Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, Amendment 33A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has considerable merit. It proposes the collection of this data, including what is set out in subsection (3) of the amendment, and laying a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of the considerable powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act during the year in question. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response. If they are not minded to accept the amendment, I hope they will give a full explanation of why this is not deemed necessary or acceptable.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank both noble Lords for their points. I agree with the sentiment of what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about the role of communities. They are important in assisting the police and security services in countering not only terrorism but extremism. Amendment 33A would require the Home Secretary to lay a report before both Houses of Parliament each year setting out how the ports powers under Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000 and Schedule 3 to this Bill have been exercised.
Reiterating some of what I said earlier, the Government agree with the sentiment behind the amendment, but I hope the noble Lord will agree that it is unnecessary. We entirely agree that transparency and accountability are appropriate in governing the exercise of the new hostile activity ports powers, as is the case with the existing counterterrorism powers. I reiterate, however, that such mechanisms are already in place through the work of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation with respect to Schedule 7, and the future role of the IPC for Schedule 3. Part 6 of Schedule 3 already requires the IPC to review the use of the powers by making an annual report. We envisage this working in a very similar way to the role of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, who reports annually on the use of counterterrorism powers under the Terrorism Act, including those in Schedule 7.
Noble Lords should be reassured that the commissioner, like the independent reviewer, will be afforded full access to any Schedule 3 record on request and information on how the powers have been exercised. The scope and content of these reports will be at the discretion of the commissioner, as they have been for a number of years regarding Schedule 7. The annual reports by the independent reviewer are augmented by the quarterly statistical bulletins, published by the Home Office, on the operation in Great Britain of police powers under the Terrorism Act 2000. The latest bulletin was published on 6 December and, incidentally, recorded a further 25% decrease in the number of Schedule 7 examinations compared with the previous year. The number of Schedule 7 examinations has now fallen by 79% since the data was first collected in the year ending 30 September 2012. The published data already includes information about the ethnicity of examinees and the number of detentions.
As I said earlier, we are considering with the Home Office chief statistician the appropriate arrangements for publishing statistics on the exercise of the Schedule 3 powers, but we would expect to publish equivalent statistics to Schedule 7. The statistical reports in respect of Schedule 7 do not currently identify the religion of examinees, but we are ready to explore this with the Home Office chief statistician, the police and others. I hope that, on this basis, the noble Lord feels happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation. What comes across to me in her response to this and other amendments is that there is a degree of transparency and accountability, in that the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation will look at the Schedule 7 powers and the IPC, presumably, will examine those under Schedule 3. It is all very well for the Government, the independent reviewer or the Investigatory Powers Commissioner to be satisfied that these powers are being used appropriately, but they are not the people who need to be convinced that they are being used fairly: it is the communities—particularly the Muslim community—that need to be convinced. Publishing the religion of people being subjected to these powers is crucial if we are to get the Muslim community to work with us to defeat terrorism.
As I said when I introduced the amendment, people, or groups, can switch almost overnight. For example, the attempted bombings on 21 July 2005 were a carbon copy of those on 7 July, which did not go according to plan. They were supposed to involve four bombs on the Underground, and the copycat attacks on 21 July involved three on the Underground and one on a bus because of what happened on the 7th. That is how quickly the first attack was copy-catted by another group. It is the friends, neighbours and close associates of these lone wolves and groups of friends who will pick up on the changes in their behaviour that show they are moving from being radical to being violent and potentially deadly. It is therefore absolutely essential that we do everything we possibly can to win the trust and confidence of the communities from which these people come.
I am encouraged by the Minister saying that the Home Office statistician will be looking at the issue.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The Minister said that the Government will be looking at this with the chief statistician and the police. Can she give a timeframe for that? If she cannot do so now, can she come back to the House before too long with an idea of when we might expect some further information on this work?
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 34A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, raises the same issue that the noble Lord led on in Committee. The noble Lord quite rightly raised the issue of the words “hostile act”. The words are far too wide and give a disproportionate power to the relevant authorities. The noble Lord spoke in Committee about these strong coercive powers.
To their credit, the Government have listened to that debate and I know that they have been in discussion with a number of noble Lords around the House, as have government officials. I have found those discussions very helpful and I am persuaded that the amendments put forward by the Government in this group address the concerns raised previously, so I am content to support the Government and their amendments in this group.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, with this group of amendments we return to the question of the proper scope of the powers in Schedule 3. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has again argued that police powers of this kind should only be available to the police to tackle criminal behaviour. As I highlighted in Committee, and would like to stress again, these new powers to examine persons at ports and the border area are specifically designed to mitigate the threat from all forms of hostile state activity. Limiting the scope of these powers would limit the range of threats that we would be able to detect, disrupt and deter, thereby leaving the country vulnerable.
The noble Lord is correct that many of the activities we are concerned about may be criminal in nature, including offences under the Official Secrets Act 1911. However, not only is this legislation generally recognised to be outdated and not fit for the modern age, but not all hostile activity would fall within scope. The noble Lord is right that we need to consider modernising the law in this area, and the House is aware that the Law Commission is undertaking a review of criminal law surrounding the protection of official data, which includes all the Official Secrets Acts, but this work will necessarily take some time to come to fruition and, until we know the outcome, it would be wrong to narrow the scope of the provisions in Schedule 3. To do so would necessarily inhibit our ability to counter hostile activity, as the police would naturally err on the side of caution when conducting stops, given the risk of challenge about whether the stop or subsequent questioning was clearly for the purpose of determining whether the examinee is, or has been, involved in serious crime.
I recognise the noble Lord’s concerns that the breadth of the power could encompass activities which are not considered crimes. If such activity threatens the safety of our citizens, our democracy and our national security, it is only right that we afford the police the powers to investigate, prevent and discourage these acts in order to protect us. Some hostile activity would not be considered criminal activity under the law as is stands—for example, the proliferation of disinformation. We know that certain states routinely use disinformation as a foreign policy tool and have seen evidence of this happening elsewhere.
In recent years, some states have attempted to influence opinions online by using human and automated troll farms to establish fake social media profiles or spread disinformation. One can imagine a scenario in which a member of one such troll farm, controlled by a foreign power that has been observed attempting to influence public debate in the UK, travels to the UK. The act of sowing discord through proliferation of disinformation is not a crime in the UK, but you can imagine a scenario in which it would threaten our national security. Under the noble Lord’s proposed amendment, police officers at ports would be rightly unwilling to ask about these activities, as they are not illegal.
Interference operations are not restricted to the online space. Suppose an individual with suspected links to a hostile foreign intelligence agency travels to the UK, with the intention of meeting parliamentarians under a benign pretext, but with the real intention of influencing them to support a particular position which would be of benefit to that state. This type of activity is not illegal in the UK; the individual is not obliged to disclose that they have an ulterior motive of seeking to influence parliamentarians, but noble Lords understand that this activity is a threat to our national security and risks undermining our parliamentary democracy. Under the noble Lord’s amendment, as this type of activity would not be classified as a crime in the UK, police officers at ports would be unable to ask questions of a sufficiently detailed nature to provide the level of insight necessary to properly understand, assess, further investigate or disrupt the threat that this activity would present.
Some individuals may not even be aware that they are acting on behalf of a hostile actor. They may think they are working for a charity or a friend. Many of the serious crimes that we would consider linking to Schedule 3 require an intention element on the part of the individual.
We have reflected carefully on comments made, including by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, about the scope of the “threatens the economic well-being of the United Kingdom” limb of the definition of a hostile act. There were concerns that legitimate business ventures would fall within scope of the power. This limb of the definition is intended to ensure that these powers can be used to mitigate hostile acts such as damaging the country’s national infrastructure or disrupting energy supplies to the UK. It is not our intention that these powers are available to examine those travelling only to conduct legitimate business.
To address these concerns, I have tabled Amendment 34C, which narrows the scope of the “economic well-being” limb. This amendment will provide that an act is a hostile act under this limb only if it threatens the economic well-being of the UK,
“in a way relevant to the interests of national security”.
The other government amendments in this group make consequential changes to other references to the economic well-being of the UK in Schedule 3.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, asked whether the IPC will have the resources needed to review the use of Schedule 3. The Government are committed to ensuring the Investigatory Powers Commissioner has the resources that he or she needs to fulfil all their functions, including Schedule 3 when these provisions come into force. However, I should emphasise that we expect the use of Schedule 3 powers to be very low, certainly far below the number of Schedule 7 examinations conducted in 2017.
At this point, perhaps I may remind noble Lords that the Home Office is reviewing whether there is a need for new counter hostile state activity legislation. I have already mentioned the Law Commission review of the Official Secrets Acts, but our work is not confined solely to that area of criminal law. Of course, any reforms to the Official Secrets Acts or any other new offences will require further primary legislation and, in taking this work forward, I can assure the noble Lord that we will examine as part of the work whether there are any changes that we ought to make to Schedule 3.
In taking this wider work forward, we will also have the benefit of the annual reports on the exercise of Schedule 3 powers by the IPC. I am confident that in reviewing this, having all the resources he needs in place, the commissioner will adopt the same robust approach as did the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, when he was the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. He will not hold back from making recommendations if he considers that, in the light of the experience of operating these powers, changes should be made to Schedule 3. Moreover, the provisions of the Bill will be subject to the normal five-year post-legislative review.
I hope that, given this explanation, the noble Lord will be content to withdraw his amendment. I have explained the need to maintain the current scope of the power subject to the narrowing of the “economic well-being” limb.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raises important issues with these two amendments, and I am happy to give my support in principle. As the noble Baroness said herself, I am not convinced that these amendments, as written, are correct, though they certainly raise issues the Government should look at and support. All of us here would, I hope, support journalists, and a free and responsible press.
The issues raised by the amendments need looking at; I hope that the Minister will do so when she responds. Perhaps we can find a way forward, possibly at Third Reading, to address the concerns here. It is about getting the balance right between protecting our country, protecting the rights of journalists and keeping ourselves safe and secure. We need to get those issues right in the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree totally with noble Lords that there is a balance to be struck between the freedom of the press and getting material that is not conducive to this country’s well-being. The amendments reflect concerns about how Schedule 3 ports powers apply to journalistic material and sources. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, spoke passionately about that issue in Committee; I hope to assure her that Schedule 3 includes a number of safeguards to protect confidential material, including confidential journalistic material.
Schedule 3 is a counter-hostile state activity power. With that in mind, it is vital that ports officers are equipped to deal with the means and methods of those engaged in such activity. I spoke in Committee about the very real threat we face from foreign intelligence officers and their agents who actively use the cover of certain professions including journalism, the law and others. That is why Schedule 3 introduces new powers to allow for action to be taken where an article that may include confidential material could be used in connection with a hostile act, presents a threat to life or could lead to significant injury.
Amendment 34E would undermine the ability of ports officers to detect, disrupt and deter hostile actors as it would allow a person simply to refuse a request for documents or information, including sources, where they claim that it consists of journalistic material, as defined by the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Investigatory Powers Act, or is subject to legal privilege. That would prohibit the examining officer verifying that the material in question is confidential or journalistic and would require the officer to take the examinee at their word.
I have spoken before about why that would be problematic when faced with trained hostile actors who will seek to exploit any possible loophole in our legislation, yet the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, are precisely why the new retention powers in respect of confidential information require the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner, who must be satisfied that certain conditions are met before granting that authorisation. This approach protects the work of legitimate journalists and lawyers and is consistent with the Court of Appeal’s judgment in the Schedule 7 case of Miranda, to which the noble Baroness referred. In that case, the court said that,
“independent and impartial oversight … is the natural and obvious adequate safeguard”,
in examination cases involving journalistic freedom.
Amendment 34F would extend the statutory bar—which prohibits answers or information given orally by a person during an examination being used in criminal proceedings—to any information or documents given where the material is considered journalistic. Noble Lords will know that the purpose of this important safeguard, as recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, is to protect an examinee against self-incrimination where they must respond to questioning under compulsion and so do not have a right to silence. The amendment would extend the statutory bar into territory it was not designed or intended to cover. It could prevent evidence of a hostile act from being used in criminal proceedings where it had been acquired through the legitimate examination of confidential material on the authorisation of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner. Accepting this amendment would undermine the ability of the police and the CPS to prosecute hostile actors, either those who have used journalistic cover to disguise their criminal activities or those whose activities might be evidenced by confidential material in the hands of a third party.
Although I do not agree with the amendments, for the reasons I have explained, I recognise the force of the noble Baroness’s arguments on the need for strong protections for journalistic material that is not confidential. I will therefore ask my officials to consider if any additional protections may be introduced through the Schedule 3 codes of practice. I can undertake to keep the noble Baroness informed of progress with this work, and of course a revised version of the draft code of practice will need to come back to this House to be approved before those provisions come into force. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving the House another opportunity to debate the appropriate safeguards for journalistic and legally privileged material under Schedule 3. In light of my undertaking to do this additional work, I hope she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
“38A_ In Schedule 14 (exercise of officers’ powers), in paragraph 4 after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) A person may be specified in an order under this paragraph only if the person exercises public functions (whether or not in the United Kingdom).””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the House will recall that on the first day on Report, a new clause was added to the Bill to strengthen the rights of persons detained under Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to consult a solicitor in private. Amendment 45 is consequential upon that new clause. The amendment will provide that the new clause will be commenced by regulations, rather than automatically coming into force two months after Royal Assent. This will allow time to update the code of practice under the Terrorism Act 2000 before these provisions are brought into force. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble Lords, Lord Morrow and Lord Stunell, for their points. All I can say on the back of the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stunell, is: thank God we do not live in the 17th century.
I start by making it clear that when the Government refer in the various documents mentioned by the noble Baroness to Prevent applying to “all forms of extremism”, that means that Prevent applies to far-right extremism as much as it does to Islamist extremism—and, indeed, to Sikh-related extremism, Northern Ireland-related extremism, et cetera. This is a relatively new change, as the Prevent strategy pre-2011 applied only to Islamist extremism. This was clearly inequitable and not reflective of the threat, so it was changed. What is not meant by that expression is that Prevent should apply to all degrees of extremism. All our guidance has tried to be clear that Prevent is of relevance only where the extremism is such that there is a risk of people being drawn into terrorism. That is how the duties are framed in statute, and the point is made many times throughout the two pieces of statutory guidance: the Prevent duty guidance and the Channel duty guidance. I accept that there are occasions in those documents when the full formulation is not used for the sake of brevity and style. However, we believe that, when read as a whole, and in conjunction with the 2015 Act, the true meaning is clear.
I also emphasise that we have not seen any evidence to suggest that practitioners are misinterpreting the guidance documents to try to apply them to those forms of extremism which do not risk drawing people into terrorism, but I appreciate the example provided by the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, and I would be grateful if he would forward it to me. Certainly, the rigorous assessment within the Channel process ensures that no one is likely to be offered support unless that connection to being drawn into terrorism is there. We must not forget that, in any event, Channel support is entirely voluntary.
All guidance reaches a point where it needs to be updated, and we are committed to doing so when the time is right. Since the Prevent and Channel duties were introduced, there has been much good practice and many case studies which a new version would look to contain. Noble Lords may also be aware that just last week the Court of Appeal heard a case relevant to this matter and the Government eagerly await its judgment, which may well have implications for how a future revision of the guidance is drafted. But we do not know how long it will be before the judgment is handed down and it would be a mistake to attempt to revise the guidance beforehand. In addition, the drafting process, collecting good practice and going out to public consultation is likely to take several months.
The process of revising guidance is not a quick one if we are to get it right. The Government accept that it will become necessary to do so at some point in the not too distant future, but it would be damaging to what we are trying to achieve with Clause 19 should implementation of that clause be delayed while new guidance is drafted. The almost inevitable outcome, should such an amendment become law, is that the production of new guidance would be rushed so as to limit that damage, resulting in an inferior product, with much-reduced consultation and input from practitioners. Given that the guidance must be approved by Parliament before being issued, your Lordships’ House would be required to debate an inferior product that I would not wish to lay before it.
While I would not wish to commit the Government to a specific timeframe for producing new guidance, I can say that in any event the guidance will need to be reviewed as part of the post-legislative review process that takes place five years after enactment. The fact that the Act in question received Royal Assent in 2015 means that a review and revision of the guidance will happen no later than 2020. When we revise the guidance, we will be sure to take on board the comments that the noble Baroness has made and make it clear exactly what kind of extremism is covered by the Prevent duty and the guidance, and what is not. Prevent is not and never has been any form of thought police, nor has it been about suppressing dissent. It is of course, as I said earlier, about safeguarding vulnerable people.
I hope I have been able to allay the noble Baroness’s concerns and that she will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she has said. I thought when I was speaking that I got an indication that there would be some action within 12 months, but as she spoke I became rather more worried by the time that everything is going to take.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for allowing me to intervene. Twelve months from now brings us virtually into 2020.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
All right. That is reassuring—to everyone, I hope.
I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, and I thank the Minister herself for what she has said to us all. I certainly hope that the nature of the problems that we have highlighted during this debate is such that rather more detailed consideration might be given to bringing the whole timetable forward. That would certainly be a great help. The sooner it is done, the better, even if the timetable is really around the 12-month timing. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Police Funding Settlement
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Policing Minister. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, I would like to propose to the House a provisional police funding settlement for 2019-20. I do so at a time of real pressure on our police system, with demand rising and becoming increasingly complex and response-intensive. Across the country, police officers and staff are working exceptionally hard in very demanding and often risky conditions. They have, I know, the respect and thanks of this House, but they need more than that: they need additional support to help them do the job.
Last year, Parliament approved a funding settlement that resulted in £460 million of additional public investment in policing. That included £50 million more for counterterrorism and £280 million more for local forces from the precept. This meant that every force’s funding was protected in real terms this year, and overall public investment in policing this year is more than £1 billion higher than three years ago.
As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance front-line policing. I also indicated last year that our intention was to provide a similar settlement in 2019-20, subject to improved efficiency, productivity and financial transparency. I am very pleased to confirm that the police have met those conditions. There is an agreed plan to deliver £120 million in commercial and back-office savings by 2020-21. Forces are developing digital plans, including deploying mobile technology more ambitiously to use police time more productively, and every PCC has published a financial reserves strategy. However, the Government recognise that two things have changed since I stood at the Dispatch Box a year ago.
First, cost pressures have risen. Public sector inflation has increased and the police are facing challenges in meeting new costs, such as forensics and increased employer contributions to safeguard public pensions. More significantly, demand pressures have risen. There has been a major increase in the reporting of high-harm, previously hidden crimes such as child sexual exploitation. The challenge from serious and organised crime networks is growing. Through the serious violence strategy, we are bearing down on the worst spike in serious violence and knife crime that we have seen in this country in a decade. Digitally enabled and online crime is a major challenge for our police. Meanwhile, as we are all aware, the threat from terrorism has escalated and evolved.
The first role of government is to protect the public. As crime changes, so must the police. We are determined to make sure that the police have the powers and resources they need to respond to changing demand. So the Home Secretary and I would like to go further than I indicated last year. As the Home Secretary has signalled over the course of the year, police funding is his number one priority, so he and I have been working closely with our colleagues across government to agree a comprehensive settlement. We are proposing today a settlement that could see public investment in policing rise by up to £970 million in 2019-20, depending on the actions of police and crime commissioners.
Let me break down that very large number for the House. First, instead of the flat cash grant that I indicated last year, we want to increase government grants to police and crime commissioners by £161 million. Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms. This package includes £14 million to recognise the specific extra costs and financial challenges of policing London. On top of this, we will allocate additional grant funding of more than £150 million specifically to help the police to manage unexpected increases in their contributions to public pensions costs since the 2016 Budget.
We have also listened to requests from PCCs for more flexibility around the levels of police precept. So this settlement empowers PCCs to raise council tax contributions for local policing by £2 a month—£24 a year—for a typical household. If this flexibility is fully utilised, the result will be just over £500 million of additional local investment in local policing. We do not take that decision lightly because we know that money is tight for many people. The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs, and they will have to make a case to their electorate and be accountable for the delivery of a return on that public investment.
On top of the proposed increase in the core grant and a doubling of local precept flexibility, we propose investing more in the fight to protect our constituents against terrorism and serious organised crime. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor announced at the Budget, funding for counterterrorism policing will increase by £59 million next year to £816 million— £160 million more than we planned at the last spending review. We also intend to match the new serious and organised crime strategy with £90 million of much-needed resources to tackle threats including economic crime, child sexual exploitation, fraud and cybercrime.
This settlement combines increased central funding with increased local contributions to local policing. It enables the biggest investment in front-line policing since 2010 and the start of the journey to get this country back to living within our means. It will allow PCCs to manage their costs while maintaining their plans to recruit and fill capability gaps, not least with regard to detectives. It will strengthen our capabilities in the fight against serious organised crime and terrorism.
Alongside this increased investment in the front line against crime, we will also maintain our existing level of public investment in building national police capabilities and upgrading police technology for the benefit of local forces. We will invest £175 million in the Police Transformation Fund next year, supporting the police to make the most of the digital opportunity to improve contact with the public and use police time more effectively. We are also developing the first national programme to support stretched front-line officers. We will also support Police Now, which is recruiting fresh talent into policing and detective roles.
Alongside the Police Transformation Fund, we will invest £495 million in technology programmes that will upgrade critical infrastructure such as police databases and the emergency service communications network.
Taking everything together, this settlement means that, as a country, we will invest next year up to almost £14 billion in our police system if all PCCs use full precept flexibility. That would represent increased public investment of about £2 billion compared to 2015-16. With increased public investment comes an increased responsibility to improve efficiency and effectiveness and show the public what difference their investment is making in greater deterrence to criminals, better outcomes for victims and safer communities.
To make the most of the new investment we are announcing today, we will work with the police on four key areas next year to drive efficiency and effectiveness: delivering on the police’s ambition to procure efficiently and share back-office services; working more productively, including through digital mobile working; filling the major capability gaps that the independent inspectorate has identified in detectives and investigations; and making sure there is greater co-operation in the work to tackle serious and organised crime. Of course, support for our police is not all about spending taxpayers’ money. We are also supporting the police through new powers and working on a cross-party basis to strengthen legislation on offensive weapons, just as we worked on that basis to strengthen protections for emergency services workers.
Let me be clear: our commitment to supporting the police to deliver for the public is for the long term. Come the forthcoming comprehensive spending review, the Government will be prepared to invest appropriately in police capacity, capability and professional confidence, but this must come with greater local accountability of directly elected PCCs and a commitment to accelerate the pace of change that is needed to make sure that British policing remains the best in the world. As we have indicated, this settlement is the last before the next spending review, which will set long-term police budgets and address the issue of how resources are allocated fairly across police forces—I know that is of great interest to many Members across the House.
This Government’s priority is the safety of the public. We understand that our police are facing increased demands. We are determined to respond to the threats from terrorism, organised crime and serious violence. We are today announcing a major investment in the capabilities that the police need to respond, and rightly challenging the police to spend that money well and continue on the path of reform and modernisation. I wish to end by expressing my gratitude to our police forces around the country for their exceptional attitude, hard work and bravery. I commend this Statement to the House”.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I should declare an interest as, having been a police officer for more than 30 years, I am a police pensioner.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked, can the Minister confirm that the Treasury has increased the amount that police forces have to contribute to police pensions? According to the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners and the National Police Chiefs Council, that will amount to £165 million in 2019-20 and £417 million in 2020-21. The Government are providing £153 million to assist with increased pension costs, which is a shortfall of £12 million in the next financial year, and there is nothing in this settlement for the year after. How are police forces expected to plan ahead when they will potentially have to give back an additional £430 million to the Treasury for police pensions?
In a letter today from the Home Secretary and the Minister of State for Policing and the Fire Service, the Government say that they are increasing the government grant to PCCs, which is,
“the first real terms increase in the Government grant funding since 2010”.
Yet the Statement that the Minister has just repeated says:
“Every police and crime commissioner will see their government grant funding protected in real terms”.
Which is it: protected or increased? If it is the latter, by what percentage in real terms is it being increased? Can the Minister confirm that since 2010 central government funding for the police service has fallen by 30% in real terms, according to the National Audit Office, with overall funding down 19% in real terms, taking into account the police precept?
The Statement says that this year every force’s funding was protected in real terms. A more accurate picture can be given by looking at the picture since 2015. The number of police officers has fallen a further 4%, the number of community support officers has fallen by 18% and the number of special constables has fallen by 27%. Partly as a result of public spaces now being devoid of uniformed officers, knife crime is up 62%, firearms offences are up 30% and homicides are up 33% over the same period. Demand is rising and becoming increasingly complex, as the Government admit. There are crucial capability gaps, particularly in detectives and investigations, and the government response to this crisis is woefully inadequate.
Instead of making real progress in reversing the devastating cuts that this Government have imposed on the police service, they push responsibility for any meaningful increase in police funding on to police and crime commissioners and council tax payers. They say:
“The decision to raise local tax will be up to locally elected PCCs and they will have to make the case to their electorate and be accountable for delivery of a return on that public investment”.
In other words, the Home Office is saying, “Don’t blame us for increases in council tax and don’t blame us if you don’t notice any difference”.
Meanwhile, the Government are wasting millions of pounds propping up the existing out-of-date emergency service communications network while a new network, which relies totally on a commercial mobile phone network, is years behind its planned implementation. What would have happened to our emergency services if the new communication system had been in place by now, as planned, and had been based on the O2 network, which lost all 2G, 3G and 4G connectivity last week?
The police service and the brave officers who put their lives on the line every day to protect us are at breaking point. When will the Government realise that the police service needs a substantial real-terms increase in central government funding and a guarantee to cover all unexpected increases in pension costs in order to avert a crisis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for the points that they have made. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about the Government’s own part in this situation—that is, the funding position that we find ourselves in—and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the very similar point that we had caused a crisis in public safety. I have to say to both noble Lords that 2010 saw the advent of the new coalition Government of the Conservatives and the Lib Dems after one of the worst economic crashes that I have known in my lifetime. Any responsible Government would have had to have taken measures to take that in hand and control it. Both noble Lords are right that funding has been tough, but I could not say that the blame should all be laid at this Government’s door. We have tried to live within our means as opposed to overspending and ultimately creating problems for the next generations through public debt and the deficit.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about how the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise, it was the noble Lord, Lord Blair, who explained how he had a lot more money. Yes, he did; 2010 saw the start of reductions in public spending to try to get our spending under control. It was the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, who eloquently explained to us how from 2011 to 2013 knife crime actually went down, as did stop and search—and as did his budget. He talked about how police forces can work together, take a much more local approach and engage with communities to understand the problems. He explained that it was not all about funding, although we had got to a point—as I, the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister acknowledged—where funding was becoming tight and demands on the police were rising, particularly in the past one to two years, with some of the unprecedented pressures arising from things such as terrorism.
The noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Paddick, asked about the pensions position. Yes, it will rise to £160 million in 2019-20. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked whether the increase was £59 million in relation to counterterrorism funding. I can confirm that. It rose by £59 million to £816 million, which was £116 million more than announced at the previous spending review. It is complicated and I apologise to noble Lords for that, but that is the position.
Both noble Lords asked about certainty beyond that: the eternal question, which I was always frustrated about as a local authority leader. Of course, we cannot give any certainty beyond the next spending review, but the Home Secretary and the Policing Minister have said on a number of occasions that police funding will be an absolute priority, so I can give that certainty to noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked the very good question: is the protected funding just protected or increasing? I can tell him that for 2019-20, government grant funding for all PCCs will be protected in real terms compared to 2018-19 but, separately, the total funding increase of up to £970 million across the policing system is the largest increase in funding since 2010.
Both noble Lords talked about local taxpayers and the impact that this will have on them. I must say that this Government—and, indeed, the coalition Government —have taken a record number of people out of tax altogether, with the basic allowance starting at a much higher level. I think that we have taken 1.74 million people out of tax altogether because of the £12,500 personal allowance, and the national living wage is now £8.21 an hour, which will benefit 2.4 million workers in total. There has been a cut in income tax for 32 million people. I appreciate that local taxpayers will have to pay this increase, but of course their local taxes will go to local services and the tax situation for so many millions of people has been much improved.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked about the pension costs in 2019, 2020 and 2021. Obviously, we are providing a comprehensive funding settlement for 2019-20, but the revised total pension pressure is £330 million, and this settlement provides up to £970 million of funding to cover pressures and provide investment. As I said, 2020-21 will be covered as part of the next comprehensive spending review, which we expect next year.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked me about the comms system. He made a very good point about when O2 was down. I cannot give a definitive answer about precisely when the new comms system will be on board, but I totally get his point—it is a much more efficient system—and, if I may, I shall write to him with any updated position about it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on this welcome investment in policing at strategic and local level, because both are important. I very much endorse her words of gratitude at this Christmas season for brave police men and women in our country.
I have two questions. Does my noble friend agree that better use can be made of digital techniques and information sharing in the fight against crime and in improving value for money in policing? Good digital methods can help to make money go further. Secondly, can she accelerate the cross-party work that she mentioned on offensive weapons, given the appalling incidence of knife crime that we see up and down the country and in the newspapers far too often?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for those questions. Her first point was about better use of digital techniques. In all the efficiency discussions that we have had with the police, that is one of the most important things. The advent of new technology means that the police can spend more time out on the streets fighting crime. As more efficient police services engage with this type of technology, we will see that realised in more police time.
My noble friend makes a good point about a cross-party approach to the Offensive Weapons Bill, which I look forward to discussing across the House. I know that we will have a constructive discussion about that before we debate the Bill and I look forward to hearing from her at Second Reading and beyond, and to her engagement in the process.
Baroness Pinnock (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for what she said about the rise in the policing precept. She seems to admit that, on the one hand, the Government are giving by reducing income tax levels for people, on the other, passing on the cost of policing to local residents. One is based on ability to pay, but council tax, with the policing precept, is a very regressive tax, so there is an inherent unfairness in that system. I raise the particular consequences for West Yorkshire residents and those in my own borough of Kirklees, and I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests. In Kirklees last year there was a 7.9% rise in the policing precept, and the rise this year is predicted to be 14.7%. That is a 24% rise over two years, not based on anybody’s ability to pay. Will the Minister reflect on whether that is a fair way to raise taxation to pay for policing?
Secondly, police and crime commissioners are supposedly accountable to local people, yet there is no direct way of creating that accountability. I have a suggestion. Currently, the policing precept is an add-on at the bottom of the council tax bill issued by local authorities. Local people obviously just look at the bottom line of what they have to pay. To increase accountability, can the policing precept be billed separately, albeit within the same envelope or digitised method, so that it is clear to residents how much they are paying for policing and how much the Government require them to pay in addition?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. She mentioned giving with one hand and taking with the other. I talked about general taxation and people being taken out of tax— 32 million people are paying less tax—but there is also the government grant to PCCs, which will be £161 million. I reject her idea that costs are passed on to local people. We all pay tax. I for one am happy to pay local tax, knowing that it will go to my local police in Greater Manchester. She asked about the police precept being billed separately; I put it to her that she would then pass the cost of additional billing on to local people. Different areas can decide how to do things in their own way but an extra bill, even if put in the same envelope, will incur additional costs.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, in the Statement she repeated, the Minister made it sound as though the sunlit uplands have come into view. That is not the way we see it where I live. The Statement says:
“As a result of last year’s settlement, most police and crime commissioners set out plans to either protect or enhance front-line policing”.
In Colne, the town I come from, the people I represent on the local council ask me, “Why are we paying more for the police when we are having our local police taken away?” Lancashire was in the forefront of developing neighbourhood policing 20 or 25 years ago, and Pendle and east Lancashire generally were in the forefront in Lancashire. We were pioneers. This year, half the community beat managers—the constables who are the actual neighbourhood police officers—are being removed. There are still some PCSOs, but half the police officers on the beat, in the ward and on the street, are being removed. The Minister referred to police officers on the street getting more technological devices and being more efficient; that is no use if they have gone.
What do I say to people when they ask me, “Who is to blame if not you?” I tell them I am not to blame, so they ask me, “Is it the Government, the police commissioner, the police constable?” Who is it? There is no local accountability at all.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that. The investment in front-line police—whether in neighbourhood or any other kind of policing—is up to the local force. He made the point that technology is no use if the police are gone; he is not incorrect in that, but the savings made from investing in technology can be invested in front-line policing. I hope the settlement, which I think is very generous, means that the police will have more scope to invest in the areas they want to invest in while still looking at efficiencies in procurement and technology.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Since our police and crime commissioners vary so greatly in quality and efficiency, how can the Government be sure that they will use their significant additional resources effectively or provide the greater accountability for which the Statement explicitly calls? In particular, can they have confidence in Cleveland, where Mike Veale, discredited by Operation Conifer in Wiltshire, is now chief constable? Can they have confidence in the Wiltshire PCC, with whom they are at odds over an inquiry into Operation Conifer?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Regarding accountability, particularly for efficiency and effectiveness, HMICFRS tests that across police forces and, ultimately, the public test their PCCs at the ballot box.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
Before we move on, I should of course have mentioned in my previous intervention that, like the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I normally remind the House repeatedly, but in this instance I completely forgot.
Religious Hate Speech
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986 remains in force, and if so, what is the basis in statute for the offence of religious hate speech.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, Part 3A of the Public Order Act 1986 relates to hatred against persons on religious or sexual orientation grounds. Section 29J provides that Part 3A should not be interpreted in a way that prohibits discussion or encouragement to cease practising of particular religions or beliefs. There is no criminal offence in the UK of hate speech.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. However, I fear that we are on our way to losing our freedom of speech in this area. I repeat a question I put a year ago, which the Government refused to answer: namely, whether a Christian who proclaims that Jesus is the only Son of the one true God can be arrested for hate speech if a Muslim feels insulted and complains to the police. By the same token, can a Muslim be arrested for preaching the supreme divinity of Allah if a Christian takes offence?
Secondly, can the Government assure your Lordships that they will not follow a new judgment from the Strasbourg court, which upholds Austria’s criminalisation of a lady who said that Muhammad was a paedophile? Or are we to have a new blasphemy law that prohibits discussion of Islam?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord asked me a hypothetical question in an unspecified situation. The CPS and the police agreed definition of hate crime is used for the purposes of identifying and flagging only. The definition is: any criminal offence which is perceived to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person’s actual or perceived disability, race, religion, sexual orientation or transgender identity. When flagged as a hate crime, the police will be satisfied that an offence has been committed and will then investigate evidence in support of the appropriate charge, as well as the aggravated element of hostility. It would not be appropriate for me, as I have just said, to confirm whether this is an example which would constitute a hate crime. That would be an operational decision both of the police and the CPS based on the specific circumstances.
On the Austrian situation, the judgment does not raise any issues which require any further consideration by this Government at this time.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I was hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, was going to tell us that, like Mr Farage, he now found UKIP so awful that he, too, was leaving its ranks. Section 29J of the Public Order Act 1986, which was added, I understand, by this House during the passage of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006, states:
“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents”.
In the light of those references to “insult or abuse”, do the Government intend to reconsider the appropriateness of those two words in Section 29J in the current climate, which seem to conflict to some degree with the objective of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and its protection for individuals from hatred and the fear of violence and harassment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we need to be careful to balance the two issues. I know why the noble Lord picked “insult” and “abuse” because they sound quite strong words, but insult and abuse and hatred are quite different things. I take the noble Lord’s point: on the face of it, they seem quite strong words.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I was the police spokesperson after the 7 July bombings in 2005 in London when 52 innocent people lost their lives. I was asked in a press conference whether I felt that it was the result of Islamic terrorism. I said that I thought that the phrase “Islamic terrorism” was a contradiction in terms. I went on to say that I believe that the UK is a much better, more law-abiding country because we have a strong Muslim community. I believe that now as much as I did then. Does the Minister agree?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do agree with the noble Lord that the conflation of Islamism and Islamic is widespread. Not only should we understand where the two terms come from—Islamism, of course, comes from the collapse of the Ottoman empire—but that Islam itself is a peaceful religion and Muslims in this country contribute to the variety and diversity of our country.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that all faiths should be treated equally, and does she deplore the present practice of resources going to those who shout the loudest? There are no comparative statistics on hate crime for different faiths.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree with the noble Lord that all religions should be treated equally. The premise of some of our hate crime legislation absolutely underpins that equality in society. No one should feel that hate should be meted out on them because of their religion, the colour of their skin, their sexual orientation or their disability.
Lord King of Bridgwater (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there is now far too much hatred in the world, affecting all ages, such as the tragic incident that occurred recently with the Syrian refugee? The total pervasiveness of social media is an opportunity to spread hate in different directions. Will she comment on the approach that could be taken to tackle that particular challenge that we now have?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend raises an important question about the proliferation of hate crime online; of course, what is a crime offline should also be a crime online. We will be taking our online harms White Paper through Parliament shortly. He is absolutely right to point out the case of that poor Syrian boy, but I should also like to point out that sometimes out of such awful situations comes great kindness. I understand that the British public have raised a lot of funds for that family to support them through the terrible time that they have had.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford ExcerptsMonday 3rd December 2018
(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 View all Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 142-I Marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (29 Nov 2018)
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s comments. We on these Benches have for some time had a concern about the so-called conveyor belt theory that radical, non-violent, extreme views necessarily lead to radicalisation and violence. Many groups in this country hold what most of us would consider to be extreme views, such as fundamentalist Christian groups and ultra-Orthodox Jewish groups, where we have no concerns at all that their extreme views will lead to radicalisation and violence.
There are other factors at play that receive no consideration as far as the Bill’s measures are concerned. We also express our concern that the Bill would tend to put people off debating extreme views, during which the counternarrative can be expressed, peoples’ dangerous views can be openly debated and their ideas shown to be false. The Bill and other measures like it are likely to close down that debate. Ultimately, a battle of ideas is the way to address the underlying issues rather than the approach the Bill takes.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their explanation of these amendments. One of the things that the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, challenged the Government on was the rationale behind our counter- terrorism work. Perhaps it would be useful to set out some of that for him.
As stated in Contest, government and academic research has consistently indicated that there is no single sociodemographic profile of a terrorist in the UK, and no single pathway or, indeed, “conveyor belt” leading to involvement in terrorism. Terrorists come from a broad range of backgrounds and appear to become involved in different ways and for differing reasons. Few of those who are drawn into Islamist terrorism, for example, have a deep knowledge of the faith.
While no single factor will cause someone to become involved in terrorism, several factors can converge to create certain conditions under which radicalisation can flourish. These include background factors such as aspects of someone’s personal circumstances that might make them vulnerable to radicalisers, such as being involved in criminal activity; initial influences such as people, ideas or experiences that influence an individual towards supporting a terrorist movement; and an ideological opening or receptiveness to extremist ideology.
Most individuals who experience this combination of factors will not go on to become involved in terrorism because there are protective factors that safeguard against their doing so. These range from having no opportunity to develop extremist contacts to having other, more important priorities in their lives, such as their family, career or community. A small number of people who lack these protective factors may become radicalised. In these circumstances, a range of social and ideological influences can combine to intensify commitment to a terrorist cause and provide opportunities for them to act.
The process of radicalisation is driven by universal psychological needs for identity and belonging—those words are very important in this context—meaning and purpose, and, of course, self-esteem. Where these are met by constructive sources radicalisation will not flourish, but we also know that as a person deepens their involvement in terrorism this process will typically include voracious consumption of online propaganda. When in a group, further engagement in terrorism is also likely to include the individual isolating themselves from non-extremists and participating in low-level activity such as the radicalisation of others, or facilitation, fundraising, et cetera. There is some research to indicate that lone-actor terrorists have a higher incidence of certain mental and developmental health conditions than the general population, but I must stress that no one should assume that a terrorist suffers from a mental health condition or that a person with a mental health condition is a terrorist.
“(ca) the cases in which a person “holds” an account include those where the person is entitled to operate the account;”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, helpfully proposed an amendment in Committee to close a gap he had identified on accounts which a terrorist offender is entitled to operate but does not hold in their own name—for example, because they are an authorised signatory to the account of the relative or employer. I recognised then that there might well be merit in the amendment and committed to take it away to consider it further. I have just done that and find myself in agreement with the noble Lord that this is indeed a gap in the current Bill and that his suggestion will close it and improve the Bill.
Amendment 27 therefore implements his suggestion, for which I am very grateful, and I commend the amendment to the House.
Lord Paddick
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, but I cannot possibly claim credit for the amendment: it is actually the work of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. That having been said, we are very grateful that she listened to our arguments. We hope that noble Lords will realise that we on these Benches look to be hopeful, not necessarily negative about legislation. We hope that closing this loophole shows that we are working together to try to improve legislation.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as the noble Baroness pointed out, Clause 13 confers on police the power to enter and search the home address of a registered terrorist offender, under the authority of a warrant issued by a justice, for the purpose of assessing the risk the offender poses. Amendment 28 would narrow the purpose for which the power of entry and search may be operated, limiting it to assessing whether the offender is in breach of the notification requirements. There was a good debate on this in Committee, so I will not detain the House by setting out again the underlying purpose of the terrorism notification requirements, and their importance in helping the police to manage the risk posed by those convicted of serious terrorism offences. However, it may assist your Lordships if I briefly rehearse the purpose of this power, and why it is needed in its current form.
The purpose of the power of entry and search, as currently drafted and as intended by the Government, is to allow the police to assess the risk posed by a convicted terrorist who is subject to the notification requirements. The police consider that home visits are an important tool in managing and risk-assessing registered terrorist offenders during the time they are subject to the notification regime. Such visits allow them to ascertain whether the offender does in fact reside at the address they have notified to the police, and to check their compliance with other aspects of the notification regime. Home visits are also helpful, as they allow a broader assessment of risk to be made. They allow the police to identify any other factors that might contribute to the overall risk an offender poses to themselves or their community, and their risk of reoffending. This might include their general living conditions, as well as any signs of mental health decline, or of drug or alcohol misuse.
It seems an entirely appropriate purpose for the police to wish to keep in touch with a registered terrorist offender. Indeed, given that the police are charged with protecting us all from such serious offenders, it would surely be irresponsible to do otherwise. However, Amendment 28 would mean that the new power could not be used for that purpose. The police will, of course, always seek to conduct such visits on a voluntary basis and the clause requires that this approach must be attempted at least twice before a warrant is sought. A positive and co-operative relationship is always preferable, and leads to more effective management of risk. However, a power of entry and search is needed because this is not always the reality, and registered terrorist offenders will often not comply with such home visits voluntarily. They will often be generally unco-operative and refuse to engage constructively with the police in conducting necessary checks.
In previous debates, I have highlighted that an identical power exists in relation to registered sex offenders. It was introduced by the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006, by the then Labour Government. Indeed, the then Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said at the time in reference to sex offenders that,
“we are now of the view that further powers are required to enable the police to gather all the information they need about a small but, it has to be said, determined group of offenders who, while in apparent compliance with the notification requirements, do all they can to frustrate the risk assessment process”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/5/06; col. 678.)
I can only echo the noble Lord’s words.
The police report that their experience with registered sex offenders, as a result of this power being available, is that the offenders will normally comply voluntarily and that they are able to build a far more constructive relationship with them. This is simply because those offenders know that if they refuse to engage on a voluntary basis the police will be able to return with a warrant. We anticipate this power bringing similar benefits in the management of registered terrorist offenders, who are equally in a particular category of risk, such that monitoring of this kind is appropriate following a conviction. I cannot see that there is a rational argument for why the police should have less effective powers to monitor the risk posed by registered terrorist offenders than they do for registered sex offenders. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment in light of this explanation.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Before the Minister sits down, perhaps she can explain whether she is saying that, if there is no rational basis for providing this power in a different way from the way it was done in the case of sex offenders, the TPIM Act 2011 was not rational in how it approached the issue, and what does she say about that parallel with the TPIM Act?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I would not like to say that the TPIM Act was not rational. I can write to the noble Lord to outline the significant differences here, but I think that the parallel with sex offenders that I posed is pertinent.
“Persons detained under port and border control powers
(1) Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 (detention) is amended as follows.(2) In paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (3) insert—“(4) A detained person must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”(3) In paragraph 7, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—“(3) A detained person must be informed of the right under this paragraph on first being detained.”(4) In paragraph 9—(a) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) This paragraph applies where a detained person exercises the right under paragraph 7 to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer of at least the rank of superintendent may direct that the right—(a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detained person’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detained person’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”, and(b) omit sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).(5) In paragraph 16—(a) in sub-paragraph (8), omit “Subject to paragraph 17,”, and(b) after sub-paragraph (9) insert—“(10) A detained person must be informed of the rights under sub-paragraphs (1) and (6) on first being detained.”(6) In paragraph 17—(a) for sub-paragraphs (1) and (2) substitute—“(1) This paragraph applies where a detained person exercises the right under paragraph 16(6) to consult a solicitor.(2) A police officer not below the rank of superintendent may, if it appears to the officer to be necessary on one of the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (3), direct that the right— (a) may not be exercised (or further exercised) by consulting the solicitor who attends for the purpose of the consultation or who would so attend but for the giving of the direction, but(b) may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detained person’s choosing.(2A) A direction under this paragraph may be given before or after a detained person’s consultation with a solicitor has started (and if given after it has started the right to further consult that solicitor ceases on the giving of the direction).”, and(b) in sub-paragraph (3), in the opening words for “(1)” substitute “(2)”.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the government amendments in this group make a number of changes in response to the debates in both Houses regarding the ports powers under Schedule 3 to the Bill and Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000. They also respond to the reports of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers Committee, and to representations from the Law Society and others.
During the course of the previous debates, there has been much focus on the important topic of a detainee’s right to consult a solicitor in private, and on the exceptional power that would allow an officer to overhear that consultation to mitigate concerns that the detainee might pass on a message to a third party. While this power was not without safeguards—for example, it could only be authorised by an assistant chief constable where the officer had reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences—the Government have heard the concerns raised and are prepared to take a different approach.
Amendments 37 to 39, 41 and 42, would replace that power and instead allow an officer, in the situation that I have just described, to require the detainee to choose a different solicitor. The detainee will then be reminded of the right to free legal counsel from an approved duty solicitor who has met the standards and competence of the Law Society’s criminal litigation accreditation scheme. This approach, which will apply to both Schedule 7 and Schedule 3 ports powers, will mitigate the concerns regarding the detainee’s first-choice solicitor but will still allow the detainee to receive private legal counsel—in all likelihood, with a trusted solicitor from the duty solicitor scheme. It mirrors the provisions in PACE Code H with regard to the detention of terrorist suspects as proposed by the Law Society in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the House of Commons, and aligns with the proposals of the shadow Security Minister and noble Lords in this House.
The new power will also be subject to important safeguards. For example, it can only be directed by a superintendent and only where the officer has reasonable grounds for believing that allowing the detainee to exercise his or her right to consult a solicitor privately will have certain serious consequences: for example, interference with evidence or gathering of information; injury to another person; alerting others that they are suspected of an indictable offence; or hindering the recovery of a property obtained by an indictable offence.
Amendments 35, 36 and 40 concern the points raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding the information provided to a detainee about their right to access a solicitor. During that debate, I drew the House’s attention to the draft Schedule 3 code of practice which, like its equivalent for Schedule 7, is clear that a person who has been detained under either power must be provided with a “notice of detention” that clarifies their rights and obligations. The examining officer must also explain these rights and obligations to the detainee before continuing with the examination. Furthermore, at each periodic review of the detention, the examining officer must remind the detainee of any rights that they have not yet exercised.
While the Government are satisfied that all the safeguards that the noble Baroness asked for are already in place through the codes of practice, Amendments 35, 36 and 40 will make it explicit in the primary legislation that a detainee has to be made aware of his or her right to access a lawyer at the moment of detention. We are in complete agreement that any person who is detained under these ports powers should be informed of their rights before any further questioning takes place.
Amendments 43 and 44 will address concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with respect to the scope of the regulation-making power in what is now paragraph 60 of Schedule 3. This power would allow the Secretary of State to specify additional persons who may be supplied with information acquired by an examining officer. The power mirrors an equivalent in Schedule 14 to the Terrorism Act 2000 relating to information acquired through a Schedule 7 examination. These regulation-making powers are an important means of future-proofing the mechanisms to share information with government bodies and operational partners. Currently this information can be shared, if needed, with the Secretary of State, HMRC, a constable or the National Crime Agency.
We recognise the concerns raised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the powers as drafted could allow sensitive information to be passed to any organisations, including those in the private sector. That is not our intention. The Government are clear that such information should be held and managed responsibly and should not be made available to any person or organisation. Amendments 43 and 44 would ensure that the Secretary of State, in relation to either power, could specify a person to be supplied with this information only if the person exercised a public function, whether or not in the United Kingdom.
I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government have listened to a number of concerns raised during the debates and have acted to improve this legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The shadow Security Minister in the Commons, it has been said, proposed that a list should be drawn up of lawyers properly regulated through the Law Society and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, who would be available to give legal advice and thus overcome the Government’s concern that a person detained under the hostile activity ports powers might seek the service of a rogue solicitor to give legal advice but, in reality, use that person to pass on information to a third party with potentially damaging consequences.
The Government in the Commons said they would consider this proposition and, as the Minister has just said, they have now tabled an amendment that takes out the reference in the Bill to consulting a solicitor,
“in the sight and hearing of a qualified officer”,
and instead provides for a senior officer to be able to require a detainee to consult a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing. In her letter of 27 November setting out the Government’s amendment, the Minister has said that in practice a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing is likely to be the duty solicitor. Can she say what will happen if the further different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing is also deemed unacceptable? Will, in effect, the detainee be told either that they choose the duty solicitor or they will not have a solicitor to consult? It would be helpful if this point could be clarified in respect of persons detained under the port and border control powers.
We support the amendments and recognise that the Government have endeavoured to address the concerns expressed in the Commons by the shadow Minister, as well as the similar concerns expressed by noble Lords in this House.
Baroness Hamwee
My Lords, we too support these amendments and recognise the steps that the Government have taken. Perhaps I may put on the record a couple of comments made by the Law Society on this general area. Unfortunately, its briefing arrived too late for us to build on it by way of amendment, but it comments on legally privileged material being retained for use as evidence or for deportation proceedings. It gives the view that:
“Legally privileged material should not be retained for any purpose other than a potentially urgent need to prevent death, injury or a hostile act”.
It also comments on:
“The process by which material can be identified as constituting legally privileged material”,
and asks who is responsible for making the determination, as that is not,
“explicitly clear in the Bill as drafted”.
It continues:
“It is important that this determination is made by a legally qualified person who is capable of accurately assessing whether a given article is subject to legal professional privilege”.
As I said, I thought that it was worth putting those comments on the record.
My noble friend Lord Marks is sorry not to be able to be here this evening and asks that his thanks to the Minister for building on the indication given at the last stage is recorded. He too asks about what he calls an “unacceptable, dodgy solicitor”. I think that any dodgy solicitor is unacceptable—you do not have to fill two criteria. If an unacceptable dodgy solicitor is selected for a second time, he and I assume that the senior officer might give a further objection. My noble friend also asks whether the Government intend to issue a further draft code of practice relating to the considerations that senior officers should take into account when considering making these directions.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Baroness for those questions. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked what happens if the detainee chooses another solicitor, who is then of concern. I am trying to read the writing here. If concerns still exist, the superintendent is within his or her right to direct that the detainee should choose a different solicitor, and that applies not just to the first-choice solicitor. The point about confidential material—
Lord Rosser
I appreciate the difficulty with reading writing. I cannot read my own, let alone somebody else’s. Does it mean that if the detainee chooses an unacceptable second solicitor, they will then be told, “It’s the duty solicitor or you don’t have a solicitor at all”?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
From what I understand, a panel of approved solicitors is available to detainees—I am sure that the Box will fly over with a piece of paper if I am wrong about that. However, if, for whatever reason, the first solicitor from the panel is given to the detainee—
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
May I make an effort to help out the noble Baroness? There was a time in my professional life when I used to be instructed by duty solicitors at London Heathrow Airport and London Gatwick Airport. The fact is that the duty solicitors at ports of entry are accustomed to dealing with all kinds of issues that arise there. Indeed, the quality of work that emanates from being a duty solicitor in significant ports of entry is high. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that one is getting not any old solicitor but a solicitor who has some understanding of the kind of work that can arise in that setting. There is also some training available, and it is usually done very co-operatively. Has that given the Minister enough time to be able to read the writing—or she may wish to just agree with me?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do agree with the noble Lord; that is absolutely brilliant. But I have just received another piece of information: if the detainee is still not satisfied, they can consult a solicitor by phone, so that is a third arm of the options for detainees. Between us, we have got there.
As for who approves the access to confidential material, it would be the Investigatory Powers Commissioner.
Lord Rosser
The reason for my asking the question is that, as I understand it, sub-paragraph (2)(b) of Amendment 41 states that the right of the detainee,
“may instead be exercised by consulting a different solicitor of the detainee’s choosing”.
I have nothing at all against duty solicitors and hold them in high regard. However, if the detainee then chooses another solicitor who is unacceptable—presumably not one of the duty solicitors—we are fairly clear that the detainee will then be told to use the duty solicitor or have no solicitor at all.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
He or she will be perfectly entitled to consult a solicitor by phone.
Violent Crime
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking all noble Lords who took part in this debate. In all my time as a Minister it has been one of the best debates I have heard, because the contributions were both constructive and far-ranging. They have given me food for thought as we address what has become a growing problem affecting communities across the country. We heard this from the outset as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, gave the stark example of the event along the road from him. It must have had a terrible impact on his community, and the issue faces all local authorities and police forces across England and Wales.
It is a horrible statistic that since the beginning of the year there have been 128 reported homicides in London alone, and the majority have been stabbings. In this month alone three teenage boys were fatally stabbed in separate incidents in Bellingham, Clapham and Tulse Hill at the beginning of the month, and just last week another teenager was stabbed in Romford. It is horrific for families, friends and communities, and it cannot continue. There is no sugar-coating what is going on at the moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, brought domestic homicides into the mix. I was interested to find out whether the incidence of such homicides had increased. In fact, the figure is static at about 95 a year. Well, the deaths of 95 women through domestic abuse is still far too many, despite all our efforts.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, talked about a cross-government approach to this. Almost all noble Lords who spoke talked about this approach, and they were absolutely right to do so. The noble Lord challenged me at the end of his speech to say how the Government intend to go forward with a cross-Whitehall approach to something that is at the heart of the priorities of most Members of both this House and the other place. Having made the commitment to a cross-government approach, I can say from my local authority point of view of the old days that that is something I was very keen on. I looked at it in the context of troubled families and it is absolutely the right challenge for government in the fight against serious crime.
I will talk about our overall approach to the strategy. It is a priority for this Government and it is why we published our Serious Violence Strategy in April of this year. I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, talk about the strategy from the point of view of a 19 year-old girl. She challenged the Government by saying that we could not let this girl down. I agree that we cannot let her down. We cannot let down any 19 year-old girl—or any other young person—in what we do to tackle this, because it is one of the most serious problems of our age and of young people’s lives, particularly in London.
The strategy sets out the Government’s response, which involves 61 commitments and actions. It represents a step change in the way we think about and respond to serious violence. We completely agree with the point made by all noble Lords about a cross-government approach and the fact that our approach needs to be multiagency across a number of sectors, including education, health, social services, housing, youth services and of course victims’ services—all the things that most noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, in particular, talked about. Law enforcement is very important, but we also need the active engagement of partners and different sectors so that we can address the causes of violent crime, especially among young people. That is why we placed our multiagency, early intervention approach at the heart of the Serious Violence Strategy.
The noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Kennedy, pointed out, quite rightly, that the drivers of knife crime are complex. They are.
The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, talked about the impact of police cuts, but I think all noble Lords who spoke recognised that there is not a simple solution. I think it might have been the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who said that if there were a simple solution, we would have cracked this years ago. I am not decrying any factors. I think we can agree that there are multiple factors involved in the rise in serious violence, particularly the notable changes in the drugs market over the past couple of years.
As the Chancellor recognised in his Budget speech, the police are under pressure from the changing nature of crime, and I think the past five years have probably seen the biggest change in the type of crime that we are looking at now and in the future. In addition to the extra money that the Chancellor announced for counterterrorism, the Home Office is looking at how it can ensure that the police have the resources they need ahead of the 2019-20 police funding settlement. To answer the question asked by noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, the Home Secretary has been clear that his priority is to ensure that the police have the right resources in place as well as, as the noble Lord also pointed out, looking at the effectiveness of police forces at the same time. The noble Lord posed a challenge about the number of police forces we have. I think that is probably a debate for another day because we could make a full two-hour debate of it today.
The noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Framwellgate, referred to Sara Thornton’s point about less hate crime policing. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, talked about more neighbourhood policing. I am going to irritate him when I say that it is up to PCCs to decide the priorities of their forces. I read an article by Lynne Owens in the paper the other day. She posed the question: are we looking at 19th-century solutions to 21st-century problems? We possibly are. I will leave that question hanging. The reason I raise it is that noble Lords have talked about cybercrime, the harms of online crime and the whole different way in which perpetrators of crime operate, such as county lines, and the advent of technology which makes that pattern of behaviour easier.
Lord Bilimoria
I accept what the Minister says about the changing world of technology, but surely, given that a recent survey shows that 50% of the public have not seen a police officer in a year and that neighbourhood policing plays a role in dealing with terrorism and in communicating with the community, there is no substitute for it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I do not dispute the role that local policing plays. I am trying to set out the broader context and the changing way in which criminals operate. I am not decrying local policing. I am saying that if it is a priority of local police forces, then that is what they should do. I appreciate that local policing gives reassurance to communities, which it definitely does, but I was trying to point out the broader context of the changing face of crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, talked about police pensions not being adequately funded. I can tell him that Her Majesty’s Treasury has provided additional funding of above £165 million to cover some of the impact of the increase in employer contributions in 2019-20. Decisions on police funding will be announced at the settlement on 6 December. Funding for 2020-21 will be considered as part of the spending review, so I ask the noble Lord to watch this space.
Lord Harris of Haringey
I think that is a hint. The Minister may not have been listening earlier when her noble friend Lord Agnew said quite explicitly that school pensions were being fully funded by the Government, so why is it that the schools settlement can be determined and those pensions fully funded yet at the moment she is unable to provide that commitment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
What I am trying to trail, without giving any commitments, is that I am very hopeful that the announcement on 6 December will be that the impact of the employer contributions is mitigated, but obviously I cannot make such an announcement.
Lord Hogan-Howe
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt. To return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the Minister said that each force has to decide how it applies its funding. Neighbourhood policing has drastically reduced over the last few years; it has been the biggest chunk of the lost 20,000. The problem really, not that it is anyone’s fault, is that this is the part of policing that struggles to make its case. Cybercrime, fraud online and harassment online have gone through the roof, harassment generally has become an offence and sexual offence reporting, including historical offences, has risen by probably 80% in the last four years. These and other types of crime are offences about which we all say something like, “Why are we not doing something about domestic violence or harassment?” That type of offence drags in resources at pace—specialist resources, not merely volume. In comparison, the neighbourhood officer struggles to say, “Actually, I have walked down the street over the last six months and got two informants, arrested three people and intervened in a terrorist plot”. The challenge is how we collectively address neighbourhood policing, partly by resources but also by prioritisation. I think at times we all struggle to say that we did not argue for specialists when we prefer neighbourhood officers.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally accept the point that the noble Lord is making. I guess that all the things he is talking about require a specialist response but of course people take great comfort from the presence of the local bobby, even if he is not going to solve the cybercrime that is happening on their computer at home or deal with the terrorist plotting an offence. Those types of new offence have gone through the roof and the public have called for them to be resourced. As I say, we could talk all afternoon about police funding and the police budget. I think we are generally in agreement that a prioritisation process is necessary in any local police force but that the police have to have the resources to be able to carry it out. I think that has been widely recognised.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, asked about the number of special officers rising or falling. In fact it has fallen, and part of that fall has been because recent police officer recruits have come from that cadre.
To return to the strategy, our analysis clearly points to the range of factors in serious violence, and we think changes in the drugs market are at the heart of that. We know that crack cocaine markets have strong links to serious violence. Last time the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, used the catchy phrase “the crack cocaine pizza-delivery model”, which is frightening but absolutely true. The latest evidence suggests that crack use in England and Wales is rising due to a mix of supply and demand factors, such as the increased supply of cocaine from overseas and the spread of county lines drug dealing associated with hard, class-A drugs. However, my noble friend Lady Bertin pointed out the elephant in the room, which is middle-class cocaine use, which people seem to think is harmless and a natural thing to do on a Saturday night. It is not; it is also fuelling demand in the drug markets.
In our analysis in the strategy, we also identified that increases in violence have been accompanied by a shift towards younger victims and perpetrators. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who talked about those who are both victims and perpetrators. We know that we are not alone in seeing recent increases in serious violence. The US, Canada and a number of other European countries have similar long-term trends.
We recently announced £40 million of Home Office money over two years to support the initiatives in the serious violence strategy. This includes £17.7 million for the early-intervention youth fund, and is in addition to the resources that the Government have already committed through the troubled families programme, the national citizens programme and the trusted relationship fund. Building on the ambitious programme of work in the strategy, the Home Secretary announced in October major new measures to address violent crime.
Finally, there is consultation on a new legal duty to underpin that public health approach to tackling serious violence that so many noble Lords have mentioned. This will mean that police officers, education partners, local authorities and healthcare professionals will have a new legal duty to act to prevent violent crime. The noble Lords, Lord Harris, Lord Kennedy and Lord Hogan-Howe, all talked about early intervention and prevention, as did others. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that early intervention was worthy. I am sure that he was not undermining it, but it is an essential part of our strategy, as it is in so many areas of tackling societal problems. We need to develop resilience; we need to support positive alternatives for young people and timely interventions to prevent them being drawn into a life of crime in the first place.
Earlier this month, the Home Secretary announced 29 projects that will receive £17.7 million from the early-intervention youth fund, which will focus on diverting vulnerable young people and those who have already offended away from crime. In addition, the Government are in partnership with the Big Lottery Fund and have invested £80 million—£40 million to the #iwillFund and £40 million to the youth investment fund—to create opportunities for young people to develop their skills and participate in their communities.
I turn to the point about county lines, which so many noble Lords have mentioned. Not only do drugs and county lines have a significant impact on serious violence, they have emerged as the most significant driver of violent crime. Tackling them is a major cross-cutting issue involving drugs, violence, gangs, safeguarding, child criminal exploitation, modern slavery and missing persons. Our response therefore needs to involve the police, a wide range of government departments, local government agencies and voluntary sector organisations.
In addition to delivering a cross-government action plan to tackle the issue, we have provided £3.6 million to establish a new national county lines co-ordination centre to tackle violent and exploitative criminal activity associated with county lines. The new centre became fully operational on 21 September and delivered its first week of intensification in October, which resulted in 505 arrests and—to answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton—320 individuals being safeguarded.
On 28 August, the Department for Education announced £2 million for a new national response unit that will be established to help local authorities support vulnerable children at risk of exploitation by criminal gangs. The unit will offer bespoke support to local councils and will operate from 2019 to 2022. It will build on and work alongside existing initiatives to provide strategic support to children’s social care working with multiagency partners within local areas. The Department for Education expect to launch the formal tender for the new service later this month.
I shall ask noble Lords to indulge me because I allowed interventions during my speech and I have another five minutes, according to the clock. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, mentioned the really important point of exclusions and the effect that that has in drawing children further into gangs, crime and other activities that will not benefit their long-term future. We recognise that a number of risk factors can increase the likelihood of a young person’s involvement in crime, and this is definitely one of them. We are considering what further support might be needed for children who are excluded from school, as we know that they are overrepresented as victims of serious violence.
I was very interested to hear my noble friend Lady Bertin talk about corporate responsibility in preventing serious violence. I was grateful for her thoughts on this the other day, and for raising it today, and I am keen to explore this issue further.
Noble Lords also talked about people with mental health problems coming into contact with the police. It is a very serious issue; the police are not there to arrest them but to support them. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Harris, or the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, people with mental health problems need to be taken to hospital and not to a police cell. We have banned the use of cells for children with mental health problems and, as noble Lords will know who have debated with me on this, they are used only in absolutely exceptional circumstances for adults with mental health problems. Getting people to a place of safety is the prime objective when the police come into contact with people with mental health problems.
The noble Lords, Lord Bilimoria, Lord Hogan-Howe, and Lord Young of Norwood Green, talked about moped crime. There was an important point about supporting the police in the decisions that they make. Much has been made of giving the police greater confidence to pursue suspects, and when deciding whether to conduct a pursuit the police take into account guidance from the College of Policing on the authorised professional practice on roads policing and police pursuits. The stopping of motorcycles and mopeds has been permitted in the national guidance since October 2015, and the guidance makes it clear that the key consideration is whether the pursuit is necessary, balanced against the threat of this and the harm of the pursuit to the person being pursued, the officer and others who may be affected.
My time is up. There is a whole section on knife crime, but if I go through it, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be unable to speak. I shall conclude my remarks there. I thank noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for the debate, and I shall allow him to conclude.
Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Beecham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they intend to provide a formal response to the Interim Report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, published on 25 April.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government welcome the inquiry’s interim report and appreciate the work that has gone into it. We are carefully considering all its recommendations and will publish our response shortly.
Lord Beecham (Lab)
My Lords, eight years ago, Gordon Brown issued an apology for the mistreatment of migrant children sent to Australia and other parts of the Commonwealth between 1945 and the early 1970s, many of whom suffered serious physical, sexual and emotional abuse. The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse published its report last March calling for redress within 12 months. Australia established a scheme within six months. In July, the Minister for Mental Health and Inequalities promised a response before the Summer Recess. None has been published. How long will it take this Government to accord justice to the many victims of such shocking mistreatment?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right: a response is required and will be forthcoming very shortly. On top of that, the Government are acutely aware of the age and declining health of so many former child migrants. We are, as I say, committed to providing a considered response to the inquiry’s recommendations as soon as possible.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister accept that every week the Government delay in taking a grip on this issue means more young people having their lives destroyed? When they are considering their response, will the Government take account of the mounting evidence, added to only this week by evidence about the Catholic Church, that unless people are forced to report child abuse to external agencies, and report only within the agency concerned, very often these organisations will cover it up because they are afraid of reputational damage? Will the Government take that into account?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I totally accept the noble Baroness’s point—I have just made it myself—that nobody wants to see any further delay, certainly given the age of some of these former child migrants. On reporting sexual abuse to external agencies, the noble Baroness is absolutely right: unless there is a proper system of support for these allegations, there is then further opportunity for internal cover-up.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, could the Minister comment on an item on the front page of today’s Times, which reports that a child-abuser in prison was able to stake his claim to parental rights to the child of the victim, to her astonishment. Is Rotherham Council part of the problem, or do the guidelines need to be changed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That report is extremely distressing for the individuals concerned and for all of us. I know that the relevant government departments here—the DfE and the MoJ—and the local authority will work urgently to understand the facts of this case and to implement any changes needed to the law or procedure. I thank the noble and learned Lord for raising this matter, because it is something on which I think we all agree.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, the Minister will have heard the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, talk about delays, but this delay pales into insignificance compared with the delay in the implementation of the Hart report in Northern Ireland, which investigated historical institutional abuse. That report has been sitting on the table for years. It has unanimous political support from every party in Northern Ireland—not a single politician is not in favour of its implementation—but, because of the current crisis and the failure to take any action, the victims are being revictimised all over again. I invite the Minister to appeal to her right honourable friend the Member for Staffordshire Moorlands to ensure that the Hart report is implemented and that those people are given justice.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I certainly will elect to bring the noble Lord’s points to the attention of my right honourable friend. Of course, a particular set of circumstances in Northern Ireland means that certain things do not go smoothly, and this is perhaps one of them. However, I will certainly take back the noble Lord’s points.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, do Ministers accept that, in organising its inquiries and hearings, the IICSA has a duty to protect the reputations of persons who have been accused of sexual offences but not found guilty in a court of law? Or is it the Government’s position that IICSA should be free to undermine the reputations of whole families by the way it conducts its inquiries?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is important to point out that IICSA’s central role is to inquire into a number of institutions rather than people, and that includes the Home Office, the DfE and the Department of Health and Social Care.
Lord Beecham
My Lords, have the Government made any assessment of the process in Australia, where, as I said, matters have been resolved within six months? If so, what lessons have they learned from that?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right that many of the children who went to Australia were apologised to by the Australian Government, and indeed the Australian Government issued compensation to some—I do not know whether it was all—of those involved. Certainly, we will consider all those things in the round when we respond to the inquiry review.
Lord Lexden (Con)
Why do the Government take so long to reach a decision on these matters?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the Home Office is providing a consolidated report on behalf of all the government departments involved. My noble friend is absolutely right to point out that we need to issue our response very soon, but we want to respond in a very considered way and there are quite a lot of recommendations to be considered.
Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Bill
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 12, Schedule 1, Clauses 13 to 18, Schedule 2, Clauses 19 to 21, Schedule 3, Clause 22, Schedule 4, Clauses 23 to 27, Title.
Immigration (Health Charge) (Amendment) Order 2018
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Order laid before the House on 11 October be approved.
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, since its launch 70 years ago, the National Health Service has transformed the health of the nation and established itself as one of this country’s greatest assets. Our NHS is always there when we need it and those who live in this country contribute to the long-term sustainability of the service over their lifetime. The NHS is the envy of the world and will always be free at the point of delivery.
The immigration health charge represents the most cost-effective and fair means of ensuring that temporary migrants make a financial contribution to the operation of the service. Doubling the charge will still ensure that official health costs associated with migrating to the UK remain lower than or comparable with those of other nations, including those in Europe, North America and Australasia. The charge is paid by non-European Economic Area temporary migrants who apply for a visa for more than six months or apply to extend their stay in the UK for a further limited period. It is paid up front as part of the immigration application process and is separate to the visa fee.
From the point of arrival in the UK, a charge payer can enjoy the same access to the NHS as a permanent resident. They can use the full range of NHS services without incurring treatment charges and without having made any tax or national insurance contributions in the UK. They generally pay only those NHS charges that a UK resident would also pay.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am talking about the United Kingdom, so I am talking about the devolved Administrations as well—I think. Yes, I am. I thought it was a trick question and so doubted my own mind. Going back to what temporary, non-EEA migrants might have to pay for, they generally pay only those NHS charges that a UK resident would also pay: an example might be prescription charges in England. They will also be charged for assisted conception services in England, should they choose to use them.
The charge rate has not increased since its introduction in 2015. It is currently £200 per year; students and youth mobility scheme applicants enjoy a discounted rate of £150 per year. To date, the charge has raised over £600 million for the NHS. Income is shared between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland using the Barnett formula. That answers the noble Lord’s question.
The draft order amends Schedule 1 to the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, to double the annual amount of the charge across all routes. Students, dependants of students and youth mobility scheme applicants would continue to pay a discounted rate, which would rise to £300 per person. The annual amount for all other relevant application categories would rise to £400 per person.
The Department of Health and Social Care has reviewed the cost to the NHS of treating charge payers in England. It estimates that the NHS spends, on average, £470 per person per year for all migrants who pay the charge. This calculation includes those surcharge payers who actually use the NHS and those who do not. Where the cost has been calculated on the basis of those who use the NHS, the figure rises to £1,300 per person per year. This means that temporary migrants are currently paying the surcharge at a significantly lower rate than the amount it costs to treat them each year.
The proposed new charge level is intended to better reflect the costs to the NHS of treating those who pay it. However, it is important to note that it will remain below average cost recovery level, in recognition of the wider contributions that migrants make to this country. It will also continue to represent good value compared to health insurance requirements in other comparable countries.
The charge should not be conflated with the system of hospital treatment charges for overseas visitors provided in NHS legislation. That provides a separate framework for recovering treatment costs from short-term visitors and those without lawful status. The NHS charging system observes the important principle that immediately necessary or urgent medical treatment is never withheld, irrespective of the patient’s status.
The Government believe it is fair that temporary migrants make a financial contribution to the comprehensive and high-quality range of NHS services available to them during their stay. The charge will remain a good deal for migrants. Even at the increased rates, they will still pay less than it costs the NHS to treat them. By increasing the charge, the Government estimate that a further £220 million a year could be generated, helping to protect and sustain our world-class healthcare system for everyone who uses it. By way of illustration, England’s share of the additional income could fund around 2,000 doctors or 4,000 nurses. I commend this order to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
First, in virtually every country in the world, all migrants who move to a new country expect to pay towards their healthcare. In most countries this is usually in the form of medical insurance or through up-front payments when accessing healthcare. Many countries require health insurance as a condition of a migrant’s visa. For example, all foreign fee-paying students applying to study in Australia or New Zealand are required to hold acceptable medical insurance as a condition of their visa.
Healthcare can be needed at any time, regardless of age or profession. Anyone who has purchased healthcare insurance will know that it will likely cost more for those most at risk, such as the elderly, the very young or those with long-term health conditions. As noble Lords will know, that is not the system we operate in the UK. Our NHS does not charge more to those who need it most. However, everyone must make a contribution towards the costs of the NHS, to ensure that we all have access to care when we need it. It is therefore right that migrants who have access to the NHS in the same way a British citizen would if they needed it, pay a fair share towards it.
Lord Teverson (LD)
The point is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said so well, that all those other jurisdictions the Minister has mentioned do not pay for their health services totally through national income taxation, which is paid by migrants in this country. That is the fundamental difference and is the whole point of the argument.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will give an example: if I went to America and worked there, I would pay taxation but would also pay health insurance. It is no different.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think we will have a disagreement on a point of principle, but if the noble Lord could let me outline the Government’s position—I will certainly take interventions at the end—I will explain why temporary migrants coming to this country get a fair deal.
A number of noble Lords have raised the issue of NHS professionals and how they ought to be exempt from the charge. The Government fully recognise the contribution that international healthcare professionals make to the UK, but it is only right that they also make a proportionate contribution to the long-term sustainability of the NHS. In that regard, NHS professionals are in the same position as other providers of essential public services, including teachers.
I recognise that there are concerns about the financial impact on nurses. However, the answer is not to exempt nurses from the charge but to increase their pay. This is happening. All NHS nurses will benefit from a pay increase as set out in the Agenda for Change framework. It is important to remember that the charge offers access to healthcare services that are more comprehensive and at a lower cost than those in many other countries. Most professionals who choose to work overseas need to have the appropriate medical insurance in place, which is the point that I made to the noble Lord.
Paying the charge ensures that the income generated goes directly to NHS services, helping to protect and sustain our world-class healthcare system for everyone who uses it. I am conscious of the concerns regarding the combined cost of the charge and visa fees. However, the charge is set at a competitive level and will remain low compared to the potential benefit, which is free access to the NHS. It offers better value than private medical insurance where the premiums are more expensive. As a matter of interest, I looked at the average insurance cost for the average American, which is $320 per month—significantly more than we would expect to pay. The Government are clear that migrants must pay the charge when they make an immigration application and should plan their finances accordingly. The costs of both the health charge and the application fees are available online and should not come as a surprise.
Many noble Lords spoke about vulnerable groups. We are committed to ensuring that vulnerable groups can access the NHS without charge. There are several groups applying for leave to remain in the UK who are exempt from the requirement to pay the immigration health charge as set out in the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015, and they continue to apply. They include people who apply for leave to remain relating to an asylum or humanitarian protection claim, and would absolutely include people who the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, spoke about, such as refugees, victims of modern slavery and children in local authority care.
Those who are exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge or who have the requirement waived are treated the same as those who have paid it, so they are entitled to virtually all NHS care free of charge. Noble Lords, including particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about how the requirement to pay up front could discriminate against those on low incomes. As I have said, the charge is set at a competitive level and is low compared with the potential benefit of free access to the NHS. Migrants are aware of the rules when applying for a visa, including the need to maintain and accommodate themselves in the UK, pay the health charge—and ensure they plan their finances accordingly. As I have said, and as noble Lords have mentioned, there are exemptions available.
A number of noble Lords talked about children. I am aware of the concerns raised about the impact of increasing the charge on children. Children are as likely as adults to use NHS services; as such, it is only fair that their parents or guardians contribute to the cost of their care. The Government continue to ensure that those who are most vulnerable are protected. Where an application fee is waived on destitution grounds the surcharge is also waived and, as I have mentioned, exemptions are in place for children in local authority care.
The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, talked about nurses.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
The Minister is moving on to another issue, but could we stick with children for a moment? A number of noble Lords made the point that these children are not temporary migrants. At the outset, following an intervention, she said she would explain how temporary migrants get a fair deal. Then she said that migrants are aware of the rules when applying for a visa—but we are talking about children who are here, who have been here for some time, and who want to stay here. Could she please address that point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
If you intend to be here temporarily, you apply for a temporary visa and you are captured by the immigration health surcharge, but clearly if you have indefinite leave to remain or are a citizen of this country, the health surcharge no longer applies to you.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
But the point is that, to get leave to remain, people have to pay over 10 years and, as noble Lords have said, that amounts to over £10,000 when you add in this new surcharge. Therefore, it is making matters very difficult. It is a Catch-22 situation, is it not? How do the children get to show that they need to remain if they cannot afford it and the ability to afford it is being reduced by the health surcharge attached to the fee?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, in estimating the charge, we estimated the cost of providing healthcare to someone who is here temporarily. The cost was estimated at £470 per person. To answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, we decided to set the charge at £400 and not at full cost recovery because we recognise the contribution that migrants make to this country. We have not set the charge above cost recovery, as the committee had suggested.
I realise that the surcharge might make an application very expensive but we think that it is proportionate, given the access to healthcare that people will avail themselves of, and of course it is considerably cheaper than if they were to have private healthcare insurance. I am not decrying the fact that it might be expensive for a family—I appreciate that—but it is significantly cheaper than if they were to have private healthcare insurance, and of course the people concerned generally come here to work. I do not decry the fact that it is expensive; I am saying that, first, it is significantly cheaper than what we might pay for private healthcare as migrants going to any other country and, secondly, the service that they will get from the NHS once they have paid the surcharge has to be taken into account.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I am sorry to push it, and I promise not to do so again, but a number of noble Lords have pointed out that there is no child rights impact assessment, even though I think that one was promised in response to a Written Question. Can the noble Baroness undertake to take back to the Home Office the concern raised here so that in future, whenever regulations affecting children are brought before us, the impact assessment will include a proper assessment of the impact on child rights and not the cursory words to which the noble Lord, Lord Russell, referred?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I can certainly undertake to take this away and provide for the noble Baroness and other noble Lords a more fulsome illustration of the impact. I have an illustrative example of a nurse and I can write to noble Lords with that.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
Before the noble Baroness returns to her response, I want to say that it is not appropriate to compare this country with places such as America, because we have a national health service and they do not. The point about our National Health Service is that it helps us to have a healthy and perhaps happier population, and that is good for everybody: it is good for the Government and for every single person who lives here. Therefore, it is not a gesture of good will from the Government to create a good National Health Service; it is imperative to our democracy.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I gave the example of America precisely because we have a national health service. Were I to migrate to America for a job, I would have to have healthcare insurance at a huge cost. The noble Baroness is right. There is a huge disparity in healthcare outcomes in America between those who can afford health insurance and those who cannot, and I am glad that we have an NHS for that very reason.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My point was that we are not taking into account the wider implications of immigrants paying into our tax system, but then charging them on top of that. To me, that just does not seem fair.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I said earlier, if I went to America and paid my taxes, I would still need health insurance on top of that. The point I am trying to make about the surcharge is that, compared to what one might pay for private healthcare insurance in most countries, this is a very reasonable charge to access what I think is one of the best healthcare systems in the world.
Lord Paddick
I do not want to prolong the agony for the Minister, but the point about America is that the tax people pay there does not pay for healthcare. That is why people have to have insurance. Immigrants come to this country, get jobs and pay national insurance and income tax, which pays for healthcare. But only immigrants have to pay a charge in addition to the national insurance and income tax they pay to fund the health service. Can the Minister explain why?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Temporary immigrants have to pay the healthcare charge, but anyone with indefinite leave to remain or who is a citizen of this country contributes to the NHS through general taxation. We are not going to agree on this.
Lord Lansley
I cannot bear that assertion being put on the record without being refuted: American taxation pays for healthcare—it pays for Medicare, Medicaid and the CDC. American public expenditure on health is nearly as large, as a proportion of GDP, as British expenditure on health. It is just incredibly inefficient. As my noble friend says, those who travel to America and work do not get access to Medicare or Medicaid.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am glad to have a former Health Secretary standing behind me to put noble Lords—and me—absolutely right.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Will the Minister come back to the point I raised about the inadequacy of the information we have about how effective the fee-waiver system is?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I will. I will not give him an adequate response, but I will tell him why; if that is okay.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked why the charge was set below cost recovery levels. I think I have answered that. He asked why the estimate in 2015 of £800 per person is so different from what we have now. It is because in 2015 it was just that, an estimate. We can now give an actual figure, given that people actually use the health service. The noble Lord also asked why we decided to double it on the basis of Department of Health and Social Care analysis. He will know that we made a commitment before the 2017 general election to triple the surcharge. We have not; we have doubled it. It was because we had made a manifesto commitment that we did not consult on the issue.
The noble Lord also asked about EU citizens. We are in the process of negotiating reciprocal healthcare arrangements with the EU. We have reached agreement on citizens’ rights that will protect EU citizens and their family members who are resident in the UK by the end of the planned implementation period on 31 December 2020. We have made it clear that the immigration health surcharge will not apply where EU citizens make immigration applications during the implementation period after the UK leaves the EU. We will set out our plans for the future border and immigration system in a White Paper later this year, which, noble Lords will work out, has not long left. Another noble Lord asked that question. I will not pre-empt or trail the White Paper with further detail at this stage.
We have been through the double taxation argument. I do not think that the noble Lords who asked about it agree with me, but I have made the point that the charge is fair not only to migrants but to UK national and permanent residents who have or will make a greater contribution to the NHS over their working life.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, talked about the compliant environment. This is nothing to do with the compliant environment. The charge is intended to ensure that temporary legal migrants make a fair contribution to the cost of their healthcare in the UK. In contrast, the compliant environment is a suite of compliance, deterrence and data-sharing measures that form part of our overall approach to deterring and tackling illegal migration and protecting public services.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked why children do not feature in the impact assessment. This is because it is at a macro level rather than an individual level. I know she does not like that answer but individuals are fully catered for in the system of fee waivers and exemptions, and a child is as likely to need healthcare as an adult.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
I know I said I would not come back to this issue but no impact assessment deals with individuals; they deal with groups. An equality impact assessment would deal with equality groups. A child’s rights impact assessment is supposed to inform us, not whether they are more or less likely to have healthcare, but what the impact is going to be on the rights of that child. All I was asking for was an assurance that future regulations have a proper child rights impact assessment as a part of them.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I take the noble Baroness’s point because in everything we do with law, we have to consider the rights of the child. That is a basic requirement on the Government. It may be implied, it may not be, but I entirely take the noble Baroness’s point.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked me about undocumented children having to make four applications over 10 years at over £10,000. These applicants fall within the scope of specified human rights applications for which fee waivers are available—we have gone over that point—but, of course, parents may apply for the fee waiver for the child.
We have produced the policy on equalities assessment and will provide it to Peers who have spoken in this debate and place a copy in the House Library. I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box and say that it includes children. I suspect from what the noble Baroness says that it does not, so I go back to my previous point.
The noble Baroness asked about the chief inspector’s report and when it will be published. The immigration fees and the surcharge are obviously two separate things. The Government made a manifesto commitment to increase the surcharge and it is important that we deliver on that.
The noble Baroness also asked about the proportion of applicants receiving a waiver—this goes to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool—but we have not published that information. However, we are reviewing the process because, as time goes on, these issues necessarily become more complex. I know that does not answer entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, but we will be reviewing that.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
On the point I made that in the impact assessment there is a reference to the Government considering options for families who are experiencing hardship, what options are the Government considering and where are they in their thinking?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I cannot give the noble Lord any more information on that at this point but I am sure it will be released in due course. He also asked about the Coram freedom of information request. The first response was based on management information from a live database which is subject to variations as the year progresses. The second was not answered because of a policy to release only published information. Government departments often do not release information if it is not published information, although I have given management information with caveats before. The Government are seeking to resolve this issue.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
Does the Minister accept that it is extraordinarily difficult for us to try to work out the effects and the effectiveness of the fee-waiver system in the absence of any reliable or up-to-date data? How can the Government make decisions about it if they do not have the data? If they do have the data, please can they share it with us?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We do not share management information data because it is purely that—management information. As I understand it, we are seeking to resolve this issue with Coram Children’s Legal Centre, and when we do I will be happy to write to the noble Lord with the outcome.
I hope that noble Lords are satisfied with my response, although I suspect they are not, and that the noble Lord will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Rosser
I thank the Minister for her response. I did not get the impression that she was particularly excited about some of the things that are presumably in the brief in front of her when she responded to the numerous questions that have been asked. Nevertheless, she always—and I mean this—seeks to respond to the questions raised. We are grateful for that—and I mean that too.
I also thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It seems quite a long time ago that I moved the amendment. I do not intend to make another lengthy speech or go through all the points. I was certainly struck by the view of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, that it is a bargain. Whether he believes that it is a bargain for young children, which is one of the issues mentioned in my amendment, I do not know. Obviously, from the way he said it, I assume that he does, but I and some other noble Lords fundamentally disagree with his view. On that score, though, I respect his opinion and the arguments that he made.
During this discussion and in the response we have had from the Minister on behalf of the Government, great stress was laid on estimated costs and how the charge has been looked at against estimated costs. Very little was said about looking at the income of some of the people who will have to pay those costs. It is all being looked at from a cost point of view; it has quite obviously not been looked at from the point of view of the impact on the total incomes of those who will have to pay the charge, not least of those in low-income families.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I apologise for intervening on the noble Lord. I said that I would write to noble Lords with an illustrative example of a nurse, if that helps.
Lord Rosser
I appreciate that the Minister said that she would write. I would be very grateful indeed if, when she writes, she will address this issue of the impact of the charges on the incomes of those who will have to pay it, particularly those on low incomes and with families with children.
There is another example of the way that the Government look at the issue. When reference was made to the impact on nurses, the answer was: “You solve it by increasing pay”. Yes, there has been a small increase in nurses’ pay, but there have not been very big increases over the past eight years. The charge is being doubled but I do not think that nurses’ pay is being doubled. I do not think that nurses will necessarily feel that the relatively small increase they have just had—they have not had much over the past few years—will be any real compensation for having to pay, for one specific item, a doubled charge. One does not get the impression that the Government have looked at this from the point of view of the impact on incomes, particularly for those among the less well off.
I think I heard a comment—I will withdraw my remarks if I am incorrect—which almost seemed to say that when low-income families are faced with this additional charge, it is up to them to arrange their finances accordingly. That was the thrust of the argument and how it came across to me. That is another indication that this has not been looked at from the point of view of the impact, particularly on people on low incomes and with children.
I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she will write. I hope she will perhaps reflect further on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and my noble friend Lady Lister about the child rights impact assessment. I hope she will address that issue in her response on behalf of the Government. I know that she will give examples, but I also hope that she will reflect further on looking at the fee-waiver rules on destitution. “Destitution” implies that one must be in a pretty desperate state before receiving any assistance. The figures on the numbers of those getting the waiver appear to bear that out. No doubt the Minister will give examples in her reply—without indicating who she is talking about or anything like that—of the kinds of situations and income levels to which those fee-waiver rules have been applied up to now. At least then we could get a feel for the issue.
The answer given on why there had been no public consultation rather took my breath away. Apparently, it was because there was a manifesto commitment to £600. That seems an extraordinary reason for saying that there will be no opportunity for people to comment on what the Government are doing in the sense of how it will apply and its impact. I would have thought that any Government would want to put something like that out for consultation to get responses from people on the impact of such a doubling of charges.
I was very surprised to find that we have a Government who believe that they should not do any further consultation on the impact of something—not the principle of whether they will do it—and on how they might mitigate that because of a figure in a manifesto that they intend not to keep but to put at a lower level than is in the manifesto, which I am not complaining about. However, if the argument is that people voted for an increase in the charge to £600—it is difficult to believe that votes in the general election were determined solely by that—then they have not got what they voted for because the charge is less than that. Again, I am not complaining about that. I find it extraordinary that that was used as a reason for not consulting and giving people an opportunity to comment on the impact on certain people of doubling the charges.
I raised the issue of the child rights impact assessment. As I said, I hope the Minister will address that in her response. I will bring my comments to a conclusion. We opposed this matter in the Commons, where the order was agreed to in a vote. I tabled my amendment today to emphasise our continuing serious concerns about the impact of this increase in the immigration health charge but it is not my intention to press it to a vote.
Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules 2018
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That the draft Rules laid before the House on 11 October be approved.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to be given the opportunity to debate the updates to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal Rules in the House this afternoon. Before I address the updates to the rules, I will briefly cover the background to the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, as well as some key statistics.
The Investigatory Powers Tribunal, which I will refer to as the tribunal from now on, was established under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The tribunal replaced the Interception of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal, the Intelligence Services Tribunal and the complaints provision of Part III of the Police Act 1997, which concerned police interference with property. The tribunal investigates and determines complaints which allege that public authorities have used covert techniques unlawfully. It also investigates complaints against security and intelligence agencies for conduct which breaches human rights. There are presently 10 members of the tribunal, and the president is the right honourable Lord Justice Singh.
I will now address the updates to the tribunal rules. Under Section 68 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the tribunal is entitled to determine its own procedures. These proceedings are documented in the rules I am presenting here today. The rules have not changed since the tribunal was established 18 years ago. Therefore, it is now necessary that they be updated to better reflect current tribunal practice.
First, to improve the efficiency of decision-making in the tribunal, we have amended the rules to allow further functions of the tribunal to be exercised by a single member of the tribunal.
Secondly, to strengthen the power of the tribunal, we have added an explicit process for when a respondent refuses to consent to disclosure, but the tribunal considers disclosure is required.
Thirdly, the rules have been updated to make clear that the tribunal will hold open hearings, as far as is possible. For the first time, this puts in writing the tribunal’s commitment to transparency, where appropriate.
Fourthly, to assist complainants and respondents to the tribunal, we have provided details of the function of counsel to the tribunal, including by listing the functions the tribunal may require counsel to the tribunal to perform.
Finally, we have amended the rules to set out the process for the making and determination of applications to the tribunal for leave to appeal in specific circumstances, as well as determining in which court the appeal should be heard. This is in preparation for the new right of appeal, which is coming into force as a result of the Investigatory Powers Act 2016. The introduction of an appeals route will allow for greater levels of reassurance that justice has been done, as well as greater levels of transparency.
In bringing forward those updates to the tribunal rules, it was important that we consulted extensively on the proposed changes. We did that through a six-week public consultation in November 2017. Three substantive responses were received, within which 17 amendments were proposed. Officials considered the amendments carefully with colleagues across government, and five amendments were accepted and incorporated into the rules.
The updates to the rules make the work of the tribunal more transparent and efficient, as well as ensuring that the legislation accurately reflects how tribunal process and proceedings have evolved over time. I commend the rules to the House.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We are not opposed to this statutory instrument, which updates the rules that govern procedures in the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, including those for a new right of appeal. The tribunal investigates and determines complaints that allege that public authorities have used covert techniques unlawfully and have infringed the right to privacy, as well as complaints against the security and intelligence agencies for conduct that breaches a wider range of human rights.
The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 introduced a right of appeal, which will be on a point of law, from decisions and determinations of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Leave to appeal will be granted only where the appeal raises an important issue of principle or practice, or for another compelling reason. Have there been any cases in which leave to appeal would have been granted had there been an appeals procedure, or is the appeals procedure being added because it is felt that it ought to be available rather than because there is evidence that its not being available has denied a right that ought to be there? How many cases is it anticipated might be appealed per year? How many determinations and decisions are made by the Investigatory Powers Tribunal each year, and is that number going up or down?
The tribunal rules are also being updated by this statutory instrument to provide, among other things, that further specified functions may be exercised by a single member of the tribunal. As a result of the public consultation, to which three substantive responses were received, 17 amendments were proposed, of which the Home Office accepted five. Those are listed in paragraph 10.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum. I am aware that the question was asked and answered when the rules were considered in the Commons, but it would nevertheless be helpful if the Minister could clarify for the record in our Hansard the reasons for not accepting the 12 amendments that have not been incorporated.
Could the Minister also give the reasons why it is proposed in the rules that further functions should be able to be exercised by a single member of the tribunal, and why in particular the listed functions in paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum? Did that proposed change arise from a proposition from the tribunal itself? If so, what reasons were advanced for going down that road, and did the tribunal ask for any other functions to be exercised by a single member to which the Government have not agreed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank both noble Lords for their comments. The question from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on the number of cases that have and might come forward is, at this stage, impossible to answer, given that there has not been an appeals route before. It is not possible to say at this point.
The public rely on a small number of bodies, of which the tribunal is one, to ensure that public authorities are using their investigative powers in accordance with the law. The tribunal’s work in this regard is vital, so it is equally vital that it can operate under up-to-date rules. This is why noble Lords’ support is so important and welcome.
I will go into more detail about the updates to these rules, address the issues raised, address the Government’s response the consultation and outline which amendments we accepted and why we rejected those that we did. Between November and December 2017 we held a six-week public consultation. Representations were welcomed from past, current or potential complainants and respondents at the tribunal and their representatives, as well as from professional bodies, interest groups and the wider public. As I said in my opening speech, we received three substantive responses, and of the 17 amendments proposed five were accepted.
On the amendments we accepted, we removed the ability of a single member of the tribunal to decide preliminary issues. We provided the tribunal with the power to make directions if, following a direction from the tribunal, the respondent elects not to disclose to a complainant documents or information, or a gist or summary of the documents or information. This includes the power to direct that the respondent must not rely on anything that the tribunal directed the respondent to disclose.
We provided that, where an arguable error of law is identified by counsel to the tribunal relating to any decision or determination made by the tribunal consequent upon a hearing held in the absence of a complainant, counsel to the tribunal must notify the tribunal and the tribunal must then disclose to the complainant the arguable error of law. We required the tribunal, where it makes a determination not in favour of the complainant, to provide the complainant and respondent with a summary of its determination if it considers it necessary and in the interests of justice to do so. Finally, we removed the requirement for an application for leave to appeal to state the ground of appeal where counsel to the tribunal has notified the tribunal of an arguable error of law and the tribunal has not disclosed it to the complainant.
I will go through some of the amendments we rejected and give the reasons why. We rejected the suggestion that an amendment should be made to allow the tribunal to make disclosures to the IPC, since Section 237 of the IP Act already permits disclosure to the IPC. We rejected the suggestion that counsel to the tribunal’s functions should be specifically identified in the rules because not all the functions of counsel to the tribunal will be relevant in every case, and the tribunal should have discretion as to which functions would assist counsel to the tribunal in each individual case.
We rejected the suggestion that the tribunal should compel witnesses to attend to give evidence. It could be counterproductive for such a power to be given, as the tribunal has functioned on the basis of voluntary co-operation. We rejected the use of special advocates in the tribunal, as there are considerable benefits to the tribunal employing its own counsel. Indeed, counsel to the tribunal is provided with specific functions that are more suited to the work of the tribunal.
Finally, we sought to allay concerns that the tribunal can receive evidence that would not be admissible in a court of law. In the consultation response we stated that, while it is important that the tribunal has flexibility to receive evidence in any form, it is inconceivable that a situation would arise wherein the admission of evidence that might have been obtained as a result of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment would not be subject to challenge, either by the complainant or by counsel to the tribunal.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned Northern Ireland. The IP Act does not allow for appeals to be heard in the Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland. That omission is the result of legislative consent not being obtained for the IP Act in Northern Ireland. However, the Act contains a power, to be exercised with the consent of the Northern Ireland Assembly, to provide that appeals can be heard in the Court of Appeal for Northern Ireland. We have discussed this with officials in the Northern Ireland Office and agreed that, as it is not currently possible for the Assembly to consent to appeals being heard in Northern Ireland, it is appropriate to proceed with the current wording in the rules. These are that,
“the relevant appellate court is the appellate court in the jurisdiction with the closest and most substantial connection”.
This allows any appeals that relate to Northern Ireland to be heard in either the Court of Appeal in England and Wales or the Court of Session in Scotland. The Permanent Secretary of the Department of Justice, Northern Ireland, has confirmed that the Department of Justice will seek consent from the Assembly once it is up and running again. He has also confirmed that the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland is content with this approach.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I think we should be very pleased with what the Government have done here. These are all very important minor things that make quite a difference and add to what is probably the best bit of legislation relating to this very difficult area of endeavour anywhere in the world. This adds to it and the Government should be congratulated.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank the noble Lord for that. The tone of the debate this afternoon shows clearly that the Government have addressed some of the outstanding concerns.
Gender Pay Gap
Baroness Williams of Trafford Excerpts(7 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Prosser
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to require organisations to produce action plans to respond to their gender pay gap reports.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted that over 10,000 employers reported gender pay gap data in the first year, but reporting is just the first step. We believe that the transparency created by reporting will motivate employers to take action. However, to close the gap we need wider cultural change, which cannot be imposed from above. That is why the Government are working with employers to tackle the drivers of the gap, and we have introduced a range of initiatives to support that work.
Baroness Prosser (Lab)
Well, sometimes I am a bit speechless over all this. It goes on year in, year out, and nothing really happens. I welcome the initiative to publicise the gender pay gap, of course, and I welcome the work that is being done to encourage more women on to public boards. However, the pay gap is actually at its most pronounced among slightly older women who have given up more productive or lucrative careers to have children, and who then cannot afford paid childcare and so move into part-time employment.
There are a number of tried and tested initiatives which have proved very helpful to this cohort of women, and which have been run in the past through the Government Equalities Office: for example, women-only skills programme initiatives to break down full-time jobs into part-time jobs. Do the Government have any intention of introducing any programmes to enable women to work to their capacity and at the same time help them to contribute more to business and the economy?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking that follow-up question. I am slightly disappointed that she was speechless at my initial Answer—maybe she was speechless with joy. One of the things on which I was speaking to the Women’s Business Council this morning was precisely the cohort she talked about—older women who have perhaps left work for certain reasons and then gone back later—and how it can help. The Women’s Business Council is focused very much on the cohort of women from 50 to 64 in particular, on what support it can give, and on what the Government can support in this endeavour. So we are doing things around the gender pay gap from which that cohort in particular should benefit.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I hear the Minister’s answer, but I think law can be a driver of culture. Does she agree in principle with the recommendations of the Commons committee on business that, as half of all employees are not included in the gender pay gap reporting requirements, all companies with 50 or more employees should be? I said when the requirement came in that what you do not measure, you cannot manage. Let us get SMEs measuring their pay gap so that they can at least start on the path to managing it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I agree to a certain extent with the noble Baroness. It would be interesting to see some of the figures from SMEs. Over 300 have, in fact, reported their gender pay gap even though they have not had to do so. It is important to note that the Government are not pushing against a closed door on this. Businesses want to do this and the success of employers in future will be down to the diversity of their workforces.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As the noble Baroness will know, McKinsey has estimated that bringing more diversity to the workplace—particularly women—will increase the economy by over £150 billion by 2025.
Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)
My Lords, what are the Government’s plans to monitor progress? In particular, do they have plans to include a sectoral analysis?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
In terms of monitoring progress, businesses with over 250 employees will have to do this exercise every year. I am pleased that all the businesses in scope actually reported their gender pay gap. There is clearly scope to start to disaggregate those figures by sector, and I hope that that will be where we get to at some point soon—but I think we have made a great start.
Baroness Afshar
My Lords, I beg the Minister’s pardon for interrupting her earlier in my misplaced enthusiasm. The change of production from “just in case” to “just in time” means that there is no continuous process. It has been fragmented into home-based production where people are employed “as and when”. This means that they cannot accumulate a background of paying regular contributions to entitle them to any kind of benefits. Is the Minister thinking of a way to deal with the new way of production that now prevails?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness asks a very pertinent question. There can be a break in national insurance contributions for people who work and then step out of work, or who work from home. A flexible workforce is important to the future economy, but it must not disbenefit people’s pension take when they retire.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, it is nearly 50 years since the Equal Pay Act was passed and women still earn a lot less than men. The most recent statistics show that the gap is now 13.7%. Does the Minister agree that we should take much stronger action? The legislation is good as far as it goes, but women have been patient on this issue for an awfully long time and it ought to be strengthened. The pay gap audit, where companies employing over 250 people have to produce plans, is very good. Will the Minister have another look at this and see what can be done to strengthen it and make progress a lot quicker than it is now?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
To a certain extent I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Baroness. The Equal Pay Act was brought in in 1970 and strengthened through the Equality Act 2010, but we still hear stories about huge disparities in pay between men and women who do pretty much the same job. The legislation has recently been updated, and any employer who is not paying men and women who do the same or a similar job equally is liable to court action. There is a very strong regime in place for that.