Justice and Security Bill [HL]
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(13 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we continue the Second Reading debate on the Justice and Security Bill, and at the risk of sounding boring, I feel duty-bound to remind noble Lords that speeches from Back-Benchers are expected to be kept within 15 minutes. When I remarked on this earlier, I should have stressed that exceptions to those guidelines are made on occasion, rather than frequently.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(13 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“( ) section 53 and Schedule 3,”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
In moving Amendment 15, I shall also speak to Amendments 17, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31. However, I shall not detain your Lordships as these are technical amendments, so unless a noble Lord wishes to raise a point, to which of course I shall be willing to respond, I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I know that he has waited very patiently all afternoon. It may be of assistance to the House for me to remind noble Lords that, at Bill do now pass, once the Motion has been moved formally, as it just has, it may be opposed and reasoned or delaying amendments to it may be moved. However, in other circumstances it is not normally debated.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, I wish to raise a new issue, which came to my attention at the end of last week. I was advised by the Public Bill Office that I should take the slightly unusual step of raising this new issue on this Motion. I also informed the Minister’s office that I intended to do this.
It is the intention of the Bill to adopt the Scottish model for protections for the DNA database, and therefore to find an equivalent to the Scottish sheriff courts in England and Wales. As currently worded, the Bill requires the hearings to be before a district judge from the magistrates’ court. This is too restrictive; all that is necessary is for the application to be made to a magistrates’ court. Whether to put the matter before a district judge or a lay bench of magistrates can then be decided locally. This may be a small point but it is one of principle and practicality.
The point of principle is that lay benches have exactly the same powers as district judges. There is only one exception to that, which is in the matter of extradition. Beyond that, it is a point of principle in magistrates’ courts in England and Wales that lay benches have exactly the same powers as district judges.
The point of practicality is that limiting applications to district judges will mean unnecessary inconvenience to citizens. There will be delay and there may be extra costs. The reason for that is that district judges tend to sit in large cities and may be less readily available than lay benches.
I realise that this matter is being raised at a very late stage. I have given the noble Lord notice of it and I look forward to his response.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, in moving Amendment 54B, I will speak also to Amendments 54C to 54H, 54P to 54V, 60 and 61. This group of government amendments to Clauses 67 and 77, and the equivalent Northern Ireland provisions in Schedule 7, deals with barring decisions and barred list information.
Clause 67 provides that a person will be barred by the Independent Safeguarding Authority from working with children or vulnerable adults only if that person has been, is or might in the future be engaged in regulated activity. As my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon and at all stages of the Bill so far, in seeking to scale back the disclosure and barring scheme, the Government believe that it is disproportionate to bar a person if they have never worked in regulated activity and have no prospect ever of doing so. However, having listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and by organisations such as the NSPCC, we have concluded that where someone has been convicted of a crime on the list of the most serious offences—that is, an offence that leads to an automatic bar without the right to make representations—the Independent Safeguarding Authority should bar that person whether or not they work or intend to work in regulated activity. An automatic bar without representation would apply to convictions for the most serious sexual and violent offences, such as, in the case of the children’s barred list, the rape of a child. In these cases, there are no conceivable mitigating circumstances—that is why representations are not permitted—and there can be no question that the person is a risk to vulnerable groups.
Amendments 54B to 54E give effect to these changes in England and Wales, and Amendments 54P to 54S make similar changes to Schedule 7 in respect of Northern Ireland. Amendment 60 is consequential on Amendments 54B to 54E, and Amendment 61 is consequential on Amendments 54P to 54S. The other amendments in this group concern the provision of information by the Independent Safeguarding Authority to the police. Clause 77(4) states that the Independent Safeguarding Authority must, for one of a number of specified purposes,
“provide to any chief officer of police who has requested it information as to whether a person is barred”.
The current drafting requires the Independent Safeguarding Authority to provide to the police information only about whether a particular person is barred rather than the whole barred list.
The police have indicated that they need this information in real time—for example, if they were to stop someone driving a school minibus and needed to know whether they were barred. In practice, making requests to the Independent Safeguarding Authority on a case-by-case basis would not always provide the police with the information in the necessary timescale. Amendments 54F and 54G therefore provide that the ISA must provide to the police the whole barred list. The police will then be able to put appropriate flags on the PNC, and will have immediate access to barring information when they need it. Amendment 54H ensures that this requirement to supply the whole barred list does not extend to information provided to the prison and probation services. Amendments 54T, 54U and 54V provide for the same arrangement in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clear explanation. I wholeheartedly welcome this amendment, for which we have been calling since the Bill was first introduced. As my honourable friend the Member for Hull North said in another place:
“There is a very good reason why someone who commits a serious offence is barred from working with children—because they pose a serious risk to children. That should mean that they are automatically barred from working with them”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/10/11; col. 228.]
I have to say that I was astonished by the Government’s original proposal that a man convicted of raping a child would not automatically be barred from working with children. I am grateful to the Government for listening and introducing this amendment which clearly puts right what was, I believe, a miscalculation of risk.
I have one or two questions for the noble Baroness but I hope not to detain her for long. She will know that the amendment which I tabled in Committee not only reinstated automatic barring but provided for an appeals process for individuals. Do the Government plan to review the existing appeals processes—based on written submission by the individual—to allow for appeals hearings in person, as were provided for by my amendment? How do the Government propose to ensure that there will be a consistent and proportionate approach to enhanced disclosures across all police authorities?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for her support for this amendment. As I said in my opening remarks, we have listened carefully and are pleased to table this amendment. The only thing that is perhaps worth making clear is that the absence of an automatic bar does not give anybody an automatic right. We have ensured that anybody who has been convicted of the most serious crime and has no opportunity to make representation is automatically barred. However, this does not mean that those who are not automatically barred have an automatic right—the opposite is not true for them. A proper process will follow.
As regards the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness in Committee and plans to review the existing appeals process, we are ensuring that representations can be considered in advance. The change we are making to the barring and vetting process will mean that somebody who is about to be employed in a regulated activity, and is therefore subjected to checks of the kind we are discussing, will receive the certificate and have the opportunity to challenge any information that is on it before it is made available to the employing body. Therefore, the opportunity for that challenge is at the start of the process rather than after a certificate has been issued to a prospective employer or organisation for which somebody might volunteer. Representations can include oral representations—they do not necessarily have to make their appeals or representations in writing—but at the moment we are not planning any further changes to the appeals process.
On the noble Baroness’s final point about the police process, if I understood correctly, the point that she was making was that this system of ensuring availability of the barred list should be consistent across all police authorities. I can confirm that that is the case.
“120AD Registered persons: copies of certificates in certain circumstances
(1) Subsection (2) applies if—
(a) the Secretary of State gives up-date information in relation to a criminal record certificate or enhanced criminal record certificate,(b) the up-date information is advice to apply for a new certificate or (as the case may be) request another person to apply for such a certificate, and(c) the person whose certificate it is in respect of which the up-date information is given applies for a new criminal record certificate or (as the case may be) enhanced criminal record certificate.(2) The Secretary of State must, in response to a request made within the prescribed period by the person who is acting as the registered person in relation to the application, send to that person a copy of any certificate issued in response to the application if the registered person—
(a) has counter-signed the application or transmitted it to the Secretary of State under section 113A(2A) or 113B(2A),(b) has informed the Secretary of State that the applicant for the new certificate has not, within such period as may be prescribed, sent a copy of it to a person of such description as may be prescribed, and(c) no prescribed circumstances apply. (3) The power under subsection (2)(b) to prescribe a description of person may be exercised to describe the registered person or any other person.
(4) In this section “up-date information” has the same meaning as in section 116A.”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 55 in the names of my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and to government Amendments 58, 59, 62 to 69 and 72.
First of all, I should say how grateful I am to my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Heyhoe Flint, who my noble friend Lord Addington has indicated is unable to be with us today, and to other noble Lords—notably the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson—for the time that they have taken to talk to my noble friend Lord Henley and me about their concerns about the issue of certificates. I hope that, given the amendment that I am able to move today, noble Lords will feel that it is no longer necessary for them to move the amendment in their names.
Although the intended effect of Amendments 54W and 55 is broadly similar—namely, that a copy of the criminal record certificate should be sent to the registered body as well as the applicant after a specified period has elapsed—their actual impact is significantly different, as I have said. We have listened to the concerns expressed about the single certificate provisions, and we are keen to ensure that there are no safeguarding gaps in respect of those individuals already employed. Amendment 54W therefore provides a facility for the Secretary of State to send to a registered body a copy of a criminal record certificate in specific and limited circumstances.
This facility will apply where a registered body uses the new updating service introduced by Clause 83 and is informed that a new certificate should be applied for—in other words, that there has been new information since the most recent certificate. If the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent to it a copy of their certificate within a prescribed period—we envisage a period of some 21 days —and requests a copy of the new certificate, the Secretary of State must comply with that request.
However, a copy of the certificate will not be sent if prescribed circumstances apply, principally when the individual has challenged the information on the new certificate, which is what the noble Baroness and I were just discussing with regard to the last group of amendments. Any such requests made by a registered body will need to be made in a timely manner—there is provision to prescribe a time limit—to ensure the smooth operation of these arrangements.
Our proposed change will be particularly relevant to large organisations which consider certificates centrally, and which will be able to advise their local branches of any issues arising. This applies in particular to the examples that my noble friend Lord Addington will no doubt draw on in his contribution to today’s debate.
We recognise that there may be occasional instances in which an applicant delays providing a copy of the certificate to their employer. The amendment provides a way for registered bodies to see a copy of the new certificate in those circumstances, while still ensuring that, when an applicant has challenged the contents of the certificate, the employer will not see that information until the challenge has been resolved.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I was very pleased to add my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. As he said, it is not a perfect solution to the problems created—it does not address the concern of voluntary organisations up and down the country that individuals with minor and irrelevant criminal histories will be deterred from volunteering by having personally to submit their certificates to organisations, and it could strengthen the concern of groups with a high turnover, such as the care sector, that the bureaucracy caused by eradicating what was a quick and automatic process will mean that key roles are not filled quickly enough. However, I believe that accepting the amendment will provide the best iteration of what will potentially be a messy and bureaucratic process, and I think that the clarification requested by the noble Lord will be important to organisations’ understanding of the process.
I also note with pleasure the Government’s own amendment. I welcome the fact that, again, they have listened to the concerns of this House. However, I fear that the ultimate result of the changes to the process of CRB disclosure will be a system that is more complex for organisations to administer, and I worry that this could have a stifling effect on our voluntary sector.
I understand that two separate costs will be involved in the new portable CRB checks: a cost for initial disclosure and a cost for an ongoing subscription to update and validate the disclosure on a rolling basis. How do the Government propose to ensure that they do not create a two-tier system in which some individuals pay for only initial disclosure and do not access the new portability benefits by paying for a subscription? Will the Government confirm whether volunteers will be charged for the ongoing subscription, and why are they seemingly preventing the portability of checks between work with adults and work with children? It looks as though employers will have to apply separately for CRB checks and barring information, despite the fact that the Government are bringing the two organisations under one roof through the new Disclosure and Barring Service. Is this the case? Perhaps I am mistaken.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Addington and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, for their remarks during this short debate. I start by responding to a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about the potential for the new arrangements that we are putting in place to deter people from volunteering or to make the process more complex. I would disagree with that. There is the very clear and simple principle to which I referred a few moments ago that, in putting themselves forward, people will understand that they will be subjected to the necessary checks in order to safeguard young people and vulnerable adults. They will know that they will get the opportunity to see that certificate before it is issued not just to a prospective employer, but perhaps to a small group which is run by people who are volunteers themselves—not a big organisation. I think some people will find comfort in that.
The noble Baroness is right to say that there are some complexities to this wider topic and we have acknowledged that in the course of our debates today. However, we live in a very sophisticated world and I do not think that we should have a system that is not sophisticated enough to ensure that we address those who might put our children at risk. We should also make sure that those who are very able and who would do a really good job working with young children and others are not barred by us having a system that deters them. I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from but I disagree.
My noble friend raised some points about the amendment that we are discussing today. I repeat that we are talking about the single certificate and how a body could check that the person it wants to work with it is suitably cleared. I note what he said about volunteers being encouraged to get more involved in civic society. It could be argued that the new system that we are putting in place will make it easier to accommodate that because the online process, and the system of allowing someone to use the portable arrangements, will mean that we are trying to support people doing something and that we are providing a system to make that work effectively.
My noble friend asked again about the guidance that we have referred to already. I absolutely understand the point he is making that the organisations, particularly those that survive on the goodwill of the volunteers who work with them, want clarity in ensuring that they are doing the right thing and know how and when to pursue the checks and how and when to follow them up. I can make it absolutely clear to my noble friend that we will develop the guidance in consultation with the voluntary organisations and the sporting bodies that he has introduced during the passage of the Bill. We will want to outline best practice so that they know when is the right time to pursue an individual and check further for the evidence that they need. For example, if the registered body informs the Secretary of State that the individual has not sent it a copy of the certificate within a prescribed period which we envisage to be 21 days, it would have to wait 21 days before making a representation to the relevant body.
We have listened very carefully to the concerns that were expressed. We want to make sure that the guidance we introduce will provide organisations with the cover that people who are put in positions of responsibility feel that they deserve in order to make sure that they exercise their responsibilities properly. I hope that that provides the assurance that my noble friend seeks.
The noble Baroness asked about costs and charges, and whether volunteers would be charged for updating. I cannot give her a response today, but I will come back to her on that. She asked also about the difference between CRB checks and barring checks. They exist for different purposes. When somebody is employed, about to be employed or is volunteering to do regulatory activity for an organisation, the organisation has a statutory obligation to ensure that an application is made for that person to be checked and for a certificate to be issued. If the activity is unregulated, the organisation can still pursue a check if it wishes. In the process of the application being made, the authorities will determine whether the barring aspect of the check will kick in. It will not be a case of somebody making a specific request for the barring check; it will happen in the course of the process of application. The uncertainty will be taken care of and the decision will be made by those with the necessary information.
I hope that I have answered the concerns and points raised today by noble Lords. I beg to move.
Lord Collins of Highbury
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments, which would make common-sense improvements to the operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I will not repeat the arguments he has made so eloquently, but I would like to raise a few points.
These amendments strengthen the individual’s right to freely access public information and the presumption in favour of openness and accountability in public bodies. The democratisation of knowledge and communication through the internet is the most important revolution of our age. People simply do not accept bureaucratic barriers to information any more, and we must have legislation that is alive to responding to new realities. It is therefore essential that the processes for accessing information do not work against the principle that the burden should be on the body providing the information, not on the individual seeking it. This includes the cost of seeking such information and I urge the Government to think again if they are planning to increase charges.
The 40-day maximum cap on complying with freedom of information requests is both simple and workable. As my noble friend pointed out, it comes from the recommendations of the Information Commissioner, who said:
“In cases where the public interest considerations are exceptionally complex it may be reasonable to take longer but, in our view, in no case should the total time exceed 40 working days”.
The House has learnt first hand the frustration of delays that can be caused by decisions and successive appeals on the basis of public interest, which no doubt we shall return to when we resume consideration of the Health and Social Care Bill.
We must seize every opportunity to ensure that the process itself never becomes the reason why individuals are denied access to public information. We must also ensure that the principle of public accountability at the heart of the Freedom of Information Act established by the Labour Government is not diluted by changes in the nature of delivery of public services, as noble Lords have pointed out. As my noble friend has said, the public have a right to access information about how their money is spent and I hope the Minister will seize this opportunity to restore the levels of public sector transparency enjoyed before the Localism Bill was enacted.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I start by making it clear that this Government very much support freedom of information and increasing openness and transparency—there is absolutely no doubt about that. Indeed, I am sympathetic to Amendment 55ZA, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, in relation to the timeliness of public interest deliberations, and his proposal to make the Information Commissioner’s recommended best practice a statutory requirement.
Public authorities must answer freedom of information requests promptly. They must not be unnecessarily slow in responding, and any extension to the time limit for responding to such requests should only be claimed where absolutely necessary. As I mentioned to the noble Lord when we debated similar amendments tabled by him in Committee, I have some experience—although not in government—of being on the receiving end of FOI requests that are complex and invoke public interest tests.
As I said then, it is certainly the case that, in general, timeliness in responding to freedom of information requests is good. In 2010, 86 per cent of requests were answered by bodies monitored by the Ministry of Justice within 20 working days. It is also worth noting that in central government time extensions for the consideration of the public interest test remain relatively rare and the proportion of requests which have resulted in such an extension fell to 4.5 per cent in 2010.
Lord Wills
Will the noble Baroness confirm that those figures do not cover local government? Will she further confirm that it is her understanding as it is mine that most of the interests that the citizens of this country have are in local authority functions and not central government functions?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I can certainly confirm that the figure I quoted for the extension of requests under the public interest test relates only to central government. As to general requests under FOI, these bodies were monitored by the MoJ. I am afraid that I do not have to hand which bodies they are. The figures do not cover local government.
However, I accept that there is room for improvement, especially where the deadline is extended to allow consideration of the public interest test. The Information Commissioner is watchful of public authorities where timeliness is an issue and has taken effective action in this area. In 2011, the commissioner announced that out of 33 bodies being monitored in relation to timeliness issues, 26 had made sufficient improvement to be removed from his watch list. While further action is required from the remaining bodies, it is clear that the Information Commissioner’s Office has been effective in improving timeliness.
The introduction of new statutory deadlines is a potential way of strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, as the noble Lord has put forward, provided that it does not lead to hasty decisions that are not fully informed. An absolute limit of 40 days raises some concerns about the potential for such an effect and therefore we need to give the impact of changes of this type full consideration before their introduction. For that reason, I cannot accept his amendment today.
As the noble Lord has predicted I might say, but not for the reasons he suggests, this is something that I strongly believe should be properly scrutinised and considered in the course of post-legislative scrutiny, which is now under way by the relevant Select Committee of the other place, chaired by the right honourable Alan Beith. I certainly will ensure that he receives the official record of our debate today.
It is also worth pointing out that I genuinely think that the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, as much as it has merits, requires very careful consideration. I will look forward to his contribution to the process of post-legislative scrutiny that is ongoing.
Amendment 55ZB, again in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wills, seeks to extend the Freedom of Information Act to information held by contractors working on behalf of public authorities about the performance of those contracts where those contracts are worth more than £1 million. The noble Lord has found support today from the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, on this issue. As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is aware, the Government have extended the FOI Act and are taking steps to extend it further. We have made an order under Section 5 of the Act extending its scope to, among others, the Financial Ombudsman Service. We have commenced consultations with more than 200 further bodies about their possible inclusion through future Section 5 orders and we intend to consult more than 2,000 housing associations later this year in relation to their possible inclusion.
In addition, Clause 103 of this Bill will extend the Act to companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities, thereby removing the anomaly whereby a company is subject to the FOI Act only if wholly owned by one public authority but not by two or more. I hope that the noble Lord recognises that these are significant changes.
I understand the point that the noble Lord and others have made today that as services are subcontracted out, whether by local government or by other public services which have been mentioned today, the public should not be left short of any information that might be needed to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of those services. But as I mentioned to the noble Lord in Committee when we debated this, even when a service is subcontracted out, it is still the responsibility of the public authority in terms of the accountability for that service to the public. It is the relevant organisation which should be held to account. In the way in which the contracts are constructed, it should be possible for the public to receive from the contracting authority the information that is needed in order to ensure that the services being carried out and paid for with their taxes are actually performing as they would want them to.
As my noble friend Lord McNally stressed last year, it is important to ensure that changes to the way public services are delivered do not undermine our pledge to increase openness and accountability, and there is certainly a challenge to be met here. I would like to restate that our continued opposition to this amendment does not stem from any lack of commitment to the cause of increased openness and accountability. We are already considering this issue and it will be further considered in the response to the Cabinet Office consultation on the draft transparency and open data strategy.
I may have covered this point, but I want also to say to the noble Lord that there is a provision in the FOI Act as it stands that extends its scope to public bodies. I believe that it is set out in Section 5. If and when other public authorities, bodies or organisations should be covered by the Act, we do not need new legislation, or we will be subject to the kind of delay that he seems to think post-legislative scrutiny would bring about. We actually have a mechanism to ensure that as and when we feel it is right and proper to extend the Act, we can do so.
The Earl of Erroll
My Lords, I have a brief question for the noble Baroness. Is she saying that public authorities should be writing into their contracts a provision that would allow for freedom of information requests, and that is what she is relying on rather than it being put into the law?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
No, I am not saying that. I am not in a position to go that far because it would take us into an area on which I do not have the authority to speak today. I am making two separate points. One is that a public authority is the body which is accountable to the public for any services that it might subcontract out. In the course of its contractual arrangements with the subcontractor I would expect, in order to ensure it is properly accountable, it should ensure that it is able itself to access the information it needs. I do not think it is proper to prescribe the detail in the way that has been put forward by the noble Lord. For example, it is not clear how the £1 million contract threshold would be calculated. How would additional payments which might take the value over £1 million be taken account of? Different public authorities might take different approaches to valuation. If that happens, the approach will not be applied consistently. I worry that the amendment might be attractive on its face but deceptively difficult to operate on the ground. I am not saying that issues such as this are insurmountable; I merely use this as an illustration of why careful consideration is necessary to ensure clarity for public authorities, the Information Commissioner and users alike.
I have also made the point previously that to comply with FOI requests for contractor information public authorities would need to have access to any information held by the contractor that is potentially relevant in terms of responding to the request. Such a requirement to share all such information with the public authority so that the authority might comply with FOI requests could adversely affect the effective delivery of the contract. Again, I am sure that solutions to this issue exist, but they require careful consideration.
I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that our opposition to the amendments results from the need to make sure that effective and proportionate solutions are developed. It does not result from a lack of a commitment to transparency or the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act. I therefore invite the noble Lord—
Lord Wills
Before the Minister invites me to withdraw the amendment, will she answer two questions for the purpose of clarification? The first is in relation to the undertaking that she gave in Committee to contact the Information Commissioner. Has such contact been made? If so, what was the result of it? If it has not, when will it be made? Secondly, she referred earlier to her belief that the Government have the mechanism and the will to act promptly should they decide that it is necessary to do so, and that the delays that I fear will happen will not take place. Is that mechanism Section 5 of the Act and, if not, what mechanism is she referring to other than primary legislation?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On the former of his questions, I am not able to give the noble Lord a reply today, but I will follow it up with him in due course. On the latter, I am not proposing any new legislation; I am referring to Section 5 of the FOI Act, in that it gives us the opportunity and the provision, should we need it, to extend the Act to cover new bodies in the way that we are using it right now. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question and that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for a characteristically gracious and thorough response. I am grateful, too, for the support that I have received from all sides of the House for both amendments. I am sorry that the Government have not taken account of the compelling cases made by the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Collins on the Front Bench. I note what the Minister said in relation to Amendment 55ZB and my fear that any legislation will create a delay. She referred to Section 5. I am afraid that this only makes my point: the extension of the coverage of the Act under Section 5 to which she referred, and to which the Government always refer as a great indicator of their commitment to freedom of information, was, I have to tell the Minister, work put in train by the previous Government. I was the responsible Minister. It has taken all this time. That work was started in around 2008—I cannot remember exactly when. Four years later, this Government are now able to claim credit for that. The extension would not necessarily cover all the areas that should be covered by my amendment, so if the Minister is relying on that as a mechanism for speed in rectifying this problem, I am afraid that she is just wrong.
I hope that the Government will look again at this issue. I hear what the Minister says and I have no doubt about her personal commitment to transparency, but all the noises that we hear in the media as emanating from Whitehall are of the deep hostility of the entrenched, vested interests of the state to this agenda of transparency. All I can say is that I wish the Minister well in her forthcoming battles with those vested interests.
Lord Berkeley
This amendment is designed to include Trinity House within the scope of the Freedom of Information act. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, has reminded the House this evening that a review of the FOI Act is going on, which is very welcome, but I am hoping that the Government will accept my amendment on the basis that they have already committed to include Trinity House in the FOI Act, as I shall demonstrate, and it would save a lot of time and effort.
Trinity House is the lighthouse and navigation aids authority that maintains the navigation aids around the coast of England and Wales. I think it should be included because I believe it is a public body. Ships going into UK ports pay light dues into a central fund called the General Lighthouse Fund, which is administered and disbursed by the Department for Transport to the three lighthouse authorities in England, Scotland and Ireland. This amendment would bring Trinity House in line with the Northern Lighthouse Board, which looks after the lights in Scotland and is already covered by FOI. If Ministers are concerned about how much extra work it would be for the GLF, I understand that the Northern Lighthouse Board has received just over 40 FOI inquiries, so I do not think it is any great effort for lighthouse authorities to be included.
I thought of including the Commissioners of Irish Lights in this amendment, but since the Minister for Shipping, Mike Penning MP, is at the moment negotiating with the Irish Government a very welcome change so that the lights around Ireland are not funded by ships going into UK ports by the time of the next election, I thought I would leave the Commissioners of Irish Lights out.
The Independent Light Dues Forum wrote to the Ministry of Justice on 25 January 2011 welcoming the ministry’s announcement about opening public bodies to public scrutiny and the possibility of including Trinity House within FOI. The ministry responded on 23 February last year saying that Trinity House would be consulted about possible inclusion, which is absolutely right, of course. On 5 May, I received a letter from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, that stated:
“We intend to extend the Act to bodies which we believe to perform functions of a public nature, such as the Trinity House Lighthouse Service, through secondary legislation under section 5 of the Act rather than the Protection of Freedoms Bill”.
He did not say why. It would achieve the same objective if this Bill were amended now.
When she replies, will the Minister say why it matters which legislative route is to be used to deliver the same outcome? I think it is quite important that this happens quite quickly. It is a year since this was first raised, and I hope that the Minister will accept my amendment, if only to avoid me bothering her again. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for his introduction of his amendment. As he explained, the Government announced on 7 January last year our intention to consult a number of bodies about them being subject to the Freedom of Information Act by virtue of an order made under Section 5(1)(a) of the Act. It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, is not in his place because this is relevant to the earlier debate.
A body may be included in such an order to the extent that it exercises functions of a public nature. As the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, this consultation includes the Trinity Lighthouse Service and is currently ongoing. The consultation process is an important one. It is designed to ensure that all relevant legal and policy factors are considered before a final decision is made about whether some, or all, of the functions of a body such as Trinity House should be covered by the Act.
The Corporation of Trinity House undertakes a number of important functions. Without wishing to express a view while the consultation is ongoing, I can understand why the noble Lord might consider its functions as a general lighthouse authority to be the sort of thing that could be covered by the FOI Act. As he said, the letter that he received from my noble friend Lord McNally stated that to be the case. The fact that the Northern Lighthouse Board is already covered obviously provides another point of comparison.
However, the Corporation of Trinity House also undertakes a number of other functions as a charity and as a provider of deep sea navigation pilots for ships trading in northern European waters. In light of this, we need to consider carefully which, if any, of the corporation’s functions should be brought within the Act. The consultation process currently taking place is designed to allow for this sort of consideration to take place.
Lord Berkeley
Perhaps I might ask the noble Baroness about the length of the consultation period. The letter that I quoted from, dated 5 May 2011, from the noble Lord, Lord McNally, said:
“We are currently in the process of consulting the bodies concerned”.
It is very unusual for a government consultation to go on for nine months. Have the Government started another consultation? It is very good to have such long consultations, but it is a bit unusual. When is the consultation on the Trinity House issue going to finish? I would be very grateful for the noble Baroness’s response.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
We certainly plan to conclude the consultation fairly soon, and to bring an order under Section 5 for all the new public bodies that we are currently consulting on later in the year.
Lord Berkeley
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that answer and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, this amendment and those grouped with it are all minor technical amendments. I beg to move.
“(2) The Welsh Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument make such transitional, transitory or saving provision as the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate in connection with the coming into force of any Welsh provision.
(3) In this section “Welsh provision” means any provision of this Act so far as it falls within section 118(3).”
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I withdrew a similar amendment in Committee in order to take more time to consider carefully the concerns expressed by noble Lords. Having done so, I am confident about introducing this amendment.
Among other things, Clause 3 sets out the rules governing the retention of the DNA profile of a person arrested for a serious offence but not charged with that offence. In such cases, the police can apply to the biometrics commissioner to retain the DNA in certain circumstances, including where the alleged victim of the offence was a vulnerable adult. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said at Second Reading in another place:
“We must protect the most vulnerable in society, so when the victim of the alleged offence is under 18, vulnerable or in a close personal relationship with the arrested person the expectation is that the police will apply to the commissioner for retention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 207.]
Amendment 6 seeks to replace the definition of “vulnerable adult” as used in this context.
Currently, Clause 3 defines a vulnerable adult by reference to Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. However, as we will see when we consider Part 5, Clauses 65 and 66 seek to amend the definition of a vulnerable adult in the 2006 Act to mean any person over the age of 18 in receipt of a regulated activity—for example, health or personal care. The changes made by these clauses to the definitions of vulnerable adult and regulated activity put the emphasis on the activity and the person carrying out that activity. The Bill no longer attempts to define vulnerability or label a person as a vulnerable adult. As a result, the definition in the SVGA is not relevant in the context of Clause 3.
Perhaps I may explain further. Clause 3, which we are discussing, is about protecting victims of crime. Clauses 65 and 66 are about protecting those necessarily in receipt of personal care or who rely on the support or contact of others. They are two separate things. The amendment therefore draws on the definition in Section 5(6) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which defines a vulnerable adult as,
“a person aged 16 or over whose ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
The reason why the amendment inserts the definition in full in new Section 63G(10) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, rather than merely referring to the 2004 Act, is that our definition refers to persons aged 18 or over, given that the definitions in new Section 63G(2), as inserted by Clause 3, already include all those under the age of 18. For the purposes of protecting those who are truly vulnerable, we believe that this definition is far more apposite. It will cover and protect more people.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the explanation this evening and for the letter that she kindly sent me following Committee. These are complex issues. I hope that she will forgive me if I am asking questions that she has already answered. Essentially, to introduce a new definition of “vulnerable” complicates the issue in many ways. Although I hear what she says—that this definition is imported from another criminal justice Act—it is not the tried and tested definition of “vulnerable” and it would be far easier if people knew exactly where they stood.
I still have serious concerns about the appropriateness of the new definition. As the noble Baroness said in Committee, I disagreed with the restrictions that the Government placed on the retention of DNA data from those arrested for but not charged with a serious offence. That is a misleading distinction which has serious consequences for victims of crime with historically low charge rates, such as rape. As stated in the letter, the Government recognise that vulnerable members of society should be given special protection in such situations, and new Section 63G aims to provide for the retention of DNA data for those arrested for offences against victims deemed to be vulnerable adults.
At Second Reading in the Commons, the Home Secretary, the right honourable Theresa May, stated, on the conditions where new Section 63F(5) would apply:
“I would expect that application to be made in certain circumstances, such as when the victim has been vulnerable, which may mean there is very good evidence that the individual concerned has committed a crime but the victim is not able or not willing to come forward and see that case through”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/3/11; col. 206.]
However, the Government’s proposed amendment to the definition of vulnerable adult recognises only those individuals who are subject to mental or physical impairment as being particularly vulnerable to problems in bringing forward a charge of providing evidence.
In particular, the new definition requires that an individual’s ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired. The definition, particularly with the addition of the qualification “significantly”, adds a large element of discretion, leaving judgment of the vulnerability of the victim up to the discretion of the officer dealing with the case. I am concerned that such a definition is open to wide interpretation, which may mean that vulnerable adults are not given sufficient protection under the Bill.
An individual’s circumstances are a key indicator of their vulnerability, as is recognised by the definition used under Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which lists a number of different circumstances in which an adult should be classed as vulnerable. The proposed new definition also neglects the fact that the type of offence will often determine the particular vulnerability of the individual and lead to problems which may account for the lack of any charge being made.
I note that the noble Baroness says that women who have been subjected to violence are covered under a different clause, although they are not covered by the definition of “vulnerable”. I am glad that that is the case, but it is complicated. They cannot read the Bill and see that they are covered as being vulnerable.
I will not press the amendment to a vote, but there are still questions to be answered. I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer me this evening, but if we could have further discussion about this to sort out some of my remaining concerns I would be extremely grateful.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
On the change of definition of vulnerable adult, as I tried to explain in moving the amendment, it is important that we do not use the definition applied later in the Bill in the context of victims. If we did, we would be at risk of creating the opposite situation from what the noble Baroness wants. Later in the Bill, the definition of “vulnerable adult”, as amended, is intended to define people's vulnerability in terms of the activity in which a person may have to engage with them. As I said, whether it is personal care or whether someone is required to be in close proximity to someone else, we want to define vulnerability as far as whether someone should have the right to access the person.
In this part of the Bill, we are focusing on victims of crime. The fact that we are using a definition that already exists—it predates the definition that the Bill amends later—seems to me a simpler way forward. It is clear which people it is intended to protect. The definition states that it,
“means a person aged 18 or over whose ability to protect himself or herself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
I understand the noble Baroness’s point about the use of “significantly” and whether or not the definition excludes some people whom she thinks might be captured by the other definition. I disagree. Under the other definition, which is dictated by the nature of the care that people receive, some people who are old may not be in receipt of any specific care that would define them as vulnerable. The fact that they are old would suggest that they are vulnerable in this context, so this definition would capture more people. Also, “otherwise”, at the end of the definition, means that there is discretion for the police in considering who is vulnerable. I would expect the new DNA strategy board to offer guidance to the police on how to consider the definition of vulnerability when they make their application to the biometrics commissioner.
One thing behind the noble Baroness’s concern, which I share, is that in the context of a crime such as rape, and violent crime against somebody, the impact of the crime might make somebody vulnerable. The definition taken from the Domestic Crime, Violence and Victims Act already suggests what the police might consider under the definition of “vulnerable”.
I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from. I was very careful to consider the issues that she raised in Committee and I wanted to explore them with officials in great detail before bringing the amendment back to your Lordships today. However, I am as convinced as I can be that this is a clear safeguard. Women in refuges or secure housing are clearly caught by the other limb of the Bill, meaning that they would have been in a refuge centre because somebody known to them had been violent towards them. That is clearly covered by the other part of the Bill and would mean that, if it was anybody known to the victim, that would allow the police to apply for that DNA to be retained.
I am clear that the wording is sufficiently comprehensive to cover what we are trying to achieve, which I outlined in moving the amendment, and at the same time to protect those who are most vulnerable. I shall of course be willing to discuss further with the noble Baroness outside the Chamber any of her concerns, but I felt that it was appropriate for me to move this amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
The noble Baroness pointed to the words “or otherwise” at the end of the amendment. I may not have been paying sufficient attention to the argument, in which case I apologise, but if this matter is considered further perhaps she would take on board that within this definition the impairment is through only physical or mental disability or illness, and that the last five words are a description of what might cause the physical or mental disability or illness. Therefore, one cannot read “or otherwise” as extending the impairment. I repeat: the impairment is only through disability or illness. As I listened to the noble Baroness, I thought that she was asking us to read “or otherwise” as adding to “disability or illness”, which I do not think it does.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am sorry if I in any way misled your Lordships. In her definition of those final five words—particularly the use of “otherwise”—the noble Baroness is correct. I was seeking to make it clear that impairment through physical or mental disability could be due to old age or otherwise. I am not trying to introduce something new; I am saying that it is possible for the impairment to be not just limited to old age. I hope that I am making myself clear; it does get rather complicated. However, in simple terms, I think that the noble Baroness is right.
“(5A) The responsible chief officer of police may apply to a District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) for an order to retain a sample to which this section applies beyond the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5) if—
(a) the sample was taken from a person in connection with the investigation of a qualifying offence, and(b) the responsible chief officer of police considers that the condition in subsection (5B) is met.(5B) The condition is that, having regard to the nature and complexity of other material that is evidence in relation to the offence, the sample is likely to be needed in any proceedings for the offence for the purposes of—
(a) disclosure to, or use by, a defendant, or(b) responding to any challenge by a defendant in respect of the admissibility of material that is evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.(5C) An application under subsection (5A) must be made before the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5).
(5D) If, on an application made by the responsible chief officer of police under subsection (5A), the District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts) is satisfied that the condition in subsection (5B) is met, the District Judge may make an order under this subsection which—
(a) allows the sample to be retained for a period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of subsection (4) or (5), and(b) may be renewed (on one or more occasions) for a further period of not more than 12 months from the end of the period when the order would otherwise cease to have effect.(5E) An application for an order under subsection (5D) (other than an application for renewal)—
(a) may be made without notice of the application having been given to the person from whom the sample was taken, and(b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of that person.(5F) A sample retained by virtue of an order under subsection (5D) must not be used other than for the purposes of any proceedings for the offence in connection with which the sample was taken.
(5G) A sample that ceases to be retained by virtue of an order under subsection (5D) must be destroyed.”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we have previously discussed, the Bill creates a general rule that all individual samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. This represents a significant step in protecting the civil liberties of those whose DNA is taken in the course of a criminal investigation, as it ensures that the particularly sensitive genetic material, which is generally not needed for identification purposes, is destroyed at the earliest opportunity.
However, as we have proceeded with our consideration of how to implement the provisions of the Bill, prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service have made representations to us that, in a limited number of cases each year, it would in fact be necessary to retain the individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene.
Prosecutors are concerned that, if they are not able to retain samples in these cases, they might be unable to withstand such a challenge and acquittals on technical grounds might result. An example of the type of case where such an issue might arise could be where the crime scene stain contained a mixture of, for example, the blood of both a murder victim and their attacker, and possibly a third person, such as an innocent housemate of the victim. In such a sample, the quantity of material from the victim is likely far to exceed that from the attacker and the innocent third party but, without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus to make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.
Amendment 7 would therefore insert into Clause 14 a mechanism to enable the police, very early in a case before any samples had been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates’ court to retain all the individual samples in a case for a period of 12 months. That should be long enough in the majority of cases to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of DNA profiles and/or matches. If not, the material would be destroyed at that point.
If a suspect had not been identified at the 12-month point, or if the derivation of the profiles and/or matches was still in dispute, the police would be able to apply to the courts to retain the material for a further 12 months, with further such applications available until either the case was concluded or there was no need to retain it any longer. If at that stage a suspect had been identified and criminal proceedings were under way, Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 would allow the trial judge to deal with the application to continue to retain the samples.
I emphasise to your Lordships that we anticipate this procedure being used in only a handful of cases each year, all of which must be serious crimes on the qualifying offences list. While biological samples will be retained following a successful application, those samples will be able to be used only in the case for which they are taken and no extra profiles will be retained on the National DNA Database.
Given that the concerns of prosecutors would also apply in respect of the prosecution of those arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, we are making similar provision in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 8 to Clause 17 is technical and confirms that material taken under the regimes in the International Criminal Court Act and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act is not subject to the rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but to the rules in those Acts.
The amendments to Clause 18 make it clear that, in respect of a DNA profile, the responsible chief officer is the one whose force took the original sample rather than the one in whose force area the forensic science laboratory is located, while Amendment 14 to Clause 21 removes the definition of the phrase “law enforcement authority”, which is not used elsewhere in that clause.
Finally, I take this opportunity to give notice to the House that we are considering whether it would be helpful to clarify further the scope of the regime for the retention and destruction of material under Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. If we conclude that further clarification would be helpful, I propose to bring forward further amendments to Schedule 1 to the Bill at Third Reading. Naturally, I will give noble Lords proper notice of any such amendments, should they prove to be necessary.
I should have said at the beginning that, in moving Amendment 7, I was speaking also to Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation of the reasoning behind these amendments. I want to raise a question about a particular part of the amendment rather than to make any point in opposition to the amendments.
The amendments in this group appear to require the application to be made before a district judge in the magistrates’ court. Will the noble Baroness confirm what appears to be the case; namely, that an application could not be made before lay magistrates in the same court? I may be wrong, but if that assumption is right, will the Minister say why this is the case on this issue, since it does not relate, for example, to terrorist activity or threats to national security? As I understand it, the issue simply concerns the case for retention. Is it because there is an existing statute that already provides for this approach? Is it because it is considered that such applications will normally involve complex issues of law? Is it envisaged that such applications will normally be lengthy hearings lasting more than one day? Is it because lay magistrates do not want this responsibility? Is it a lack of confidence in lay magistrates? Or does the reference to “district judge” include lay magistrates? That may possibly be the explanation.
Will the Minister also say whether there is a district judge sitting at every magistrates’ court at which such an application might most conveniently be made; whether it is envisaged that a district judge will hear such applications on occasions outside court sitting hours, away from the court; and what will happen if the district judge who is down to hear the application is off sick on the day fixed for the hearing and, as is often the case, no other district judge is sitting at that magistrates’ court? Will the date for hearing the application have to be rearranged, or in those circumstances would arrangements be made for the application to be heard by a Bench of lay magistrates already sitting that day at the court in question? To cover myself, perhaps I should declare that I am a lay magistrate—but I am not asking these questions in order to tout for additional business.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will speak briefly on one aspect of the amendment that might be of interest to the noble Lord, in the hope that further advice might wing its way to me. It may be that the specification of a district judge might relate to the fact that the application by the police in the first instance would be ex parte. That may be why the application needs to be made to a district judge rather than to a lay magistrate. I can now confirm that the application will be only to a district judge, not to a lay magistrate, because it is an exception to a general principle requiring discretion, and is not to be used routinely. If no district judge is available, the application could be heard by a circuit judge if one is available. If after that explanation the noble Lord feels that I have not answered all his questions, I will follow up in writing.
“(2A) Sections 63D to 63T do not apply to material to which paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to the International Criminal Court Act 2001 (requirement to destroy material) applies.
(2B) Sections 63D to 63T do not apply to material to which paragraph 6 of Schedule 6 to the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (requirement to destroy material) applies.”
“(5A) The responsible chief officer of police may apply to a relevant court for an order to retain a sample to which this paragraph applies beyond the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5) if—
(a) the sample was taken from a person detained under section 41 in connection with the investigation of a qualifying offence, and(b) the responsible chief officer of police considers that the condition in sub-paragraph (5B) is met.(5B) The condition is that, having regard to the nature and complexity of other material that is evidence in relation to the offence, the sample is likely to be needed in any proceedings for the offence for the purposes of—
(a) disclosure to, or use by, a defendant, or(b) responding to any challenge by a defendant in respect of the admissibility of material that is evidence on which the prosecution proposes to rely.(5C) An application under sub-paragraph (5A) must be made before the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5).
(5D) If, on an application made by the responsible chief officer of police under sub-paragraph (5A), the relevant court is satisfied that the condition in sub-paragraph (5B) is met, it may make an order under this sub-paragraph which—
(a) allows the sample to be retained for a period of 12 months beginning with the date on which the sample would otherwise be required to be destroyed by virtue of sub-paragraph (4) or (5), and(b) may be renewed (on one or more occasions) for a further period of not more than 12 months from the end of the period when the order would otherwise cease to have effect.(5E) An application for an order under sub-paragraph (5D) (other than an application for renewal)—
(a) may be made without notice of the application having been given to the person from whom the sample was taken, and(b) may be heard and determined in private in the absence of that person.(5F) In Scotland, an application for an order under sub-paragraph (5D) (including an application for renewal) is to be made by summary application.
(5G) A sample retained by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (5D) must not be used other than for the purposes of any proceedings for the offence in connection with which the sample was taken.
(5H) A sample that ceases to be retained by virtue of an order under sub-paragraph (5D) must be destroyed.”
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, Amendment 15 deals with membership of the National DNA Database Strategy Board. In Committee, I moved an amendment requiring rules about the composition of the board to be included as part of the governance arrangements. The Minister reassured me that the Government's rules would include full membership of the board. She said that an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner's Office and the National DNA Database Ethics Group would be included. She also said that she would be happy to receive suggestions to strengthen the independent element. This is such a suggestion.
My point in that debate and now is that an independent element need not be, and possibly should not be, a member of the board in a representative capacity. Noble Lords will all have experience of boards to which independent members bring exactly that: independence. They come as individuals with not only independence but judgment, experience of the wider world and so on. If they are representatives of other organisations, they have a rather different role to play. My reason for moving the amendment again is not just to respond to the invitation issued in Committee but to ask the Government to bear this in mind and not exclude the desirability of having true independence involved in the governance of the board. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her explanation in moving her amendment. The first thing I will make clear to her is that we are not averse to including on the National DNA Database Strategy Board someone who is wholly independent in the sense that they have no direct or indirect interest in this field and, as such, can exercise a role akin to that of a non-executive director, as my noble friend explained and illustrated. All I can do at this time is restate what I said in Committee: namely, as she acknowledged, that the governance rules that must be published under the new Section 63AB(6) of PACE will include the full membership of the board, and that membership will continue to include an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner's Office, the National DNA Database Ethics Group and the Forensic Science Regulator. We do not consider it necessary to specify the membership of the board in the Bill or at this time to specify what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary might include in the governance when it is decided and published, but I am sure that in reviewing the membership of the board she will consider the points that have been made by my noble friend. I think she will want to ensure that we are not so specific in those governance rules that they prevent us changing any of the independent elements of the membership of that board in future, when different organisations might be associated with DNA.
I hope that my explanations have given my noble friend the assurance she needs that we understand the importance of an independent element in the board and that we want to retain flexibility for the future in the make-up of the board. However, we will certainly take into account the points she has made.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for moving this amendment. I have been provided with speaking notes to address some of the points that he has raised but, before I get to them, it occurs to me that perhaps he is raising two different issues here. I speak as someone who worked at the BBC for nine years. Following the noble Lord’s praise for Sky, I do not know whether this will mean that I attract criticism from him, but, as I say, I think that there are two separate matters here.
One is about documentaries or docusoaps, in which broadcasters follow police services and, in the course of filming or making the programmes, they capture footage on film of people doing things that are against the law. In those circumstances, the broadcasters tend to pixelate the images when they are played out. The broadcasters of that kind of imagery clearly have to comply with Ofcom’s broadcasting code and ensure that they do not broadcast images that might jeopardise any legal process that the police service might want to pursue in apprehending the person whom they have filmed. There is a separate issue that the noble Lord spoke more to in moving the amendment. It covers situations where news organisations, including the BBC, Sky, ITV and many others, broadcast CCTV footage that has been released to them by the police, usually in order for them to report on criminal activity and to broadcast the fact of that activity to the general public. In responding to the noble Lord, I will focus my comments on the second category of images rather than the first.
I start by saying that I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord that CCTV systems and images are an important investigative tool for the police. There is little point in investing in such systems if the police and others cannot make full use of the images when investigating offences captured on CCTV systems and prosecuting offenders. Where a suspect has yet to be identified and there is reason to believe that the release of CCTV footage will aid the police investigation of a crime and secure justice for the victim, our general approach is that we support images being made available to the public. There will be some cases where this may not be appropriate. However, the BBC programme “Crimewatch” is a great example of where CCTV footage of crimes has been broadcast and, as a result, the public have been able to provide vital information to the police.
We must be alive to the fact that at an early stage of an investigation, before anyone has been arrested for an alleged offence, any CCTV images would at best identify only one or more alleged offenders or wholly innocent persons. We need to be sensitive to such considerations, particularly where the persons visible on any CCTV footage appear to be under 18 and are therefore afforded particular protection within the criminal justice system. The position is different once a person has been arrested for an offence. In those circumstances, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 is engaged. This means that from the time of their arrest, a suspect is afforded a degree of protection in order to ensure that as the accused they have a fair trial.
All these considerations argue for a degree of constraint on the media in publishing personal details of suspects at the pre-charge stage. This is consistent with guidance issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers that sets out the limited circumstances in which police officers might divulge to the media the personal details of those suspected of, but not yet charged with, an offence. The ACPO guidance sets out the principles in this area, including the legal tests of necessity and proportionality, to help police forces make decisions about the release of images of suspects and defendants to the media.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the issue. It is clearly relevant to the provisions of the Bill, given that one of our objectives is to promote the effective use of CCTV systems. As I said, it must be right that the police should be able to exploit CCTV images as part of their investigation of an offence. If the publication of such images has a role to play in helping identify suspects, the police should not be inhibited from placing them in the public domain. In doing so, they must have proper regard to their duties under data protection legislation and to the need to protect the rights of the accused, and they must have particular regard to the position of children. I hope that, having sparked the debate and listened to my responses, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I was grateful to her for taking my call earlier today to discuss her amendment. Since speaking to her this afternoon and rereading the notes and advice that I have had on this amendment, I hope I can provide her with more assurance than I indicated earlier, but I will not prejudge that.
As I made clear in Committee, I fully share my noble friend’s concerns about the impact that intrusive noise can have, particularly when it comes from neighbouring properties. I share her concerns that in many cases noise monitoring would already fall outside the RIPA regime because there is not an expectation of privacy. However, in some cases it is possible that noise monitoring amounts to an intrusion of an individual’s expectations of privacy. In such cases it is right that steps are taken to ensure that any monitoring is both necessary and proportionate. The whole point of the RIPA safeguards of necessity and proportionality is that there needs to be an assessment on a case-by-case basis that takes into account the individual facts of the case.
RIPA ensures that public authority surveillance activity meets its obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Without a RIPA authorisation, a public authority that exceeds the bounds or intrudes quite significantly is at risk of an ECHR challenge. However, I share my noble friend’s view that many noise abatement investigations do not engage any private information and are therefore outside the scope of RIPA. I gave a few examples when we debated this issue in Committee; for example, the monitoring of loud music, alarms or machinery; if someone is having a row and it is causing inconvenience to other people they cannot be in a position to believe that that is private. There are occasions when obtaining a RIPA authorisation for noise abatement would clearly be superseded by the need for immediate action—for example, by the police—because the intervention is for a public order incident.
Home Office officials have been discussing these matters with members of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, Defra and London Councils. We have said that we cannot create a general exclusion for any noise abatement measurement or monitoring, especially if the steps taken to investigate it infringe privacy rights. However, I hope I can provide my noble friend with the assurance that she is seeking by saying that we will look again at the RIPA code of practice on surveillance to see whether we can make it clearer that in the circumstances that I have outlined—that is, where no private information is engaged or a where a person would normally be regarded as having forfeited any claim to privacy—a RIPA authorisation is unlikely to be required. I hope that that is sufficient to persuade my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 1 month ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wills has set out the objectives of the amendment, which seek to improve the delivery of a transparent and open system of government through the previous Government’s groundbreaking Freedom of Information Act. They are in line with the Government’s own pledge to improve and extend the drive for greater transparency. The Freedom of Information Act provided a mechanism for the Government to extend the scope of the Act, as my noble friend has already explained. By placing a duty on the Government to report annually on their activities to maintain or extend transparency through further designation of public authorities and on public authorities to report on their efforts to comply with the Act, the amendment will create a driver that will strengthen and adhere to the principles and purpose of the Act. I very much hope that we will hear a positive response from the Minister to the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon the Government are very committed to greater transparency and to making sure that the Freedom of Information Act introduced by the previous Administration operates as effectively as possible. That is behind our commitment to introduce post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, which is now under way and being carried out by the Justice Select Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, explained, Amendment 151B would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report detailing the Government’s actions in relation to Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which enables the Act to be extended to bodies performing functions of a public nature or providers of public services under contract. Amendment 151D proposes that public authorities are required to publish annual reports containing prescribed classes of information about their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and environmental information regulations.
In relation to Amendment 151B, I fully appreciate the need for transparency in relation to the Government’s exercise of the power in Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Government are, and will continue to be transparent in this area. We have given advance notice of planned consultations under Section 5 and, of course, any order made under that section is subject to the affirmative procedure. We see no practical benefit in introducing a requirement to publish an annual report. I also agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 151D regarding the transparency of freedom of information activity. Public authorities should be accountable for their performance in respect of freedom of information requests and actions. However, I am not persuaded of the case for introducing a statutory requirement to publish an annual report along the lines proposed here. We need to be alert to the resource implications before placing any new burdens on public authorities. That said, I recognise that the transparency of freedom of information performance across the public sector is also something to which Parliament may wish to return, as I have already said, in the post-legislative scrutiny that is now under way. While I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, in light of the fact that that post-legislative scrutiny will provide a forum for such proposals to be properly considered in the round, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for her gracious and largely positive response, although I am slightly baffled as to why the Government have not seized on these simple amendments. This would be an easy thing for them to do. When in the future I stand up, as I will probably feel obliged to, to berate them for their slow progress in extending transparency, they would be able to hold it up and say, “Look, we’ve done this already”. I say with all respect to the Minister that the announcement about the consultation on Section 5 came quite late in the Government’s lifetime, after many occasions on which I and others had had to badger them about their lack of progress on it. It is not a regular occurrence—the amendment would make it obligatory for that sort of transparency to be provided only annually, so I am slightly baffled as to why the Minister has not seized on this offering more gladly than she has. However, I am grateful for her positive words and I will, of course, withdraw the amendment. I hope that she and the Government will understand that it is important that post-legislative scrutiny should not be used as an excuse to delay all action on this indefinitely. They will be held to account on their pledge to extend transparency and, the sooner they deliver on it, the better for the health of our democracy. For the time being, though, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for introducing and explaining his amendment, and also for the supplementary comments from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
I am not going to apologise for the fact that this Government are carrying out post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act and that I will refer to it on several occasions during the course of these debates. Such scrutiny is a very important and proper way of looking at existing legislation to see whether it is working effectively and operating as intended and for looking at ways in which it can be improved in the round. As a new Member of your Lordships’ House, on many occasions over the past year I have heard references to the need for post-legislative scrutiny and how that would be an important part of any legislation that passes through Parliament. Therefore, we should see as a good thing the fact that we have that mechanism in place for this Act and that it is happening at this time.
The noble Lord, Lord Wills has explained his amendments effectively, so there is no need for me to repeat any of what he said. However, as he said, these two amendments are similar to those he tabled during the passage of the Localism Bill through this House. I am sorry that the noble Lord does not feel that his concerns were adequately addressed on that occasion. As he says, my noble friend Lord McNally stressed during the debates on the Localism Bill the Government’s commitment to the Freedom of Information Act and described some of the measures that we are taking to extend its scope. For example, as the noble Lord is aware, the Bill includes a provision to extend the scope of the Act to companies wholly owned by two or more public authorities. We have also made an order under Section 5 of the Act extending its scope to, among others, the Association of Chief Police Officers. In addition, we are currently consulting more than 200 further bodies about their possible inclusion, and we intend to extend this consultation to more than 2,000 housing associations later this year.
Our continued opposition to the proposals within these amendments does not stem from any lack of commitment to the cause of transparency. As my noble friend stressed last year, it is important that we ensure that changes to the ways in which public services are delivered do not undermine our pledge to increase openness and accountability. I absolutely share the point made by the noble Lord about that.
This issue is already being considered as part of the Government’s response to the Cabinet Office consultation on a draft transparency and open data strategy, which is due to be published early this year. It is also an issue which the Justice Select Committee may wish to consider during its post-legislative scrutiny of the Act. It is, of course, open to noble Lords—I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Wills, with his experience and expertise in this matter will do so—to make representations to the committee as part of its work.
More generally, it is important that we assess carefully the likely impact of any change against the benefits that it will bring. This is to ensure that transparency is both maintained and enhanced but with due regard to any burdens that might be imposed. For example, under Amendment 151C, it would be problematic for both contractors and public authorities to comply with freedom of information requests for contract information. Public authorities would need to have access to any information held by the contractor that is potentially relevant in responding to the request. Such a requirement to share all such information with the public authority so that it could comply with freedom of information requests could adversely affect the effective delivery of that contract. In particular, it might, for example, provide the public authority with commercially sensitive information on other matters to which the authority would not—or, arguably, should not—have access.
In addition, Amendment 152A, for example, which seeks to make all companies more than 50 per cent owned by the public sector subject to the Act, would increase the risk of activities not relating to the public sector being made subject to the Act given the varied interests that these bodies might have. The noble Lord made reference to that argument before, but it is a very compelling argument. If there is a strong argument for including a specific body in relation to the specific things that it does, this is better achieved through other means, such as an order made under Section 5 of the FOI Act. However, as I have indicated, we are already extending the scope of the Act to all companies that are wholly owned by any number of public authorities, as provided for in Clause 101 of the Bill.
Amendment 152A relates solely to the local government sector. As my noble friend Lord McNally explained to the House at the Report stage of the Localism Bill, it would not be appropriate, as is proposed in the amendment, simply to amend the Freedom of Information Act in relation to bodies that have entered into contracts with local government. In addition, although I do not think that this argument was deployed by my noble friend during the passage of that Bill, in preparing myself for today’s debate it seemed to me that the proposal could act as a disincentive to competition among contractors. That is another argument and reason why we should not necessarily go down this route.
To conclude, I would like to reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, that our opposition to his proposals stems not from an aversion to increased transparency but from our desire to ensure that effective and proportionate solutions are developed. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her broadly constructive, helpful and typically gracious response. However, I say to her that she does not have to persuade me, as I am genuinely trying to be helpful. When I was a Member of Parliament, 75 per cent of my casework—I dealt with about 1,200 different cases every month—was complaints about Swindon Borough Council. What most people really want to know about is what their local authority is doing for them. At some point in the future, unless the Minister makes good on the warm words that we have just heard from her and brings back under the scope of the Act those local authority functions that are being given out to private contractors, every MP on the Government’s side will be battered by complaints from their constituents, who will ask, “Why can we not find out more information about this work, which our money is paying for—work that is being done on our behalf—because of the result of legislation that you have passed?”. That is the current situation.
I would be very happy to give way to the Minister. If she is going to reassure me, I will be delighted.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I simply point out to the noble Lord that my understanding is that, although a local authority may contract out a service to a provider, the local authority is still accountable for the delivery of that service. Therefore, any individual should be able to request—using the Freedom of Information Act if necessary, or through correspondence with their local MP—the information that they need to be able to satisfy themselves that what they pay for through their local taxes is actually providing the service that they expect and that they deserve to receive.
Lord Wills
I am grateful to the Minister for what is a very valiant attempt, if I may say so. I will not detain the House at length, as I am about to withdraw the amendment. However, if she refers to the column in Hansard where I originally raised this point, during the passage of the Localism Bill, she will see that that is not quite the case. There are many instances where services have gone to private contractors that people just cannot find out about. For example, on the issue of parking tickets, many people are very suspicious about the way that private ticket companies operate. People suspect that the ticketing is a revenue-raising operation rather than an attempt to ensure that the traffic can move safely and securely through town. When people want to find out about that, they cannot do so because private sector companies are not covered by the Act. As I say, the Minister does not have to persuade me, but all the Members of Parliament in the other place will be besieged by constituents in the years to come unless this Government make good on their pledge to get this information back into the public domain. There will be a heavy price to pay—that is all that I can say.
For the record, I am afraid that I am not persuaded by her arguments, for what it is worth. Of course post-legislative scrutiny is a good thing, and the Minister is quite right to bang the drum about that. I support the Government on that, but they have ignored their own good practice in this case by removing such matters from the Act in having already taken a piecemeal decision about this.
However, I remain willing to be persuaded about the Government’s good intentions. I believe that the Government want to extend transparency, but I make the point—I tried to make this point to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, as well—that open data is an admirable project, on which the Government are doing great work. That work was begun by the previous Government, and I support this Government in the way that they are taking it forward so vigorously. That is a great thing, but it is different from freedom of information. There is one crucial difference. As regards open data, it is for the Government to decide what data they release. They have been open and are pushing the transparency agenda vigorously—all credit to them for that—but the Government decide on that matter. As regards freedom of information, the citizen decides what information he wants. It is bottom up as opposed to top down. They complement one another and they should be working together, but they are different. That is not an adequate excuse in my view.
However, I have detained the Committee long enough and, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I agree that any person guilty of an offence of altering or destroying information that has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act should be prosecuted, and they should not be able to evade prosecution because the Information Commissioner has been unable to consider the case within six months of such an offence occurring. I am aware that the Scottish Government have recently launched a public consultation exercise which, in part, asks for views on whether to lengthen the time limit for bringing prosecutions under the equivalent provision in the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act, from six to 12 months. I am also aware that the current time limit applicable to Section 77 of the UK Act has been the subject of some comment by the Commons Science and Technology Committee in its reports into the events, which have already been mentioned today, at the University of East Anglia.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made reference to evidence given to a committee in September by the Information Commissioner. In the Government’s response to the Commons Science and Technology Committee last year in May, we stated that we would work with the Information Commissioner’s Office to determine the extent to which perceived difficulties with the current six-month time limit for initiating prosecutions stand up to scrutiny. To date, there is a lack of concrete evidence to demonstrate that prosecutions have not been brought as a result of the existing arrangements. However, because the Government share the concerns expressed by noble Lords today, should evidence emerge of a widespread and genuine problem, consideration will be given to the most appropriate means of remedying this issue. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wills, will not be surprised to hear me say that this issue might be one that could be looked at as part of post-legislative scrutiny.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made reference to the Information Commissioner’s evidence in September last year. That is something that I was not specifically aware of, but I understand that we are in discussions with the Information Commissioner’s Office. It may be that measures similar to those proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Wills, would be the most appropriate way of responding to conclusive evidence in favour of change, should that emerge. Certainly, the solution proposed in Amendment 151J to lengthen the period from six months from the commission of an offence to three years, but within six months of the prosecuting authority being furnished with relevant evidence, is commonly used when a longer timescale for bringing a prosecution is justified. However, we would need to consider what was most appropriate to ensure the right measures were put in place. I am sympathetic to what he is saying, but the Government are not in a position to commit to it.
Amendment 151K seeks to address the issue in another way, that is, by making the Section 77 offence triable either way. The six-month time limit for bringing a prosecution of course applies only to summary offences. I take it that the noble Lord envisages that the maximum penalty for the offence, when it is tried on indictment, should be an unlimited fine. We need to bear in mind that Clause 79 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill removes the limits on fines of £5,000 or more on conviction by the magistrates’ court. That being the case, it may be more efficient to continue to try these offences in the magistrates’ court.
Both the time limit and the maximum penalty are issues that the Justice Select Committee may wish to consider during the post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act. I hope that on the basis of what I have been able to say today, the noble Lord will feel it possible to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Wills
I am very grateful to the Minister and I am reassured by her response. I shall, of course, withdraw the amendment, but could I ask her to do something? She rightly said that there has to be a need for compelling evidence—or concrete evidence, I think, was the expression that she used. Could she contact the Information Commissioner and ask him to produce the evidence that he has to that effect and the problems that he has encountered and why he thinks it is a problem? Perhaps if I tabled these amendments again on Report she could tell the House what the response has been, what evidence there is or whether there is any evidence. With that, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, these amendments merely seek to ensure that the process operates as quickly and as efficiently as possible by providing a duty on public authorities to expedite requests through the relevant processes as quickly as possible and within a certain period of time. I believe that they are entirely reasonable and are a matter of enhanced transparency and good governance. My noble friend is right when he says that they could also help to resolve some of the deeper problems that we discussed earlier. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will support these reasonable, clear and sensible amendments which would ensure that the system worked better in favour of public accountability—which is, after all, what the FOI Act was designed to serve.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wills, for explaining his amendments so clearly. I will not attempt to summarise them and take up the Committee’s time unnecessarily. I agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s amendments in relation to the timeliness of public interest deliberations and internal reviews, which tally with the Information Commissioner’s best practice guidance.
The Government are firmly in favour of public authorities answering requests and internal reviews as quickly as possible. It is not acceptable that they should drag their heels in responding, and any extension to the time limit for responding to FOI requests should be claimed only where absolutely necessary.
The introduction of new statutory deadlines is certainly one potential way of strengthening the Freedom of Information Act, providing that it does not lead to hasty decisions that are not fully informed. Having an absolute limit of 40 days, even in the most complex cases, must raise some concerns about the potential for such an effect. Accordingly, careful consideration of the impact of such changes would be necessary before their introduction, and for that reason I cannot accept these amendments today. However, as I have said when we discussed other amendments, this might form part of the Justice Select Committee’s post-legislative review.
The noble Lord referred to his experiences as Freedom of Information Minister. I would never claim to have held any such senior position anywhere. However, I spent nine years working in the corporate end of the BBC and saw the internal conflicts that sometimes arose between the editorial part of the organisation using the FOI Act to obtain information and its corporate end having to be subject to the same Act. I am aware of the very careful deliberations that are necessary when an information request comes in and the complexities involved in that. It is sometimes necessary to take a bit of time to get to the point where the right decision can be made on releasing information. That said, in that public authority it was my experience that as the organisation got used to the FOI Act, it got quicker at dealing with the requests, the appeals, the internal reviews and so on.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I want first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Soley, on his staying power this afternoon. Beyond myself and my noble friend he is one of the few Members who has been with us throughout the proceedings and it has been very nice to see him here.
On his amendment, I recognise the difficulties that can be encountered when attempting to establish land ownership and recognise the noble Lord’s intentions in seeking to address this point. The way in which he has described the problems is very clear and compelling. However, this amendment would go well beyond the intentions of the Freedom of Information Act. It is not intended to require public authorities to carry out detailed, time-consuming and potentially disproportionately expensive research for information they do not hold.
However, where a request for information made under Section 16 of the Freedom of Information Act requires a public authority to provide a reasonable degree of advice and assistance to applicants this would, where information is not held, include advice about how they might obtain answers to their questions from other sources themselves. In terms of process, this strikes the right sort of balance between the need to use increasingly limited resources sensibly and assisting the public where possible. However, as the noble Lord has identified, the problem he has expressed today goes way beyond this and is currently—it sounds simple from the way he has described it—almost impossible to solve through any route available to anybody at this time.
I was interested in his suggestion of pursuing this problem through a Select Committee route and exploring it because it sounds as if it is a significant issue that requires proper consideration in isolation and separate from this legislation. In respect of the Land Registry, the proposal in his amendment to require an authority to go further than provide the information it has via the FOI Act which receives a report would not just catch the Land Registry, but any other body with an interest in land ownership. I am not sure that was the noble Lord’s intention. I feel that he has raised an important issue. It is certainly useful for us to be aware of it and certainly in the presence of officials from the Ministry of Justice who are considering FOI. I think it goes wider than that and I would be more inclined to support the noble Lord in his effort to pursue this through a Select Committee than to do it through this Bill. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Soley
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for that reply, for the constructive way in which she has addressed the issue and for her interest—I think that was the word that she used—in my proposal that the matter should go to a Select Committee. I can assure her that the report of this Committee’s proceedings will be brought to the attention both of the clerks to those committees—I have not quite worked out which would be the best committee and, actually, it might be best dealt with by a Joint Committee—and of the chairs of those committees, one of whom I have already spoken to.
I will also draw the issue to the attention of the Land Registry, which I think needs to think about what sort of answers we might need on this. I accept the Minister’s point that the issue goes much wider and I recognise that only a small part of it could come within the scope of the Bill. What I am struggling with is finding a way in which Parliament can address the issue to resolve the problems that confront people and that are, in many cases, very immediate for them. As I said, I could have referred to a number of cases that have been brought to my attention, and I am sure that there are many other such cases around the country.
I am grateful for the Minister’s comments and happily beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group. This final group contains various minor amendments, a number of which are consequential on other government amendments agreed during the Committee of the whole House. I will be happy to provide further details if necessary, but subject to that, I beg to move.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hamwee
I do speak for myself. I hope Amendment 124, at any rate in the drafting, is a little more straightforward. I declare an interest as one of a number of vice presidents of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, from which this amendment comes. The amendment is concerned with environmental health and, in particular, with noise.
There has been, I understand, a long-running issue as to whether the investigation of noise nuisance requires covert surveillance. It is not the Home Office but in fact Defra which has mainly been concerned with this. Environmental health officers listen to noise in its context and record, one of the technical terms, anything listened to which brings—as I understand it since it is as the institute understands it—what it does within the meaning of Section 26(9) of RIPA. The Home Office takes the view that dealing with noise nuisance does not ordinarily require covert surveillance and so it is not caught by RIPA. Perhaps this amendment covers it if and when it does. Therefore this amendment is a probing one. The institute is generally in support of the need for judicial authorisation but so far as its work is concerned in this area there are some difficulties.
As this has been long running, it is able to anticipate the arguments that may be made against the need for such an amendment so I am going to start with the response and then its response to each of the Home Office’s likely responses. The first is that surveillance follows complaints so quickly that obtaining authorisation would not be reasonably practicable and that this excuses the need for authorisation. The institute says that the exception is when surveillance is undertaken as an “immediate response”, such as when a police officer sights a suspect in the street. There is always going to be a delay between the making of the noise complaint and its investigation. Secondly, if local authorities warn noise perpetrators that they may be monitored surveillance following that will not be covert and so will not be caught by RIPA.
Giving a warning causes delay. It rather undermines the duty on local authorities under the Environmental Protection Act to investigate complaints and quite obviously it would tend to be self-defeating. I dare say many noble Lords will have experienced complaint in different contexts to noise or what they may perceive as noise. I perceive muzak as noise. I have often asked for it to be turned down. It is turned down temporarily in a place of entertainment and up it goes again. Thirdly, if local authorities warn noise perpetrators that they may be monitored, again surveillance will not be covert and so not caught. I beg your pardon. I should have said that giving a warning takes the investigation out of RIPA and the measurement of sound pressure levels does not require authorisation. But there is no numerical standard for noise nuisance because environmental health officers have to judge the noise in context. Depending on what else is going on, the noise may or may not be intrusive, and for evidential purposes it is accepted practice to record it.
Fourthly, private information is unlikely to be obtained because perpetrators have no right of privacy to information that is audible outside the premises it is coming from. However, the institute draws attention to the definition in RIPA of “private information” by reference to its content as distinct from its audibility. Fifthly, surveillance carried out without authorisation is not necessarily unlawful. That is the case where there is an equivalent process of authorisation in another statute, but that does not apply in this case. Lastly, the whole thrust of this part of the Bill is the protection of magistrates’ approval against unjustified snooping by local authorities, and both I and the institute have sympathy with that. The Home Office has confirmed in Answer to a parliamentary Question in another place that there is no evidence to suggest that noise investigations are being carried out inappropriately by local authorities. We have read of instances where local authorities have rather overstepped the mark in their use of the powers, but this is not one of those examples.
In the hope that I have not taken too much of the Minister’s speech in anticipation of the answer, I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her introduction to the amendment, and indeed she has anticipated quite a lot of what I will say in response. None the less, there are some things that are worth emphasising, and I hope that in doing so I can give her some assurances. I certainly agree that noise nuisance is something that is clearly intolerable to the person experiencing it and that in many instances the noise under investigation may occur at night, so anyone who is subject to that kind of disturbance feels strongly about the situation they find themselves in and wants any action to deal with it to be rapid. However, Amendment 124 is unnecessary because the sort of noise we are talking about, that which causes disturbance and affects people’s lives, is not caught by RIPA.
Before I go on to cover some of the topics raised by my noble friend, let me say that Home Office officials have already met representatives of the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and of Defra to discuss these points. We have said that we shall work with them on revising the RIPA code of practice on covert surveillance in order to make it clear that authorisation under RIPA is unlikely to be necessary for noise abatement reasons. Surveillance conducted and governed under RIPA relates to private information only. It requires that when public authorities obtain private information covertly, they do so only when it is necessary and proportionate, in line with our right to privacy. However, the privacy implications of someone making a loud noise will usually be such that RIPA is not engaged. Loud machinery, alarms or music, for instance, are not private information, and if the noise emanating from someone’s house because of, say, an argument is so loud that it can be heard in the street outside or the adjoining property, it is highly questionable whether the people concerned have a realistic expectation of privacy. If the noise involves violent or threatening behaviour, then it would always be appropriate to call for the police.
If the council’s policy is to serve an abatement notice warning that monitoring may be carried out, then that monitoring cannot be deemed to be covert in nature, which my noble friend has already anticipated. In these scenarios, a RIPA authorisation would not be required. This is made clear in the RIPA covert surveillance code of practice; that code has statutory force.
The only instance where a RIPA authorisation definitely would be required is where a local authority noise monitoring device was calibrated to boost the signal so as to record conversations which could not be heard outside the property with the naked ear. However, this would constitute intrusive surveillance and RIPA does not permit local authorities to do this. Most people would agree that this would be an unwarranted breach of someone’s privacy. I therefore maintain that local authority noise monitoring would not normally require to be authorised under RIPA; that this is already made clear in RIPA; and that it therefore would not be subject to prior magistrate approval. However, as I say, we are meeting with the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and Defra to look at the code of practice. Before I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment, I wish to reinforce the Government’s view that noise disturbance of the kind she describes is an important matter. However, I do not think that her amendment is necessary.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will endeavour to respond as comprehensively as I can to the issues raised in this short debate. I appreciate the concerns raised by the Bar Council but your Lordships will understand that no one can regard themselves as beyond the law or immune from investigation or prosecution. Nevertheless, RIPA recognises the special relationship between a lawyer and client, and puts in place special protections for any covert obtaining of material subject to legal and professional privilege.
RIPA already limits obtaining legally privileged material to intelligence and law enforcement agencies investigating serious crime or acting in the interests of national security. In each case, whether it is interception or surveillance, internal authorisation is by senior official—for instance, the director-general of the Security Service or a chief constable. In addition, and crucially, this is then subject to external independent approval, either by the Secretary of State or a surveillance commissioner, before any covert action can be taken.
The RIPA codes of practice, which have statutory force, provide further safeguards. The interception code makes it clear that where communications which include legally privileged communications have been intercepted and retained, or where the subject of the interception is to be a lawyer, the matter should be reported to the Interception of Communications Commissioner during his inspections and the material be made available to him, if requested.
In addition to safeguards governing the handling and retention of intercept material as provided for in Section 15 of the Act, caseworkers who examine intercepted communications should be alert to any intercept material which may be subject to legal privilege. Where there is doubt as to whether the communications are subject to legal privilege, advice should be sought from a legal adviser within the intercepting agency. Similar advice should also be sought where there is doubt over whether communications are not subject to legal privilege due to the “in furtherance of a criminal purpose” exception. The covert surveillance and covert human intelligence source codes make it clear that such independent external approvals will be granted only where there are exceptional and compelling circumstances that make the authorisation necessary—for instance, where there is a threat to life or limb or to national security.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, have already made reference to the McE case. In 2009, the former Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House ruled in that case that RIPA could be used to authorise the covert surveillance of legally privileged consultations but that this needed to be subject to an enhanced approval process. The enhanced RIPA safeguards were tested in the case of RA v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland where the High Court of Northern Ireland ruled that the RIPA regime was lawful and provided sufficient safeguards against abuse. To be clear, those new safeguards have been tested in a court of law and were found to be robust.
In reference to the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, about the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I will of course leave my noble friend to respond to him. Given these existing stringent limitations and safeguards on public authorities obtaining legally privileged material under RIPA, and the fact they have been tested in court, as I have said, and have been found to be robust, I would suggest to my noble friend that this amendment is unnecessary and I invite her to withdraw it.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, this being Grand Committee, of course I will withdraw the amendment. The noble Baroness’s reference to the role of the commissioner and some other comments seem to be steps taken to deal with the issue after the horse has bolted. But I will read her comments carefully. The point that no one is immune from prosecution is not something with which I seek to argue. It is a parallel but different point.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott, make a very interesting point about regulations made by the Secretary of State. I did not mean to disclaim responsibility for drafting the amendment; I meant to give credit to others. But I did not draft it and I do not think that it would be right for me to attempt to respond in any detail at this point. The noble and learned Lord set me an interesting dilemma and I shall think about it after today’s Committee Sitting to consider how one might address it.
I do not believe that the Bar Council would have gone to the effort of dealing with a matter about which the current Lord Chief Justice has himself expressed disquiet had it felt that an amendment was not necessary, so I will be talking to the council between now and the next stage. Other noble Lords have asked if there might be a meeting to discuss a number of issues, and this is one that will be particularly amenable to some further discussion, if that is possible. I do want to imply anything as regards the noble Baroness, but for myself this is pretty much above my pay grade. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, we are still on powers of entry. This is a small, technical group of government amendments to Clauses 45 and 47 and Schedule 9 to ensure that the Secretary of State’s order and code-making powers in the powers of entry provisions and the new order-making power inserted into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act—RIPA, as we have called it this afternoon—may make provision in respect of a transferred matter in relation to Northern Ireland, where such a provision is ancillary to reserved or excepted matters. These are similar to amendments already made to Schedule 1 during Committee of the whole House. I beg to move.
( ) Subject to this,”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, these amendments give effect to a recommendation made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scott of Foscote, is still here, I hope this amendment will find favour with him at least. The committee argued that there may be considerable interest in the first order to be made under Clause 51(5), setting out those relevant persons required to have regard to the code of practice for powers of entry. In view of this, the committee recommended that the first such order should be subject to the affirmative procedure. The Government are content to accept this recommendation and these amendments make the necessary changes to the Bill, including to the parallel order-making power, exercisable by the Welsh Ministers in Schedule 3. I beg to move.
“( ) If a draft of an instrument containing the first order under subsection (5) would, apart from this subsection, be treated as a hybrid instrument for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not a hybrid instrument.”
( ) Subject to this,”
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the Committee will be aware that the Government made a remedial order—the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011—earlier this year to replace the stop and search powers in Sections 44 to 47 of the Terrorism Act 2000 with a more targeted and proportionate power. That order will cease to have effect when, subject to parliamentary approval, Clause 61 of the Bill comes into effect.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights issued two reports on the Terrorism Act 2000 (Remedial) Order 2011. It recommended in both reports that the Bill should be amended to clarify that a senior police officer making an authorisation in respect of the new stop and search powers must have a reasonable basis for not only their suspicion that an act of terrorism will take place but also their view that the authorisation is necessary and proportionate to prevent such an act. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Crime and Security responded to the Joint Committee’s second report stating that he would consider whether the Bill should be amended. I can confirm today that the Government accept the Committee’s recommendation, which is implemented by this amendment.
I should stress that Amendment 146 is without prejudice to the construction of “considers” elsewhere in the Terrorism Act 2000. In the particular context of this provision in the Bill, we are merely emphasising—in response to the Joint Committee’s report—the implicit meaning that consideration must be reasonable so that the intended meaning is clear to all, including the courts. We feel this clarification may be helpful given the contrast between “reasonably suspects” in the first part of the test for authorisation and “reasonably considers” in the second.
The amendment to Schedule 6 makes a parallel change to the stop and search powers in Schedule 3 to the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007, as amended by that schedule. I beg to move.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, we welcome the Bill’s provisions in relation to stop and search in general. We also welcome the amendment before us today. Stop and search is an important police tool and was introduced for a very good reason in response to the changing security environment. However, as actions this summer have shown, community cohesion and the effectiveness of policing depend on public confidence. We know, for example, from the interim report of the Independent Riots, Communities and Victims Panel, that stop and search was cited as a major source of discontent with the police. This discontent and concern was widely felt by young black and Asian men specifically. It is absolutely right and proper that this government amendment introduces the concept of reasonableness. I wholeheartedly support the Government in their amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Lucas
My Lords, the amendments in this group are intended to ask a short trio of questions about how line 36, which is about the admissibility of evidence, will work. First, I want to be sure that it covers civil as well as criminal proceedings because an awful lot of surveillance camera evidence is used in, for instance, parking ticket or traffic enforcement, which are civil proceedings. It is important that if there are rules and regulations being passed about how these cameras should be used, they and the guidance should be equally effective in dealing with traffic enforcement as in dealing with a mugging.
Secondly, if one goes by not general, but certainly frequent, local authority practice, local authorities will rely in civil cases on the fact that most people do not appeal, so the case never comes to court. People pay their fines. Knowing that whenever a particular breach of the code comes to the tribunal the local authorities lose their case, they will none the less continue enforcing because they are losing only 1 or 2 per cent of revenue and the rest of the people are paying up as usual. What the guidance in the code is supposed to do is nullified by the fact that there is no mechanism for spreading the opinion of the tribunal more widely than the individual cases which reach it.
Amendment 104 is intended to propose such a mechanism so that a tribunal can say, “No, you have to stop this. We have seen this five times already and each time we have found for the appellant. You must cease enforcing until you have put this right. We will not allow you to issue any more tickets on the basis of something which we consider to be an unreasonable breach of the code”. The other end of it is that where a tribunal has found a local authority to be in frequent breach of the code and has on each occasion found for the appellant, none the less the local authority will have extracted a very large amount of money out of other people who have not appealed because there is a very substantial disincentive to appeal. If you lose an appeal, you double your fine. There is also a large amount of time taken up in the process of appeal.
I would like to see some mechanism where a tribunal can say to a local authority, in particular, or to other people who are seeking to use camera evidence as the basis of fines, that they must repay not only the appellant but all the other people on whom penalties have been imposed on the basis of the practice that the tribunal disapproves of. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for explaining and introducing his amendments. I recognise that he is focusing on the specific use of surveillance camera technology, particularly in its use for enforcement of parking and traffic regulations. It is probably worth me pointing out for the benefit of the Committee that the surveillance camera code of practice is not intended to include any speed camera technology. I know that my noble friend—
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am not talking at all about speed camera technology.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I was just about to say to my noble friend that I know that he was not talking about speed camera technology at all. It was just for the benefit of the rest of the Committee. I thought it was an appropriate point for me to make that clear, in case anybody else might not be as clear as my noble friend is on this matter.
I refer first to my noble friend’s Amendment 103, which, as he has explained, seeks to clarify the drafting of Clause 33(3). I believe that the meaning of that subsection is already clear, as “such proceedings” unambiguously refers back to “criminal or civil proceedings” in subsection (2); we simply do not need to repeat those words in subsection (3).
My noble friend’s Amendment 104 suggests that this Bill takes away the right to seek redress where a court has ruled that the code of practice has been breached. We believe this would have significant implications for litigants. In the context of civil proceedings—just to be clear, for example, we might be talking here of someone seeking to enforce the payment of parking charges—a claimant should be able to present all relevant evidence in support of his or her case. Given that the surveillance code of practice will set out guidance rather than rigid requirements for the operation of surveillance camera systems, it would in our view be disproportionate to prevent, as a matter of course, CCTV evidence being presented where a court or tribunal has ruled that there has been a breach of the code.
Clause 33(4) makes it clear that the court should have discretion in taking into account a failure by a relevant authority to have regard to the surveillance camera code in determining a question in any such proceedings. In the context of criminal proceedings, the ramifications of the amendment in terms of the overall fairness of the process are potentially more significant. The effect of the amendment might be to exclude key prosecution evidence or evidence that might exonerate the accused. Our general approach, as I have already explained, should be to leave decisions about the admissibility of CCTV evidence to the court or tribunal in question.
Lord Lucas
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that answer, particularly the sudden inspiration which struck her at the end and which gave me great comfort so far as Amendments 104 and 105 are concerned, which I agree were pushing it a bit. However, I still have concerns on Amendment 103.
I agree that Clause 33(3) refers back to Clause 33(2), but the latter refers to the acts of people who are running surveillance cameras, not to the acts of people who are caught on surveillance cameras. It is not clear to me that the inference that she suggested should be imported into Clause 33(3)—that the civil and criminal proceedings in Clause 33(2) apply—is justifiable, given that they refer to completely different sets of court cases. One is cases taken against people who are using cameras and the other is cases against people who are caught on camera. I should be very grateful if the Minister could write to me to answer that point in detail if she does not have an answer in front of her now.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I would be very happy to take away the points that my noble friend has raised and will, of course, write to him in due course.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, the dilemma in front of us is basically to do with the application of CCTV, its value and the safeguards related to its value. I have peculiar experience of this, having headed up an organisation which had probably one of the largest CCTV installations in the UK. I have to say it was introduced before anybody thought about any sort of code, and we built up practice. Our experience was that the benefits massively outweighed the disadvantages. Our other experience was that acceptance by the general public simply grew with time. In London, people are used to CCTV on transport systems, in public spaces and so on. We think that the benefits are enormous.
We are not against the general concept of introducing a code, but we have all made it clear that we think the way this code is being introduced is wrong. The right thing to do is to have an inquiry to understand the extent of the problem, to start working up criteria and so on. However, if the Government insist on introducing this code more rapidly than that, we would be against its extension to all publicly funded areas and to schools and colleges. This is not because we are against extension of the code—as has been rightly pointed out, there are many privately owned CCTV cameras that could sensibly fall within a comprehensive code. What we are against is the extension of that code until the right amount of experience has been gained and investigation has taken place. Otherwise, these crucial areas, particularly schools and colleges, where CCTV is so valuable, will be burdened with a bureaucratic nightmare until we achieve a code that gets the right balance of being bureaucratically light while achieving the effective objectives of public engagement and acceptance. Therefore, in this Bill at this time we do not support these amendments.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I shall start by picking up where the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, left off, and by making the point that there is a lot of support for CCTV in this country. As my noble friend has already made clear today, the Government are certainly not in any way trying to restrict the use of CCTV through the introduction of this Bill. We are trying to introduce a code so that the use of CCTV is clear, and that where it is used the public have clarity in their understanding of its purpose.
I shall address, first, my noble friend’s Amendment 107, which proposes extending the code to all public bodies in receipt of money provided by Parliament. Given the incremental approach that we are adopting, we are not persuaded that the duty to have regard to the code should apply more widely than to local authorities and the police from the outset. All operators of public space CCTV are subject to the requirements of the Data Protection Act. We see local authorities and the police as the operators of publicly owned CCTV systems in public space, and as the bodies who are well placed to set the example for standards of operation. They frequently work in partnership with other CCTV operators and we see their behaviour as a powerful driver for positive change elsewhere.
To place a duty to have regard to the code on every publicly funded body from the outset would be premature. We should see how the code beds in and, drawing on the advice from the Surveillance Camera Commissioner, consider in due course whether the duty should be extended and, if so, to which bodies. Clause 33 contains a provision to enable the duty to have regard to the code of practice to be extended to other bodies by means of secondary legislation, so we do not need to settle this question now. We will not hesitate to make use of this provision if we deem it necessary and beneficial. Any order made to this end will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and so will need to be debated and approved by both Houses.
At this point, I should refer to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Phillips about the period of review of the code. Subject to any further advice that I receive, I refer him to Clause 35, which refers to reports by the commissioner. Subsection (2)(b) makes it clear that the commissioner will be required to report every 12 months. On that basis, I suspect that any advice or proposals that he might want to make about the extension of the code would therefore be covered in his reports.
I turn now to my noble friend’s Amendment 109, which refers explicitly to educational establishments—schools, colleges and universities. I accept that the use of CCTV in schools and colleges is a potentially emotive issue for a variety of reasons. Some of the examples that my noble friend outlined certainly illustrate that point most clearly. As with any other establishment, we would expect any decision to install CCTV in an educational establishment to be very carefully considered, and the reasons for so doing tightly defined. The new code is intended to assist with these considerations. While we are not proposing that schools be covered by the code at the outset, it is there for all organisations that wish to install CCTV to use and be guided by in determining the purpose of that CCTV, precisely as the noble Baroness says. It is very important that, if a school introduces cameras, it should be clear about why it is choosing to do that.
The public consultation that we carried out earlier this year received over 100 responses, which are available on the Home Office website. Analysis of the responses received found that comments on the use of CCTV in schools were minimal. While there were some respondents who argued that the code should be made mandatory for all operators, none put forward a specific case for compliance with the code to be made mandatory for schools. Similarly, in relation to the amendment of my noble friend Lady Randerson regarding higher education institutions, there were no calls in the public consultation relating to universities or further education colleges and there are no specific concerns that we are aware of.
I assure your Lordships that the detail of the code will be developed in consultation with interested parties and, as part of that dialogue, we will consider whether any issues associated with surveillance camera systems within schools or healthcare settings require specific reference within it. When using CCTV on their premises, schools, colleges, universities and indeed all public bodies—including government departments—must adhere to the requirements in the Data Protection Act. Noble Lords will be well aware of the existing powers of the Information Commissioner to enforce compliance through a regulatory action policy.
There are therefore already safeguards in place for the privacy of students and the wider public. We trust the proprietors of schools, colleges and universities and their heads of institution to comply with those requirements, and for schools, where appropriate, to consult with parents on any deployment of CCTV.
I hope that by giving the assurance that we recognise the importance and value of CCTV; by outlining that the introduction of the code is to provide some clarity in terms of its use; and by explaining that there is an option to extend the code beyond the relevant authorities outlined already in the Bill but that we will not do so prematurely, I have addressed all the points that have been raised by noble Lords in the debate today. I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Randerson
I thank my noble friend for that answer. I realise that every organisation concerned is subject to the Data Protection Act, but the point about the code is that one prevents the kind of problems to which I referred; one prevents breaches of the Data Protection Act by encouraging public bodies to follow good practice, behaviour and procedures.
I ask the Minister to give further consideration to the issue of schools and educational institutions. She referred to the lack of response in the consultation on the issues associated with schools, but perhaps the Government may consider that in many people’s minds when they talk about local authorities, they encompass schools as well. However, in the modern world that is less and less so.
It is clear from the legislation that the Government are not including schools at this stage but I would ask them to give further consideration to the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, these government amendments are to remedy an anomaly in the definition of regulated activity for adults. The Bill provides that regulated activity relating to adults can be broadly split into six categories, one of which is the provision of personal care. The personal care definition currently includes “physical assistance” with the care of,
“skin, hair or nails (other than nail care provided by a chiropodist or podiatrist)”,
which is on page 64 of the Bill.
These amendments will remove the current exception,
“other than nail care provided by a chiropodist or podiatrist”,
as the exception creates an anomalous situation where chiropodists and podiatrists are in regulated activity because they are regulated healthcare professionals except when providing nail care. The amendments will achieve the Government’s policy aim that chiropodists and podiatrists are wholly within regulated activity and therefore within the scope of the revised vetting and barring scheme. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I hope that we can dispose of this quickly. Clause 72 deals with information about barring decisions and my question is about the consent given by the object, if I can put it that way, of an inquiry who may consent to the provision of information when that consent, we are told in proposed new Section 30A(4) of the 2006 Act,
“also has effect in relation to any subsequent … application by”,
the same inquirer. I would be grateful if the Government can confirm that, in this context, consent can be withdrawn. I would read it that way and think that it is implied. However, there is certainly one example within the Bill: Clause 27, concerning biometric information of children in school, which deals with the consent of the parent and which says in terms that consent,
“may be withdrawn at any time”.
If it is necessary to spell that out in Clause 27, I would like to be quite certain that consent can be withdrawn effectively under the proposed new section contained in Clause 72. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee for her explanation in moving her amendment. Clause 72 introduces proposed new Section 30A into the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. That section will allow regulated activity providers and others with a specified connection to a person to ask the Secretary of State whether that person is on the relevant Independent Safeguarding Authority barred list, or lists. For this, the person must provide their consent to the release of information about them. Proposed new Section 30A specifies that consent given for one such check would serve as consent for subsequent checks about that person made by the same party, as my noble friend has already explained. The aim of that final provision is to reduce bureaucracy for employers and others. If a person has consented to the provision of information, it makes no sense for an employer to have to seek a new declaration from them every time that they need to do a new check. Clearly, however, the consent must be valid.
In moving her amendment, my noble friend seeks to specify that prior consent will not be valid for future checks if that consent has been withdrawn. Our view—this is where I hope to be able to give my noble friend the assurance that she seeks—is that the current drafting of the Bill achieves this policy intention. If consent has been withdrawn then, according to the terms of the clause, there is no consent and the employer would have no basis to proceed. Operationally, employers will need to confirm that they have valid consent, or they will not be entitled to carry out a check.
It is probably worth mentioning, while I have the opportunity, a wider point in the context of Clause 72. Consent could be freely given, given the potential detrimental consequences to an individual. This was something which the Information Commissioner raised in a letter that he sent quite widely to noble Lords between Second Reading and Committee. He was seeking some clarification on this. Importantly, there is only a certain degree to which the state can and should intervene in the relationship between employer and employee. Naturally, if an employer should do anything untoward, an employee has access to the appropriate legal remedies but we do not anticipate that most employers would seek to coerce their employees.
The alternatives in this case are a system where consent needs to be given or one where it need not be. We choose the former because while pressure by an employer can never entirely be ruled out, it is better than information about someone being given to a third party without their knowledge. As the Information Commissioner noted in the briefing that he provided, a barred list check under proposed new Section 30A is only one of various ways for an employer to discharge their duty to check barred status so, should consent ever be an issue, there are alternatives. However, it is worth pointing out that criminal records checks themselves require the person who is the subject of the check to make the application.
Overall, I hope that what I have been able to say provides reassurance to my noble friend that the policy intention of her amendment, with which we agree, is catered for in the current drafting and that she will therefore feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, the Minister read my mind. I had wondered whether to draw to the attention of the House the points made by the Information Commissioner, and I thank her for answering them without my asking. Her response on what is meant by “consent” is helpful, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Goodhart
My Lords, we have just heard one of the most remarkable statements that has been made in your Lordships’ House that I can remember since being here. Now it is time to move to much more ordinary amendments.
The amendments in this group are concerned with rehabilitation of offenders. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was enacted back in 1974. I have had an interest in this subject because I am, and was in 1974, a member of JUSTICE, the law reform and human rights organisation. JUSTICE supported the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, particularly through the work of Paul Sieghart, who was then its executive chairman. It managed, after a great deal of effort, to get the Act through the Houses of Parliament.
The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act gives a new chance to people who have been convicted of minor or moderate offences and have not repeated other offences during a reasonable period after their release. This gives them a better chance of getting a decent working job than if they were required to admit their offences to their prospective employers. The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act has been a very obvious success in the 37 years since it was enacted. It can benefit not only potential employers but also other people as well, because ex-prisoners who are unable to obtain a decent job are more likely to revert to crime than those who can get such a job.
Unfortunately, some employers have found a way of getting access to the past record of a rehabilitated person which is technically legal but plainly contrary to the purposes of the Act. The main way in which this happens is through Section 9(3) of the Act, which allows official documents containing full records of the offence to be provided to rehabilitated criminals and also to anyone else at the specific request of the rehabilitated offender. That means that any prospective employer can ask the prospective employee to authorise the official disclosure of his or her record. If the prospective employee authorises the disclosure of the criminal record, he or she is very unlikely to be appointed by the new employer. If the prospective employee refuses to disclose his or her record, then he or she is equally unlikely to be appointed.
This was plainly not what was intended when the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act was introduced, nor was it intended at any time since. The correction of this defect is the purpose of my Amendment 71A. In the course of drafting this amendment, I have consulted the Information Commissioner’s office; I have had a good deal of assistance from that office both in relation to Amendment 71A and to the other amendments in this group. I believe that an amendment to the Protection of Freedoms Bill with the aim of my Amendment 71A would help the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act to continue its work which has, as I said, been very successful.
Turning to the other amendments in my name, I can quickly get away from Amendment 76B, which turns out to be out of date. I believe its objective has already been dealt with and it would not, in any event, have furthered my objective. My aim in Amendment 84, as in Amendment 71A, is to protect rehabilitated offenders from other circumstances in which their criminal record might be disclosed in circumstances which do not require disclosure. The legislation involved in Amendment 84 involves not only this Bill and the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act but also significant amendments to the Police Act 1997 and the Data Protection Act 1998.
Clause 84, which accidentally has the same number as my Amendment 84, changes the numbering but not the operation of the Data Protection Act. It is fair to say that Chapter 2 of Part 5, which will improve Clause 84, improves the situation of rehabilitated persons. However, there is one matter in which further improvement should be made, which concerns Section 112 of the Police Act 1997. The Police Act contains provisions that might make possible delay in the commencement of Section 112 of that Act. This possibility continues under Clause 84 as it now stands. It would however be for the benefit of rehabilitation to bring Section 112 of the Police Act into action. This is made clear in a document published by the Information Commissioner’s Office on the same subject as that of Clause 84, which was circulated since the Bill has come to the House of Lords.
I should like to read a brief paragraph from the circulated document. It states:
“The commencement of section 112 of the Police Act 1997 would be welcome. The Commissioner would also continue to stress the importance of introducing an offence of Enforced Subject Access under section 56 of the Data Protection Act as a matter of urgency. The opportunity to introduce these important and long over due measures should not be missed”.
The form of Amendment 84 may need alteration. Certainly, it would require reconsideration because I had to deal with my amendments extremely quickly and they may not yet be correctly worded. But it is my belief that the desirability of the purpose of my amendments is plain. I hope that the Government will be able to consider including them in their amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Goodhart for providing the context and thinking behind his amendments. First, I will focus on Amendment 84, which would require that Section 56 of the Data Protection Act 1998 be commenced at most six months after this Bill becomes law, rather than, as now, no earlier than the commencement of various sections of the Police Act 1997.
As my noble friend has indicated, Section 56 of the Data Protection Act makes illegal what is referred to as “enforced subject access”; that is, when someone, in connection with employment or the provision of goods and services, requires a person or a third party to provide them with information about that person’s convictions, which they will have obtained through a subject access request. This means that if the subject of the request has convictions, they are able to obtain all the information that is held by the police themselves, thus making them the subject of the request. This would be made most likely to the police under Section 7 of the Data Protection Act. This loophole allows employers to circumvent the safeguards in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act and in the criminal records regime to find out details of somebody’s spent convictions.
I agree with my noble friend that enforced subject access is wrong because it allows employers potentially to coerce employees and hinders the rehabilitation of offenders. Section 75 of the Data Protection Act provides that Section 56 of that Act is commenced only once certain sections of the Police Act, including Section 112, are in force. Section 112 of the Police Act makes provision for “basic” criminal record checks which provide details of any unspent convictions. If the section in the Data Protection Act, if it was commenced, would make it illegal for an employer to make an enforced subject access request, Section 112 of the Police Act makes provision for a basic criminal record check. An employer has another legal and legitimate route to find out information about unspent convictions only. He would be provided with information of unspent convictions and not full access to information which may not be relevant.
While Section 112 is in force in Scotland and Northern Ireland, it has not been commenced in England and Wales. The issue is when we introduce basic checks. Noble Lords may have seen the Written Ministerial Statement published this morning in relation to the Government’s response to Mrs Sunita Mason’s review of the criminal records regime. Mrs Mason recommended the introduction of basic checks by the Criminal Records Bureau in England and Wales. As our response to her makes clear, we accept the principle that basic checks should be introduced in England and Wales, but we do not plan to do so through the Criminal Records Bureau at the present time. We are, however, minded to introduce basic certificates in step with the establishment of the Disclosure and Barring Service, but further work is needed on the implications of doing so.
Meanwhile, some individuals already approach Disclosure Scotland for basic certificates and we are discussing the provision of a full service for all those working in England and Wales through Disclosure Scotland while the long-term position is considered. For these reasons it would not be feasible to introduce basic checks through the Criminal Records Bureau to the timetable set out in Amendment 84 in the name of my noble friend. That said, the question of enforced subject access and the commencement of Section 56 is one to which we will return in the context of our discussions with Disclosure Scotland flowing from Sunita Mason’s review. I hope that what I have said provides some reassurance to my noble friend and encourages him not to press his Amendment 84.
As my noble friend has explained, Amendment 71A would amend Section 9 of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. Section 9 makes it an offence for a public official to disclose information on spent convictions other than in the course of their public duties. They may do so only to the rehabilitated person or someone whom they reasonably believe to be the rehabilitated person, or to a third party to whom that person expressly requests them to make that disclosure. The noble Lord’s amendments would remove the capacity to disclose the information to a third party. From his explanation today, I understand that the intention behind the amendment is further to safeguard against enforced subject access. However, there are likely to be situations where a person may, quite legitimately and consensually, ask that details of their spent convictions be passed to a third party; for example, a minor requesting disclosure to their parent or guardian or an elderly person requesting disclosure to their carer. We therefore believe that the better approach is simply to commence Section 56 of the Data Protection Act at the appropriate time.
On the basis of that information, I hope that my noble friend has the assurance he is looking for and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
“Additional grounds for refusing an application to be registered
After subsection (3) of section 120AA of the Police Act 1997 (refusal, etc. of registration on grounds not related to disclosure) insert—“(4) Subsection (6) applies if an application is made under section 120 by an individual who—
(a) has previously been a registered person; and(b) has been removed from the register (otherwise than at that individual’s own request).(5) Subsection (6) also applies if an application is made under section 120 by a body corporate or unincorporate which—
(a) has previously been a registered person; and(b) has been removed from the register (otherwise than at its own request).(6) The Secretary of State may refuse the application.””
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, government Amendment 76 inserts a new clause into the Bill that will strengthen the current powers of the Criminal Records Bureau to refuse to register an individual or organisation as a registered body. A registered body is a body or organisation registered by the bureau as being responsible for the countersignature of applications for criminal record certificates. Such a body will typically be a large employer or voluntary organisation—for example, the England and Wales Cricket Board or the Scout Association.
None the less, beyond the minimum requirements for a body currently to be registered by the Criminal Records Bureau, as set out at Sections 120 and 120ZA of the Police Act 1997, the bureau has the power to refuse registration only if it has concerns about an organisation’s ability to properly protect sensitive information that would be disclosed on a criminal record certificate.
Some 4,000 bodies are registered with the Criminal Records Bureau and all must adhere to their conditions of registration, which provide for a framework to ensure that registered bodies operate in a fit and proper manner. These conditions include requirements that application fees are paid within 15 days of invoice; that the organisation can demonstrate that it makes every effort to check that the position being applied for by an individual is eligible for a criminal record check; and that the registered body has verified the identity of the applicant before submitting the application.
The most common reason for the Criminal Records Bureau to be forced to cancel a registered body’s CRB registration is the non-payment of fees. This is usually where the organisation has continually failed to make the necessary payments to the bureau for the submission of applications to it and has repeatedly failed to pay its arrears or made any substantive offer to do so.
Of course, the Criminal Records Bureau will always seek to work with registered bodies as far as possible to address any short-term difficulties where there is an apparent breach of the conditions of registration and before considering any suspension or cancellation action. However, there is a gap in the powers available to the bureau. In practice, this means that an organisation that has previously failed to meet the conditions of registration, such as the non-payment of fees, and has had its registration cancelled can simply re-register, provided that it meets the basic criteria required under Sections 120 and 120ZA of the Police Act. Quite simply, this amendment will close that gap by extending the current powers to allow the Criminal Records Bureau to refuse to register a body that has previously been registered and subsequently removed—for example, due to a breach of the conditions of registration.
For any noble Lords who may be concerned that such organisations will therefore no longer be able to carry out criminal record checks, I assure them that the new clause will not impact on an organisation’s ability to apply for criminal record checks—that is, the original organisation that might use a registered body as an agent by which to apply for a check against it. In such circumstances, the organisation will be able to continue to access the Criminal Records Bureau service through another organisation that is registered satisfactorily with the bureau, typically referred to as an umbrella body. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, government Amendments 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 make two technical changes to the provisions in Clauses 81 and 82. First, Amendments 79 and 80 provide that a request by the subject of a criminal record certificate, or a person on their behalf, to the Secretary of State or the independent monitor to challenge the accuracy of the information on such a certificate should be made in writing. This is to bring these processes in line with other provisions in Part 5 of the Police Act 1997.
Secondly, Amendments 79 to 81 will ensure that the updating service, which is being introduced by Clause 82, will continue to operate in a given case where a new criminal record certificate is issued following a successful challenge to the accuracy of the information contained on the original certificate. The updating service can be triggered by an application for a criminal record certificate. These amendments will ensure that the service is not unintentionally terminated following the issue of a fresh certificate. I beg to move.
“Inclusion of cautions etc. in national police records
After subsection (4) of section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (recordable offences) insert—“(4A) In subsection (4) “conviction” includes—
(a) a caution within the meaning of Part 5 of the Police Act 1997; and(b) a reprimand or warning given under section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.””
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, Amendment 83 will provide parity with convictions for the recording of cautions, reprimands and warnings on the police national computer. The names database on the PNC contains the national police record of all convictions for recordable offences. It also contains details of cautions, warnings and reprimands. It is this database which is searched by the Criminal Records Bureau when it receives an application for a criminal record certificate. In the case of an application for an enhanced criminal record certificate, a separate search is also run against the police national database, which contains non-conviction information held by local forces.
Clearly, it is essential that the police national computer holds all relevant records. The current position is that cautions, reprimands and warnings are entered on to the PNC by the police using their common-law power to do so, whereas the recording of convictions is expressly provided for in Section 27 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. The amendment will simply put the recording of cautions on the same statutory footing as that which applies to convictions. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible tidying-up exercise, and I commend it to the Committee. I beg to move.
Prevent Strategy
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I hope noble Lords will find it helpful if I remind the House that the next debate is a time-limited debate and, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Noon and my noble friend the Minister, speeches are limited to four minutes. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford has also requested to speak in the gap.
Lord Noon
My Lords, the Government’s revised Prevent strategy was presented to Parliament in June this year. It is an integral part of the broader fight against terrorism and I welcome the opportunity to have this short debate about the implications of this strategy, and of extremism and integration. The thinking behind Prevent was that there needed to be a proactive response to the threat of so-called home-grown terrorists. I do not want to speak about the merits or failure of the original strategy. Other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Carlile, who provided the important independent oversight for the review of Prevent, are much more of an authority on this issue than me.
I am not a policy man, I am a businessman and I like to speak my mind in a straightforward way, which, in business as in life, is usually the best way. You may be aware that I have been a victim of deadly terrorist attack not once but twice. The extreme fear that I and my family experienced, the shocking uncertainty of being sandwiched between life and death, brought home forcefully the grief and devastation of the families who suddenly, unexpectedly lose loved ones. We have seen this horror here in the UK with the 7 July terrorist attacks in London. What is worse is that the 7/7 attack was carried out by young men born and brought up in the UK. The Prevent strategy is supposed to stop people from ever going down this path. It is about confronting people at an early point so that they do not become extremists.
Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Buddhists all have the right to practise their religion freely in Great Britain. The strong civil rights movement here ensures that we can express our religious and political beliefs freely. At the same time, there is a thousand years of tradition of the supremacy of the law—we must abide by the law even as we practise in private the faith of our choice. What has gone wrong is that a tiny minority refuse to accept that. Instead they wish to impose their beliefs on the majority. Noble Lords will agree with me that the majority of Muslims are law-abiding, peaceful and patriotic citizens, as was reported in the Sunday Times on 20 November. I see no conflict between practising Islam and abiding by the rules of the law of this country, and I speak as a Muslim.
I have expressed my views many times, in speech as well as in print. People who do not accept the British way of life should find another acceptable country where they can live happily, and leave us alone. Often they come here as economic migrants and then oppose our common values. In many cases, they are running away from harsh regimes that do not permit dissent. I am a staunch supporter of the British values of democracy, decency, fairness and integration. I say, live and let live. We should give a robust retort to those who oppose integration: we cannot have small, independent enclaves within our country that are a law unto themselves. I agree with the Prime Minister’s words in Munich earlier this year that we have not done enough in standing up to those who oppose our way of life.
I find it confusing that the Prevent strategy makes a distinction between two things. On one hand, the strategy says that having a strong sense of belonging and citizenship makes people more resilient to extremism. Then, on the other hand, it states:
“Policy and programmes to deal with extremism and with extremist organisations more widely are not part of Prevent and will be co-ordinated from the Department for Communities and Local Government”.
Could the Minister tell me what these wider policies and programmes are that are not part of Prevent? Surely these are things that promote cohesion, interfaith dialogue and citizenship. If the success of the programme depends on our sense of belonging—which is what I call integration—then how could this not be a part of Prevent? By separating integration and extremism, the Prevent strategy will create its own pitfalls. How do local councillors know what to do? Where is the guidance that explains how to know the difference between an extremist acting against our country and others who need support and direction to become more integrated? Where is the line drawn between dealing with extremists and promoting integration? Surely these are two sides of the same coin.
What about young people? How will the youth worker or the teacher know what to do? We need a strong initiative for the youth; after all, it is the youth who get lured into extremism at youth clubs and universities. The hunting fields for fresh recruits to terrorism are the stamping grounds of young people. That is where we need to be: to reorient them into a life of decency; to give them a sense of belonging; to make them proud to be British; and to make them see that using religion as an excuse for violence goes against its very tenets.
What about the police? I often speak to them on this issue. I ask them why individuals or groups who are violently opposed to our way of life and the laws of this country are allowed to be here. The police say that their hands are tied; they often have no case. It seems that the human rights of criminals outweigh those of the rest of us law-abiding citizens. Even when they manage to bring such a person to court, the Crown Prosecution Service tells the police that the criminal is the one who needs protection. It strikes me that in trying to make Prevent more focused, the Government have risked making it less effective. Even more seriously, I believe that this fudge makes things much worse. It risks further alienating those communities that feel the most stigmatised and targeted by Prevent, especially the Muslim community.
The danger of focusing only on a certain religious group was made clearer to us by the terrible events in Norway in July this year, when a right-wing extremist not only set off a bomb in the city, killing eight people, but then went on to shoot and kill 69 innocent children and young people who were taking part in a summer school. Such acts of extreme violence are not restricted to ideology, whether religious or political. Rather, these terrible acts are born of hatred, racism and ignorance. We ignore these risks at our peril.
In summary, I have a very simple bottom line, which is that preventing terrorism depends on strengthening integration. In my straightforward way of looking at things, there is definitely a problem because the strategy actually causes confusion about this issue. I welcome the idea that we need to confront people more when they express extreme ideas such as threatening to burn poppies, abusing our brave soldiers returning home from the front line in Basra or asking for Sharia law in this country. Let us not forget honour killing, although I do not know what honour there is in killing. Surely this is not acceptable. We need to go further. We need to ensure that we not only confront these people but that we actually deal with them in order to protect the citizens of this country. We need to be clear that this is about anyone who opposes our way of life, anyone who does not clearly stand up for democracy and freedom of choice. Integration is our greatest strength and we must not allow our resolve to protect it to be weakened by a muddled approach to extremism.
I am sure that noble Lords will have many further issues that they wish to bring to this debate, and I look forward to hearing them.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Baroness Stowell of Beeston Excerpts(14 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling this amendment, and for the explanation from the noble Lord, Lord Dear. I think that it demonstrates that there is potential confusion in this part of the Bill. The noble Baroness asked about cold cases. I understand the difficulty described by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, in saying whether or not a case has been concluded. However, if in subsection (2) we are saying that,
“material may be retained until the conclusion”,
we need to be a little more specific. The noble Lord talked about the practicalities but also the philosophical nature of these issues. Philosophy is a great thing but when it comes to legislation perhaps it needs to be a little more specific.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment. It relates to the briefing from the Information Commissioner that was circulated prior to the Committee stage. He expressed some concern that the reference in Clause 2 to the conclusion of the investigation was too open-ended.
I am sure that we would all wish the police to be able to conclude every investigation swiftly with either a conviction or conclusion that no crime has been committed. But, we would all acknowledge that in reality that is not the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Dear, has explained. There will often be cases when it is impossible to identify a suspect immediately and when evidence must be retained for a significant period in the hope of identifying a suspect in the future. My noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to cold cases. The case that comes to my mind is the one that has recently been reopened on the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Evidence, including biometric material, must be retained in these circumstances to enable comparison with the suspect and, for example, to ensure that the suspect’s legal team can examine and probe all the previous police lines of inquiry. If all evidence is not retained in such circumstances, the suspect identified later will be able to argue to the court that the destruction of such material would render it impossible for him to receive a fair trial. In such circumstances, even if Amendment 5 were to be made to the Bill, a chief officer would be unable to certify an investigation as complete, which is I think what the noble Lord, Lord Dear, was referring to. In addition, where it is possible for the police to conclude an investigation the introduction of such a certification requirement for all investigations would impose a new bureaucratic process on the police that would be both unnecessary and, when aggregated across the number of investigations conducted, costly. The illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Dear, makes that quite clear.
For the reasons I have given, we are unable to accept Amendment 5, and I therefore ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing it.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I presume that the amendment relates to the previous paragraph in relation,
“to section 63D material taken … in connection with the investigation of an offence in which it is suspected that the person to whom the material relates has been involved”.
On my reading, there is an enormous safeguard in that once the police become convinced that the person has not been involved, the negative applies. The person’s DNA material is taken but if it is then established that that person was not connected to the offence at all, surely the ability to retain the material in those circumstances fails. Therefore you do not have an enormous amount of material being retained until the conclusion of the proceedings. Will the Minister clarify whether I am correct in my understanding that the police can retain that material until the conclusion of the proceedings but only if they remain convinced that that person is still suspected of being involved in the commission of the offence?
Lord Newton of Braintree
My Lords, perhaps I might intervene briefly. The noble Lord, Lord Dear, made some effective practical points against the amendment. However, I am afraid that I am one of those simple souls who find it easier to look at these matters in relation to an example rather than in a general academic sense. There is a clear-cut case in which some of these issues might have arisen: namely, that of the gentleman in Bristol who was arrested—I forget whether he was charged—for the murder of Miss Yeates. It is now universally agreed that this was a mistake. Somebody else has been convicted and sentenced.
I do not expect my noble friend to be able to answer this because it is a bit of a bouncer, and it applies to all the amendments that we have so far discussed. How would the Government's proposals for retention apply to that case, and what difference would the amendments that have so far been discussed make to the case? I do not know the answer and would have to speculate. I suggest that it might be sensible if the Minister wrote to me about this rather than attempting an answer off the cuff.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Berridge for her intervention. I am pleased to confirm that her analysis of the subsection preceding the one we are discussing is correct. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Newton. I will take his advice, consider his points and be sure to write to him. I have been given some comfort on the way in which we may be able to respond to his query by the intervention of my noble friend concerning the subsection preceding the one my noble friend Lady Hamwee seeks to amend.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, one always knows about one-third of the way into a sentence that a “but” is coming. I anticipated it when the noble Lord, Lord Dear, started to make his comments. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, about the application of these provisions. That is a safeguard, but it seems to me that it is more of an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, than it is to me.
Of course I understand the practical problems. I said a few minutes ago that all the amendments are probing. The problem often is that when one tables an amendment to probe, it is taken as if one means every word. I am looking for an answer to my underlying question and I am not sure that I have yet heard it. What worries me is that even on the fairly narrow track that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, identified, there is the possibility of driving a coach and horses through what we all think we are agreeing this afternoon. I do not seek to apply more bureaucracy, but I do seek clarity. I am not yet clear, but there are more stages and I will not make more of a nuisance of myself at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we have already discussed, among other things Clause 3 sets out the rules governing the retention of the DNA profile of a person arrested for a serious offence but not charged with that offence. In such cases, the police can apply to the biometrics commissioner to retain the DNA in certain circumstances, including where the alleged victim of the offence is a vulnerable adult. The amendment seeks to replace the definition of “vulnerable adult” as used in this context.
Currently, Clause 3 defines a vulnerable adult by reference to Section 60(1) of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. However, as we will come on to when we reach Part 5 of the Bill, Clauses 65 and 66 seek to amend the definition of a vulnerable adult in the 2006 Act to mean any person over the age of 18 in receipt of a regulated activity, for example health or personal care. The changes made by these clauses to the definitions of vulnerable adult and regulated activity put the emphasis on the activity and the person carrying out that activity. It no longer attempts to define vulnerability or label a person as a “vulnerable adult”. As a result, the definition is not particularly helpful in the context of Clause 3.
Amendment 11 therefore draws on the definition in Section 5(6) of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, which defines a vulnerable adult as,
“a person aged 16 or over whose ability to protect himself from violence, abuse or neglect is significantly impaired through physical or mental disability or illness, through old age or otherwise”.
We believe that this definition is far more apposite for the purposes of Clause 3. The reason why the amendment inserts the definition in full in new Section 63G(10) of PACE rather than merely referring to the 2004 Act is that our definition refers to persons aged 18 or over, as the definitions in new Section 63G(2), as inserted by Clause 3, already include all those aged under 18.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this definition is sensible, and I commend it to the Committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, let me try to explain a little further. We are trying to ensure that, when we refer to “vulnerable adult” in the context of those who are the victims of crime, we are clear about the people who have been affected by the crime against them. Later on in the Bill, in a different context, the term “vulnerable adult” is deployed differently, because it relates to regulated activity and what access a person might have in terms of the activity being carried out at that time. The amendment tries to make sure that, in this context, we define “vulnerable adult” as the person who is the victim, rather than trying to define it in terms of what activity might be used against them, which occurs later in the Bill. I might have to write further to the noble Baroness.
Perhaps I may add that those seeking refuge from an abusive relationship would be covered by the third limb of new Section 63G(2); that is, by being associated with the suspect. However, given the nature of the questions that the noble Baroness has asked and the sensitivity of the topic—I would not want to give anybody the wrong impression about it—it would probably be best for me to come back to her in writing.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
My Lords, before we go to a vote, I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness considers withdrawing the amendment and bringing it back on Report. I do not wish to vote against it but I should like further confirmation that the people who should be covered by this definition of “vulnerable adult” are properly considered and covered by it.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I think, on reflection, that that would be the right course. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am not sure whether I go down the route of paying the piper but the question of accountability, which this amendment raises, is immensely important. Parliament has decided over the years to agree the appointment of a number of commissioners to provide oversight. For that oversight to work in the best way, the line of accountability is one that one has to look at. I am not sure whether having a single commissioner is practicable, but the issue highlighted by this amendment is a very important one and I am glad that the noble Earl has brought it to the Committee.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, has explained, this proposed new clause seeks to combine a number of distinct statutory commissioners into a single privacy commissioner. As the noble Earl predicted, I am afraid that the Government are not persuaded that any benefits which may arise from such a merger would offset the disadvantages. Each of the five commissioners listed in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause requires a high degree of knowledge of relevant legislation and procedures to operate in specialist and technical areas.
Before I explain why the Government propose to set up the commissioners in this way, I will address the issue of accountability, as it is one that my noble friend Lady Hamwee raised as well. The noble Earl suggested that his privacy commissioner should be directly accountable to Parliament. The existing commissioners are independent officeholders and there is no question that they discharge their functions without fear or favour. If there were a question of a conflict of interest—I do not accept that there is—it would apply equally to a situation where the privacy commissioner would be directly accountable to Parliament. Parliament is subject to the Data Protection Act and the Freedom of Information Act, and thus to the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner, so a conflict of interest could equally arise if he reported directly to Parliament. The existing accountability arrangements work well and I see no reason to change them.
Going back to the five commissioners, there is no doubt that in some cases the work of the various commissioners can be related but, in each case, there remain specific and crucial differences where their work remains distinct. To roll up all of the functions of the various commissioners would be to risk watering down the skills and expertise that are brought to bear in each of the areas. Moreover, given the wide diversion of roles and responsibilities of the five commissioners listed in the proposed new clause, I am not convinced that it would be possible for a single individual to provide adequate oversight in any given area—a point which I think that my noble friend Lady Hamwee made.
If a privacy commissioner were to be appointed, I envisage that he or she would quickly need several deputy commissioners, or a large body of support staff, to oversee the specific areas currently overseen by separate individuals. This would create an unwieldy body which, in all probability, would have less influence and impact, compared with the existing commissioners operating in niche areas. We can take the Interception of Communications Commissioner as an example of the specialist knowledge required in this area. That commissioner provides oversight of the intelligence agencies and law enforcement authorities by keeping under review their use of interception powers and their powers to acquire communications data. The role is very specific and the commissioner’s powers to require disclosure by the intelligence agencies, and others, of highly classified information means that it is a highly sensitive post that could not be amalgamated with a range of other, unrelated commissioner functions.
That said, we fully accept that there is a need for these various officeholders to work closely together, and I assure your Lordships that this is already happening. The Public Bill Committee that considered this Bill in the other place heard testimony from the Information Commissioner and the interim CCTV regulator. Both commissioners were clear that where their functions touched on similar areas, they remain adept at establishing and maintaining effective working relationships, so that they can complement rather than duplicate the work of the other. I see no reason to doubt why this cannot continue to be the model in the future.
While there is certainly some common ground between the work of the new Surveillance Camera Commissioner and the Information Commissioner, there are also important differences. The Information Commissioner highlighted, in his evidence to the Public Bill Committee, that his consideration of CCTV is limited to the sphere of data protection and, as such, that his office is not concerned with the effective use of cameras. Indeed, the commissioner saw this separation of functions as advantageous, stating,
“if you are specifically identified as Mr Privacy and expected to come down on the privacy side all the time, it is difficult to make judgments about the release of official information”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 97.]
Furthermore, the noble Earl might remember—I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area—that public confidence in CCTV is driven by both the proportionality and the effectiveness of deployment. The public want, rightly, to see that when surveillance cameras are deployed they help to bring criminals to justice.
In that same evidence session, the deputy Information Commissioner stated that,
“if the cameras do not work, we are not concerned, because cameras that do not work cannot intrude on someone’s privacy and that is what our driver is”.—[Official Report, Commons, Protection of Freedoms Bill Committee, 24/3/11; col. 99.]
I would therefore be concerned about having all these functions under the umbrella of a privacy commissioner. It is important to note that the Information Commissioner plays a key role not only in making sure that personal data are properly protected but that information is freely available to the public in accordance with freedom of information legislation. A single privacy commissioner would undoubtedly tilt the overall balance of the role to the detriment of the Government’s objectives to promote openness and transparency.
In short, it is our view that the five commissioners that are the subject of the amendment all undertake sufficiently distinct roles to justify their separate identities. Where their roles interconnect, I am confident that they will, as now, work together effectively to ensure that they complement rather than duplicate each other’s work. We will of course keep the landscape of commissioners under review but, for the reasons that I have set out, I am not persuaded of the case for a single privacy commissioner. I hope that the noble Earl accepts these arguments and will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, but I am grateful to him for putting it forward in order for us to discuss these matters.
The Earl of Erroll
I thank the Minister for that reply. In fact, what she described was rather what I ended up thinking. I have to admit that the amendment is defective in that it is not quite what I thought; it came quickly from someone else in order to solve the problem of putting something on paper. A single commissioner certainly could not do that job. I had envisaged someone at the top but then four or five departments underneath, some with much higher security ratings than others. It would just be a matter of co-ordination. From that point of view, I am glad to hear from the Minister that this is already happening with the collaboration between the commissioners on the ground. I hope that that will continue with the other commissioners if the structure stays separate. Bringing them together under a single overarching review may still possibly have advantages, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I have just realised that I am about to ask my noble friend a question—my other noble friend.
The amendment would provide that as well as publishing the governance rules of the board, the Secretary of State would publish rules governing its composition. My question is an entirely simple one and there is nothing to be read between the lines. What will be the composition of the board and how will it be brought into the public domain? My noble friend Lady Stowell may say that governance covers composition, but clearly the membership of the board is important. It needs to be appropriate to its functions and the interests reflected in the composition are clearly a matter of public importance and concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for this amendment and I hope that my response will provide the reassurance that she is looking for. This is another issue that was covered in the letter from the Information Commissioner sent to several noble Lords before our Committee stage.
The simplest thing for me to do in the first instance is refer to paragraph 130 on page 31 of the Explanatory Notes, which states:
“The principal members of the Board are the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Association of Police Authorities (in future, following the enactment of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, a representative of Police and Crime Commissioners) and the Home Office, but there is also an independent element to the Board from non-police bodies, such as the Information Commissioner and the National DNA Database Ethics Group”.
I am happy to put on the record that the governance rules set out in new Section 63AB(6) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, as inserted by Clause 24, will include the full membership of the board and that members will continue to include an independent element in the form of representation from the Information Commissioner’s Office and the national DNA database ethics group. If any of your Lordships have any suggestions for others that might join the board to strengthen the independent element, I will be happy to receive them. Having heard my remarks, I hope that my noble friend Lady Hamwee will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I am grateful for that. It did not occur to me to look at the Explanatory Notes. My noble friend is quite right; I should have done so. Her emphasis on the independent element from non-police bodies is important. As she read out that list it sounded police-heavy. The police have to operate the system so I am not suggesting that they should not be properly represented but as the debates today and throughout the passage of this Bill amply illustrate—if we need that illustration—it is not only the police who have an interest in these provisions and in the operation of handling DNA material, which is the subject of these various clauses. I am not sure that I would feel that it is adequate that there is simply “an independent element” from the bodies referred to. I would like to see “an independent element”—period. There are plenty of organisations which call on the services of, if not the great and the good—they are not necessarily the best—those who are interested and willing to give the public service that is required for this sort of activity, using the wisdom and judgment obtained through public life, or simply through a period of years.
What can I refer to? We have just been abolishing them but standards committees in local government have used an independent element. I am sure that there are plenty of examples but they always escape you on these occasions. Perhaps I can take what my noble friend has said as something of an invitation to explore this a little after the Committee stage. To have elements from what might be regarded as the usual suspects—I do not say that pejoratively—may not serve the purpose as well as we could.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
I just want to re-emphasise that I would be grateful to any of your Lordships who have any suggestions to add on the independent element of the board after today’s debate.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, I would also say that it is not uncommon for there to be advertisements for applications using the Nolan principles for an independent element to boards such as this. Perhaps after this evening I shall try to come up with some other examples. I am grateful for that and I put on the record that I am grateful to the information commissioner for the thoughtful way in which he and his office have briefed your Lordships. I warn the government Front Bench that I have not read through to the end of his briefing so there will no doubt be more to come in future parts of the Bill. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.