Data Retention Regulations 2014
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)
My Lords, the regulations are made under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which became law two weeks ago. They provide the detail of how communications providers can be required to retain data and the increased safeguards that will be in place for these data. They therefore form part of a wider package of protection, oversight and reviews—reviews that will be informed by, and inform, a wider public debate on these important issues.
At this point, I reiterate my thanks for the constructive approach taken by noble Lords during the passage of the Act, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, and her colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
These regulations relate specifically to communications data. That means the context of a communication—the who, where, when and how of a communication—and not the content. The regulations maintain the status quo, allowing those investigating such crimes to continue to have access to the evidence they need. They add no new powers; rather, they increase safeguards.
As I told the House when we debated the Act a fortnight ago, these regulations and the additional safeguards form a crucial part of our response to the European Court of Justice judgment on the EU data retention directive. That judgment called into question the legal basis for the retention of data in the UK, and these new regulations made under the Act play a key part in ensuring a new sound footing for retention. Therefore we need to have them in place before the House rises.
The regulations we are debating today are substantially the same as those we made available to Parliament during debates on the Act. As noble Lords may be aware, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has done its usual helpful work with great speed, and I am grateful to it. Equally, I must thank my noble friend Lord Goodlad, and the members of the Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. They too have swiftly reviewed and reported on the regulations.
I now turn to the detail of the regulations. They will revoke and replace the 2009 data retention regulations. They will provide the detail and safeguards for data retention notices to be issued to communications providers under the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act. Such notices will be issued where necessary and proportionate. Under the new regulations, existing notices under the 2009 regulations will remain in force until the end of the year unless revoked. The regulations are categorical as to the types of data that communications providers may be required to retain, and these are a small subset of all the communications data that providers generate and process. These data types are no different from those covered under the 2009 regulations. Similarly, as with the 2009 regulations, security controls and provisions for financial compensation for providers are included in these regulations.
The key elements of the new regulations are the enhanced safeguards. The regulations make plain certain matters that have to be taken into account before the Secretary of State may issue a retention notice. To be clear, I state that Ministers have always taken their responsibilities when issuing notices very seriously. These regulations now set out key considerations on the face of legislation.
The regulations require the Government to take reasonable steps to consult providers before issuing them with a retention notice. Again, we have always consulted providers and have always worked closely with them as they undertake their obligations under the law. This is now included on the face of the regulations. The retention notices must also be kept under review. Further, the regulations will help us to work with communications providers by making a new data retention code of practice. In this code we will set out the best practice guidance for implementing data retention obligations.
The regulations now stipulate that a notice may require the retention of data for a maximum of 12 months. We have evidence that 12 months is an appropriate length of time for retaining data, including, as my right honourable friend the Home Secretary told the Commons during the debate on the Bill, the fact that half of communications data used in child abuse investigations is more than six months old. However, in circumstances where it is appropriate to retain data for less than 12 months, these regulations provide the flexibility to reduce the retention period.
As noble Lords who closely followed the debates on the draft communications data Bill will be aware, there was disagreement on the scope of the duties of the Information Commissioner in the 2009 regulations. These new regulations clarify that his duties include oversight of the security of data, the integrity of data and the deletion of data at the end of their retention. Further details on this oversight will also be specified in the new retention code of practice. In addition to these safeguards, we will be adding further protections that are not on the face of these regulations. These include amending the Acquisition and Disclosure of Communications Data Code of Practice to increase clarity and to reduce the number of bodies with access to communications data under RIPA.
As was discussed at length in this Chamber a fortnight ago, the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act will expire on 31 December 2016. There is no room to extend this sunset clause and these regulations will fall when that Act falls. Therefore, this House will need to return to these topics after the general election. To inform the debate ahead of new legislation, the Act requires the Interception of Communications Commissioner to produce half-yearly reports and requires a review of investigatory threats, capabilities and safeguards. David Anderson QC, the current independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, will undertake this review. These, in turn, will provide crucial background information for a Joint Committee of Parliament, sitting after the next election.
These regulations do not extend existing powers and they do not introduce elements of the draft communications data Bill. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made clear, this Government still believe that the powers contained in that draft Bill are necessary to allow effective policing in the 21st century. The Government have begun the process of a wider review of investigatory powers. In combination with this, the sunset clause in the Act will require us, and for that matter those who disagree with us, to give these issues proper consideration once the review process has concluded, and after the general election next year. This will enable us to ensure that the legislative regime in this important area properly balances our rights to privacy and security.
These regulations, as with the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act which underpins them, add safeguards while otherwise maintaining the status quo. Maintaining the status quo is, however, an important job—these are vital regulations. The data that will be retained under these regulations are critical for the police and the security services to continue to do their job in keeping this country and those who live here safe. I commend these regulations to the House and I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as a Liberal Democrat and a former senior police officer I am acutely aware of the need to balance privacy and security. In these regulations, as my noble friend the Minister said, the Government appear to be maintaining the status quo with some additional safeguards, going a little further for example in enshrining what has been best practice to date into the new regulations. Pending the wholesale review of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and related legislation, which we successfully negotiated with the Government and the Labour Party in the other place managed to get into the primary legislation, it is the best that we can do in the circumstances. On that basis we support the passing of these regulations.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (LD)
My Lords, I have been through these regulations and the Explanatory Memorandum with some care and I have also taken the trouble of ascertaining the views of David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer to these regulations. There were a number of unanswered questions during Second Reading recently, particularly relating to the future role of the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. I look forward to receiving a response from my noble friend the Minister to those questions in due course, I suspect when the answers are clearer than they were at Second Reading. However, I am totally satisfied that these regulations do the absolute minimum to give effect to the minimum requirements of the Government. The regulations provide every possible safeguard there could be in all the circumstances and I, too, hope that the House will support them.
Police Reform
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I agree with my noble friend. It is certainly the case that many people who have been active in the Armed Forces have qualities that could be important in policing. I do not know that I would go as far as to say that they should be given priority but they should clearly be encouraged to apply for those posts.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, while I welcome the Statement by the Home Secretary—and clearly there are serious issues with the current investigation of police complaints and the police’s disciplinary procedures—is the Home Secretary aware of the dangers of articulating direct entry at a senior level and changes to the inspectorate of constabulary, where we now have for the first time a Chief Inspector of Constabulary who has no experience of policing and a majority of inspectors who have no experience of policing? Is she also aware of the impact on senior officers of the utmost integrity who have spent their whole careers in the police service of saying that those changes are a positive difference to police integrity, and the impression that she appears to be giving to the public about the integrity of the police service at the moment? Is the Home Secretary aware that every time she runs down the police service in this way it makes the police service less effective because the police service relies on public confidence and trust to ensure that the public give information and support the police in their work?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I refer my noble friend to the second paragraph of the Statement that I have just read, in which the Home Secretary pays tribute to individual police officers and the way in which they conduct themselves, “honestly and with integrity”.
If I am honest with my noble friend—and I think I owe it to him to be honest—the way in which he presented his question shows all the problems that policing has: it is the notion that only the police can know how to manage the police. What the Home Secretary has done with this series of reforms is to say to the police service, “There are better ways of doing these things. Other people will be able to get you to the place you want to be”. It is very important that we back those changes. At the heart of it all, the degree to which the police have seen themselves and their problems as being something for them alone is something that the public are no longer prepared to tolerate.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. After what he said yesterday I did some swotting last night. It is important for the legislation to get this sort of wording right. It is quite divisive legislation because of the speed at which it has taken place. This is a sensible amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. At Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord made a compelling case for addressing the precise wording in the European Court judgment. With the greatest respect to my noble friend the Minister, his response to that assertion did not quite come up to the level of the case made by the noble and learned Lord. I also support the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, in that it would not only help lawyers to avoid court cases as a result of not addressing strictly the wording in the judgment but it would also be reassuring to the public to have the wording as suggested in the amendment.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for tabling his amendment as it gives us a chance to talk about these issues. Perhaps he will not mind if I turn first to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, and thank him for his kind words about the work that has been done by my officials overnight. They exemplify the sort of support that the Civil Service can give to Ministers. It has been greatly, I hope, to the advantage of noble Lords to have this information available.
I will deal with the issue that the noble Lord raised, which was the point in the Constitution Committee’s report about why we are dealing with these provisions now rather than in 2012. As the Government made clear last week, some companies have already now started to question whether they are under a duty to comply with their obligations under RIPA. The details are obviously sensitive but, as the Prime Minister made clear, we are approaching a cliff edge. A failure to legislate could result in a damaging loss of capability. We were discussing earlier, when I was dealing with the Urgent Notice Question, an area where that capability was necessary. If companies cease to comply, the security agencies will lose the visibility of what targets are saying to each other and in turn could lose the ability to understand the threat that they pose. The Opposition have been briefed in detail on the issue and the Intelligence and Security Committee is well aware of the challenges that we face. Indeed, I happened to meet the chairman of that committee, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, in the street on my way to work this morning.
The Earl of Erroll
Yes, treason rather than corruption. I do not mind what you want to call it—whatever. All I am saying is that we in Parliament are here to protect the people. We happen to have the senior members of the Executive here as well, which is very useful for holding them to account. But they have to be double-hatted and remember that they are putting in place processes for their successors.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, made the point about the public needing to be reassured that the people at the top are being watched. We are seeing enough conspiracy theories emerging in the press at the moment about rings protecting themselves. We do not need any more of those suggestions. That is why I think we need an earlier debate on this. It is not about the technical part of it; it is about reassuring the public that we have the right checks and balances at the top. That is not technical; it is about how we watch people.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I want to say just two things. The majority view of this House yesterday at Second Reading was dissatisfaction with the lack of time for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, not dissatisfaction with the sunset clause. The last thing we need to do is to recreate that problem by not allowing enough time for public consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of the whole area of RIPA and the associated legislation.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment to have the timetable brought forward because two and a half years is a very long time. While I want to put to one side ideas of conspiracy theories, I do think that there is a hope that somehow the current high level of interest in this will dissipate and that the usual British torpor about what happens with the security services will settle itself back on to our society and we will become unquestioning again. This is about kicking it into the long grass; this is really about postponing it for as long as possible because by that time people will have forgotten the disclosures that we recently had through Snowden and others. We should be concerned to ensure that we act while people are interested and concerned about these issues because they are pressing and very important to a vital and vibrant democracy.
It is important that we have proper scrutiny of the activities that are done in our name at whatever level in our society, and we have to have proper controls. What I am concerned about is when I hear about the setting up of Joint Committees and so on because we always know that the people who are put on to such Joint Committees are hand-picked. There was a period in my life where I remember this happening with the vetting of juries. They are hand-picked to be people who are already very much on the side of protecting the security services.
The security services are vital to the interests of our nation but they need to be questioned. They need to be questioned with some scepticism at times and I am not sure that we get that when people become comfortable in the security committees, as we have seen, and scrutiny is not of the level that it should be. So if we are going to set up these committees and so on, I hope we will see on them the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and some of the people who have been niggling at these issues and asking the questions that were not asked about rendition and so on. There was a complacency in this House and elsewhere about some of the things that happened, which we should have been much more scrupulous about. I hope that when we come to set up committees we will see a greater variety of presences than the ones we have seen until now.
I do not think that two and a half years is the right period of time; 18 months would be perfectly satisfactory and I urge that we look to a shorter period because it concentrates minds while minds are concentrated on this issue.
Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is clear to me, having served as a police officer for more than 30 years, how important it is for communications companies to continue to retain the data that the Bill requires them to keep. Having said that, as a Liberal Democrat, I am extremely concerned to ensure that any invasion of privacy is undertaken only where it is absolutely necessary, proportionate and compliant with both the European Convention on Human Rights and the European Court of Justice judgment.
As the Minister said, there are two main aspects of the Bill: data retention and interception. On the first aspect, it is important, but not widely understood, that this legislation is about data being retained by private companies, not by the Government or their agencies, so that those investigating crime can make specific requests for data about specific individuals. It is also important, but widely misunderstood, that these data give only the context and not the content of the communication: the date, time, place and identities of those involved in the communication, but not what was said.
My noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven will talk about his experience as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, but my experience is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, indicated, that there are very few prosecutions of those involved in serious and organised crime or terrorism that do not use such data. Indeed, some cases heavily rely on such data. I cannot overemphasise the importance of these data for crime detection purposes.
Despite the reassurances given by the Minister, there are justified and serious concerns about the haste with which this legislation has been laid before us. My noble friends Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Strasburger will take up those points. That is not to say that there are not justified and serious concerns about the use of these data. It is not just the data of those suspected of crime that are retained, but everyone’s data.
There are concerns that access to the data is being given where such action is not considered to be proportionate. In addition to the police investigating serious crime and the security services and the police investigating terrorism, other agencies, such as local authorities, can access these data for relatively minor matters. That is why the Liberal Democrats are insisting that the range of agencies that can access the data is restricted. Will the Minister please inform the House of what those restrictions will be?
There are also concerns that even those agencies that have legitimate access to the data might make requests that are not justified or proportionate. That is why the Liberal Democrats are insisting that annual transparency reports are produced to ensure that the number of requests does not significantly increase under this legislation. Will the Minister confirm that this will be the case?
The second area is the interception of the content of communication, which requires a warrant signed by a handful of senior government Ministers, and the apparent extension of this power overseas. Will the Minister confirm that it was always implicit in the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, passed by the former Labour Government, that the power extended to companies whose infrastructure is overseas and that this Bill merely clarifies and does not extend its geographic reach? I know the Minister made that statement in his opening remarks, but it would be helpful for it to be emphasised because it is a major concern of many non-governmental organisations.
More generally, there are genuine and serious concerns about the whole area of intrusion into privacy and where the balance needs to be struck between privacy and security, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, said. That is why the Liberal Democrats are insisting that there is a fundamental review of RIPA. We are very pleased that that was taken up in the other place by the party opposite and put into legislation. We need a fundamental review of all other legislation in this area and a sunset clause in the Bill to ensure that this review is undertaken. We need a proper debate in this country about how far we are willing to allow the state to intrude into our lives to keep us safe. Such a conversation has been delayed for far too long, and I am very pleased that, through the negotiations by the Deputy Prime Minister, this review will allow a proper discussion of these vital issues.
Can the Minister also confirm that an independent privacy and civil liberties oversight board will be established to advise the Government, not only on this review but on an ongoing basis, and that the Intelligence and Security Committee will in future be chaired by an opposition MP, to provide further confidence that there is a proper check on the activities of the Government and their agencies?
The new oversight board, the review of RIPA and the new annual transparency reports to be made to Parliament are all things that the Liberal Democrats supported at our recent party conference, where we called for a new digital Bill of Rights. Far from being a new intrusion into civil liberties, the Bill, alongside the package of changes also announced, will, I believe, strengthen civil liberties. We need to go further and enshrine a new digital Bill of Rights in statute, but these measures are an important step in the right direction.
The Liberal Democrats are very concerned about this whole area of privacy and security, which is why we have sought the concessions the Government have promised. That is why, when the Home Secretary saw this case as an opportunity to bring forward the communications data Bill again, we again blocked it. However, we accept these changes, on the basis of one final and vital point—that it is clear that this new Bill does not extend the power to intrude into people’s privacy.
As the Minister has said, this is not about extending the law further via emergency legislation rushed through Parliament. It is about retaining the status quo, which has been undermined by recent legal developments at the European Court of Justice, and the Government are in discussion with major non-UK telecoms providers. On that basis, and subject to the agreed concessions coming into force, we support the Bill.
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, despite the glowing reference that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, gave the coalition Government, as the Minister has already said, crime is significantly down since this Government came to power. Indeed, in many crime categories it is at the lowest levels ever recorded. However, as the Minister also said, serious and organised crime remains a very serious problem, not least because it is an area of crime that many members of the public are less concerned about—certainly less concerned than they are about personal crime such as burglary, robbery and anti-social behaviour—so there is the potential that police and crime commissioners, perhaps focusing on being re-elected, may be disinclined to champion it.
I would like to speak—it says here “briefly”, but I do not want to raise expectations beyond what I can deliver—on two aspects of the Bill. From my experience as an operational police officer, I very much welcome the enhancements to the Proceeds of Crime Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, rightly pointed out the very small proportion of proceeds of crime that are confiscated, which to me merely demonstrates how difficult it is and how necessary are the changes. It is a sad fact that those involved in serious and organised crime can amass great wealth from their criminal activity. It is also a sad fact that they can therefore afford to employ the best lawyers to help them move their assets beyond reach. Establishing third-party claims at an earlier stage in the process, as the Bill proposes, should help prevent spurious third-party claims further down the line and increase the success in confiscating such assets.
While some criminals in the past have felt that spending additional time in prison is better than giving up their criminal assets, the increase in default sentences—including having to serve the full term of up to a maximum of 14 years in the case of default on a confiscation order over £10 million—will provide a real incentive for them to pay up. It is important that criminals know that the confiscation order remains in force, even if the default sentence is served—as does any compliance order, such as a ban on overseas travel to prevent assets being disposed of.
Of particular benefit are the powers in Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act by which criminal assets can be recovered where no criminal conviction has been possible, either because the criminal has remained remote from the commission of the crime from which they have benefited or because they have fled overseas. In my experience, this is particularly the case with drug dealers who run distribution networks between importation and street dealers. They are very often careful to ensure that they never handle the drugs themselves. It is difficult, however, for these people to demonstrate how they acquired such wealth through legitimate means. Applications for seizure in these cases are made to the High Court.
As has already been mentioned, Clause 41 will also assist in creating a new offence of helping an organised crime group carry out criminal activities: for example, putting in place infrastructure to assist in the commission of crime.
I also welcome the change to Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, in particular the clarification that cruelty likely to cause psychological suffering or harm is covered by Section 1, despite the fact that the Government believe that the other limbs of the offence, in particular ill-treatment, can relate to non-physical cruelty. This follows the work done by—and the Private Member’s Bill of—Mark Williams MP in the other place.
Having said that, women’s groups I have been working with are concerned about two aspects of this change. The first is that it could result in the criminalisation of non-abusing parents who are themselves the victims of coercion, control and psychological abuse. I will unpack that a bit. There have been cases where women, mainly, have been convicted of physical child neglect because they did not prevent the abuse carried out by an abusive partner, even though the partner was exercising coercive control over them as well as abusing the child. In these cases the woman could be said to be almost powerless to protect the child because of the control her partner had over her. With the extension of cruelty to cover non-physical cruelty, there is the potential for such injustices to increase unless there is also movement in recognising psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence against partners.
That brings me to the second point, which is that the Government have not taken the opportunity in this Bill to address what many women’s groups believe to be a legislative gap in domestic violence law to deal with psychological abuse and coercive control. Indeed, psychological abuse and coercive control, not individual incidents of physical violence, are the essence of domestic violence.
My noble friend the Minister will recall a recent debate in the House in which he reassured us that legislation to criminalise psychological abuse and coercive control was not necessary because it was already covered by existing legislation. The Government seem to be saying the same thing in this Bill—that non-physical cruelty directed at children is already covered by existing legislation—but none the less they are prepared to make this explicit by changes to Section 1 of the Children and Young Persons Act. Can the Minister explain why the Government are prepared to make the change in the case of child abuse but are not prepared to make a similar change in relation to domestic violence against partners, particularly now that they are prepared to set a similar precedent in relation to child abuse?
Police and Crime Commissioners
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, the Government’s police reforms are working. Crime is down 10% since 2010. We put operational responsibility where it belongs: with the police. We have introduced democratic accountability through the PCCs. The Home Affairs Select Committee report that I referred to found that PCCs’ costs represent the same proportion of the total spending—0.6%—as was spent on the previous system of police authorities.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my understanding of the reasons for the replacement of police authorities by police and crime commissioners was that they were to save money—from what my noble friend just said, that saving does not appear to have materialised—and to improve democratic accountability. How does the appointment of the deputy police and crime commissioners that have proliferated across the country, who are not elected and cost a considerable amount of money, meet the objectives that the Government had in introducing PCCs in the first place?
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am sorry but I must disagree with my noble friend. In the old system, of which many Members were well aware, only 7% of the people of this country knew that if they had a problem with the police they should go to the police authority, whereas the latest independent crime survey for England and Wales shows that 70% of the public are aware of PCCs. It is a very effective way of bringing accountability to the police system.
Crime: Domestic Violence
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, for securing this debate. I will speak briefly from two perspectives: first, as people might expect, as a former police officer; and secondly, as people might not expect, as a victim of domestic violence in the past.
Despite the negative media attention surrounding the recent Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary report Everyone’s Business: Improving the Police Response to Domestic Abuse, it did highlight some good work carried out by, for example, the Metropolitan Police, an organisation of which I have 30 years’ experience—some of it not good. When I was a constable in the 1970s, we were told that domestic violence was the last thing that we should get involved with, as victims of domestic violence, once they had been patched up in casualty, invariably wanted to go back to their abusive partners and declined to assist the police with any prosecution.
I could not fully understand the mentality of these victims until I became a victim of domestic violence myself. My relationship started normally and lovingly but, imperceptibly, the coercive control and emotional abuse gradually took over. Sometimes something told you that things were not right: my partner’s tearing up of a birthday card from a friend which he thought was from a secret lover, for example; overly and unreasonably jealous behaviour, such as searching the contacts on my mobile phone and refusing to believe that “Bruno” was actually my boss’s official driver and not someone I was having an affair with; allowing me to go out for the night only for me to find that he was following me; and, almost inevitably, eventually a violent attack in the street. Even then, it was only when I was on a residential training course and began to talk to a female colleague that I realised that, however much I loved this individual, it was an abusive and dysfunctional relationship. Luckily for me, the violence was not serious. For too many others, mainly women, it can be fatal.
A decade or so ago, work was done in the Metropolitan Police to identify patterns of behaviour that led to domestic murder. It showed that a pattern of behaviour was established, starting with verbal abuse and coercive control, emotional abuse and then physical violence, tragically culminating in such murders. Officers were then instructed that, when attending domestic violence incidents, they should look out for such patterns in order to identify where victims were particularly vulnerable. This work was developed into a risk assessment tool by Laura Richards, initially in the Metropolitan Police, and then by the Association of Chief Police Officers, and is now widely used and known as DASH. I say “widely used”, but Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary found that it was inconsistently applied and that the police had to be consistent in their approach to domestic violence.
Interestingly, similar patterns of escalating behaviour were identified by the probation service in its report on working with racist offenders published in 1998, where the title of the report encapsulates this sort of progression: From Murmur to Murder. The report highlighted what could happen if racist behaviour was left unchallenged. There are direct parallels here, where unacceptable behaviour in a domestic setting can and tragically does escalate to violence and, all too frequently, to murder. Despite the research, the experience and the good work by some police forces, because such non-physical abuse, coercive control and emotional abuse are not considered by most police forces to be criminal offences, there is little the police or other agencies actually do until, tragically, in many cases, it is too late to prevent serious assaults or even deaths.
My understanding of the law as it stands is that if a stranger carried out the sort of non-physical abuse I suffered, he could be guilty of the criminal offences of harassment and stalking; but if I was in a relationship with that individual, he would be not be considered guilty of any criminal offence. That cannot be right. If my former partner had known that such behaviour did amount to a criminal offence, he might have thought twice about it. If I had known that such behaviour was a criminal offence, that might have helped me to redress the power imbalance in that relationship and helped me prevent the behaviour escalating into violence.
Although I have talked today about my own experience of same-sex domestic violence, the biggest issue is violence against women by men. I believe that the Government may be bringing forward legislation in the Queen’s Speech to extend the definition of child abuse to include psychological as well as physical harm. Legislation to criminalise patterns of behaviour that amount to psychological abuse and coercive control in domestic violence cases would not only help prevent further violent attacks but help save the lives of some of the more than 100 women a year in this country who die at the hands of men who they are or have been in a relationship with.
Immigration Bill
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak mainly to Amendment 56. I apologise to the House that I have not spoken in previous stages of the Bill although I have been present for the overwhelming majority of the debates in this House. I rise somewhat reluctantly in support of the Government as I fully understand some of the concerns many noble Lords, including many of those on my own Benches, have on this issue. I have been struggling to balance both sides of the argument in this complex area. However, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and I have some issues with what he has said this afternoon.
My understanding is that the Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship where the person concerned has acquired such citizenship through fraudulent means, whether it makes them stateless or not. If it is subsequently discovered that it is simply not true that the individual is entitled, and never has been entitled, to British citizenship, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep it, just because that would otherwise make them stateless? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said this afternoon that that is understandable. The Secretary of State already has the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, provided that that does not make them stateless. Therefore, if it is discovered that a naturalised British subject has been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, for example, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep their acquired British citizenship?
The new power the Secretary of State seeks through Clause 64 is the power to revoke British citizenship from a naturalised British subject if their conduct is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK even if it does make them stateless. If it is right that a naturalised British subject should have their British citizenship revoked because they have been engaged with the Taliban in blowing up British soldiers in Afghanistan, can it be right that they should be allowed to keep that British citizenship just because it would otherwise make them stateless?
Some groups have said—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, for whom I have the utmost respect said it this afternoon—that it is disproportionate in any circumstances to make somebody stateless, and that it is rogue states and autocratic Governments which have used powers to make their own citizens stateless. That argument has been used to support not giving the Home Secretary these new powers. There is no power, and the Government are not seeking a power, to make stateless those born in this country or those entitled to British citizenship from birth. Here we are talking about citizenship that has been given to those individuals by the Secretary of State, which the Secretary of State is seeking the power to take away from them if—and only if—their conduct justifies such revocation.
Some groups have argued that there is a wealth of terrorism-related offences that a person can be prosecuted for as an alternative to revocation of citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee has suggested that TPIMs might be another way of dealing with this issue. Clearly, where there is evidence that can be placed before a court, and the individual is in the UK and can be prosecuted, every effort should be made to prosecute them. However, there will be a small number of cases where intelligence of involvement in terrorism cannot be made public.
I have no inside knowledge of the policing of terrorism but, as an example, it is in the public domain that in the past the security services have infiltrated terrorist organisations, and others within such organisations have provided intelligence to the security services about other individuals’ involvement in terrorism. In such cases, the lives of those who provide such intelligence from within would be put at risk if that intelligence were made public. That is, of course, not to say there should be no judicial oversight of such decisions. Anyone deprived of British citizenship, as my noble friend the Minister said, has a full right of appeal and those cases involving closed material would be heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I understand that, as these appeals will be heard by SIAC, legal aid will be available to those involved. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm this.
I also think it is important that there is further oversight of the way in which these powers, if granted, would be used. While I largely accept the case for the Secretary of State having these powers, we have seen in the past the possibility of mission creep and testing the boundaries of powers given to Ministers. That is why I am very pleased to see the Government’s amendment, at the suggestion of my noble friend Lady Hamwee, to ensure that, for example, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation conducts regular reviews into the use of these powers.
Even if it is necessary and proportionate to deprive somebody of citizenship so that it makes them stateless—and I accept that some noble Lords will argue that making someone stateless is disproportionate in any circumstances—some have asked what benefits this would bring. It has been argued that if citizenship is revoked while the individual is abroad, that would allow terror suspects to be loose and undocumented in whatever country they happen to be when their citizenship is revoked. Is it not the case that if they retained a valid British passport, these dangerous people are more likely to be able to travel at will to whatever country they like in pursuit of their terrorist ends? It has also been argued that it will make it more likely that dangerous people who are temporarily abroad will be sent back to the UK because they no longer have a British passport.
Contrary to the briefing provided by the Government, I accept that if someone entered a country with a British passport that is then revoked when they try to leave that country they are most likely to be sent back to the UK, if they do not or cannot regain their original nationality. This seems to be the area about which most noble Lords are concerned this afternoon: that were the UK to refuse admission, it would be a breach of the UK’s international obligations. I would very much like some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister as to what would happen in such circumstances. However, if they were to return to the UK they can be given limited leave to remain, which means that they can be subject to restrictions such as reporting any changes to their employment or address, or being required to report regularly to a police station. On the other hand, if they still hold British citizenship it would be easier for them to be involved in the development of terrorist networks, for example, or in providing support for terrorism or training or assistance in planning terrorist attacks without restriction.
Making someone stateless is a very serious matter that should be contemplated only in the most extreme of circumstances. I believe that such extreme circumstances can and do arise and that the Secretary of State should be allowed to exercise such powers without further delay, subject to the safeguards that already exist and those proposed by the government amendment.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly to support government Amendment 56A and Clause 64 itself. I have followed closely the important and impressive debates on this clause in Committee and today. By the way, anyone who doubts the value of the House of Lords should read those speeches, because they demonstrate clearly this House’s concern for the rights of the individual.
The issue with which this House is grappling, not for the first time, is how to strike the balance between national security and the rights of the individual, in particular the situation that can arise when the Home Secretary of the day has reason to believe that an individual poses a grave threat to the UK’s national security but when, for various reasons, that person cannot be charged and brought to court. This is a dilemma with which Parliament has had to wrestle in recent years. Where a person poses such a threat but cannot be brought to court, it is right that Parliament should concern itself with the treatment and rights of that individual and the practicalities, as this House did on 17 March and is doing again today. I have had to ask myself: are there any instances of a Home Secretary, whether Labour or Conservative, depriving a person of citizenship on scant evidence and without good reason?
Metropolitan Police
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
This is another area on which we have received a shocking report, and the Home Secretary commented on it this morning. Those noble Lords who listened to the “Today” programme will have heard a woman called Kimberley talk about her experience of the investigation made into her complaints. It is not good and the Home Secretary is determined to tackle this scourge. As she said this morning, she expects chief constables to respond to the report, and I would say that they owe it to the victims of these crimes to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, many noble Lords will recall the high-profile visit made by the Metropolitan Police to the right honourable Damian Green MP before he became the Minister for Policing, but I do not suspect that many will recall the last high-profile visit made by the Minister for Policing to the Metropolitan Police in support of the excellent work done by the overwhelming majority of police officers every day to keep us safe in London. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us when such a visit was last made and why we have not heard about it.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
My Lords, as my noble friend will know, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and other senior officers meet the Home Secretary and the Minister for Policing on a regular basis. The last public engagement was the launch of the trial of body-worn video equipment that took place late last year and which was also attended by the Mayor of London. Contact between the Home Office and the Metropolitan Police is on an everyday basis because it is such an important link for us. I hope that my noble friend will be reassured by my earlier comments in answering this Question. We recognise the diligence with which the majority of police officers perform their duties on behalf of the public.
Ellison Review
Lord Paddick Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That support has been well merited. We have had to deal with some pretty difficult issues in this House but this is one of the most potent occasions that I can remember. I thank the noble Baroness for her dignity on this and on other occasions in dealing with what has been, as the Prime Minister referred to Hillsborough being, a double injustice. The Lawrence family has had to endure a chain of injustice as a result of the failure of the institutions in which we all invest so much trust to bring actual justice to her and her family. I say on behalf of the Home Secretary that I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence, had an opportunity to talk to Mrs May earlier today. I am delighted that she was able to do that.
I apologise that we were not able to give the noble Baroness advance notice of this Statement. As she probably is aware, the Statement needed parliamentary privilege to be made public because of its content. I hope that noble Lords will understand that that was the right choice to make because we felt that this was a truly important opportunity to put into the public domain matters about which we believe the public should know.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the only former senior police officer present in the House this afternoon, I personally thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence of Clarendon, for her dedication, tenacity and dignity in pursuing these issues when, as she has already said, very few people believed her. We owe a great debt to her for pursuing the case in the way that she has done. I also thank my noble friend the Minister for the compassion that he has shown in both the delivery of his speech and the way that he has responded.
The Ellison review is very worrying. Not only did the Metropolitan Police Service fail to disclose evidence of corruption to the Macpherson inquiry, but both the MPS and the Independent Police Complaints Commission failed to reveal the evidence of corruption that this review has finally discovered. The activities of the special demonstration squad and other undercover officers in infiltrating those supporting the Lawrence family and Duwayne Brooks are also a very serious concern. My concern, on which perhaps the Minister can reassure me, is this: how can a judge-led public inquiry get to the truth when the Macpherson inquiry, also a judge-led public inquiry, failed to do so?