Independent Cultural Review of the London Fire Brigade

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, for initiating this debate on a very important subject.

It has taken the tragic death of Jaden Francois-Esprit for the leadership of the London fire service to finally realise that there was something dark and very wrong with the behaviour of some firefighters. I pay tribute to Jaden’s family, who, in their grief, pursued a request for an investigation into the bullying culture that they felt Jaden had experienced. I too commend the work of the team led by Nazir Afzal for its meticulous and well-evidenced report.

I think I am the only non-Londoner speaking today, so we will see if the rest of my remarks fall on good ground or not. Before I turn to the findings of the report, I want to be absolutely clear that I have complete admiration for the difficult and dangerous tasks that firefighters undertake on behalf of Londoners—in fact, it happens across the country, but this is a London Fire Brigade report. As the report states,

“there were many examples of exemplary culture within LFB. Where it works well, there is a powerful sense of belonging and purpose.”

However, it uncovered evidence of a culture in some parts of the service that failed to uphold basic human rights and to treat everyone with dignity and respect.

Throughout the debate this afternoon, we have heard from across the House of the horrific acts of racism, misogyny, homophobia and discrimination on the grounds of faith and sexuality. The evidence shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, from 40 years ago—that is scary, is it not?—demonstrates that this issue is not new; despite the best efforts of previous governance arrangements, some changes were made but not enough. She rightly said that this is a lesson to us all, in any big organisation.

Such behaviours as we read about in this report are utterly degrading for the recipient and deprive the individual of basic human dignity. They lead to a lack of self-worth, which, as the report concludes, leads to men and women resigning from the LFB and, tragically, for some, the decision that life is not worth living.

The culture of any organisation lays the foundation for its success. As the report states:

“When you have an optimum culture then … Staff are motivated, teams are high performing and people want to join you.”


This excellent report has 23 recommendations. As we have heard, the Fire Service Commissioner has made clear his intention to implement all of them. I congratulate the commissioner on being so bold in that commitment, because it will not be straightforward. I look forward to the reports that will follow to demonstrate progress made.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, I looked at some elements that could have been included but were not. Why did this happen? What about the governance? Why was a toxic culture allowed to develop in some parts—I emphasise “some parts”—of the LFB? It was evident that managers were aware of behaviours that were plainly not acceptable from earlier reports on the same issue, but nothing seemed to happen. Some changes were made but nothing fundamental. Why were the normal routes for those being bullied and belittled not effective? Where were the whistleblowing and complaints systems? Why were horrendous behaviours not rooted out? Putting a noose on somebody’s locker—why was that not called out? Why did senior managers not feel empowered to deal with it? Was it just too difficult? As the report exposes, if allowed to go unchallenged, toxic behaviour is contagious in a very destructive way.

I turn now to the governance, and will perhaps come to some different conclusions from those of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh. The Fire Service Commissioner is a corporation sole—in other words, he is it—with oversight from the Mayor of London and a deputy mayor, and an assembly scrutiny committee. I find it difficult to understand how a very large organisation such as the LFB can rely on a single person for its management. Private sector companies are always governed by a board of appointed individuals—non-executive directors—alongside the executive directors. They must take personal responsibility for the effectiveness of the company. Obviously such a board provides a forum for questioning and challenging decisions and proposals being made by the executive. Clearly, none of that can happen very easily in the LFB. Where is the external, independent, detailed examination of plans made in the LFB prior to decisions being made?

A more inclusive and collaborative governance model that enabled pre-decision questioning may go some way towards creating a forum where the culture of the organisation can be thoroughly dissected and then improved. Can the Minister respond to that? Do we have to continue with this sole person model?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness bring her speech to an end, please?

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

This has been a useful debate that has given us a forum to raise important issues. A future report, demonstrating the progress being made to root out those who revel in humiliating others, and to create an open, welcoming and supportive organisation, will be a worthy legacy for Jaden and all those whose lives have been harmed by the rotten culture detailed in this excellent report.

Public Order Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

102: Clause 16, page 16, line 3, leave out “in England and Wales”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendments in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 12, page 17, line 20, page 17, line 35 and page 18, line 4 have the effect that in Clause 16 the amendments to sections 14 and 14A of the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to the British Transport Police apply in relation to Scotland as well as England and Wales.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, Clause 16 closes a gap in existing powers at Part 2 of the Public Order Act 1986 for policing public processions and assemblies which may result in serious disorder. It does this by harmonising the position between on the one hand the territorial police forces—that is to say those covering a geographical force area—and on the other hand the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police.

The present position is that the territorial forces are able to exercise these powers, but the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police are not. Clause 16 extends to the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police some of the powers at Part 2 of the 1986 Act in relation to their respective jurisdictions, where there is an operational case for doing so.

For example, the power may be used in a situation where a trespassory assembly is planned or is occurring on the railway or on railway property. This could be within a station, outside a station or in a retail area owned by the railway. In this case, the British Transport Police may be the most appropriate force to exercise the power. The railway is a unique and complex environment with specific risks which British Transport Police specialise in managing while minimising disruptive impact on the operation of the rail network.

To be clear, Clause 16 does not create any new powers, nor does it broaden the existing ones. It simply serves to close a potential gap in jurisdiction by extending certain existing powers to those two additional, non-territorial police forces. The powers contain various limitations and safeguards; for example, there is provision that only the most senior of the officers present may exercise the powers and a requirement that the officer must reasonably believe that the assembly may result in certain forms of serious disorder. Clause 16 reads these across, with necessary transpositions for the jurisdiction and functions of the British Transport Police and the Ministry of Defence Police.

While the provisions concerning the Ministry of Defence Police are reserved, as policing and railway are devolved matters, the provisions concerning the British Transport Police have practical application only in England and Wales. Following discussions, the Scottish Government have requested these powers be extended to the British Transport Police in Scotland. We have therefore tabled minor, technical amendments to the clause to facilitate the extension of the powers to Scotland.

[Lord Beith (LD)]

My Lords, the Government are stretching credulity if they say this creates no new powers; it creates new powers for the British Transport Police and Ministry of Defence Police. It is mostly on the British Transport Police that I want to concentrate.

This police force is not locally accountable. It is the police force of the operators of the railway system. It has its own structures and is essentially a nationally organised force with certain centres of activity. There are many cases where police support is needed, and we certainly see this in Berwick. The local police have to come on the scene some time before British Transport Police can come from 70 miles away to take part in whatever problem there may be. We have to be a bit careful about so readily extending powers to a very different kind of police force, which does not have the chain of local accountability that our civil police forces have.

If anyone thinks that the arrangements are all very smooth and there is not a problem in relations between local police and British Transport Police, they should read the proceedings of the Manchester Arena inquiry. They will discover some pretty uncomfortable things about how co-ordination between British Transport Police and other agencies is meant to work but does not always work in practice. I was slightly surprised that Scottish Ministers decided they wanted to extend the powers included here, but it is with the approval—if the case is in Scotland, it is not to the Secretary of State—of Scottish Ministers.

I will take the Minister back to an incident in the 1960s which he is too young to remember. It shows that these are not new problems requiring drastic new powers. A railway line called the Waverley route between Edinburgh and Carlisle was closed. Before it managed to get itself closed—it has since been partially reopened—people in the village of Newcastleton between Hawick and Carlisle protested vigorously. One night, when the night sleeper was heading towards Carlisle, the minister of the local kirk and some of his congregation and others gathered on the crossing and stopped the train. On the train at the time was Lord Steel of Aikwood, then the young MP for the Borders area. This incident was handled by the police quite smoothly and locally, without any involvement of the British Transport Police—I doubt very much that they ever got there.

Local police are used to dealing with these situations. I fear from the provisions we have now that, given the nature and scope of this Bill, someone proposing to have either a group of people in a station protesting against imminent cuts to the service, or a single protestor in the station building by the ticket office saying “Your service is going to be halved from next week—join me in a protest”, will find themselves subject to the powers of the Public Order Act. There will be an unnecessary level of police involvement by the British Transport Police. Without the powers here, they would be able to deal with it in the normal way, as the local police would. We are in some danger if we get the British Transport Police into the state of mind that they are policing protest. It is really not what they are good at and not what they are supposed to be good at.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

That is a very good point—I was going to make that point and ask whether that made any difference. What makes this even more important is whether, tucked away in the Bill, there is some mechanism by which the Government could extend these protest-related powers to the Civil Nuclear Constabulary. The Government are saying that, at the moment, there is no need for it to have these powers because there have been no protests and it has not been appropriate—that is the information I received. All that I am asking—this is particularly relevant given the point of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, about it being armed—whether the Bill gives the Government the opportunity to do that, should they so wish, or whether they would have to come back and pass primary legislation to do that. It would be useful to find that out.

On Amendment 106 of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, which probes the breadth of the powers, can the Minister give us more clarity on the power to make an order prohibiting specified activities for a specified amount of time? What is the amount of time in scope, and who grants the order?

The clause references assemblies

“on land to which the public has no right of access or only a limited right of access”.

Would that activity therefore be covered under existing trespass offences? I am just asking for clarity on one or two of the specifics with respect to these amendments.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their speeches in this group. I turn to Amendment 106, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Beith, who explained that it is intended to avoid excessively wide use, at railway stations, of the power for a chief constable to make an order prohibiting a trespassory assembly if certain conditions are met. This is an outcome that we can all support: the Government are clear that public order powers should always be used proportionately and should have appropriate safeguards and limitations. However, I hope I will be able to provide him with assurances that his amendment is not necessary to achieve that outcome and indeed that it would not have the effect of limiting the use of this existing power at or around railway stations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

The Minister said, quite rightly, that he will write to the noble Lord, Lord Beith. For the benefit of the Committee, it would be useful for it to be put in the Library. The letter writing is fine but I sometimes worry about it because it means it is not in Hansard. For those people who read our deliberations, I think that could be a bit of flaw in them being able to understand what is going on. The answers often are in a letter or in the Library and not as widely available as they would be if they were in Hansard. It is a point that has increasingly bothered me, to be frank.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I recognise what the noble Lord says and will make sure that the letter is placed in the Library.

Amendment 102 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

103: Clause 16, page 16, line 12, leave out “in England and Wales”
Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 16, line 3.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Davies of Gower]

107: Clause 16, page 17, line 42, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “relevant national authority”
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and the amendment in the name of Lord Sharpe of Epsom at page 18, line 10 have the effect that the consent of the Scottish Ministers is required in order for the chief constable of the British Transport Police to make an order under section 14A(4D) of the Public Order Act 1986 prohibiting trespassory assemblies in an area in Scotland.

Public Order Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness O'Loan (CB)]

My Lords, there is no doubt that there has been a growing incidence of public order situations recently. We even had a demonstration in Central Lobby a week or so ago. What I have observed is that no quarter has been given by the protesters, even to those seeking access to hospitals, those trying to pick up their children from school, those trying to go to work to earn the money that keeps this country afloat, those trying to provide services to those who need care to stay in their own homes, and so many others.

Extensive criminal damage has been caused. Just a couple of weeks ago, we saw the spray-painting of the famous sign at New Scotland Yard. The clear message, in attacking this iconic sign at the headquarters of the Metropolitan Police, was that they can do what they like and there will be no real consequences. We have also seen attacks in art galleries and desperate members of the public trying to clear roads as police officers stand by. We have seen protesters jumping on to the roof of police vehicles as police officers stand by.

Such behaviour by protesters is in breach of existing legal provision on many occasions. As has been said, the organisation Justice helpfully provided a list of relevant statutes. The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, for example, creates a statutory offence of public nuisance and allows the police to impose conditions on processions and assemblies which are too noisy. The Criminal Damage Act 1971 created offences of unlawfully destroying or damaging property belonging to another intentionally or recklessly, being reckless as to whether any such property would be destroyed or damaged, intending to endanger the life of another or being reckless as to whether the life of another would be thereby endangered. The maximum penalty for conviction on indictment is a term not exceeding 10 years. The Police Act 1996 provides an offence of assaulting a constable

“in the execution of his duty”,

an offence carrying, on summary conviction, a penalty of up to six months in prison or a fine. The Highways Act 1980 provides that:

“If a person, without lawful authority or excuse, in any way wilfully obstructs the free passage along a highway he is guilty of an offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 51 weeks.”


The Road Traffic Act provides further offences.

These are just a few of the options available to deal with behaviour such as that which we have seen recently. The Joint Committee on Human Rights observed in its June 2022 report that:

“The criminal law and the powers of the police already allow for action to be taken against violent protest and disruptive non-violent protest. We are unconvinced that additional offences are necessary or appropriate.”


Why create new offences which would add significantly to the burden of police services in providing training and guidance to officers in how and when to exercise these powers or initiate and manage necessary investigations with a view to prosecution? Why add to the range of offences which may be committed in public order situations in a way which may, as noble Lords have said, be in contravention of the rights which citizens have under Article 9 to freedom of religion, thought and conscience, under Article 10 to freedom of expression and under Article 11 to the right of assembly and association?

All these rights are ensured to us in the Human Rights Act. They are not absolute rights. We accept that there are circumstances in which the exercise of those rights may be limited, but they are rights which all our people have. In circumstances in which we are seeing the limitation of rights in Hong Kong, the US, China and Russia, it is profoundly important that we, as a democracy, protect those rights which are part of our ancient heritage.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published its views on some of the proposed offences. Referring to the creation of the new offences of locking on and being equipped for locking on and the obstruction of major transport works, the introduction of new serious disruption prevention orders, the extension of stop and search powers with and without suspicion, and the granting to the Secretary of State of new powers to seek protest-related civil injunctions, the EHRC has said that it considers these offences to be “inconsistent” with the right to protest, noting that the Supreme Court recently determined that this type of protest was protected by Article 11 and that there should be

“a certain degree of tolerance to disruption to ordinary life, including disruption to traffic, caused by the exercise of the right to freedom of expression or freedom of assembly”.

The JCHR has said that the locking-on offences

“risk criminalising actions that fall within the protections of Article 10 and 11 ECHR and contain inadequate safeguards against this”,

and that these clauses would allow the police to take pre-emptive action against people planning to engage in lawful protest, which it says would undermine the right to protest. It says that the provisions are

“broad enough to interfere with Article 8 right to privacy and Article 14 rights to freedom from discrimination.”

Clauses 17 and 18, which give the Secretary of State the power to bring proceedings and apply for injunctions could, the JCHR says,

“have a chilling effect on the right to protest”,

creating a significant risk that large numbers of protesters could be criminalised.

Finally, I will say a word about Clause 9, a late amendment to the Bill in the other place which seeks to create an “Offence of interference with access to or provision of abortion services” and would introduce 150 metre-wide “buffer zones”—also known as “censorship” or “safe” zones—around abortion providers. When “protests” take place, they are typically quiet prayer groups which occasionally display signs or placards. However, participants do not cajole or harass women. There is no interference with access to or the provision of abortion services. Approximately 90% of all clinics and hospitals have not reported either activity as ever having occurred, according to the findings of the 2018 Home Office review. A blanket ban around abortion clinics would be disproportionate, a denial of the right to freedom of expression, it is unnecessary, and it could even be harmful.

The reality is that many of those taking part in these vigils often provide help to vulnerable women. Historically, as a result of expressions of prayer and offers of help, women have been able to avail themselves of practical, emotional and other forms of support of which they may previously have been unaware or were unable to access. Some women, who may be uncertain but feel forced to terminate a pregnancy because of their fears that they cannot cope, and who might be reassured by what they might hear before they get into the clinic, will inevitably suffer if a disproportionate ban is enforced. Some of these women have never had the opportunity to receive impartial counsel and support as they consider their options.

On 24 October the Minister said that the Bill is generally compatible with convention rights. I regret that I do not agree with him on that point. However, I agree with his comment on Clause 9:

“I am unable, but only because of clause 9, to make a statement that, in my view, the provisions of the Bill are presently compatible with Convention rights”.


He was saying that Clause 9 is not compatible with the convention rights.

Current laws already provide wide-ranging powers for authorities to keep public order and protect women and the public from genuine harassment and intimidation, including outside abortion clinics. The Ealing PSPO shows that a nationwide ban is unnecessary and that further measures to ban peaceful demonstrations can have the unintended consequence of harming individuals seeking to express their views. Clause 9 is poorly drafted. It is so broadly worded that it could be used to criminalise people who merely express opinion outside an abortion facility.

In 2018, the Home Office concluded there was no need to introduce buffer zones. The then Home Secretary, Sajid Javid, said that:

“introducing national buffer zones would not be a proportionate response, considering the experiences of the majority of hospitals and clinics, and considering that the majority of activities are more passive in nature.”

This position has been consistently reaffirmed by the Government since then, most recently on 27 September 2022.

A June 2021 poll undertaken by Savanta ComRes shows that only 21% of the population support introducing buffer zones around abortion clinics nationwide. A majority support either having no restrictions on speaking about the issue of abortion outside abortion clinics or restrictions in line with current legislation.

Clause 9 is not only not convention-compatible but disproportionate, as police officers already have the powers to intervene. If a vigil is causing harassment or harm, they can intervene under the Public Order Act, the Protection from Harassment Act, and the civil provisions of a public spaces protection order under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

A person guilty of these new offences would be liable, in the first instance, to imprisonment of up to six months and/or an unlimited fine, and in further instances up to two years’ imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine. The offences vary from “seeking to influence”, advising, persuading and informing, to “persistently, continuously or repeatedly” occupying the area within the proposed buffer zone. We value and believe in free speech—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I realise that the nine-minute time limit is advisory but can I ask the noble Baroness to bring her speech to an end, please?

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

Yes; I will do so shortly. Surely we do not think it appropriate to criminalise those who seek to exercise their rights to free speech by advising, persuading or informing or even by simply being present, quietly and unobtrusively? This is what happens in places such as Hong Kong, China and Russia, not the UK.

Such a penalty would be imposed in our country on those who seek only to pray and to offer help to women who may be in a desperate situation, and for whom help can be provided. I have met some of these women and their babies. I have seen their joy in the presence of their little ones. This is not an argument about access to abortion or preventing access—that right exists in law. Clause 9 would deprive people from offering help and support to women, for whom such help could be the difference between the choice to terminate the life of their unborn child and the ability to bring that child into the world in a safe place.

The Bill also reverses the traditional burden of proof which lies on the prosecution to prove any criminal offence beyond a reasonable doubt—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I must ask the noble Baroness to bring her speech to an end, please.

[Baroness O’Loan (CB)]

I will—I have very little to say. I ask noble Lords to bear with me; this is an important point. That clause is inconsistent with the common-law presumption of innocence and the protections under Article 6.

In conclusion, the Bill, while well intentioned, and probably reflecting a desire by the Government to try to show that they are strong, will deprive people of their historic and indeed ancient rights to protest. This is not what we as a country should be doing. We must not place an additional and unnecessary burden on our police. We need at this perilous time in the world to protect the rights of people to protest peacefully, and to utilise existing laws to deal with those who commit some of the many criminal offences which we have witnessed. We can do this, but the Bill is disproportionate in its effect and would be very damaging to those freedoms and constitutional rights which we have cherished as a people across the centuries.

50th Anniversary of the Expulsion of Asians from Uganda

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Popat, for this very important debate on the expulsion of Asians from Uganda 50 years ago. This comes at a time when we are celebrating, this week, the momentous day of Diwali in the lives of all Indians in India and throughout the Indian diaspora across the world. I wish all your Lordships a happy Diwali and a joyous new year.

This is an event I wish to celebrate for another reason. We have, for the first time in Britain, elected a person of Indian origin as Prime Minister; he now occupies the deserved place in Downing Street. Of course, as I explained to John Pienaar on Times Radio, I would have preferred a general election, not just a coronation arranged by the Conservative Party. It is time we considered proper electoral reforms that would update our democracy.

I wish to draw attention to the contribution of the Indian community in Britain. I make no apology for picking up the statistics produced by Alpesh Patel, chairman of City Hindus Network. He had this to say:

“The British Indian diaspora is one of the largest migrant communities in this country, numbering more than 1.5 million. Many British Indians have contributed to their local communities and the national economy by starting businesses in a range of sectors, including hospitality, energy, healthcare, engineering and property.


Data from 2020 shows that 654 businesses owned by British Indians had an annual turnover in excess of £100,000. Together, these companies generated £36.84 billion and contributed more than £1 billion in corporation tax. The top five businesses owned by British Indians have created more than 100,000 jobs in the UK.


As Britain faces skills gaps, Home Office figures show that Indian nationals account for 46 per cent of all skilled worker visas issued this year. Looking back to 2020, data from Oxford University’s Migration Observatory found that almost half (47 per cent) of Indian nationals who migrated to this country filled high-skilled jobs in sectors including science, engineering, technology, healthcare and education.”


I was born in Tanzania, next door to Uganda. I came to the UK in 1956, before we faced the issues affecting the east African Asians from 1971 onwards. Idi Amin forced thousands of Asians to leave Uganda, which brought panic, heartache and fear to the community there, who regarded Uganda as their particular home. In 1972, there were around 80,000 Ugandans of Indian descent in the country and it is estimated that close to 30,000 were accepted for settlement in the United Kingdom.

Here lies an important story that I hope Suella Braverman takes note of. In my early days in your Lordships’ House, I met Lord Carr of Hadley, who had been Home Secretary at that time. He said that it took less than five minutes of Cabinet meeting time to agree to the admission of Uganda Asians to the UK. There is a lesson for all of us to understand about how an important decision can be taken by the Cabinet without referring to all the prejudices that go with it. This was at a time when adverse comments about immigrants were rife in this country.

Many have argued that it is important to articulate a shared sense of national identity in contemporary conditions of flux and change. It is difficult to reconcile this with diversity, openness, and pluralism of belief and practice. What we forget is that those fixed notions of shared identity, even if they could be agreed on, are less necessary now than they were at that time.

Someone who was most effective and a real heavyweight was the then Colonial Secretary, Iain Macleod. He was adamant that we had given a right of British citizenship to Commonwealth citizens, and that we had a duty to honour this pledge. Where are the people of this stature in the Tory party today? Someone should have an open word with Suella Braverman about handling complex matters of asylum and immigration in a purposeful way.

There is another matter that I wish to draw to your Lordships’ attention. We did not deal with the settlement of migrants systematically until we set up the Uganda Resettlement Board. Until then, migrants came and relied for settlement on the contacts they had made in this country and the help they had received from a number of colleagues around.

The time allocated is very limited. In conclusion, I thank the thousands of volunteers who gave so much of their time to help in the process of settlement. I support the mention of the names of Sir Peter Bottomley and the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, for the contribution they made in accommodating new arrivals in this country.

Recent events in Leicester clearly indicate the success—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Could I ask the noble Lord to bring it to a conclusion now, please?

[Lord Dholakia (LD)]

My Lords, thank you.

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse: Final Report

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

My Lords, do I have the permission of the House to speak, because I was not here for the earlier Statement?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

It is normal to be here at the outset, so I regret that, on this occasion—

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

I gave evidence to the inquiry, and I have had very personal experiences of all this, so may I speak?

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Yes, on this occasion, we will make one exception.

[Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)]

Thank you.

I did not applaud the remit of the inquiry; it was much too broad. We had terrible problems with the chair, with whom we were, at last, third time lucky. The inquiry should not have been set up by the Home Office. In my days, it would have been set up by the health department, and now it should be by the education department—if it were, it would have been more focused, more relevant and more specific. It was far too broad.

I do not agree with all the recommendations, but I do agree with mandatory reporting. I will explain why very quickly. I used to be a chair of the juvenile court. I was a psychiatric social worker, but my first job was working with the Inner London Education Authority with a special boarding school, where I realised that the headmaster was abusing the children, if not also the parents. This was the most appalling horror to me, a virtuous person of 24. I reported it to my boss, who said, “If you complain about these sorts of things, they will not allow social workers at residential schools. You must not be a politician, Virginia; you’re a social worker”.

I then went and spoke to a very senior member of the Inner London Education Authority, a Labour member who was a friend of my family—I broke my professional line—and told her about this simply appalling man who was abusing children and the institution. She basically did nothing. Of course, what they did is what is reported in the report: they wrote him a good reference and he went off to Tunbridge Wells. I immediately wrote about this to my friend Patrick Mayhew—then the MP—to warn him, “If you ever hear anything about him at all, you must jump immediately”. Mr Bertram went off to Canada.

I say this because I think that few noble Lords in this Chamber will understand how horrific it is to think that you are working with a virtuous institution and gradually realise that the person leading it—and responsible for vulnerable children—is a perpetrator of horrendous crimes. Beyond all this, mandatory reporting would have helped me; I would have been able to say to my boss and to the local authority politician, “We have to have mandatory reporting”. So I commend Alexis Jay. She has ended up doing a very good job, but it has been quite a long journey getting there. Thank you for letting me speak.

Violent Crime, Gang Activity and Burglaries

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 20th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Snape for initiating this debate. I have lived in Peckham in south London for over 40 years. I am afraid that it has had its fair share of knife crime. One claim to fame is that we have one of the world’s expert consultant surgeons on knife injuries. His name is TJ Lasoye, and he ought to get a knighthood or something. He spends his time going round schools telling children what the real effects of injuries are. Some children did not believe that stabbing somebody in the temple hurt or caused any problems. He devotes his time to the seriousness of knife crime.

I witnessed an invasion by a gang at King’s College Hospital, where he works. They came to look for the knife victim to finish the job. It was a terrifying experience which affects the local community every day. Having said that, it is a warm, wonderful community. It has more churches per square inch than probably anywhere else in the United Kingdom and so deserves better from the government policy on law and order.

One of the worst aspects of a failing Government treating deadly serious subjects as if they are a game in a children’s sandpit is that it drags all of us and the work we try to do down, and ignores the misery and stress of people waiting for justice, walking the streets in fear or working in a failing service and longing for early retirement. The only way to improve things is to have a general election, but we know that that is the one issue that unites the Conservative Party—not to go to the country until they absolutely have to. I understand that 5 January 2024 is the absolutely final date, so that is 442 days to go.

Although the resignation of the Prime Minister would not improve a single statistic in the sorry state of law and order, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Snape, it would be one of the only other options to achieve some stability. I checked the rules on the pensions of Prime Ministers and senior officeholders—moved, incidentally, in the House of Commons by a former Member of this House, Lord MacGregor. We were on the Committee on Standards in Public Life at the same time in the early 1990s, and I can only imagine what Lord MacGregor’s view of the current situation would be.

Anyway, back to the Prime Minister’s pension. If I understand the rules correctly, she is entitled to a Prime Minister’s pension when she leaves office. I would not like to see her go into poverty like the WASPI women who have been deprived of state pension money because they were not given sufficient notice. The WASPI women did nothing wrong, such as taking the “Great” out of Great Britain. If I have misread the rules on the PM’s pension and she is not so entitled if she goes, say, tomorrow, for the sake of argument, I would be happy to contribute to some crowd-funding venture, if that would persuade her to go.

I was distraught when I heard that Suella Braverman was sacked as Home Secretary yesterday, because the other half of my speech was devoted to why she was unfit for high office. She was Attorney-General in 2020—a government law officer. Not only did she not resign when the Government announced that they intended to override the Northern Ireland protocol, she publicly defended the situation. When Mr Brandon Lewis, as Northern Ireland Secretary, said that the new Bill in 2020 to amend the UK’s Brexit deal with the EU

“does break international law in a very specific and limited way”,—[Official Report, Commons, 8/9/2020; col. 509]

Sir Jonathan Jones, the Permanent Secretary of the Government Legal Department, the most senior lawyer advising the Government, resigned over this statement. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, resigned as a Government Minister in this House—a careful and thoughtful man who took 48 hours to do so.

This was a serious issue leading to serious resignations. Mr Brandon Lewis’s statement was not contradicted by No. 10 Downing Street. Clearly, we would not wish to put Mr Brandon Lewis anywhere near the law and order brief. Oh, wait a minute, he is Justice Secretary. I always have this image of a young urchin in Peckham, where I live, being held by a security officer for stealing juice and a bar of chocolate from the local supermarket saying, “I did break the law, but in a very specific and limited way.”

I turn to one of the aspects of the Government’s strategy to tackle crime and gang activity. I do not have time to deal with the virtual collapse of the probation and social work services, which is a stain on our country. A lot more could be said, if I had the time. But I do want to say something about our police and prison officers. Ms Braverman, when she was still in office, promised the Conservative Party conference that there would be 20,000 more police officers by March 2023. Is that still the Government’s policy? Does it simply make up for the 20,000 reduction when the Conservatives came to power? Is it sufficient when we have 4 million more people in the country? Nothing was said about prison officers. Will the Minister indicate the Government’s plan for recruiting more prison officers?

As chair of ACAS, 20 years ago I participated in a two-day residential seminar on how to improve working conditions in the Prison Service. The issues identified have worsened tenfold since that time. If prison officers are not valued for the important work they do, how will we achieve better safety, security and skills training in our prisons?

The noble Lord, Lord Snape, has already referred to Ché Donald, the national vice-chair of the Police Federation, who said that the increase in the number of police officers is desperately needed, but also pointed to other issues of stress and disillusion, pay and the impact of unfair discriminatory pension changes. These are such basic HR issues that only a Cabinet of millionaires could fail to see their importance. The pensions issue alone, capping the pension contributions of public service pensions, has had the consequences that I predicted when it was first imposed—a 10% cut. Ask any HR officer if he would like to hang on to 10% of his staff and not lose those skills, training and experience—

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

I remind the noble Baroness of the eight-minute speaking time.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 12th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, this is a fascinating and enjoyable debate, much of it concentrating on constitutional matters, but I would like to speak a little on policing. I was very pleased to see that Her Majesty’s gracious Speech contained several interesting Bills on law and order, which will affect policing. Like most people, I am pleased to see investment in more police. Police numbers have fallen over the last decade, so I am encouraged to see a steady increase to achieve the Government’s ambition of 20,000 extra. I have often heard the cry from opposition Benches and other quarters, more times than I can remember, that police numbers have been cut drastically in the last decade. There may be some truth in that, but numbers are on the increase. However, these new appointments will be effective only if those officers are well-trained and properly managed. It is a point I will return to in a moment.

While not everybody’s cup of tea, I was delighted to see that stop and search is up by 22% compared to 2019-20. Stop and search is the only really effective tool that police have in their crime-fighting tool-box. Without doubt, it helps to take weapons and drugs off the streets. With the appalling number of murders of young men we have seen in recent years, on the streets of London and in other UK cities, through knife crime, I contend that, when legitimately conducted, these stop and searches are operationally necessary. I hope that the £200 million 10-year youth endowment fund assists in reducing such dreadful offences.

I want to say one important thing on training and management, which is particularly relevant where there is an abuse of procedure by police on stop and search. There is certainly evidence of that. In recent years, we have seen a serious decline in training facilities. In the Metropolitan Police, Hendon Police College has all but disappeared. The centre of training excellence that once was higher command training at Bramshill has been abolished and the site sold. With reduced budgets, police forces have been forced to ensure that front-line policing is protected but, sadly, at the cost of training. We have the College of Policing, but it serves only those who are prepared to self-improve and fails to create an essential learning environment. It is no coincidence that the challenging issues faced by the Metropolitan Police and other police forces are the result of many years of neglect and a lack of funding for training.

Recently, Parliament passed a number of demanding pieces of legislation on criminal law. Looking forward to this Session, we are making further demands on the police with a new Public Order Bill to deal with disruptive influences in society. We are going to be asking a lot more of our police service and it must be match-fit for the task. If we are to succeed in putting more rapists behind bars under the rape action plan, we must have a detective force that is properly prepared and trained to achieve this. All this can be achieved only through a well-trained and a well-managed police service. My plea to the Government is that sufficient resources are available to enable this.

Changing tack slightly, I return to combating illegal channel crossings and the Government’s new plan for immigration. There is only one solution to this and it is to remove the criminal gangs that organise these perilous journeys. This can be achieved only through partnership working with intelligence and investigative bodies on the other side of the channel. You can put as many Royal Navy frigates in the channel as you wish, but clearly we are fighting a losing battle daily, and it is not helped by the intelligence-sharing situation in which we find ourselves, post Brexit. I wonder if the Home Office understands the operational implications of this intelligence-sharing challenge.

We seem to have tried everything. We had a clandestine channel threat commander; when his role was announced, we were told that this was the panacea to the problem. He proudly proclaimed that he would stop these crossings. Tens of millions of pounds have been handed to the French authorities. This has all failed. The Nationality and Borders Act, the legislative framework for the new plan for immigration, became law at the end of April, aiming to deter illegal entry into the UK, break the business model of people-smuggling networks and speed up the removal of those with no right to be in the UK. I wait with interest to see how effective this will be, but very much hope that it will be. We need to welcome and protect those legitimately seeking asylum in the UK, but the summer months ahead will put this new Act to the test. I repeat that it is no substitute for cross-border intelligence-sharing. I very much hope that the Nationality and Borders Act assists in servicing this need.

I look forward to the introduction of the new criminal justice Bills. I have a particular interest in the Online Safety Bill, as somebody who suffered during the 2017 general election through criminals hiding behind anonymity. I look forward to the victims Bill, addressing a much-ignored section of the criminal justice system, and I look forward to the Public Order Bill. I will certainly play my part in their passage through your Lordships’ House.

I return to the point that such legislation can be enforced only by a well-trained and well-managed police service. Based on my previous policing experience and from speaking to a great number of serving police officers, I know that these elements are somewhat lacking at present; government, and particularly the Home Office, need to pay attention to them and their resourcing.

Daniel Morgan Independent Panel Report

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Thursday 24th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

I take the points the noble Earl makes about the various technological solutions. Of course, we will consider any recommendations made by the Angiolini inquiry in this space. I would also say to the noble Earl that police vetting is a lot more thorough than DBS checks. However, there is definitely more to come on this, and I look forward to some of these things being addressed both in the short term and within the next year.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I spent 32 years as a CID officer in the Metropolitan Police as a crime investigator and a crime manager. Many of those years were spent on the counterterrorism command, and I worked with very good, diligent police officers. On the point about corruption, the latest HMICFRS report rejected the independent panel’s assertions that the Metropolitan Police is institutionally corrupt, and I welcome that, although of course I recognise the many other issues that exist around the Metropolitan Police. Does the Minister agree that a lot of those issues come from lack of training? What more can the Home Office do with regard to training, which I feel has deteriorated badly over the years within the Metropolitan Police in particular?

[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.

Beyond Brexit: Policing, Law Enforcement and Security (EUC Report)

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

Friday 11th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the committee on producing such a detailed and operationally relevant report that highlights the essential areas of operational policing, particularly where this concerns international cross-border working. I realise that we have moved on, but I make no apology for returning to the issue of the Schengen Information System, which concerned me greatly during the months leading up to the trade and co-operation agreement in December 2020.

There can be no doubt that, in adopting the Interpol database in lieu, the UK reduced itself to accepting a far less efficient and effective real-time system. As the report points out, the effectiveness of the Interpol system relies heavily on the willingness of EU states to additionally upload the same information on to it that they circulate on the SIS. Indeed, one senior police officer remarked to the committee that this was a significant loss of capability in terms of access to data.

It was also interesting to note the need to make technical improvements to the UK system so that the Interpol system is available to front-line law enforcement in minutes, as opposed to hours. I am therefore very keen to hear from the Minister what action has been taken to improve those technical issues and what information, if any, is available to identify any loss of effectiveness which may have been encountered by the surrendering of the SIS.

It was encouraging to note the warm remarks from law enforcement on the agreement on Prüm, allowing the exchange of information in relation to DNA, fingerprints and other essential data. However, future alignment in relation to Prüm is less clear.

As someone who worked in organised policing for many years in eastern Europe, I was saddened to note the remarks on the UK’s future role in Europol. Professor Mitsilegas remarked that he did

“not think it will be the same, which it is a great shame, because Europol is a great example of the UK’s influence in justice and home affairs”,

a

“model of intelligence-led policing that has largely been exported from the UK to the EU, and now, sadly, you are a third country.”

Another witness also

“regretted the diminished influence the UK would have as a third country in Europol”,

saying:

“This is a clear demonstration of that operational downgrade, and it is particularly unfortunate in the context of Europol, because the UK has played such a significant role in the future direction and intelligence-led policing focus of Europol.”


Mr Rodhouse of the NCA highlighted in particular that the UK would not

“be part of the Europol management board in the future”—

something that I bitterly regret, and I support all those comments.

Can the Minister give me and, indeed, the House an assurance that while we still have the UK Liaison Bureau, our relationship with Europol will be even further improved as we head into uncharted territory with issues on our borders with organised criminality as a result of the implications of the war in Europe and refugees fleeing hostilities?

This is an excellent report and gets to the nub of the matter in relation to problems raised as a result of our exiting the European Union. I am pleased to have been able to highlight just a couple of them and look forward to what the Minister has to say in reply.

Nationality and Borders Bill

Lord Davies of Gower Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 5th January 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, what a great pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.

I understand and appreciate the intentions behind the Bill and, in particular, I recognise the challenges it seeks to address. The Bill has many aspects that I would wish to comment on in the time allowed, but I will confine myself to what has led to the need for this legislation—the issues created by unscrupulous organised gangs of criminals who prey on vulnerable people of all ages by illegally facilitating their entry into the UK by crossing the channel from France to England. Let us not forget that these are people at risk who are in the main seeking refuge from a variety of issues, be it conflicts, persecution or aggression in their own country. It is, of course, only humanly right that as a nation the UK shows compassion to those in their hour of need and provides the necessary sanctuary to those properly seeking our help. Of that there is no doubt at all, but, of course, this brings me to the heart of the matter.

The question arises as to why these migrants, having arrived in a safe country within the European Union, put all at risk in order to cross one of the busiest shipping channels in the world, having paid what is usually an extortionate sum of money to travel in what amounts in many cases to no more than a rubber dinghy with paddles. Maybe French hospitality is not quite what it is made out to be, but it is clear that these migrants would not be able to make their voyages across the channel without organised criminals facilitating their passage. The Bill seeks to address the issue of refugees arriving illegally, distinguishing between those who arrive directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened and those who do not.

My real concern—I take the opportunity of Second Reading to express it—lies with the marked lack of effectiveness of those tasked with combating cross-channel illegal immigration. It might well be said that if our law agencies were more effective in countering these gangs, parts of this Bill would be superfluous. What troubles me most is an apparent lack of cohesion between the agencies with regard to the use of intelligence. From previous experience, I am more than aware that knowledge is power, and, as a consequence, organisations, including law enforcement, are often drawn into intelligence silos.

As it stands at the moment, from what I am given to understand there is every reason to believe that this is the case in relation to the agencies tasked with countering cross-channel illegal immigration. Whether it be the National Crime Agency, the various police forces, Border Force, HM Customs or any other interested agency, there is a clear failure to have any effect whatever on the numbers crossing the channel. So I am not convinced. As robust as the Bill might seem, whether it will have any influence on the numbers crossing the channel is doubtful. After all is said and done, that should be the goal in order to prevent some of the most horrible drownings that we have witnessed in recent times.

I can see that the Bill is a step forward, a brave attempt indeed, in the battle to deter immigrants from entering illegally by streamlining what in reality amounts to a very difficult process. August 2020 saw the appointment of a Royal Marine, Dan O’Mahoney, as the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander. We were given to understand that in this new role Mr O’Mahoney would be leading the UK’s response to tackling illegal attempts to reach the UK. He would have the primary responsibility for making the channel route unviable for small boat crossings. He would collaborate closely with the French to build on the joint work already under way, urgently exploring tougher action in France, including stronger enforcement measures, adopting interceptions at sea and the direct return of boats. The Home Secretary said:

“Dan’s appointment is vital to cutting this route by bringing together all operational partners in the UK and in France”.


It does not seem to be the case. It is now reported that the number of people who crossed the English Channel in small boats last year was treble the number in 2020. According to the BBC, it shows that at least 28,431 migrants made the journey in 2021, despite huge UK hard-earned taxpayer contributions being invested in France to prevent crossings.

Last November, just over 1,000 people reached British shores aboard 33 boats. This wholeheartedly supports my theory of a lack of co-ordination with regard to intelligence and, in particular, the apparent lack of collaboration with French counterparts by Mr O’Mahoney and others. I strongly maintain that until there is proper intelligence co-ordination, particularly with the French—where that is possible, post Brexit—no amount of legislation will solve the illegal immigration problem in respect of the channel crossings, in my humble opinion.

To conclude, the fact remains that, as vigorous as the Bill is in dealing with those who have arrived illegally in the UK, the primary objective of any law enforcement agency must be the prevention of crime at whatever level. In that, I fear, we are being failed at all levels by those entrusted with that task.