Barristers Leaving Criminal Practice

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

The noble and learned Lord is absolutely right. We do look at the cost of travel for barristers. As I have just said, we hope that increased online hearings will mean that travel costs are essentially reduced to zero, with more money therefore going into barristers’ pockets. That is something that we are looking at. We have constant discussions with the judiciary on that. Ultimately, however, whether a hearing is heard in person or online is a decision for the judge, not for Government Ministers.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I suspect that industrial action by barristers would get as much public sympathy as industrial action by politicians. I welcome the Minister’s comments, but that was not the influence; the Government thought that it was what they wanted to do anyway. I also suspect that if the Minister had been in post earlier, we might not have seen the appalling LASPO Act, which cut so much legal aid, no doubt contributing to this problem. Following his announcement today, are the Government planning to review the impact of the changes so that they can later assess whether or not they are having the desired impact?

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, as a barrister-politician, I now know where I stand in public esteem. The noble Baroness is right. One of the issues has been that there has not been a means-test review in civil legal aid, for example, for a long time. While we are not proposing to review it annually, we will keep it under review to ensure that the general package keeps in line with where public pay is and where public costs are, to ensure that the underlying principle of access to justice is maintained.

No-fault Divorce

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for that question. Of course, we will take advice from a broad range of stakeholders and others. Indeed, in preparing for today I also looked at the laws in other jurisdictions. Although it is fair to say that, for example, prenuptial agreements are enforceable in Spain, which they generally are not in England and Wales, they are not enforceable if the judge considers that they are detrimental to the children or seriously damaging to one of the spouses. So again, the House will see that that balance of certainty and discretion is so important to try to reach in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, said when she first proposed this Question, the whole point was to make divorce, by being no fault, less acrimonious and less difficult. The missing part is the financial aspect. In the current system that creates more acrimony and difficulty, especially when children are involved. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, he said that such a review would take “two to three years”. That plays into what the Minister said just now about how complex and difficult this is, but does that not mean that we ought to make a start as soon as possible? It feels like the ghost of Sir Humphrey is around, with “in the fullness of time”, “as resources allow” and “in due course”. Nobody is asking the Minister to come up with answers now—only to start the review, which is urgently needed.

[Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I have made it clear that we are talking about a matter of weeks once the Act comes into force. We will look at this area very carefully. I know that the previous and current Lord Chancellors are focused on this area. Looking at family law generally, we want to see fewer private family cases before the court and maintain the public family cases before the court. Many private family cases really ought to be resolved out of court, through mediation and in other ways. We will work towards that.

European Union Referendum (Date of Referendum etc.) Regulations 2016

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd March 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, after just over six hours of debate, I think we have seen your Lordships’ House at its best. Perhaps unusually for a debate of this length in this House, as the evening has drawn on, the speeches have got livelier, there have been more interventions and the debate has been reinvigorated. In a previous debate on this issue, I predicted that in the campaign leading up to the referendum we would have some really excellent debates and fact-based communications to inform and enlighten the electorate. I think we have seen that today in this debate and we are privileged in this House to have the benefit of the expertise of noble Lords who speak from experience as well as conviction.

We have heard from noble Lords who have represented us in the European Parliament, those who have worked in Europe and the EU, and those who have been engaged in and held positions in Europe-wide organisations. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who had an important diplomatic position in Europe. We have heard from my noble friend Lord Mandelson, a former Trade Commissioner. That contribution was invaluable and struck a chord with what I thought was an excellent speech by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. Although the noble and gallant Lord was talking about security implications and my noble friend Lord Mandelson was talking about trade, they both addressed the issue that has been raised by some, that somehow we lose power and sovereignty by being part of the EU. Both of them, in the respective cases they identified from their experience, provided evidence that in the world of today we actually gain strength, power and influence by being engaged in the EU.

I praise the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert of Panteg, for an excellent maiden speech. He made a very eloquent and positive case for the EU. But I was also impressed that he made an eloquent and positive case for political engagement. In this day and age, when politicians are often criticised, those were important remarks to make in a maiden speech. I look forward to his future contributions.

When I predicted an intelligent and informed debate, I also predicted that we would hear nonsense, scaremongering and bad temper along the way. But when I predicted such acrimony, I did not expect it to start with the Cabinet or to start so soon. I find it a bit rich for Iain Duncan Smith to tell us that we are more likely to see Paris-style terrorist atrocities if we remain in and for the leave campaign to then accuse others of fear tactics. This is the most important national debate for a generation. The decision taken by our citizens across the UK will not just have a profound effect on our relationship with other EU countries but will strike at the heart of our place in the world. There will be real, lasting and, in cases, dramatic impacts on individuals and communities.

What is clear—and those of us campaigning to remain have a duty to point this out—is that a vote to leave is exactly what it says on the tin. It will trigger the process towards Article 50, which provides for exit, and it will do so straightaway—no ifs, no buts, as the Prime Minister is known to say. It is complex, it is difficult, and there are no guarantees that replacements for all the agreements from which we in the UK benefit could be in place in the two-year negotiating period—or it could be longer, in which case we would be in an even worse position. I appreciate that some noble Lords say that this can be done; perhaps it is possible. But for those who value those protections, “possible” and “perhaps” are not enough. There is a duty to be very clear about the risk.

The Labour Party is very clear about why we believe that it is in the interests of the UK and our citizens to remain. My noble friend Lady Morgan clearly identified so many of those issues, as did other noble Lords. I was very pleased to hear my noble friend Lady Young speak from her experience, when she raised those environmental issues and how valuable EU regulations have been in protecting our citizens. She asked whether there was a sensible Johnson; we could argue that there are two because we also have Alan Johnson leading the Labour campaign to remain. Insightful perspectives were offered by my noble friend Lord Soley and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay, Lord Tugendhat and Lord Jopling. They set this debate in a wider context, with a wider perspective.

My noble friend Lord Radice said that the Prime Minister has to rise above party politics and I think that he is right, because the Prime Minister has to recognise the importance of attracting allies from outside his own ranks—indeed, he needs to. The noble Baroness on the Liberal Democrat Benches raised one example a moment ago. There is another example: the trade unions are among the strongest supporters of the investment, the jobs, the trade, and the benefits for working people that are guaranteed by the EU. Surely the Prime Minister should think long and hard about the Trade Union Bill. Through that Bill, Mr Cameron is determined to make their work more difficult by making it harder for them to raise funds to campaign and harder to support the Labour Party. That does not seem a great negotiating strategy. At times, I have found the Prime Minister’s negotiating strategy quite baffling. He has to recognise that, far too often, it has been focused on trying to resolve the problems within his own party—and he was never going to be on to a winner there.

Chris Grayling let the cat out of the bag when he declared:

“Many of us made our minds up weeks ago, but we did the right thing and let the Prime Minister continue his negotiations”.

Clearly, they were not waiting with bated breath for the Prime Minister to come back from Brussels with the deal before they decided how they would vote. Let us be clear: nothing would have satisfied them. But negotiation within the EU is not a one-off, once-in-a-generation debate like a referendum. As noble Lords have said in this debate, it is an ongoing process. The reasons we should remain in the EU are so much deeper than just one negotiation and the Prime Minister’s deal. It is of course about trade, investment and jobs. It is also about standards, protecting our environment, ensuring that customers are not ripped off with dodgy goods, and about support and protection for workers across the EU, so that one country is not pitted against another in a race to the bottom.

These are real issues; they mean something to people and they impact directly on lives. It is about vision. That is where—my noble friend Lord Foulkes made this point—although we all want to remain in the EU, we see things a bit differently from the Prime Minister. In his 2013 speech, when he set out his vision of our relationship with Europe, he said:

“But today the main, over-riding purpose of the European Union is different: not to win peace, but to secure prosperity”.

But it is also to secure peace. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a similar point—probably more powerfully than I will be able to—that the vision of Europe, standing together for peace, protecting its citizens, and fighting crime and terrorism is as important now as it ever was. The threats and challenges that we face today are almost unrecognisable from the days after the Second World War or during the Cold War—but they are no less real.

It is not just the threat of terrorism, from whatever source, but serious and organised crime that threatens the very fabric of society: people trafficking, fraud, cybercrime, child abuse, including pornography and paedophilia, drugs and money laundering cannot be tackled within our shores alone. We need not just co-operation but shared intelligence, joint operations and joint working if we are to have any impact on bringing those criminals to justice.

If I ever had any doubts about our voting to remain, the debates that we had here in your Lordships’ House on the coalition Government’s bizarre charade of the opt out then opt back in again on EU police and criminal justice measures were enough to convince me. There are many noble Lords here tonight who took part in those debates. The 2010 Conservative manifesto made these issues one of the key areas in which we would distance ourselves from the EU and have a “repatriation of powers”. It was the political equivalent of the magician’s card trick—a complete illusion. The reality was never going to live up to the rhetoric, fortunately. The clear impression was given that we were to free ourselves from the shackles of Europe, withdraw from the European arrest warrant and reinstate good old British policing. But the days of “Dixon of Dock Green” have passed. We had a bizarre hokey-cokey of opting out of all the measures and then opting back in again.

So what did we opt out of that gave us that great repatriation of powers? Ministers were never able to explain, or admit, whether any of the measures that we opted out of had any impact or were even in use in, or applied to, the UK. They included a directory of specialist counterterrorism officers that did not actually exist. We opted out of a temporary system for dealing with counterfeit documents, which had already been replaced, and out of a bundle of measures relating to Portugal, Spain and Croatia that did not even apply to us. It was a fallacy. What is important on that point is that, despite the rhetoric and the overblown claims of getting rid of the European arrest warrant, Ministers soon recognised that this could only ever be a vanity exercise. We needed those EU powers and regulations. It was in our interests and in the interests of our citizens. We were unable to fulfil our obligations to our citizens in terms of safety and security without them. Even the head of Europol, Rob Wainwright, has expressed his fear for our capacity to fight crime and terrorism from outside the EU.

It is as my noble friend Lady Morgan said: after the sniping and criticism, you have to step back from the rhetoric and politics to deal with the real issues at stake. That is why this campaign needs good judgment and hard facts. While many are clear about how they will vote, many more are still considering their position. They may not be obsessed with these issues, or even engaged at all with them, but throughout their lives they want what is best for their families, their communities and their businesses. They are listening to the debate, reading the information and coming to their own decisions.

A vote to remain does not need an absolute conviction that the EU is perfect in every way—we all know that it is not. But it is perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible to have criticisms or concerns about the EU and, at the same time, hold the balanced view that it is in our interests to remain and vote yes. It is perfectly logical, reasonable and sensible to want to vote remain and want change. The point has been made already that the EU needs to reform and that reform can be made only from within. Yet if we vote to leave, decision-making will continue during that minimum two-year negotiating period. It is hard to believe that anyone would take us seriously at all in making those decisions. Even after those two years, or longer, once we were no longer part of the EU our businesses would obviously want to continue to trade with EU countries. They would still have to abide by those regulations in doing business but we would have abdicated any responsibility to them in helping to shape those regulations. Our consumers buying goods from outside the EU would no longer have the quality, safety and environmental protections that they have now.

Those who campaign to leave have to offer something more than motherhood and apple pie, or “It’ll be all right on the night”. This is deadly serious. It must not descend into a campaign about who can shout the loudest, get the most celebrities or frighten the most voters. We have had a valuable debate today, which is a credit to your Lordships’ House. I hope that it informs the debate. We have no objection to the SI. We look forward to the referendum and we shall be campaigning to stay in.

Female Genital Mutilation

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, I associate myself with the tributes paid to the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, first, for giving us the opportunity to have what has been a very thoughtful debate on this issue and, secondly, for her tireless campaigning on an issue that—let us be honest—is so awful that most of us do not even want to think about it. However, we have to think about it and take action on it so her campaigning, and the way that she has drawn the wider public’s attention to this issue, is something that she should be very proud of and we are very grateful for.

I also welcome the Minister who is responding to this debate. As we have heard, there have been some debates that were responded to by the Department of Health. During the many debates on the changes that we were making to legislation on the Serious Crime Bill, it was the Home Office responding. It is appropriate that we also have a response from the Ministry of Justice, as there are specific issues related to that department. That just shows how important it is for those three departments, and others, to work together and be co-ordinated on this.

The scale of this problem is hard to comprehend. We have had some figures from the noble Baroness, Lady Rendell, but there are thousands of young women and girls in this country who have been mutilated. For those who think that it happens somewhere else over there, it does not; it is happening here. There could be a young girl somewhere in the UK today who is being mutilated. It is that serious. The euphemism that we sometimes use of girls being “cut” belies the horror of what is really involved, which I think is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton. It was right that the noble Baronesses, Lady Tonge and Lady Rendell, were also clear about the horrors of what is involved. When we spoke about this in debate on the Serious Crime Bill, I think that I was the first person to appear on “Yesterday in Parliament” in a programme that was given a certificate and a warning before it went out. I thought that it was important to say exactly what is involved, and in somewhat embarrassing graphic detail.

We are talking about thousands of young girls and women. The noble Baroness, Lady Tonge, made the point about these girls having children. It is estimated that up to 60,000 girls have been born in England and Wales to mothers who had FGM, which means that they have been sealed up after they have been cut and that the process of birth, where they have to be operated on beforehand, is extremely difficult. Whatever the numbers, we are talking about thousands. The process known as infibulation sounds quite a normal word for something that will continue to cause pain and trauma throughout the life of that woman. It is a mutilation that leaves permanent scars, on the mind as well as on the body.

The lack of prosecutions should concern us all. It would be fine if we thought that there was a lack of prosecutions because the law had been so successful that it was preventing this happening. However, we know that that is not the case and that thousands of young girls every year undergo FGM here in the UK.

I would like to raise two issues because it seems to me that the purpose of legislation here is twofold. We have such legislation in place, first, to try to prevent such mutilation occurring and, secondly, to take action against those who break the law. We had discussions in debate on the Serious Crime Bill on female genital mutilation orders, which the Government introduced in response to our proposals for such orders. They seek to protect young women from this vile practice before it happens, so they are similar to the forced marriage orders in their aim being prevention. By recognising all the problems in getting evidence for a criminal prosecution, they take the route that this is a civil measure to protect a young girl rather than a criminal measure.

The Minister was not in the debate because it was not his Bill, but I am sure that he will be aware of the discussions that we had. We have concerns about the process that the Government have chosen. Rather than placing such orders clearly and firmly in family law in a civil process, they are placed in a civil process within criminal law. I will not go into the detail now but all the advice that we have received from lawyers with expertise in this field tells us that this will make the gain of such an order more difficult, for some of the reasons that we have explained before. That is part of why we have had a lack of prosecutions for those who have committed FGM.

The Minister’s experience will tell him that lawyers dealing with family court cases and issues are not the same as those who deal with criminal law. We welcome the orders that prevent this happening and we welcome the Government’s support, but we just want them to be as effective as they possibly can be, because a child’s future depends on us getting this right. We want to ensure that there are no barriers for someone to seek an order to protect a young girl from being mutilated. We want to make it as easy and straightforward as possible, without any loopholes or problems. So before the Serious Crime Bill finishes its passage through Parliament, could the Minister bring his legal expertise to look again at this issue to ensure that we have got it right, because we have serious doubts that the orders as currently proposed will get as many prosecutions as they could if they were wholly within family law courts and not within a criminal prosecution, although it is a civil measure?

[Lord Faulks]

Does the noble Baroness mean orders rather than prosecutions?

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am not talking about prosecutions—I am talking about the FGM orders that are currently civil orders that the Government have placed within criminal law to keep all FGM legislation the same. It is a very different process from prosecuting afterwards.

My second point is that we wanted these FGM orders to be based on the same principles as forced marriage orders, which have been significantly successful. One aspect on which I sought clarity from the Minister at Third Reading—I have also spoken privately to the Minister and have not yet got an answer—is whether legal aid would be made available for those seeking an FGM order as it currently is with forced marriage orders? The Minister was unclear on that in the House and although I have spoken to him since it seems that there is still a lack of clarity in the Government over whether these orders would attract legal aid. It seems impossible to me that they could proceed in any way without legal aid.

During the passage of the LASPO Bill, because of the changes made to legal aid by the Government, there was a specific provision was made for forced marriage orders, in paragraph 16 to Schedule 1. No such provision has yet been made for FGM orders. I find it strange that the Government would consider bringing in such orders without providing these young girls or those acting on their behalf to prevent them being mutilated with the ability to bring something before the courts and have legal aid. Are the Government intending to make legal aid available? If not, or if the position remains unclear, how does the Minister expect the orders to be obtained and how many does he think that there will be?

We do not think that the Government are wrong on the orders. On prosecutions, we believe that they share our objectives to stamp out this practice and hold those responsible to account. We believe that that is a genuine commitment from the Government. However, the laws that we have at the moment are not working as well as they should, or were intended to do. We have an opportunity in the Serious Crime Bill to make changes and get it right, but as the right reverend Prelate said, we need to have a cultural change as well. If it was made clear that successful prosecutions could be made under the existing law, that would help to drive a cultural change. If the expectation was that this was something that could be prosecuted, that would have an impact in those communities.

We all want to see those responsible for mutilating the genitals of young girls being prosecuted, and we want to see this twin-track approach whereby we prevent it happening in the first place and make a difference to the lives of these girls.

Criminal Justice and Data Protection (Protocol No. 36) Regulations 2014

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)]

My Lords, usually where there is no limit on time for debates such as this, it is advised that people keep within 15 minutes— but given the lateness of the hour, perhaps the general principle of the House is that people keep their contributions brief.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me completely unreasonable for the Government to schedule this debate so late at night—it did not start until three minutes before nine o’clock—when a number of Members wish to speak: noble Lords with considerable expertise on this issue. The Government’s response is to tell them to keep speeches short. That is completely and totally unreasonable.

[Baroness Williams of Trafford]

My Lords, it is not unusual to refer to the Companion on the general principles of conduct of the House. We have had the Modern Slavery Bill and the Statement today, which were expected to conclude earlier than they did. I am just giving guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

As I rise to speak at 10.45 pm, I am reminded of my former constituent who, as I left the gym one morning, pointed out that, as a member of the House of Lords, I must be semi-retired. Little did he know. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, ended on a very important point. We started this debate at 8.56 pm, after a very long Second Reading debate. It was not rocket science for the Government to understand that a number of noble Lords, who have great expertise and knowledge on these issues, might wish to contribute. Your Lordships have been remarkably self-disciplined in keeping the debate so short and precise. We have had numerous debates of this kind in which many—but not all—noble Lords here this evening have taken part. Given the importance of tonight, and the mess the Government made of it last week in the House of Commons, they should have got it right. I am sorry and disappointed at the way the Government have behaved.

The Motion before us tonight is, as we have heard, different from what the Government originally intended. It is right that the Government have changed their proposal after the chaos and criticism of their approach in the other place last week. Parliament should have the right to debate and vote on the opt-in of the 35 measures that the Government have decided are the most important and crucial to national security and public safety, including—but not only—the European arrest warrant. The confusion we saw last week in the House of Commons was caused by the Government undertaking a rather curious and disingenuous procedural sleight of hand by referring to just 11 of the measures and not the full 35, including the European arrest warrant and then, against the Speaker’s ruling, claiming that it did include them. I hope this does not sound pompous—I have never been accused of being pompous and it is not meant to sound like that—but that does not do anything to enhance the reputation and integrity of the Government where Europe is concerned or to give any confidence that the Government can be relied on to put national interest and public security before party-political interest.

The Government have amended the Motion they originally intended to be debated this evening. The new Motion clarifies the fact that your Lordships’ House can support, or indeed oppose, all 35 of the measures, including the EAW. That is very simple and is largely what the Home Secretary and Prime Minister promised. However, I was surprised that the Minister did not mention, earlier in the debate, a point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. When this House discussed the negotiations regarding the opt-in, we endorsed the 35 measures at that time. This was not the Motion before the House of Commons. I listened with great care to the excellent speech by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, which I think he made more in sorrow and disappointment than in anger. I have known the noble Lord for a long time. In the first committee I ever served on in Parliament, the noble Lord was leading from his party as the shadow Minister and I was on the government side. We were bringing in the national minimum wage and he was leading a team of very able opposition Back-Benchers against it. Recognising the noble Lord’s experience, I hope that the Minister accepts the amendment, which is very precise and fair in its criticisms.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, referred to a letter that he received from the Leader of the House on tonight’s debate. I am sorry that the official Opposition did not receive a copy of that letter. It would have been helpful.

As we have heard, the handling of this issue has been quite appalling. Noble Lords who have taken part and followed these debates closely will recall and no doubt share some of our exasperation as we have tried to extract details from Ministers on the issues being debated. The noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Bates, are the fourth and fifth Ministers whom I have debated this issue with, which started originally with a Statement from the noble Lord, Lord McNally.

I have asked a number of questions since the beginning of this exercise and, ever the optimist, I will raise those again in the hope that I will get some answers. I appreciate that the Government have supplied huge volumes of information but that has not been matched by clarity—a point made by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Through this whole process, the most helpful documents and information that I have seen—this point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar—were from our own EU Committee. I am grateful to that committee for its briefings in which they were able to talk to lawyers and others with direct experience of these issues. Their experience and advice were equally valuable. This issue requires a great detail and accuracy, yet it has every appearance of a political charade designed to placate anti-European sentiment without full and proper examination of the detail of all its implications. Let us set tonight’s debate in context and be clear about our position in the Labour Party and our commitment to the necessity of fighting crime across boundaries.

The key parts of the EU-wide co-operation that we support and now recognise in the 35 measures are mutual exchange of information in criminal investigations, locating and confiscating the proceeds of crime, criminal record checks, joint cross-border investigations and the European arrest warrant. They are essential crime-fighting tools. This is not some theoretical argument about whether we are pro- or anti-EU co-operation. This debate should only ever have been about hard-nosed, practical measures in the interests of the safety and security of UK citizens. Those of us who made the case for the European arrest warrant welcome the Government’s conversion to its value and importance and the eventual acceptance of the European supervision order which I am sorry was delayed by the Government. It would have been very helpful in making the case for the European arrest warrant had that been brought in earlier.

We have heard examples of problems with the European arrest warrant. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, spoke about the important changes that have been made. But equally there are numerous other examples. When Jeremy Forrest left the country with a young schoolgirl, he was brought back within days. That would not have happened prior to the European arrest warrant. There are other cases where terrorists have been brought back to the UK much more quickly than they would have been without the European arrest warrant.

Some of us in your Lordships’ House are old enough to remember the costa del crime, when criminals fled to Spain and were not brought back for months or even years. There is a huge value in the European arrest warrant and I am shocked that so many noble Lords are prepared to take on board a few cases. They do not want to change the European arrest warrant but instead throw the baby out with the bathwater, denying its value to British citizens.

We welcome the Government’s conversion on this issue. We welcome the Government’s acceptance of the value of joint EU investigation teams, the acceptance that crime does not stop at the Channel and that such co-operation is essential. We are now clear about what the Government are proposing we opt back into. I am grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its 13th report enhancing that clarity. I share its criticisms of the lack of clarity in the Explanatory Memorandum.

The noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made an important point about the 35 measures. Measures proposed previously by the EU Committee beyond those 35 have not been given consideration in full and by Parliament. I can think of one in particular that I would have been interested in considering further—recognition around driving offences. If you talk to people in the streets they will tell you time and again that they do not believe the issues of co-operation on driving offences and disqualification are taken seriously enough.

We understand what we are opting back into, but I seek clarification from the Minister on those issues that the Government are seeking not to opt back into and that we would be permanently excluded from. In terms of numbers there were originally 133 crime, law and order, and policing measures, and the Government wanted to opt back in to 35. An additional seven were replaced and the Government opted in. There was a lot of debate in the press at the time, with the two government parties arguing about the precise number of measures that would be opted out of and opted back into.

For there to be any real value in this process it had to be far more than a tidying-up exercise of jettisoned measures that were defunct, irrelevant or useless. There had to be some meaning to it. It could not just be some kind of academic exercise in clearing up those that could have withered on the vine, a point that my noble friend Lord Davies made. The noble Lord, Lord McNally, was the first Minister to raise these issues in your Lordships’ House. He referred to measures that were obsolete, defunct or simply unused. He wrote that the Government were keeping the wheat and losing the chaff. I asked the noble Lord, Lord McNally, in 2012, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, in 2013 and in 2014, and the noble Lord, Lord Bates, last week for some clarity on what that meant and the value of the measures that the Government want permanently to opt out of. There are three noble Lords here who have experience of this issue. To date, I have received no meaningful answers.

The questions are straightforward. I shall have one last shot at this: can I try again? First, how many and which of the measures of around 100 that the Government plan to opt out of permanently are of any value or even apply to the UK? Secondly, how many were being used and in operation prior to the opt-out decision and how many of those that have been permanently opted out of were harmful to the interests of the UK? Some clear answers to those questions would be extremely useful. Can the Minister answer those? Is he about to intervene?

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Faulks) (Con)]

No.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I will be patient—I know that he is just taking notes.

To bring clarity to this debate it would be really helpful to know whether this is a serious policy process to ensure the safety and security of British citizens, or whether it is a numerical exercise carried out for party political reasons and of no real value. One of the noble Lords from UKIP referred to the by-election happening later this week in Rochester. I hope that this debate has played no part in the Government’s decision in what they were seeking to do in opting in and opting out. It has to be a valuable exercise, or it is cosmetic. We need answers.

Finally, can I make a plea to the Government for evidence-based policy-making? Unless I receive an answer tonight that would convince me to the contrary, I believe that in so many ways we seem to have government by numbers. We have seen it in the nonsense of net immigration figures. Success for the Government on net migration reduction would be to have lots of highly qualified professionals leaving the country and a huge reduction in fee-paying students not coming to the country. As far as the Government are concerned that would be a success. What a nonsense.

On the Deregulation Bill and the Government’s policies on regulation, every impact assessment makes it clear that for every new regulation that comes in, two have to go out. Why is there no assessment on the value of what the regulation does? Why are numbers so important here? What magic is there in the figure of 35 regulations to be opted back into without a full assessment of those that are being permanently ditched? In all these contexts, numbers alone are irrelevant. What matters is their value. That is what we need to understand from the Minister tonight. Can he bring clarity to this debate and explain in practical terms, not political ones, the value of this very long exercise, which has no doubt been very expensive?

[Lord Faulks]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been remarkable for the self-discipline exercised by speakers in dealing with complex matters that raise strong feelings on various sides. It is not the first time that we have visited these issues in this House. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, in July the matter was dealt with in some considerable detail.

At the outset, I pay considerable and very well merited tribute to the House of Lords committees, which have scrutinised and re-scrutinised with great rigour the complex mechanism and the pros and cons of the opt-out and the opt-in. If that has not been made sufficiently clear beforehand, I make it clear now. The House is greatly in the debt of those committees, their chairmen and members. The process has been extremely thorough, and the House of Lords, through those committees, has done its job very well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am certainly not in a position to criticise the Speaker; it would be entirely improper for me to do so. I am entitled to comment on what transpired in the House of Commons. I did not acquit anybody of contributing to what was a thoroughly uninformative debate. The position, as far as the Opposition were concerned, was that the shadow Home Secretary felt that the scope of the debate did not permit her to discuss the European arrest warrant, and that was the view of many in the House of Commons. The Speaker gave the observations that he did, but I do not think that it is appropriate for me to criticise him or not.

The shadow Home Secretary was also asked during the debate whether the party opposite would have exercised the opt-out—and, if so, which measures it would have opted into. Her response was, “Nice try”, so I am not sure that that was a particularly dignified response to what was a serious question.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

The Minister is straying somewhat. He is here to explain the behaviour and conduct of the Government—who were, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, criticised by the Speaker. He seems to want to deflect that criticism on to the Opposition. May I suggest that he returns to his brief and tries to explain how the Government made such an absolute shambles of this whole process?

[Lord Faulks]

It is necessary, I would suggest to the House—and I am about to move on to the European arrest warrant—for those who may not have had the opportunity to read the debate to appreciate what went on. Those who have read it will form their own view as to how helpful it was.

Considerable anxieties have understandably been felt in the past about the European arrest warrant and about particular cases. There is insufficient time, as the House will understand, for me to go into the details of those, but what is important is the fact that the European arrest warrant now has additional safeguards. In one of the more useful contributions to the debate in the other place, the right honourable James Arbuthnot pointed out that there is considerable judicial oversight of the European arrest warrant. Following the changes in the law made by the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act, a British judge must now consider whether the alleged offence and likely penalty are sufficient to make someone’s extradition proportionate. A British judge must also consider whether measures less coercive than extradition are available to foreign authorities.

As to dual criminality, the European arrest warrant must be refused if all or part of the conduct for which a person is wanted took place in the UK and is not a criminal offence in this country. Furthermore, a decision to charge and try an individual can be questioned by use of video link without the suspect having to leave the United Kingdom. These are all important safeguards which should mitigate some of the anxieties that have been expressed about the unsatisfactory nature of foreign jurisdictions. A large number of people who are not necessarily enthusiasts for the European project have been persuaded that it would be a great mistake to lose the European arrest warrant. I respectfully agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that this is a correct decision.

My noble friend Lord Lamont asked whether it was possible for us to come to a separate, bilateral treaty with other European Union countries—after all, we have extradition agreements with other countries. There is of course the considerable problem of timing, as the House will be aware. Denmark negotiated a separate deal. The deal struck through Protocol 36 means that the United Kingdom has to follow the rules set out. Denmark has its own protocol so could make its own arrangements, but they are not the arrangements that we would want to copy. Every agreement that Denmark has made separately with the EU has required it to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and, in effect, the Danish agreement simply binds Denmark to EU law by another means—which I suspect is not what most who are interested would have in mind. Of course it would be possible, but it would be cumbersome and it would probably be expensive to make such separate agreements. Far more sensible is to have the now tried and improved system of the European arrest warrant that we have.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Faulks]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, for his intervention. I absolutely agree with his observations. Indeed, moving from the specific to the general, what is really important about the European arrest warrant is that it is not exclusively about Europe. It is a practical matter about criminal justice, acknowledging the fact that crime knows no borders, and that we must have satisfactory arrangements. This is the best way of securing those. Whatever noble Lords’ views—relative enthusiasm or otherwise—for the European project, the arguments seem to be overwhelming now in favour of the European arrest warrant.

Time does not permit me to go into arguments about matters that we have not yet reached a conclusion on; for example, Prüm was mentioned. The United Kingdom will not join Prüm on 1 December. Regarding law enforcement and other member states, I have no observations about the conversation referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. Others have said that it will bring benefits. Agreement has been reached that we will conduct a full business and implementation case and a small-scale pilot. This will consider not only any benefits of Prüm but also the civil liberties protections available. This will be reported to Parliament by way of a Command Paper in September 2015 and the House will then be given a vote on the matter.

Regarding the lateness of bringing this matter to Parliament, I submit to the House that this is the earliest possible opportunity following full agreement of the Council, which was achieved only the week before last when Spain finally dropped its reservation to approve a good deal for Britain and a package of measures vital in the fight against serious crimes. It will not have escaped the notice of the House that it is only nine working days before 1 December 2014, so we cannot afford further delay. For that reason, it is right that we consider, and vote on if necessary, the overall package and the regulation together.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about a letter written by the Leader of the House. That letter is dated only today. However, it forms part of a communication between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. I will make sure that she and all participants in the debate receive a copy of that letter. It explains the process by which this matter has reached the House and attempts to clarify the position. I entirely accept that the debate has come at a rather later hour than any of us would have liked. One of the reasons it was scheduled tonight was to accommodate the EU Committee, but matters went on longer than expected so noble Lords have had to be economical in their observations in relation to the various issues that have arisen.

We have now reached the position—albeit criticisms have been made forcefully and, no doubt, with some considerable justification—where we have completed the process in this House. We have had a number of debates about the merits, which we have answered—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, can the noble Lord answer the questions that I have posed, which I have posed in all our debates, or can he write to me with his answers, given the time that we have and that he still has not reached my questions?

[Lord Faulks]

Clearly, I do not have time to go through the reasons why we have not opted into all the measures that we have not opted into. The presumption is that we opt in to matters that we consider are in our national interest, and we have given reasons for doing that.

Time is running against me. I entirely accept that matters might have been more expeditiously dealt with, but a number of factors caused delays. The Government have been kept very much up to the mark by your Lordships’ House. I hope that with the explanation that I have been able to give and the letter which has so recently been written, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will feel inclined to withdraw his amendment to the Motion.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has gone into some considerable detail on the Bills before us, and we are grateful to him for doing so. However, I shall first take a wider view of the Government’s proposals, because this is an unprecedented Queens’s Speech. It is the first time that, towards the end of a Parliament, we have known exactly when the election will be. That is an opportunity to reflect on the work of the coalition and reflect more widely on whether it has lived up to the public expectations of co-operation between parties in government.

Yet again, we have a new government programme against the backdrop of greater disengagement with politicians and the political process. In the European and local elections, most people chose not to exercise the most basic expression of political involvement, the right to cast their vote. As the government parties lose votes, and as we get closer to the general election, the justifications about which government party is responsible for what will become even more bizarre, with the two parties both trying to gain advantage over the other.

In the last Session, we experienced the strange sight of Liberal Democrats in your Lordships’ House backing the bedroom tax, as their party president in the other place, recognising the disastrous unfairness and consequences for some of the most vulnerable in society, tried to distance his party and seek to change their policy of supporting such a dreadful tax. Since the recent elections, more and more senior Lib Dems have been prepared to speak out against the coalition, which has clearly damaged if not destroyed them as a potent electoral force in almost every part of the UK. That support for the bedroom tax, the disastrous fire sale of the Royal Mail, tax cuts for the rich, a massive cost of living and housing crisis, cuts in legal aid, support for new free schools where they are not needed and a failure to tackle child poverty have all taken their toll.

Press briefings and public rows are evidence of the growing disenchantment between the government parties and, as is now so glaringly obvious, within the government parties. It is all a bit of a shambles. What has always amazed me about the coalition is what the Liberal Democrats have failed to achieve—although perhaps they did not ask—on policies that they said during the general election were the most important to them, such as having no increase in tuition fees. Instead, they were satisfied with ministerial jobs and a failed referendum on a constitutional change that no one wanted to the voting system.

Apart from the obvious party-political considerations, that is a lesson for us all, a lesson to focus not on internal issues that are important only to politicians and political parties but on those issues that really matter to real people—to parents, workers and those struggling to pay bills or trying to buy or rent a home. The deal on the coalition agreement, which has never been put to the electorate, was not on policies on the cost of living, the health service or energy bills, or even tuition fees, but on electoral and parliamentary reform. When the electorate were asked if it was as important to them as it was to the Liberal Democrats, the answer was no. The Conservative Party got away with offering ministerial jobs rather than a genuine compromise around the policies on which they had failed to convince the electorate to elect them.

By contrast, today’s debate is about issues that are central to and affect the lives of all citizens: crime, justice, health and education. The disappointment with this Queen’s Speech, as with others we have seen from the Government, is that few people will consider that the coalition Government’s proposals will make any real difference to their lives. The Conservative Party is very confident about the economic recovery; Ministers regularly come to the Dispatch Box to tell us so. So, why is it, when I talk to people in the supermarket, the pub and at my local food bank, they do not feel the same confidence as David Cameron, George Osborne or, indeed, Nick Clegg? Will the Government explain why the number of working people claiming housing benefit has increased by 60%? Why are so many working families turning to food banks? Oxfam says that the number of people using them is now double that of last year. Why does Netmums report that one in five working families has had to choose between paying an essential bill and putting food on the table, while at the same time the Government give a tax cut to millionaires and those earning over £150,000 a year?

Although the Government say that they will do something about childcare costs, they have already risen by 30% since they came to office—that is five times faster than wages. Why, with such increased costs, are there fewer childcare places? I take Swindon, for example, although similar reports can be heard across the country. Despite massive public opposition and campaigning, four childcare centres closed, adding to the pressure on families who are already paying more than £110 for just 25 hours of childcare for those over two. These families deserve support, yet whereas our proposals for free childcare for three and four year-olds would help more than 1,800 children and their families in Swindon, the Government’s proposals in the Queen’s Speech barely scratch the surface.

When I opened the debate on Home Office issues last year, I warned the Government that their Immigration Bill, while seeking to be, in their words “tough on immigration”, would fail as its proposed actions included those which were either impossible to deliver and/or had not been worked out properly by the Government. We totally reject the dishonest UKIP rhetoric that all problems could be solved if only we stopped all immigration and withdrew from the EU. However, the Immigration Bill in the previous Session failed to include measures that would have made a difference such as the undercutting of wages, terms and conditions through the exploitation of foreign workers or effective improvements in the enforcement of the national minimum wage, as my noble friend Lord Young said during Oral Questions. Although your Lordships’ House brought forward substantial changes to improve the Bill and remove some of the unworkable rhetoric, the government parties have failed to deal with these specific issues so, while the Liberal Democrats boast about stopping another immigration Bill, it is a weak boast as these issues must be addressed. We believe that a Bill to address those concerns is needed and regret that the Government have again failed to tackle so many of the real issues.

We welcome the modern slavery Bill, which has benefited from its pre-legislative scrutiny, and are grateful to those Members of both Houses who have worked to address its deficiencies. We look forward to receiving and considering the much improved Bill in due course. We also look forward to our debates and deliberations on the Serious Crime Bill. As always, we will apply our tests of effective scrutiny—that is, an analysis of the problem we are seeking to address and whether the measures proposed would be effective in tackling the issue and workable in practice. My noble friend Lord Foulkes asked the Minister whether the measures on recovering the proceeds of crime would apply also in Scotland. We clearly need to revisit the Government’s failure to implement fully the National Crime Agency in Northern Ireland, and examine the seriousness of the loophole on the recovery of the proceeds of crime that exists there to understand fully the implications of the Bill and how proceeds of crime recovery can be addressed properly and effectively in future. The National Audit Office has been very critical of confiscation orders. This is an opportunity to address its recommendations. With only 12p in every £100 being confiscated, serious work is needed to get this right.

Greater protection for children and their families from sex offenders is welcomed, as are measures to tackle cybercrime. We will work with the Government to make any proposals as effective as possible. As the Minister knows, these crimes recognise no national borders and we will have to probe further on how the Government’s proposals to opt out—and perhaps opt back in again—from all European criminal justice measures impact on European and international co-operation.

The Government have also promised to tackle police corruption. The public have a right to be confident in the integrity of every single police officer, and I urge the Minister to ensure that government rhetoric also recognises the good work of the vast majority of police. However, if this were our programme, we would abolish the IPCC and replace it with a stronger, more effective police standards authority, so we will test the Government’s proposals against the standards and structures that we would introduce as a Government.

No child should ever have to live in an unsafe environment or suffer neglect, emotional abuse and cruelty. Easier and earlier intervention is needed. We welcome the Government’s commitment to tackle the barbarity of female genital mutilation, and I know from our deliberations in both these areas that their proposals will greatly benefit from the commitment and expertise of noble Lords across the House.

I must confess that despite the Minister’s comments at the beginning of the debate it is difficult to understand why we have no measures on health and social care in the final programme from this Government. However, perhaps we should be grateful, given their obsession with privatisation. I doubt that we would ever support or welcome the kind of Bill that this coalition Government would bring forward. However, especially in Carers Week, when we celebrate the dedication of the 7 million carers of all ages across the country, it would have been highly appropriate and warmly welcome to have seen something that addressed the issues around social care—and an indication that the Government are taking them seriously.

I know that other noble Lords will want to speak in greater detail on health and education issues. We are very concerned that the Government, and certainly Michael Gove, have an ideological obsession with structures in education rather than attainment and a healthy learning environment. Even the Academies Commission admits that,

“academy status alone is not a panacea for improvement”.

As this coalition Government run out of steam, they are failing to address the issues that can really make a difference to people’s lives—creating fairness in employment, or tackling the housing crisis and the cost of the weekly shop or the gas bill, for example. They are not being, and will not be, tackled by this Government. All Governments, of any complexion, need to understand that economic recovery is not an end in itself but a means to an end. We do not seek economic success for its own sake but for the benefits it brings to our citizens and society as a whole. To those of us on this side of your Lordships’ House it means high-quality education and health provided on the basis of need, not means or wealth. It means decent jobs and employment prospects, the opportunity for businesses to be innovative and offer secure safe employment, the right to a decent home, and confidence in the future for yourself and your family. It means support and dignity for carers, and respect for teachers. That is not an exclusive list, but it stresses the need for all citizens to have the right to be participants, not just bystanders, in any economic recovery.

In less than a year, there will be a new Government and a new Queen’s Speech. From this side of the House, we look forward to bringing forward measures that will address these issues.

Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

96: Schedule 10, page 189, line 19, leave out paragraphs 24 to 27

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, noble Lords will recall that in Committee, we made the point that injunctions for nuisance and annoyance were certainly very helpful in certain circumstances, but not appropriate in every case. That is now the position adopted by your Lordships’ House, with the amendment to maintain the more serious definition of harassment, alarm and distress and retain the definition of nuisance and annoyance only for specific circumstances, as already provided in housing law, where that definition is entirely reasonable.

In Committee, we argued that ASBOs should be retained because, first, the higher threshold—harassment, alarm and distress—recognises the seriousness of the issue and how devastating anti-social behaviour can be. Secondly, there is the effectiveness and understanding that has grown up around the issue. I appreciate that there were teething problems with ASBOs initially and that there is always room for improvement. But after around 15 years, the various agencies involved know and understand how to use anti-social behaviour orders and could, I think, best advise on any improvements to be made. Thirdly, there is the seriousness of the issue which, given how devastating anti-social behaviour can be, meant that a breach became a criminal offence.

We now await the Government’s response, at Third Reading or later, to the rejection by your Lordships’ House of the definition of “nuisance and annoyance” from every situation. However, the penalties, sanctions and requirements for breach of an IPNA still remain, even with the new definition. It is that area which I seek further clarity on because it is so different from the ASBO penalty. We need an assurance from the Minister that the sanctions will be meaningful and have the effect that the Government claim they will.

The Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, said in Committee:

“By moving away from focusing solely on enforcement and getting agencies to work with young people, we can get these young people’s lives back on track. Positive requirements”—

part of the IPNA procedure—

“which are absent at the moment, are integral to this move and to the Bill. Front-line professionals not only know about them, they welcome them. When applying for an injunction agencies will consider whether positive requirements can help address the underlying drivers of the anti-social behaviour. They will be better than individual support orders because positive requirements will be more flexible and can last for more than six months”.—[Official Report, 18/11/13; col. 820.]

What causes us great concern is that the Government have already set about dismantling some of the early intervention, and therefore the positive measures, which were in place in part to tackle anti-social behaviour. For example, the Sure Start centres were established to support any family which needed that support or help but have been decimated. Current estimates are that more than 600 Sure Start centres have been lost across England and Wales. I was told last week that even one in Basildon, where I live, and others in other parts of Essex are being closed. Those centres were important tools to help and support families with young children and in the prevention of anti-social behaviour.

One of the early indicators of the Government’s priorities were the cuts to early intervention grants and programmes, so when the Government rely on positive requirements that will accompany the new injunctions it is extremely worrying that they have said, as the Minister said in Committee, that:

“The Bill makes no provision for the funding of costs”.—[Official Report, 18/11/13; col. 823.]

I refer to pages 26 and 27 of the Explanatory Notes, which talk about the injunctions and give examples of what the positive requirements would be. They could be prohibitions: for example, not being in possession of a can of spray paint in a public place. However, the ones I am specifically concerned about and would welcome in most circumstances say that:

“Requirements would be designed to deal with the underlying causes of an individual’s anti-social behaviour and could include, for example, attendance at an alcohol or drugs misuse course or dog training in the case of irresponsible dog owners”.

The notes go on to say that these have to be monitored and that, before applying positive requirements, the court has to receive evidence on the suitability and enforceability of any requirement. That comes with some costs. Unless the Minister thinks that will be cost-neutral, there are costs associated with those requirements.

If the Government are going to replace a criminal sanction with a requirement, positive or otherwise, they have to be confident that these will be effective, be complied with and be monitored to ensure compliance, otherwise the Government will take action. To breach the terms of that injunction’s positive requirements is a very serious matter; it is punishable by prison. However, if the Government do not make it easy for somebody to comply with the positive requirements laid upon them because there is no support, help or funding for that, they will be moving quickly back to a position where a breach of that injunction is imprisonable and becomes a very serious matter. However, it might not be that person’s fault if they are not able to comply because the Government are not providing the funding for it.

I have some questions for the Minister and would like to know whether he can give me the necessary assurances. First, are the funding and resources available for the requirements to be undertaken? Secondly, are they available for the requirements to be appropriately and accurately monitored? Thirdly, are they also available to take action if that injunction is breached?

Unless those reassurances are forthcoming, there is a real danger that whatever the test for anti-social behaviour—whether it is nuisance and annoyance or harassment, alarm and distress—there will be no effective action against those committing such behaviour. We want those assurances because I would hope that in the public interest we all wanted serious measures that tackled anti-social behaviour and for those measures to be effective. Without such guarantees, it would be totally wrong to scrap what exists and start all over again. I beg to move.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, for tabling this amendment. It brings us back once again to the real failings of one of the key powers introduced by the previous Government to tackle anti-social behaviour.

This Government have been clear that, in developing our reforms, the police, local councils, social landlords and others must focus their response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims and put them first. As part of our consultation on the new powers, we asked victims what they want. They told us three things: first, they want their problem to be taken seriously; secondly, they want an efficient service and quick response; and, thirdly, they want the problem to stop and for it not to happen again. That is what this Government also want. That is why we want to support agencies by giving them effective new powers to do this. However, ensuring that the right powers are available also means removing or reforming the existing powers where we know that they do not work as well they should, particularly the anti-social behaviour order.

Front-line professionals have recognised the ASBO’s failings, and this is demonstrated by the most recently published statistics from the Ministry of Justice. Since 2005 there have been year-on-year falls in the number of ASBOs issued, with 1,329 issued in 2012, a decrease of 6% from the 1,414 issued in 2011 and a decrease of 68% since 2005. That is not because ASBOs have been so effective in preventing anti-social behaviour that they are no longer needed.

I made this point in Committee when the noble Baroness tabled a similar amendment, but it is worth repeating: up to the end of 2012, 58% of ASBOs were breached at least once and just over 43% were breached more than once. If an ASBO is breached, on average it is breached five times. Perhaps even more shocking are the figures relating to young people. As I also informed the House in Committee, the breach rate for under-18s is a staggeringly high 69%. To put it another way, over two-thirds of ASBOs against young people are breached. Those are the statistics. Those are the facts. They are certainly not teething issues, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, suggested; the ASBO is a fundamentally flawed device for tackling anti-social behaviour.

It is also a story of abject failure for under-18s who, for whatever reason, have taken the wrong path in their lives. ASBOs have unduly focused on enforcement, criminalising young people with insufficient emphasis on helping young people subject to ASBOs to deal with the reasons for their anti-social behaviour and turn over a new leaf. That is why this Government want to see the back of ASBOs and give the police, local councils, social landlords and others more effective powers to enhance their ability to tackle anti-social behaviour and protect the public.

In her evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the chief constable of Thames Valley, Sarah Thornton, made the point forcefully:

“The fact is, the experience has been that the ASBOs have been quite bureaucratic, in terms of securing them, and maybe not as effective at tackling the problem as we hoped”.—[Official Report, Commons, Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill Committee, 20/6/13; col. 71.]

The fact is that ASBOs are an all too visible reminder of a broken system which the new powers are designed to fix. As I said in Committee and indeed in our deliberations earlier on Report, the injunction under Part 1 and the criminal behaviour order provided for in Part 2 form major planks of our reforms to give front-line professionals the swift and more effective powers they need to protect victims and communities. The injunction will enable agencies to act more quickly, with its lower civil standard of proof, and will not overly concentrate on enforcing prohibitions or criminalise those who breach it—unlike the ASBO. However, the criminal behaviour order will be available for more serious cases, where there is a criminal conviction. In these cases, it is right for tougher sanctions to be available on breach and, as with the ASBO, breach will be a criminal offence. However, both powers can include positive requirements to help individuals to address the root cause of their anti-social behaviour and help them turn their lives around.

--- Later in debate ---

As we introduced these new powers, the Government do not want to keep an existing order which has failed young people so miserably, unnecessarily criminalises them and saddles them with a criminal record. We firmly believe that it is time to move on from ASBOs. I invite the Opposition to do likewise and fall into step with the Government and the front-line professionals with whom we have worked closely in shaping the new powers. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I struggled as I listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, because he seemed to be replying to the speech that his officials thought I would make rather than the speech that I made. It is disappointing not to receive a response to any of the comments that I made. I asked for reassurance about funding but his only comment was about “downstream costs”. Perhaps most noble Lords know what he means but I am not sure that he does. It is very disappointing to receive a response to a speech that I made in Committee and not the one that I made today. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 96 withdrawn.

EU: Police and Criminal Justice Measures

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 9th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have to say that I wonder if this is the Statement that the Home Secretary really wanted to make to the other place today. When we think of the rhetoric that we have heard on this issue, it is something of a surprise to hear today’s Statement, because the Home Secretary’s and the Government’s anti-European credentials have taken a bit of a battering. The rhetoric is still there, but common sense has appeared to force some moderation in action.

Last October, the Home Secretary confirmed that the Government’s “current thinking” was that the UK should opt out of all pre-Lisbon measures and rejoin them where it was considered in our national interest to do so. An example often used by the Government to explain this position is the European arrest warrant, as we have heard from the noble Lord this evening. The Sun newspaper was briefed on why the UK should reject it, the Prime Minister said it was “highly objectionable” and, just recently, the Government’s MPs voted, on a three-line Whip, against the Labour Motion that would have retained it. However, the Government now have to admit that it is effective and that, without it, criminals can evade justice. They could seek to evade British justice abroad and would be able to hide in the UK to evade the justice of other countries. I welcome the Government’s U-turn on this issue but there are still questions to be answered before we will be satisfied that public safety is not at risk.

I listened carefully to the Statement and have looked at the other documents but am not 100% clear what we are opting out of and why, and what impact that will have. I have not had the opportunity yet to read the 159 pages of the Command Paper but I am confident that the Minister has—I hope he has—and wanted to ask him a very specific question about the exact number of practical, workable and working measures that the Government are seeking permanently to opt out of. Of the 133 crime, law and order, and policing measures, the Government want to opt back in to 35. An additional seven have already been replaced and the Government have opted in. However, of the measures that the Government are seeking to opt out of: some are out of date and no longer in operation; some we have never used so we do not have to; others are agreements to co-operate, and my understanding is that the Government intend that co-operation to continue; and the Statement itself refers to measures that relate to minimum standards that we have already met or exceeded. With all of those, there is no impact or effect.

Other opt-outs include: a directory of counterterror officers that no longer exists; a temporary system for dealing with counterfeit documents that has already been replaced; a bundle of measures applying to Portugal, Spain and Croatia that do not even apply to the UK; and a number of measures relating to extinct manuals, specialist handbooks et cetera. In some ways, dealing with these is a useful tidying-up measure, but it is hardly an impressive list of repatriation of powers. I have a very specific question for the Minister, knowing that he has read the document: how many of the measures that the Government want to opt out of permanently are relevant to the UK and currently being used, and what impact will their removal have? I look forward to the answers from the noble Lord as, having heard the Statement, I really have no idea.

The Government now accept that the 35 measures that they want to opt back into are essential. If there is an opt-out, there must be a quick opt-back-in. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Government have secured a guarantee that we can opt back in to these important measures? If not, will the Government still opt out without such a guarantee? What timescale does the noble Lord envisage from the opt-out until the process of opting back in is completed? Are the Government seeking to amend any of the 33 measures, other than the European arrest warrant, and what are the implications and consequences if we fail to opt back into any of the measures, including financial consequences? Does the Minister really believe that the only way of making changes is to opt out and then opt back in? I find that strange when the Government refused to implement the European supervision order relating to the European arrest warrant, which they could have done long before now.

If any opt-back-in is not immediate, it is essential that there are transition measures. For example, the European arrest warrant is a legal framework that allows countries to extradite. Transition measures would have to be legally robust to ensure the satisfaction of the courts and lawyers dealing with any extradition. Given that pre-European arrest warrant transition arrangements have expired, will there be separate transition measures for all countries currently covered by the European arrest warrant? How long will negotiations take and are we at risk of a time gap during which criminals will be able to hide from UK justice and hide in the UK from justice in other countries? What will happen to the existing European arrest warrants where a person has not yet been arrested but there is a warrant out for their arrest? Will the warrants just lapse with the opt-out, allowing wanted criminals to evade justice from the UK overseas or leaving foreign criminals in the UK without the powers to remove them? The Statement also says that the Home Secretary,

“will amend our own Extradition Act to ensure that people in the UK can be extradited under the European arrest warrant only when the requesting state has already made a decision to charge and a decision to try”.

Can the noble Lord confirm whether this will apply to foreign citizens in the UK as well as to British citizens? Is it likely to make it harder to extradite those wanted for questioning for crimes in their own country?

There remain so many questions on the impact and the detail that I will not detain the House with another list which I could easily provide this evening. Genuine scrutiny, at which your Lordships’ House excels, will be so important in this debate. I hope that the Minister does not say this evening that these issues are for further discussion, because we are running out of time; he smiles at me, so perhaps that is the note that he has been passed. A vote will take place in the other place in less than a week, and the matter will then be brought to your Lordships’ House. The Government must have worked out the detail by now. We need that detail to inform our decision-making in your Lordships’ House. I hope that the Minister is able to respond to the points that I have raised, and I greatly look forward to his doing so.

[Lord McNally]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s response to the Statement. I noted that she thought that it had common sense and moderation. Indeed, there were times during her response to the Statement where there was a suggestion that we had shot her fox, in that all the disasters to which she was hoping to point—about not taking note of national security and effective policing—are not there. The Statement of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary puts those matters right to the fore, as is demonstrated in the list that we have put before the House today.

There was hardly a hint that this little problem was left by the Labour Party’s negotiators for the Lisbon treaty. As the Home Secretary mentioned in her own remarks, the then Government did precious little to address these issues while in office. We therefore make no apologies for having used our time in office to look at these matters in detail. My point when we were discussing this at Questions the other day was that they are serious issues that deserve proper and serious consideration. The document published today, Command Paper 8671, is a sign of the candour and transparency with which the Government intend to approach this matter. The document contains not only the full list of the measures with an explanation of the protocol under which they have been produced, but also six Explanatory Memoranda from various concerned departments, which we hope will be of help to both Houses in the debates to come.

I make no apologies for our now embarking on some interesting negotiations. We have taken the matter seriously and have produced a list which anybody objectively looking at the exercise will see goes to the core of the issues left by Protocol 36.

I have just been told that we published five Explanatory Memoranda, not six—stop press.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I hoped that the noble Lord had been passed answers to the questions I had asked him.

[Lord McNally]

I am answering the questions. For example, the noble Baroness asked whether foreign citizens charged in the UK would be safeguarded. Yes, the safeguards will apply to all those subject to the European arrest warrant. The noble Baroness asked on what basis the decisions would be taken. The Government believe that we should exercise the opt-out and then seek to rejoin the measure where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have considered the impact of each measure on public safety and security, whether practical co-operation is underpinned by the measure and whether there would be a detrimental impact on co-operation if we pursued it by other mechanisms. The impact of the measures on civil rights and liberties has also been considered.

The noble Baroness asked me if I had done a word count on the various issues. We have said that we intend to opt in to 35. As she says, a number—we think abut 14—of the original list have been repealed and replaced. There are about another 20 measures that retain the minimum European standards. However, the noble Baroness’s kind of quizzing approach really misses the point of what this exercise is about. Through today’s Statement, the Government have sent a clear message that we have addressed the problem left by Protocol 36—which would have been faced by any British Government and which the previous Government showed little enthusiasm for addressing—in a very practical way that will give both Houses of Parliament the time and the opportunity for input into negotiations which the Government will pursue with due seriousness and the intent of success.

EU Treaties: Justice and Home Affairs Opt-Outs

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Monday 1st July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

It takes time because it is part of a range of issues. Nobody is talking about jettisoning all these measures, but some of the proposals in the Protocol 36 decision were written when reference to the European Court of Justice was not in mind. There is a variety of technical reasons why careful study is warranted. I assure the House that the Government will continue, as they have done right through their period of office, to address opt-ins and opt-outs on the basis of national security and national interest. When we have our package to bring before the House, we will ask your Lordships to make decisions on that basis.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, opting out of Protocol 36 means, as we have heard, opting out of the European arrest warrant. Last week, the Government had to make a Statement significantly revising their figures for the number of criminals who have successfully been returned to the UK under the European arrest warrant agreement. The figures have been wrong for the last three years. Does the Minister believe that we will be more successful or less successful in bringing criminals to justice if we opt out?

Probation Service: Community-sentenced Offenders

Baroness Smith of Basildon Excerpts

Tuesday 5th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord McNally]

I hear the growl from the Benches opposite, but it is interesting that we are using the 2007 Act to carry through these reforms of probation, so they are not exactly being original in terms of how we should develop these matters. I do not take fully the point made by the noble Lord about going into the unknown. The fact is, as those noble Lords opposite who have had dealings with these matters will know, that the voluntary and the private sectors have been involved in offender management for a very long time. We are trying, within a very tight budget, to see whether we can reform the probation service and dealings with offenders in order to bring in the best of what works outside. It has been interesting to learn that good ideas on offender management are not constrained simply to the probation service. As I said in my original reply, the public sector has ultimate responsibility for public protection, but we think we can deliver a reorganisation that also makes use of the wide variety of experience and expertise that exists in this area.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the answers given by the Minister. He will be aware that one of the most important things for the probation service is that there is public confidence in the work that it does. Part of that public confidence comes from the transparency of having information about the work that it does, and understanding what works and what is most effective. In his Answer, he said that the public sector has the ultimate responsibility. Does that mean that all services, even those outsourced to private companies by the Government, will still be subject to freedom of information?

[Lord McNally]

That is one from left field. I will have to check on that and write to the noble Baroness. However, as she knows, my inclinations are that, as far as possible, freedom of information should extend to all work that is conducted by the private sector, or is covered by the contractual agreement between the public and private sectors, which would allow access to information. I understand the point she makes, and will write and make the letter available to the House.