Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Monday 27th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister said, I have put my name to the amendment, but the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, for causing the Government, in the words of the Minister in his letter to a number of us, to “reflect carefully” and conclude that pragmatism was the right way.

I am pleased that the Government have decided to propose this change. I did not agree and I still do not believe that the original wording was the threat to freedom of expression which was argued, but it clearly troubled many people a great deal, and whatever the technicalities, I do not think that it is good law to have provisions which trouble people as to precisely what they mean.

I am pleased, too, that the Government have dealt with the tenure point, which was one that I and others picked up at the previous stage. What matters is that it now looks as if we will be able to shift away from the criminalisation of anti-social behaviour implicit in the current legislation and move to a new way to tackle the problem.

[Lord Dear (CB)]

My Lords, I of course welcome the amendment. It is, as the Minister said, substantially the same as the amendment in my name on which we voted on Report. I readily agree the inclusion of private housing in the same context as social housing, which has been on the statute book for a while.

I extend a vote of thanks at this juncture, first, to those who voted in support of my amendment on Report. I am very grateful to them for helping to preserve and protect fundamental rights under the law. I thank the Public Bill Office staff, who were, as they always are, unfailingly helpful to me in the progress of the amendment through to Report. I thank the staff of the Christian Institute, who gave me invaluable administrative help in the run-up to the vote on Report. Finally, I thank the Minister for his unfailing courtesy and help in what were not always the easiest of discussions to make progress on in this part of the Bill. Those of us who have had the pleasure of working with him before will know that that is his default mode, and I am very grateful to him.

Police Service: New Governance Structure

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for focusing on this timely issue just before the country—in very large numbers, we hope, but perhaps they will not be—goes to vote for its local police and crime commissioners. As a declaration of interest, I remind the House of my service for some years in the police service.

We are here to debate the challenges to the police service in the new landscape. This is not necessarily the time to debate too deeply the rights and wrongs, perceived or otherwise, of the concept of police and crime commissioners; we have done that at length in your Lordships’ House in previous months. I personally have supported the concept; I am wary of many of the pitfalls but hope that they will not present themselves. In the short time available, I want to pick up on three issues that I think will define the whole landscape of policing as the new PCCs emerge and begin to make their mark on what is certainly a fundamental change to the whole landscape of policing as we know it. I want to pick up on the lack of a five-year plan, on the National Crime Agency, which has just been mentioned by the previous speaker, and on the whole issue of professionalism.

First, a five-year plan does not exist. Unlike the Armed Forces, which have a national defence review where every five years the whole of the international landscape is scanned, against which one then tries to measure the response that our Armed Forces may well need to adopt to counter growing threats and situations, we do not have one in this area and we never have. It has been a matter of some dismay to me that we do not. Funnily enough, the PCCs, who are essentially elected on local issues, are in a strangely privileged position to be able to address this. I hope that they will not fall into the trap of parochialism. Rather, I hope that, as they almost certainly will, they body together as a grouping of 40 or so individuals nationally every so often to discuss mutual problems. I hope, when they meet as that national body, that they will reflect on the fact that no national business, no commercial concern, with 40 or more regional divisions—that is how one might well look at the police service in this instance—would ever exist without a regular scan of the distant horizon. In business they would need to look, as indeed they do, at demographic issues, socioeconomic issues, climatic issues, the international dimension and so on. There is a need for that, and if the Home Office has not done it—no Home Office under any Government whom I know of has ever done this—then there is a role for the PCCs to do it, and to help with their own local input against the broader canvas.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she was not too sure that she supported the National Crime Agency, if I understood her correctly. I understand where she is coming from as there are indeed doubts about it, but I personally have long supported the concept of it. There is a power for the National Crime Agency to direct the PCCs if push comes to shove, but I hope that that is a stick that will remain in the cupboard. I look for, hope for and probably anticipate that there will be a good deal of mutual understanding between the NCA on the one side and the PCCs on the other, seeking to fit the local issues into the national landscape.

With regard to national and international crime, the national landscape is a problem, and I shall give the House an indication of how big that problem is. Recent estimates are that 30,000 individuals, grouped together in 7,500 groups, are involved in organised crime affecting the UK and its interests. Over 50% of the 7,500 groups operating in the UK are involved in drug trafficking. Last year, Serious Organised Crime Agency-led activity recovered over £450 million worth of drugs in seizures.

The National Fraud Authority indicates that organised crime group activity has resulted in £9.9 billion-worth of fraud committed against individuals in this country. Cybercrime is confidently estimated to be in the order of £27 billion. The last figure I shall weary the House with, in order to put this into a more human dimension, is that the UK Human Trafficking Centre’s assessment is that there were 2,077 adult and child trafficking victims in the UK last year.

All that will have to be played out face to face with the local issues that the PCCs will deal with. I recognise the tensions that may exist, but I indicate my support for the National Crime Agency. It has to be with us, and I hope it will work in harmony with the PCCs.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, let me make it clear that I support the National Crime Agency.

[Lord Dear]

Finally, I turn to professionalisation in the service. We have recently received two reports from Mr Tom Winsor, who was recently appointed as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Constabulary. Those reports, taken together, produce the most radical review of policing we have seen for at least 50 years. There has been opposition, perhaps understandable opposition, from the Police Federation, and the media interest on the days of the reports’ publication seemed to focus on compulsory fitness tests for police and little else. I support compulsory fitness tests, but there is much more in the reports than that. Mr Winsor seeks, quite rightly, and I support him in it, to sweep away outdated practices in the police service and attract the best recruits to it. His stated aim—and I ask the House to reflect on this—is to create a white-collar profession rather than a blue-collar job. I think that that is long overdue. He seeks to replace the Police Negotiating Board—the PNB—with a salary review body. That is admirable. The PNB has served its purpose very well over the years, but I believe that it is no longer fit for purpose. It needs streamlining; it needs to flatten the rank structure; and particularly, it needs to reward those who contribute massively to the police effort rather than those who are along just for the ride.

I shall touch briefly on two-tier entry. I have spoken before in your Lordships’ House on my support for a streamlined, two-tier entry system. Winsor talks of a three-tier entry system, but I shall leave that for another moment. The two-tier entry system deserves a fair wind because there is no doubt in my mind that we do not get a sufficient number of Russell group graduates coming into the police. The police are not seen as an obvious career of choice in that group. We need to recruit people at that level who have the essential character qualities of integrity, personal value sets, common sense and moral courage and who are leaders, not just managers.

There is one other issue I shall touch on: the college of policing, not the Bramshill staff college. I support it and hope it will see success in coming months and years. It is badly needed to set standards, ethics, style and purpose for the police in a way that has not altogether been clear before. It is something that one hopes will eventually grow to command status and respect like the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, the Royal College of Physicians and so on. In that landscape, PCCs will have a vital role to play. They may find their role difficult at times, but I believe that they will contribute much.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Wednesday 4th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it sounds as though in 1986 mere insults would have been quite a relief. I congratulate the noble Lord on the amendment, to which I put my name along with my noble friend Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, who, in a professional as well as a political capacity, has been quoted. I said at Second Reading that I hoped that the Bill might be a vehicle for this move, but I had little optimism that the Public Bill Office would accept the amendment as being within the scope of the Bill. So my congratulations to the noble Lord are doubled on that score.

I can spot when the House is ready to draw its business to a close and I have no doubt that we will have an opportunity to come to this at Report. When he left earlier today, my noble friend Lord Lester muttered to me that he would speak on it at Report. I leave it to your Lordships to decide whether that is a threat or a promise. The House has already heard that taking the word “insulting” out of Section 5 is Liberal Democrat party policy because, in summary, insults should not be criminalised and because of the essential nature of free speech. Our policy would, indeed, go further and take the word out of Section 4A as well. I, and my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, very much support the amendment.

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I will take up very little time in your Lordships’ House this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has made a very powerful case, citing a lot of examples of the way in which this word has been abused within the purview of the Public Order Act 1986. We should, in fact, note that the words have been around since they first went on to the statute book in the Public Order Act 1936. However, it is only in the last 10 or 12 years that the word “insulting” has attracted this sort of attention. As many of your Lordships know, I have taken a close interest in this for a very long time. I have spoken on at least half a dozen occasions in your Lordships’ House; I have tabled numerous Questions for Written Answer and written articles in national newspapers, including one in the Daily Mail online today, always pressing for the removal of this word from the Public Order Act. Over the last two or three years that I have been engaged in this campaign, I have watched public opinion switch from either indifference or opposition through to almost complete unanimity in the public domain. One might almost say that the door is swinging wide open—something that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has noticed for himself.

I will quickly cite two examples. I spoke on exactly this point at Second Reading during the passage of the Protection of Freedoms Act last November, and again on the fourth day of the debate on the Queen’s Speech on 15 May this year, and reflected that—but for the three-month consultation period which had produced something of a logjam in the process—I would be tabling the amendment myself. On 15 May, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, from the government Front Bench said in reply:

“As for the noble Lord's particular remarks about Section 5 of the Public Order Act, I ask again that he be patient for a little longer. It is a complex issue, and we have to give careful consideration to the views expressed in the 2,500 responses that we have had to the consultation”.—[Official Report, 15/5/12; col. 376]

As has been said, we are still waiting and patience is perhaps being stretched a little but I, for one, am prepared to wait, particularly since we have the prospect of the summer recess in which the Home Office can come to a conclusion on this. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, has tabled the amendment now, because it presses exactly the same point that has been pressed before and we are still waiting for the opportunity to get the consultation out of the way and then have a clear run at the issue.

My response is fairly self-evident. I will continue to advocate the removal of “insulting” from the Public Order Act and, to that end, I shall exert all the pressure I can in due course. This is not an amendment that I would have tabled today and I hope that it will be withdrawn at this stage. It would be helpful if the Minister could again signal an urgency in the Home Office to deal with the consultation so that we can properly address the issue at Report.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Wednesday 20th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I fully endorse what has been said about the work of CEOP. We have referred to this organisation many times over the past year or so in your Lordships’ House. It is a highly successful organisation but it is only really beginning to identify the tip of an iceberg. We are just beginning to understand exactly how much crime in that area is committed. It has already been said today that there is a crossover with people trafficking, and in fact child trafficking comes very much within CEOP’s remit. People trafficking in general is a highly organised crime.

It seems to me that the question is: should CEOP come within the remit of the NCA at all? Personally, I think that it should, given the seriousness of what it deals with, the revulsion that all right-minded people feel about this crime and the way in which CEOP’s work interfaces with highly organised crime. The one thing that I am concerned about is the suggestion in the amendment that CEOP should be accountable to the NCA board, accepting that it is part of its remit, but should operate independently of the direction of the board. If that were to appear in the Bill, there would be considerable confusion. It seems to go against logic and against all tenets of management. “One man, one boss” is often used as shorthand for that. If CEOP is one of the four pillars of the NCA—as I believe it should be—not only should the board oversee the operation but it should be responsible for it, and CEOP should not be allowed to operate independently.

I take the point that, in a strange sort of way, CEOP is outside the normal remit of much of mainstream policing because it has a multiagency dimension. I understand that. In fact, I remember back in the 1970s piloting the first multiagency approach that attacked what was then called “baby battering”, then shorthanded as “child abuse”. That approach was highly successful and was rolled out right across the country from Nottinghamshire, where I was then serving. At that time it became the model of how best to approach this sort of problem. Therefore, I understand the particular sensitivities of multiagency approaches. Notwithstanding that, I would be unhappy to see CEOP operate independently of the direction of the board because I think that it would lead to confusion.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has expressed very well my concerns about the second paragraph of the amendment. He has also said very clearly exactly what I would want to be said right around the Committee and to be on the record concerning the value of CEOP’s work. Like those of the noble Lord, my comments are in no way directed at criticising CEOP, not valuing its work or not wanting to see it continue as successfully as it has done.

Perhaps I may add a query about the third paragraph of the amendment. First, I am a little unclear about what is meant by the delegation of funds within an organisation, as would be the case if CEOP were part of the NCA. What exactly is meant by delegation? Secondly, for what purpose are the funds reserved? If funds are identified as being needed for CEOP’s operation, are they not for the whole of its operation, or is there something specific that the funds are intended to be reserved for?

I am sorry to appear to be taking apart an amendment on this matter. Like others, I feel that what has been said about the importance of CEOP’s work is absolutely undoubted, and my questions about the amendment are genuinely probing.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I shall be brief. I support the amendment as set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, who has made a very adequate case for this change. I have changed my mind on this issue over, I suppose, the past six months or so. I had for a long time thought that the current legislation, the Protection from Harassment Act, was sufficient, but I now realise that the terminology in it is too strict. The term “violence” needs to be ameliorated in some way and the wording in the amendment that refers to “fear or alarm” would take us closer to the course of conduct referred to in many parts of your Lordships' House.

This issue has grown in modern society over the past 10 or 20 years. I do not offer any suggestion as to why that has happened. Perhaps we have, paradoxically, an anonymous society on the one hand and a society with a plethora of information in it on the other. There is certainly a growth in technology and perhaps a celebrity culture. Whether celebrity is real or imagined hardly matters; the fact that it is now possible to become the focus of someone’s attention is clearly at the root of what is proposed. I believe that we need to do something to alter this very tight definition of violence. The question of whether the wording of the amendment is too prescriptive I leave for a later debate. Personally, I think that much of the legislation coming through your Lordships’ House is far too prescriptive, and that in itself presents a trap. I hope that the Minister can take away the comments of this House, including my own, to examine what has been said, and perhaps we can return to this matter for further consideration on Report. I support the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps I may raise two small points. They seem almost trivial in the context but they are important and, as the noble Baroness said earlier, the opportunities for this sort of discussion are limited to Committee. I appreciate that this is existing legislation in Scotland. My first point relates to proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment, which states,

“where A knows, or ought in all the circumstances to have known”.

The existing Section 4(2) brings in the notion of a reasonable person. I read the existing law as objective and this proposal as being subjective, and I am not sure whether it is strong enough.

My second point relates to new subsection (2) of the proposal, where it would be necessary for the course of conduct to cause “fear or alarm”. Again, I wonder whether that is strong enough. What if the victim is a particularly resilient person? Should the person engaging in the conduct be able to do so because of the toughness of the victim?

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Dear

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

The noble Lord, Lord Soley, talked about deterrence in the context of a voluntary database. I take the point about stigma, but only a little bit.

On the requirement for further evidence sought in the amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Condon, has said, the science and the technology are both galloping forward very fast, and logically one could make an argument for continually looking for further evidence as the science goes forward and never coming to a conclusion. It is always possible to ask for more evidence, and we will hear from the Minister what evidence the Home Office has looked for. However, I would like to ask him in this context about the post-implementation review mentioned in the impact assessment. There are a number of boxes under that heading that are not completed. Perhaps he can tell the Committee something about the establishment of the criteria for the assessment under a post-implementation review, because that would be helpful.

I am not sure that the amendments in this group that seek to extend the period are entirely consistent. We are in Committee, so I understand that, but to seek to decide whether to increase or decrease the time period while at the same time calling for further evidence before implementing this part of the Bill does not quite seem to hang together. However, that is probably a picky and unworthy argument because, as my noble friend said, the noble Baroness has raised matters that are extremely important.

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, we have discussed the rapid advances in DNA technology, but a fact that noble Lords may wish to take note of is that we are literally on the brink of a breakthrough in DNA analysis whereby, although the same sample being tested in the laboratory does not produce a hit on the database, it will nevertheless produce a pretty good description of the person who has given the sample. That will move the debate into a whole new area. I say that to put the record straight on just how fast databases are moving forward.

There is no doubt that if legislated for as we are considering, DNA technology will undoubtedly bring some convictions from cold case reviews. Indeed, that has already been mentioned from the Cross Benches. However, I have to say that, as a proportion of the total number of cases dealt with and convictions brought each year, the number will be relatively very small. Undoubtedly these reviews will frequently focus on serious cases involving rape or violence where the victim has suffered enormous trauma.

Having concluded my brief opening remarks, I have little else to say other than that I support the stance taken by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. There has been far too much intervention in the privacy of the individual. We are currently reading in the newspapers about the conduct of the Leveson inquiry, which is yet another example of possible intervention in another sphere. That thrust of the interventionist state into our lives is something that this Bill seeks to reverse. Although this is an emotional issue, it raises great interest in the criminal justice system and in my former service, the police service. I shall make very few new friends in the service when I say that I believe that the safeguards proposed by the Government in trying to search for this balance are appropriate. I therefore support what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said as well as the general thrust of this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, Clause 2(2) provides for the retention of certain material,

“until the conclusion of the investigation of the offence or”,

as the case may be, the conclusion of proceedings, where proceedings are taken. My amendment seeks to define what is meant by the conclusion of an investigation for the purposes of this clause.

“Conclusion of proceedings” seems to be relatively clear. Presumably one gets to the end of a case or the end of an appeal. Alternatively, when an appeal is not possible, I suppose there is always the possibility of a case being reopened by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, but I shall not try to go there. However, we also ought to be clear about when an investigation is regarded as concluded. There has already been a good deal of reference today to cold cases. How cold does a case have to be before it is concluded? If it is cold but not solved, is it still unconcluded? I simply suggest, partly as a way of exploring this matter, that an investigation should be regarded as concluded when it is certified by the responsible chief of police. I beg to move.

[Lord Dear]

My Lords, I have the greatest respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but I have to say from practical experience of commanding the largest force in the British Isles other than the Metropolitan Police—having previously headed the operations department of the Metropolitan Police—that in practical terms, forgetting the philosophical benefits or disbenefits of the amendment, it does not stack up.

There are thousands of offences on police books and well over half of them remain undetected. Therefore, seeking a certificate for every single one of them when one believed that an investigation was concluded would frankly be a bureaucratic nightmare. Quite apart from that, at the very serious end of offences it is not uncommon to have 50, 80 or 100 detectives and others working on an investigation. As the case winds on, that number will be run down until, months or even years later, you finish with perhaps five or six. There will come a point when everyone will know that the investigation has stopped because they will simply have run out of avenues to explore, but in my experience no chief officer would wish to say categorically, “It is finished”, because that would be slamming a door in the face of victims. We have already spoken in your Lordships’ House about the need to balance the rights and feelings of victims among other things, and that is absolutely right. I do not think that any chief officer of police would wish to say, “We have now certified that this is finished and as far as you, the victim, are concerned—or you, the general public, are concerned—we have now closed our books”, and I do not believe that the public would wish to hear it.

Therefore, with the greatest respect and although I understand where the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is coming from, on practical and philosophical grounds—and, if those fail, then certainly on grounds of sensibility to feelings—the amendment does not have my support.