Strategy for Tackling Violence against Women and Girls

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

[Inaudible]—are at a record low and domestic abuse in this country continues to increase, but charging continues to fall. According to Ofsted, sexual abuse in schools is becoming the norm. Ending abuse against women and girls is a cross-party issue on which all sides of this House wish to see progress. Unfortunately, the strategy the Government have outlined in their Statement falls short. We need ambition that matches the scale of the problem.

I again raise the concern that many have raised before: that the Government have regarded the violence against women and girls strategy as being separate from domestic abuse when, in reality, they are unavoidably interconnected. A policing lead on violence against women and girls is certainly welcome, but we already have one for domestic abuse, one for rape and sex offences, another for historical sexual abuse and one for child sex abuse. This policing lead, we are told, will be full time, unlike the others, and is in line with the recommendation last week from the inspectorate.

The Minister in the Commons yesterday seemed unable to answer questions about how the policing lead would work, including what the relationship would be with the inspectorate in respect of their investigations. What resources and powers will this new full-time policing lead have? Will the individual have the same resources and powers as the other policing leads, or will they have more extensive resources and powers? If so, what will they be?

On plans for the rape helpline, how prompt will the response be via the helpline in linking a victim to specialist support? How long a wait time will we consider acceptable? In the Commons yesterday, the Minister said in the Statement:

“we will be launching a multi-million-pound national communications campaign with a focus on targeting perpetrators and harmful misogynistic attitudes, educating young people about healthy relationships, and ensuring that victims can access support.”

How many millions of pounds will be allocated to the campaign? When will it start and how long will it last? By what criteria will the success or otherwise of the campaign be judged? Crucially, who will the department engage with and consult on the content and design of the campaign? The Minister in the Commons also said the Government had

“launched a specific safety of women at night fund worth £5 million to ensure that women do not face violence in public spaces at night.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1084.]

What exactly will that £5 million deliver? Over what period of time will it be spent and how will its impact be judged?

The Statement says that the Government will

“review options to limit use of non-disclosure agreements in cases of sexual harassment in higher education”,

which is welcome. Why, then, is there nothing about non-disclosure agreements in workplaces, where women are still being abused and silenced—completely legally—in our country?

The Minister asserted in the Commons that

“there are legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in workplaces.”—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col; 1087.]

That may be, but there are also non-legitimate reasons for non-disclosure agreements in the workplace, including in relation to the sexual harassment of women. What action do the Government intend to take over these agreements? Should the Government not think about taking the side of women who have been subject to sexual harassment in the workplace?

Why is there no national strategy for, or inclusion in this strategy of, adult victims of sexual exploitation? Where do these women find their experiences in this strategy? There is nothing but a gap. The only passing reference comes where the Government say they are going to ask porn sites to voluntarily do better on exploitation—do not hold your breath on that one if it involves a potential loss of money.

Where is the much-needed public sexual harassment law? The Government have said they think offences exist already. That will certainly be of real comfort to the two-thirds of young women who tell us they are suffering abuse every day. Home Office statistics show that 83% of sexual assaults go unreported. What is going to be done to address this alarming situation and the apparent lack of trust between victims and the policing system?

We need to make sure that women and girls, wherever they are and whatever they are doing, are safe and able to feel safe. The violence against women and girls strategy expects services to be able to deliver without any serious funding to deliver it. If that is wrong and there is such additional long-term funding to deliver this strategy, could the Government say how much it will be, and over what period of time?

What is clear is that, on every single step of their journey, women and girls are being failed—and, today, it feels as if the Government do not have enough of a plan to manage that. The Labour Party has worked up a green paper for ending violence against women and girls. We have set out, among many other things, toughening sentences for rape, stalking and domestic murder, and reviewing sentences for all domestic abuse. We have set about introducing a survivor’s support package to improve victims’ experiences in the courts, including fast-tracking rape and sexual violence cases, end-to-end legal help for victims and better training for professionals to give people the help they need. We also suggest the creation, as quickly as possible, of new offences for street harassment.

Clearly, the Government do not expect any early results from their strategy, since the Minister in the Commons said that she was prepared to wait until the end of this decade to see

“changes in the attitudes, misogynistic and otherwise, that underpin so much of this offending behaviour”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1087.]

The chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee summed it up very well in the Commons yesterday when she said:

“Much of this feels very incremental—just limited pilots and evidence gathering”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/7/21; col. 1090.]

[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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

[Inaudible]—the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Bhatia. I thank the Minster for explaining this order and I again express my thanks to those in the police and security services who work tirelessly to keep us all safe.

We have seen in recent weeks the hideous face of British racism and the disgraceful failure of senior members of the Government to support the anti-racism stance taken by the England football team. I quote from the Times opinion piece by the Conservative noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, published yesterday:

“In the contest between Priti Patel and Tyrone Mings there will only be one winner, and it won’t be the politician.”


As the Minister has explained, that is why proscribing extreme right-wing terrorist groups such as the Base is so important. I quote the Home Office press release:

“The Base has celebrated and promoted the use of violence in an attempt to establish a fascist, white ethno-state by means of a race war, and members are known to have engaged in weapons and explosives training. Its founder has also published a series of videos under his alias covering topics including”,


as the Minister has said,

“lone wolf activity, advocating guerrilla warfare, and leaderless resistance.”

When we considered the last proscription order on 22 April, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark—I warmly congratulate him on his appointment as the Labour Party Chief Whip in this House—and I questioned why it had taken so long to proscribe Atomwaffen Division when a cursory search of various news articles showed that it was linked to Sonnenkrieg Division, an organisation that had been proscribed 14 months previously. The Minister replied:

“The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, pressed me on why we are bringing these measures forward now. Obviously, there is information that the Home Secretary receives that I cannot discuss, and she will make decisions based on the intelligence and legal information that she receives.”—[Official Report, 22/4/21; col. 1978.]


With the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, if the challenge were that there did not appear to be information in the public domain to justify the proscription, the noble Baroness may have a point, but that is not the issue. The question is why, when there appears to be overwhelming evidence in the public domain that an organisation should be proscribed, it is not proscribed earlier. Any delay in proscribing such dangerous and divisive organisations runs the risk of people being influenced and atrocities being perpetrated. As MI5’s Ken McCallum warned yesterday, racism is fuelling the far-right threat in the UK.

This order proscribes the Base. I quote a BBC article published on 24 January 2020, almost 18 months ago. It says:

“The Base is a major counter-terrorism focus for the FBI. Seven alleged members were charged this month with various offenses, including conspiracy to commit murder. Court documents prepared by the FBI describe The Base as a ‘racially motivated violent extremist group’ that ‘seeks to accelerate the downfall of the United States government, incite a race war, and establish a white ethno-state’ … In social media posts that year”,


which was 2018, “Norman Spear”, an alias used by the founder of the Base,

“posted imagery and videos by the outlawed British terrorist group National Action, praised al-Qaeda, and asked for volunteers possessing various skills, including with weapons, for his new organisation”.

That is not the information that the Minister has just given us; it is information from a BBC article 18 months ago.

An article in the Guardian newspaper, published on 24 January, the same date, states:

“The white supremacy group, which has regional and international cells, extols the virtues of an all-out race war while specifically targeting African Americans and Jewish people”.


Here we have evidence from the FBI that this is a dangerous terrorist organisation, that it was promoting the UK proscribed organisation National Action and had international cells. There appears to have been, in January 2020, almost 18 months ago, sufficient grounds to proscribe the base, yet the Government are bringing forward this order only now.

After the debate on 12 April, the Minister dismissively derided my internet research. In this case, there are various serious questions for the Government to answer. In the face of overwhelming evidence from the FBI in the public domain, published by reputable news organisations 18 months ago, that this organisation should be proscribed, why has it taken the Government until now to ban it? To say that there is information that the Home Secretary receives that cannot be discussed is simply not good enough. Of course we support this order, but we would have supported it 18 months ago, when it should have been introduced.

Domestic Abuse: Older People

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Paddick]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Order is necessary to correct errors in the original Order; and further regrets that the volume and nature of secondary legislation means that Parliament is limited in its ability to offer detailed scrutiny that could assist Her Majesty’s Government in preventing such errors”.

[Lord Paddick (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I have put down an amendment expressing regret at this order for two reasons. The first is to highlight to the House, if it needed highlighting, the volume and complexity of secondary legislation that this House is being asked to scrutinise. It is so vast and complex that it would appear that not even the Government are able to draft legislation correctly—let alone noble Lords being able to scrutinise it properly. The second is to draw the attention of the House to the unreasonable pressure being placed on government Ministers in general, and on the noble Baroness in particular. As well as having to deal with these tsunamis of secondary legislation, she has been having to cover two important and demanding ministerial posts during the absence of one of her colleagues. I take this opportunity again to send my very best wishes to the right honourable James Brokenshire MP, the Minister of State for Security.

On 19 January 2021, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) Order 2021 was laid before this House and it was noted as an instrument of interest by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on 2 February. It was considered by this House on 2 March. On 20 May, the Government laid this order, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, to correct mistakes in the drafting of the original order. In a letter from the Minister dated 20 May to noble Lords who took part in the 2 March debate, she wrote:

“I am acutely aware of the pressures on Parliament over the past year as a result of the pandemic and EU exit and apologise unreservedly for these errors.”


In the 2 March debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said of immigration law:

“It is just the sort of legislation that frustrates parliamentarians—and others, presumably—because it relies on so many statutory instruments, orders and regulations, rather than the primary piece of legislation, to introduce the rules.”


I agreed, saying that, when I got to examining the regulations, rather than the Explanatory Notes accompanying them,

“I had to admit defeat.”—[Official Report, 2/3/21; cols. 1101-04.]

I quoted from the regulations. I was going to do so again but suffice it to say that they are practically unintelligible. I asked the Minister to explain precisely what the section that I had quoted meant. Understandably, she declined to comment at the time, but she did not write to me subsequently to explain.

In the same debate, I asked the Minister a series of perhaps easier questions, such as why the regulations covered only the French channel ports and not the Dutch and Belgian North Sea ports, as they do apply to Eurostar terminals in those countries. I asked why the regulations appeared to extend all immigration enactments to control zones in French channel ports, whereas the previous regulations extended only a few. I also asked about double jeopardy and jurisdiction, including whether offenders would be tried in French or British courts, or potentially in both. None of these questions were answered at the time, nor in writing afterwards.

I have heard from other noble Lords, and from other parts of the House, that they feel that the Government are either unable or unwilling to be held to account. Not only is an extraordinary amount of secondary legislation being pushed through this House, often weeks after it has come into effect, but the House is being given little opportunity to scrutinise it and, by its nature, no chance to amend it. Such is the complexity and volume of legislation that the Government are now making mistakes in the drafting, and even when noble Lords ask questions about that legislation, we receive no response.

I am grateful to the Minister’s office for confirming to me yesterday in an email:

“We are currently in the process of drafting a letter to cover points that were unanswered in yesterday’s debate and the points you raised during the debate on 2 March.”


This is not effective scrutiny of government. This House needs to exert its right to scrutinise the Government. I beg to move.

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

The original question was that the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Juxtaposed Controls) (Amendment) (No. 2) Order 2021, previously debated in Grand Committee, be approved, since when an amendment has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to insert the words set out on the Order Paper. The question I therefore have to put is that this amendment be agreed to. I have been notified that the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, wishes to speak.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Law Enforcement Agencies: Duty of Candour

Lord Paddick Excerpts

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

Lord Paddick Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]]

First, I wish to pay tribute to the family of Daniel Morgan. It is only as a result of their utter determination to see justice done that the independent panel was finally set up, 26 years after Daniel’s horrific murder. Now, 34 years after his murder, we have its report, revealing appalling truths relating to the various police investigations that would never otherwise have been so comprehensively and forensically exposed; truths which make clear why still nobody has been brought to justice for Daniel’s murder, and probably never will be. The delay of eight years in completing and publishing the panel’s report only made matters even harder for the family, but it is to be hoped that its findings, justifying their determined stance, will provide some solace.

I wish to express our appreciation as well for the hard work done by the panel and for its report, and not least for the noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan. It does not seem that the work it did, with the barriers it faced, involved an exactly smooth and stress-free process. The report is devastating in what it reveals about the conduct, role, approach and competence of the Metropolitan Police Service, which was found by the panel to have concealed or denied failings for the sake of its public image. It was found that this was dishonesty on the part of an organisation for reputational benefit and constituted a form of institutional corruption.

It is a conclusion that has already been abruptly rejected by the MPS as continuing to still apply, even though it has still to meet the Home Secretary’s requirement for the commissioner to submit a report setting out the Metropolitan Police Service’s response to the findings and recommendations of the independent panel. Would the Government say, first, when that MPS response has to be with the Home Secretary, and, secondly, if that written response from the MPS will be placed before Parliament, unamended and unredacted?

The overwhelming majority of MPS officers and staff will be gutted by the findings of the report. Certainly, my involvement with the MPS, as a participant in the parliamentary police scheme, left me with nothing but admiration for the way MPS officers and staff under- take their work on our behalf.

When the panel was set up by the then Home Secretary in 2013, it was expected to complete its work within 12 months of relevant documentation being made available. Instead, it took eight years, with the last relevant material not being forthcoming from the Metropolitan Police until March this year. The panel was not set up under the Inquiries Act, which would have given it statutory powers in relation to its investigation—not least over non co-operation—including powers over timely disclosure of documents and compelling people to appear before it to give evidence. The report is very blunt about the attitude of the Metropolitan Police Service towards the panel, saying that, at times, the force treated panel members as though they were litigants in a case against them. Can the Government say why the panel was left to carry out its work with one arm tied behind its back, as far as its powers were concerned? Would the Government also say if the Home Office was aware of the difficulties the panel was having in carrying out its work with the Metropolitan Police Service, and, if so, when did it become aware and what action did any Home Secretary then take, bearing in mind that the Home Secretary is accountable to Parliament for the police service?

That brings me on to a further statement in the panel report, on page 1138, which says:

“The relationship with the different officials who have been Senior Sponsor … since 2013 has been positive, but the relationship with the Home Office as a department has been more challenging.”


Would the Government say in their response whether the Home Office was aware of the specific issues of concern in relation to the Home Office, referred to on page 1138 of the report, and, if so, what action was taken to resolve them and then to ensure that no similar situation could arise again? One would have thought, bearing in mind that the panel was established in 2013 by the then Home Secretary, that the Home Office would have given its full backing and support to the panel. Clearly, that was not the case.

The Home Secretary told the Commons that she was asking the Inspectorate of Constabulary to look into the issues raised by the independent panel’s report. What are the exact terms of reference that have been given on this to the inspectorate?

The Home Secretary also said that she would return to update Parliament on progress made on the recommendations in the report, which include a duty of candour, greater protection for whistleblowers, more effective vetting procedures and adequate provision of resources to deal with corruption, once she had

“received responses from the Metropolitan Police and others.”—[Official Report, Commons, 15/6/21; col.128]

Would the Government spell out exactly who “and others” covers, and whether that means the Home Secretary does not intend to return to the Commons with an update until she has received a response from all those, however many they may be, covered by “and others”?

Will oral updates to Parliament be given at regular intervals on progress being made in the light of the panel recommendations and other responses? One of the panel recommendations is a statutory duty of candour. Will the Government confirm that that recommendation, along with others about a requirement for co-operation from public bodies, will be implemented in time for the inquiry into the Covid pandemic?

Finally, would the Government say what further action they intend to take to provide justice for Daniel Morgan and his family? They are the ones who have been denied justice for 34 years. Public trust and confidence in our police are crucial, not least for policing by consent. The Government need to ensure that this kind of appalling episode can never happen again. Will the Government confirm that that is their objective in considering the findings and recommendations of the panel report, and that regular oral updates will be given to Parliament on how and to what timescale that objective is being delivered?

[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.