—and education of our future generations are all part of the same equation. They are three essential components which form the basis of eradicating extremism, protecting the deep-rooted and long-established traditions of our country and providing the lasting solution we all greatly desire.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Wednesday 5th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I join others in welcoming my noble friend the Minister to his new responsibilities. Clearly this is an area not only of great interest but of great importance, and I am sure he will discharge his duties with his usual aplomb. I also join other noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lady Browning. She is someone I have known for a very long time and I am sure I reflect the sentiments of everyone in your Lordships’ House in saying we will miss her style, humour and panache from the Front Bench, and we wish her a speedy return to the red Benches.

As my noble friend Lord Howard mentioned, the Bill in front of us today presents the need of balancing public security and protection of civil liberties. It is a difficult balance that we often find ourselves facing and, as he so aptly put it, it is a question ultimately of judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asked us to reflect for a moment and put this debate into context. Why did control orders come about in the first instance? As we have heard from many noble Lords, terror remains a reality both globally and on our very own shores. I am sure all of us remember 7 July 2005 very well. That was the time terror arrived on our very doorstep. No longer was this something that we saw from a remote area, notwithstanding the issues we saw when we were confronted with terrorism from Northern Ireland. This time it was at the very heart of our capital and there was a difference: the impact of suicide bombing. Let us not forget that these were home-bred terrorists.

It is therefore important that we reflect upon the questions we reflected upon then in this very debate. What possessed these British-born individuals, some with very young families, some in the teaching profession, to become obsessed with the mission not only to take their lives but—under an extreme and perverse interpretation of their own noble faith and religious doctrine, so far removed for the teachings of their faith—to take the lives of others through the destruction of their own? It was an indiscriminate act and a devastating form of attack which had no single target, but the sole objective to destroy and invoke terror. It was in the aftermath of these very bombings that it was important that action was taken, and the Government at that time did act—under criticism at times, but in the best interests of the primary duty of any Government: to protect its citizens, and to seek to address and eradicate any possibility of the recurrence of such an evil and despicable atrocity.

Let us look at the facts: 53 people lost their lives right here in London and, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, many others were impacted by those heinous acts. Since the introduction of control orders, perhaps 50 people have fallen under their jurisdiction—fewer than the victims in 2005. That is what we must reflect upon as we debate this most important element of what any parliament debates, the security of its citizens. There remains today, six years on, the same need to ensure that whatever we do is necessary in fulfilling this primary duty.

Therefore, I welcome this debate and I welcome the new legislation because it moves towards what we have heard from several noble Lords about striking that crucial balance between protecting our citizens and the civil liberties of our country. I welcome the reduction of 28-day detention without charge to 14 days, and an end, perhaps, to the indiscriminate use of terror stop-and-search powers. We have to face the reality that things changed with 9/11 and 7/7—the world itself changed; our country changed. I also welcome the new requirements for magistrates to sanction any local authority intervention and, most importantly in this current age of austerity, extra resourcing behind this Bill.

I also welcome the stronger effort to deport foreign nationals involved in terrorist activities on our shores, while fully respecting our human rights obligations. However, in this respect, I ask my noble friend the Minister how many individuals under the current control order regime fall into this category, including those who are in the UK with leave to remain. We may seek to deport foreign nationals convicted of terror acts, but I believe this new legislation will be limited in its impact and effectiveness if we do not continue to apply the same stringent controls against what I would term imported extremism.

The UK has been and should always remain a place for free speech. We are able, in our democracy, institutions and society, to listen to a contrary opinion, a criticism of who we are and our way of life—we accept that. However, where that call transcends into a call for violence, terror or indeed the destruction of our country, community and society, we need to draw a line and be stringent in the application of controls on our borders. I therefore seek an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that there will remain, crucially, a strong sense of communication between all government agencies to ensure that we prevent such individuals, who are often nothing but preachers of hate and bigotry, from entering our shores.

As we reflect on the Bill and the travel restrictions in Schedule 1, as have been mentioned by other noble Lords, I suggest to my noble friend the Minister that any permission to leave should be not only subject to the Secretary of State’s permission but also that, again, robust channels are in place to ensure that all police authorities in the appropriate areas are informed and fully abreast of such travel arrangements.

On one element in the Bill, I bow to the experience and great wisdom in your Lordships’ House, and I look forward to the debate and discussions on the use of electronic communications. Let us not forget, as we look around the world and here in Britain, terror organisations do not ignore this. Indeed, they are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their use of electronic communication. Electronic media and social media are very much among their tools. I remain unconvinced that access to electronic media, albeit with the restrictive applications, should be allowed or is necessary.

In conclusion, I believe we all agree that there is a need to attack extremism. There is no doubt. There is a need to attack fanaticism in all its forms. Terror laws are aimed at preventing such acts. We would all ultimately rather do without such laws aimed at preventing such acts, in this day and age, and in our country and internationally we would hope that there would be no need for such legal intervention. But there is and this becomes very much part and parcel of the reality we face today, and it cannot be ignored.

Multiculturalism: Interfaith Dialogue

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, first, I thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, on securing this timely debate in view of the challenges that we face—not just in Britain but across the globe. Notwithstanding the hundreds of differences we have between us, people of faith all believe in God, in creation and in the Creator. After all, we belong to the same denomination. We are all God’s creatures. We belong to the same race—the human race. As inhabitants and citizens of the same country, we are mutual neighbours. That applies to all communities.

This requires that we build understanding and friendships with each other based on the purity of heart and sincerity of intentions. We dispose kindly towards one another. In the difficulties pertaining to religious and worldly matters, we should exercise empathy, sympathy and understanding towards one another’s views. After all, a religion which does not inculcate universal compassion is no religion. Similarly, a human being without the faculty of compassion is no human at all. If someone questions the possibility of reaching reconciliation where differences have occurred—indeed, religious differences—because they perceive that it is playing a negative role such as dividing hearts and minds, it can succeed only if it is not based on human values. All religions are based on common, human values. That what binds us is greater than what divides us. It is a danger to our community, to our nation and to the fragmentation of our society if we let those who seek to divide us come forth. Differences can only destroy communities and nations if the process of reconciliation results in some people resorting to insulting and being blasphemous towards the views and religions of others.

Perhaps I may suggest to my noble friend the Minister some practical steps. The Muslim community in which I grew up had a concept of religious founders’ days. A common theme is chosen, such as peace or humanity. All faiths are invited to present. But here comes the special ingredient. The Christian will present the Hindu’s view on peace or humanity. The Muslim will present the Jewish perspective and so on. This does not only broaden horizons among people; it educates and teaches not just tolerance but respect and reverence towards the beliefs of all.

The second element I would suggest to the Minister is this. I had the pleasure of following her as the Conservative Party’s vice-chairman for cities, yet when I travelled the country I saw divisions. Under the guise of inclusion we allowed children to be excluded from schools. A child who did not wish to attend a religious education class was allowed to sit aside, but what kind of inclusion is that? Like many others, I am a product of a Church of England school. I learned the Lord’s Prayer. Did it make me any less of a Muslim? As the noble Lord, Lord Mitchell, suggested, not at all—it broadened my understanding and taught me about other faiths and communities and, most importantly, respect for all faiths.

The final component is that we must continue to stand up against extremists of all kinds. We should be intolerant of those who are intolerant towards others. If a person wishes to exclude someone, that is the time to instead exclude them.

In conclusion, I am an optimist but I am not complacent. I defy those who say that problems are caused by faith, which means that communities cannot ever work together. I defy those who say those of faith cannot work with those of no faith—they can and our country is testament to that. Faith matters and religion has the solution to build new communities. I accept that we have challenges but they will be overcome. Those who refute the diversity of strength in our faiths and our communities and indeed our nation should look no further than to your Lordships’ House, which is reflective of the strength and the success of our nation—our country—Britain.

Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in Force of Sections 1 to 9) Order 2011

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon Excerpts

Tuesday 8th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her earlier statement. I join her in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for his stewardship of what has been a very sensitive area.

I am reminded of when control orders came about, how they were introduced and the sense of the terrorism that gripped our very shores. I remember 7/7 vividly for various reasons: first, as someone who was travelling at that time; secondly, as someone who would have been impacted directly through both friends and family; and, thirdly, because of what happened in the aftermath when it was perceived that a particular faith or a particular community had indulged in, or been involved in, those acts. For all those reasons, a chill went down my back. It was important at that time that action was taken.

Britain, as many noble Lords have said, is a place of great liberty and freedoms, and that is right. However, the people who enact these crimes or even conceive of them do not respect that. They do not respect these laws, freedoms and liberties. Somewhat ironically, it is the very freedoms that are provided by our country that allow them, not to act, but to conceive of acting in that way.

We have heard from many noble Lords that control orders are not the perceived way forward. The Government accept that; indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said that quite clearly. However, I am concerned. Until the revisions are introduced, what is the option? What do we do in the interim? The threat of terrorism is alive today. If we cast our mind across the world to Pakistan, in Faisalabad today there has been yet another terrorist attack. As the Minister has said, this is not a threat just to the UK; it is a threat internationally, and we must react to it. Britain is a great place for civil liberties and freedoms, but equally the first responsibility of the Government must be to the citizens and residents in this great country—to protect their freedoms and their rights, yes, but also their safety and security.

While the extension of control orders is not perceived in this House as welcome, until we fill that vacuum there is an absolute need to ensure that our citizens are protected. I am sure that as the new legislation comes forward there will, with the wisdom possessed by this House, be robust debate. For tonight, though, I support the Minister in ensuring that control orders are extended to protect that majority. It is the exception who fall victim to control orders, but the majority must be protected. I lend my support to the extension of these orders, with the hope that the new legislation that we will see will be right for Britain and will continue to protect the residents and citizens of our country.

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, for introducing this statutory instrument, which has of course a narrow, technical and short-term focus. In doing so, she displayed her customary vigilance in these matters. I am happy to support the instrument and, indeed, the Government’s plans for liberalisation in this area. Like other noble Lords, I particularly welcome the decision to increase access to internet and mobile phones under certain conditions for those affected by these orders, and I am glad, too, that the ability to relocate terrorist suspects in new areas will in all likelihood go. These are necessary, explicable and entirely defensible liberalisations.

We have heard much tonight about the case made by Liberty in a very fine document sent to many noble Lords, but I simply want to make one point on the other side of the argument regarding the extent to which all of this is shrouded in mystery. I simply think that it is possible for all of us to read some of the open-source evidence, including the High Court documentation, on these matters. If one does so, it is much more difficult for one to say that what is at stake here is a mystery of some sort. In fact, there is a significant amount of evidence in the public domain. Perhaps this bears on the argument about the role of the security forces in making a case behind the scenes—no doubt that goes on in all Governments—but, even without access to that sort of information and discussion, which most of us do not have, there is none the less a lot of material in the public domain that the Government have to take seriously. That is a balancing point that is worth making.

I am happy to support this temporary instrument as a necessary measure for public protection.