Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Main Page: Lord Anderson of Ipswich (Crossbench - Life peer)Daesh Crimes: Accountability (JCHR Report)
Lord Anderson of Ipswich Excerpts
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as the final Back-Bench speaker, I echo all noble Lords who have wished the noble Lord, Lord Alton, a speedy recovery. He is, for so many of us, the outstanding example of a successful campaigning Cross-Bench Peer. I look forward to his speedy return.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has been doing some important and visionary things in recent years, this report included. I thank it for its work, and will touch on citizenship deprivation, terrorism prosecutions and the prosecution of international crimes.
First, on deprivation of citizenship, I was delighted to see the strong recommendations regarding both transparency and oversight. They reflect recommendations made by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall KC, and indeed by me when I occupied that post. In their response, the Government point out quite correctly that the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration published independent reviews of the deprivation power in 2018 and 2024. Successive chief inspectors have done an excellent job and I hold them in high regard.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Murray, will forgive me when I say that, having read the chief inspectors’ reports, I am less easily satisfied than him. The purpose of those inspections, in the words of the 2018 report, was only to examine
“the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office’s processes”.
Even that procedural examination had its limits. The 2024 inspection looked only at the Status Review Unit, which deals with deprivations prompted by fraud or related to serious organised crime. What were described as
“‘conducive cases’ where sensitive intelligence is relied upon to make a decision”
are handled by the Special Cases Unit and were said to be out of scope. Those cases, of course, are relevant here, so I cannot agree with the Government that existing independent oversight is sufficient.
Deprivation of citizenship on grounds conducive to the public good is a power used for national security purposes. As a measure devastating in its effects on the individual and yet exercised on the basis of secret intelligence assessments deferred to by the courts, it requires the same sort of review as is given by the security-cleared independent reviewer, in the service of Parliament and the public, to the other powers exercised by Ministers and the police in relation to terrorism and state threats. Published figures are welcome but afford only the outline of what is needed, and many questions have gone unanswered. To take an example raised in evidence by the independent reviewer, what was the intelligence case for the sudden surge in deprivations in 2017? What was the make-up of those subjected to it? What happened to them and why was deprivation used in preference to all the other tools?
This House will soon be asked to look at the Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill, which seeks to reverse the effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court earlier this year in N3 and ZA v the Secretary of State for the Home Department. To do our job effectively, we need to know more about how the deprivation power is exercised; the independent reviewer is the person to tell us.
One possible reason for the unusual prevalence of citizenship deprivation in the UK, and for the various executive orders that can be placed upon unconvicted persons, is the difficulty in bringing such persons to trial. Reference has already been made to the remarkably low proportion of Daesh returnees who have been prosecuted in the UK for terrorism offences. When I used to look closely at those figures during the heyday of Islamic State, much higher rates were being achieved by our continental neighbours, and I am not aware that this has changed.
Thanks to the development of the counterterrorism division of the CPS and the terrorism list in the Crown Court, the prosecution of terrorists in this country has markedly improved since 2006, when Charles Clarke, as Home Secretary, could say to the Home Affairs Select Committee:
“I think that an investigating magistrates regime is very superior to the system that we have in this country … I do not think the adversarial system has been a particularly effective means of securing justice”.
As is shown in Frank Foley’s informative book, Countering Terrorism in Britain and France, we continue to place a comparatively high premium on fairness. We do not have an offence as broad as the French “association de malfaiteurs”. We do not have investigative magistrates who can spend months or years building a case while a suspect is in custody, who face less exacting disclosure requirements and who have regard to sensitive intelligence that could never be placed before a jury in coming to their decisions. All this speaks well for our traditions of justice and our unwillingness to compromise them, but it does not make it easy to convict foreign fighters, even for terrorism offences.
That brings me, finally, to the shaming fact, which noble Lords have heard already, that no Daesh fighter has been successfully prosecuted in the UK for committing international crimes, including genocide, crimes against humanity or even war crimes. I agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy and Lady D’Souza, that this amounts to a failure of this country to acknowledge the true nature of the criminality that Daesh presented, particularly in relation to the Yazidi.
Without question, it would be hard to prosecute these crimes, but surely that is all the more reason for seeking to remove such obstacles as can be removed. After all, the Government, in their response to the report, indicate agreement with the committee’s conclusion that, where the UK has jurisdiction over international crimes, it should seek to investigate and prosecute them. Desirable, even preferable, as it might be for these crimes to be prosecuted in international or hybrid tribunals, the prospects—from what I have heard—do not look promising.
I commend the Government for the support they gave to UNITAD and that they give to the IIIM in Syria and the NCIJC in Iraq. However, like other noble Lords, I would like to know why more cannot be done to ease the path to prosecutions here. Echoing in part the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I end with three practical questions. Is it right that we have never requested evidence from UNITAD, or joined a joint investigative team for Daesh, and, if so, why? Why have we not signed or ratified the Ljubljana-Hague Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance? Why should we not remove the requirement of citizenship or residency in Sections 51 and 58 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who contributed to this short but informative and detailed debate.
As every other noble Lord has done, I begin by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for his incredible work in chairing the committee and producing this report, as well as his wider work with and the representations he has made for many oppressed communities throughout the world, in this case the Yazidi community. He contacted me, as he probably did every noble Lord in this Room, and I have evidence of his injuries too. He wrote very movingly, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray of Blidworth, said, of his trip to Sinjar and how it fundamentally affected him. He also said to me that he was fed up about not being here today but that, in his encounter with the No. 24, the bus came off worse. I think all noble Lords will be unsurprised at his assessment of whether a mere motor vehicle can stop his commitment to carrying out duties in this House and elsewhere.
I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Kennedy, who has proven a more than able stand-in for the noble Lord in presenting the report to the Committee and making the case. As she said, we have all heard testimony that is heart-rending in different ways. I was struck by the way she focused on the terrible crimes not just against women and children but particularly against young girls, and the way that that has impacted their lives from a very early age. As a parent of two teenage daughters, the impact that has on those girls’ lives is truly terrible to think about.
As the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, this report from the Joint Committee is timely and sobering. I thank it for its continued commitment to this most worthy of causes. Justice must be done and those guilty of carrying out Daesh’s crimes must be held to account. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, there is a real danger of the crimes against the Yazidis diminishing in our collective memory. Having spent a lot of time over a number of years in and around Holocaust education—not to make a direct comparison—I know the importance of continued testimony and awareness of the awful crimes such as those visited against the Yazidis, and it is essential that we do not forget. The importance of getting justice for the Yazidis in the round is not simply about the nuts and bolts of the legal process—it is also about the wider understanding of what happened to that community—though that is not to say that the issues around legal process here and in Iraq and Syria, which the report raises, are not terribly important. I will make some attempt to respond to the points raised.
I will begin by setting out the current situation and the Government’s policy. Daesh remains one of the most significant global terrorist threats. We continue to work closely with partners to reduce this threat, including through our work as a member of the global coalition against Daesh. While the UK and its partners in the global coalition have taken effective action against Daesh, it still poses a serious threat. Many of its members continue to enjoy impunity for heinous crimes. We must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
It will not surprise any noble Lords to hear that, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said on behalf of the Official Opposition, the safety and security of our people remains the top priority for the UK Government. The Government have been clear that anyone returning from conflict in Syria or Iraq must expect to be met at the UK border by Counter Terrorism Policing, interviewed and, where relevant, investigated to determine whether they have committed criminal offences.
I turn to the content of the committee’s report and the issues raised by noble Lords. A number of noble Lords, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, raised universal jurisdiction. The UK’s position has not changed: we hold that international crimes are best investigated and prosecuted close to where they are perpetrated. This helps secure reliable evidence and witnesses for a fair and credible judicial process. The UK continues to support partners to deliver this justice. For example, last month marked the 11th anniversary of the Yazidi genocide. The UK strongly supported the passage of Iraq’s Yazidi survivors’ law and has funded its implementation. We have since provided a further £100,000 to boost Iraq’s capacity to hold Daesh to account and to increase survivor access to reparations and rehabilitation.
The UK Government exercise universal jurisdiction over grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. However, prosecuting Daesh members in the UK is often difficult due to challenges with gathering evidence and securing access to suspects. I think that, despite criticism, most, if not all, noble Lords who participated in the debate this afternoon recognise those real difficulties. The police work closely with international partners and organisations to improve our access to that evidence. Investigations are a matter for the police, who are operationally independent. If they believe an offence has been committed, the police will refer the case to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Decisions on prosecution are taken independently by the CPS. They are based on the availability of evidence and whether prosecution is in the public interest. A range of offences can be used to prosecute foreign fighters returned to the UK with penalties up to life imprisonment. To be clear, the police do not restrict their investigations to terrorist offences. Where there is significant evidence and a legal basis, we will prosecute in the UK. However, building these cases takes time, and we must continue efforts to ensure the enduring defeat of Daesh and to hold it to account.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of using only terrorism charges in the pursuit of justice, not least my noble friend Lady Kennedy, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. The Government acknowledge the specific nature and scale of international crimes such as genocide. Perpetrators of such crimes must face justice in accordance with the principles that I have outlined. They should be investigated and charged with requisite access to robust evidence and witnesses. There is a wide range of criminal offences that can be used to prosecute returning foreign fighters. CPS charging decisions are led by the evidence, and the most appropriate charge is selected based on the evidence. Crown prosecutors must consider whether evidence is admissible, reliable and credible, and those standards do not differ in a core international crime prosecution. Prosecuting terrorism and core international crimes are not mutually exclusive and can be combined where the evidence presents itself.
Many noble Lords, not least the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, drew a comparison between the UK and other European countries, particularly Germany, in terms of success in prosecutions. It is fair to say that Germany has had some fantastic successes that are to be commended. The international community is working together to ensure that justice is done. Sharing evidence and best practice is critical, and we are grateful to our German colleagues. International comparisons in the context of prosecutions must include some caveats. There are fundamental differences between our adversarial system and inquisitorial systems, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Different systems used in other countries can impact on how material is used and exchanged. There are a number of differences, including laws around disclosure and what evidence is admissible at trial, which can be complex. Nevertheless, where there is potential evidence, prosecutors will work with police, intelligence agencies and international partners to build a case to the point where there is admissible, reliable, credible evidence satisfying the Code for Crown Prosecutors.
There were some questions from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and other noble Lords about the collection of evidence of crimes committed by Daesh. In Syria, the UN International, Impartial and Independent Mechanism—the IIIN—assists the investigation and prosecution of individuals complicit in crimes committed during the Syria conflict. We encourage all parties to engage with it and help facilitate evidence-gathering efforts, including unfettered access to sensitive sites used by the former regime’s security apparatus. The UK/IIIM memorandum of understanding signed in March 2022 enables the UK to use IIIM information in investigations and prosecutions and allows the IIIM to request UK information to support prosecutions in other jurisdictions. The MoU signals our ongoing commitment to accountability, and we continue to advocate for the IIIM to ensure that it has the resources required to conduct its operations and address the widespread impunity and suffering of the Syrian people.
Through the integrated security fund, the UK funds programmes to document human rights violations and supports the trial and convictions of perpetrators of war crimes, including sexual violence. The UK and the US have co-funded important guidance that sets out relevant, serious, specific advice and best practice to follow when collecting evidence of or investigating sexual and gender-based violence and conflict-related sexual violence. Through the Global Survivors Fund, the UK has, since 2022, has provided medical, psychosocial, legal and financial support to more than Syrian survivors of sexual violence in Turkey.
Turning to what might be termed consular issues, I note the committee’s recommendations on British nationals in north-east Syria and the repatriation of minors. Where unaccompanied British minors and orphans are brought to our attention, we aim to repatriate them where feasible, subject to confirming their identity and nationality and any national security concerns. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford raised specific questions on this issue. We are aware that there are British nationals, including minors, located in north-east Syria, but I am afraid that we are not in a position to comment on exact numbers due to shifting circumstances on the ground, the lack of a consular presence and the range of sources from which information is taken. We do not comment on numbers, as I said. Each request for consular assistance from Syria is considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into account all relevant circumstances including, but not limited to, national security.
It is fair to reflect, as was acknowledged by the committee, that conditions in Syria continue to be difficult, particularly in the north-east where there remains a high threat from terrorism and widespread political instability. This increases the challenges that the UK Government face in facilitating these repatriations. However, I can confirm that we facilitated a repatriation from Syria to the United Kingdom in August. This repatriation was in line with the long-standing policy that all requests from Syria for UK consular assistance are considered on a case-by-case basis.
I move on to deprivation and oversight, as raised by the noble Lords, Lord Murray and Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The questions raised were about whether there is sufficient independent oversight and a lack of transparency. As the Foreign Secretary made clear in the Government’s written response to the committee’s report, we believe that there is sufficient oversight of and transparency in the use of the deprivation power. As was observed, the Government publish data on deprivation as part of the Counter-Terrorism Disruptive Powers Report. Eight such reports have been published to date.
We believe that there is also sufficient independent oversight from the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, who has the remit to review the power. The ICIBI conducted independent reviews of the deprivation power in reports published in 2018 and 2024. The power to deprive a person of their British citizenship on grounds that it would be conducive to the public good is used sparingly. Decisions on deprivation are not taken lightly.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but he heard what I had to say about the independent chief inspector. As I understand his reports—and I have read both of those just referred to—they are limited to the processes applied by the Home Office, and the more recent one deliberately declared out of scope conducive deprivations based on sensitive intelligence. It dealt only with the much more routine deprivations of citizenship obtained by fraud and a few deprivations in connection with serious organised crime. I am just having a little difficulty understanding how the Minister can say that this oversight is in any way comparable to the sort of oversight that the independent reviewer provides of the remaining parts of the counterterrorism arsenal.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, but I am not sure that I can add a great deal of the detail that he seeks from the Despatch Box. I will be very happy to reflect on his comments in Hansard and write to him. The point I want to make, without going into details and reading out a long list, is that deprivation numbers over the past decade have largely been stable. That indicates a proportionate use of the power over a number of years.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Murray—apologies if it was not—who asked about 2024. I can confirm that the figure for 2024 is due to be published but cannot be released at this moment in time.
As time is pressing, I shall move on to the role of the CPS. Although the Government are grateful for the committee’s important work on this issue, they do not, I am afraid, accept its assessment of poor co-operation between the Metropolitan Police’s War Crimes Team and the CPS. As is outlined in the Government’s formal response to the inquiry, there are robust structures in place to ensure co-ordination and co-operation on the investigation and prosecution of war crimes. For example, the UK War Crimes Network helps achieve better information sharing and training, as well as improved co-ordination across government and with civil society organisations. We agree with the committee’s call to investigate and prosecute international crimes. The CPS also has strong working relationships with many key countries. Alongside the police, it represents His Majesty’s Government on the Eurojust Genocide Prosecution Network, an organisation that is critical to the co-ordination and sharing of best practice in investigations into genocide.
These efforts are most effective when they are conducted near the location of crimes. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Murray, noted, there is a balancing act between competing needs in pursuing this aim, including, as I have already mentioned, in terms of national security. However, I assure the Grand Committee that, where authorities, including the CPS, have jurisdiction, they will act. The CPS has successfully prosecuted individuals who have travelled abroad to fight with Daesh.
I wish now to talk a little about the countries that have been the focus of our activities in this area. In Syria, we will support efforts to establish accountability. Justice for victims and survivors is essential, as is clarity for the families of the thousands who remain missing. We are engaging closely with the Syrian Government to ensure that accountability mechanisms are independent, impartial and transparent. Through the UK’s integrated security fund, we support programmes that document human rights violations and help bring war criminals to justice. This has resulted in the conviction of several Daesh members, including, as I have already noted, in Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands. Through the Global Survivors Fund, the UK has also provided support, as I have already outlined, to more than 800 Syrian survivors of sexual violence
In Iraq, the UK remains committed to achieving justice for survivors and victims of Daesh crimes. We are working bilaterally through Iraq’s National Center for International Judicial Cooperation, which facilitates international judicial co-operation and evidence sharing on counterterrorism. It is building an archive of evidence that can be accessed by the international community to promote accountability for Daesh’s crimes.
The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, asked about the role of UNITAD. It is worth saying that the Government are taking steps to ensure that evidence collected by UNITAD can be used by prosecutors globally. Iraq’s Supreme Judicial Council established the National Center for International Judicial Cooperation—the NCIJC—in October 2024. The centre is Iraq’s legally designated authority for international judicial co-operation and evidence sharing on counterterrorism. It holds the majority of evidence collected by the UN’s investigative team. All requests for evidence for foreign prosecutions go to the NCIJC, which then arranges for evidence to be obtained and provided. UNITAD’s mandate is to support Iraq rather than supplant the role of its judicial authorities in international judicial co-operation and information sharing. UNITAD holds some historic evidence of Daesh crimes that is not available elsewhere, but the vast majority of the existing evidence sits with the Government of Iraq.
It is worth noting that, in July, my noble friend Lord Collins of Highbury met the prince of the Yazidis, Mîr Hazim Tahsin Beg, to discuss the situation in Sinjar and the ongoing challenges faced by Yazidi survivors of conflict-related sexual violence.
I end by reaffirming the Government’s commitment to justice. Where we can prosecute in the UK, we will. Where we cannot, we will support others in doing so. We will continue to work with partners, old and new, to ensure that there is no refuge for perpetrators and that those responsible for Daesh’s murderous campaign face justice. I hope that I have addressed most of the questions and points made by members of the committee, but I am very happy to reflect on Hansard and engage in correspondence where I have not.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I hate to trouble the Minister again, but I asked a question about the Ljubljana-Hague convention, which is absolutely central to what the committee is talking about. The intention of that convention is to facilitate co-operation between states in investigating and prosecuting the most serious international crimes, specifically genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. Admittedly, it was opened for signature only in January 2024, but, as I understand it, since that time 40 states have signed it, including all our closest neighbours: Ireland, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and, I believe, all the Nordic countries except Iceland. Even Mongolia has found time to sign it. It sounds very much like this Government’s sort of thing, so I would be perplexed and surprised if there were no intention to sign it. Either now or in writing, I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why we have not signed it yet and what the plans are for signature and ratification.
Lord Katz (Lab)
I apologise for not answering the noble Lord’s question, despite making a note about it. I am not sure how much my answer will satisfy him. At the Ljubljana conference in 2023—the noble Lord noted that it was relatively recent—we were clear that we needed more time to review the convention text following the conclusion of the event. We already have well-established legal frameworks to facilitate international co-operation on the investigation and prosecution of international crimes, and we feel that the convention would offer few advantages over those existing arrangements. The UK remains committed to prioritising and progressing any requests for co-operation from other states in accordance with its existing legal framework. We will continue to work with our international partners to ensure that there is no impunity for international crimes.