Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I thank the Minister for his very kind comments. I, too, add my appreciation for the work that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, have done. I express my thanks to the members of the Bill team. Whether with 100 government amendments they ended up in a state of despair, I do not know, but if they did they never showed it and we are extremely grateful.

I also express appreciation from these Benches to all noble Lords who have taken part in our discussions, whether from a political party, the Cross Benches or the Bishops’ Bench. We have had numerous meetings which have all been extremely helpful. They have certainly all been extremely good-natured and conducted on all sides with a view to trying to resolve any differences of view and to come up with solutions that have been acceptable to us all. I also thank those organisations and individuals who have provided advice and briefings. I am sure we have found them all very useful and helpful. Whether or not we have always taken the road that the advice suggested is another matter, but we appreciated receiving it.

This Bill has been interesting because at heart it has not been a party-political issue. We have all been trying to achieve the same objective. We may have had slightly different views as to how that objective should be achieved, but nevertheless this Bill has avoided some of the rancour that can go with highly party-political issues. As the Minister has said, at the end of the day we have achieved real progress on behalf of the victims of modern slavery and I am sure this Bill and its terms will be much appreciated by all those concerned for what it will achieve.

The Minister said there had been 100 government amendments. They were obviously put down in part as a result of the patience, good nature and willingness to listen of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, which has been widely commented on in this House and widely appreciated. Of course, in so doing, the Minister has denied us the excitement and thrill of a number of votes, but in view of the outcome of the last one, perhaps that is just as well.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Benches I also thank all those who have already been mentioned. It is only so as not to be tedious that I will not go through the list again but my thanks are sincere.

This has been such a good example of how Parliament can work well across parties, with people of no parties and with organisations outside this House, as the noble Lord said. I have been particularly struck, which I am sure is in no small part thanks to the efforts of both Minsters present, that even at this last stage, with the last of the substantive amendments on the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Minister came forward with an amendment which he did not need to make. I do not think there would have been complaints. We would have taken the good faith of what he had said about the work that the Government were going to be doing on this. I know that he will agree that this is the end of the beginning rather than anything further, including at a personal level. I do not know whether the Bill team has counted up for him the number of commitments to extra meetings that he has made following the passing of what will soon be an Act but I know that we will all want to continue to be involved in making sure that the Bill, as implemented, fulfils its promises.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

The Government have tabled amendments, to be debated on another day, enabling the Secretary of State to introduce regulations to provide assistance and protection for victims on top of the requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce guidance on identifying and supporting victims. However, as my noble friend Lord Warner has already said, these government amendments do not give any specific guarantees of support and assistance on basic principles of protection and assistance, which would provide appropriate consistency for victims in the way that they are treated within a firm framework; nor do they address the consequences of the national referral mechanism not being on a statutory basis since its introduction. That lack of a statutory basis has contributed to feelings of arbitrariness in the application of the national referral mechanism, which have been compounded by the absence of a formal right to appeal an NRM decision, making the system somewhat unaccountable and potentially unjust.

The Home Office’s NRM review, published late last year, to which my noble friend Lord Warner referred, recognised the issues related to the involvement of United Kingdom Visas and Immigration in the current system and recommended that UKVI be included in the future as a participant in the mechanism rather than as a lead agency. The Government have expressed their commitment to improving the identification of and support for victims of modern slavery and, in the light of their own review, recognised that final decisions about who is a victim cannot be left to UKVI, which has another remit to fulfil, and, whatever the reality, will struggle to be regarded as impartial and open-minded on this issue.

However, further changes are needed. What is being sought in the amendment that my noble friend has moved is not new within the United Kingdom. The Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 and the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Bill both contain provisions for support of victims that go beyond what is contained in this Bill. The result could well be, if this Bill is not further amended, that there are significant differences in support and assistance provided to victims across the different nations within the United Kingdom, which is surely not the objective.

The amendment would place the framework of the national referral mechanism in statute, create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to set out in regulations the arrangements for a system of victim identification and support and provide for a formal right of appeal against any decision made through the system. However, the Government appear to be saying that they are not prepared to go down this road. The argument in the Minister’s recent letter is that, because this is a time of major change in how we identify and support victims, putting the national referral mechanism on a statutory footing now would be unhelpful and mean a loss of flexibility to improve the system. Instead, the Government have put down an amendment which would provide an enabling power for them to make regulations about identifying and supporting victims.

In his recent letter, the Minister said that the Government had tabled such an amendment to provide an enabling power to place the national referral mechanism into statute by regulations, albeit there does not appear to be any specific reference to the referral mechanism in the amendment. However, there is no reason why adopting the provisions of the amendment that has been moved by my noble friend would lead to potential inflexibility developing, although that is something on which the Minister may wish to comment. The argument that regulations are somehow better for establishing something in statute, such as the NRM, because they can be changed without the requirement for further primary legislation could be used in relation to any organisation or process that is being put on a statutory footing and, in so doing, avoid proper discussion and debate with the ability to amend proposals, which would be provided for by including the terms of this amendment in the Bill.

The amendment which my noble friend has moved, unlike the Government’s enabling power amendment, means that the NRM will be placed into statute on the basis set out in it. The current problems of feelings of arbitrariness in the application of the process of the referral mechanism would be addressed and some consistency achieved in improving the identification and support of victims of modern slavery, to which the Government have expressed their commitment. The Government’s amendment, which is still to be discussed, is simply an enabling power. It is not a guarantee and it is not a requirement. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a helpful response to Amendment 47.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I had my name to an amendment moved in Committee by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—I was about to say my noble and learned friend. That amendment is tabled again today and is much simpler: in order to avoid the need for primary legislation, it is for regulations to be made. Like others, I want the national referral mechanism to be on a statutory basis, and I welcome the government amendments which we will debate on Wednesday—although I have one or two questions about them.

I would be worried about including the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. To establish it now or “as soon as practicable”—I am not sure what that means in a statutory context, but let us say that it is pretty soon; it is not waiting for the end of a trial, as I interpret it—must, as trials of the new procedures proposed by Jeremy Oppenheim are to be undertaken, risk establishing one statutory basis and then changing it by regulation. Some of the language in the amendment seems to me problematic. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that the term,

“trafficked, enslaved or exploited persons”,

is defined in the same way as victims of,

“slavery and human trafficking offences”,

which is what we have in Clause 41, where the general functions of the commissioner are set out.

I have confidence in what we are being told by the Government about moving to a statutory basis. Without trying to analyse every dot and comma, I would worry that there might be hostages to fortune in the new clause which would require primary legislation to change, rather than the opportunity to rely on regulations, which is what the Government propose.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, when I read the Hansard of our first debate on this issue, I realised how much I agreed with the noble Baroness, and I agree with her tonight. I am also concerned about applying the reasonable person test to a child for the reasons she gave and because children develop at different stages. To ask a jury, as I suppose would have to be the case, not only to see what a reasonable adult person would do but to take account of the variables of a child’s development makes the test so complicated that it would be inappropriate. That is the sort of word one uses to be polite, is it not? I do not think we should be requiring this of a child. It adds to the complications and is not the direction in which we should be going.

I have been at meetings where I have heard the noble Baroness say to the Minister that we should not be constructing legislation that allows people to say, “I was trafficked, therefore I should be let off doing anything wrong”. She has been very upfront and quite blunt about that, and she is not trying to resile from that attitude here. I support her amendment.

[Lord Rosser]

I shall be very brief. As has been said, the Government’s amendment removes the need for child victims of trafficking or slavery to prove that they did not have a realistic alternative and puts the onus on the prosecution to show that they acted unreasonably. However, as has been said by my noble friend Lady Kennedy, trafficked children will still need to pass a reasonable person test to benefit from the defence, which will, essentially, presumably require an adult juror to decide whether a similar child in similar circumstances would have acted in the same way.

I assume that the Minister will respond to this point anyway, but given the inherent restrictions of the defence in the Government’s amendment to Clause 45 and that it applies only to offences committed as a direct result of trafficking, slavery or servitude, do the Government maintain that it is necessary to ask a potentially traumatised and vulnerable child victim then to pass an additional test of reasonableness and, in effect, show that they have behaved reasonably to achieve legal protection? When the Minister responds, if he feels unable to give a helpful reply—which I hope he will feel able to do—is it the Government’s intention that it is necessary to ask a child victim, potentially traumatised and vulnerable, to have to pass this additional test of reasonableness, given that there is considerable restriction of the defence in the Government’s amendment to Clause 45 in that it applies only to offences committed as a direct result of trafficking, slavery or servitude?

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, in moving this amendment I will speak also to Amendment 74. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, also has an amendment in this group.

Clause 15 deals with appointments which an individual can be required to keep. Following comment from the current Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, this takes advantage of the legislation in order to require individuals to attend appointments, for instance, in connection with deradicalisation. I really do not like that term: perhaps I might say appointments that would help the individual return to or lead a more comfortable and normal life. Amendment 72 would add that the individual could request somebody other than the specified person.

Different individuals respond in different ways to different counsellors, if I can use that term in a very wide sense. This work has to be dealt with case by case, and it would be a pity if it were to fail because of the individual and his counsellor simply not getting on and there not being a sensible opportunity to change the personnel. We all know of people who we simply cannot rub along with for reasons that sometimes we cannot even quite identify.

Amendment 74 would provide, in connection with such appointments, that the Secretary of State would be deemed to have given permissions for travel to enable the individual to attend appointments and, crucially, will not unreasonably withhold permissions to attend appointments relating to deterring other people from involvement in terrorist-related activity. We are all aware—it is a matter of common sense—that returning fighters may have a positive role in deterring other people. In the debate on Thursday on the latest proscription order that has been introduced, the noble Baroness gave an example of a woman trying to return to this country who was disillusioned with what she had found—I think—in Syria. That sort of disillusionment should be harnessed, and I would like to find every way of making this legislation positive as well as inevitably negative. I hope that my noble friend can assure the Committee in that connection.

I gave the Bill team notice of this matter this morning—if it has not yet reached the Minister, I will understand if he cannot answer—and will pick up an issue that the independent reviewer raised. This matter was also taken up by the JCHR: the question of privilege against self-incrimination. The Government’s response to the independent reviewer’s report was to say that this would not be appropriate. The Government referred to a “blanket approach”. Can the Minister unpack that a little today? I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, our Amendment 73 is in this group. As has been said, Clause 15, on appointments for people on terrorism prevention and investigation measures, allows the Secretary of State to require an individual to attend meetings with such persons as the Secretary of State may specify, at such locations and at such times as the Secretary of State may by notice require. The specified persons may choose the time and place of the meeting. The clause is expressed in general terms and the purpose of the amendment, which is a probing amendment, is to give the Government the opportunity to say more about what kind of meetings an individual would be required to attend, for what purposes or objectives and over what period of time. It would also be helpful if the Minister could say if assessments will be made of the outcome of these meetings and to whom the assessments, if they are made, will be given.

Our probing amendment provides for the Secretary of State to be able to instruct an individual on a TPIM to attend deradicalisation programmes, since we think it is important that the Secretary of State should be able to require people to attend Channel meetings and appointments and possibly those relating to other parts of the Prevent programme. However, I hope that in his response the Minister will not only address the specific point covered in this probing amendment but talk in more depth about how the Government envisage using powers under Clause 15.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 26th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, Clause 18 enables the Secretary of State to make schemes requiring a carrier to seek authority from the Secretary of State to carry persons on aircraft, ships or trains that are arriving or expected to arrive in the United Kingdom or leaving or expected to leave the UK. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for an authority-to-carry scheme made by the Secretary of State to be set out in regulations, subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee considered that Clause 18 constituted,

“a significant delegation of powers to the Secretary of State, since authority-to-carry schemes will have the effect of regulating the persons who may lawfully be transported by a carrier to and from the UK”.

The Home Office has stated that authority-to-carry schemes are not subject to parliamentary scrutiny because,

“there will be provision on the face of the Bill providing guidance as to the circumstances in which a class of passenger may be specified for the purpose of the scheme”.

No doubt the Minister will indicate in his response where this guidance appears on the face of the Bill and whether the Government feel that this represents sufficient guidance on how and in what circumstances the powers should be used. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said that, unless the Home Office provided more compelling evidence on why the power to make schemes should not be scrutinised by Parliament, the Bill should be amended so that the powers are exercisable by statutory instrument.

This amendment gives the Government the opportunity to say rather more about the need for these powers and why they consider that they should not be scrutinised by Parliament. There are already similar statutory provisions in existence that apply only inbound to the United Kingdom, as I understand it. Will the Minister provide some information on how these existing powers have been used, how frequently they have been deployed, in respect of how many people, what nationalities and classes or categories have been affected and from which locations they have been travelling to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister also set out the extent to which the provisions in Clause 18 are an extension of the existing arrangements—in other words, exactly what are the additions in Clause 18 to what we have already?

I am sure that the Government will be more than aware of concerns that have been expressed that the provisions in the Bill could be used to exclude passengers or crew of particular nationalities or particular classes or categories, and that if these powers are not used in a sensible and proportionate manner they could enhance the likelihood of radicalisation, particularly among nationalities or classes or categories affected, who might come to the conclusion that they were being picked on and singled out, with a resultant potential increase in feelings of alienation and a potential decrease in the desire to provide crucial co-operation.

It would be helpful if the Minister could respond to that point and the others that I have made. This probing amendment gives the Government the opportunity to place on record how and when, and in respect of whom, they intend the powers in Clause 18 to be used and why they consider them necessary, as well as the opportunity to respond to the point on parliamentary scrutiny made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, to pick up the noble Lord’s penultimate point, Clause 18 says in terms that the scheme must specify various classes in subsection (2).

I have tabled Amendments 101 and 102 in this group. The first is narrower than the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, but would require regulations to encompass the requirements of a scheme whose breach may attract the imposition of a penalty. We are told that there will be regulations imposing penalties. It seems to me that the regulations for the underlying requirement, at the very least, ought to be within the regulations before one and that it is not appropriate for there to be regulations imposing penalties if the requirements themselves are not subject to the same sort of parliamentary process.

My second amendment would provide, not in detail, a more structured procedure than is suggested by subsection (4): the opportunity to object to a proposed penalty. It suggests that a reference to an appeal would be more appropriate. If there are to be penalties there should be arrangements for challenging them and possibly even for third party or perhaps judicial determination—but whatever there is, the rather loose terminology of “object to” is inadequate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I saw that report in the Independent, and, living quite near to Heathrow as I do, I felt it particularly vividly.

The noble Lord’s concerns are well founded. I wonder, however, whether it is not simply a matter of designating areas where the flight of drones is restricted, period, rather than dealing with the burden of proof—whoever carries it—regarding whether a drone is being flown for the purposes of terrorism. I suspect that the answer will be: “Thank you for raising it and a lot of people are looking at it”. I hope that that last bit is true. My comment is that it might be better to deal with it over the wider point and not to get into the confusion of whether it is terrorism related. The outcome could be pretty similar whatever the purpose.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, unmanned aerial vehicles, as has been said, are used in a military context and by public bodies in the UK, and for surveillance, among other uses. Surveillance UAVs are regulated, although, as my noble friend Lord West of Spithead has said, some people question how effective this regulation is.

I will comment in particular on the use of small non-surveillance unmanned aerial vehicles. UAVs weighing under 22 kilograms are entirely unregulated. They can be bought and sold freely. There is no tracking mechanism. Perhaps most importantly, they can easily be purchased for self-assembly, which makes them easy to modify, perhaps for the kind of purposes set out in my noble friend’s amendment. There is a big concern around airports. As has been said, a UAV got within a few feet of an Airbus jet leaving Heathrow. Even a small UAV could cause engine failure in a jet, in the same way as a bird strike, even if not being used for obviously hostile purposes. While airports have extensive protection from lasers, and even from surface-to-air missiles, there is no specific provision, as I understand it, for UAVs. Apparently, this is a concern of the British Airline Pilots Association and air traffic controllers, and suggestions have been made for UAV no-fly zones around airports.

I hope that, in their reply, the Government will be able to show that they have assessed the risks and are taking appropriate action because, subject to what the Minister says in response, it is not obvious that there is a coherent direction of policy, at least on smaller UAVs if not larger ones, with the light-touch regulation to which my noble friend Lord West has referred.

Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 20th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the amendment provides for legal aid for proceedings before a district judge in the light of an application for an extension of the 14-day period. We fully support the Government’s change of heart on this point about legal aid. As the Minister mentioned, the amendment states that its provisions are subject to the exclusions in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. So that we are clear on exactly what those exclusions mean, it would be helpful if the Minister could clarify what their impact would be in reality, in respect of legal aid being provided, or not, in applications for an extension of time for retention of travel documents, which is the issue covered by the amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I too am glad that the Government have addressed the matter of legal aid. There was clearly going to be a call for that. My question, which is a sort of prequel, is about whether advice would be available to a traveller at the point when travel documents are seized and retained. Legal aid is becoming confined to proceedings rather than advice, but this is an important point in the whole process.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

As mentioned in the debate on the previous amendment, the group of amendments to which Amendment 3 belongs requires the Secretary of State to commission an annual report to be laid before both Houses by the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation on the exercise of the powers contained in Chapters 1 and 2 of Part 1 and in Part 2, which relate to the seizure of travel documents and temporary exclusion from this country. The amendments also require the Secretary of State to publish annual figures on the usage of these powers, and for an annual review of the arrangements made by the Secretary of State under the powers in paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to be published and laid before both Houses.

I think I am right in saying that in its recent report the Joint Committee on Human Rights drew attention to the fact that neither of the new powers in Part 1 concerning the seizure of passports and managed return are made subject to independent review. It seems that the Minister told the JCHR that the Government had considered independent review, but apparently they were satisfied that any review of the extensive new powers in Part 1 should not extend beyond that carried out by parliamentary Select Committees. The Joint Committee on Human Rights referred in its report to the fact that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation had commented on this issue, saying that if the powers we already have under the Terrorism Act need independent review, then surely the new powers in Part 1 also need independent review. It could be said that if that review took place it might help to inform a discussion on whether the powers needed reviewing if there was a sunset clause in the Bill. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said that, like the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, it believed in principle that the operation in practice of the new powers to impose restrictions on the travel of terrorism suspects should be subject to independent review, and therefore it was recommending that the powers in Part 1 concerning passports and managed return should be subject to review by the independent reviewer.

In moving Amendment 3, I am also speaking to the other amendments in this group. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a positive response to them.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My noble friend Lord Carlile has already referred to the fact that the independent reviewer can, does and did look at far more than is spelled out in statute. My inclination would be to spell that out, but to spell out that the independent reviewer’s powers extend to all terrorism legislation. I have half a clause drafted to that effect for later in Committee stage. That does not mean to say, as these amendments suggest, that that should necessarily be annual. It may need to be done more than annually. Some legislation—I think it is the asset-freezing legislation—requires quarterly reports. As time goes on, subject to the eventual decision about a sunset clause, it may be not so necessary to report as frequently. Perhaps more importantly, I would prefer that a report was not subject to commissioning by the Home Secretary. A future Home Secretary might decide not to commission a report, and we can all see where that might go.

This is an important issue. I am glad that it has been raised, and it has been covered quite substantially already this afternoon. I am not convinced that this is quite the way to go about it. We need to look at the comments made by David Anderson on the scope of the role and the balance between its constituent parts, and not pick bits off in individual parts of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Amendments 22, 42 and 43 in this group are also in my name, and Amendment 11 is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

Amendment 9 has rather an automatic, almost knee-jerk—or perhaps wrist-jerk—wording that anyone who has dealt with contracts for more than five minutes is likely to produce; namely, if something is in someone’s possession, does that adequately cover the situation or do you need to refer to the item as being under that person’s control? Again, this issue is about workability. I raised it with the Bill team some two or three weeks ago, before Christmas, and asked what would happen if it were not the individual but a companion who was holding the travel documents, and what powers would be available to get at those documents. When people are travelling as a pair or in a group, an individual does not always carry his own documents at every point. I understand that the amendment’s wording is wide enough because I think that the documents must always come into the individual’s possession, but I thought that it was worth getting clarity on that in Committee.

Amendment 22 seeks to amend paragraph 6(4). That paragraph states that on reviewing the retention of travel documents:

“The relevant chief constable must consider those findings and take whatever action seems appropriate”.

That is a wide phrase and I do not think the Minister will be surprised that my point boils down to whether he can share with the Committee what is anticipated to be within the range of “appropriate” and how this will be dealt with. Will it be covered by guidance, a code of practice and so on?

My other amendments in the group, Amendments 42 and 43, concern the perception of discrimination in the exercise of these powers—an issue that I have already raised today. I accept that this is an immensely difficult area; I have referred in the amendments to training, including equalities training, and recording the performance of the exercising of the powers. The latter is certainly covered by the draft code, which I saw after I had tabled the amendment. However, I will probably not be the only Member of the Committee who is aware of concerns about discrimination or who has received from one organisation a copy of a briefing to its members to make representations to MPs. It says:

“The proposed legislation could bear serious consequences for British Muslims including”,

and lists a number of items. It then states:

“This is a deeply troubling piece of legislation for British Muslims and will change our lives forever it is passed in its current form”.

I have no easy answer on how to deal with this but the Government must, I am sure, have been considering the perception, particularly in the light of the fact that those against whom it is sought to exercise those powers are likely—that may be the wrong word—to come disproportionately from Muslim communities. I felt that the matter had to be aired for us to seek some reassurance, which I hope the Minister will be able to give. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

I have Amendment 11 in this group, to which I wish to speak. Schedule 1 includes the procedure for the authorisation by a senior police officer for the retention of a travel document, and states in paragraph 4:

“The document may be retained while an application for authorisation is considered. Any such application must be considered as soon as possible”.

The effect of my amendment, which is more a probing amendment, is to provide a time limit within which the application for authorisation must be considered—namely, within 12 hours—rather than leaving it somewhat open-ended, as provided for in the Bill.

No doubt, the Minister will indicate in his reply why it was felt desirable not to lay down a specific maximum time limit but to leave the provision without any time limit at all by using the phrase “as soon as possible”. The length of time taken for the application for authorisation to be dealt with is presumably—although I should be grateful if it could be confirmed or otherwise—in addition to the period during which the travel document can be seized, as laid down in the Bill. If that is the case, it is important that such authorisations are not delayed but are dealt with expeditiously. How long do the Government believe it will take for applications for authorisation to be considered, and how long do they consider is reasonable in that context? Who will decide whether it has been dealt with as soon as possible? Who can take any action, and through which channels, if they consider that the application has not been dealt with as soon as possible? How will they obtain the evidence for that?

I was going to ask the Minister: in what circumstances do the Government envisage that it would not be possible to consider an application within 12 hours? It may be that he will say in reply that he considers that an application should be dealt with in considerably less time than that but, bearing in mind my amendment, which aims to find out more about the reasons for the government wording, it would be helpful if the Minister could say what kind of factors leading to a delay—for example, beyond the period laid down in my amendment —the Government would believe were still compatible with dealing with the application as soon as possible. I hope that he will respond to these points, either now or subsequently.

Modern Slavery Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 8th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

Our amendment proposes a new clause to the Bill providing for the Director of Public Prosecutions to issue guidance on the charging of known or suspected victims of human trafficking, and for a prosecution of a trafficked, enslaved or exploited person to be reviewed by the Director of Public Prosecutions before going to trial.

The first part relating to guidance reflects a feeling from a number of groups and organisations involved in these cases that it is far from clear how the Crown Prosecution Service deals with the public interest test when looking at victims of trafficking. We need to reduce uncertainty about when victims will be prosecuted. A model for the clarity of guidance called for in our amendment is the DPP’s guidance in relation to a totally different issue—assisted suicide.

On authorisation for a trafficking prosecution, which is also addressed in our amendment, we want to establish the principle that prosecutions of trafficking victims should happen only in exceptional circumstances, which is why we wish prosecutions of those who have had a national referral mechanism decision or are awaiting one to be authorised at the most senior level, namely the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Trafficked victims can be badly damaged and vulnerable and can wait 12 months in remand before a trial goes ahead, which only adds to their problems considerably. Evidence from the Helen Bamber Foundation to the Joint Committee on the Bill referred to the need for women to feel supported—to feel that they would be believed and that they would not normally be prosecuted. Allowing prosecutions to go ahead goes along with what traffickers would have told their victims: that they would do better to stay with them than go to the authorities and be prosecuted and deported.

Similar evidence from the Poppy Project discussed the 55 women that it has helped in the past year who were identified as trafficking victims only once they were in prison, usually on remand. Another example from the Poppy Project involved an adult woman who had been underground for 11 years in a brothel. She escaped and used a passport that her trafficker gave her and that she thought was legal. It was not and she ended up being imprisoned for immigration offences, even though she was not the one who had committed the crime. No one, it seems, investigated the trafficker who had given her the passport and who was able to carry on recruiting and procuring more victims. While the crime the woman committed was not committed during enslavement, it undoubtedly arose from her trafficking.

One consequence of the examples to which I have referred is that it seems almost certain that more trafficking victims have been prosecuted in this country than traffickers. There is a need for all those coming into contact with people who have been or may have been trafficked to be able to recognise the offence and that we do not find such cases ending up in court unless authorised at the top level as being appropriate to prosecute. I hope that will also be the Government’s objective and that the terms of our amendment will be accepted.

Finally, I would like to raise one point on the issue that my noble friend Lady Kennedy of Cradley has so effectively raised in relation to the reasonable person test. My point is simply a query, since I shall await with interest the Government’s response to her amendments. On the reasonable person test in Clause 45(1)(c), I ask the Minister whether the reference to the reasonable person “in the same situation” as the slavery or trafficking victim means that the assessment of whether a reasonable person would have had no realistic alternative to doing the act which constitutes the offence will be based on a view of what a reasonable person who had had experience of suffering the same kind of traumatic experiences and effects as the victim would have done. If so, how many people, in the Government’s view, would be able to make that assessment?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I welcome the principal provisions, but I share her concerns. I thought that she was entirely clear in speaking to the amendments. Trafficking and slavery are trafficking and slavery. Not to be prosecuted for offences committed when one is trafficked or enslaved is a matter of human rights. Those rights should not be dependent on the individual’s characteristics; they are completely separate issues. I do not need to repeat everything that the noble Baroness said, but I will quickly refer—the title is probably longer than the reference—to Policy and legislative recommendations towards the effective implementation of the non-punishment provision with regard to victims of trafficking, by the Office of the Special Representative and Co-ordinator for Combating Trafficking in Human Beings. She said:

“The penalization of a person for acts that they have committed as a cause or direct consequence of being trafficked must be seen in that context:”—

the context of human rights—

“not only does it unjustly punish and stigmatise victims of serious crime; it would also violate these human rights objectives”.

I come back to that. It is not a small point, but it is very specific and clear, and I fear that we will be muddying the waters if the wording remains as it is.

Serious Crime Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of our amendment, apart from giving an opportunity to debate the law relating to domestic abuse, is to provide for the Secretary of State to consult on ways of strengthening the law in relation to domestic abuse, which is perpetrated overwhelmingly against women, with that consultation taking place within six months of this Act coming into force. Our amendment also sets out some of the issues that the consultation would consider, without it being an exhaustive list.

Those issues are: should a specific offence or offences criminalising coercive and controlling behaviour, or a pattern or acts of behaviour within an intimate relationship, be created? Should the violent and sexual offenders register include serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators and be managed through the multiagency public protection arrangements? Should a new civil order be created to place positive obligations on serial stalkers and domestic violence perpetrators? Should the breach of domestic violence protection notices and orders be a criminal offence? Should domestic violence protection notices and orders extend across European boundaries?

One of the problems, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, is that the Government’s definition of domestic abuse, adopted from the general definition of the Association of Chief Police Officers, is not reflected in the law. The Government’s definition is:

“Any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive, threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are, or have been, intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality”.

The abuse,

“can encompass, but is not limited to … psychological, physical, sexual, financial … emotional”.

However, the current law does not capture the Government’s non-statutory definition of domestic abuse as there is no statutory framework around it. Currently, offenders can be prosecuted only for acts of physical violence, when such violence is often the culmination of psychological and minor physical abuse which constitutes domestic abuse, which is outside the reach of the existing criminal law and does not get reported until it has actually escalated into physical violence—which, to put it mildly, is a bit late in the day.

The figures have already been quoted, but I shall repeat them. According to the Home Office, last year 7% of all women reported having experienced domestic abuse, which is equivalent to 1.2 million women a year. Two out of three incidents involved repeat offenders. The reality is that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents. Since the age of 16, according to statistics published by Women’s Aid and the Home Office, almost one-third of women have experienced domestic abuse. Interestingly —although perhaps that is not the appropriate word—one in three women who attend an A&E department does so because she has been domestically abused.

As the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, according to Women’s Aid, only 6.5% of domestic violence incidents reported to the police lead to conviction and 25% of domestic violence cases that are passed on to the Crown Prosecution Service result in no action being taken. There is an issue around the successful prosecution of cases. In some cases, of course, the victim withdraws their statement to the police of domestic abuse or violence, does not come to court, or comes to court and gives evidence that is contrary to their original statement. However, bearing in mind that on average women do not report abuse until there have been at least 30 incidents, the strong likelihood is that any reluctance to go through the legal and court process is not because the domestic violence and abuse did not actually occur, but for other reasons.

An important reason for consultation, including on the specific points referred to in our amendment, is that following the introduction of specific domestic abuse laws in the United States, there was apparently a 50% rise in women reporting the behaviour, and with it a large increase in the number of perpetrators being brought to justice, along with a decrease of over one-third in incidents of abuse. One key area is the need to consult, as the Government have done, on criminalising abuse that involves coercive control in a domestic setting as well as making domestic abuse itself a separate criminal offence.

A further issue for consideration is whether the prosecution of domestic abuse and domestic violence cases should be subject to statutory time limits. Domestic abuse and violence has often gone on for some time before an incident is reported by the victim. Under the current arrangements, many earlier incidents that have occurred and which make up the totality of the abusive behaviour, cannot also be the subject of a prosecution along with the incident that finally led the victim to decide to report what had been happening.

Our amendment also calls for consultation to consider a new civil order which would be intended to prevent further contact that amounts to domestic violence, would prohibit the perpetrator from engaging in certain activities, perhaps including contact with the victim and the children of the victim, and would exclude the perpetrator from the victim’s home. Such a consultation could also consider whether a breach of this civil order should be a criminal offence and whether such notices and orders should extend across European boundaries, with offending histories and restrictions being shared.

The issues to which I have referred and those set out in the amendment providing for consultation are ones that outside organisations and experts in this field have advocated. The government consultation on coercive control has recently concluded. It would be helpful to know, first, what steps the Government intend to take following that consultation and, secondly, whether the issues referred to in my Amendment 49C and others to which I and other noble Lords have referred, are also either being considered by the Government or were part of the consultation that has just concluded. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate in his response what issues or courses of action the Government are now considering following their consultation on strengthening the law on domestic abuse.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I am in no doubt that there needs to be more effort, more prosecutions, more resources, better practice and better training in the area of domestic abuse. I find it difficult to comment on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, because it is essentially a trailer for provisions that we do not have before us, but the first steps must be about implementing the existing legislation in a consistent and robust fashion: prosecuting for physical and non-physical forms of abuse, both of which are possible. However, successful prosecutions are rare. I have mentioned training; there is a need for specialist training throughout the criminal justice system. The issue is hugely important to ensure, among other things, that the basics of violence in a domestic situation are properly understood.

The series of actions that constitute abuse are crimes now. Interestingly, the domestic violence charity with which I have the closest links, Refuge—I do not know whether I need to declare an interest in that I chaired it a while ago—commented in its response to the Government consultation that it is concerned that creating a separate domestic violence offence could in fact lead to it being treated less seriously and being downgraded. We know that the phrase, “It’s just a domestic”, is still hanging around. The charity points out that there is a risk that even physical offences may be downgraded, so I think that there is a debate to be had on that. It does not necessarily follow that badging what is a domestic crime would lead to it being regarded in a different way.

Terrorism Act 2000 (Code of Practice for Examining Officers and Review Officers) Order 2014

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 7th July 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this is consequential on previous debates. It is amazing how much and how quickly all that agonising goes out of one’s head, and one has to remind oneself of the subject of it. I am glad that we have had the chance to consider the draft code of practice and the covering SI. What concerns me is the delay in the introduction of the review arrangements, which I assume is because it has simply not been possible to get the training in place quickly enough. I am not suggesting that the better provisions of the legislation, as they are after the work done on the then Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, should be delayed. However, could my noble friend confirm that training is on track for the more senior officers, who will be detailed to undertake the reviews, and how supervision will be carried out in the mean time? I notice that the code says that it will be delayed until the relevant provisions come into force. However, in distinction, the paragraphs about audio recording say that there is no requirement to follow the code until next April. That is the time when the review provisions are to come into force, or so we are told. I do not know whether I am seeing a problem where there is none. Perhaps my noble friend has information, although he may not, about the proportion of officers who will be trained to undertake the more senior role.

I shall raise a point again that I raised during the passage of the Bill. Will training cover how officers should deal with the family or other accompanying passengers of the individual who is being held or detained? I think that I mentioned during the Bill’s passage that I had come across an example, which I hope was a rare one, of an individual being told that, if he insisted on waiting for a legal representative, it would be a problem for his elderly mother, with whom he was travelling. In other words, inappropriate pressure was put on him to forgo a right. I am also not clear what happens if, because of detention, passengers miss their flights. I hope that my noble friend can also confirm that the facilities for this work are satisfactory and appropriate. We have talked about short-term holding facilities a good deal, of course.

The code refers to legal privilege, where the restriction seems to be on copying, not on looking at it. You cannot erase something from your head although, obviously, there would be a restriction on using it—but what happens if a privileged document is copied when it should not be?

Paragraph 41 suggests that consultation with a solicitor is invariably not allowed. This is in the examination part of the code, not the detention part. I had thought that it was always allowed, but not necessarily with a solicitor of the individual’s choice. Is that only when the individual is actually detained?

Paragraph 42 states that an examining officer may grant a request that a named person is informed of the examination at his discretion and that:

“Where reasonably practicable, the request should be granted”.

Is it discretion or reasonable practicality?

Paragraph 45, which is where we get on to detention, states that the power may be exercised,

“where the examining officer considers it is appropriate to do so”.

The last bullet point of paragraph 46 states that:

“Detention is an option (during the first hour of examination)”.

Is that bullet point just about the first hour of detention? If I am asking too many questions, I have no doubt that my noble friend will ask to write to me.

However, I will raise a couple of matters which I hope he can confirm now. First, paragraph 7.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum reads:

“Examining people at ports and the border area contributes daily to plan, finance, train for, and commit their attacks”.

I shall not reread that, but when the Minister looks at it, he will realise that some words must be missing. I do not think you detain people in order to help them plan their attacks. I have had a word with the Minister’s officials, and I think they think it is a typo, but quite an important one.

My second question is on similar lines, but I think I am on dodgier ground. It is on annexe A to the code, which explains to the detainee that he is detained to determine essentially either whether he is involved in terrorism or whether he is entering or leaving Northern Ireland. I thought, or perhaps I had assumed without applying much thinking, that it should be “and” rather than “or”. Looking at Schedule 7, Northern Ireland is dealt with in a separate paragraph. Will my noble friend confirm that detention can be solely to establish whether somebody is going into Northern Ireland without any terrorism-related aspect? I am sorry to have slung that at my noble friend. I looked at this rather too close to the time of the debate to give him notice of the rather detailed points which I have just raised.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

I will be giving the Minister a somewhat easier time than he has just been given by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

I thank the Minister for the explanation of the purpose of this order, which brings into operation a code of practice for examining officers and review officers in respect of the exercise of the powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and under Schedule 8 to that Act where the powers are exercised in connection with Schedule 7, as amended by Schedule 9 to the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The code of practice revises the preceding code of practice to take account of amendments made to Schedules 7, 8 and 14 to the Terrorism Act 2000 by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

The Explanatory Memorandum refers to commencing the remaining provisions of Schedule 9 to the 2014 Act this month to coincide with the issue of the code of practice brought into operation by this instrument, with the exception of the provision to which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, referred requiring review of the detention of persons detained under Schedule 7, which are being delayed until next April to allow sufficient time to develop, accredit and train all examining and review officers. I shall pursue some of the points she raised. Will the Minister say how many examining and review officers still require to be trained, how long the training of each officer takes and why the required training has not been completed by this month and has had to be delayed? The need for such training must have been known for some time. Could the Minister also spell out the impact of this delay, in practical terms, including any impact on the provisions of this instrument, which comes into force at the end of this month?

The Explanatory Memorandum also refers in paragraph 4.5 to consultation on this issue having taken place with “National Business Leads”. Perhaps the Minister could remind me who or what this organisation is or these people are.

As the Minister said, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 7.2 that:

“Schedule 7 is an important part of the UK’s counter-terrorism strategy and key to the UK’s border security”.

The memorandum goes on:

“The changes to Schedule 7 in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act are intended to reduce the potential scope for Schedule 7 powers to be operated in an unnecessary or disproportionate way, whilst still retaining their operational effectiveness”.

It then lists the changes made under the 2014 Act. They include ensuring access to legal advice for all individuals examined for more than one hour. In that regard, could the Minister clarify what legal entitlements people have when detained under Schedule 7? Will they have access to free legal advice?

The changes also include reducing the maximum period of examination from nine hours to six hours. The Government and others recently expressed concerns about the numbers going from this country to Syria apparently to be trained and engage in violence in the current conflict, and the possible consequences of that. In the light of concerns about what might happen if and when these people return to this country, with or without others, and what their intentions might then be, is it the Government’s view that all the changes made by the 2014 Act, including reducing the maximum period of examination from nine hours to six hours, actually enhance our ability to minimise the risk of those potential threats? Do the Government believe that the new code of practice provided for in this order—reflecting the amendments made to Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act by the 2014 Act—contribute to rather than potentially diminish our security in the present climate?

I simply conclude by commenting that the Explanatory Memorandum states that,

“the majority of consultation respondents agreed that the revised code clearly reflected the changes made to Schedule 7 powers in the”,

2014 Act. What it is not able to say is that the majority of respondents agreed that in today’s climate all those changes are still appropriate. We will not oppose this order, but I hope that the Minister will respond directly to the points and questions I raised, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Thursday 3rd April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, this is the first amendment in a group also containing Amendment 25 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, along with several other amendments in her name. It is clear that there is widespread agreement that the provisions dealing with residential tenancies proposed in the Bill are complicated and risky—complicated in their operation and risky in the scope there may be for discrimination. However, I do not need to re-rehearse our previous debates today.

The Government have been very clear that—I am using a term that I hope will carry less baggage than some—the scheme will be tried out and tested in a single area from October this year, that formal evaluation will be produced, and that decisions on implementation more generally will be taken in the next Parliament on the basis of the evaluation via a negative resolution order. I have used pretty much word for word the language of my noble friend Lord Taylor in Committee on 10 March, which noble Lords can read in Hansard. Because I accept all that he said, I have therefore chosen to build on it.

It will be entirely obvious to the Minister what assurances I am seeking in my amendment: consultation as to the criteria to be applied to assess and evaluate the scheme. I acknowledge that I have of course pre-empted that consultation by reference to an equalities impact assessment. We can all think of a number of criteria, but we can also think of large numbers of organisations and individuals with expertise in the field who could helpfully have an input into the construction of the evaluation programme, and they should have an input. So my amendment proposes that,

“the Secretary of State shall … consult such persons as she considers appropriate”.

That is not a get-out because it is a well understood formula. I should say in parenthesis that I am glad that I have been allowed to say “she” of the Secretary of State and not “they”, which I understand is a new form of drafting that was imposed on me last week. The amendment would then require a report on the proposed criteria to be laid before Parliament, thus, if you like, hedging with precautions in advance. That is what the amendment is about. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that such arrangements as I have included in my amendment or others that are equally as reliable and transparent will be made. My amendment refers to a pilot scheme. I do not use the language of “phasing” or “rolling out” because I do not accept the implication inherent in those terms whereby, after the first application, further operation is unstoppable and that first application is to be in a single area.

I have two major concerns about the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. It mentions,

“one or more pilot schemes”.

There could, therefore, be more than one pilot to start with, and we know that in the Commons the proposal similar to that made by those on the noble Baroness’s Benches would apply to a London borough, a local authority and a county in each of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Alternatively, it could mean successive pilot schemes, which is rather close to a rollout. I realised this morning that it is ironic that I am more sceptical about this than the Opposition Benches.

My second concern is that the detail of that pilot or pilots would be in secondary legislation because the noble Baroness’s amendments take out all the other clauses dealing with residential tenancies. Therefore, secondary legislation would have to deal with every aspect, every component and—importantly—every exclusion from the scheme. The legislation would have to come to Parliament in the context of a negative resolution order. There would be far less opportunity than we have had in successive stages of primary legislation to scrutinise the detail. In addition—this is a fundamental distinction—we have been able to discuss and arrive at changes, which is not something that one can readily do, if at all, with secondary legislation.

Therefore, a single pilot process—with codes of practice and exclusions, for example, for hostels, refuges and much other accommodation, including student accommodation—is a far less risky route. I am not given to quoting Members of the other House but my honourable friend the Member for Cambridge got it right when he said that if pilots were imposed on more than one area, if they went wrong, they would go wrong in more than one area. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment 25 and to our other amendments in the group that are consequential.

Before I proceed, the comment that I should like to make to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that if, under the terms of our amendment, the Government got it wrong over the pilot, their chances of getting a further extension of their scheme—bearing in mind that we have called for primary legislation if that were the case—would of course be extremely remote. That would be an incentive for a Government who wanted to see their scheme extended to get the pilot right and to get it fair. For that reason, the noble Baroness’s objections to our amendments are, to put it mildly, a bit thin.

This debate relates to the part of the Bill on which we spent the most time in Committee, because many noble Lords had questions about how the provisions would work in practice. However, despite the time spent debating the Government’s proposals, a great many of the questions remained unanswered. We agree with the principle of making it more difficult for illegal migrants to rent property. In Committee, we proposed a new clause seeking to put in place a pilot to be undertaken before the provisions could be put fully into effect.

We have now tabled amendments that would remove the entire chapter and replace it with a power for the Secretary of State to undertake a pilot along the same lines. If the pilot is successful, the Government could then come back to primary legislation to implement it fully. Given the substantial number of concerns that have been raised about the detail of this part of the Bill, and the need to ensure that it works well and receives proper parliamentary scrutiny, this is an eminently reasonable proposition.

A range of organisations have expressed serious concerns about the impact of the proposals on landlords and residential tenancies. The vast majority of landlords—82%—do not support the proposals, according to a survey by the Residential Landlords Association. Giving evidence in the Commons, the chairman of the National Landlords Association said:

“It is going to impose an administrative burden on landlords who are not experts in immigration … The principle of checking identity is not so much the worry as the logistics of how that is done and understanding the documentation”.

In the same evidence session, the policy director of the Residential Landlords Association said that,

“we think that the Bill and its provisions are not workable and will not be effective in achieving the objectives set out”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 29/10/13; col. 43.]

Of course, one of the key concerns is whether these measures will be workable. The Government have published a draft code of practice for landlords. We asked a number of questions about this in Committee, including: who will be included in the provisions? How will tenants who have never rented out a property know about their obligations in relation to subletting? How will landlords familiarise themselves with, understand and recognise all the potentially relevant documentation?

We also asked questions about enforcement, including: how will it be established that a landlord had acted in breach of their duty? How will the fine be collected? Will provision be made for landlords who repeatedly break the law? Will Home Office staff become overwhelmed as a result of landlords using the telephone notification to the Home Office that they have conformed to the requirements in the Bill as a form of shield?

The Government’s replies on these points were, for the most part, very general and not very helpful. For example, on enforcement, it was stated that the provisions would be enforced,

“as part of the normal business of enforcing immigration law”,—[Official Report, 10/3/14; col. 1653.]

that they would be applied on a “light-touch basis”, and that the Government would be relying on landlords or agents to give evidence that they have complied with the prescribed requirements.

One thing we asked for in the light of these concerns was for the code of practice to receive greater scrutiny, and we are pleased that the Government have listened and require the code to be laid before Parliament and be made by order, but they should have gone further and at least made it subject to the affirmative procedure. We are also pleased by the Government’s commitment that the code will be ready before the first phase of the rollout begins.

A further concern, which we also heard about in Committee from many noble Lords, relates to the impact on vulnerable citizens, including victims of domestic violence, those with chaotic lifestyles, and pregnant women. We know that landlords already avoid renting to groups they perceive as higher risk, and given the difficulty in identifying documents and the potential liability for landlords, it is likely that landlords will want to be on the safe side and ask for a passport in every case, but many vulnerable people do not have a passport.

On this, again, the Minister’s answers were not particularly helpful. He said that the Bill provides,

“discretionary powers for the Secretary of State to authorise a tenant who has no lawful status to rent property”.—[Official Report, 12/3/14; col. 1798.]

How will that work in practice? There is a real danger that people, vulnerable people in particular, will either become homeless or be driven into the hands of unscrupulous landlords.

There is also widespread concern about the potential discriminatory nature of the proposals. These concerns have been expressed by a number of organisations, including Shelter, Liberty and the Catholic Church. We also heard them expressed in Committee. Again, we are pleased that the Government have listened and that the code of practice in relation to discrimination will receive greater scrutiny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

I am disappointed by the Minister’s reply. In Committee, he said that,

“more should be done to tackle these types of unfair recruitment practices. Ministers will actively consider how best to protect British workers from this type of discrimination and we will seek to bring forward proposals shortly”.—[Official Report, 17/3/14; col. 19.]

We do not seem to have made any progress at all. The Minister is clearly not prepared to pick up what was inherent in my suggestion: that I would be happy to withdraw my amendment if he gave a commitment to come back with the Government’s own amendment at Third Reading.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I appreciate that I have not spoken in this debate but colleagues around me are confirming what I heard, which was that the Minister told us—for my part, I rather fear it—that we might hear shortly from the Government. Never in the years I have been in this House have I known “shortly” to be as short as a week or two. I have been listening carefully and I understand the problem, which everyone who has spoken on this has acknowledged. I wonder whether to have come back at this stage or be prepared to come back within a couple of sitting days, as it would be at Third Reading, would do justice to the severity of the problem that has been articulated.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 19th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment in this group to which I wish to speak is Amendment 81AA, which would require independent legal guardians to be appointed to look after the interests of children trafficked into the United Kingdom. The amendment proposes the insertion of a new clause but this is by no means a new issue. A similar amendment was recently voted on and narrowly defeated during the passage of the Children and Families Bill. The Committee will be aware of the tremendous work of the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, who has championed this issue for a very long time, and indeed the work of other noble Lords, including the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. We have been pursing this matter and the shadow Home Secretary has raised it a number of times.

We are returning to the matter again because it still is very much a concern. At least 450 children were identified as possible victims of trafficking in the past year alone. NGOs and police all say that it is most likely that the numbers of people trafficked, including children, are far higher than the national referral mechanism statistics record. A shocking two-thirds of children who are rescued from traffickers go missing again because the system to protect them is not strong enough.

Most of those children come from countries outside the European Union. They are here alone and have no knowledge of the country that they are in. They often speak and understand little English, and do not know who to turn to or how to find help. In the debate on this issue during the Children and Families Bill, noble Lords heard evidence from research commissioned by the Government, which highlighted the desperate need of trafficked children for specialist, independent support. That research, and the report by the Children’s Society and the Refugee Council, entitled, Still at Risk, which was published in September 2013, recommended the provision of “an independent trusted adult” whose,

“role would be to ensure”,

that all child victims are,

“able to understand their rights, ensure that their voice is heard in decisions that affect them and are supported effectively through the different legal processes that they are engaged in”.

Amendment 81AA would provide such a person.

When this was discussed in the Children and Families Bill, the Government argued that there was no need for new independent guardians for trafficked children since there are a number of professionals with responsibility for supporting a child under the Children Act. They pointed instead to the introduction of draft regulations and statutory guidance which they claimed would address all the faults in local authority care, rendering specialist guardians unnecessary. I suggest that that misunderstands the role of the independent legal guardian.

Child victims of trafficking find themselves in a foreign country and to access help they are expected to deal with many different state agencies; that is, local authorities, social workers, police, investigators, immigration officials and so on. When dealing with each organisation, they must engage with a different set of people and must repeat their story again and again, with all its traumatic details. This process is distressing and unhelpful for a child in unfamiliar surroundings. Children can become alienated and distrustful of those trying to help them, which leaves them vulnerable to retrafficking. Local authorities do not always seem to appreciate that young victims of trafficking often maintain links with the person who brought them to the United Kingdom because they speak the same language. A guardian with legal responsibility for the child would understand the dangers.

The role of the legal guardian is an entirely new role that no existing agency currently provides. That person would be a constant for the child in an ever changing world. They would accompany the child as they relate to all the different state agencies and would also have the right to speak on behalf of the child if the child requests it so that the child does not have to keep repeating their painful story if they do not want to.

Noble Lords will be aware that the Government recently published their draft Modern Slavery Bill but that does not provide for an independent guardianship system, so we are raising the matter again here. There is a growing coalition of support behind this idea. Trafficked children should have access to a trusted and independent advocate or guardian who is legally responsible for them and their interests in order to do what we are failing to do all too often at present; that is, to protect children who are the victims of trafficking in human beings from repeated trafficking and repeated abuse. I hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic response to this amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the issue of guardianship for victims of child trafficking is one that has support right around the House. When it was raised during the Children and Families Bill, I said in reply to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that when he first raised this some years ago I had not been persuaded. However, particularly through his arguments, I came to be persuaded of the need, in part from the point of view of someone who has practised as a solicitor and needs someone from whom to take instructions. That is one of the functions that a guardian would fulfil. The draft Modern Slavery Bill, which is the subject of pre-legislative scrutiny, has been drawn up from the point of view of the victim and, like the noble Lord, I think that this would fit absolutely in protecting and assisting victims.

I have a couple of comments about the issues raised by my noble friends with regard to children and young people without immigration status. I first want to draw attention to a report published last year by the ESRC Centre on Migration, Policy and Society at the University of Oxford, entitled No Way Out, No Way In about irregular migrant children. Its summary, which is a tiny part of a report that goes on for many pages, states:

“Our estimate regarding the high proportion of irregular migrant children who are either born or have spent most of their childhood in the UK invites a refocus of public understanding of this population”.

The second issue that I would like to mention is the very uncomfortable reporting that we have seen, not so much of the children to whom my noble friend Lady Benjamin drew attention, although some would fit into this category, but of wonderful young people—just the sort of young people we want to have in this country —who reach the age of 18 and are accepted at university and told they cannot go there. They are told that they need to go “home”. I am not saying that they are any more deserving than the other children in question, but I hope that the Government have been embarrassed by the reports because they should be, just as they are about the reports of the children assisted by Kids Company and others of whom we have heard.

When I tried to draft this clause, I really did not know how to do it. It seemed that so much is a matter for the Secretary of State’s discretion. I hope that when the Minister replies, he can assist the Committee with some clarity about what issues are matters of discretion and how that discretion comes to be exercised.

Immigration Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 3rd March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, with regard to Amendment 23, the Minister is of course right that there is a reference further on in the new subsection that refers back to what I was seeking to take out, so my amendment is not complete. However, by mentioning that, he has drawn my attention to something else that I would like to pursue. New subsection (1B) says that an order under paragraph (b), which is about other information subject to an order by the Secretary of State,

“may specify only information that can be obtained or recorded by … external examination”.

That raises the question of whether only external examination can be used for new subsection (1A)(a), concerning,

“information about a person’s external physical characteristics”.

Perhaps he can confirm that there can be only an external examination to obtain information about the first limb in (1A).

The Minister talked about new technology, which I assume comes within the word “information”. My concern was to understand what physical characteristics there might be that were not included in (1A)(a). I accept that technology will advance, but it is what the technology is being used to identify and gain information on that concerns me. This may sound tedious but it is actually quite important. I do not know whether he is able to take the matter any further tonight; if not, I would be glad to pursue it after this stage.

[Lord Rosser]

Perhaps I could add one or two comments. I thank the Minister for his reply and for the amount of information contained in it. I think that I recall him saying that “liable to be detained” was not a new phrase, but I am not sure how extensively it has been used before in immigration law.

I listened carefully to what he had to say about the situation of those whom immigration officers would not want to arrest. I will read his response carefully in Hansard, but at the moment I am not entirely clear what happens when someone whom they do not want to arrest declines to enable their fingerprints to be checked. I am not sure whether they will just be allowed to go or if in fact they will be arrested, which raises the question of why the existing powers are not adequate and why this new terminology is needed. As I say, I will read very carefully what he had to say.

Finally, I asked how many cases there have been in the past 12 months of people who would have had their fingerprints taken and checked if the “liable to be detained” provision in the Bill had been in force who could not have their fingerprints taken under the current wording in the Immigration Act 1971. I was not particularly expecting the Minister to come up with an instant response, but since that calculation is presumably the justification, at least in part, for this change in legislation that we are considering, I hope he will be able to provide me with an answer to that question later on.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 14th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I thought that at the previous stage the noble Lord, Lord Condon, had it right when he said he feared that,

“the real mischief they and we might seek to address is not the absence of suitable offences but the absence of action”.—[Official Report, 4/12/13; col. 255.]

I asked questions of my noble friend about sentencing, the aggravating nature of that type of offence and so on, and I am afraid that I have not changed my mind about those two aspects.

I am interested in the definition of “worker” in the noble Lord’s amendment. One qualifies, as it were—that is not quite the right term but he will know what I mean—only if one is “physically present”. Reading that, I wondered how that works with his requirement for malice in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. When I saw the word “malice”, I thought that he had in mind, for example, someone who—possibly for very personal reasons—does not like people who work in jobcentres but then discovers that his neighbour works in a jobcentre. Is that malice towards all such people for that sort of reason or are we talking about something very personal? Does it mean being in the workplace or in the sort of situation that I have suggested, hanging around until one’s neighbour comes out of the house and having a go at him for that reason?

I was also interested in subsection (4) of the proposed new clause. If I remember rightly—I have not gone back to check—I think that on the previous occasion the noble Lord talked about “evidence from a single source”. That seems to be a matter for the courts. We should not tell the courts how to assess evidence. If he is saying that there is some restriction on the way they are working at the moment, it may be a different matter—but, again, that made me wonder where the noble Lord was going with this.

On the aggravating nature of the offence, we have to be careful not to devalue the importance of that approach to sentencing. This, of course, is not the only aggravating factor for the courts, but the Sentencing Council does a very important job in identifying appropriate aggravating factors.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock very eloquently made the case in support of this amendment. It is really about supporting victims of assault by a member of the public in the course of their employment and in the course of earning their livelihood. I suppose that the question is whether one feels that the matter should be dealt with by regarding that kind of assault as one of a great many aggravating factors in an assault case, or whether it should be regarded as a separate offence. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, referred to the impact of the new offence in Scotland in relation to assaults on emergency workers.

It is worth looking at some of the figures that have emerged. Those from the HSE’s Crime Survey for England and Wales show that there were nearly 650,000 reported incidents of violence at work and that workplace violence comprises some 31% of all reported crimes of violence. The HSE found that the occupations at greatest risk were those that involved working with the public. That is hardly a surprise, but nevertheless it was confirmed by the HSE.

Reference has been made to the position of shop workers. USDAW, the union that represents them, undertakes members’ surveys, which show that in the past year 4% of retail staff were attacked at work—which is equivalent to some 120,000 assaults—and 34% were threatened with violence. In addition, 17% of those attacked did not report the offence—and we can all speculate as to why that might have been the case.

People at work—in their employment, in the course of earning their livelihood— are in a different situation from most other people. The reality is that an assault on somebody at work can be quite traumatic. It can lead to a situation where somebody is reluctant or fearful to go back to their place of work and be in exactly the same situation that they were in when they were attacked, facing a constant stream of strangers, any one of whom could become violent. One can also find cases of people assaulted by a member of the public in the course of their employment where the assault leads to them actually losing their job and their livelihood, because they are so traumatised that they are no longer able to return to the same job at the same location and to carry on with that employment. Those are among the victims who feel that sentencing probably does not reflect the effect that that kind of assault can have on their lives.

As has already been said, many people in the course of their employment are actually put in the way of danger by their work. They are the kind of people who have already been mentioned: public transport staff, fire workers, security staff, emergency service workers and shop workers. They often have to deal with people who are aggressive, drunk or attempting to break the law. Those workers are the kind of people who can be working late at night, sometimes on their own and in areas of anti-social behaviour which most people voluntarily avoid for their own safety. Workers in that situation do not have that particular option.

Some staff in the course of their employment dealing with the public have an obligation to seek to enforce the law. Those, for example, who serve alcohol are required to obtain proof of age from the purchaser. They are required to refuse to serve someone who is drunk and they are required to refuse a proxy sale of alcohol—although not of tobacco, as we were discussing earlier. Those kinds of actions are all major triggers for assaults on staff, and reference has already been made to the situation in that regard. In the USDAW survey, some 30% of assaults arose from challenging age-restricted sales, and some 15% related to people who appeared to be committing theft.

Those actions, carried out by people in the course of their employment who are required to seek to enforce the law, place workers at risk. If they are not undertaken—particularly in relation to refusing to serve people with alcohol when they are under age, or refusing a proxy sale of alcohol—staff can be liable for prosecution or for action to be taken against them for failing to carry out their duty to seek to enforce the requirements of the law where it applies.

There are, therefore, differences in the position of people who are assaulted in the course of their employment. They cannot run away; they cannot move somewhere else; they have to go back to their employment after an assault and be in the same situation in exactly the same circumstances as they were, facing members of the public and probably fearing that the same kind of thing might happen again. In some cases, it can cost them their jobs because the experience has been so traumatic that they feel they cannot carry on. Many are put in danger by the nature of their work or the kind of job they have to do; many are required to enforce the law as part of their work.

Like my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, I hope that we will get a more sympathetic response to this amendment. There is a case for having a separate offence of assault on a person in the course of their employment by a member of the public, and for not regarding it as simply one of a large number of aggravating factors for the offence of assault.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 4th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, I understand, and can picture, some of the incidents that have been described. When I used to have to go up to Manchester regularly at weekends, I took to checking whether Manchester United was playing at home and took care not to travel back on trains which might be full of supporters. Having said that, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, on this. I would be very reluctant to make this a new criminal offence and add it to the statute book. Indeed, I would be reluctant to add any new criminal offence to the statute book unless it was absolutely necessary. Will my noble friend say a word about aggravating factors in sentencing? Would this be a matter for sentencing guidelines, which I know are not under the control of the Government given that we have a Sentencing Council? If an offence has been committed in this context, a sentence can be imposed without the need to create a new offence. I take the point that has been made about that. If a new offence were created in this context, the same problems would arise in pursuing a prosecution as arise with existing offences.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendment we are considering, which was moved so ably by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, would create a specific offence of assault against workers in public-facing roles. Reference has been made to various people who fall in that category such as shop workers, and they also include bus drivers and health workers. The proposed offence would carry a period of imprisonment not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

Reference has been made to statistics provided by organisations such as the Association of Convenience Stores, USDAW and the British Retail Consortium. The latter estimated that 30,000 attacks on shop staff were reported last year. Women comprise a high percentage of staff in shops, and that is the case with a great many public-facing roles. Given that it is their employment, if they see a potential incident arising it is not particularly easy for them to walk away from the scene.

It has been argued that there is no need to create a different category of offence. I think that the issue is fairly clear cut. The noble Lord, Lord Condon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have expressed the same view on this issue and we wait to hear whether it is shared by the Minister. However, I think a lot of people feel that those who are attacked and assaulted in the course of their employment are entitled to greater protection than might be the case in other circumstances.

The current sentencing guidelines for assault indicate that an offence committed against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public should be regarded as an aggravating factor adding to the seriousness of the offence. However, as has been said, that is just one of a number of possible aggravating factors. There is a wide range under the sentencing guidelines for common assault offences of this kind.

We are also aware that many of these assaults do not seem to be reported where they happen in the course of people’s employment, which is what we are talking about. The survey by USDAW, as I think my noble friend Lord Foulkes mentioned, showed that 17% of retail staff who had suffered a physical assault at work had not reported it as they believed that nothing would be done. There is also a feeling among some employees that many cases which are reported are not prosecuted, even where the assailants are known to the police.

Reference has been made to the separate offences of assaulting police officers in the execution of their duty and, in Scotland only, assaulting emergency service workers. The offence in Scotland in respect of emergency service workers is defined by the Emergency Workers (Scotland) Act 2005 and is, I think, subject to a maximum of nine months in prison or a fine of up to £10,000. Prosecutions using that Act have grown year on year since its introduction. There were 324 prosecutions in 2010-11 and, in total, there have been just over 1,100 prosecutions since the Act came into force, with the implementation of the Act raising the profile of assaults on those who provide emergency services.

The evidence indicates that if we had a separate offence in England and Wales of assaulting public-facing workers—we are talking about people in contact with the public in the course of their employment—with tougher penalties than for common assault, that would increase the likelihood of cases being prosecuted. It would restore what is clearly waning confidence among many public-facing workers that the judicial system will protect them, and it would act as a deterrent, as preliminary evidence from Scotland shows that while the number of prosecutions for assaulting emergency service workers has gone up, the number of such incidents has declined. That suggests that the message may be getting over, but I am afraid that attacking and assaulting people in the course of their employment when they are carrying out that role in direct contact with the public just will not be accepted. There has to be a change in attitude towards assaults of this kind, and I suggest that that can only properly be reflected in making clear that the penalties will be higher than they would be for other kinds of assaults.

The present arrangements in England and Wales do not appear adequate, as assaulting a public-facing worker in the course of his or her employment is not a separate specific offence and is regarded as being only one of a number of potentially aggravating factors relating to the crime of common assault. The result is that such assaults are not regarded as being much more serious than many other assaults in the way that applies, as it should, to assaults on a police officer in England and Wales and emergency service workers in Scotland.

If the Government want to assert that this Bill is about putting the victim first, they should recognise that public-facing workers are all too often victims of assault in the course of their employment, and they should accept this amendment, which creates a separate specific offence, with tougher penalties, for assaults of this kind.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 2nd December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I confess that I am a little confused by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. As I understand it, he supports the concept but takes issue with differentiation between tenures. However, in supporting the concept and saying that different tenures should be dealt with in a similar way, I assume that he is talking about confiscation of a property. However, we do not have to go there as that is not what is provided by the Bill. Obviously, I am very grateful to my noble friend—

[Lord Rosser]

I said that no redress of comparable severity would apply to an owner-occupier as opposed to somebody in rented accommodation.

[Baroness Hamwee]

As I said, the noble Lord is concerned about differentiation. That is where my logic—perhaps not his—takes me. I am grateful to the Minister. My amendments on the transfer of a tenancy sought to ameliorate the situation, although I recognise landlords’ concern. As regards what is reasonable for a court or a landlord to do, I am not sure whether the reasonableness concerns the seriousness of the offence or the nature of the household—for instance, whether there is a child in the household. I have a bit of a difficulty there. Having said that, my noble friend made my argument extremely well. I am very glad that this matter will be considered further and will not take up any more of the Committee’s time on it tonight. I look forward to coming back to it on Report, whenever that is. It is probably quite soon. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 56AM.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

We acknowledge that there was broad support for the requirement that the youth offending team be consulted before an injunction under Clause 1 is sought against somebody under 18. However, there appears to be no timescale for the consultation with youth offending teams, and as a result there could be—not necessarily will be—delay. For that reason, the time taken for consultation with local youth offending teams should be reviewed. That is the purpose of the amendment. Surely we need to keep an eye on how long the process is taking and to check on whether there are hold-ups when the legislation comes into force.

I appreciate that the Government’s view is that the necessary consultation with the relevant youth offending team will take place with a proper sense of urgency and should not be unduly delayed by protracted consultations. A clear commitment to a review would further strengthen that position and make clear the need to carry out such consultation expeditiously. That is what those who may be victims certainly wish. In the light of the statement in the draft guidelines that the consultation requirement does not mean that the youth offending team could veto the application, will the Minister say what would constitute consultation being completed? Does the person applying for an injunction have to have received a response from the youth offending team for consultations which have been completed? If the response is that the youth offending team is not in favour of the injunction, would discussions have to continue before the terms of Clause 14(1)(a) had been met?

Would a failure by the youth offending team to respond at all within a certain timescale mean that consultation could have been deemed to have taken place? If so, what would the Minister consider a reasonable minimum period for a response? Would a failure to respond by a youth offending team within a certain time be grounds for an application without notice under Clause 5? Could the youth offending team oppose an application for an injunction under Section 1 for someone under the age of 18 in court? Will the court hearing an application for an injunction under Section 1 have to be told the outcome of the consultation with the youth offending team and the view of the youth offending team?

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 21J in this group. Consultation can mean a lot of things and sometimes mean different things to different people, depending on what they want it to mean. I have pretty much given up tabling amendments which add, to “consult”, “and have regard to the outcome of the consultation”, having been told quite frequently that of course that must be implicit. However, I have met times when the consulter has not recognised that.

We heard from the Minister on my previous amendments that local authority social services have a role when someone under the age of 18 is involved as the respondent or potential respondent to an IPNA. My amendment would insert a reference to,

“the local authority for the area where the respondent resides”,

meaning of course the social services part of the local authority. I am seeking consultation, without trying to define it, of the local authority as well as of the youth offending team.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 20th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

I hope the noble Lord will accept that the definitions the Minister was giving seemed to come under the requirement to do specified things, not achieve specified results, which is what I had asked about.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my much less elegant interpretation of these provisions is that paragraph (c) is about “how” and paragraphs (a) and (b) are about “what”. There is an absolute requirement to achieve paragraphs (a) and (b) but there can be only a reasonable requirement—and a choice of ways—as to how to to get there.

EU: Eurojust (EUC Report)

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 4th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, my point is a general one. I apologise to your Lordships if it is trite—it probably is—but to me it is blindingly obvious that you cannot play the ball if you have taken your bat home. Every noble Lord will have had experiences of negotiation in some context, if only the domestic, and we know that if you choose to walk away you have to pick your moment. You have to be clear what the deal breaker is and know what your own compromise would be. However, until then you have to remain part of the story, not least because you risk losing respect if you are not prepared to get stuck in and stay stuck in to the project. You certainly risk losing influence. My noble friend’s phrase that you are “looked on as petulant” was absolutely spot on. You risk not being regarded as a serious player if and when negotiations resume. Indeed, you risk being thought of as having disqualified yourself from further negotiations in a serious way if you have distanced yourself.

[Lord Rosser (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Corston for her introduction to the report from her committee and for the clarity of the committee’s case made in its report for the recommendation that the UK opt in to the negotiations on the proposed Eurojust regulation.

As has already been said, the European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Co-operation—Eurojust—was established just over 10 years ago. Provisions in the 2009 Lisbon treaty agreed by the member states included provisions that required the EU’s institutions to pass legislation in the form of regulations to determine Eurojust’s structure, operation, field of action and tasks. The proposed Eurojust regulation seeks to fulfil the member states’ aims.

Eurojust is involved in major crimes such as drug trafficking, human trafficking, terrorism and financial crimes, which cross borders and require co-operation between different jurisdictions if they are to be successfully investigated and prosecuted. Since 2003 there have been just under 1,500 requests from EU member states for co-operation with Britain through Eurojust. The objective of Eurojust is to support member states in conducting investigations, and we are very supportive of the value of the work that it undertakes.

As has already been said, the proposed Eurojust regulation will apply to the United Kingdom only if the Government indicate a decision to opt in by 21 November. The Government’s position in the House of Commons when it was debated there, I think last week, was that we should not opt in to the new Eurojust proposals at the outset of negotiations but should conduct a thorough review of the final agreed text to inform active consideration of opting in to the Eurojust regulation post-adoption, in consultation with Parliament. If the Government decide to opt in to the negotiation of the proposed Eurojust regulation, which seeks to replace two existing Council decisions, the legislation currently governing Eurojust will no longer fall within the scope of the Government’s 2014 opt-out decision, under which the Government are seeking to rejoin the current Eurojust arrangements as part of their 2014 opt-out decision.

In the House of Commons debate last week, the Minister referred to government concerns about the proposed connections between Eurojust and the proposed and strongly opposed European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The Minister also expressed government concern about the proposed new Eurojust regulation creating mandatory powers for national members. These powers, said the Minister, would allow a requirement for coercive measures at a national level with the ability to insist that national authorities take investigative measures in some circumstances, which could cut across the division of responsibilities and separation of powers between police and prosecutors in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the sole ultimate responsibility of the Lord Advocate in Scotland for determining investigative action in Scotland.

Unusually for this Government in regard to a European Union agency, they publicly rather value Eurojust. Their stance indicates they would prefer to stay in rather than find themselves outside because they do not like the look of the new regulation once it has been adopted following the deliberations of all those member states participating in the negotiations. In this regard it would at least clarify the Government’s position if the Minister could indicate whether, if the European Public Prosecutor’s Office proposal does not proceed, and with it the references to the link up with Eurojust, the Government will still not opt in to the proposed Eurojust regulation unless other significant changes are made to the proposed regulation. In other words, is it the connection with the EPPO proposal that is the showstopper for the Government or are there other aspects of the proposed Eurojust regulation that the Government also regard as a showstopper as far as opting in to the regulation is concerned?

The Government should be able to answer that question in general terms since they are not disclosing their negotiating position on what significant changes would be required as, under their stance in the House of Commons, they do not intend to opt in to negotiations anyway on the proposed Eurojust regulation. What the question does—if the Minister will give a straight answer—is indicate whether the Government’s relative enthusiasm for Eurojust is greater than their dislike of the proposed new regulation as it stands minus any interweave between Eurojust and the EPPO, or whether the Government’s dislike of the proposed new Eurojust regulations minus the interaction with the European Public Prosecutor’s Office is still such that if there is no significant change in the regulation in line with their position, they are prepared to accept no longer being a full participating member of Eurojust.

The view of your Lordships’ European Union Committee is that were it not for the provisions governing Eurojust’s interaction with the EPPO, the argument in favour of the UK opting into the negotiations would be clear and the committee would have no hesitation in recommending that the UK opt in. The committee’s view is that the Government’s key issues with the text could be dealt with during the proposal’s negotiation, but they recognise that the Eurojust proposal has not been brought forward in a vacuum but is closely associated with the Government’s policy towards the EPPO proposal. However, as has already been said, there will be changes in relation to the EPPO proposals since those proposals have been given what I think is known as a yellow card as a result of decisions by a not inconsiderable number of member states’ national Parliaments, which means that the Commission is now required to review its position.

The European Union Committee considers that the non-participation in the EPPO by other member states in addition to the UK, will inevitably mean that the contentious aspects of the proposal dealing with the reform of Eurojust will be subject to negotiations in the Council, and that the United Kingdom ought not to miss out on such negotiations. The committee takes the view that if the UK Government decide not to opt in to this regulation they will not be at the table for the important discussions addressing the position of those states wishing to co-operate within Eurojust but who choose not to participate in the EPPO. The committee says that it could not advocate such a course of action.

Referring to the Government’s position that they value the work of Eurojust, the committee says that it cannot foresee a situation whereby in practical terms the UK would be allowed to remain a full participating member of Eurojust operating under defunct or superseded legislation that they have decided to opt back in to, while the other participating member states co-operate under the new proposal once it is agreed. The European Union Committee has therefore recommended that the UK opt in to the negotiations on the proposed Eurojust regulations. Its report points out that the Director of Public Prosecutions said that the UK’s involvement in Eurojust provides many benefits and in his view represents good value for money, and that the Lord Advocate said that he would be concerned if the UK left Eurojust.

In his letter to the chairman of the European Union Committee, the Minister in the other place said that the Government would take an active part in the negotiations to protect the national interest, and also on the EPPO. The Government, he said, would also continue to challenge the Commission’s evidence base and justification for bringing forward the Eurojust proposals at this time. In addition, the Minister said that the Government would oppose any changes that would reduce the influence of member state representatives over the functioning of Eurojust, and seek confirmation that the opinions of Eurojust acting as a college are non-binding on member states.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I would be surprised if some Members of your Lordships’ House were satisfied with a report as infrequently as annually. The questions, rightly, will come quite often to my noble friend, as they have done over the years. I know that this is something that he holds close to his heart, as does Helen Grant. I note that the document published on Friday—which I, too, thought was shorter than expected—is headed Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders and does not purport to be a complete strategy.

Perhaps I may ask my noble friend one question which follows on from what the noble Baroness has just said. It concerns the effect on children of their mother’s imprisonment. I suppose that this is a plea to include that in the strategy. The developing knowledge about the effect on children of separation from their mothers is something that we should take very seriously, and no doubt we will be considering it in the Children and Families Bill. I hope that my noble friend can reassure the House that the whole-system approach which is referred to in the strategic objectives is a whole system that will extend in all the ways we know it should, and not just to the narrow punitive and personal rehabilitative aspects that we have mostly been talking about this evening.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the Commons amendment seeks to strike out Part 7 of Schedule 15 to the Bill, which provided much-needed statutory provision for women offenders. Part 7 was successfully introduced into the Bill at Third Reading in this House but was subsequently struck out in Committee in the House of Commons without further debate.

The Government have just published their promised Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders setting out their priorities, and they have also announced the setting up of a new advisory board for female offenders chaired by a Home Office Minister which is intended to support the Minister,

“in providing strong leadership on delivery of our strategic priorities”.

However, these developments do not remove the need for statutory measures to ensure that the distinct needs of women in the justice system are prioritised and met. I understand that there have been 10 previous reports across the UK on the matter of women in the justice system, but none, it seems, has been implemented in full. In the light of the publication of their strategy but in the absence of any statutory backing, how will the Government ensure that all contracting areas in the new environment make provision that is appropriate to the particular needs of women, and how will the Government ensure that progress is sustained and built upon?

It is not clear why the Government do not want to take this legislative opportunity to deal more effectively with women who offend. To begin with, funding is not ring-fenced for service provision delivered by women’s centres or women’s services, and a number of them fear significant funding cuts or even closure. The inclusion in the National Offender Management Service’s Commissioning Intentions for 2013-14 of an intention that provision should take into account the “specific needs” of women offenders falls far short of any statutory guarantee of women-specific provision. There is evidence in recent research published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission that commissioning procedures and outcomes have already had a negative impact on the funding of women-only services, including services for women offenders and those at risk of offending. In the Strategic Objectives for Female Offenders the Government recognise that the,

“relatively small number of female offenders presents particular challenges”.

Unless there is statutory underpinning for women’s community provision, there is a risk that this will result in inadequate provision.

Provision for women offenders in the community is probably best described as patchy and its future uncertain. Unless and until the courts are confident that effective community penalties are available in their area then vulnerable women will continue to be sent to custody to serve short sentences for non-violent crimes. I know the figures are well known, but over half the women in prison report having experienced domestic violence and one in three has been sexually abused. Most women serve very short sentences, with 58% sentenced to custody for six months or less; and 81% of women entering custody under sentence had committed a non-violent offence compared with 71% of men. Women also account, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, has said, for 31% of all incidents of self-harm, despite representing just 5% of the total prison population.

The recent joint inspection report on the use of alternatives to custody for women offenders found a lack of women-specific provision for both unpaid work and offending behaviour programmes and noted that,

“women-only groups, where run, were often successful”.

It found that,

“women’s community centres could play an important role in securing a woman’s engagement in work to address her offending and promote compliance with her order or licence”.

At the moment, it looks as though government funding for the national network of women’s centres will be substantially reduced and that, for some, it may run out very soon. The future of the centres under payment- by-results commissioning is uncertain. Placing community provision for female offenders on a statutory footing will at least help to protect the vital role played by women’s centres and other local services in the effective delivery of community provision for women.

If the Government are not prepared to legislate now on this issue, do they have plans to do so at some stage in the future? It is not proposed changes in the provision of probation services or a changed landscape that is preventing the Government making statutory provision. That, frankly, is a red herring: a Government wanting to legislate would not be deterred by that issue. If the Government have no intention at all to legislate, then at least will a Statement be made each year to Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, asked, on the progress being made towards improved provision for female offenders? That, surely, is the least the Minister can offer when he stands up to give his response.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 27th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this amendment would require pre-appointment scrutiny of the director-general by the appropriate parliamentary Select Committee, presumably the Home Affairs Committee.

As we understand it, the Government consider pre-appointment hearings to be best practice for major public appointments. The coalition agreement contains a specific commitment to,

“strengthen the powers of Select Committees to scrutinise major public appointments”,

as part of improving government transparency. Yet the Government have not considered this approach relevant for the office of director-general of the National Crime Agency, a role that is to be much more powerful than the chief executive of the Serious Organised Crime Agency, with the NCA’s increased responsibilities and the absence of any governance structure, as we have just debated.

In Committee, the Government said:

“We accept that there is a place for departmental Select Committees to undertake pre-appointment hearings for certain key public appointments but we do not believe that this is one of them”.—[Official Report, 18/6/12; col. 1597.]

The Government argued that pre-appointment scrutiny by the relevant Select Committee was not justified because the Home Secretary was accountable for public protection and the progress made by the National Crime Agency. Yet the occupant of the post of director-general of the NCA will have considerable powers and, in effect, will be the head of the one national crime-fighting agency in the country dealing with serious, high-profile and organised crimes. In addition, the Government are also considering giving the NCA and its director-general responsibilities for counter- terrorism. The occupant of the post of director-general will also have the power to direct chief officers of other police forces throughout England and Wales to carry out specific tasks.

Under Schedule 1, a person need not be an NCA officer before appointment as the director-general. The only requirement is that a,

“person may not be appointed as Director General unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person … is capable of effectively exercising operational powers and … is a suitable person to exercise operational powers”.

That is a somewhat subjective judgment, with nothing specific about proven skills or experience. The reputation and credibility of the NCA is going to be determined to a significant degree by the effectiveness and ability of the director-general, who will have responsibilities directly affecting the safety and security of the people of this country and will have operational independence but without the support or protection of a board, unlike the Serious Organised Crime Agency, between the director-general and the Secretary of State to help to ensure that that is the case.

This post is a new one with responsibility for potentially very sensitive issues, including what could be sensitive issues with political implications. The occupant will need to be strong enough to ensure that operational independence from government is a reality and to withstand any pressures to have too cosy a relationship with his or her political masters. To leave the matter solely in the hands of the Secretary of State without any other parliamentary approval being required would not seem the appropriate step in relation to this post, bearing in mind the nature and responsibilities of it. This must surely be one position for which there is a strong case for pre-appointment scrutiny by the relevant parliamentary Select Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have a difficulty with this amendment because it seems to seek not pre-appointment scrutiny, as the noble Lord has described it, but appointment veto. Pre-appointment scrutiny, questioning a proposed candidate but then leaving it to the appointer to take the final decision in the light of that scrutiny is something which, as the House will know, I have advocated in other contexts. For very senior and important positions I think that that is very desirable. However, I do not go so far as wanting to see Select Committees approving appointments such as this. Although the noble Lord’s speech was very persuasive, what he is seeking the House to agree to is something even more than he was arguing for.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

Clause 4, which has the heading “Operations”, tells us that the director-general must have regard to strategic priorities, the annual plan and the framework document—all matters to which your Lordships have referred—and that before the beginning of each financial year the director-general must issue an annual plan setting out how he intends the functions to be exercised during the year. The importance of clarity about strategic priorities and other matters has been raised very clearly at every stage of the Bill by all sides, including by Ministers. The annual plan—a prospective document, if I can put it in that way—will tell us what is planned for the following financial year.

My amendment—it is a small amendment, following a matter which I raised at the previous stage—is intended to ask the Minister to give the House an assurance about how strategic priorities which have changed during the year will be taken into account. The amendment simply proposes that if the Secretary of State determines any variation in the strategic priorities, she will lay a report before Parliament setting out the variation. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have two amendments in this group. They would remove the requirement for the director-general to seek the consent of the Secretary of State and others to the annual plan, as currently provided for in the Bill. Instead, the requirement would be on the director-general to consult so far as concerns the Secretary of State and others. Although we obviously agree that the Secretary of State should retain ultimate strategic oversight of the National Crime Agency and determine the strategic priorities, it is vital to preserve the National Crime Agency’s operational independence from the Government. We understood that that is the Government’s intention, too.

Yet while the director-general is to set the annual plan for the operation of the National Crime Agency’s functions in pursuit of the laid-down strategic priorities, he or she will still be obliged to seek the consent of the Home Secretary before publication of this operational document. Such consent is not currently required, for example, by the Serious Organised Crime Agency. The director-general will be under a statutory obligation to ensure that the annual plan meets the strategic priorities determined by the Secretary of State. Bearing that in mind, why is it necessary for the director-general also to have the consent of the Home Secretary for what is surely an operational document?

That leaves the way open for interference by a Secretary of State in operational matters if their consent has to be obtained before publication of that annual plan, which sets out how the director-general intends to deliver the laid-down strategic priorities. I am speaking to my amendments on the basis of those points. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the specific points that I have made and explain why it is felt necessary that the Secretary of State should have to consent to the annual plan rather than be consulted on it by the director-general.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, when one hears the Lord Chairman remind the House of the point of pre-emption, one feels one should start the speech with, “I wish”.

This group of amendments deals with payments between the NCA and police forces in the event of tasking, and Amendment 28 is about how the payment is determined. Paragraph 29(1) provides that if the parties cannot agree on the amount to be paid then it is a matter for the Secretary of State to determine. I had a similar amendment at the last stage, and the noble Earl, responding for the Government, explained that determination was not on a case-by-case basis but referred to overall principle. I still have some difficulty in reading the paragraph that way, because it refers to the “amount”. If it referred to the absence of agreement as to the formula or the calculation, I would understand it.

The outline of the framework document deals with the question of tasking. The basis for the determination should be in the framework document. That is what my amendment would provide. Fees and charges are mentioned, but those seem to be a different issue. At the moment, and of course continuing, we will have a position where there is mutual aid between police forces. As I understand it, payment for mutual aid is a matter that is in the public domain—I believe that ACPO deals with it. There should be a similar approach, and the schedule should not allow for case-by-case determination, even if that is not what is envisaged, because as it is drafted it would be allowed for. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, we have two amendments in this group, and I suspect that the purpose of our amendments is not dissimilar to the intention behind the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.

The Bill appears to provide for the Secretary of State to act as final arbiter over disputes arising between, for example, the National Crime Agency and police forces over compensation for resources provided under voluntary or directed assistance. It is not appropriate for the Secretary of State to have such a role, because it could introduce a potential conflict of interest. The Secretary of State is responsible for the National Crime Agency budget, but police force budgets will be under the control of the police and crime commissioner, so one could argue that the Secretary of State has an interest in the outcome of a decision over who should be paying what in any compensation that is required.

Our amendments provide for an independent advisory panel, rather than the Secretary of State, to arbitrate payments, which is not going down quite the same road as the amendment that has been moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Certainly, the objective behind our amendment—perhaps the Minister will have an alternative solution—is to say that the Secretary of State, having responsibility for the National Crime Agency budget, could be deemed to be an interested party. Therefore, the Secretary of State should not act as final arbiter over disputes, but some other means should be used to make that decision. Some other body, organisation, procedure or process should be used to resolve disputes that arise, rather than it being in the hands of the Secretary of State, for the reasons that I have mentioned.

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 13th November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to enable the Government to say rather more about their intentions for the future of the probation service, given that an effective and properly resourced probation service will be crucial to delivering the Government’s intentions on community sentencing, which we are discussing, and the decisions of the courts. The Minister also referred to the probation service in our debate on community sentencing on 30 October. The amendment states that any plans to reorganise the probation service must be instituted by regulations, and that those regulations shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure of both Houses.

We know that the Minister is a great admirer of the probation service. He told us on 30 October that:

“I am a lifelong admirer of the probation service and am in awe of the responsibilities that our probation officers take on. I cannot imagine that any future structure would not draw on the experience and ethos that makes it such an excellent service”.—[Official Report, 30/10/12; col. 549.]

On the face of it, that could be taken to mean that the probation service as we know it today has a long-term future, particularly if it is the Government’s intention to raise the profile, importance and extent of rehabilitation as the means of reducing reoffending. On the other hand, the noble Lord’s words could mean very little.

He said that he could not imagine that any future structure would not draw on the experience and ethos that make it such an excellent service. What exactly did the Minister mean when he said that? One interpretation could be that the Government are nevertheless still looking to hand over to outside contractors large parts of the work currently undertaken by the probation service, and that the experience and ethos to which the Minister referred would be drawn upon because he would expect significant numbers of existing probation staff to be transferred over to those contractors. Is that an interpretation of the Minister’s comments that he would either accept as accurate or not be prepared to exclude?

He said that he was,

“in awe of the responsibilities that our probation officers take on”.

Yet, as I understand it, the Government have indicated that 60% of probation work will be put out to competitive tender. What then were the responsibilities that the Minister had in mind when he said that, and how many of those responsibilities is it the Government’s intention that the probation service should continue to undertake? Is it all of them, as presumably it should be, bearing in mind that the noble Lord is “in awe” and regards the probation service as an excellent service, and that its work will continue to be undertaken by probation officers in the years ahead?

Are the Government looking to reorganise the probation service and, if so, with what objective in mind, and in what way? If the probation service is already excellent, as the Minister told us last month, what improvements in the service do the Government believe can be achieved without potentially putting at risk the quality of the excellent service currently being provided?

We definitely do not want to see any attempt to reduce significantly or change the role of the probation service without Parliament being fully aware of what is going on, without the opportunity for a full debate—with Ministers having to justify their proposals to Parliament—and without Parliament having to agree to those changes. The new Secretary of State seems to believe implicitly in the private sector’s ability to do just about everything better than the public sector, and he is likely to try and outsource as much as he can work that is currently undertaken by the probation service. If that is not the case, the Minister has only to stand up and give a cast-iron guarantee that the probation service will continue to undertake its current activities within the public sector.

The Minister could also say how many staff are in the probation service at the present time and how many the Government envisage there will be in the future, taking account of their proposals in the Bill on community sentencing and their declared intentions on restorative justice and on the role of rehabilitation in reducing reoffending. We will listen to the Minister’s response and the words that he chooses to use—and the ones that he chooses not to use—with interest. I hope that his response will be consistent with the effusive words he used about the probation service in his response to our debate on 30 October. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Linklater has already put on record today, for the umpteenth time in this Chamber, our admiration for the work done by the probation service. I hope that is a fair summary. I will not take up the Committee’s time by repeating that or picking up the points of acclamation made by the noble Lord. I simply want to ask him a question. His amendment would insert a provision for the affirmative resolution procedure in the 2007 Act. The significance of the date of that will not be lost on the Committee. In other words, that legislation existed before the last general election. I was hoping to understand, from his introduction of this amendment, why, as that legislation allowed for plans to reorganise the probation service—I understand that must be so from his own amendment—there was no provision included at the time for the affirmative resolution procedure. I make it clear that my question is for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I would not say that the noble Lord was interrupted but an explanation has been given by the Minister. I did not expect the Minister to answer my question because it was not a question for him. It was a question about why the previous Government provided for the sort of reorganisation to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, but did not provide for the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure he would have said, as I have, that one needs to ensure that all legislation is proof against succeeding and different governments. The noble Lord was not part of it so perhaps I am teasing him unnecessarily.

[Lord Rosser]

It was not our intention to do to the probation service what one suspects that this Government are contemplating doing to the probation service. Certainly, nothing that the Minister has just said will have allayed any fears or concerns about the Government’s future intentions for the probation service. We tabled an amendment to ensure that the matter is fully discussed and debated in both Houses and to point out that it requires an affirmative resolution procedure.

I am not surprised that the Minister has declined to answer any of the points that I have put forward in asking him about the Government’s intentions. He has effectively remained silent, which must add considerably to the worries and suspicion about what is intended, particularly since the consultation ended a while ago. However, I realise that I cannot force the Minister to say anything in response to questions that I ask. Therefore, I have no alternative but to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the Minister should not blame the post; it came to me by e-mail this morning. The post may follow in about three days. I want to put on the record what the note told me and other noble Lords who have seen it about the memorandum of understanding. It states:

“The MoU needs to be agreed between the ISC and the Prime Minister”.

We know that. It continues:

“We are starting this process of drafting and agreeing this document, and will do so in parallel”—

I stress those words—

“with the Bill’s passage ... Once we have an agreed draft … it is our intention that it is published, to help inform debate”.

The thrust of my amendment is that it should be subject to debate. The Ministers who sent the letter then told us:

“The matters covered … may include … The factors to be taken into account in deciding whether a particular operational matter which the ISC might wish to consider is ongoing and/or of significant national interest … A description of the arrangements by which the ISC will request, be provided with and hold information, including the circumstances in which the ISC will be able to access primary source materials … A description of the role of investigative staff in the ISC’s work; and … A description of the process for producing an ISC report”.

As the noble Lord said, the memorandum of understanding will be a public document, so it cannot be so sensitive that that is a reason for it not to be debated. I say to the Committee that today’s debates have shown how much Parliament—and this House in particular—has to contribute to consideration of the criteria that will be applied. We are told in Clause 2(4)(a) that the memorandum of understanding,

“may include other provision … which is not of the kind envisaged in subsection (2) or (3)”.

That is very wide. I realise that “envisaged” is another term that I have not come across in legislation before. I do not know whether it means more than “not within”, “not as described” or “not subject to” subsections (2) and (3). I am beginning to feel like an awful old fogey in raising these points but legislation should be completely clear. I believe that the criteria should be matters for debate and not simply for the draft, although we look forward to it as it will inform debate. Reading this note, it seems to me that the approach is more top-down than I should like to have seen.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, perhaps I may make one brief comment. I have already expressed our views about the memorandum of understanding and I think that in return I was told by the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, that I was being savage.

I just wish to pursue the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about other references in Clause 2 to the kind of content that will be included in the memorandum of understanding, which we will not get an opportunity to debate and which does not have to be approved by Parliament. Clause 2(3) says:

“The ISC may, by virtue of subsection (1) or (2), consider any particular operational matter but only so far as the ISC and the Prime Minister are satisfied that … the matter … is not part of any ongoing intelligence or security operation, and … is of significant national interest, and … the consideration of the matter is consistent with any principles set out in, or other provision made by, a memorandum of understanding”.

One has to bear in mind that this is not a document that we will be able to debate and discuss and it will not need to be approved by Parliament unless the Minister is going to move on this amendment. What are these principles that will be set out in the memorandum of understanding which we are not going to be told about when discussing the Bill and which we are not going to be allowed to discuss?

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 25th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the amendment would ensure that persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners are included in the definition of “strategic partners” set out in Part 1. The definition refers to,

“such persons as appear to the Secretary of State to represent the views of local policing bodies”.

Earlier in Part 1, a “policing body” is defined as including within its scope a police and crime commissioner. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether the reference to “local policing bodies” in the definition of “strategic partners” also means local police and crime commissioners, or whether it means something different from the earlier definition of “policing body”—and if so, why.

It is important that police and crime commissioners are included as strategic partners. Under Clause 3, the Secretary of State is required in determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult strategic partners. Bearing in mind that a police and crime commissioner will be responsible for issuing a police and crime plan and in so doing will have to have regard to the strategic policing requirement issued by the Secretary of State, it would seem odd if the Secretary of State were not required when determining his or her strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency to consult with persons representing the views of police and crime commissioners. Likewise, in preparing his or her annual plan, the director-general of the National Crime Agency must, under Clause 4 in Part 1, consult with the strategic partners. It would seem inappropriate if these partners did not include police and crime commissioners, bearing in mind that the annual plan sets out how the director-general intends that the National Crime Agency functions should be exercised. This could well have an impact on the functioning of local police forces, including whether that force is efficient and effective, which it is a statutory responsibility of a police and crime commissioner to secure.

We also learnt from the Minister last week in Committee that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to perform a task of unlimited magnitude, impact and scope specified in such a direction without having to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State or even having to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for the force whose chief officer the director-general is ordering to take that particular course of action. That might be, for example, as the Minister told us,

“to take the lead to disrupt a human-trafficking gang that is predominantly based in that force area”.—[Official Report, 20/6/12; col. 1800.]

Potentially, that is hardly a minor task in terms of either time or resources.

On top of that, we were also told by the Minister that the unelected director-general of the National Crime Agency could direct a chief officer of an England and Wales police force to provide unlimited specified assistance to the National Crime Agency, also without having even to consult the elected police and crime commissioner responsible for that force—even though, as the Minister said, providing assistance involved transferring resources from the command of one force to another force or organisation.

To many people, that will seem an odd state of affairs, designed to marginalise the elected police and crime commissioner. If elected police and crime commissioners, now that we are going to have them, are not even one of the strategic partners to be consulted by the Secretary of State when determining strategic priorities for the National Crime Agency, or by the agency’s director-general when preparing the annual plan, then it would be further confirmation that police and crime commissioners are intended, in many ways, to be little more than figureheads—a situation and role that any self-respecting elected police and crime commissioner will, I am sure, be unwilling to accept. I move this amendment and await the Minister’s response.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 68 in this group, and it is another amendment to the definition of “strategic partners”. The relevance of strategic partners is their role as consultees of the Secretary of State when she determines the strategic priorities for the NCA. We are all familiar with the scope and importance of the NCA’s functions. My amendment would add to the list of strategic partners the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ. There was a time when a fiction was maintained about the existence or otherwise of at least one of these organisations but I think that we have moved beyond that. It seems to me unthinkable that the Secretary of State, given the subject matter of consultation on strategic priorities, would not consult those agencies.

Last week, on Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill, I commented on how the priorities and concerns of the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism, which is embedded in the Home Office, seem to have affected—I am not making a judgment on this—all the Home Office’s thinking. As I say, I simply cannot believe that these services and agencies would be omitted in such a consultation. If it is not the case, then why not say so? If it is, then why is it?

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

I wish to speak also to Amendment 3. These are both probing amendments.

Amendment 2 seeks to remove Clause 1(10) from the Bill. That subsection excludes prosecution from the NCA’s crime reduction function. Is the point simply what the NCA itself can do? If so, why cannot it prosecute on its own behalf? The crime reduction function is defined and includes activities to combat crime listed in Clause 1(11), which refers to prosecution. If the NCA cannot itself prosecute, how is it anticipated that the process will work? Common sense tells me how it will work but I would like to hear that from the Minister. Why cannot the NCA have the option of prosecuting instead of commissioning prosecution, as it were?

Amendment 3 seeks to understand what is intended by the activity of mitigating the consequences of crime. Of course, that is not something to which I am in any way opposed, but can the Minister expand on that? Is it expected that the NCA will work in partnership with the many organisations which deal with mitigating the consequences of crime such as the Restorative Justice Council and Victim Support? I was pleased but a little surprised to see that referred to and would be glad to have some flesh put on those bones. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has explained, she is, as I understand it, seeking an explanation of why the National Crime Agency is precluded from pursuing its own cases. Presumably, the National Crime Agency would pursue only more serious and organised offences although there is provision in the Bill for NCA officers to become involved in dealing with any crime, so perhaps that is not necessarily the case. Subject to the Minister putting me right, I assume the Government consider that the Crown Prosecution Service would become involved in pursuing most cases. If I am right in thinking that, one advantage is that the Crown Prosecution Service is able to take an independent look at the evidence available to support a charge, and make a decision on whether there is sufficient evidence to put before a jury with a reasonable prospect of success, whether it is in the public interest to proceed and whether the charges being brought are the appropriate ones in the light of the evidence.

One can argue that where an agency or body which is the one that has investigated the case and produced and collated the evidence is also the one that makes the decision on whether the evidence is sufficiently strong to make the charge stand up, there is a possibility that that agency or body may be too close to the case and too involved to make the necessary judgments in an entirely objective manner. We will listen to the Minister’s response to the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and to the explanations that she is seeking. My only further comment is that independent agencies do not always seem to have a high reputation when it comes to pursuing cases successfully. Some might raise the Serious Fraud Office in that context.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I can be extremely brief on this. Paragraph 13 of Schedule 1 provides for secondment to the NCA. My amendment would allow for secondments both ways. I felt that it was an issue worth raising because I think that secondment can often be extremely helpful to both organisations involved. It may be that the Minister will tell me that it is not necessary to provide for NCA officers to be seconded to a UK police force because that would be covered by some other existing police legislation. If it is covered, that is well and good; if it is not, why not? I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, this amendment makes provision for National Crime Agency officers to be seconded to a UK police force, as well as for persons to be seconded to serve as National Crime Agency officers. I would like to raise two points on this paragraph in Schedule 1. It refers to “persons” being seconded to the National Crime Agency to serve as National Crime Agency officers. There is no qualification before the word “persons”. Could it literally be anybody and still be within the terms of the statutory provisions of the Bill? I ask that because paragraph 7(2) of Schedule 1 says:

“A person may not be appointed as Director General unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person—

(a) is capable of effectively exercising operational powers; and

(b) is a suitable person to exercise operational powers”.

In other words, if the Secretary of State makes an appointment that stretches credibility, and the Secretary of State could have satisfied himself or herself on the points referred to, presumably the appointment could be challenged under the provisions of the Bill. There is, however, no apparent requirement on the part of the director-general to satisfy himself or herself on any point in relation to “persons” seconded under the Bill as it stands, or indeed to National Crime Agency officers seconded under the terms of the amendment, although one could take the view that if they were existing National Crime Agency officers there ought not to be a problem.

Can the Minister say why there is no requirement in the sub-paragraph that we are discussing for the director-general to have to satisfy himself or herself that any person seconded to the National Crime Agency has to be, for example, appropriately qualified, bearing in mind that the Bill lays down requirements on the Secretary of State over the appointment of the director-general?

Finally, can the Minister say what the definition is of a National Crime Agency officer? Is it anyone employed by or working for the National Crime Agency, or does it refer only to certain kinds of posts or activities being undertaken within the National Crime Agency?

Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 18th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

I wonder whether we have fallen into the trap of seeing this matter through the lens of parliamentary procedures. However, there is another way of looking at it—namely, looking at how the NCA actually operates. If we are undertaking legislation setting up a new agency, which is not designed from the start to deal with counterterrorism—we must assume that that is the case, and I do not expect the Minister to respond to this as I am putting it rather rhetorically—should we not let it be formed, see how it operates and consider the addition of a very serious function when we know something more about how it is functioning? As I say, we are inevitably looking at this in terms of the way we operate, but we have left out that rather serious consideration.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and thank the Minister for his response. It is clear that the Government are seriously thinking about making this change although I accept that the Minister has said that no final decision has been made. However, it is clear that the Government are seriously contemplating this change; otherwise, they would not have included this clause in the Bill. If the Government have reached the stage of seriously contemplating the change, although I accept that no final decision has been made, as I said, the odds are probably on the Government making that change; otherwise, they would not have gone so far as to put this clause in the Bill.

However, as I said, this is not just about adding to functions, which is how the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee looked at this matter; it is also about taking those functions away from a body that has had them for some time and has expertise in that field. The Government may be able to make out a strong case for doing so, and I would not want my comments to be taken as meaning that I have decided that they cannot make out a strong case for making the change. Perhaps they can; we will have to wait and see. However, the issue concerns what is the appropriate way in which the matter should be dealt with. Should it be dealt with on the basis of a super-affirmative order, which restricts the amount of debate and discussion which takes place, or should it be dealt with on the basis of primary legislation? If no final decision has been made—and I accept what the Minister says—then clearly this matter could be left and be dealt with in further primary legislation once a decision is made to change the present arrangements.

The Minister addressed that point in part. I may have written down incorrectly what he said and, if I have, I apologise. I wrote that he said that primary legislation is a lengthy process and quite difficult. However, in a parliamentary democracy that does not seem to be a very good argument for not making a change of this magnitude through primary legislation. Saying that primary legislation is a lengthy process and quite difficult sounds like a plea that all Governments of whatever colour have probably made over the years. However, as I said, that is not an argument for dealing in this way with an issue of this magnitude and importance.

The Minister referred to Clause 2(4), which states:

“An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment”.

I had not assumed that it extended beyond counterterrorism but, even though it relates purely to counterterrorism, the fact that:

“An order under this section may amend or otherwise modify this Act or any other enactment”,

is still a fairly extensive power.

I sincerely hope that the Government, through the Minister, will rethink this issue, although at the moment the Government clearly take the view that the super-affirmative procedure is appropriate. At this stage, I conclude my comments by again referring to the Constitution Committee, which said:

“The fact remains that the ordinary legislative processes of amendment and debate, and with it much of the substance of the role of the House of Lords as a revising chamber, would be circumvented. Clause 2 raises the fundamental constitutional issue of the proper relationship between parliamentary and executive lawmaking”.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will reflect on that. In the mean time, I do not intend to pursue my opposition to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hamwee]

I have also tabled Amendment 65 in this group, which is essentially consequential on Amendment 26. Amendment 26 would make the NCA subject to the Freedom of Information Act. I know that this is a matter that Ministers have considered very carefully, and they have taken the view that so much information would be exempt under the Act that it is more straightforward not to bring the NCA within the scope of the Act.

I do not intend to say a great deal at this stage, because it is really for the Minister to justify the exclusion of the NCA rather than for me to justify its inclusion. I appreciate that there are important provisions in the Bill requiring the director-general to publish information and material, including the annual report and the Secretary of State’s laying of the annual report before Parliament, but we will not know what the director-general and the Secretary of State have chosen to omit. If one makes a freedom of information request, the very fact of the recipient relying on an exemption sometimes gives some sort of clue, and the override regime provides for the application for a decision by the Information Commissioner and an appeal to the tribunal.

However many reports the director-general and the Secretary of State are required to publish, the public can only react to them. They cannot ask questions. Members of Parliament can ask questions and instigate debate, but in some cases that may be unnecessarily cumbersome and a bit less incisive. The freedom of information regime gives a proactive tool to the citizen. I remain to be convinced—I look forward to being convinced—that it is appropriate that that tool should not be available to the citizen in the case of the National Crime Agency. I beg to move.

[Lord Rosser]

Our Amendment 66 qualifies the National Crime Agency exemption to cover only those functions subject to exemption prior to 1 April 2012, which I believe was the date on which the NPIA functions were transferred to SOCA. Schedule 8 provides that the NCA will be exempt from freedom of information legislation. However, the functions of the NPIA and the UK Border Agency, which the Bill proposes to be covered by the NCA, were not previously exempt from the Freedom of Information Act. As yet, we have had no real explanation or justification for that exemption, especially as an extensive exemption regime already exists under the Freedom of Information Act.

SOCA, of course, is exempt from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act, but, as I said, as the National Crime Agency’s functions extend beyond those undertaken by SOCA, so the extended exemption provided for in the Bill is significant and needs justification. Police, immigration services and customs are not exempt and the National Crime Agency will effectively be covering the work of these agencies, so there must be an argument for not exempting from the operation of the Freedom of Information Act additional functions taken on by the NCA from the NPIA and the UKBA that were not previously exempt from the Act.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Thursday 12th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I support the thrust of the two amendments, or either of them. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, has said, it is important to give the official who is tasked with applying the legislation the tools to do the job properly. After all, he and his office are in the best position to analyse where the obstacles are. This is a clear problem and he has been clear about the need for a solution. I hope we use this opportunity—I do not like the jargon—to add to the toolbox.

[Lord Rosser]

I support the amendments. I certainly do not intend to explain the purpose of them because my noble friend has already done that. The key point is that it is the view of the Information Commissioner, based on his or her experience, that there should be the opportunity, if necessary, to have cases heard at the Crown Court. Obviously, this relates to the severity of the fine that can be imposed because there is a restriction if a case is dealt with in the magistrates’ court. The issue of the timescale within which proceedings have to be initiated has also been raised.

I hope the Government will be able to give a sympathetic response, not least because the amendments are based on views that were expressed, I think in evidence to the Justice Select Committee on 13 September last year, by the Information Commissioner and the changes that that individual felt were necessary in the light of experience.

Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, expressed a certain weariness when he spoke on this issue in Committee. I do not think that he used the words “ritualistic” or “formulaic” but that may have been what he had in mind when he referred to the way some of the control order debates seemed to be going. I share that concern, but it leads me to say that we should make sure that renewal of this provision is not ritualistic or formulaic. We should take care to avoid that. However, it is not an argument for saying that we should not undertake that renewal.

We will, I am sure, be told by the Minister that we can debate the issue at any time that any of us succeeds in putting down a debate, and that the Government could repeal TPIMs at any time. Neither of those claims is an answer to the points that have been made. I urge the Government, if they lose the Division that is about to come, to turn it into a virtue and explain annually why it is that any renewal is required. The term “trust” was used quite a lot at an earlier stage in this Bill. Trust does need to be renewed, as well as everything else, to take both your Lordships’ and the country with them. The Government should regard this as an opportunity, not something that should be pictured in any way as a defeat.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I will be brief. Our own Joint Committee on Human Rights said that the TPIMs remain,

“an extraordinary departure from ordinary principles of criminal due process”.

It went on to recommend that the Bill should also,

“require annual renewal, and so ensure there is an annual opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise and debate the continued necessity for such exceptional measures and the way in which they are working in practice”.

Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, also questioned whether it was constitutionally appropriate for the extraordinary executive powers involved in TPIMs to remain in being for a lengthy period of time. Whatever one’s views on the need for TPIMs, these are considerable and exceptional measures, and it is surely right and appropriate that Parliament should—as happens currently with control orders—continue to have the opportunity and the duty to decide each year whether the situation remains such that the measures in this Bill and the associated powers should continue in being or instead be allowed to expire.

The fact that debates on the Bill are taking place now does not affect the necessity and appropriateness of proper consideration each year by Parliament of whether the circumstances remain such that these powers, and the way in which they are used and operated, are still needed for a further period of time. It remains to be seen whether the Minister’s position has changed on this issue, but if the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, decides in the light of the Minister’s reply to test the opinion of the House, we should support his amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I have Amendment 306ZZA in this group. On the issue of the division of the levy between the police and the local authority, at the previous stage I attempted to reverse the proportions, as provided by the Bill. This time I am suggesting a 50-50 split. I am sure that my noble friend will understand how completely reasonable that must be.

At that stage, my noble friend told me as reassurance that the levy had,

“been designed to raise money for the police, who bear the brunt of late night enforcement costs”.—[Official Report, 16/6/11; col. 943.]

I do not doubt the costs borne by the police, but to some extent they are already taken into account in the way that their funding operates. I am concerned that the costs to local authorities, particularly as regards environmental health and some of the organisation involved in dealing with late-night activity, are not acknowledged.

I have brought this back not only to change the proportion but because of a thought that occurred to me after the previous stage. If an authority is to receive little financial benefit from the levy, it may take a decision not to impose it at all. I wonder whether the Government have considered that risk, if I may put it that way.

[Lord Rosser]

I will be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to what my noble friend Lord Stevenson of Balmacara said in Committee in respect of the amendments that the noble Lord has moved, in particular the support that we on these Benches gave for a more targeted application of the late-night levy. That continues to be our position.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Thursday 14th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

The Bill represents a major change for policing in England and Wales. Concerns have been expressed about the lack of effective checks and balances on commissioners and their unchallenged powers. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the strategic policing requirements and the proposed national crime agency on the new arrangements. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the relationship between the PCCs and chief constables on the latter’s operational responsibility. Concerns have been expressed about the impact of the new policing structure on relationships and working arrangements with other bodies, including local authorities. Concerns have also been expressed about the impact of the proposed new arrangements on levels of crime and the impact of the politicisation of the police, which, frankly, this Bill introduces.

The Government agree that their proposals represent a major change. Amendment 311 calls for an independent review of the policing governance arrangements and for a report to be prepared, laid before Parliament and approved by Parliament. The report must set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the new policing governance arrangements, the extent to which those objectives have been achieved, and whether they remain.

It does not seem unreasonable to call in the amendment for an assessment to be made of the impact of the new governance arrangements, what their objectives are and whether they are being achieved within the period of four years provided for in it if the provisions of the Bill are to remain in force. I hope that the Government will agree to the amendment and its provisions for an independent review of what they themselves accept is a major change for policing in England and Wales.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I do not agree with the amendment, for the following reasons. Noble Lords will be well aware of my concerns about the Bill, so I say this with a certain force. This legislation seems no different from other legislation that is contentious. It will be on the statute book in some form or other and able to be reviewed, renewed or repealed by a later Government—indeed, by the same Government, who may have second thoughts about it. I hope that it will be reviewed, but as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny, which it is high time Parliament had in place. Even without that post-legislative scrutiny, we have from time to time been reminded by the Leader of the House that there is an arrangement—it seems to me to be fairly loose, but I am assured that it exists—for substantial new legislation to be reviewed by government, which I do not think is the same as Parliament, after it has been in force for three years. Of course, if we had more time, I might tease the noble Lord about why he feels that it is necessary to provide for someone else to do something in four years.

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, Amendment 311 would mean that the police and crime commissioner provisions of the Bill cease to have effect after four years unless, following an independent review and report, the House approves an order by the Secretary of State for the arrangements to continue.

Many noble Lords have spoken in the course of these debates of the risk of disruption to the police service, and I have set out as we have gone along how that will be minimised. However, it would be extremely disruptive to the police service if, a few months before the second set of elections, the elected PCC is removed and the unelected police authority is re-established.

I hear what my noble friend Lady Hamwee says about review. I fully support the principle that legislation is reviewed. I say this having served in another place for nearly 20 years. We get very excited about legislation when we are legislating and after a year or two we forget about it. Then things transpire and we think that perhaps we should have looked at it. As a principle that is a very good thing. However, I am unable to accept Amendment 311 as it would be extremely disruptive. I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing it.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, the key phrase in the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—I think I have written it down correctly—was: “I hope that it will be reviewed … as part of post-legislative scrutiny”.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I said:

“as part of a programme of post-legislative scrutiny”.

[Lord Rosser]

I think the noble Baroness is being somewhat optimistic if she believes that is necessarily going to happen.

The amendment provides for an affirmative decision by Parliament on the report that would be produced. The Minister said that it would be extremely disruptive for the police. Of course, it would also be extremely disruptive for the biggest system change in policing for years to continue if did not work or operate properly as Parliament intended. If it is working properly, no doubt the report would be received and the affirmative resolutions would be carried. If it is not working, surely it is only appropriate that it should be challenged and processes put in place to try to put it right.

However, I do not intend to pursue this matter to a vote. I have expressed my views on the response that I have received from the noble Baroness and the reason why I think the amendment is justified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 4th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to the Bill team. I raised a number of questions on this group and am very happy to have had their answers. I feel no need to raise the points in debate. I am extremely grateful.

[Lord Rosser]

As the Minister has indicated, these are relatively minor and technical amendments that correct some drafting errors. As she said, they also reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that any regulations dealing with mandatory collaboration or the consequences of a failure by local authorities to participate in the formation of police and crime panels should be made by affirmative rather than negative resolution. We support the change to these regulations being by affirmative rather than negative resolution, thus requiring the specific approval of your Lordships' House.

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Tuesday 24th May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, it is a late hour, but that is not anyone’s doing, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has sustained greater insults than that in his career.

I am not sure, either, what Amendment 155 is doing in this group. It was in another group. I observed that it should be in a group on London and this is where it ended up. It is one of a number of amendments that say that the London Assembly should be able to decide its own procedures and how it works as a policing and crime panel. However, we will debate that point in another group.

I have considerable sympathy with these amendments on the City of London. I am asking myself why there is a separate force and why the issue has not been brought within what seems entirely the right vehicle for addressing the matter. I can only assume that it is in the filing tray that has “too hard” written on it and that the Government are unwilling to take on the City. But it is an important issue. If we are being asked, as we are, to look at inserting democracy into the governance of our policing arrangements, the City should not be exempt from that. They have a lot of experience of elections in the City—there is no problem in carrying that out.

There are so many anomalies, with the separate precepting arrangements and what has always seemed to me unnecessary bureaucracy and complication because of the division. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, referred to expertise, and I accept that there is enormous expertise, but it is transferable and needs to be so, because whether or not the City likes it London’s financial centre is not only where it used to be. It has moved eastwards, and the expertise in fraud and other matters specific to business are no longer, in the 21st century, relevant only to the Square Mile.

This Bill is the right context for this debate. There is a considerable distinction between this issue and that of teachers’ salaries in 1944, and I am sorry that the Government have not felt able to extend the new governance arrangements to the whole of England.

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, this is clearly a perfectly legitimate amendment and this is clearly the time when the issues that this amendment raises ought to be discussed. They ought to be discussed as part of this Bill. Having listened to the complaint that this is not a matter that should be discussed late in the evening, I am not sure whether that means—if the Minister is not going to accept the amendment—that if it appeared at Report stage at five o’clock in the afternoon it would be universally welcomed and supported. I was not quite clear on the significance of the comment about the time of day.

Clearly, the purpose of the amendment is to bring the arrangements for the City of London in line with the proposals for the rest of England and Wales—and one looks forward to the explanation that we will receive from the Minister as to why, one assumes, the Government are not entirely enthusiastic about going down this road. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the interesting and relevant point that, if the argument is that you need a separate police force for the City of London because it is a financial centre, it should be taken into account that we now have around Canary Wharf another financial centre. Presumably, it is under the Metropolitan Police, unless I am to be told otherwise. If the Metropolitan Police is considered to have the expertise to handle the issues that might arise there, why is it not considered that it could encompass, by taking over or by merger, the City of London Police as well? The Metropolitan Police force has considerable expertise which is recognised internationally and which is used on a national basis in England and Wales, not simply confined to its area. Yet the inference through having a separate force for the City of London is that somehow the Metropolitan Police, despite the expertise that it has, would just not be able to cope.

Identity Documents Bill

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Wednesday 17th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Rosser]

We are not actually on Amendment 4. I have been speaking to Amendment 5.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, perhaps the Minister could confirm that he would be happier—I am not quite sure that I took this from his speech—for such lessons as there may be from a relatively short and limited experience to be included in the wider work that the Government are doing. Of course, one would not disagree that any available lessons should be learnt; but I doubt whether that work is as useful to Parliament if it is provided separately and discreetly from other work being done on cyber crime and related areas. It is an enormously important area and Parliament will look forward to debating it further. I am not convinced that this is precisely the way to go.

Immigration (Biometric Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2010

Debate between Baroness Hamwee and Lord Rosser

Monday 8th November 2010 Grand Committee

[Lord Rosser]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of these regulations which, as I understand it, continue the incremental rollout of biometric immigration documents to include groups of foreign nationals who are subject to immigration control and who have limited leave to stay in the United Kingdom. I understand that the biometric immigration document issued under the regulations is a card with a chip containing biometric data; namely, fingerprints and a digital facial image.

As the Minister said, these are the fifth set of regulations to be made under the biometric registration provisions of the 2007 Act and are intended to enable us to move closer towards complying with the EU requirement for member states to confirm leave to stay through the issue of a residence permit in the form of a card from May 2011, and with a biometric card from May 2012. Do these regulations mean that the UK will have fully complied with its legal obligations under the EU legislation by May 2012, or am I to infer from a comment the Minister made towards the end of his speech that still further measures need to be taken to enable us to fully comply?

The Minister said that under these regulations individuals applying for further leave to stay in the UK for more than six months under the immigration rules in tiers 1 and 5 of the points-based system for migration will now have to apply for a biometric immigration document, as will the dependants of such applicants. The changes apply only to foreign nationals subject to immigration control. Already covered by the scheme are those in tier 2 of the points-based system—who, as I understand it, include intra-company transfers—and tier 4, which covers students. Paragraph 7.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:

“Employers are also becoming increasingly familiar with the biometric immigration document as the numbers in circulation have increased following previous roll outs”.

I think the Minister said—I may well have misunderstood him—that there were 3,500 such documents now in circulation. Can he clarify whether that is the case? If it is not, what is the figure, and by how many will the number increase as a result of the order coming into force? In the light of the statement in the impact assessment that tiers 1 and 5 constitute approximately 16 per cent of the total projected numbers of biometric resident permit applicants, will the 3,500 be increased by roughly one-sixth?

To what extent are the numbers of people extending their stay in the United Kingdom under the terms of these regulations affected by the proposed cap on the numbers coming to this country each year? Will the provisions of these regulations or the earlier regulations covering tier 2—which I thought covered intra-company transfers, among other things—made under the biometric registration provisions of the 2007 Act apply to those coming to this country under intra-company moves, who, it appears, may now not come within the constraints of any intended cap on numbers coming to Great Britain.

Paragraph 8.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum states that there has been no formal consultation, but that the rollout strategy and policy have been discussed with internal and external stakeholders. Can the Minister indicate exactly who were the external stakeholders with whom discussions have taken place, if there were any in addition to those referred to in paragraph 9.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum? It may be that paragraph 9.1 covers all external stakeholders.

The impact assessment refers also to the social costs of £8.1 million which relate to the costs of travelling to enrol biometrics. Can the Minister say how the figure is calculated and broken down, at least in general terms? Likewise, the impact assessment refers to a reduction in benefits fraud and states that this could total £0.4 million over 10 years. Once again in general terms, how is that figure calculated? How does one come to the conclusion that that would be the figure after 10 years?

The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association expressed concerns that processing times will increase when the volume of applications increase because applicants from tiers 1 and 5 will also need to enrol biometrics. The Explanatory Memorandum appears to reject these concerns. On what basis, and against what criteria, have the Government come to the conclusion that they have increased the capacity of enrolment facilities and options sufficiently, as is inferred on page 21 out of 56 of the Explanatory Memorandum documents?

Likewise, the ILPA expressed a view that the requirement for a biometric residence permit will adversely affect frequent business travellers because it adds an extra stage to the application process. The response was that, as part of the review of the front-office biometric enrolment service, the Government will be looking to further improve the service offered to applicants, including increasing the availability of enrolment offices and faster processing times. Since, as I understand it, the policy is to be implemented next month, what specific further improvements do the Government intend to make to address this point made by the immigration law practitioner service, and its further point that the range of locations at which biometric data can be enrolled, to which the Minister referred in his speech, is limited?

I appreciate that there are a number of questions there. I do not know the extent to which the Minister can respond today, but I would be grateful if he could write to me on those questions that he is unable to respond to.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I, too, am grateful for the explanation. I have given the Minister notice of some questions which, in fact, cover very much the same ground as those asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.

On the question of compliance with EU requirements; to put it another way round—what more is outstanding on that score for the UK fully to comply? My other questions are practical in regard to enrolment and access by employers to the information. I am unclear how biometric information, as distinct from simply the production of the card, makes it easier for employers to check eligibility to work in the UK—something which the impact assessment tells us will be the case. Can employers check the position without having access to a reader? The Minister mentioned a telephone verification service. I do not know whether I am confusing the different bits of the mechanics of this, but I am unclear what that service will provide.

The Minister also talked about 11 centres for enrolment, plus 17 Crown post offices. This seems to have been an issue in the consultation. What further rollout will there be and what geographical coverage has already been obtained by the centres that are in place? They seem to be quite small in number.