Passports

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I cannot confirm the precise figure that the noble Lord cites, but I can confirm that there are something of the order of a quarter of a million interviews a year. The noble Lord is right to say that very few are declined, but it is interesting to find that possibly about 1,000 people a year decide not to come to an interview when asked to do so. That might imply that their application was not quite as straightforward as it might have been. We think that these interviews are an important part of the authentication process, as did the previous Government, who brought this process in in 2006. As I said, we have no plans to change matters.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am sure that all noble Lords will have read in the press over the weekend speculation about the Prime Minister’s views on student visas. Can the Minister give us any insight into how thinking is developing in this area?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I fail to see what that has to do with the Question on the Order Paper, which, as the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition will know, is about passport personal interview offices. I recommend that she does not believe everything that she reads in the press.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Tuesday 24th April 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I, as always, speak for Her Majesty’s Government when I am at this Dispatch Box, but on this occasion I cannot honestly answer for the Ministry of Justice. All that I was trying to do was clear the name of my department, but I am sure that other Justice Ministers will in due course be able to respond to my noble friend’s point.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to the noble Baronesses who participated in this debate. The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, quite rightly spoke of the critical value of training for the police and other members of the criminal justice system. It is clear that in the case cited by the noble Baroness, that of Claire Waxman, training that will bring about a change of culture is an absolutely necessary and vital part of ensuring that in future the perpetrators of stalking are truly brought to book and the new offence that we are introducing is properly used against them.

I realise that the Minister says that the case of Mary would be covered by the amendments being brought forward by the Government, and he says that my amendments are not therefore necessary. The intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is of course extremely valuable because the Minister has clearly said that it is his interpretation of the government amendments and the Bill as it stands that those cases would be covered. However, a lot of what the Minister has rightly said—and I, too, am glad about the consensus that we have achieved on the Bill—depends on the quality of the training that will be provided to the people involved in the criminal justice system. I am glad that ACPO, NAPO and Protection Against Stalking will be involved in the discussions on training but, frankly, the words of my amendments are almost belt and braces. We are often told by Bill teams and parliamentary counsel that one should not include in a Bill matters that are otiose, but I do not regard the words that I propose as otiose. It is belt and braces to ensure that while training is important, should it fall down for whatever reason, those words will be in the Bill to ensure that people such as Mary, Sally Evans and others mentioned to me by NAPO, ACPO and other charities are properly covered. Before us is a great opportunity. I pay tribute to all Members of this House and indeed the Government for moving as far as they have gone in this Bill. The consensus that we have achieved is terrific. However, I should like to ensure that the belt and braces are there, and I therefore seek the opinion of the House.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Monday 12th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is of enormous significance that today we are debating amendments that would create a new criminal offence of stalking. At Second Reading, I said that this Bill presented us with an opportunity to address an important loophole in our law that meant that those subject to the sustained and harrowing experiences of stalking were not receiving the recognition and protection that they needed and deserved. I therefore warmly welcome the fact that the Government now accept that the law needs changing.

This change in policy is a tribute to campaigners—in particular, the National Association of Probation Officers and Protection against Stalking, as well as the members of the independent parliamentary inquiry, chaired by the right honourable Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, Elfyn Llwyd, whose report has been so influential, and, most importantly, the victims. I refer to women such as Tracey Morgan, Sam Taylor and Claire Waxman, who have shown the most extraordinary courage in speaking out for reform. I am grateful to the Minister for meeting me on Thursday last week to inform me of the amendments, although at that stage I was not able to see them. Now, having looked at them, I am concerned that there are some deficiencies.

A specific criminal offence of stalking is not just about raising awareness. Indeed, ensuring that stalking is named as a crime and that specific examples of stalking behaviour are set out in statute are certainly part of the solution. It will mean that police officers and prosecutors who use the 1997 Act as their operational framework will be able better to recognise and respond to cases of stalking. However, that is only part of the problem. The other, perhaps most significant, issue is that, even when stalking is identified, the police are unable to bring successful prosecutions against stalkers that will result in adequate sentences. The overwhelming evidence from the independent inquiry showed that the law is currently a barrier to just sentencing because the evidence required for stalking to be tried as an indictable offence is, in practice, too difficult to provide.

The two new offences proposed by the Government do not seek to remedy that. In fact, they perpetuate this key deficiency in the 1997 Act by continuing the distinction between what they consider low-level stalking offences, as in proposed new Section 2A, which are subject to a maximum sentence of six months, and serious cases of stalking, as in proposed new Section 4A, for which it must be proved that the victim suffers a fear of violence. However, we already have this distinction in the 1997 Act between Section 4—putting a person in fear of violence—which was originally intended to cover cases of stalking and carries a maximum of five years’ imprisonment, and the Section 2 offence of harassment, which covers lower-level offences and has a maximum sentence of six months. As noble Lords will know, Section 4 is very rarely used by the police because fear of violence is in practice very difficult to prove. As a result, cases of stalking are usually prosecuted under the Section 2 offence, meaning that most convicted stalkers come away with a sentence of just a matter of days or no custodial sentence at all and are free to continue to traumatise their victims and, in some terrible cases such as those of Clare Bernal and Jane Clough, to murder them. Of the estimated 120,000 cases of stalking in the UK per year, in 2009 just 786 people were found guilty under the existing Section 4, which concerns putting people in fear of violence, with only 170 given a custodial sentence, most of no more than weeks.

I am therefore extremely concerned that, by simply creating two new offences as an addendum to the existing Section 2 and Section 4 offences, we will continue to see prosecutors unable to prove fear of violence opting to jail stalkers who have waged sustained and terrifying campaigns against their victims under new Section 2A, the basic offence of stalking, with a maximum of six months in prison.

Two women, both victims, who met the Prime Minister last Thursday—International Women’s Day—were given an assurance that things would be changed, but they then found out that their circumstances would not be covered by Section 4A as currently drafted, as it would not be possible for the police to prove that they were in fear of violence, yet both women were stalked for six and 10 years respectively and have suffered terrible psychological trauma. Both suffered mental breakdowns, both have sought medical treatment for extreme stress and anxiety, and both have little or no confidence in the criminal justice system, which has consistently let them down.

Under the amendments, the perpetrators would still be tried in the magistrates’ court and, even if they received the maximum sentence of six months, they would be released automatically at the halfway point and would be back in the community after four weeks if tagged. Because of the near impossibility of proving fear of violence, perpetrator after perpetrator has been given ludicrously lenient sentences in the magistrates’ court and has consistently broken restraining orders, with none receiving treatment or rehabilitation. The independent parliamentary inquiry, expert witnesses from the police, the National Association of Probation Officers, Protection against Stalking and victims are all absolutely united in the view that Section 4A must be amended to “fear, alarm, distress or anxiety” so as to apply explicitly to cases where severe psychological damage has been caused but no explicit threat of violence or physical attack has been made.

It is staggering that the Government are proposing to retain the fear of violence distinction, despite such evidence. It is also staggering because in Scotland we have a clear legal precedent for a single offence of stalking without fear of violence. The Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act, which was introduced in 2010, created a single offence of stalking, triable either way, with a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. It is then up to prosecutors and the courts to decide at what level the case should be heard.

My Amendments 2 and 3, on protection from stalking, would replicate the Scottish model of a single offence of stalking, listing types of stalking conduct, triable either way, and would replace a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure adequate training and support for implementation. However, in the event that the Government are not willing to accept this alternative proposal, I have also tabled amendments to their amendments. With the inclusion of these amendments, I believe that we can ensure that the two stalking offences that the Government propose would deliver adequate sentencing of offenders and protection for victims.

Amendments 10, 11 and 12 make changes to proposed new Section 4A that would widen the scope of the offence to apply to cases causing the victim to suffer fear, alarm, distress or anxiety. That would ensure that for cases such as Claire’s, where it is impossible to prove fear of violence, where the victim has suffered years of psychological trauma the stalker will be eligible for the maximum sentence of five years. Amendment 9 would allow cases tried under the basic offence of stalking, created by proposed new Section 2A, to be referred up to the Crown Court for sentencing, if magistrates deem it appropriate: for instance, when new evidence came to light to suggest a sentence higher than six months were required. If theft can be tried either way, we believe that it is wrong to set such limitations in a trial of stalking.

Amendments 7 and 8 make changes to the list of examples of acts that should be considered in certain cases as amounting to stalking in order to allow for the addition of other forms of conduct in the future. I know that the Government will wish to argue that proposed new Section 2A states that these are examples and that therefore flexibility is already provided, but it is important to understand that the police will look to what is contained within the law for their operational framework. Therefore, we think that it is important to make it clear that the list is not exhaustive and provides for the addition of new types of behaviour, such as cyberstalking, that may arise in the future.

Finally, Amendment 14 would mean that, if an individual had been arrested for stalking, the police would have the power to enter their property without a warrant in order to prevent any evidence being destroyed. It would in fact return the power that previously existed in cases of harassment but that was removed as an unintended consequence of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

Too many women have already died at the hands of their stalkers and I am glad that the Government agree that we must act now to provide greater protection for the women and men who have had their lives stolen from them by this harrowing crime. It is for the sake of these and future victims of stalking that we believe that it is vital that we get the changes right. We must address the problems of the existing law in full. Therefore, I strongly urge the Government to listen to the experts and victims and to support these amendments to their proposals today.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, it might be convenient if I intervene at this stage, partly because I have government amendments in this group—Amendments 6, 13, 16, 18, 29 and 32—partly so that I can explain what we are intending and partly to deal with some of the concerns raised by the noble Baroness and to pre-empt some of the debate, particularly as we are at Third Reading. I shall also speak at the end of the debate to deal with any points that have been made.

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness not only for her explanation of four of the amendments but because she has raised this issue throughout the passage of the Bill, as she was quite right to do. She was also right to pay tribute to Elfyn Llwyd, to his inquiry in another place and for all that that has done, for which we are grateful.

The noble Baroness referred to the comments from my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last Thursday on International Women’s Day. The Government made the point that:

“Stalking is an issue which affects many lives, often in devastating ways. That is why we are taking it seriously and introducing these new offences”—

my right honourable friend made it clear that we would bring forward amendments to the Bill—

“Offenders need to know that they will be brought to justice for making others’ lives a misery. We will do all we can to protect victims of stalking more effectively and to end this appalling crime”.

He said:

“we’ve got to make sure that as a separate criminal offence, it’s combined with: better training for the police; better training for the probation service; better training for our courts; better action by technology, telephone and digital companies, so we stamp out this evil”.

Throughout the House we agree that tough action needs to be taken, that new offences need to be introduced and that sentences must reflect the severity of the crime. The only thing that we disagree on is the drafting on how to achieve this aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friends Lady Brinton and Lady Hamwee were absolutely correct about getting the wording right. That is why I wanted to make it quite clear that I could not give the precise words at this stage and why it is very important that we have further discussions, as I promised, with Napo, which will take place this week. I along with other colleagues in the ministerial team will make sure that we get the wording right.

I also note the point made by my noble friend Lady Hamwee about the importance of consistency of language between one piece of legislation and another, and what she said about the legal aid Bill. The danger of inconsistency is that when legislation comes to be interpreted by the courts they have to think why Parliament has used different words on different occasions. So I note what my noble friend had to say and we will discuss it during the week. However, I cannot give any cast-iron guarantees at this stage other than what I have said. My noble friend Lady Brinton said how happy she was that the amendments would now give an opportunity for another place to discuss these matters.



The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said that she would prefer a completely separate Bill. However, in the nature of these things, that is not always possible. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister recognised that here is an opportunity where we can do something, particularly in the light of the earlier discussions we had had on the Bill—I again pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall—and the commitments I had given on Report. I hope that we can make some progress on that front but, obviously, it cannot be the Bill that the noble Baroness would like in an ideal world. This is not always an ideal world and we sometimes have to make use of what we have.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee also asked about remedies, particularly in relation to the point she made about the restraining order. I can assure her that the restraining order is contingent on Section 1. It remains unchanged and therefore will be incorporated into the stalking offences. I understand that it can be used for the offences under proposed new Sections 2A and 4A. If I am wrong about that, I shall get back to my noble friend and all other noble Lords as quickly as possible.

The point made by my noble friend Lord Hodgson about having been a victim of stalking some years ago was a useful intervention. It reminded the House that this offence does not necessarily affect only women but can affect people of either sex. We have to remember that point even though, in the main, victims tend to be women. That is why my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made his announcement on another day.

I hope that both in this brief intervention and in my earlier remarks I have satisfied most of the points raised by the noble Baroness. I will listen with care to what she has to say and then it will be for the House to make up its own mind.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful to the Minister and to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but excellent debate.

I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said about ideally having a separate Bill. However, I am delighted that the noble Lord has taken the opportunity to introduce these offences into the Bill. It means that more women and men will be protected in the very near future. Who knows how long a separate Bill would take to get onto the statute book.

On the amendments I have tabled, I well understand that the House would not be behind Amendments 2 and 3 and I accept that. On Amendments 7 and 8, I hear what the Minister said about his words being merely examples and I reluctantly accept that. However, the police in Gloucestershire would certainly understand “inter alia”, even if the police in Cumbria would not.

I was disappointed by the Minister’s response to Amendment 9 for two reasons. From time to time, cases are discussed by a magistrates’ court but, in the course of the proceedings, it becomes clear that the evidence shows there is more to a case than at first seemed. It would then be entirely appropriate for the court to decide that the case should be tried in a Crown Court so that an offender could be given the maximum sentence if necessary. I am also very concerned about repeat offenders. As we know, in the past there has been a problem for victims who have suffered from people who have offended time and time again. Under the proposals put forward by the noble Lord, if someone repeats a minor offence, he or she will continue to be tried in a magistrates’ court—it will be a summary offence—and on each occasion they will be eligible for a maximum sentence of six months. I do not think that that is enough.

The key amendments are clearly Amendments 10, 11 and 12. I hear what the Minister says and am grateful for his assurances that the Government will bring forward new wording that will take into account serious psychological harm, which can be absolutely devastating, as the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said. In fact, in some ways it can be even worse than the fear of physical violence. The words in my amendment are those proposed by the independent inquiry, the victims and the experts, and are tried and tested words that have been proven to get results in Scotland. Why will the Minister not accept my amendment and then, if necessary, look at the matter more closely before it is discussed in the other place? I am glad that the other place will, in any event, have an opportunity to debate these very important issues. Although I fully accept the Minister’s proven good intentions as well as those of the Prime Minister, I am slightly concerned that throughout the very welcome process that we have undergone as a result of the deliberations in this Chamber, at each stage there has been a slight impediment to the progress that could properly and better be made. I am concerned that we will not get the wording that we in this House and everybody deems necessary. Therefore, I would feel much more comfortable if the Minister could say that he accepted my amendment and would then act accordingly in the House of Commons.

I also have some concern about Amendment 14. Under current legislation, those arrested for relatively minor drugs or theft offences can have their premises searched on the advice of a police inspector that a warrant is not required. That makes the whole issue relating to stalking seem to be less important. As we know that cyber-criminals are becoming more and more active, I am worried that if people have to wait for a warrant the necessary material in the house could disappear before a warrant is obtained and the premises properly searched. Therefore, I have concern about Amendment 14.

I am very grateful to the Minister for having come as far as he has come. I know that he is pushing the boundaries to ensure that we get the right results in the end with the appropriate wording in the Bill. However, I urge the Minister at this late stage to accept Amendment 11. I am withdrawing my amendment with a slightly heavy heart because I want to be confident that the Bill is absolutely right to guarantee the safety of men and women and ensure that perpetrators of stalking are not only apprehended but imprisoned and given the right treatment where necessary. I would also like to withdraw the amendment knowing that we will have a further opportunity briefly to consider and vote on these issues in the consideration of Commons amendments at the next stage in this House. Will the Minister accept Amendment 11, the key amendment with the key wording, which is of such importance to victims, campaigners and all those involved in these issues?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I made it clear to the noble Baroness that I could not accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12—all three go together. The point I was trying to make is that we want to get this wording right, and I do not want to be bound by precisely those words. We have moved pretty fast since the end of our consultation and the end of the independent inquiry. We have brought forward this amendment, which we announced last week. I then made it clear that we would have further discussions with NAPO on this matter. That is what I want to do. I do not want to bind us before we have those discussions by accepting the precise wording of those amendments. That is why I made it clear in my opening speech that we wanted to address the spirit behind them but that we wanted to discuss these matters further. I cannot accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12, but the noble Baroness has heard the commitment I have made. With that, I hope that when we finally get to those amendments—I appreciate that we have one or two debates to go before then—she will feel it is not necessary to move them. We can discuss them after another place has discussed them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Licensing Act 2003 (Diamond Jubilee Licensing Hours) Order 2012

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Monday 27th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

That the draft order laid before the House on 12 January be approved.

Relevant documents: 38th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 14 February.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I speak to this Motion in relation to a matter of business that the Government would like your Lordships’ House to take on Wednesday of this week—namely, consideration of Commons amendments to the Welfare Reform Bill.

During the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill we on these Benches have risen on business Motions to speak to a number of matters, including Commons financial privilege. I apologise to the House for having to do so again today, but the lack of proper opportunities to raise points of order about the business of this House is a gap in the procedure of this House. I intend to write to the chairman of the Procedure Committee, the Chairman of Committees, proposing that the committee consider this issue. It will not be a surprise to the Leader of this House that I am raising my concerns today about the ping-pong arrangements for the Welfare Reform Bill, because we discussed the matter in a telephone call on Thursday.

The Government have decided that this business should take place on Wednesday as dinner-break business. We believe that that is completely inappropriate for this Bill, which is a major piece of government legislation that affects large numbers of people in this country, especially vulnerable ones. We on this side of the House believe that welfare in this country needs reform. However, we do not believe that some of the changes put forward in the Bill are the right ones. It is precisely because we believe in welfare reform that we believe that the Bill should at all times be handled and considered properly by this House. In line with that, we do not believe that considering what the Commons wishes to put before this House should be done as a piece of dinner-time business during another major Bill. This Bill and the House deserve better.

We also object to the way in which this business is being scheduled for your Lordships’ House. This House is not like the other place, and we rightly pride ourselves on self-regulation. This House is proud, too, that in many respects we proceed by agreement and consensus. This House wants to see these points reflected in the way that business is organised here, which in turn means the smooth running of the usual channels arrangement. We have a very good relationship between the usual channels of this House.

However, the usual channels, of course, occasionally have their ups and downs. We do not believe that announcing that a stage of a Bill of this magnitude will be taken as dinner-break business should be done without the agreement of the usual channels. To make such an announcement simply by changing the forthcoming business publication makes things that much worse, especially when it happens during a week when your Lordships' House is in recess. I believe that this could be to the inconvenience of the whole House, and we do not believe that this is what the Government should be doing. Whatever the scale of the Government’s political majority in this House, we do not believe that this is the sort of behaviour that your Lordships’ House wants to see.

We on these Benches have put all these points to the Government previously, but even at this late hour we urge them to reconsider. We urge them not to take this important parliamentary stage of this important Bill as dinner-break business on Wednesday, but to allow the matter to be considered by the House properly and in full. We urge the Government to reflect on this and to think again.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Wednesday 15th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his amendments. The Government have taken some steps towards what is needed, but as has been clear from the well informed discussion that we have had this afternoon we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, said, not there yet. All the arguments have been made powerfully. The own experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, is invaluable and I was going to say that I very much supported Amendment 52 but, as she herself said, it would need to include vulnerable adults and not just children. I would simply ask the Minister two things. First, in relation to his own amendments, the Minister mentioned guidance. I realise that the guidance is not ready yet, but when it is forthcoming it will be extremely important for the safety of our young people and children. How will this House be consulted, and will we have an opportunity to debate and discuss that guidance?

More importantly, I was very taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, with its very simple solution to a complex problem. Will the Minister consider that proposal? Will he also confirm that he will have further discussions with the noble Lord, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and others and that he will come back to this House at Third Reading with what I hope will be a solution to a problem that should not be intractable but which, as the noble Lord himself said, has to balance bureaucratic impediments and risks to the safety of children? Where the safety of children and vulnerable adults is concerned I urge him always to err on the side of safety and caution, rather than on diminishing bureaucracy. I realise that bureaucracy can be and is a problem. However, where the safety of children and vulnerable adults is concerned we have a duty to err on the side of caution.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition for her remarks, particularly for her endorsement of our search to strike a balance. We are trying to do that. I echo her comment that we are not there yet and I would endorse that. We had quite an extensive debate on this late on 6th February, and no doubt we will have further discussions on this matter at Third Reading. I want to make it clear that I look forward to those discussions. Also, in response to the remarks from the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, I would certainly welcome further discussions with him and others between now and then. It is important that we get these things right in due course and make sure that the right Bill becomes an Act on the statute book, and that we get the right guidance. I give an assurance that there will be further discussions and that my door, as Ministers always say, will be open as much as possible.

I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that it is very important that we get the guidance right. However, I cannot give any assurance as to when we will get it, and I am not sure whether I will be able to get it before Third Reading. As for how this House will be able to debate that, I imagine that the noble Baroness and the usual channels will find a means of ensuring that it is debated in the appropriate manner in due course.

I shall deal with some of the points relating to the three amendments, having given those introductory remarks following my moving of my own amendments. First, Amendment 50B was moved by two lawyers, my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who questioned the use of “in all the circumstances”. Getting such eminent legal advice thrown back at me causes me some alarm. I am asked just what the phrase means. I think back to the days when I did my Bar exams—the stuff about “reasonable”, “the man on the Clapham omnibus” and all that. It seems quite obvious that “in all the circumstances” qualifies “reasonable” in a manner that should be suitable for the people who have to operate this Act, as it will become.

If I may put this in a sporting context, to make it easier for my noble friend Lord Addington, obviously the circumstances will vary whether you are supervising rugby training over a whole area of different rugby pitches according to the different forms of training that are necessary or whether it is boxing. The circumstances will change according to what is being supervised.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I support Amendments 55A and 56. I do not believe that this is about restricting the scope of the Freedom of Information Act; it is about fixing the Act to fit the purpose. We have heard compelling arguments about disincentives to young researchers and to collaboration and about the potential competitive disadvantage that our universities could suffer. Our universities are one of the most important drivers of jobs and growth in this country. They enrich the cultural fabric of our society. If universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland believe that they are at a competitive disadvantage compared with those in Scotland, the US and Ireland, among others, I believe that we need to have a safeguard in place. We should heed their concerns and seek to revise our legislation as soon as possible. I support both amendments.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, some time ago my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury said that he was looking forward to me summarising the gist of this debate. I have to say to him that I do not think I am capable of doing that and I am not going to attempt it. However, I was grateful for one or two comments from just one or two out of a large number of speakers. I single out the noble Lord, Lord Judd—perhaps I may refer to him as my noble friend, as he comes from the same county as I do. He referred to the importance of the principles behind the Freedom of Information Act. I think that it would have been slightly more helpful if we had heard a bit more in support of the principles behind that Act and what it set out to do. It was an Act passed by the previous Government and one that we, under no circumstances, want to roll back at all. We understand the concerns put by the higher education sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, perhaps it may be convenient if I briefly intervene at this stage. It might save some time later. It is certainly within the scope of the guidance in the Companion to Standing Orders if I speak now, but I assure my noble friends that obviously I will respond as Minister at the end of the debate.

I want to make one brief point to my noble friend. We have all listened carefully to his words and they have made a deep impact on us. Although these matters fall slightly outside my immediate area of responsibility within the Home Office, I am certainly content to ask colleagues in the Department for Education to invite the Children’s Commissioner for England to review the current practical arrangements for rescued child victims of trafficking and to provide advice both to my right honourable friend in that department and to us in the Home Office. We will then be in a position to come back to these matters at a later stage.

I hope, with that assurance—I repeat that I am prepared to respond at the end of this debate—that my words might at least reduce the amount of time that we need to devote to this debate when there is a lot of other business to be taken this evening.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that short and welcome intervention, but my real tribute must go to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his tireless efforts on this issue and his splendid introduction to the amendment. It is said that a society should be judged on how it treats its most vulnerable members, and the children who have entered our shores to work in modern-day slavery are truly some of the most vulnerable in our society. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been an extraordinary advocate for all those who have been trafficked, but especially children. We all must have found the ages of the children mentioned this evening deeply shocking.

As the noble Lord said in the debate held earlier this month, the UK should be striving to be a beacon of good practice in this area, not simply doing the minimum to toe the line. When children are trafficked into this country, they often arrive alone and without any trace of where they have come from, with no way to communicate and without anyone who cares for their best interest. The lucky children will be picked up at the border, but others become known to the authorities only many months and sometimes years after entering the country, having been forced into prostitution or slave labour by their traffickers. Those children who are identified will come into contact with scores of extremely dedicated professionals—border agency staff, the police, social services, foster carers and lawyers—all of whom will have partial responsibility for their care, yet no single adult will have responsibility for providing advocacy for a child in all those situations.

The purpose of a guardian or a legal advocate is, as termed in this amendment, to mediate between all the different agencies on behalf of the child and to provide the continuous oversight and physical presence that they need while navigating the process. As the noble Lord said, between 2005 and 2009 32 per cent of child trafficking victims went missing from care. As a citizen, I am ashamed of that. Child victims of human trafficking need highly specialised protection because of the nature of the criminal world that we are dealing with. Human trafficking has a net value of $36 billion a year, with human lives as its commodity, and organised criminal groups will go to terrible lengths to abduct a child from care. Articles 14 and 16 of the EU directive require member states to implement measures that are tailored to the specific vulnerabilities of these children. The appointment of a guardian or legal advocate as described in the amendment would ensure that the UK was fully compliant with both the letter and the spirit of the directive in providing the child with a legal advocate who will provide advocacy for that child from the moment they are identified both in dealings with authorities and in court.

I hear what the Minister says and I am glad that the Government are now going to pursue these issues further with the Children’s Commissioner, because I can think of no better person who can really push these issues forward. I hope that the Minister will be able to keep us informed of progress as the discussions take place, and of course I trust him to do that. However, I have to say that I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will pursue these issues doggedly until he is satisfied that every child who is trafficked into this country has a legal advocate. I am confident that the issue will be pursued to its successful conclusion.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Monday 6th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this short debate for their very positive and supportive views. We are agreed, all around this Chamber, that this is a heinous crime and that we really must do something about it. I will not respond now to all the points that have been made because people want to know whether or not we are going to vote. Timing is clearly of the essence—the timing of my amendment is not perfect, in view of the fact that the people’s inquiry will report tomorrow and the Government’s own consultation finished yesterday. When the Minister talked about the consultation, he said that they would look at the results—it is terrific there have been 150 or more responses—and that, if necessary, the Government would bring forward amendments or further legislation. I was thinking that that was not good enough but as he went on it seemed clear that, while he cannot give me a binding commitment that he will bring an amendment back at Third Reading, he was inviting me to withdraw my amendment on the basis that, if he does not bring forward an amendment at Third Reading, he would be willing for me to do so. Is that correct?

[Lord Henley]

I was trying to give an assurance that, although I cannot speak for the House, the noble Baroness would be perfectly within order to bring forward her amendments to be discussed again at Third Reading. On that occasion it would, obviously, be a matter for the House to consider the amendments. Under the much stricter rules on what can and cannot be brought forward at Third Reading, I would certainly have no objection to her bringing forward her amendments or some variant of them.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that assurance, in view of which it would be wrong of me to press my amendment to the vote this evening. However, if the Minister is not able to bring forward amendments at Third Reading, I will certainly do so and, at that stage, I will pursue it to a vote 150 per cent. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Tuesday 31st January 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

I noticed the intervention made by the noble Lord earlier on that point. It would be for the police to decide whether they consider it necessary. I would not want to go any further than that at this stage. They will have to do that. These are matters that will be subject to review by the independent commissioner, which is another safeguard. I know that the noble Lord is not very keen on such safeguards, but I think they are very important.

Across the entire coalition Government we took the view, during the passage of the Crime and Security Bill and in advanced proposals on this Bill, that the correct approach is to ensure that those convicted in the past of serious offences have their DNA added to the database, while those arrested for, but not convicted of, more minor offences should not have their biometrics held beyond the end of the investigation. That is why we encouraged the police to complete Operation Sheen, which the noble Lord might have come across, which identified more than 300 subjects in prison custody who had been convicted of murder, manslaughter or any sex offence but who did not appear to have had their DNA profile recorded on the national database. That operation has been completed recently and has resulted in an additional 376 such individuals having their DNA taken and uploaded on to the database.

Having completed that work, using the provisions of the Crime and Security Act which were agreed in the final days of the previous Government, the police service has embarked on a further operation, Operation Nutmeg, which seeks to chase and sample those with similar convictions who are now in the community. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Third Reading of this Bill in the House of Commons:

“In June last year, we started a programme to identify individuals in the community who have previously been convicted of either a sexual offence or homicide, and whom the last Government failed to place on the DNA database. That process has so far identified more than 13,000 people whose identities have been passed to local police forces, and we are now working with the police to find the individuals and obtain samples”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 282.]

I believe that that sets out why we are doing this and why we are getting it right. I also believe the analysis which has been looked at by many independent experts who have considered it closely and, as my right honourable friend the Minister for crime and security said in the House of Commons Public Bill Committee,

“the Information Commissioner states that he ‘does not consider that the evidence presented’”—

that is, the evidence presented by the previous Government—

‘“supports a general period of anything like six years’”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 29/3/2011; col. 212.]

I turn finally to the remarks of the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee as I think they are apposite and they are remarks on which the noble Baroness might wish to reflect. In his contribution at the Report stage of the Crime and Security Bill in the House of Commons, the right honourable Member said,

“There were differences among those of us on the Select Committee on how long the period should be, but we came to the conclusion”—

this is again to stress the balance—

“that a three-year period probably strikes the right balance. We said that the period should not be less than three years—although it could be longer—but that three years was a reasonable length of time”.

The right honourable gentleman went on to say that on the Select Committee,

“there was a consensus that holding the data for six years was too long”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/10; col. 48.]

Again I go back to what I said at previous stages of the Bill, that these are questions of balance. We think that we have the balance right; the European Court of Human Rights seems to think that we are getting the balance right; and the chairman of the Home Affairs Committee thinks that that is the case. Three years with the possibility of an extension seems to me to be about right and we think that six years is too long. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this brief debate and for the information provided by the Minister. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that I have huge respect for the work of the Joint Committee on Human Rights but, on this occasion, I do not agree with its conclusions wholeheartedly. I noticed that other noble Lords have noted, as the noble Lord said himself, that the Committee was asking for better recording in future and for more evidence, in effect. It has become apparent during the debate that the coalition Government are now moving towards three years but are saying that, although they want three years, in some cases five years is more appropriate. They are, as many noble Lords would agree, putting that burden on the police.

In my earlier speech, I mentioned that ACPO had said that not one single application for an extension had been made in Scotland. That is very relevant to our deliberations this evening. I completely agree with all noble Lords who have spoken that this is a matter of balance and of which side of the line one comes down on. On these Benches, I think everyone comes down on the side of wishing to preserve people’s freedom to live, protected from crime, rather than having more protection for people’s privacy. We believe that the citizens of this country would prefer that. We are worried that in future—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I accept that it is a question of balance, as I have said on numerous occasions. However, I believe that it is also a question of “rather than”. We believe that, rather than people's privacy being the be-all and end-all in this argument, it is more important to retain DNA for a longer period. I see people nodding against me, if you see what I mean. I do not expect all noble Lords to agree with me but on this question of balance we come down on the protection of individuals rather than on the privacy of individuals. That is where we are.

I do not intend to move to a vote but I would be grateful if the noble Lord could come back to me with some more information which I may wish to pursue at Third Reading in relation to the three years and the five years. If this is a key plank within the arguments put forward by the Minister, as I believe it to be, it is very relevant that in Scotland it has not been used on a single occasion. I would like to know why the police in Scotland have not felt able to use this or have not felt it necessary to use it. I would be grateful if the Minister could bring back further information before Third Reading.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, we are on Report so I intervene with some disquiet merely to say that I do not think that I can add anything to what I have said. I, and other colleagues on these Benches, have been saying that we have to get these things right for a matter of balance. This is also a matter that has been reflected on by the European Court of Human Rights and by our own Joint Committee on Human Rights. They think that three years is about right. We also feel that there should be the ability to extend that in certain cases. I leave it at that.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, of course I recognise what the European Court of Human Rights said, but my Government, when they came to the view that the period should be six years, believed that it was compliant with the ruling of the ECHR. I was not suggesting that the Minister was going to agree with me; I was asking him to come back with further evidence of the situation in Scotland. There must be some facts and figures. The facts relating to Scotland that I have put before the House have been questioned, and I would like more facts about the situation in Scotland. I would like to know whether it is indeed the case that the police have not asked for an extension from three to five years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise not to support my noble friend on behalf of the Opposition necessarily but, as I said in Committee, as an individual I have a great deal of sympathy with my noble friend’s amendment. Like my noble friend I believe that such a voluntary database would lower the level of stigma and in the future might enhance public confidence in the secure handling of data, which is very necessary. As my noble friend has said today, the state will undoubtedly hold more and more information about its citizens.

I was also very interested to hear of the response by Professor Jeffreys to Mr Gary Streeter MP, which is worth pursuing. I do not know what the Government’s response to my noble friend’s amendment will be, although I suspect that they will reject the amendment. However, it is an interesting suggestion and I hope that, if the amendment is not accepted by the Government, the National DNA Database Strategy Board will look at the proposal as perhaps something interesting to pursue on behalf of the citizens of this country and their safety.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness guessed right in that I will be rejecting the amendment or at least not encouraging the House to accept it. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, like Jonathan Swift, made what is described as “a modest proposal” and claimed that I had recommended this policy in Committee with a smile on my face. The noble Lord should not always take me totally and utterly seriously, even in Committee, whether there is a smile on my face or otherwise. I will have to look carefully again at what precisely I said at that time.

If the noble Lord is of the view that he or others should be able to go along and hand in their DNA to the police, I am more than happy for them to do that. I will escort him to the police station in Workington, Carlisle or whatever town in the north-west he finds most convenient. We will go together and I will assist him in that process. Having said that, I do not think that this proposal really has much running for it, although I can see the arguments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about reducing stigma and other such matters. Those remarks were echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, although he went on to make the important point about those who do not volunteer and whether they would have problems. I will get to that in due course.

I want to make only one or two points about the amendment because I do not think we should waste too much time on it, modest proposal though it was. First, I do not believe that there is a demand for such an idea. The police service has not been demanding the establishment of such a database and I do not believe that there is any great demand for one within civil society as a whole. There might be a few public-spirited individuals such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and others who wish to come forward and provide their DNA for a database, but I suspect that they would be few and far between. I would also suggest that it is unlikely that individuals such as the noble Lord who did come forward would have any involvement in criminality, and that would be the reason they were happy to put forward their DNA. It is therefore difficult to see what the use might be for such material being stored on a voluntary database.

Secondly, I have a rather more important objection to the amendment, which relates to new subsection (11) where it proposes that the,

“National DNA Database Strategy Board shall, within a period of 12 months of commencement, report to the Secretary of State with recommendations on the establishment”,

of the database, and then in subsection (12) it sets out what the board should do. I do have to say that having the board carry out a feasibility study within 12 months of the commencement of the Bill would be asking rather a lot. The board’s workload will already be high during that period in supervising the establishment of the new procedures required by the Bill. That will take up a considerable amount of its time. The board has no resources to do this and we do not consider it appropriate to require it to do all this extra work at this time.

Having said that, I will put the smile back on my face and say that it is an interesting idea, as the noble Baroness put it, and a modest proposal. No doubt he will be more than happy to hand in his DNA in due course, but I do not think that I can support his amendment at this stage.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Thursday 12th January 2012 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I rise to support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses.

Amendment 151 provides both clarity and the appropriate safeguards for the UK’s research centres and its academics. Like other noble Lords, I wonder why the Minister has decided to go down a different route from that being trodden in Scotland, Ireland and the USA. It seems to me that by taking a different route we are putting our universities at a competitive disadvantage. That would obviously be a retrograde step.

It is clear from everything that has been said by noble Lords, who are far more well versed in these issues than I am, that the guidance provided by the Information Commissioner is completely inadequate in relation to competition and confidentiality. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, has commented that the amendment is probably defective. However, unless the Minister is prepared to accept the principle behind it, the contribution which our academic and research institutions make not just to the cultural and intellectual life of this country but to ensuring that we have a competitive advantage in many areas will be adversely affected. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept the amendment in principle.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I start by saying that whatever arguments I put forward will not be based on those of the drafting point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott. However, I take his point that new section (1A)(a)(i) and (ii) are possibly unnecessary as they seem to include everyone. It would therefore be possible to delete the words from “by” onwards and just talk about what is published.

I make it clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others that the Scottish, Irish and United States legislation have not been my bedside reading for some time. I am not completely and utterly familiar with them but I will no doubt make sure that I am made totally familiar with them and look at the consequences of what they do. An important point to remember in all the arguments put to me is the remark of the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, that, if it does no harm, the amendment ought to be accepted. I am not sure that one should accept amendments merely because they do no harm. I want to make it clear that we are committed to transparency in this area. We will not introduce new exemptions from disclosure unless the necessity of doing so has been clearly demonstrated.

I recognise that a number of noble Lords have expressed considerable concern. We have devoted almost three-quarters of an hour to this matter. I commend my noble friend Lady Brinton for the admirable brevity with which she set out her case and expressed her concerns. I am aware that there are major concerns in the whole sector about the potential for the disclosure of information under the FOI Act which could undermine the United Kingdom’s academic research. We all accept that the UK is at the very forefront of international research and that it is vital that that position should be maintained. We wish to do that. I am more than happy to see noble Lords between now and Report if they want to make the case for needing to go further and to explain why they believe that the existing exemptions, properly applied, do not provide the appropriate protection.

I am aware that only in January of last year the Science and Technology Committee recommended in its report in relation to events at the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit that the application of the Freedom of Information Act to research material required clarification. There is in fact little evidence to demonstrate that existing provisions within the Freedom of Information Act do not provide adequate protection for research-related information. The circumstances provided for in this amendment are already provided for in existing exemptions. For example, exemptions exist which may be used, subject to a public interest test, to protect information the disclosure of which would at least be likely to prejudice commercial interests, health and safety, and the effective conduct of public affairs, as well as information intended for future publication. There is a clear public interest in protecting research information from disclosure in appropriate circumstances, and the Act passed by the previous Government—and I do not know why the Opposition now wish to amend it when there is no evidence that it needs amendment—is designed to ensure that public interest factors are given proper weight when exemptions are applied. Furthermore, the Act contains provisions protecting information provided in confidence and in relation to personal data.

Any new exemption within the Freedom of Information Act would also have no relevance to research on environmental matters. Requests for environmental information are considered not under the Freedom of Information Act but under the Environmental Information Regulations, and this amendment would not affect those. All information held by the higher education sector, including that relating to research programmes, has been subject to the Freedom of Information Act for seven years. The noble Baroness will remember, as she was probably a member of the Government at the time when it was passed in 2000 and came into effect in 2005. The Freedom of Information provisions within the Bill, in Clauses 100 to 102, build on a regime that is already firmly in place. I know that my noble friend Lady Brinton will be aware that the Information Commissioner has recently issued guidance for the higher education sector in response to the Science and Technology Committee’s recommendations. This is one reason why it is possible that it will not be necessary for me to study the provisions of the Scottish Act, as well as what they are doing in Ireland and America. The guidance will assist higher education establishments in dealing appropriately with requests for research-related information, and withholding it when it would not be in the public interest to disclose.

As a coalition Government, we are committed to greater transparency. I want to make it clear that we will not introduce exemptions into the Freedom of Information Act unless we can have that clearly demonstrated. I do not believe that it has been clearly demonstrated, but I am more than happy to see my noble friend and others if she feels that she can put a further case. I repeat to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, and others, that I will study what is happening in Scotland—it is near to my heart. But what goes on in a devolved Administration does not necessarily have to be copied in this country. There are times when we can learn from them and times when we find that what they are doing is not necessarily appropriate. I am more than happy to look at it, but I do not think that a case has been made on this occasion. But my door is always open and I am always prepared to see my noble friend and others to discuss this matter, if they feel that I have not got the message appropriately.

Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) (Amendment) Regulations 2011

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Thursday 15th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, we have heard today some extraordinarily powerful and important speeches. When we were in government, one measure that we were most proud of, rightly I believe, was the Equality Act 2010, which we managed to pass through Parliament just before the general election. We did so with the support of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats, then both in opposition. The parties opposite were consistent in their support for the legislation; I thanked them for it then and I thank them for it now, although I am concerned about a few aspects of the Act that are being chipped away. But that is not an issue for today.

When my noble friend Lord Alli moved his amendment and it was adopted by this House during the passage of the Bill, I was not able to fully support him. But I am delighted that his amendment was adopted and has resulted in the regulations before us today. The overriding point about the regulations and the legislative clause in the Act to which they refer is that, as so many noble Lords have said, they are permissive. They permit churches and any other religious premises to enable two people to register as civil partners of each other under the terms of Section 6(3A)(a) of the 2004 Act.

I warmly welcome so many speeches today, but especially the contribution from the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson of Calow, who was absolutely right to point out very forcefully that the provisions are permissive. They do not in any way require churches to provide civil partnerships to take place. They do not order them to do so or compel them to do so; they simply make it possible for them to do so should they so wish.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, argues that the proposals are not sufficient to protect faith groups from being compelled to register civil partnerships when it is against their beliefs. The noble Baroness is supported by a number of legal opinions. However, we believe that the legislation itself is clear. Section 202(4) of the Equality Act 2010 provides that the following should be inserted after Section 6(3) of the Civil Partnership Act 2004:

“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.

That expressly states the point—the wording is clear and the meaning is clear, and we believe that the effect is clear—and so do the regulations in front of us today, which state, in Regulation 2(3), that the following should be inserted into the Marriages and Civil Partnerships (Approved Premises) Regulations 2005:

“Nothing in these Regulations places an obligation on a proprietor or trustee of religious premises to make an application for approval of those premises as a place at which two people may register as civil partners of each other in pursuance of section 6(3A)(a) of the 2004 Act”.

Again, there is clear wording, clear meaning and clear effect.

The noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, has deployed legal opinions that support her view, quite properly, primarily those from Professor Mark Hill QC and Aidan O’Neill QC. But many noble Lords from all Benches have cited a number of different opinions today, and the speech from my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton was masterful and gave a very clear opinion. His responsible views were unequivocal and were supported by many noble Lords throughout the Chamber today.

It was useful and heartening to hear the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, who confirmed that the necessary safeguards are in place according to the Legal Office of the General Synod of the Church of England. I hear of course the differing views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, but I believe that many of the issues raised by the right revered Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn are matters for the General Synod itself, and not for this House or the Houses of Parliament. It is also important to consider a statement from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, which takes a similar view to the Church of England:

“As the regulations require prior consent, the measure can have no impact on Catholic premises. The church welcomes the fact that the Government has made an explicit statement in the draft regulations that nothing in them creates any obligation to make an application for approval. This will help rebut any attempt to mount spurious cases of unlawful discrimination against churches which do not host civil partnerships”.

The Government’s clear view is set out in their summary of responses to their consultation on civil partnerships on religious premises, published last month, and I agree with the view expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, Minister of State at the Home Office, says in a letter this week to Members of your Lordships’ House:

“I must stress that this provision is entirely permissive. We are entirely confident that faith groups will not be forced to host civil partnership registrations if they do not wish to do so”.

He goes further, by indicating further legislation if necessary. The Government’s clarity and confidence, which we as an Opposition share, is supported by the statutory body on discrimination, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which states in its response to the consultation:

“The Commission is also pleased that this provision is voluntary, placing no obligation on religious communities to conduct such ceremonies where this would be against their conscience or religious beliefs”.

We have heard a plethora of legal opinions in this debate, but also the important views of many noble Lords who do not have legal experience. Most importantly, we have heard the views of my noble friend Lord Alli. When he moved the original amendment in your Lordships’ House, he could not have been clearer:

“For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so”.

He has been equally clear today. These are compelling arguments, and I believe that they are conclusive arguments. There is nothing in the legislation or in these regulations which requires churches to host civil partnerships. The legislation and the regulations associated with it were designed to be permissive and not compulsory; they are written to be permissive and not compulsory; and they are best interpreted as being permissive and not compulsory. Some noble Lords have mentioned fear. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, I believe that we must act in a spirit of mutual respect and generosity.

If the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, should test the opinion of the House today, we on these Benches will be opposing the noble Baroness and supporting the regulations. And yes, we have a Whip on, because we believe it is right to do so. I believe the record of my party, the Labour Party, on equality issues, is second to none, and we intend to maintain it in the Lobbies today if this matter does go to a Division.

The provision to allow, if they so wish, churches to host civil partnerships, is a good provision. The regulations are good regulations, and the original legislation—our own—was good legislation. I urge the House to support the regulations, and to sustain legislation of which this House should be proud in having played its part to get on to the statute book of this country.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, I start by echoing the words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford when he suggested that we needed to conduct debates of this sort with restraint, mutual respect, and generosity. I am very grateful to the House that that has been the case today on a subject that can generate very strong feelings.

To my noble friend Baroness O’Cathain, I say that although, as she knows, I will not be able to support her Motion, and although I very much hope she will not be pressing it to a Division—I do not think it would be wise so to do—I am grateful for the fact that we have had the debate. In my view, it has brought a great deal of clarity to this subject—particularly on the legal aspects of it. I am therefore grateful for the interventions from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and from a whole host of other legal luminaries sitting all round the Chamber.

I am also very grateful that a large number of Peers have quoted from the letter that I sent out two days ago. This does at least encourage me to think that it did reach most noble Lords, though I appreciate that one or two noble Lords did not receive it. For that I can only apologise, but I can make copies available, should anyone wish to have one, after this debate. I will be quoting from my letter later on, possibly in response to the request from the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill to, as it were, add a Pepper v Hart element to what I have to say.

We recognise that in allowing this expression of religious freedom and advancement for lesbian, gay and bisexual equality, we need to ensure that there are sufficient protections from legal challenge for faith groups who do not wish to host partnerships on their premises. We are confident that faith groups will not be forced to host civil partnership registrations on their premises if they do not wish to do so.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Thursday 15th December 2011 Grand Committee

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his diligence and doggedness on this issue. I find it extremely useful to have a list of primary and secondary legislation and Acts which bear relation to powers of entry. Maybe it is because I am now freed of the shackles of power that I am rather attracted by the notion that a list should be published in a schedule so that people can clearly see it. My one difference with the noble Lord is on his Amendment 136, in which he suggests that the Secretary of State should have a power to amend the list by a negative resolution. While I trust Ministers and would not wish to cast any aspersions on them, some extremely important powers of entry and Acts of Parliament would be cited in the list. It would be proper for any Minister to have to come to the House and be accountable, so I would be in favour of an affirmative rather than negative resolution.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Selsdon came to the House in, I think, 1963, as a member of the Independent Unionist Peers. I came somewhat later in 1977, and also joined that group. I was obviously not independent enough as soon after that they were rechristened the Association of Conservative Peers. Obviously, I take note of and am interested in what my noble friend said on these matters. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, I pay tribute to his diligence and doggedness in this matter over the last 48 years—or is it even longer than that? The noble Lord has battled with these matters for a long time.

I was also fascinated to hear what he said about placing things in the Library. That is something that I have said on a number of occasions. I never knew that it was purely the prerogative of Ministers. If that is what my noble friend said then that must be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, and other members of the Joint Committee. It is an eminently sensible amendment because the Government have rightly recognised the practical impossibility in certain circumstances of emergency legislation, hence the introduction of Clause 58. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, said, there remain real concerns over the workability of the Government’s proposal.

We believe that there is a serious risk of jeopardising a fair trial if Parliament is to be provided with enough information to properly scrutinise the necessity of the use. It seems as though it would be practically unworkable because, as the noble Lord said in his introductory statement, there would be a need to introduce and pass legislation with too short a timeframe to enable proper scrutiny and accountability. The scrutiny of legislation within such a short deadline would appear to be a dangerous way to legislate because the time pressures and state of emergency would undermine proper and dispassionate scrutiny of the legislation. By prescribing the use of an emergency power too tightly, within the most serious situations, the sheer use of the power would indicate to any future jury the unusual gravity of the case and therefore prejudice its views. We support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his detailed consideration of this clause, and I thank him for his letter of 16 November in which he provided a detailed explanation of the reasons behind his amendment.

The amendment would extend the circumstances in which an order could be made under Clause 58 to increase the maximum period of pre-charge detention in relation to terrorist suspects from 14 to 28 days. We have made it clear that we believe that the maximum period for pre-charge detention for terrorist suspects should in the majority of circumstances be 14 days. Given that no suspects have been held for longer than 14 days since 2007, it is evident that such a long period is not routinely required.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Tuesday 6th December 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

It may or may not be an indication that my noble friend is right, but I think that further discussions, even if they do result in further amendments, might be appropriate.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is absolutely right that the noble Lord has offered to have further discussions with the noble Baroness about this amendment, and I welcome that. Clearly we are not going to have another opportunity to discuss my amendments to do with “close and constant”. The noble Lord said that “close and constant” would be too prescriptive in the Bill and would destroy the balance he is seeking to ensure. However, after the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, expressed disquiet about the balance in the Bill, will the Minister agree to have further discussion with us about the words “close and constant”? The noble Lord says that the consultation will be launched but that he will not be able to provide the Government’s response to the consultation before Report. I am slightly alarmed. The consultation is to be welcomed, but then we are going to be expected to decide what is going to be in the Bill before we know the Government’s response to the consultation, and that seems a bit topsy-turvy to me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My noble friend makes a very good point and this is something we should look at. It is obviously early days for the Scottish legislation and we would obviously want to examine that. The point I am making is that it is covered by the 1997 Act; the question is whether there is sufficient awareness. Whether one should legislate just to increase awareness is another matter.

That said, as I hope I indicated in my opening remarks, the Government are committed to ensuring that we do all we can to protect victims of stalking and bring perpetrators to justice. I repeat that we introduced the consultation that has been referred to by myself and other noble Lords on 14 November to ask for views on how we can protect victims of stalking more effectively. The consultation includes a question on whether there should be a specific offence of stalking. We are keen to hear from anyone who has views or evidence in relation to this issue and will consider all submissions carefully before deciding on the next steps.

However, I hope that in light of that consultation and the work we are doing, in light of the commitment that I am making on my own behalf but also on the behalf of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and in light of the remarks that I repeated from the Prime Minister, the noble Baroness will agree that it might be premature to go down the route of immediately bringing in her amendments, and I respectfully ask her to consider not doing so in advance of the conclusion of the consultation, which ends in early February next year. I hope that I can assure the noble Baroness that this is something that my right honourable friend is keen to act on as quickly as is appropriate.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for this excellent if rather short debate on stalking. It is a very important debate and I pay particular tribute to the courage and honesty of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. The evidence that she gave today is deeply shocking, both in the treatment that she and her colleagues received but also the lack of support and advocacy over this whole issue. Of course, I also pay tribute to Ann Moulds in Scotland, who was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe.

We have received mixed messages from the Minister today. He sort of expressed sympathy—indeed, he quoted the Prime Minister himself, who said that there is a gap to be filled—and in some ways he recognised that the current law is inadequate. However, when he went on to talk about the law as currently constituted, I think he was somewhat sceptical of the need for a new law. He said that the Section 4 offence—putting a person in fear of violence—was adequate. However, this is very rarely used by the police, and it is very difficult to prove it and to charge people. Sentences currently tend to be very few and far between and for a very short amount of time. In 2008, 839 people were found guilty under Section 4, but only 170 were given custodial sentences. It is clear from everything we have heard this afternoon that there is a gap in the law that needs to be filled.

I hear from all the comments around the Chamber—from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Dear—that there may be questions about the wording of my amendment. I also know that the Government’s consultation is taking place at present. It might seem reasonable to say, “Yes, of course, I am prepared to wait until the end of the consultation”. What bothers me is that, as the consultation is going to end in early February, the Government may well then say, “It is going to take us a couple of months to respond”. By that time, some time in March, this vehicle that we have before us—a Bill going through Parliament—will have passed. The bus will have gone by, and we will then have to wait for perhaps another year for a law to be on the statute book, by which time more women and possibly more men may have been killed because they were victims of stalking. I do not think that I am prepared to wait for that long.

I ask the Minister to consider two options. The first is delaying the start of the Report stage, or this part of the Report stage, until we have had the responses to the consultation. The Government might then agree to do a swift turn-around of that consultation so that by the end of February, we could debate an amendment which took into consideration the results of that consultation. If the Minister is not prepared to give that assurance, I will work with noble Lords from all around the House to craft a suitable amendment to bring back on Report, which would at least take into account the evidence of the people’s inquiry, which I understand will report at the beginning of January. I would then seek to bring forward an amendment on the basis of the evidence brought forward by that inquiry.

[Lord Henley]

I cannot give the total assurance that the noble Baroness would like to have from me, but obviously we will work in the way we normally do—with great speed, as she knows full well—to do whatever we can. All I can say is that I cannot bring forward the end of the consultation beyond 5 February. How quickly we can work after that will be another matter, but we will do what we can.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I well understand that, but I will be seeking an assurance in writing from the Minister. If we are going to have Report stage in January, I will bring forward an amendment then—

[Lord Henley]

The noble Baroness knows full well that Report is unlikely to be reached in January. We still have not completed the Committee stage; we are not going to complete it this side of Christmas. We still have two days of this Bill after Christmas. We then have to have a two-week gap between those two days in Committee before Report. The noble Baroness can do her maths and work out that the Report stage will not be with us for a few weeks.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I struggled with O-level maths, as is apparent. In that case, I hope that when we reach the Report stage in February, the Minister will have had an opportunity to respond to the consultation. If that is not the case, then on the basis of the other evidence which we will have had before us, I will bring forward an amendment and will certainly move it at that stage. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Protection of Freedoms Bill

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Tuesday 29th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 7 and 8 standing in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe.

As all noble Lords will be aware, Chapter 1 of the Bill relates to the destruction, retention and use of fingerprints. For me, this is one of the most important parts of the Bill. As we agreed at Second Reading, there is a difficult balance to be struck between protecting people’s freedoms from police or government interference and protecting their freedom not to become victims of interference or violence from criminals or terrorists. These balances should be guided by evidence and by an assessment of risk and not by liberal or libertarian ideology. The changes proposed by the Government go too far in restricting the use of fingerprints and DNA profiles, and will make it harder for the police to solve and prevent serious crimes. It will also make their work more bureaucratic.

Amendment 1 would ensure that Chapter 1 took effect only after an evidence-based study had been completed analysing the risk of offending following an arrest which did not lead to a conviction of at least six years. The Minister may well tell me that such an evidence-based study would take too long. However, if such a study leads to saving lives, I for one strongly suggest that the time will be well spent. Why is this so important? It is important because the evidence base used by the Government to inform their decision to reduce the period of retention of DNA and fingerprint profiles is extremely weak. If we get this wrong, the implications for victims will be huge. There are countless examples of people who were arrested and not convicted but whose DNA retention was critical in catching them and convicting them of rape or murder at a later date. This is particularly important in relation to rape cases.

As the Minister will know, rape cases have not only a notoriously low conviction rate but a notoriously low charge rate. That is because the trauma for the victim is so great and because of problems with evidence. Many perpetrators of serious sexual crimes are not brought to justice for their first offence. In about 70 per cent of cases in which a rape suspect is arrested, there is no charge. According to Home Office papers, in cases where there is no charge, DNA will be kept in only very limited circumstances so that in many cases the DNA will be destroyed even though it might be critical in catching a repeat offender for a nasty and violent sexual offence.

The Minister will know that a considerable number of cases have been solved because of DNA. Kensley Larrier was arrested in 2002 for the possession of an offensive weapon. The case never reached court, but two years later he raped someone and was found because of a DNA match. Lee and Stephen Ainsby raped and kidnapped a 17 year-old girl in Barnsley. Lee Ainsby’s DNA was found years later in a case review. It had been taken because he had been arrested for being drunk and disorderly. Under the proposed system the DNA would not have been kept. Without that DNA those two men would still be free and justice for that young girl would not have been done. Abdul Azad was arrested for violent disorder in Birmingham in February 2005 but released without charge. In July 2005 he raped someone in Stafford and was identified only because the police had his DNA. The senior investigating officer for the case said:

“We would never have caught him had his DNA not already been on the database—he didn’t even live locally so we had no intelligence leads either”.

Case after case would have been much harder for the police to solve under the new rules. The Minister may well cite the S and Marper decision by the ECHR that blanket retention and storage of DNA and fingerprints contravenes Article 8 of ECHR. My Government responded with an extensive evidence-led consultation. However, the ECHR decision also recognised the importance of the retention of DNA in fingerprint profiles for individuals who have been arrested and/or charged but not convicted. It is the state’s primary duty to protect citizens’ fundamental rights to life, liberty and security under Articles 2 and 5. The ECHR objection was based on the blanket and indiscriminate approach to retention. Therefore, the argument is about minimising risk to the public of individuals committing an offence in the future and balancing that risk management against considerations of privacy. Evidence-led risk analysis was done two years ago by the Home Office which concluded that the effective length of the retention of DNA profiles was six years for both those arrested and/or charged for a serious offence, and for a minor offence. Conservatives were so convinced by this evidence that they voted in favour of its conclusions on a six-year retention limit contained in the Crime and Security Act 2010 when the noble Lord and his party were in opposition.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Henley)]

Was that not part of the wash-up process, and was it not an improvement on the existing regime when it could be kept indefinitely? We were bringing it down to six years.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as I explained, because we looked at the evidence we did indeed bring it down to six years. If the noble Lord looked at that evidence it would show that six years is the appropriate amount of time for DNA evidence to be kept.

Following the election, based on no new evidence, the Government announced that they would legislate to adopt the protections of the Scottish model. It was based on no evidence but was simply a judgment of the appropriate balance. A review of the Scottish system by Professor Fraser one year after it was introduced assessed the success only of the current system and did not compare whether a longer retention period would be beneficial or whether retention for three years was detrimental to solving serious crimes. The Government persist in seeking to apply the Scottish model in England and Wales when all the evidence and strong police advice from both sides of the border is that Scotland should instead apply the model of England and Wales. Scotland’s rape conviction rate is less than half that of England and Wales. The DNA database in Scotland is far less effective in solving crime than that in England and Wales. In 2009-10 a DNA profile loaded on to the DNA database in England and Wales had an 18 per cent higher chance of finding a match than was the case in Scotland. That is evidence that our system in England and Wales is far preferable and much more efficient and effective than the system in Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Sorry, but I do not accept that. I refer the noble Baroness to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that we are in the early days of knowing what DNA can and might achieve in the future. We are offering a very large amount of information to be stored in that DNA. I find that idea scary. Obviously some noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, do not; indeed, they positively welcome it. On this, there will have to be a philosophical divide between the noble Lord and myself.

For the reasons that I have given, I would certainly not support the amendment and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, will feel able to withdraw it because I do not think it would command the support of the House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response and to all noble Lords who have participated in this short but excellent debate. I do not really understand what the Minister is saying about the wash-up. He seems to imply that if a Bill is agreed to in the wash-up, it does not have as much authority as other Bills.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I was not saying that at all, though sometimes Bills are rushed through without quite the same scrutiny that they normally deserve. The noble Baroness was trying to imply that that Act had the full support of the Official Opposition. My point was that, yes, we signed up to it because it was an improvement on what was there before, but we still felt that it did not go far enough in that it left the term at six years. We are proposing something different: three years, with the possible extension of another two years.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I do not know whether I can bring light to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, but I will see what I can manage. I will speak to my noble friend’s amendments and, because they have been grouped together, in due course speak to the government amendments in my name—Amendments 24 to 37.

My noble friend helpfully set out her views on the provisions in Schedule 1 in respect of the retention of material taken as a result of a Schedule 7 examination. Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is a national security border power that enables examining officers to stop, search and question a person at a port or in a border area to determine whether they are someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism, without reasonable suspicion that they are so concerned. Given that most major terrorist plots have involved individuals travelling across international borders to plan and prepare their attacks, it is only right that the police are given appropriate powers to examine persons, including through the taking and retention of biometric material—in this context, in order to identify and disrupt such individuals.

Imposing a requirement to arrest an individual for terrorism offences as a condition for retention and use of material taken under these powers, would fundamentally undermine their use as a means to identify those involved in terrorist activity and to gather intelligence. Such intelligence can provide vital contributions towards wider intelligence-based investigations in respect of national security. Terrorism investigations are, by their very nature, long and complex, and at the end of a Schedule 7 examination it may not be immediately apparent that an arrest is appropriate.

Attaching a requirement for arrest would furthermore offer no additional safeguards. The Bill already provides safeguards for material taken from a person detained under Schedule 7. There is a defined retention period of six months, which is considerably shorter than the three years’ retention period that applies where a person has been arrested for a terrorist offence under Section 41 of the 2000 Act. The new biometric commissioner will also have a general oversight role in respect of the retention and use of biometric material taken under Schedule 7.

I hope that that helps partially to explain matters to the noble and learned Lord and reassures my noble friend that the provisions in the Bill are transparent and will provide strong protection against unnecessary retention of material taken from individuals detained under Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act.

Turning now to the governance arrangements for the DNA databases, the subject of Amendment 41, I think it is important to note that all DNA material retained by the police will as a result of the Bill be subject to comprehensive regulation, irrespective of the databases on which it is held. Indeed, although the overwhelming majority of DNA information retained by the police will continue to be held on the National DNA Database, where this is not the case, such material will be subject to the requirements of the regimes set out in the Bill, and covered by all the relevant safeguards.

Regarding the counterterrorism database, only DNA profiles obtained by the police in relation to national security—including counterterrorism investigations—will be held on the database. It has already, in effect, been placed on a statutory footing by virtue of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, which provides for all material not otherwise subject to statutory restriction, and is already overseen by the National DNA Strategy Board in respect of compliance with agreed national standards and protocols.

The Forensic Science Regulator is also closely involved in ensuring that DNA analysis and validation meet acceptable standards, as he is with the National DNA Database. In addition, we should not forget the new biometrics commissioner’s general oversight function under Clause 20. If the commissioner had concerns about the governance arrangements, I am confident that he or she would not be reticent in bringing such concerns to the attention of the Home Secretary.

Perhaps I may briefly address the government amendments, starting with Amendments 24 to 28. These address three separate matters. First, Amendments 24 to 28 to Part 3 of Schedule 1 are intended to clarify the application and scope of the provisions for the retention and destruction of biometric material to which Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 applies. Section 18 mostly covers biometric material acquired covertly and material supplied by overseas authorities.

The Government are clear that material obtained under Section 18 of the 2008 Act should be subject to a clear and robust regime for the destruction and retention of such material. As such, we have proposed limiting retention to three years—on the basis of a national security determination extendable for renewable two-year periods—after which it must be destroyed.

However, the proposed destruction requirements in Section 18 are not expressly limited to material obtained from known persons. We are concerned that this will lead to anonymous material and, in particular, material taken from crime scenes, having to be destroyed at the three-year point. Indeed, as currently drafted the Bill requires just that. This unintended consequence would result in the destruction of material before the police were able to identify the individual to whom it belonged, complete an investigation of an offence—potentially compromising prosecutions in the process—or make a case for its retention on national security grounds. For these reasons, the amendments are designed to prevent the automatic and premature destruction after three years of anonymous and unidentified crime scene material obtained by the police.

We do not consider that anonymous material or material taken from a crime scene—where it is also anonymous—should be subject to the same destruction requirements as material obtained from known individuals. Rather, it should still be possible for the police and other law enforcement authorities to retain such material indefinitely. However, we recognise that not all crime scene material will be anonymous in nature and as such want to make clear that where there is provision for indefinite retention of unidentified material, once identified, such material will be subject to the same retention and destruction requirements of material where the identity of its owner is known on acquisition.

Amendment 26 will exclude from Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act material taken under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, as it will become shortly. This is consistent with the exclusion of other existing statutory regimes from the scope of Section 18 to avoid enacting overlapping and conflicting provisions. We consider that all these amendments enhance the provisions in Schedule 1 by making clear how they are intended to operate.

Amendment 29 would omit paragraphs 6(4) and 7 from Schedule 1 to the Bill. Those paragraphs, which contain provisions in respect of the retention and use of biometric material in Scotland for national security purposes have, in effect, been made redundant by the Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2011, which itself gave effect to the changes that those provisions would have made. Simply put, the provisions are no longer needed and can therefore be removed from the Bill. There are three consequential amendments to Clause 113 and Schedule 10 which we will need to come back to later in the passage of the Bill.

Finally, Amendments 30 to 37 to Parts 7 and 8 of Schedule 1 extend the list of purposes to which material taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 and held pursuant to a national security determination may be used. They further ensure that the order-making powers conferred on the Secretary of State to amend the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order applies in respect of provisions regarding a transferred matter where it is ancillary to an excepted or reserved matter.

Amendments 30 to 33 provide that the purposes for which material retained pursuant to a national security determination which was taken under the Police and Criminal Evidence (Northern Ireland) Order may be used are the same as for the rest of the UK. That is, that such material can be used for the prevention and detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or for identification purposes, in addition to that for national security and terrorist investigations.

Amendments 34 to 37 are technical amendments. They amend the Secretary of State’s order-making powers so that the Secretary of State is able to make provision in respect of transferred matters where such provision is ancillary to excepted or reserved matters.

I apologise for taking so much time on those government amendments, but I hope that my noble friend will be content with the explanation I have given of her Amendments 41 and 23. I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment, and I will move mine in their proper place.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, forgive my intervening at this stage. I am grateful to the Minister for his response to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey. From what I heard of his response, I think that I would agree with him that her amendments should not be pressed, but I imagine that they are probing amendments.

As I mentioned earlier this afternoon, I intend to bring forward amendments on Report relating both to a period during which evidence can be collected before the Government’s proposals were introduced and to the period for which DNA samples and fingerprints could be retained—for six years rather than three years. If my amendments are accepted, a consequential amendment will be required to subsection (6) proposed in government Amendment 28, but that is for a later stage. For the moment, I am content to accept the noble Lord’s amendments.

UK Border Security: 30 November

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Monday 28th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, as regards the second part of my noble friend’s question, that is obviously something we would have to consider after 30 November and after we have seen how we manage on that day. But I can give my noble friend an assurance that none of the checks he mentioned will be relaxed.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, the Government have sponsored speculation about what they will, may or might do to maintain UK security, especially at the borders, on 30 November—everything from bringing in the Army to the idea of staff from the Prime Minister’s Office manning passport control points. However, people need and deserve stability. If they have booked a holiday that day, they need to know whether they can get away. If businesses have important customers coming to the UK, they need to know that their businesses will not be damaged. I should therefore be grateful if the Government would publish, clearly and fully, for the benefit of the country as a whole, what in detail they intend to do on Wednesday in relation to border security.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition did not take the opportunity to condemn the strikes that are taking place on Wednesday, which would have been helpful. If all parties agreed that those strikes should not happen we would not have this problem. We shall be operating the appropriate checks with the appropriate people, appropriately trained to make sure that visitors—whether they are coming here as tourists, whether they are coming here for business or whether they are returning UK citizens—can get in without any disruption or with disruption minimised as much as possible. The noble Baroness will also be aware that this is an operational matter and for security reasons it would not be appropriate to comment in detail, as she wishes, on the arrangements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the noble Baroness accuses me of being fixated on this issue and perhaps I am somewhat naive to be so fixated on this issue. I do not know in which way the members of the unions involved happen to vote. I happen to know that those unions support the party opposite. That is why we are still waiting for that condemnation from the party opposite.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that any strike is a demonstration of failure? Does he further agree that the Government themselves have failed to resolve this strike?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I totally and utterly reject what the noble Baroness has said and again invite her, as the Leader of the Opposition in this House, to condemn this strike.

Visas: Domestic Workers

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Tuesday 18th October 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I believe that my noble kinsman has had a meeting with my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Browning, on this matter, and I believe that there have also been a number of meetings with my colleague the Minister for Immigration, Mr Damian Green. These matters have been discussed, but I repeat what I said earlier. This is a matter for consultation; we will want to consider these matters and come forward with the appropriate solution, which in the end will be a balance.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, it is clear from the exchange of views today that what we are talking about here is tackling modern slavery. That is precisely why this question was raised today. The Minister says that the Government are looking at the granting of domestic worker visas in order to safeguard against unnecessary immigration. That is a very good thing. However, I understand that in 2009 only 795 migrant domestic workers were granted settlement. I would be grateful if the Minister could tell me how many of those originally entered the UK on the “Domestic Worker (Visitor)”, the “Domestic Worker (Other)”, and the “Domestic Worker (Diplomat)” visa.

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, on the more detailed points that the noble Baroness raised at the end, I will obviously have to write to her, but I think she is wrong to assume that all incoming domestic workers are being treated as slaves. They do have protections: they have the protection of the National Minimum Wage Act and all other appropriate protection. But we recognise that there is abuse here. What I am trying to talk about is getting the right sort of balance so that we can have a fair and proper immigration system—something that I have to say the party opposite failed to address in all their years in power—and have the appropriate protection for those workers who are being abused.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Royall of Blaisdon and Lord Henley

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley)]

My Lords, it is with some delight and some relief that I move Amendment 175C and in doing so speak to Amendments 175D, 175E and 182. The relief for all those in the Committee at this stage is because this is the last substantive group in the entire stage.

Before I finish, I offer an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, in that I promised him that we would end with a Welsh amendment. I am afraid that we are not doing that—it was going to come earlier but it was not moved.

I informed the Committee last week that the Government had decided to remove the forestry clauses from the Bill, and this we have now done. This set of amendments would remove a series of references to the Forestry Commission from Clauses 23 and 24. It is a tidying up exercise. I beg to move.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I warmly welcome these amendments and the removal of the final references to the Forestry Commission. We have been told on numerous occasions that the campaign against the sale of our forests and woodlands was inflammatory and misguided, but the forestry clauses were, I believe, a testament to the fact that the Government wished to enable the sale of our woodlands and forests. The Minister responsible made that clear on a number of occasions. I am glad that the Bill is now being amended. I know that hundreds of people up and down the country will feel mightily relieved—the very people who welcomed the independent panel looking into the future of forestry. We look forward to their deliberations in due course.