Immigration Rules and Border Security

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 21st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, there is yet more chaos at the borders as we learned yesterday of a failure to check hundreds of high-risk flights for the obvious threats of trafficking, serious crime and terrorism. The Government dispute the figures, so let me give them an opportunity to say whether all the high-risk flights were checked. What are the figures that the Government believe, not only for London City Airport but across the UK, and are they all properly checked?

Instead of getting a grip, the Government sacked the inspector immediately when he was being forced to leave next month anyway. Some 15 of his reports remain unpublished, including revelations of visa failures in the care sector, with 275 such visas issued to a non-existent care home. When will these 15 reports, being sat on by the Home Office, be published, and when will there be a new independent inspector to oversee our borders and immigration arrangements? Border security is too important for confusion, delay and incompetence but, too often, that is what we get from this Government.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his questions, and I will do my best to answer them all. I can reassure anyone from the public who happens to be watching: Border Force performs checks on 100% of scheduled passengers arriving in the UK and risk-based intelligence-led checks on general aviation. It is disturbing that information with no basis in fact was leaked by the independent chief inspector to a national newspaper before the Home Office had the chance to respond. As a consequence, Mr Neal lost the confidence of the Home Secretary, as he pointed out in his WMS yesterday. I cannot really improve on his words:

“I have terminated the appointment of David Neal, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, after he breached the terms of appointment and lost my confidence”.


In terms of the checks at London City Airport, Mr Neal was very aware of a specific issue with the recording of data there that meant that a large proportion of flights recorded as high risk should have been reclassified as low risk. As I have already mentioned, all notified general aviation flights are categorised as high risk or low risk based on a number of factors. These are primarily related to persons on board, but additional factors can relate to intelligence about the aircraft and other matters. A flight may be remotely cleared when it has been assessed using the risk assessment as low risk, and for high-risk flights in certain circumstances only. A remote clearance requires, as a minimum, a digital record check on Home Office systems for all passengers. Where we are notified of a general aviation flight, we clear 100% of high-risk and low-risk flights remotely or in person, in accordance with the general aviation guidance.

I am not sure when the new replacement will be recruited. It is a very important position, and an appointment will be made following robust competition in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. As regards the publishing of the other reports, it is undeniably unfortunate that circumstances have delayed the publication of certain inspection reports. I will say that the one that was leaked was well within the time limit, and the Government had not been given an opportunity to respond and were still fact-checking, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. These will be published as soon as possible.

Protest Measures

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Tuesday 13th February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this debate on last week’s Government Statement on protest measures. It is important to start my comments on such a Statement by thanking the police for all the work they are doing to maintain public order across the country. We know that many officers are having to give up rest days to police protests, and those demands are growing. Can the Minister start by outlining how resources are being allocated to meet that demand and what the impact has been on neighbourhood policing? Protest is a fundamental freedom in a democracy, and that right must be protected. If that freedom is abused and used to intimidate, harass or harm others, safeguards are clearly needed.

This is yet another suite of measures to tackle issues arising at protests. Can the Minister confirm that all these additional measures have been requested by the police across the UK as well as in London, and that they will be included in the Criminal Justice Bill to allow proper scrutiny of the accompanying guidelines?

On the issue of face coverings and the power to arrest those seeking to conceal their identity, is this an automatic offence decided by an individual officer, or is it triggered by a set of circumstances then to be authorised by a senior officer? We all understand that there is legitimate concern about the use of face coverings to conceal identity, but what about Chinese dissidents protesting outside the Chinese Embassy, or Iranian dissidents demonstrating outside the Iranian Embassy? Will they still be able to cover their faces, which they may well wish to do to protect families at home from intimidation or worse? We have a proud tradition of giving safe haven to dissidents opposing oppressive regimes.

We support the measures relating to flares and fireworks, which have been used to fuel public disorder and intimidate the police. Can the Minister say how they will be enforced in protests, which sometimes involve thousands? Our war memorials rightly hold a special place in the collective affection and respect of our nation. They remember those who made the ultimate sacrifice to protect the very freedoms which a very small number of people seek to desecrate. This has sparked understandable outrage across the country, including from me personally. My uncle, whom I am named after, was killed on D-day. His name is proudly remembered on a war memorial near his home village of Cheldon in Devon, close to both the town of Chulmleigh and the former constituency of the noble Lord, Lord Swire. To think of this and other war memorials being under threat or defaced is unthinkable. Can the Minister outline how the new measure in the forthcoming Bill is expected to work in practice?

Also raised was the issue of the definition of “hateful extremism”. The Government are looking at this, and work is ongoing. Can the Minister update us on what progress has been made, and when can we expect a Statement? The police of course need the necessary laws to police protests and, importantly, the confidence to use them. The Minister in the other place raised the issue of the proscription of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Are other groups under consideration for proscription, and have the Government assessed their involvement in any of the protests that we have seen? What action, if any, are the Government seeking to take?

Above all, in our proud democracy there is the right to peacefully protest. That is a fundamental freedom in our country of which we all are proud. It must not be abused but it must not be curbed unnecessarily either. The right balance must be struck between safeguarding that right to protest and the important duty to safeguard the public.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Government are trying to strike a balance among competing priorities—maintaining the right to peaceful protest, restraining incitement to racial and religious hatred, and keeping the country moving, free from disruptive events. It is right that police use all available powers to arrest those who go beyond what is acceptable for a peaceful protest, not least when their actions are motivated by hate. Protest should not be used as a shield to allow anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or any other type of hatred to fester with impunity.

However, we must ensure that the tactics employed by a minority do not undermine the ability of others to protest peacefully. I have a number of concerns, and it would be helpful if the Minister could address them when he responds. The provisions announced to prevent the use of facial coverings plainly bear a relationship to the increased use of facial recognition technology in policing. The Policing Minister is on record as saying that he is already encouraging police forces to search all available databases, including the passport database, to identify people using facial recognition technology for crime generally.

Clause 27 of the Criminal Justice Bill creates a very wide power to access driver licence records for this purpose, but there has been little public debate on this or on the parameters of the accelerated use of such technology. Given the potential freedoms that this could infringe, is a legal protest the correct context for technology to be used? Should the faces of people engaged in lawful and peaceful protest systematically be recorded and added to databases? Would there be a temptation to create lists of people who attend such protests, with the justification that these are people who are not in favour of the status quo and might, at some future date, cause trouble?

Police already collect information on political activists. However, attending a protest should not qualify as criminal activism. The fact that facial recognition is being introduced into policing without the debate or openness that is needed is a cause for concern. Since the Government are proposing amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, will the Minister commit to setting out in that Bill the circumstances in which this technology should be used? Will he commit specifically to addressing the many concerns that the systems can be particularly bad at recognising black female faces? This is powerful technology, but it is not infallible by any means.

As things stand, its use enjoys public support, but that support may diminish if it is deployed disproportionately, causing problems for minority groups or being used for minor offences. It is surely in the interests of all of us who want to continue to see policing by consent for this to be avoided.

Finally, I want to raise the question of police resources. The Home Affairs Committee recently expressed concern about the effect that the increasing number of protests is having on the number of rest days being cancelled for police officers. Last year the Metropolitan Police had to cancel 4,000 rest days to police protests at a cost of nearly £19 million. Can the Minister say what the Home Office is doing to ensure that police forces are reimbursed for the cost of these cancelled days? When I was a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, we had a dreadful job trying to get the money back from the Home Office. I suspect that things have not changed very much. What is being done to support officers’ well-being when large numbers of rest days have to be cancelled?

Will police officers receive the necessary resources and training to identify and prevent hate crimes, including threats and incitements to violence on social media? According to the official figures, between October and December last year there were more than 1,000 protests and vigils and 600 arrests, accounting for 26,000 police officer shifts. This issue is not going away. The duty of care that we owe police officers needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency.

These are among the issues that we on these Benches will want to raise during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I look forward to the Minister giving us his early indications of his views.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Coaker Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 30th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the Bill and see it as an important step forward for our country. I thank the Minister and his colleagues very much for their constructive engagement all the way through; we very much appreciate that. I join the Minister in thanking his officials, all of whom have been helpful in ensuring that we understand the Government’s proposals. I wish him well with the Scottish Government and sorting out the various legislative consents; I hope that happens as soon as possible.

I thank my noble friend Lord Ponsonby for his support and help, and Clare Scally of our Whips Office, who has done an amazing job. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, the representative of the Liberal Democrats, who have engaged with us and others constructively on the Bill. I also single out the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, whose report gave us a hugely beneficial platform through which to move forward. When an expert puts a report together and the Government engage constructively with it, it helps enormously. Similarly, I thank my noble friends Lord West and Lord Murphy, the ISC for its work and the intelligence services, some of whose representatives are here, for their input. It would be remiss of us not to join the Minister in thanking them again, particularly when we read on the front pages of our newspapers the threat to so-called Iranian dissidents in this country from Iranian criminal gangs. It shows yet again the importance of the work they do.

The Bill is an important step forward because it maintains the powers that our police and other services need to stay ahead of the criminals and those who would organise against us. There are still one or two issues to be looked at, but the Bill leaves us in a good place. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, there will be continuing debate about the triple lock and whether the wording used is completely right, but it is a significant step forward. As my noble friend Lord West mentioned, it shows the Government in a good light when they listen to the arguments and accept amendments because they are the right thing to do. I hope that we can do that in other areas as well.

There are still issues with the oversight the ISC has more generally of government business, and how large companies’ security measures and the work they do will continue under the Bill. However, the Minister is to be congratulated on the open way he has led the legislation through the House. As others have said, it is a case study in how to do it, and we are very grateful for it.

Bill passed.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Coaker Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and join the debate that has been going on through most of the afternoon and well into the evening. I will start with the context of this particular debate. For the avoidance of any doubt, this is not a debate between those who think we should control our borders, have an immigration policy and stop the small boats and all the rest of us who do not think we should have a policy on any of those things. Everyone accepts that there is an issue around all those challenges. The context of this debate is: what is the right way to go about dealing with that particular problem? That is what is before us today. Getting to a point where you are either in favour of stopping the small boats or not will do nothing for the legislative progress that we all wish to make.

I want to say from the outset that we opposed this Bill at every stage in the other place and that we continue to oppose the Bill and the measures contained within it. We do not think they will work, we think they are unaffordable and we think they raise real questions about the rule of law. But let me also say that we as His Majesty’s Opposition also believe that it is not appropriate for us to support and pass a fatal amendment at this stage, so we will not do that. We do not think that is the appropriate way for us to act.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has laid it out, as he is entitled to do, and said that he respects everybody’s opinion. We also respect everybody’s opinion. However, we do not believe that, at this stage, it is appropriate for the House of Lords to do that. We believe that the revision and scrutiny of legislation—the traditional role of the House—is the way forward for us.

I gently say to noble Lords opposite who remind me of the constitutional proprieties with respect to this, that if there is to be a change of Government, I look forward to them failing to block or get in the way of or unnecessarily delay a number of Labour Bills that will be brought before your Lordships, including the re-establishment of employment rights from day one. I look forward to noble Lords welcoming that with open arms, and not wishing to delay it at all, and to voting for votes at 16. However, the serious point is that there is a proper role for this House, and we believe that that is to scrutinise and amend but not to block.

The point of the noble Lord, Lord Baker, is one that we take on board. The opinion we want to change, and the battle and vote we want to win, is at a general election, where we can vote for a change of Government. We will do whatever we can to win that battle.

Here we are again. Some noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, have pointed out that this House seems to be getting in the way of immigration legislation, preventing the Government tackling a very real problem. I did not notice that with the Nationality and Borders Act, which passed two years ago. That was supposed to solve the problem and nobody blocked that. We made suggestions, but nobody in this House blocked it. Only last year we had the Illegal Migration Act, and that was supposed to solve all the problems. Nobody blocked that, but we passed amendments, gave opinions and said that things needed to be done. As I have said from this Front Bench for His Majesty’s Opposition, we do not intend to block this particular Bill; that is not our proposition.

However, former Prime Ministers and Home Secretaries, perhaps the current Home Secretary and the current Minister, and certainly the previous Immigration Minister, have all questioned whether the Bill is workable. Robert Jenrick MP said that it is both “legally flawed” and “operationally flawed”. That is not just anybody; that is a senior member of the governing party, who has got other aspirations, should it work out for him.

This raises a number of questions. Some £400 million has been spent and not a single asylum seeker has been sent to Rwanda. What is really remarkable is that the Rwandan Government say that they will take a couple of hundred asylum seekers. What on earth are we doing spending all this time debating Rwanda when it will be dealing with a couple of hundred of asylum seekers? Perhaps the Minister could tell us what will happen to the other 27,700 that came in small boats in 2023. Where are they going? How does the Rwanda policy work in respect of that? That is if they can find them—we now understand that the Government have lost thousands of them and do not know where they are. The Rwanda Bill we have here really beggars belief.

The noble Lord, Lord Clarke, the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and other noble Lords made the point that it is quite astonishing to read in Clause 2 that:

“Every decision-maker must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.


As the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said, in questioning the noble Lord, Lord Faulks—who may be right; I am not a lawyer—if the Supreme Court makes a finding of fact, seeking to change that by legislation does not seem to be constitutionally the right way forward. As other noble Lords have said, what else could be changed because a finding of fact by the Supreme Court was found not to be consistent with what you wanted it to say?

It is made even more worrying and troubling—and this is a Conservative Government; the party of law and order—by Clause 2(3), which tells us that that any court must ignore any appeal that is brought forward

“on the grounds that the Republic of Rwanda is not a safe country”.

That is quite astonishing; our own courts cannot determine the rights and wrongs of legislation under this Bill. Even a Government under Margaret Thatcher might have found it difficult to believe that some of this was actually happening.

Various clauses disapply the rule of international law and provide for the disapplication of the European Court of Human rights and various other international bodies. There are some who say that it does not matter that we stand accused of breaking international law, or that the UNHCR says that the Rwanda Bill and the treaty are inconsistent with the refugee convention, the European Court of Human Rights and international law. We are told by some that this is of no consequence. However, many noble Lords have talked about the importance of our global standing and international reputation. I think that matters. If the Government are saying that it does not matter, and that the public do not care, I am quite happy to go to the country and argue that Britain’s place in the world matters, that our global reputation matters, and that our abidance by and adherence to international law matters.

If we do not think international law matters, what are we doing in Ukraine? What are we doing in the Red Sea with respect to the Houthis? What are we doing with respect to China and its policies on Taiwan and the South Pacific? If international law and conventions do not matter, and you can disregard them when you want, what does that say for the international rules-based order? Our country, of which we are all proud, is a country that should be and is right at the forefront of standing up for that, as a senior member of the United Nations, NATO and so on. I say that that does matter. Some say that that is irrelevant to the British people and to public opinion; I say that it is not.

There will be amendments. We read that the Government have included in Clause 1(3) many of the obligations that they expect the Government of Rwanda to take up to ensure that it is a safe country. However, it says that Rwanda has

“agreed to fulfil the following obligations.”

As noble Lord and noble Baroness after noble Lord and noble Baroness have said in this debate, we have no way of knowing whether these obligations are actually going to be fulfilled. The Bill says that they will be but we do not know. It will be an act of faith; it will be a belief that it is going to happen. We hope it will happen, but there is no mechanism in the Bill by which we can ensure that we hold the Rwandan Government to account and know that the things that we want to happen will happen. I suspect that the amendments will seek to address that particular point and ask whether there is some way to make a reality of the various things that have been put in the Bill.

As I said, there is no difference between any of us in wanting to deal with this problem. The Labour Party is continually goaded on the basis that, if His Majesty’s Government continually say that we have no plan, then sooner or later people will think there is no plan. It may be that noble Lords do not agree with what we are saying, but time after time my noble friend Lady Smith and I, and many others, have said that there should be tough measures to tackle the criminal gangs and that we should establish new agreements with other countries. We believe in the establishment of safe and legal routes. We believe that the asylum system and process should be speeded up, so that applications are dealt with speedily and effectively. We also believe that it is necessary, as the most reverend Primate continually points out, for problems to be dealt with at source, through a new way of looking at this together, so that there is a sharing of the problem.

That is the plan. If people do not agree with it, they should argue about it and say it will not work, in the same way that we say the Government’s plan will not work. But I am quite happy to go and put before people that five-point plan as a better way of dealing with those problems than what the Government have laid before us.

We need to ensure that, above all, we have a system that is built on our traditions of fairness, openness and recognising that this issue needs co-operation and sharing, not the offloading of responsibility to others. It also needs to be a system rooted in a system of international law and respect—a system our great country helped to establish. The Bill deserves to be amended to protect those principles as far as possible.

The Government will get their Bill, as I say, even if amended. But the reward will be not only an unworkable system but one that comes with a cost to our international standing and reputation. Now is not the time for us to panic or ditch our principles but to put forward an asylum system and an immigration and asylum law that will work and be based on the principles of which this country has always been proud.

Emergency Services Network: Critical Communications System

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I suppose this could have been spotted earlier, but the fact is that Motorola’s dual role in it arose as a result of the company acquiring Airwave at the same time as it was awarded the contract for ESN, so the Home Office’s options at that point were limited. We sought to agree measures to protect the delivery of ESN and, when it became clear that those measures were insufficient, the Home Office raised its concerns with the Competition and Markets Authority. As for future suppliers, the contracts will be awarded later this year, and I shall make sure that the noble Lord’s concerns are reflected.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are supposed to be introducing a new emergency services network, but, as my noble friend pointed out, what the Minister has said leaves us all still bewildered about the actual implementation date. Perhaps he can tell us. The original date was 2017, but the implementation date is what everyone wants to know. When is it going to be working? When are we going to know that we have a new emergency services network? From what I could see, the Home Office stated that it would be 2029. Is that still correct? In other words, when can we actually have the new emergency services network promised by the Government?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I obviously cannot answer that question as precisely as the noble Lord would like. Yes, 2029 is an aspiration, partly because of the functionality of Airwave, to which I have already referred. However, some aspects of ESN are already live. Three ESN products have gone live in the past two years: 4G data connectivity for vehicles, which is called Connect; push-to-talk and messaging capability on smartphones, Direct 1 and Direct 2; and a device that can monitor and assess coverage on the move. Significant work has gone into the EAS, which is blanket coverage across the country, while much of the hardware has already been put in place. The noble Lord draws far too bleak a picture.

Investigatory Powers (Amendment) Bill [HL]

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 23rd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly to support my noble friend Lord West in his excellent speech regarding the Intelligence and Security Committee, which I had the honour of chairing for two years some years ago. I hope that the Government take great heed of my noble friend’s words. The ISC is probably the most important oversight committee in the world, and it is certainly held in great respect by countries throughout the western world. I have never known the committee to be in any way partisan, and it consists of Members of both Houses of Parliament of great distinction. Therefore, I support what my noble friend said.

However, I also support the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Coaker regarding the Prime Minister. Something has gone wrong in the last few years in relations between the Government and the Intelligence and Security Committee. It would seem that the Prime Minister, whoever it might be, has not met with the ISC—as he should do—for years. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when the ISC last had a formal meeting in the Cabinet Room of No. 10 Downing Street with an incumbent Prime Minister. It is hugely important because, inevitably, the work of the ISC is secret but may need to be discussed with the Prime Minister of the day. My noble friend’s amendment puts that obligation for the Prime Minister to meet with the committee in statute. I have no doubt that the Minister will dismiss this as impractical. However, it shows the strength of feeling of Members of this House and, I am sure, of the other place, regarding the importance of the ISC, the importance of the agencies reporting to it—especially since, as a result of this Bill, the agencies will have more power—and for there being a direct link between the Prime Minister and the committee on a regular basis.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his continued engagement with us on all aspects of this important Bill. I would be grateful if he could pass that on to his officials as well. I wish the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, well with her knee, and I hope she will soon be able to make do without the crutch.

I very much support what my noble friends Lord West and Lord Murphy said about the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord West regarding the ISC. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I will come to my amendments in a moment, but it goes to the heart of what many of us have been saying—that the Intelligence and Security Committee is extremely important. Part of the problem is that, when the Minister responds to us on these points, he often says, “Don’t worry: there’s ministerial oversight”. However, what my noble friends have talked about is that this is not the same as parliamentary oversight. There is an important distinction to be made. I hope that the Minister can respond to that.

I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his amendments. Again, we thank the Government for the communication we have had regarding Amendments 1 and 7. As I have intimated before, we support the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on his Amendments 1 and 7. With the addition of the low/no datasets authorisation and third-party data warrants to the bulk personal datasets warrants regime, and the extension of powers that this represents, it seems appropriate that additional safeguards are put in place to ensure the judicial commissioner is informed as quickly as possible of the use of these urgent warrants. Importantly, that does not change how long the judicial commissioner has to consider the warrant, and to revoke access if necessary; it is just on the importance of notification as quickly as possible. If urgent powers, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller, has pointed to, need to be used, nobody is suggesting that they are not used; the suggestion is that the notification to the judicial commissioner should be made as soon as possible and, with respect to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, within 24 hours.

I turn to my Amendment 47. This amendment aims to try to get the Minister to put some of this on the record, rather than to seek to divide the House on it. Amendment 47 seeks to ensure that the Government report on the potential impact of the Bill on the requirement to maintain data adequacy decisions from the EU. The adequacy agreement is dependent on the overall landscape of UK data protections. Although the UK protections are currently considered adequate, deviations from this under this legislation could put our current status at risk. Losing this designation would have serious consequences for digitally intensive sectors, such as telecommunications and financial services as well as tech services. In his response, could the Minister provide some reassurances on this particular aspect of the legislation and say whether any specific analysis has been done on the impacts of the Bill on the data adequacy agreement?

I turn to my Amendment 5, which, just for clarity, is a probing amendment but is extremely important. The Minister will know that I have raised this point again and again on various pieces of legislation over the last year or two. To be fair, the Minister has said that he will raise it with the appropriate people, and I am sure that he has done that—I am not questioning that at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, said, and the Intelligence and Security Committee said in its report of 5 December 2023—hence my Amendment 5 to probe this—no meeting between the Prime Minister of our country and the Intelligence and Security Committee has taken place since December 2014. I am pleased that we have the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, here—not present in the Chamber now, but here within your Lordships’ House—because he was the last Prime Minister that met with the committee. I find it absolutely astonishing that that is the case.

We are informed by the committee that many invitations have been made to various Prime Ministers to attend the Intelligence and Security Committee. I do not want to go on about this—well, I will to an extent—but it is incredibly important. I cannot believe—people say that it cannot be right, and I show them the report—that it has been 10 years since a Prime Minister has gone to the body, which has been set up by Parliament to ensure there is liaison between Parliament and the intelligence and security services. Obviously, matters can be discussed in that committee. Some of those cannot be discussed in the open, but that is one way in which it is held to account.

Can the Minister explain what on earth is going on? Why is it so difficult for the Prime Minister to meet the committee? I am not intending to push this amendment to a vote, as I say, and I am sure the Minister will try to explain again, but it is simply unacceptable that the Prime Minister of this country has not met the ISC for 10 years. For the first 20 years of its existence, and my noble friend Lord West will correct me if I am wrong, I think it was an annual occurrence that the Prime Minister met the ISC—my noble friend Lord Murphy is nodding—yet that has not happened since 2014. That is unacceptable, and my Amendment 5 seeks to ask the Minister what on earth we are going to do to try to get the Prime Minister to attend. I would not have thought that was too much to ask.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened with interest to the points made in this debate. As noble Lords will be aware, we have considered carefully the amendments that have been debated. I place on record my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord West, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox, for their constructive engagement in the run-up to today’s debate on these issues and various others that will be debated later today.

I turn first to the topic of oversight of the new Part 7A regime containing bulk personal datasets, BPDs, where there is low or no expectation of privacy. Alongside the proportionate set of safeguards set out in Part 7A, the Bill currently provides for executive political oversight and accountability by requiring the heads of the intelligence services to provide an annual report to the Secretary of State about Part 7A datasets. The intention of the report is to ensure that there is a statutory mechanism for political oversight, given that the Secretary of State will not have a role in Part 7A authorisations. That is set out in new Section 226DA in Clause 2 of the Bill.

The Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to provide full, independent and robust oversight of the investigatory powers regime, including this new part. Nevertheless, the Government have listened to the points made by noble Lords and colleagues in the other place, and we understand their concerns about increasing parliamentary oversight. Government Amendment 4 therefore recognises the important role of the ISC in providing parliamentary oversight of the intelligence services. It places a statutory obligation on the Secretary of State to provide the ISC with an annual report containing information about category authorisations granted under the Act during the year. The amendment will ensure that the ISC is proactively provided with information about the operation of Part 7A on an annual basis. That will support the ISC in continuing to fulfil its scrutiny role and will enhance the valuable parliamentary oversight the committee provides.

It is appropriate for the ISC to be privy to certain information relating to Part 7A in the exercise of its functions, and that a statutory obligation be placed on the Secretary of State to provide it. This obligation is intended to be consistent with the provisions set out in the Justice and Security Act, and due regard will be had to the memorandum of understanding between the Prime Minister and the ISC when meeting it. It is likely that Amendments 2 and 3, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, which would require that the report provided to the Secretary of State be also shared with the ISC, would not be in step with that. The information required by the Secretary of State to fulfil their responsibilities in respect of the intelligence services will not necessarily be the same as that which would assist the ISC in performing its functions. The report will almost certainly contain information about live operations, which is outside the scope of the ISC’s remit, as well as other information that it may not be appropriate to share with the ISC and which the Secretary of State could properly withhold from the ISC were the ISC to request it.

For that reason, we think it more appropriate that a report be written to meet the ISC’s functions that the Secretary of State will send to the ISC. This will provide the additional parliamentary oversight the committee is seeking and would be akin to the existing arrangements in place for operational purposes.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government welcome the ISC’s views on how the memorandum of understanding may be updated to reflect any changes arising from the National Security Act and will formally reach out in the coming weeks. The Government are clear that the MoU review is the correct forum to discuss relevant potential changes to the agreement between the Prime Minister and the ISC.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for giving way, because this is an extremely important point. He mentioned with respect to my Amendment 5 that somebody will formally reach out. Does that mean that the Prime Minister will formally reach out to the ISC and meet with it, so that we get a resolution to this non-meeting?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot say whether or not that someone will be the Prime Minister at the moment.

As I said, the Government are clear that the MoU review is the correct forum to discuss relevant potential changes to the agreement between the Prime Minister and the ISC. But the Government do not believe a report of this kind is appropriate or necessary and do not support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has already answered the question from the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, and all I can say from the Dispatch Box is that I will try again.

I turn to the second of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, Amendment 47, which would require the Government to publish a report assessing the potential impact of this legislation on the EU’s data adequacy decision. The Government are committed to maintaining their data adequacy decisions from the EU, which play a pivotal role in enabling trade and fighting crime. The Home Office worked closely with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology when developing the proposals within this Bill to ensure that they would not adversely impact on the UK’s EU data adequacy decisions. As the European Commission has made clear, a third country is not required to have the same rules as the EU to be considered adequate. We maintain regular engagement with the European Commission on the Bill to ensure that our reforms are understood. Ultimately, the EU adequacy assessment of the UK is for the EU to decide, so the Government cannot support this amendment.

I turn to the amendments retabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on urgency provisions for individual authorisations under Part 7A and third party dataset warrants under Part 7B. The Government remain opposed to these iterations of the amendments for the following reasons. Urgency provisions are found throughout the IPA and the Government’s approach is to mirror those provisions in the regimes in new Part 7A and new Part 7B. Making the proposed amendment solely for these parts would reduce consistency—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, predicted—and ultimately risk operational confusion where there is no good reason to do so.

It will always be in the interests of the relevant intelligence service—as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham- Buller, said; I add my comments to those of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about a speedy recovery—to notify a judicial commissioner of the granting of an urgent authorisation or the issuing of an urgent warrant as soon as is reasonably practicable. These urgent instruments are valid only for five working days. A judicial commissioner must review and decide whether to approve the decision to issue or grant the instrument within three working days. If the judicial commissioner refuses to approve the decision within that time, then the instrument will cease to have effect. It would be counter- intuitive for an intelligence service to make untimely notifications, as this increases the risk of the urgent authorisation or warrant timing out because the judicial commissioner is left without sufficient time to make a decision.

In an operational scenario where the urgency provisions are required, such as a threat to life or risk of serious harm, or an urgent intelligence-gathering opportunity, it may not be practical or possible for the intelligence services to ensure completion of paperwork within a 24-hour period, as the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham- Buller, explained rather more eloquently than I have done.

The intelligence services work closely with the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office to ensure that the processes for reviewing decisions are timely and work for judicial commissioners. For those reasons, I ask that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, does not press his amendments.

This group also includes the two modest but worthwhile government amendments, Amendments 8 and 9. These make it clear beyond doubt that the new third party BPD regime will fall under the oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. The robust oversight that IPCO brings will ensure compliance, ensuring that robust safeguards are in place when information is examined by the intelligence services on third parties’ systems. I hope that noble Lords will welcome these amendments and support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I spoke in Committee about the difference between “unavailable” and “unable”. I am greatly encouraged by Amendments 39 and 43 proposed by the noble Lord, Lord West. The one point of difference between us is that he narrows the meaning of “inability”, for reasons he has explained. If it came to a vote, I think I would support his amendments—but, like the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I think that further thought needs to be given to whether that narrowing of “inability” or “unable” is really appropriate, considering the effect that it has, particularly in situations of conflicts of interest.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have much to add to the debate. From these Benches, we fully support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord West, and the excellent way in which he presented them. They have the support of the whole ISC, which in this respect has done a great service to us all in taking forward the discussion. These amendments certainly improve the Bill.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord West, made is exceptionally important—the fact that this has to be in the Bill, and that we need it to guide us in how we take this forward. For those who read our proceedings, it is important to repeat that what we are discussing here is the interception of communications of parliamentarians, and the fact that the triple lock was introduced to give additional protection to that. The role of the Prime Minister becomes crucial in that, for obvious reasons.

I join others in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the way in which he has presented his arguments, and the discussions and debates that have gone on in this Chamber and outside it. He has done a great service to all of us by tabling what seems on the face of it a simple amendment—simply changing one word, from “unavailable” to “unable”—but is actually of huge significance. We have concerns about it, which we have expressed in this Chamber and elsewhere— indeed, the noble Lord, Lord West, explained them. Notwithstanding the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and others, we are worried about where it takes us with respect to conflicts of interest, and who decides that there is a conflict of interest for the Prime Minister in circumstances in which the Prime Minister themself does not recognise that there is a conflict of interest. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and others, that there may be a need for this discussion to continue—but who decides whether the Prime Minister has a conflict of interest, if the Prime Minister themself does not recognise that, is an important discussion to have. In the end, the system rests on the integrity of the Prime Minister.

The way in which the ISC has tried to bring forward some conditions to what “unavailable” means is extremely important, and we support that, as indeed we support the amendments that try to ensure that those who take decisions are those various Secretaries of State who may be designated under the Bill to take decisions, should the Prime Minister be unavailable. It is extremely important for those Secretaries of State to have experience of the use of those warrants. Again, the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord West, deal with that, and we are very happy to support them.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I offer my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Fox, and Lord West of Spithead, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for their amendments and for the points that they have raised during this debate. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Evans, for his perspective, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for supporting the Government, which obviously I hope becomes a habit.

I have discussed the triple lock at length with noble Lords and many others in Parliament and across government. We are all in agreement that this is a matter of the utmost importance, and it is imperative that we ensure that the triple lock operates correctly. That means that the triple-lock process, when needed urgently, has the resilience to continue in the most exceptional circumstances, when the Prime Minister is genuinely unavailable, while ensuring that the alternative approvals process is tightly and appropriately defined.

On Amendment 40, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the valuable engagement he has taken part in with my ministerial colleagues, Home Office officials and me regarding this amendment. I take this opportunity to explain why the Government do not support this amendment. The expressed intention of the noble Lord’s amendment is twofold: first to tighten the requirement in the current clauses, which use the word “unavailable”; and, secondly, to introduce a potential provision for dealing with a conflict of interest, as one of the circumstances in which the alternative approvals process could be used.

There is certainly merit in limiting the circumstances in which the alternative approvals process may be used. However, the noble Lord’s amendment introduces the requirement for a judgment to be made on the Prime Minister’s ability to consider a warrant application, for any number of reasons, including conflict of interest. This raises a number of challenges.

The first challenge is that “unable” draws into the legislation the principle of ministerial conflict of interest. This poses a constitutional tension and a challenge to Cabinet hierarchy. The inclusion of “unable” would allow for someone other than the Prime Minister to decide whether the Prime Minister is subject to a conflict of interest in a particular scenario, which goes against clear constitutional principles regarding the Prime Minister’s powers. This would be a subjective decision on the Prime Minister’s ability, rather than an objective decision on his availability.

As such, rather than strengthening the current drafting, the amendment as proposed could be considered to constitute a watering down of the triple lock, in that it was always designed to be exercised by the Prime Minister. Someone else making a decision about whether the Prime Minister is able to make a decision, given they can be said to be available and therefore technically able to consider an application, risks the intention of the triple lock. As drafted, the original clauses require a binary decision to be made about whether the Prime Minister is available or not, whereas, in deciding whether the Prime Minister may have a conflict of interest, a judgment must be made which is not binary and therefore has much less legal clarity.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked me if it is right that the Government believe that it is proper for the Prime Minister to consider a warrant application relating to the Prime Minister’s own communications. The best answer I can give is that the Bill is intended not to tackle issues relating to Prime Ministerial conflicts of interest, but rather to improve the resilience of the warrantry process. Conflict of interest provisions and considerations relating to propriety and ethics are therefore not properly for consideration under this Bill. The Prime Minister is expected, as are all Ministers, to uphold the Nolan principles in public life. For these reasons, the Government cannot support this amendment.

The Government have, however, recognised the concerns expressed by Members of both Houses, and the seeming consensus that a more specific, higher bar should be set with relation to the circumstances in which the alternative approvals process may be used. This high bar is of particular importance because of the seriousness of using these capabilities against Members of relevant legislatures. We accept that we are not above the law and it is appropriate for it to be possible for us to be subject to properly authorised investigatory powers. However, it is right that the significance that this issue was given in the original drafting of the Investigatory Powers Act is respected, and the communications of our fellow representatives are properly safeguarded.

I therefore thank the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, for his amendments, and for the close engagement on this Bill which I, the Security Minister and my officials have had with the members and secretariat of the Intelligence and Security Committee. Following engagement with Members of both Houses on these amendments, it is clear that there is good consensus for these measures, and the Government will not be opposing them today. While they will reduce the flexibility of the current drafting somewhat, the Government agree that these amendments strike an important and delicate balance between providing the flexibility and resilience that the triple-lock process requires, while providing the legal clarity and specificity to allow for its effective use. The amendments will also provide further confidence to members of relevant legislatures, including those of this House, that the protection and safeguarding of their communications is of paramount importance.

I should note that the Government do not quite agree with the precise drafting of these amendments, and we expect to make some clarifications and improvements in the other place, particularly to the references to routine duties under Sections 19 and 102 of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, but I am happy that we seem to have reached broad agreement today.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, here we go again on Rwanda, with the treaty today and the Bill next week. Both are inextricably intertwined as the treaty is how Rwanda has been designated “safe”. I start by thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith and his committee for a truly outstanding report, which has enabled us to have the discussion and debate we have had today. Should my noble and learned friend press both of his Motions to a vote, we will support him in the Lobbies.

I want to pick up the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. What we have seen today is not the House of Lords seeking to block, to act in an anti-democratic way or to do anything other than its job, which is to say to the Government, “You should think again and reflect on what you are doing”, where we believe that to be true. As a revising and advisory Chamber, that is absolutely what we should be doing; nobody, least of all the Prime Minister, should hold press conferences lecturing us about our role when all we seek to do is improve things and act in our proper constitutional role. The Prime Minister should remember that and be reminded of it.

What gives the strength to my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith’s report? In his usual understated way, my noble and learned friend started by saying that he was not standing here as a Labour Lord. He is quite right to make that point. He chairs an important committee of your Lordships’ House. The importance of what my noble and learned friend said is this: he stood here as the chair of a committee that has all-party support for the report that it has brought forward. It is not a Conservative, Labour, Cross-Bench or Liberal Democrat report; it is a report of your Lordships’ House, which believes that it set out what it was important for the Government to do.

That is what gives the report its strength and power—the fact that a unity of purpose, from all sides of this Chamber, has come together not to block the treaty, as one or two have suggested, but to ask the Government to delay it. At the heart of the Motion that my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has brought before us, as the report says, is the necessity for us to ensure that the treaty meets the issues that were highlighted by the Supreme Court. Of course, we all agree with and welcome that, and the treaty needs to be examined in that way.

The report clearly asks how we will know that these conditions are being met. That is the fundamental part of the debate before us. Is Rwanda safe now? This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, made. We can argue around it all we want, but the fundamental question is: do we have a country that is safe with which we are establishing this treaty? The report says that we cannot be sure; we do not know. Why do we not know? The Government have not provided the committee or this House the evidence to ensure that we make a judgment on whether that is right.

In the excellent remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, he put paragraph 45 of the report before us, which lists the 10 steps. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile and Lord Kerr, and others mentioned this. Your Lordships should answer this: we are being asked to say that Rwanda is safe and this is what the report says we need to know.

A “new asylum law” is needed in Rwanda. Has anybody seen it? Does anybody have any idea what it is, as the treaty is dependent on it? Can the Minister explain

“a system for ensuring that non-refoulement does not take place”?

What is

“a process for submitting individual complaints to the Monitoring Committee”?

The committee has no idea; it is asking for this. The

“recruitment of a Monitoring Committee support team”

has not yet been done. Has

“the appointment of independent experts to advise the asylum First Instance and Appeals Bodies”

been done? What about

“the appointment of international judges”?

We do not know how many we want or are needed, for a start, let alone whether they have been recruited. We also need

“training for international judges in Rwandan law and practice”.

For each of these things, the Government have not provided evidence, to either the committee or your Lordships’ House, to support what the committee says needs to be done. How can we determine whether Rwanda is safe, when the very things on which that depends have not been provided to us? That is what the committee is saying. If we want to do that, we surely need to know whether those conditions have been met. The Minister needs to answer this.

The Government have been assured that all is well, but my question to them is: is assurance really enough when it comes to an international treaty? The Rwandan Government say all is well, but the committee says that

“assurances in themselves are not proof of Rwanda’s current ability to fulfil them”.

I could not agree more and the Government need to answer why they think assurances are proof when the committee is saying that they are not.

If everything is okay with respect to Rwanda, can the Minister explain, as a number of noble Lords have laid out, why six people from that country have been given asylum since the original MoU was signed in the summer of 2022? Is Rwanda a safe country when we have had to give its people asylum, even though it is a small number?

I know that we are sometimes supposed to say that our obligations under international law and treaties do not matter. I, for one, say, as do many across this Chamber, that what the UNHCR says is important. What the UNHCR thinks about the Rwanda treaty and the law that may follow it—but we are debating the Rwanda treaty—is a really important test of whether we have got this right. What does it say? The UNHCR finds the UK-Rwanda Agreement and the safety of Rwanda Bill to be

“not compatible with international refugee law”.

That is a troubling judgment, made on us by a significant body. People say it does not matter, but it does. I think it was the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Hannay, who talked about our global reputation. We are all proud of it, but things like this do not help. Across the world we are standing up for the role of international bodies and international law. What are we doing in Ukraine, the Middle East and other parts of the world if not standing up for international law and treaties? Yet, one of the most significant global bodies is questioning whether we have got this right.

I think it was my noble friend Baroness Hayter who mentioned that many times it is said, “Well, this is just your Lordships’ House”. It is worth remembering it was not only a committee of this House that pointed out that there should be a proper debate about the treaty. The House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee said that there should be a debate and discussion. An all-party group said that such is the significance, importance and relevance of this to a Government policy that it should be discussed in Parliament. There is disquiet, upset and unease not just here but in the other place at the fact that the treaty may be ratified without the significant discussion that needs to take place.

My noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith has done a real service to your Lordships’ House in enabling us to have this discussion and at least ask the Government to think whether they have got this right, whether they want to ratify a treaty without the due consideration and proper process it deserves, and to answer the many real questions put to them today. It has enabled us not to block it, but simply to allow your Lordships to play your part by asking the Government to answer serious questions about the evidence they need to provide in their declaration that Rwanda is a safe country.

I hope that my noble and learned friend puts his second Motion to the vote, because we will support it and be proud to do so.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2024

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Lords Chamber

I will close on an unrelated matter, if the Minister will give me some forbearance. We will next interact on Monday, on the Rwanda treaty, about which I wrote to the Foreign Secretary. The Minister is nodding, indicating that I may receive a reply, so I am grateful for that. On that basis, I hope he will accept our support and be able to respond in kind.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for opening the debate today clearly and concisely, and I agree with much of what the noble Lords, Lord Polak and Lord Purvis, said.

Today’s proscription order is underpinned by the exceptional men and women who serve in our intelligence and security services, in government and in our police. They work tirelessly to keep our country safe. We are extremely fortunate to have them. Keeping our country safe is the first duty of government and a common cause that we share and all treat with the utmost seriousness. On that basis, it is vital, as the Minister knows, that the Government and His Majesty’s Opposition work in the national interest on these crucial issues.

As the Minister laid out, this order will amend Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to add Hizb ut-Tahrir to the list of proscribed organisations. Doing so will make it a criminal offence to belong to Hizb ut-Tahrir, to engage in activities such as attending meetings, to promote support for the group or to display its logo. After years of serious and increasing concern about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s activity in the UK, His Majesty’s Opposition strongly support its proscription. It is a necessary step to effectively counter its hateful extremism and divisive rhetoric, which threatens the safety and security of our country. As the Minister outlined, proscription of this international terrorist organisation comes after other countries, including Germany, have already banned it.

Hizb ut-Tahrir has been proscribed now because of its escalating activity in the aftermath of Hamas’s barbaric terrorist attack on Israel. Unlike the condemnation of these attacks by the vast majority of Muslims here in the UK, who are just as horrified as the rest of us, Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain glorified as heroes the Hamas terrorists who revelled in acts of indiscriminate violence against civilians. Again, unlike the deep sorrow and outrage the British people shared with the Israeli people in the aftermath of 7 October, Hizb ut-Tahrir boasted of its euphoria on the news of this appalling and tragic loss of life.

There is no place on Britain’s streets for vile anti-Semitism. There is no place on Britain’s streets for those who incite violence and glorify terrorism. There is no place on Britain’s streets for Hizb ut-Tahrir. This terrorist group peddles hate, glorifies violence and is hostile not only to our values but to the common sense of humanity. As the noble Lord, Lord Polak, mentioned, there is nothing new about its divisive and poisonous rhetoric, which has been widely recorded for over two decades in the UK, long before the horrific attacks of 7 October. Organisations such as the Community Security Trust, the Antisemitism Policy Trust and the Union of Jewish Students have long raised serious concerns about Hizb ut-Tahrir’s anti-Semitism, alongside its misogynistic and homophobic hate speech, which provides a channel for extremism. We have already heard that that is why previous Prime Ministers, Home Secretaries and Security Ministers have considered proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir, but its activities were not recognised as sufficient under the definition of terrorism in Section 3 of the Terrorism Act 2000 until now.

Given for how long these matters have been debated and considered, I would be grateful if the Minister could answer some questions when he responds. To start with, does he think that there are lessons to be learned regarding the length of time it has taken to proscribe this organisation? Does he believe that the current proscription process is robust enough to counter threats to our national security, and can he say when it became a proportionate response in this case as well as in others? Can he say whether other bodies, as we have heard, are under consideration for proscription, given the various global threats we face? Is the speed of decision-making up to the task? In particular, and he will know that we have asked for this, does he agree that a bespoke proscription mechanism for state-sponsored organisations is now required—something that, as I say, His Majesty’s Opposition, along with others, have called for?

Countering threats to our national security requires joined-up government working, but the counter-extremism strategy has not been updated since 2015, with important elements of policy around community cohesion now the responsibility of the Levelling-Up Secretary. Given the significance of these matters, can the Minister tell the House when the Government will bring forward a new definition of hateful extremism? Can he confirm whether his department will update the counter-extremism strategy, as my right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary has called for?

To conclude, proscribing Hizb ut-Tahrir is the right thing to do for our national security. For too long, the public have been exposed to its extremist ideology, its glorification of terrorist activity and its core aim of overthrowing our democratic system of government to replace it with an Islamist theocracy. If left alone, extremism can and will spread insidiously and spread deceit deep into our national conversation. No Government must ever relent in their determination to ensure that we are always one step ahead of those who seek to harm or to undermine our way of life. We must always be on the side of the public we seek to serve and protect. That is why we strongly support the Government’s actions in taking forward the proscription order before us.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the three noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. I would very much like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, thanking our security services and our police forces, and those in government—many of whom are, as noble Lords will be aware, in the Home Office—who are very engaged in this subject, and who keep us safe.

I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that have been made. If I miss anything, I will, of course, commit to write—and just to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, I can say that a letter is on its way.

I shall briefly give the House some key facts, in terms of the number of organisations proscribed in this country. There are currently 79 proscribed terrorist organisations, in addition to the 14 Northern Ireland-related terrorist organisations that were proscribed before 2000, and 38 terrorist groups have been proscribed since 2010—a very depressing statistic indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, noted. The most recent proscription order came into force in September 2022, when the Wagner group was proscribed. I think all the noble Lords here participated in that debate.

Of course, the Government will always consider the full range of powers available to tackle threats on our soil or against our people and interests. We will continue to make use of our counterterrorism powers, including the proscription tool, where appropriate, to tackle the modern threats we face. The work on that is ongoing. I acknowledge the bespoke proscription tool for state threats, as asked for by the noble Lord. Obviously, I cannot comment on that, but the National Security Act, which came into force last year, provides robust powers to deal with the complex state threats that the UK faces in a broader context. I am aware of his ongoing interest in this, and I am sure I will continue to engage in discussion with him about it.

The barriers for proscription, and the qualifications and tests, are robust. As I said in my opening remarks, they are governed by the Terrorism Act 2000, and it might be worth going through them for the record. The Home Secretary may proscribe an organisation if he believes it is concerned in terrorism, and this means that the organisation

“commits or participates in acts of terrorism … prepares for terrorism … promotes or encourages terrorism (including the unlawful glorification of terrorism); or … is otherwise concerned in terrorism… If the statutory test is met, there are other factors which the Home Secretary must take into account when deciding whether or not to exercise the discretion”.

Those factors include

“the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities … the specific threat that it poses to the UK … the specific threat that it poses to British nationals overseas … the extent of the organisation’s presence in the UK; and … the need to support other members of the international community in the global fight against terrorism”.

The Home Secretary will exercise his power to proscribe only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence on an organisation. This includes information taken from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that reflects consultation across government.

That brings me to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Polak, which is: why has it taken so long? I have explained how the Home Secretary must believe that an organisation is concerned in terrorism and, as the House has heard, since the 7 October attack HuT has promoted and encouraged terrorism, and celebrated and praised the 7 October terrorist attacks by Hamas, including in an article that referred to the killing of Jewish tourists by an Egyptian police officer, which I referred to in my opening remarks, as a simple example of what should be done to the Jews.

Elsewhere, HuT has frequently referred to Hamas as the heroes of Palestine, in articles on its website. As has been noted, it has a long history of praising and celebrating attacks against Israel and attacks against Jews more widely. This vile anti-Semitism cannot be decoupled from the statements recently attributed to HuT encouraging and promoting terrorism. But of course, the facts changed after 7 October. I think that explains the decision to act now. When the facts change, we change our minds.

On religious communities, obviously I agree with all noble Lords that the growth in anti-Semitism is extraordinarily concerning. A number of my friends are affected by it and have said that they are now afraid to walk the streets in certain circumstances.

Sir Edward Heath: Operation Conifer

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will start by saying what a privilege it is to take part in this short debate. I will also say, as a proud Labour politician and Front-Bencher, that this debate goes to the heart of our politics. No matter which party anybody belongs too, they deserve respect and justice—that is the important point that should be made.

We started with a brilliant speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—really stunning. It is a privilege to be in Parliament sometimes when speeches like that are made that challenge the state—and challenge all of us to see whether we have got it right. Before I lose it in some of the other points I want to make, I want to go to the heart of what the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, said when he called for a public inquiry. He made a direct request that the new Home Secretary should be given a copy of the Hansard report of this debate and should consider the request for a public inquiry that was made by him and supported by other noble Lords who spoke. Most importantly, he asked the Minister to respond and reply to that request, with reasons that lay out why the Government think a public inquiry is necessary or why they have concluded that it is not. That is at the heart of the request. All the contributions made here by many noble Lords were moving and important.

I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave. I was a very young Labour politician in 1970; I did all I could to stop Ted Heath being elected, and failed. The important point the noble Lord, Lord Waldegrave, made is that we must do something about wild accusations being made against public figures, often without any basis at all. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, referred to this. Have we not woken up—as a system—to the fact that we have to have Ministers who challenge the advice they get, who say to people “This is what we are being told numerous times by Members of Parliament, Peers and members of the public who are coming to us and bringing forward real questions about what the state is doing and what it has got wrong and asking why it can’t respond”? How many more times, as the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said, do we have to have a Post Office? How many more times, as the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, said, do we have to have another Hillsborough, or a Bloody Sunday, or many of the other scandals that we have seen? It takes decades, request after request and demand after demand before the state wakes up and answers the questions that are posed to it.

Why does it take so long? If the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, is wrong, why not expose that information and evidence, and have it out in public so that we can see it and come to a determination? Surely a former Prime Minister of this country deserves the justice that would be brought about by looking at all the evidence to determine how it is.

We simply cannot have the situation in the report— I was reading it again as the debate went on and looked through it, and the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, pointed it out to us. I do not know the world everyone lives in but, to me certainly, as soon as you say you will interview someone under caution, then, in the court of public opinion, the person has something to answer. That is the reality of it: the aspersions cast on the reputation of a man.

Of course, the police say, “This doesn’t mean they are guilty; it doesn’t mean anything”, but the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, as a former Director of Public Prosecutions, was absolutely right to point out that, as soon as that is said, people say, “No smoke without fire”, “Nothing to see here—oh, really?”, et cetera. A former Prime Minister of this country—in fact, anybody, from somebody living on an estate somewhere to someone holding the highest office—deserves better than that. It is simply not good enough, and something needs to be done.

What are we depending on? I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is in his place. He made a very important point in the Question that the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, had towards the end of October— I will be corrected if I get this wrong. He pointed out that the case rests on a fantasist who is now in jail. A former Prime Minister of our country is suffering this slur to his reputation on the basis, originally, as I understand it, of a man who is now in jail for perverting the course of justice. Is that really what we want to base this on? The second leg of it is a former chief constable who was moved to Cleveland, then made to leave because of misconduct. A disgraced former chief constable and somebody now in jail for perverting the course of justice are the two major pillars upon which this is based. Is that really satisfactory to all of us?

Wiltshire Police investigated itself. How can that be seen to be right? I cannot remember which noble Lord pointed out that justice not only has to be done but be seen to be done. I suggest that, having one disgraced person in jail and one disgraced former chief constable as the main pillars of that, a police force which is investigating itself, whatever the rights and wrongs of a public inquiry, surely brings us all to the point where we question how the state has operated with respect to a former Prime Minister.

I finish by repeating the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden: let us see the Minister take this debate to the new Home Secretary, ask him to reconsider and come back to this Chamber with his decision. Surely a former Prime Minister deserves at least that.

Immigration Detention: Brook House Inquiry

Lord Coaker Excerpts

Thursday 11th January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the new contract with Serco to run the Gatwick IRC commenced in May 2020 and runs for an eight-year period. The contract provides increased staffing levels, improved use of modern technology and enhanced investment in resident activity and welfare services. We have strengthened our capacity to provide assurance and oversight of service provision at Gatwick and the rest of the removal estate, including action, as I have just said, to refresh and reinforce whistleblowing arrangements, improve information flows and analysis of complaints and address incidents and use of force. As regards the drugs point, the Government will be responding to the report in due course.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, in his original Answer, the Minister said that the Government are carefully considering the Brook House inquiry report and will respond in due course. Why has the Minister therefore told us that they have already come to the conclusion that they will ignore what the Brook House inquiry said, namely that there should be a 28-day limit on immigration detention? As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti pointed out, that means that so-called immigration offenders are treated worse than terrorists.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

That is not what I said; I said that the Government are considering the report. The cross-government working group, chaired by the director of detention services at the Home Office, is considering the report and all the recommendations, including those with wider applicability across the detention estate. As regards the 28 days, I go back to what I said earlier: in particular, we think that this would impair our ability to remove those who have breached immigration laws and refused to leave the UK voluntarily. That would particularly place the community at risk, especially if foreign national offenders were released into the community. As I say, though, the vast majority are released within 28 days anyway.